Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 567–575 | Cite as

Toward re-thinking science education in terms of affective practices: reflections from the field

  • Shakhnoza Kayumova
  • Deborah Tippins
Forum
First Online:

Abstract

Rational and operationalized views of science and what it means for teachers and students to know and enact legitimate science practices have dominated science education research for many decades (Fusco and Barton in J Res Sci Teach 38(3):337–354, 2001. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<337::AID-TEA1009>3.0.CO;2-0). Michalinos Zembylas challenges historically prevalent dichotomies of mind/body, reason/emotion, and emotion/affect, calling researchers and educators to move beyond the Cartesian dualisms, which have perpetuated a myth of scientific objectivity devoid of bias, subjectivity and emotions. Zembylas (Crit Stud Teach Learn 1(1):1–21, 2013. doi: 10.14426/cristal.v1i1.2) contends that the role of emotions and affect are best understood as relational and entangled in epistemological, cultural, and historical contexts of education, which represent contested sites of control and resistance. We argue that Zembylas’ work is pivotal since “theoretical frames of reference for doing research in science education…[and] what constitutes knowledge and being within a particular frame” carry material bearings over the enactments of science teaching and learning (Kyle in J Res Sci Teach 31:695–696, 1994, p. 321. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660310703). In this paper, we hold cogen dialogue about how re-thinking notions of emotion and affect affords us, both science educators and researchers, to re-envision science education beyond cognitive and social frames. The framing of our dialogue as cogen builds on Wolff-Michael Roth and Kenneth Tobin’s (At the elbows of another: learning to teach through coteaching. Peter Lang Publishing, New York, 2002) notion of cogenerative dialogue. Holding cogen is an invitation to an openly dialogic and safe area, which serves as a space for a dialogic inquiry that includes radical listening of situated knowledges and learning from similarities as well as differences of experiences (Tobin in Cult Stud Sci Educ, in review, 2015). From our situated experiences reforms, colleges of education, schools, and curriculum place not enough emphasis on affective and bodily dimensions of teaching and learning. Instead, the privilege seems to be given to reason, evidence, and rationalities, which continue to reinforce dominant ways of knowing and experiencing. The separation of mind and body, reason and emotion, effect and affect in teaching and research might bear unintended and negative consequences for many children and teachers who are engaged in bodily and affective forms of learning science. In this forum we wish to expand on the discussion to consider the interdependent nature of learning, experience, and affect by drawing on our work with science teachers and culturally and linguistically diverse students, juxtaposed alongside Zembylas’ reflections, to further theorize the affective turn in science education.

Keywords

Science education Emotion and affect Bodily encounters Social-justice 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alaimo, S., & Hekman, S. J. (2008). Material feminisms. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831. doi: 10.1086/345321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Butler, J. (1995). Burning acts: Injurious speech. In A. Parker & E. K. Sedgwick (Eds.), Performativity and performance (pp. 197–227). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Buxton, C. A., Kayumova, S., & Allexsaht-Snider, M. (2013). Teacher, researcher, and accountability discourses: Creating space for democratic science teaching practices in middle schools. Democracy and Education, 21(2), 2.Google Scholar
  7. Deleuze, G., & Foucault, M. (1977). Intellectuals and power. In M. Foucault (Ed.), Language, counter-memory, practice (pp. 205–217). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. (1998). The essential Dewey: Ethics, logic, psychology (Vol. 2). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  10. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  11. Fusco, D., & Barton, A. C. (2001). Representing student achievements in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 337–354. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<337:AID-TEA1009>3.0.CO;2-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grosz, E. A. (1994). Volatile bodies: Toward a corporeal feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science (vol. 5, no. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14, 575–599. Retrieved from: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00463663%28198823%2914%3A3%3C575%3ASKTSQI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M
  15. Kayumova, S. (2015). Why do we need social theories? The case for science education research, feminist theories, and social justice. Journal for Activist Science and Technology Education, 6(1).Google Scholar
  16. Kayumova, S., Karsli, E., Allexsaht‐Snider, M., & Buxton, C. (2015). Latina mothers and daughters: Ways of knowing, being, and becoming in the context of bilingual family science workshops. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 46(3), 260–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kayumova, S., Aghasaleh, R., & Vazquez-Dominguez, M. (2016). The value of theory and practice in the context of the LISELL-B project: Examples of plug-ins. In C. Buxton & M. Allexsaht-Snider (Eds.), Supporting K-12 english language learners in science: Putting research into teaching practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Kyle, W. C. (1994). Editorial: A cornerstone for a new vision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 695–696. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660310703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Massumi, B. (2015). Politics of affect. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Milne, C., & Otieno, T. (2007). Understanding engagement: Science demonstrations and emotional energy. Science Education, 91(4), 523–553. doi: 10.1002/sce.20203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2002). At the elbows of another: Learning to teach through coteaching. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Tobin, K. (2015). Collaborating on global priorities: Science education for everyone—any time and everywhere. Cultural Studies of Science Education. Google Scholar
  23. Zembylas, M. (2003). Emotions and teacher identity: A poststructural perspective. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 9(3), 213–238. doi: 10.1080/13540600309378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zembylas, M. (2013). Revisiting the Gramscian legacy on counter-hegemony, the subaltern and affectivity: Toward an emotional pedagogy of activism in higher education. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 1–21. doi: 10.14426/cristal.v1i1.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of STEM Education and Teacher DevelopmentUniversity of Massachusetts, DartmouthNorth DartmouthUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and Science EducationUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options