{"title":"\"黑箱,满满的黑箱\":生物教师对解释性黑盒在课堂中的作用的看法","authors":"Gur Arie Livni Alcasid, Michal Haskel-Ittah","doi":"10.1007/s11165-024-10191-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Mechanistic explanations, aiming to disclose details of entities and their activities, employ the act of unpacking which, inherently and paradoxically, produces explanatory gaps—pieces of undisclosed, undetailed mechanistic information. These gaps, termed explanatory black boxes, are often perceived as counterproductive to the teaching of mechanisms, yet are integral to it, and their cognizant use is a nuanced skill. Amidst the discourse on mechanistic reasoning in science education, this paper focuses on biology teachers’ perception of explanatory black boxes and the explicit discussion of them in their classroom. Using interviews with 11 experienced high-school biology teachers, we unraveled perceived affordances and constraints in teachers’ use of black boxes in the context of challenges in teaching mechanisms. Utilizing the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) framework, we expose a nuanced interplay of considerations related to strategies, students, curriculum alignment, assessment, and orientation toward science teaching. A constant tension existed—with considerations supporting and opposing the use of both unpacking and black boxing as teaching strategies—both within and between PCK components. In contrast, contemplating the explication of black boxes led teachers to illustrate this strategy as an intermediate one, attenuating constraints of both unpacking and black-boxing strategies while also promoting teachers’ ability to align curricular items and endorse student agency. Implications for teacher training are discussed, emphasizing the need to make teachers aware of the involvement of black boxes in mechanistic reasoning, and familiarize them with black-box explication as an intermediate strategy that can enrich their pedagogy.</p>","PeriodicalId":47988,"journal":{"name":"Research in Science Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Black Boxes, full of them”: Biology Teachers’ Perception of the Role of Explanatory Black Boxes in Their Classroom\",\"authors\":\"Gur Arie Livni Alcasid, Michal Haskel-Ittah\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11165-024-10191-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Mechanistic explanations, aiming to disclose details of entities and their activities, employ the act of unpacking which, inherently and paradoxically, produces explanatory gaps—pieces of undisclosed, undetailed mechanistic information. These gaps, termed explanatory black boxes, are often perceived as counterproductive to the teaching of mechanisms, yet are integral to it, and their cognizant use is a nuanced skill. Amidst the discourse on mechanistic reasoning in science education, this paper focuses on biology teachers’ perception of explanatory black boxes and the explicit discussion of them in their classroom. Using interviews with 11 experienced high-school biology teachers, we unraveled perceived affordances and constraints in teachers’ use of black boxes in the context of challenges in teaching mechanisms. Utilizing the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) framework, we expose a nuanced interplay of considerations related to strategies, students, curriculum alignment, assessment, and orientation toward science teaching. A constant tension existed—with considerations supporting and opposing the use of both unpacking and black boxing as teaching strategies—both within and between PCK components. In contrast, contemplating the explication of black boxes led teachers to illustrate this strategy as an intermediate one, attenuating constraints of both unpacking and black-boxing strategies while also promoting teachers’ ability to align curricular items and endorse student agency. Implications for teacher training are discussed, emphasizing the need to make teachers aware of the involvement of black boxes in mechanistic reasoning, and familiarize them with black-box explication as an intermediate strategy that can enrich their pedagogy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47988,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Science Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Science Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10191-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10191-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
“Black Boxes, full of them”: Biology Teachers’ Perception of the Role of Explanatory Black Boxes in Their Classroom
Mechanistic explanations, aiming to disclose details of entities and their activities, employ the act of unpacking which, inherently and paradoxically, produces explanatory gaps—pieces of undisclosed, undetailed mechanistic information. These gaps, termed explanatory black boxes, are often perceived as counterproductive to the teaching of mechanisms, yet are integral to it, and their cognizant use is a nuanced skill. Amidst the discourse on mechanistic reasoning in science education, this paper focuses on biology teachers’ perception of explanatory black boxes and the explicit discussion of them in their classroom. Using interviews with 11 experienced high-school biology teachers, we unraveled perceived affordances and constraints in teachers’ use of black boxes in the context of challenges in teaching mechanisms. Utilizing the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) framework, we expose a nuanced interplay of considerations related to strategies, students, curriculum alignment, assessment, and orientation toward science teaching. A constant tension existed—with considerations supporting and opposing the use of both unpacking and black boxing as teaching strategies—both within and between PCK components. In contrast, contemplating the explication of black boxes led teachers to illustrate this strategy as an intermediate one, attenuating constraints of both unpacking and black-boxing strategies while also promoting teachers’ ability to align curricular items and endorse student agency. Implications for teacher training are discussed, emphasizing the need to make teachers aware of the involvement of black boxes in mechanistic reasoning, and familiarize them with black-box explication as an intermediate strategy that can enrich their pedagogy.
期刊介绍:
2020 Five-Year Impact Factor: 4.021
2020 Impact Factor: 5.439
Ranking: 107/1319 (Education) – Scopus
2020 CiteScore 34.7 – Scopus
Research in Science Education (RISE ) is highly regarded and widely recognised as a leading international journal for the promotion of scholarly science education research that is of interest to a wide readership.
RISE publishes scholarly work that promotes science education research in all contexts and at all levels of education. This intention is aligned with the goals of Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA), the association connected with the journal.
You should consider submitting your manscript to RISE if your research:
Examines contexts such as early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary, workplace, and informal learning as they relate to science education; and
Advances our knowledge in science education research rather than reproducing what we already know.
RISE will consider scholarly works that explore areas such as STEM, health, environment, cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology and higher education where science education is forefronted.
The scholarly works of interest published within RISE reflect and speak to a diversity of opinions, approaches and contexts. Additionally, the journal’s editorial team welcomes a diversity of form in relation to science education-focused submissions. With this in mind, RISE seeks to publish empirical research papers.
Empircal contributions are:
Theoretically or conceptually grounded;
Relevant to science education theory and practice;
Highlight limitations of the study; and
Identify possible future research opportunities.
From time to time, we commission independent reviewers to undertake book reviews of recent monographs, edited collections and/or textbooks.
Before you submit your manuscript to RISE, please consider the following checklist. Your paper is:
No longer than 6000 words, including references.
Sufficiently proof read to ensure strong grammar, syntax, coherence and good readability;
Explicitly stating the significant and/or innovative contribution to the body of knowledge in your field in science education;
Internationalised in the sense that your work has relevance beyond your context to a broader audience; and
Making a contribution to the ongoing conversation by engaging substantively with prior research published in RISE.
While we encourage authors to submit papers to a maximum length of 6000 words, in rare cases where the authors make a persuasive case that a work makes a highly significant original contribution to knowledge in science education, the editors may choose to publish longer works.