Abstract
In this article, we examine how the concept of autonomy may be construed as a foundational value which underpins students’ coherent sensemaking of how the physical world operates. Autonomy and science both require students to comprehend and assess the quality of evidence, claims, and alternative outcomes. Further, participation in scientific sensemaking affords opportunities for dialogue, agency, and power, while autonomy stresses a concern for the quality of both the decisions that students arrive at regarding themselves, their participation in the scientific enterprise, and the reasoning behind their decisions. In particular, we focus on how autonomy provides a foundation for the education of students as “epistemic agents.” Our work indicates that the development of students’ autonomy is predicated on carefully examining and challenging traditional power relationships found within classrooms. By pursuing the goal of autonomy, and challenging the entrenched power relationships oft found in science education, we argue that science education can become more meaningful, and accessible, to more students.
Résumé
Dans cet article, nous nous penchons sur les façons dont on peut construire le concept d’autonomie comme valeur fondamentale qui sous-tend la compréhension cohérente du fonctionnement du monde physique de la part des étudiants. L’autonomie et les sciences exigent des étudiants qu’ils comprennent et évaluent la qualité des preuves, des affirmations et des éventuels résultats. De plus, la participation à l’explication/compréhension des phénomènes scientifiques offre des possibilités de dialogue, d’agir et de pouvoir, alors que l’autonomie est. surtout axée sur la qualité des décisions que finissent par prendre les étudiants à leur propre sujet et au sujet de leur participation à l’entreprise scientifique, ainsi que sur le raisonnement qui est. à la base de leurs décisions. En particulier, nous centrons notre analyse sur les façons dont l’autonomie fournit les fondements de la formation des étudiants comme « agents épistémiques ». Nos travaux indiquent que le développement de l’autonomie des étudiants se fonde sur une analyse critique détaillée des relations de pouvoir traditionnelles qui entrent en jeu dans la classe. En poursuivant cet enjeu d’autonomie, et en remettant en question les relations de pouvoir souvent présentes en enseignement des sciences, nous estimons que la formation scientifique peut en effet devenir plus significative, et plus accessible à un plus grand nombre d’étudiants.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ackerman, B. (1980). Social justice in the liberal state. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Aikenhead, G. (1990). Scientific/technological literacy, critical reasoning, and classroom practice. In S. P. Norris & L. M. Phillips (Eds.), Foundations of literacy policy in Canada (pp. 127–145). Calgary, AB: Detselig.
Australian Academy of Science. (2017). Science by Doing. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science. Available from: https://www.sciencebydoing.edu.au/
Bailin, S. & Siegel, H. (2003). ‘Critical Thinking’. In N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith & P. Standish (Eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education. (pp. 181–193). Blackwell.
Calabrese Barton, A., & Yang, K. (2000). The case of Miguel and the culture of power in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (8), 871–889.
Cuypers, S. E. (2004). Critical Thinking, Autonomy and Practical Reason, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38, 75–90.
Ervin-Tipps, S., O’Connor, M. C. & Rosenberg, J. (1984). Language and power in the family. In C. Kramarae & M. Schutlz (Eds.), Language and power (pp. 116–135). Urbana: University of Illinois.
Fittell, D. (2010). Student autonomy enhancing science learning : Observations from a Primary Connections implementation. In 2010 Annual Conference of the Australian Science Education Research Association, 30 June–3 July 2010, Port Stephens, New South Wales.
Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30 (3), 207–245
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish. New York: Vintage.
Heath, S. B. (2005). Strategic thinking, learning environments, and real roles: Suggestions for future work. Human Development, 48, 350–355.
Heath, S. B. (2001). Three’s not a crowd: Plans, roles, and focus in the arts, Educational Researcher, 30 (7), 10–17.
Heras, M. & Isabel Ruiz-Mallén, I. (2017 online): Responsible research and innovation indicators for science education assessment: how to measure the impact? International Journal of Science Education. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1392643
Hodson, D. (2010). Science education as a call to action. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10, 197–206.
Kerr, D. (2006). Teaching autonomy: The obligations of liberal education in plural societies. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 25, pp. 425–56.
Kerr, D. (2002). Devoid of community: Examining conceptions of autonomy in education. Educational Theory, 52, 1, pp. 13–25.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30, 225–248.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and scientific literacy. In K. A. Renninger & I. E. Siegel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 6 (4), (pp. 153–196). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Levinson, R. (2013). Practice and theory of socio-scientific issues: an authentic model? Studies in Science Education, 49 (1), 99–116.
Max Planck Institute for Human Development. (n.d.). Supporting Autonomy in Science Activities. Accessed from: https://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/en/research/concluded-areas/educational-research/research-area-iv/sasa
Melville, W. & Bartley, A. (2013). Constituting identities that challenge the contemporary discourse: Power, discourse, experience and emotion. Science Education, 97(2), 171–190.
Meyer, X.S. & Crawford, B.A. (2015). Multicultural inquiry toward demystifying scientific culture and learning science. Science Education, 99 (4), 617–637.
NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Appendix D. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Accessed from: http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix%20D%20Diversity%20and%20Equity%206-14-13.pdf
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative critical discourse, Science, 328 (23): 463–466.
Osborne, J. & Hennessy, S. (2006). Literature review in science education and the role of ICT: Promise, problems and future directions. London: King’s College, London & University of Cambridge. Accessed from: www.futurelab.org.uk/research/lit_reviews.htm.
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P. & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39, 751–760.
Parchmann, I., Grasel, C., Baer, A., Nentwig, P., Demuth, R., Ralle, B., & the ChiK project group. (2006). ‘Chemie im Kontext’: A symbiotic implementation of a context based teaching and learning approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1041–1062.
Pasl, A. Jalil, P.A., Abu Sbeih, M.Z., Boujettif, M. & Barakat, R. (2009). Autonomy in science education: A practical approach in attitude shifting towards science learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18 (6), 476–486.
Patall, E.A., Vasquez, A.C., Steingut, R.R., Trimble, S.S. & Pituch, K.A. (2017). Supporting and Thwarting Autonomy in the High School Science Classroom, Cognition and Instruction, 35 (4), 337–362.
Pedretti, E. & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95, 601–626.
Peters, R. S. (1977). Dilemmas in Liberal Education. in R. S. Peters, Education and the Education of Teachers. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 68–85.
Puvirajah, A., Verma, G., & Webb, P. (2012). Examining the mediation of power in a collaborative community: Engaging in informal science as authentic practice. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7, 375–408 (DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9394-2)
Reiser, B. J. 2013. What professional development strategies are needed for successful implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards? Paper presented at the Invitational Research Symposium on Science Assessment, September 24–25, Washington, DC. Available from: www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/publications/paper/2013/jvgw.
Roberts, D. A. (2011). Competing visions of scientific literacy: The influence of a science curriculum policy image. In C. Linder., L. Ostman., D.A. Roberts., P-O Wickman., G. Erickson and A. McKinnon, (Eds). Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy. London: Routledge, 11–27.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
Sockett, H. (1993 ). The moral basis of teacher professionalism. New York: Teachers College Press.
Strike, K. (1982). The authority of ideas and the students’ right to autonomy. In Liberty and Learning, 41–53. Oxford: Robertson.
Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98 (3), 487–516.
Tobin, K. (2011). Global reproduction and transformation of science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6 (1), 127–142.
Warren, B., & Rosebery, A. (1995). Equity in the future tense: Redefining relationships among teachers, students, and science in linguistic minority classrooms. In W. Secada, E. Fennema & L. Adajian (Eds.), New directions for equity in mathematics education (pp. 289–328). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Winch, C. (2005). Education, Autonomy and Critical Thinking. London: Routledge.
Winch, C. (2002). Strong autonomy and education. Educational Theory, 52(1), 27–41.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Melville, W., Kerr, D., Verma, G. et al. Science Education and Student Autonomy. Can J Sci Math Techn 18, 87–97 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-018-0011-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-018-0011-6