Epistemic Practices and Science Education

  • Gregory J. KellyEmail author
  • Peter Licona
Part of the Science: Philosophy, History and Education book series (SPHE)


Epistemic practices are the socially organized and interactionally accomplished ways that members of a group propose, communicate, assess, and legitimize knowledge claims. Drawing from studies of science and education, this chapter argues that epistemic practices are interactional (constructed among people through concerted activity), contextual (situated in social practices and cultural norms), intertextual (communicated through a history of coherent discourses, signs, and symbols), and consequential (legitimized knowledge instantiates power and culture). Through a review of science studies, the argument for the relevance of a focus on epistemic practices is developed. This chapter draws from the empirical studies of scientific practice to derive implications for science teaching and learning. There has been considerable empirical work from multiple disciplinary perspectives (cognitive science, sociology, anthropology, and rhetoric) informing perspectives about science and the inner workings of scientific communities. These studies examine the practices, discourses, and cultures of scientists and scientific communities. These perspectives are applied to three types of educational approaches for science learning (through inquiry, engineering, and socioscientific issues) to examine ways that engaging in epistemic practices supports goals of scientific literacy . The chapter shows how a focus on the knowledge construction processes in schools offers contributions to thinking about science education.


  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G., Orpwood, G., & Fensham, P. (2011). Scientific literacy for a knowledge society. In C. Linder, L. Östman, D. A. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Erikson, & A. McKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 28–44). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allchin, D. (2004). Should the sociology of science be rated X? Science Education, 88, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95, 518–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ault, C. R. (1998). Criteria of excellence for geological inquiry: The necessity of ambiguity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bazerman, C. (2004). Intertextualities: Volosinov, Bakhtin, literary theory, and literacy studies. In A. F. Ball & S. Warshauer Freedman (Eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning (pp. 53–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, H. M. (2007). The uses of sociology of science for scientists and educators. Science & Education, 16, 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, H. M. (2014). Are we all scientific experts now? New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  12. Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014). Precollege engineering education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 747–758). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teacher's College Press.Google Scholar
  15. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2008). Consensus: Expanding the scientific method and school science. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 304–325). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Erduran, S. (2007). Breaking the law: Promoting domain-specificity in chemical education in the context of arguing about the periodic law. Foundations of Chemistry, 9(3), 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Erduran, S., & Duschl, R. A. (2004). Interdisciplinary characteristics of models and the nature of chemical knowledge in the classroom. Studies in Science Education, 40, 105–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fleck, L. (1935/1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. (F. Bradley & T. J. Trenn, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., & Livingston, E. (1981). The work of discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 131–158.Google Scholar
  22. Giere, R. (1999). Science without laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2006). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Green, J., & Castanheira, M. L. (2012). Exploring classroom life and student learning: An interactional ethnographic approach. In B. Kaur (Ed.), Understanding teaching and learning: Classroom research revisited (pp. 53–65). Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Green, J. L., Weade, R., & Graham, K. (1988). Lesson construction and student participation: A sociolinguistic analysis. In J. L. Green & J. O. Harker (Eds.), Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  27. Gross, A. (1989). The rhetoric of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gumperz, J. J. (2001). Interactional sociolinguistics: A personal perspective. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 215–228). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Heckler, W. S. (2014). Research on student learning in science: A Wittgensteinian perspective. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1381–1410). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20, 591–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2014). Determinism and underdetermination in genetics: Implications for students’ engagement in argumentation and epistemic practices. Science & Education, 23, 465–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelly, G. J. (2005). Discourse, description, and science education. In R. Yerrick & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of research on teaching and learning (pp. 79–108). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, activity, and epistemic practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.) Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 99–117; 288–291). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Kelly, G. J. (2011). Scientific literacy, discourse, and epistemic practices. In C. Linder, L. Östman, D. A. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Erikson, & A. McKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 61–73). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Kelly, G. J. (2014a). Discourse practices in science learning and teaching. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, volume 2 (pp. 321–336). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  36. Kelly, G. J. (2014b). Inquiry teaching and learning: Philosophical considerations. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1363–1380). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Kelly, G. J. (2016). Methodological considerations for the study of epistemic cognition in practice. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 393–408). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Kelly, G. J., & Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: A rhetorical-semantic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kelly, G. J., & Brown, C. M. (2003). Communicative demands of learning science through technological design: Third grade students’ construction of solar energy devices. Linguistics & Education, 13(4), 483–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81(5), 533–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kelly, G. J., & Green, J. (1998). The social nature of knowing: Toward a sociocultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In B. Guzzetti & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world (pp. 145–181). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Kelly, G. J., Carlsen, W. S., & Cunningham, C. M. (1993). Science education in sociocultural context: Perspectives from the sociology of science. Science Education, 77, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Crawford, T. (1998). Methodological considerations for studying science-in-the-making in educational settings. Research in Science Education, 28(1), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kelly, G. J., Crawford, T., & Green, J. (2001). Common tasks and uncommon knowledge: Dissenting voices in the discursive construction of physics across small laboratory groups. Linguistics & Education, 12(2), 135–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kelly, G. J., McDonald, S., & Wickman, P. O. (2012). Science learning and epistemology. In K. Tobin, B. Fraser, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 281–291). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1995). Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 140–166). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Koertge, N. (1998). Postmodernisms and the problem of scientific literacy. In N. Koertge (Ed.), A house built on sand: Exposing postmodern myths about science (pp. 257–271). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education, 12, 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lead States, N. G. S. S. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  54. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96, 701–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  56. Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(4), 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Licona, P. & Kelly, G. J. (2015, April). Arguing from evidence in an English/Spanish dual language middle school science classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NARST. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  58. Lidar, M., Almqvist, J., & Ostman, L. (2010). A pragmatist approach to meaning making in children’s discussions about gravity and the shape of the earth. Science Education, 94, 689–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in science inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Longino, H. E. (1993). Subjects, power, and knowledge: Description and prescription in feminist philosophies of science. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist Epistemologies (pp. 101–120). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Lynch, M. (1992). Extending Wittgenstein: The pivotal move from epistemology to the sociology of science. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 215–265). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  63. Manz, E. (2014). Representing student argumentation as functionally emergent from scientific activity. Review of Educational Research.Google Scholar
  64. Matthews, M. (Ed.). (2014). International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Matthews, M. (2015). Science teaching: The contribution of history and philosophy of science, 20 th anniversary revised and (expanded ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. McDonald, S., & Songer, N. B. (2008). Enacting classroom inquiry: Theorizing teachers' conceptions of science teaching. Science Education, 92, 973–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Myers, G. (1997). Texts as knowledge claims: The social construction of two biology articles. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essay on the rhetoric of science: Case studies (pp. 187–215). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  69. Norman, A. (1998). Seeing, semantics and social epistemic practice. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 29, 501–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Norris, S., Phillips, L. M., & Burns, D. P. (2014). Conceptions of scientific literacy: Identifying and evaluating their programmatic elements. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1317–1344). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  72. Oliveira, A. W., Akerson, V. L., Colak, H., Pongsanon, K., & Genel, A. (2012). The implicit communication of nature of science and epistemology during inquiry discussion. Science Education, 96, 652–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ostman, L., & Wickman, P.-O. (2014). A pragmatic approach on epistemology, teaching, and learning. Science Education, 98, 375–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pinch, T. (1986). Confronting nature. Dordrecht: R. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners' epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 486–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Reveles, J. M., Cordova, R., & Kelly, G. J. (2004). Science literacy and academic identity formulation. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1111–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Roth, W. M., McGinn, M. K., & Bowen, G. M. (1996). Applications of science and technology studies: Effecting change in science education. Science, Technology & Human Values, 21, 454–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Portraying epistemology: School science in historical context. Science Education, 87, 64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Saljo, R. (2012). Literacy, digital literacy and epistemic practices: The co-evolution of hybrid minds and external memory systems. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(1), 5–19.Google Scholar
  84. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Slezak, P. (1994a). Sociology of science and science education: Part I. Science & Education, 3(3), 265–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Slezak, P. (1994b). Sociology of science and science education. Part 11: Laboratory life under the microscope. Science & Education, 3(4), 329–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stewart, J., & Rudolph, J. L. (2001). Considering the nature of scientific problems when designing science curricula. Science Education, 85, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Takao, A. Y., & Kelly, G. J. (2003). Assessment of evidence in university students' scientific writing. Science & Education, 12, 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding (Vol. 1: The collective use and evolution of concepts). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., & Cowan, B. M. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92, 65–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Varelas, M., Kane, J. M., & Wylie, C. D. (2012). Young black children and science: Chronotopes of narratives around their science journals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 568–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Google Scholar
  94. Watson-Verran, H., & Turnbull, D. (1995). Science and other indigenous knowledge systems. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 115–139). Sage: Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  95. Wickman, P.-O. (2004). The practical epistemologies of the classroom: A study of laboratory work. Science Education, 88, 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.). (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). New York: Macmillan Publishing.Google Scholar
  97. Wortham, S. (2003). Curriculum as a resource for the development of social identity. Sociology of Education, 76, 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 697–726). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationThe Pennsylvania State UniversityState CollegeUSA
  2. 2.Elizabethtown CollegePAUSA

Personalised recommendations