Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 551–565 | Cite as

Encountering science education’s capacity to affect and be affected

  • Steve Alsop
Forum
First Online:

Abstract

What might science education learn from the recent affective turn in the humanities and social sciences? Framed as a response to Michalinos Zembylas’s article, this essay draws from selected theorizing in affect theory, science education and science and technology studies, in pursuit of diverse and productive ways to talk of affect within science education. These discussions are framed by desires to transcend traditional epistemic boundaries and practices. The article concludes offering some associated ambiguities and tensions involved.

Keywords

Affect Science Pedagogy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ahmed, S. (2010a). Happy objects. In S. Seigworth & M. Gregg (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 29–51). London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed, S. (2010b). The promise of happiness. London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alsop, S. (1999). Understanding understanding: A model for the public learning of radioactivity. Public Understanding of Science, 8(4), 267–284. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/8/4/301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alsop, S. (Ed.). (2005). Beyond cartesian dualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: KluwerSpringer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Alsop, S. (2011). The Body bites back. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 6(3), 611–623. doi: 10.1007/s11422-010-9292-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alsop, S. (2014a). The emotional lives of fledgling geniuses. In K. Taber (Ed.), Science education for gifted and able students (pp. 45–59). London, UK: FalmerRoutledge.Google Scholar
  7. Alsop, S. (2014b). Affect, emotion and learning. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), The encyclopedia of science education. The Netherlands: Springer Press. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-6165-0_85-2.Google Scholar
  8. Alsop, S. (2014c). The body and the laboratory. In M. Watts (Ed.), Dilemmas and debates in science education. London: Routledge. doi: 10.1007/s11422-011-9328-4.Google Scholar
  9. Alsop, S., & Watts, M. (2003). Editorial: Science education and affect. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1043–1047. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000052180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Anderhag, P. (2014). Taste for science: how can teaching make a difference for students’ interest in science. Doctoral thesis. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  11. Baez, B., & Boyles, D. (2009). The politics of inquiry: Education, research and the “culture of science”. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  12. Barthes, R. (2005). The neutral. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Betelesen, L., & Murphie, A. (2010). An ethics of everyday infinities and powers: Felix Guattari on affect and the refrain. In S. Seigworth & M. Gregg (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 138–161). London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Carson, R., & Kelsh, N. (1998). The sense of wonder. London: Harper.Google Scholar
  15. Clough, P. (2010). The affective turn: Political economy, biomedia and bodies. In S. Seigworth & M. Gregg (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 206–228). London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cronan, T. (2012). The aesthetic politics of affect. Radical Philosophy, 172, 51–53.Google Scholar
  17. Damasio, A. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow and the feeling brain. London: Harvest Book, Harcourt.Google Scholar
  18. Darwin, C. (1987). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Daston, L., & Park, K. (1998). Wonders and the order of nature; 1150–1750. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  20. Dear, P. (1998). A mechanical microcosm: Bodily passions, good manners, and cartesian mechanism. In C. Lawerence & S. Shapin (Eds.), Science incarnate: Historical embodiments of natural knowledge (p. 51). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Deleuze, G. (1988). Spinoza: Practical philosophy. San Francisco: Continuum.Google Scholar
  22. Egan, K., Cant, A., & Judson, J. (2014). Wonder-full education: The centrality of wonder in teaching and learning across the curriculum. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (2002). Lessons without limit: how free-choice learning is transforming education. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gewin, V. (2015). Speak up for science: whether publishing contentious finds or defending evidence, the right tone is essential. Nature, 517, 231–233. doi: 10.1038/nj7533-231a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gibbs, A. (2010). After affect: Sympathy, synchrony, and mimetic communication. In M. Gregg & G. Seigworth (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 186–206). London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hadzigeorgiou, Y., & Schulz, R. (2014). Romanticism and romantic science: Their contribution to science education. Science & Education, 23, 1963–2006. doi: 10.1007/s11191-014-9711-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hirchauer, S. (1991). The manufacture of bodies in surgery. Social Studies of Science, 21, 279–319. doi: 10.1177/030631291021002005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jocz, J., Zhai, J., & Tan, A.-L. (2014). Inquiry learning in the Singaporean context: factors affecting student interest in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2596–2618. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.908327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lawerence, C., & Shapin, S. (1998). Science incarnate: Historical embodiments of natural knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Leys, R. (2011). The turn to affect: A critique. Critical Inquiry, 37, 434–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lorimer, J. (2008). Counting corncrakes: The affective science of the UK corncrake census. Social Studies of Science, 38(3), 377–404. doi: 10.1177/0306312707084396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Massumi, B. (2014). What animals teach us about politics. New York: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Milne, I. (2010). A sense of wonder, arising from aesthetic experiences, should be the starting point for inquiry in primary science. Science Education International, 21(2), 102–115.Google Scholar
  35. Orlander, A., & Wichram, P.-O. (2011). Bodily experiences in secondary school biology. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(3), 569–594. doi: 10.1007/s11422-010-9292-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ostergaard, E., Dahlin, B., & Hugo, A. (2008). Doing phenomenology in science education: A research review. Studies in Science Education, 44(2), 93–121. doi: 10.1080/03057260802264081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Perrier, F., & Nsengiyumva, J.-B. (2003). Active science as a contribution to the trauma recovery process: Preliminary indications with orphans from the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. International Journal of Science Education, 9(25), 1111–1128. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000052225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude toward science and technology at K-12 levels: a systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85–129. doi: 10.1080/03057267.2014.881626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seigworth, G., & Gregg, M. (2010). An inventory of shimmers. In S. Seigworth & M. Gregg (Eds.), The affect theory reader. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Stewart, K. (2010). Afterword: Worlding refrains. In S. Seigworth & M. Gregg (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 339–355). London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Watts, M., Alsop, S., Zylbersztajn, A., & Maria de Silva, S. (1997). Event centred learning: an approach to teaching about science technology and societal issues in two countries. International Journal of Science Education, 19(3), 341–351. doi: 10.1080/0950069970190306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wickram, P.-O. (2006). Aesthetic experience in science education. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophila. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstanding misunderstandings: Social identies and the public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 281–304. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zembylas, M. (2004). Young children’s emotional practices while engaged in long-term science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 41, 693–719. doi: 10.1002/tea.20023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Department of Science and Technology StudiesYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options