Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 1081–1101 | Cite as

Beyond agency: sources of knowing and learning in children’s science- and technology-related problem solving

  • Mijung Kim
  • Wolff-Michael Roth
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

In (science) education, primacy is given to agency, the human capability to act and, in this, to learn. However, phenomenological philosophers and societal-historical psychologists point out that agency, the purposeful (intentional) engagement with the world, is only the effect of a much more profound capacity: passibility, the capacity to be affected. In this study, we begin with what has been recognized as a fundamental condition of learning: learners cannot intentionally orient to the learning outcome because they inherently do not know it so that that knowledge cannot be the object of intention. In this study, we provide evidence for three empirically grounded assertions: (a) children do not intend new knowledge and understanding, which instead give themselves in and through materials and material configurations; (b) knowing-how is received (as unintended gifts) because our bodies are endowed with passibility, the capability to be affected; and (c) the new knowledge and understanding exists as and in social relation first. We suggest implications for engineering design in science classrooms.

Keywords

Engineering design Agency Passibility Donation Societal relations Body Materials 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Cognition and instruction: Issues and agendas (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Dewey, J. (2008). Later works vol. 10: Art as experience (J.-A. Boydston, Ed.). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (First published in 1934).Google Scholar
  3. Flick, U. (2006). An introduction of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Fortus, D., Dershimer, R., Krajcik, J., Mark, R., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1081–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gardner, P. (1992). The application of science to technology. Research in Science Education, 22, 140–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldman, S. L. (1990). Philosophy, engineering, and western culture. In P. T. Durbin (Ed.), Broad and narrow interpretations of philosophy of technology (pp. 125–152). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goulart, M. I. M., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Margin|center: Toward a dialectic view of participation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38, 679–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gunstone, R. (1994). Technology education and science education: Engineering as a case study of relationships. Research in Science Education, 24, 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Henry, M. (2000). Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair [Incarnation: A philosophy of the flesh]. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  10. Hmelo-Silver, C., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 48–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holzkamp, K. (2013). The development of critical psychology as a subject science. In E. Schraube & U. Osterkamp (Eds.), Psychology from the Standpoint of the Subject: Selected Writings of Klaus Holzkamp (pp. 28–45). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Hurd, P. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marx, K./Engels, F. (1962). Werke Band 23 [Works vol. 23]. Berlin: Dietz.Google Scholar
  15. Kolodner, J., Camp, P., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., et al. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting Learning by Design™ into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 495–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Latour, B. (1992). Aramis ou l’amour des techniques [Aramis or the love of technology]. Paris: Éditions la De´couverte.Google Scholar
  17. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essay on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Leont’ev, A. N. (1959). Problemj razvitija psixiki [Problems of the development of mind]. Moscow: Akademii Pedagogičeskix Nauk.Google Scholar
  19. Leont’ev, A. N. (1983). Izbrannye psixologičeskie proizvedenija tom 2 [Selected psychological works vol. 2]. Moscow: Pedagogika.Google Scholar
  20. Maine de Biran, P. (1841). OEuvres philosophiques, tome premier: Influence de l’habitude sur la faculté de penser [Philosophical works vol. 1: The influence of habit on the faculty to think]. Paris: Librairie de Ladrange.Google Scholar
  21. Marion, J.-L. (1998). Étant donné: Essai d’une phénoménologie de la donation [Being given: Essay of a phenomenology of givenness]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  22. Meshcheryakov, A. (1974). Slepoglyxonemye deti: razvitie psyxiki v processe formirovanija pobedenija [Deaf-blind children: Development of mind in the formation of behavior]. Moscow: Pedagogika.Google Scholar
  23. Nancy, J.-L. (2006). Corpus. Paris, FR: Métailé.Google Scholar
  24. Nemirovsky, R., & Ferrara, F. (2009). Mathematical imagination and embodied cognition. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nietzsche, F. (1954). Werke in drei Bänden [Works in three volumes]. Munich: Hanser.Google Scholar
  26. Núñez, R., Edwards, L., & Matos, J. (1999). Embodied cognition as grounding for situated and context in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roth, W.-M. (1996a). Art and artifact of children’s designing: A situated cognition perspective. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roth, W.-M. (1996b). Knowledge diffusion in a grade 4–5 classroom during a unit on civil engineering: An analysis of a classroom community in terms of its changing resources and practices. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 179–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roth, W.-M. (1998). Designing communities. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 768–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roth, W.-M. (2005). Doing qualitative research: Praxis of methods. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Roth, W.-M. (2007). Doing teacher research: A handbook for perplexed practitioners. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Roth, W.-M. (2009). Mathematical representation at the interface of body and culture. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  35. Roth, W.-M. (2011). Passibility: At the limits of the constructivist metaphor. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roth, W.-M. (2012). Mathematical learning: the unseen and unforeseen. For the Learning of Mathematics, 32(3), 15–21.Google Scholar
  37. Roth, W.-M. (2014). Science language Wanted Alive: Through the dialectical/dialogical lens of Vygotsky and the Bakhtin circle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 1049–1083. doi: 10.1002/tea.21158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roth, W.-M., & Radford, L. (2010). Re/thinking the zone of proximal development (symmetrically). Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roth, W.-M. & Radford, L. (2011) A Cultural-historical perspective on mathematics teaching and learning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roth, W.-M., & Thom, J. (2009). The emergence of 3d geometry from children’s (teacher-guided) classification tasks. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 45–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K. G., & Ritchie, S. M. (2001). Re/Constructing elementary science. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  42. Sismondo, S. (2004). An introduction to science and technology studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Suchman, L. (2007). Human–machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Vygotskij, L. S. (2001). Lekcii po pedologii [Lectures on pedology]. Izhevsk: Udmurdskij University.Google Scholar
  45. Vygotskij, L. S. (2005). Psyxhologija razvitija čeloveka [Psychology of human development]. Moscow: Eksmo.Google Scholar
  46. Watson, J. D. (1996). The annotated and illustrated double helix (A. Gann & J. Vitkowski, Eds.). New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.551 Education South, Faculty of EducationUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of EducationUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options