Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Leaving the laboratory: Using Field Science to Disrupt and Expand Historically Enduring Narratives of Science Teaching and Learning

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite efforts to help youth form better connections to the natural world, many recent science initiatives (such as the Next Generation Science Standards) privilege laboratory science over field science, thus reinforcing an image of science that is placeless and individual. To better understand the impact of field science on youth, we examined youths’ experiences and participation in field science across two separate research projects, one of which was associated with a school (the “moth project”) and one of which occurred in an informal setting (the “herpetology project”). We argue that field science, which is not given the same attention in NGSS as science derived from laboratory work, might disrupt and expand science teaching and learning. By expand, we mean that field science offers novel opportunities for youth and educators to develop and engage in practices that disrupt persistent sociohistorical narratives of how science work is accomplished, and that emphasize the cultural production of knowledge in a setting by making public the meaning making that is negotiated in a community. Such expanded moments differ from many experiences in which youth and educators expand typical ways of knowing and participating valued across many formal and informal settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Willhite, J. (1999). An interview with Joseph T. Collins [PDF file]. Retrieved from http://www.kuonlinedirectory.org/endacott/data/OralHistoryTranscripts/CollinsJoseph.pdf

  • Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. (2012). Practical work: It’s effective- ness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1035–1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Achieve, I. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Achieve Inc.

  • Addelson, K. P. (1983). The man of professional wisdom. In S. Harding & M. B. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science (2nd ed., pp. 165–186). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Godec, S., King, H., Mau, A., Nomikou, E., & Seakins, A. (2017). Killing curiosity? An analysis of celebrated identity performances among teachers and students in nine London secondary science classrooms. Science Education, 101, 741–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bang, M., Warren, B., Rosebery, A. S., & Medin, D. (2012). Desettling expectations in science education. Human Development, 55, 302–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bensen, K. R. (1988). Why American marine stations? The teaching argument. American Zoologist, 28(1), 7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bixler, R. D., Carlisle, C. L., Hammitt, W. E., & Floyd, M. F. (1994). Observed fears and discomforts among urban students on field trips to wildland areas. Journal of Environmental Education, 26(1), 24–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlone, H.B., Scott, C.M. and Lowder, C. (2014), Becoming (less) scientific: A longitudinal study of students' identity work from elementary to middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 836–869. https://doi-org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1002/tea.21150

  • Carlone, H.B., Huffling, L.D., Tomasek, T, Hegedus, T.A., Matthews, C.E., Allen, M.H., & Ash, M.C. (2015) ‘Unthinkable’ Selves: Identity boundary work in a summer field ecology enrichment program for diverse youth. International Journal of Science Education, 37:10, 1524–1546,  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1033776

  • Carlone, H.B., Benavides, A., Huffling , L.D.,  Matthews, C.E., Journell, W., Tomasek, T., (2016) Field Ecology: A Modest, but Imaginable, Contestation of Neoliberal Science Education. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 23(3), 199–211, https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2016.1194433

  • Carsten-Conner, L. D., Perin, S. M., & Pettit, E. (2018). Tacit knowledge and girls’ notions about a field science community of practice. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(2), 164–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • da Costa, P. F. (2002). The culture of curiosity at the Royal Society in the first half of the eighteenth century. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 56(2), 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bont, R. (2015). Stations in the field: A history of place-based animal research, 1870–1930. University of Chicago Press.

  • Dillon, J., Stevenson, R. B., & Wals, A. E. J. (2016). Moving from citizen to civic science to address wicked conservation problems. Corrected by erratum 12844. Conservation Biology, 30, 450–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eamon, W. (1994). Science as a hunt. Physis, 31(4), 393–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein, N. W., & Kirchgasler, K. L. (2015). Sustainability in science education? How the Next Generation Science Standards approach sustainability, and why it matters. Science Education, 99, 121–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, A., & Byers, C. (2017). Wonder as a tool to engage preservice elementary teachers in science learning and teaching. Science Education, 101, 907–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruenewald, D. A., & Manteaw, B. O. (2007). Oil and water still: How No Child Left Behind limits and distorts environmental education in US schools. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 171–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruenwald, D. A. (2003). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 619–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K. D., & Jurow, S. A. (2016). Social design experiments: Toward equity by design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 595–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. Routledge.

  • Jaber, J. Z., & Hammer, D. (2015). Engaging in science: A feeling for the discipline. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, R. E. (2002). Place and practice in field biology. History of Science, 40(2), 189–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, R. E. (2007). Finders, keepers: Collecting sciences and collecting practice. History of Science, 45(4), 428–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2018). Down to Earth: Politics in the new climatic regime. Policy Press.

  • Lux, T. (2019). The search for a controversial woodpecker continues in Louisiana. 89.9 WNNO. https://www.wwno.org/post/search-controversial-woodpecker-continues-louisiana

  • Marin, A., & Bang, M. (2018). “Look it, this is how you know:” Family forest walks as a context for knowledge-building about the natural world. Cognition and Instruction, 36(2), 89–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCook, S. (2011). Managing monocultures: Coffee, the coffee rust, and the science of working landscapes. In J. Vetter (Ed.), Knowing global environments: New historical perspectives on the field sciences (pp. 87–107). Rutgers University Press.

  • Medin, D. L., & Bang, M. (2014). Who’s asking: Native science, western science, and science education. MIT Press.

  • Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

  • Merritt, E. G., & Bowers, N. (in press). Missed opportunities for observation-based ecology in the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Education

  • Miller, E., Manz, E., Russ, R., Stroupe, D., & Berland, L. (2018). Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 1053–1075.

  • Mogk, D. W., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Learning in the field: Synthesis of research on thinking and learning in the geoscienes. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 486(1), 131–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12190

  • Project FeederWatch. (2020). Project FeederWatch. Retrieved February, 7, 2020, from https://feederwatch.org

  • Ríos-Saldaña, C. A., Delibes-Mateos, M., & Ferreira, C. C. (2018). Are fieldwork studies being relegated to second place in conservation science? Global Ecology and Conservation, 14, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, C. L. (2008). “The calamity of so long life”: Life histories, contaminants, and potential emerging threats to long-lived vertebrates. BioScience, 58(7), 623–631. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, D. A. (1994). Urban children’s preferences for nature: Lessons for environmental education. Children’s Environments, 11(3), 194–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. A. (2007). Place-based education: Breaking through the constraining regularities of public school. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 189–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, R. B. (1987). Schooling and environmental education: Contradictions in purpose and practice. In I. Robottom (Ed.), Environmental education: Practice and possibility (pp. 69–82). Deakin University Press.

  • Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98, 487–516.

  • Stroupe, D., Caballero, M. D., & White, P. (2018). Fostering students’ epistemic agency through the co-configuration of moth research. Science Education, 102, 1176-1200.

  • Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Harvard University Press.

  • Vetter, J. (2011). Rocky Mountain high science: Teaching, research, and nature at field stations. In J. Vetter (Ed.), Knowing global environments: New historical perspectives on the field sciences (pp. 1–16). Rutgers University Press.

  • Vetter, J. (2016). Field life: Science in the American west during the railroad era. University of Pittsburgh Press.

  • Wals, A. E. J. (1994). Nobody planted it, it just grew! Young adolescents’ perceptions and experiences of nature in the context of urban environmental education. Children’s Environments, 11(3), 177–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sensemaking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, I., Pasley, J., Smith, S., Banilower, E., & Heck, D. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K–12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Horizon Research.

  • Wyner, Y., & Doherty, J. H. (2017). Developing a learning progression for three-dimensional learning of the patterns of evolution. Science Education, 101(5), 787–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

David Stroupe’s project was funded by Science and Society at State. Heidi Carlone’s project was funded by the National Science Foundation (award #1114558).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    David Stroupe

  2. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

    Heidi B. Carlone

Authors
  1. David Stroupe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heidi B. Carlone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Stroupe.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

The studies reported on in this paper both received IRB approval, and participants are protected from identification.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stroupe, D., Carlone, H.B. Leaving the laboratory: Using Field Science to Disrupt and Expand Historically Enduring Narratives of Science Teaching and Learning. Sci & Educ 31, 893–921 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00296-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00296-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation