Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 615–635 | Cite as

Revising laboratory work: sociological perspectives on the science classroom

  • Anna Jobér
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

This study uses sociological perspectives to analyse one of the core practices in science education: schoolchildren’s and students’ laboratory work. Applying an ethnographic approach to the laboratory work done by pupils at a Swedish compulsory school, data were generated through observations, field notes, interviews, and a questionnaire. The pupils, ages 14 and 15, were observed as they took a 5-week physics unit (specifically, mechanics). The analysis shows that the episodes of laboratory work could be filled with curiosity and exciting challenges; however, another picture emerged when sociological concepts and notions were applied to what is a very common way of working in the classroom. Laboratory work is characterised as a social activity that is expected to be organised as a group activity. This entails groups becoming, to some extent, ‘safe havens’ for the pupils. On the other hand, this way of working in groups required pupils to subject to the groups and the peer effect, sometimes undermining their chances to learn and perform better. In addition, the practice of working in groups when doing laboratory work left some pupils and the teacher blaming themselves, even though the outcome of the learning situation was a result of a complex interplay of social processes. This article suggests a stronger emphasis on the contradictions and consequences of the science subjects, which are strongly influenced by their socio-historical legacy.

Keywords

Cultural capital Group processes Laboratory work Science classroom Socio-historical legacy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bäckman, M. (2003). Kön och känsla: samlevnadsundervisning och ungdomars tankar om sexualitet. (Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University).Google Scholar
  2. Beach, D. (2005). From fieldwork to theory and representation in ethnography. In G. Troman, B. Jeffrey, & G. Walford (Eds.), Methodological issues and practices in ethnography (pp. 1–17). Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/S1529-210X(05)11001-8.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and control: Towards a theory of educational transmissions. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1990). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (2010). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Broady, D. (1985). Kultur och utbildning: om Pierre Bourdieus sociologi. Stockholm: Liber.Google Scholar
  10. Broady, D., & Börjesson, M. (2008). En social karta över gymnasieskolan. In Ulf P. Lundgren (Ed.), Individ, samhälle, lärande: åtta exempel på utbildningsvetenskaplig forskning. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.Google Scholar
  11. Calabrese Barton, A., & Yang, K. (2000). The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 871–889. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<871:AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlone, H. (2003). Innovative science within and against a culture of ‘achievement’. Science Education, 87(3), 307–328. doi: 10.1002/sce.10071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlone, H. (2004). The cultural production of science in reform-based physics: Girls’ access, participation, and resistance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 392–414. doi: 10.1002/tea.20006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carlone, H., & Johnson, A. (2012). Unpacking ‘culture’ in cultural studies of science education: Cultural difference versus cultural production. Ethnography and Education, 7(2), 151–173. doi: 10.1080/17457823.2012.693691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cederberg, M., Hartsmar, N., & Lingärde, S. (2009). Thematic report: Socioeconomic disadvantage. Report from the EPASI (Educational Policies that Address Social Inequality) project supported by the European Commission’s department of Education and Culture, SOCRATES programme 2.1.2. http://www.epasi.eu/ThematicReportSOC.pdf. Accessed February 24, 2012.
  16. Clifford, J. (1986). Introduction: Partial truths. In James Clifford & George E. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography: A school of American research advanced seminar (pp. 1–26). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  18. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  19. Ehn, B., & Löfgren, O. (2010). The secret world of doing nothing. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., Oscarsson, H., & Wängnerud, L. (2003). Metodpraktikan: konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad (2nd ed.). Stockholm: Norstedts juridik.Google Scholar
  21. Gorard, S., & See, B. H. (2009). The impact of socio-economic status on participation and attainment in science. Studies in Science, 45(1), 93–129. doi: 10.1080/03057260802681821.Google Scholar
  22. Goyette, K. A., & Mullen, A. L. (2006). Who studies the arts and sciences? Social background and the choice and consequences of undergraduate field of study. Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 497–583. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2006.0020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanrahan, M. (2006). Highlighting hybridity: A critical discourse analysis of teacher talk in science classrooms. Science Education, 90(1), 8–43. doi: 10.1002/sce.20087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harker, R., Mahar, C., & Wilkes, C. (Eds.). (1990). An introduction to the work of Pierre Bourdieu: The practice of theory. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Hultén, M. (2008). Naturens kanon: formering och förändring av innehållet i folkskolans och grundskolans naturvetenskap. (Doctoral Dissertation, Stockholm University).Google Scholar
  26. Jobér, A. (2012). Social class in science class. (Doctoral Dissertation, Malmö University and Lund University).Google Scholar
  27. Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916–929. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199910)36:8<916:AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lederman, N. G. (2008). Nature of science: Past, present and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  30. Lundin, M., & Lindahl, M. G. (2014). Negotiating the relevance of laboratory work: Safety, procedures and accuracy brought to the fore in science education. Nordina, 10(1), 32–45.Google Scholar
  31. Mac Ruairc, G. (2011). The Pisa girls and ticking the boxes: An examination of students’ perspectives on Pisa testing. In M. A. Pereyra, H.-G. Kotthoff, & R. Cowen (Eds.), Pisa under examination: Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools (pp. 143–156). Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mehan, H. (2008). A sociological perspective on opportunity to learn and assessment. In P. Moss, D. C. Pullin, & J. P. Gee (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 42–75). Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mills, C. (2008). Reproduction and transformation of inequalities in schooling: The transformative potential of the theoretical constructs of Bourdieu. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(1), 79–89. doi: 10.1080/01425690701737481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Munby, H., Cunningham, M., & Lock, C. (2000). School science culture: A case study of barriers to developing professional knowledge. Science Education, 84(2), 193–211. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200003)84:2<193:AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nyström, E. (2009). Teacher talk: Producing, resisting and challenging discourses about the science classroom. Gender and Education, 21(6), 735–751. doi: 10.1080/09540250903119146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. OECD. (2012). PISA 2012 Results in Focus. What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa–2012-results-overview.pdf. Accessed August 25, 2014.
  38. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. A report to the Nuffield Foundation. http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/Sci_Ed_in_Europe_Report_Final.pdf. Accessed August 25, 2014.
  39. Parsons, E. C., & Carlone, H. (2013). Culture and science education in the twenty-first century: Extending and making the cultural box more inclusive. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newsbury Park: SAGE.Google Scholar
  41. Power, S. (1998). Researching the ‘Pastoral and the ‘Academic’. In G. Walford (Ed.), Doing research about education (pp. 11–26). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  42. Reay, D. (1995). ‘They employ cleaners to do that’: Habitus in the primary classroom. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 16(3), 353–371. doi: 10.1080/0142569950160305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reay, D. (2004). It’s all becoming a habitus: Beyond the habitual use of habitus in education research. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4), 431–444. doi: 10.1080/0142569042000236934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-education_en.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2015.
  45. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42. doi: 10.1080/03057260802681839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE: Background, rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE (the Relevance of Science Education)—a comparative study of students’ views of science and science education Acta Didactica 4. http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/english/research/projects/rose/publications/sowing-rose.pdf.
  47. Skolverket. (2008). TIMSS 2007. Svenska grundskoleelevers kunskaper i matematik och naturvetenskap i ett internationellt perspektiv. Stockhom: Skolverket.Google Scholar
  48. Skolverket. (2011). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the leisure-time centre 2011. www.skolverket.se/publikationer. Accessed December 16, 2011.
  49. Tobin, K. (2011). Global reproduction and transformation of science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6, 127–142. doi: 10.1007/s11422-010-9293-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Turmo, A. (2004). Scientific literacy and socio-economic background among 15-years-old: A Nordic perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48(3), 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weinstein, M. (2008). Finding science in the school body: Reflections on transgressing the boundaries of science education and the social studies of science. Science Education, 92(3), 389–403. doi: 10.1002/sce.20267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wickman, P.-O., & Persson, H. (2008). Naturvetenskap och naturorienterande ämnen i grundskolan: en ämnesdidaktisk vägledning. Stockholm: Liber.Google Scholar
  53. Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2006). Income inequality and population health: A review and explanation of the evidence. Social Science and Medicine, 62(7), 1768–1784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour: How working-class kids get working-class jobs. Farnborough: Saxon House.Google Scholar
  55. Willis, P., & Trondman, M. (2002). Manifesto for ethnography. Critical Studies Critical Methodologies, 2, 394–402. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.08.036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zogza, V., & Ergazaki, M. (2013). Inquiry-based science education: Theory and praxis. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 7(2), 3–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and SocietyMalmö UniversityMalmöSweden

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options