{"title":"我们为什么吃卡路里:科学学科中能量的多元隐喻","authors":"Leslie Atkins","doi":"10.1007/s11191-024-00554-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In the Next Generation Science Standards, energy is considered a “crosscutting concept” that bridges disciplinary boundaries and unites scientific disciplines. I examine how energy is represented in physics, biology, and chemistry contexts, using the reaction of molecular oxygen with sugar as an exemplar, and argue that disciplines disagree in how they represent the origin of energy that drives this process. In particular, while biology tends to locate energy as initially in the sugar molecule, chemistry locates the energy in molecular oxygen, and physics models energy as in the field between the molecules. That is to say, biology describes us as eating calories, chemistry as inhaling calories, and physics invents an abstract object (the field) as the container for energy. I then show how the conceptualizations made in each discipline stem from core disciplinary commitments, models, and concepts that structure what “counts” as an explanation. This conceptual plurality, then, is essential to disciplinary meaning. While such a pluralistic conceptualization appears to be contrary to scientific epistemology that prioritizes coherence and cognitive models that rely on unitary structures for transfer, I draw on recent research to argue that neither concern is fully founded. Finally, I suggest that building bridges between these contrasting conceptualizations may come later, in response to interdisciplinary questions and frameworks.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":771,"journal":{"name":"Science & Education","volume":"34 4","pages":"1889 - 1911"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11191-024-00554-8.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why We Eat Calories: A Plurality Metaphor of Energy in Scientific Disciplines\",\"authors\":\"Leslie Atkins\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11191-024-00554-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In the Next Generation Science Standards, energy is considered a “crosscutting concept” that bridges disciplinary boundaries and unites scientific disciplines. I examine how energy is represented in physics, biology, and chemistry contexts, using the reaction of molecular oxygen with sugar as an exemplar, and argue that disciplines disagree in how they represent the origin of energy that drives this process. In particular, while biology tends to locate energy as initially in the sugar molecule, chemistry locates the energy in molecular oxygen, and physics models energy as in the field between the molecules. That is to say, biology describes us as eating calories, chemistry as inhaling calories, and physics invents an abstract object (the field) as the container for energy. I then show how the conceptualizations made in each discipline stem from core disciplinary commitments, models, and concepts that structure what “counts” as an explanation. This conceptual plurality, then, is essential to disciplinary meaning. While such a pluralistic conceptualization appears to be contrary to scientific epistemology that prioritizes coherence and cognitive models that rely on unitary structures for transfer, I draw on recent research to argue that neither concern is fully founded. Finally, I suggest that building bridges between these contrasting conceptualizations may come later, in response to interdisciplinary questions and frameworks.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":771,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science & Education\",\"volume\":\"34 4\",\"pages\":\"1889 - 1911\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11191-024-00554-8.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science & Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-024-00554-8\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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":"Science & Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-024-00554-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Why We Eat Calories: A Plurality Metaphor of Energy in Scientific Disciplines
In the Next Generation Science Standards, energy is considered a “crosscutting concept” that bridges disciplinary boundaries and unites scientific disciplines. I examine how energy is represented in physics, biology, and chemistry contexts, using the reaction of molecular oxygen with sugar as an exemplar, and argue that disciplines disagree in how they represent the origin of energy that drives this process. In particular, while biology tends to locate energy as initially in the sugar molecule, chemistry locates the energy in molecular oxygen, and physics models energy as in the field between the molecules. That is to say, biology describes us as eating calories, chemistry as inhaling calories, and physics invents an abstract object (the field) as the container for energy. I then show how the conceptualizations made in each discipline stem from core disciplinary commitments, models, and concepts that structure what “counts” as an explanation. This conceptual plurality, then, is essential to disciplinary meaning. While such a pluralistic conceptualization appears to be contrary to scientific epistemology that prioritizes coherence and cognitive models that rely on unitary structures for transfer, I draw on recent research to argue that neither concern is fully founded. Finally, I suggest that building bridges between these contrasting conceptualizations may come later, in response to interdisciplinary questions and frameworks.
期刊介绍:
Science Education publishes original articles on the latest issues and trends occurring internationally in science curriculum, instruction, learning, policy and preparation of science teachers with the aim to advance our knowledge of science education theory and practice. In addition to original articles, the journal features the following special sections: -Learning : consisting of theoretical and empirical research studies on learning of science. We invite manuscripts that investigate learning and its change and growth from various lenses, including psychological, social, cognitive, sociohistorical, and affective. Studies examining the relationship of learning to teaching, the science knowledge and practices, the learners themselves, and the contexts (social, political, physical, ideological, institutional, epistemological, and cultural) are similarly welcome. -Issues and Trends : consisting primarily of analytical, interpretive, or persuasive essays on current educational, social, or philosophical issues and trends relevant to the teaching of science. This special section particularly seeks to promote informed dialogues about current issues in science education, and carefully reasoned papers representing disparate viewpoints are welcomed. Manuscripts submitted for this section may be in the form of a position paper, a polemical piece, or a creative commentary. -Science Learning in Everyday Life : consisting of analytical, interpretative, or philosophical papers regarding learning science outside of the formal classroom. Papers should investigate experiences in settings such as community, home, the Internet, after school settings, museums, and other opportunities that develop science interest, knowledge or practices across the life span. Attention to issues and factors relating to equity in science learning are especially encouraged.. -Science Teacher Education [...]