Science as Dynamic Practice

  • Michiel van Eijck
  • Wolff-Michael Roth
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 7)


In this chapter, we depart from the presupposition that science education reform must anticipate the scientific literacy required by the next generation of citizens. Particularly, this counts for rapidly emerging and evolving scientific disciplines such as genomics. Taking this discipline as a case, such anticipation is becoming increasingly problematic in today’s knowledge societies in which the dynamics of the natural sciences is unprecedented. This raises the question of how to appropriate in science education the dynamics of natural sciences such as genomics. We approach this question from a contemporary sociocultural perspective on the dynamics of science. From this perspective, the contours of a novelized science education become visible. In contrast, it becomes clear in what respect epicized images of science in current science curricula do not capture the dynamics of science. Finally, drawing on the resulting frames, we discuss the aims of science education as denoted by the concept of scientific literacy.


Science Education Scientific Literacy Scientific Knowledge Scientific Content Science Curriculum 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 132–165). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Callon, M. (2001). Actor network theory. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 62–66). Oxford: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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, 582–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., & Marion, S. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A re-examination. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 261–295.Google Scholar
  6. Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (2007). A framework for practical work in science and scientific literacy through argumentation. Research in Science and Technological Education, 25, 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Holzkamp, K. (1993). Lernen: Subjektwissenschaftliche Grundlagen [Learning: Subject-scientific foundations]. Frankfurt: Campus-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  11. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  12. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Roth, W.-M. (2003a). Scientific literacy as an emergent feature of human practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35, 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Roth, W.-M., & Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2002). Scientific literacy as collective praxis. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roth, W.-M., Lee, Y. J., & Boyer, L. (2008a). The eternal return: Reproduction and change in complex activity systems—The case of salmon enhancement. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.Google Scholar
  17. Roth, W.-M., van Eijck, M., Reis, G., & Hsu, P.-L. (2008b). Authentic science revisited: In praise of diversity, heterogeneity, hybridity. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Sanger, F., Air, G. M., Barrell, B. G., Brown, N. L., Coulson, A. R., Fiddes, C. A., Hutchison, C. A., Slocombe, P. M., & Smith, M. (1977). Nucleotide sequence of bacteriophage phi X174 DNA. Nature, 265, 687–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  21. van Eijck, M. W., & Roth, W.-M. (2007b). Improving science education for sustainable development. PLoS Biology, 5, 2763–2769.Google Scholar
  22. Wang, C., Bowen, D. J., & Kardia, S. L. (2005). Research and practice opportunities at the intersection of health education, health behavior, and genomics. Health Education Behaviour, 32, 686–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michiel van Eijck
    • 1
  • Wolff-Michael Roth
    • 2
  1. 1.Eindhoven School of EducationEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Griffith Institute for Educational ResearchGriffith UniversityGriffithAustralia

Personalised recommendations