Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 387–394 | Cite as

Salt, time, and metaphor: examining norms in scientific culture

  • Anna G. Brady
Forum
First Online:

Abstract

As has been widely discussed, the National Research Council’s (NRC) current policy in United States education advocates supporting students toward acquiring skills to engage in scientific practices. NRC policy also suggests that supporting students in the practices of science may require different approaches than what is required for supporting student engagement with scientific content. Further, acquiring skills in scientific practices is not limited to gaining proficiency in utilizing tools that support scientific inquiry: students must also understand how to interpret information generated from such tools. These tools of scientific practices are embedded within scientific culture, which from Sewell’s perspective, is comprised of both practice and semiotic code (symbols and meanings). To become scientifically literate students must learn to utilize this code in practice. Author Germà Garcia-Belmonte identified one example of learning to utilize the semiotic code in scientific practice and considers challenges faced by undergraduate physics and engineering students within that context. Garcia-Belmonte observes students struggle to interpret symbols and meaning (the visual display generated) while engaging in practice (utilizing an oscilloscope) and posits that two, culturally bound, competing, linguistic metaphors of time may be the cause. Ultimately, however, the author does not explore beyond hypotheses. Although his theory may be correct, the paper serves as a reminder of the responsibility we have to students. As educators, it is useful and beneficial to make observations and develop theories surrounding why our students struggle. However, in addition to theorizing on why, for example, a particular scientific norm might present challenges for our students, we must remain mindful that challenges may not be uniform and may vary considerably according to students’ culture(s). Engaging with students and soliciting specific information regarding the challenges they face allows us, as educators, to both examine whether students’ reported challenges align or conflict with our own perceptions of those challenges, and subsequently devise and test methods toward supporting students in overcoming their challenges.

Keywords

Practice Metaphor Norms Culture Science education Language 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 1–52. doi: 10.1080/03057269608560077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bao, L., Cai, T., Koenig, K., Fang, K., Han, J., Wang, J., et al. (2009). Learning and scientific reasoning. Science, 323(5914), 586–587. doi: 10.1126/science.1167740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1–22. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Everett, D. L. (2012). Language: The cultural tool. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  5. Fuhrman, O., McCormick, K., Chen, E., Jiang, H., Shu, D., Mao, S., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). How linguistic and cultural forces shape conceptions of time: English and Mandarin time in 3D. Cognitive science, 35(7), 1305–1328.Google Scholar
  6. Garcia-Belmonte, G. (2016). Visualizing time: how linguistic metaphors are incorporated into displaying instruments in the process of interpreting time-varying signals. Cultural Studies in Science Education. doi: 10.1007/11422-015-9686-4.
  7. Gee, J. P. (2005). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school based literacy. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 13–32). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  8. Headrick, D. N. (2000). When information come of age: Technologies of knowledge in the age of reason and revolution, 1700–1850. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kirch, S. A., & Stetsenko, A. (2012). What does it mean to know? Third grade students research using claims and evidence in science. Science and Children, Summer, 49(9), 44–49.Google Scholar
  10. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin (Ed.), Reading Science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. New York, NY: Longmans.Google Scholar
  12. Lemke, J. L. (2005). The literacies in science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 33–47). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  13. Lindberg, D. C. (1992). The beginnings of Western science: The European scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context, 600 B.C. to 1450. Chicago: The University of Chigaco Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226482064.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Merton, R. K. (1973). The normative structure of science. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–278). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Milne, C. (2007). School science stories and a strategy of action for cultural transformation. In P. C. Taylor & J. Wallace (Eds.), Contemporary qualitative research: Exemplars for science and mathematics educators (pp. 69–79). Dortrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5920-9_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Montgomery, S. (2004). Of towers, walls, and fields: Perspectives on language in Science. Science, 303(5662), 1333–1335. doi: 10.1126/science.1095204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  18. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  19. Otieno, T., & Milne, C. (2005). Paperclips + Polymers → problems: Learning to use levels of representation in a high school chemistry classroom. In R. Elmesky, G. Seiler, & K. Tobin (Eds.), Improving urban science education: New roles for teachers, students, and researchers (pp. 213–230). Boulder, CO: Rowan & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  20. Roth, W.-M. (1994). Thinking with hands, eyes, and signs: Multimodal science talk in a grade 6/7 unit on simple machines. Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 170–187. doi: 10.1080/1049482940040204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sewell, W. H. (1999). The concept(s) of culture. In V. E. Bonnell & L. Hunt (Eds.), Beyond the cultural turn: New directions in the study of society and culture (pp. 35–61). Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Van Wassenhove, V., Buonomano, D. V., Shimojo, S., & Shams, L. (2008). Distortions of subjective time perception within and across senses. PLoS ONE, 3(1), e1437. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options