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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahmed, S. (2010a). Happy objects. In S. Seigworth & M. Gregg (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 29–51). London: Duke University Press.
Ahmed, S. (2010b). The promise of happiness. London: Duke University Press.
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.
Alsop, S. (Ed.). (2005). Beyond cartesian dualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: KluwerSpringer Academic Press.
Alsop, S. (2011). The Body bites back. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 6(3), 611–623. doi:10.1007/s11422-010-9292-4.
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.
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.
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.
Alsop, S., & Watts, M. (2003). Editorial: Science education and affect. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1043–1047. doi:10.1080/0950069032000052180.
Anderhag, P. (2014). Taste for science: how can teaching make a difference for students’ interest in science. Doctoral thesis. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Baez, B., & Boyles, D. (2009). The politics of inquiry: Education, research and the “culture of science”. New York: State University of New York Press.
Barthes, R. (2005). The neutral. New York: Columbia University Press.
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.
Carson, R., & Kelsh, N. (1998). The sense of wonder. London: Harper.
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.
Cronan, T. (2012). The aesthetic politics of affect. Radical Philosophy, 172, 51–53.
Damasio, A. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow and the feeling brain. London: Harvest Book, Harcourt.
Darwin, C. (1987). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. New York: Dover Publications.
Daston, L., & Park, K. (1998). Wonders and the order of nature; 1150–1750. New York: Zone Books.
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.
Deleuze, G. (1988). Spinoza: Practical philosophy. San Francisco: Continuum.
Egan, K., Cant, A., & Judson, J. (2014). Wonder-full education: The centrality of wonder in teaching and learning across the curriculum. London: Routledge.
Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (2002). Lessons without limit: how free-choice learning is transforming education. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
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.
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.
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.
Hirchauer, S. (1991). The manufacture of bodies in surgery. Social Studies of Science, 21, 279–319. doi:10.1177/030631291021002005.
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.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lawerence, C., & Shapin, S. (1998). Science incarnate: Historical embodiments of natural knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Leys, R. (2011). The turn to affect: A critique. Critical Inquiry, 37, 434–472.
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.
Massumi, B. (2014). What animals teach us about politics. New York: Duke University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Seigworth, G., & Gregg, M. (2010). An inventory of shimmers. In S. Seigworth & M. Gregg (Eds.), The affect theory reader. London: Duke University Press.
Stewart, K. (2010). Afterword: Worlding refrains. In S. Seigworth & M. Gregg (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 339–355). London: Duke University Press.
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.
Wickram, P.-O. (2006). Aesthetic experience in science education. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophila. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Lead Editors: S. Ritchie and K. Tobin.
This article is part of the Special Issue on Research on Emotions of Science Education.
This review essay addresses issues raised in Michalinos Zembylas’s paper entitled: Making sense of the complex entanglement between emotion and pedagogy: contributions of the affective turn. doi:10.1007/s11422-014-9623-y.
