Abstract
In this paper, we support the validity of drawing from science studies to reshape science education. While true educational reform must involve alternative curricular structures, we stress that we do not propose here either a comprehensive curricular framework or a report on a pilot classroom project, as our research perspective comes from science studies rather than from education. Instead this paper is intended to encourage educators to draw from methodologies used in science studies to further their goals in education research and in classroom teaching. First, we examine theoretical connections and divergences between science studies and theories of education. Secondly, we discuss the benefits of teaching science as a social process and offer some suggestions that can be introduced by classroom teachers into pre-existing science curricula.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allchin, D. (1995). How not to teach the history of science. In F. Finlay, D. Allchin, D. Rhees, & S. Fifield (Eds.),Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference (pp. 13–22). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Allchin, D. (1997). Rekindling phlogiston: From classroom case study to interdisciplinary relationships.Science and Education, 6, 473–509.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966).The social construction of reality: Treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday.
Bloor, D. (1973). Wittgenstein and Mannheim on the sociology of mathematics.Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 4, 173–191.
Bloor, D. (1976).Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge.
Bombaugh, R., Ralston, S., Sowder, H., & Shiner, J. (1995). Helping non-traditional students challenge implicit assumptions about the nature of science through supervisory work. In F. Finlay, D. Allchin, D. Rhees, & S. Fifield (Eds.),Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference (pp. 156–166). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Burdett, P. (1989). Adventures with N-rays: An approach to teaching about scientific theory and theory evaluation. In R. Millar (Ed.),Doing science: Images of science in science education. London: Falmer.
Collins, H. (1985).Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.
Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (1993).The golem: What everyone should know about science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Costa, S. (1995, October).“Our” notation from their quarrel: The Leibniz-Newton controversy as embodied in calculus textbooks. Paper presented at the annual History of Science Society Meeting, Minneapolis MN.
Countryman, J. (1992).Writing to learn mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cunningham, C. (1995). The effect of teachers' sociological understanding of science on classroom practice and curriculum innovation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. (Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 2542A)
Dear, P. (Ed.). (1991).The literary structure of scientific argument. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.
Dear, P. (1985). Totius in verba: Rhetoric and authority in the early Royal Society.Isis, 76, 145–61.
Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., & Marion, S. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A re-examination.American Educational Research Journal, 33, 261–295.
Ellerton, N. F., & Clements, M. A. (in press). Transforming the international mathematics education research agenda. In E. Kelly, & R. Lesh (Eds.),Innovative research designs in math and science education. [Page numbers refer to unpublished draft of article.]
Flannery, M. (1995). “Science, technology and the public in the nineteenth century”:” How to select science content for an interdisciplinary course. In F. Finlay, D. Allchin, D. Rhees, & S. Fifield (Eds.),Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference (pp. 379–388). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Flower, M. (1995). Conceiving science education as a practice of technoscientific liberty. In F. Finlay, D. Allchin, D. Rhees, & S. Fifield (Eds.),Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference (pp. 389–409). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Geison, G. (1995).The private science of Louis Pasteur. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Glen, W. (1982).The road to Jaramillo: Critical years of the revolution in earth science. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Glen, W. (Ed.). (1994).The mass-extinction debates: How science works in a crisis. Stanford: Standford University Press.
Gough, N. (1992, April).Laboratories in schools: Material places, mythic spaces. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Holmes, F. (1987). Scientific writing and scientific discovery.Isis, 78, 220–235.
Kelly, G. (1997). Research traditions in comparative context: A philosophical challenge to radical constructivism.Science Education, 81, 355–375.
Kelly, G., Cunningham, C., & Carlsen, W. (1993). Science education in sociocultural context: Perspectives from the sociology of science.Science Education, 77, 207–220.
Klotz, I. M. (1980). The N-ray affair.Scientific American, 242(5), 122–131.
Kuhn, T. (1970).The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kumar, A., & Brown, R. (1995). Teaching science from a world-cultural point of view. In F. Finlay, D. Allchin, D. Rhees, & S. Fifield (Eds.),Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference (pp. 648–635). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Latour, B. (1987).Science in action. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979).Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Lewenstein, B. (1996). Life on Mars... And in science.Mercury: Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 26, 24–27.
Longino, H. (1990).Science as social knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Magnusson, S., & Templin, M. (1995). Scientific practice and science learning: The community basis of scientific literacy. In F. Finlay, D. Allchin, D. Rhees, & S. Fifield (Eds.),Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference (pp. 687–698). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Matthews, M. (1992). History, philosophy, and science teaching: The present rapprochement.Science and Education, 1, 11–47.
McComas, W. (1995). A thematic introduction to the nature of science: An analysis of the rationale, content and impact of a philosophy of science course for science teachers. In F. Finlay, D. Allchin, D. Rhees, & S. Fifield (Eds.),Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference (pp. 726–737). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Milne, C., & Taylor, P. (1995). Practical activities don't talk to students: Deconstructing a mythology of school science. In F. Finlay, D. Allchin, D. Rhees, & S. Fifield (Eds.),Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference (pp. 788–801). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Mulkay, M. (1986).On humour. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1995). Probing teachers' views of the nature of science: How should we do it and where should we be looking? In F. Finlay, D. Allchin, D. Rhees, & S. Fifield (Eds.),Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference (pp. 864–872). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Piaget, J. (1970).Genetic epistemology. New York: Norton.
Pimental, G. C. (1963).Chemical education material study: Chemistry, an experimental science. San Francisco: Freeman.
Redman, J. D. (1996). Conversations about counting. In D. Schifter (Ed.),What's happening in math class (Vol. 2, pp. 113–126). New York: Teachers College Press.
Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1997). Science in schools and everywhere else: What science educators should know about science and technology studies.Studies in Science Education, 29, 1–44.
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.
Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1986).Leviathan and the air pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and scientific method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sismondo, S. (1993). Some social constructions.Social Studies of Science, 23, 515–53.
Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (1994).STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sutton, C. (1989). Writing and reading in science: The hidden messages. In R. Millar (Ed.),Doing science: Images of science in science education (pp. 137–159). London: Falmer.
Traweek, S. (1988).Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physics. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
von Glaserfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.),The invented reality: How do we know what we believe we know? (pp. 17–40). New York: Norton.
von Glaserfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching.Synthese, 80, 121–140.
von Glaserfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. P. Steffe, & J. Gale (Eds.),Constructivism in education (pp. 3–15). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962).Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Costa, S., Hughes, T.B. & Pinch, T. Briging it all back home: some implications of recent science and technology studies for the classroom science teacher. Research in Science Education 28, 9–21 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461639
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461639