我们为什么吃卡路里:科学学科中能量的多元隐喻

IF 3.4 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Leslie Atkins
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在下一代科学标准中,能源被认为是一个“横切概念”,它跨越了学科界限,将科学学科联系在一起。我以氧分子与糖的反应为例,研究了能量在物理学、生物学和化学背景下是如何表示的,并认为各学科在如何表示驱动这一过程的能量起源方面存在分歧。特别是,当生物学倾向于将能量定位在最初的糖分子中时,化学将能量定位在分子氧中,而物理学则将能量模型定位在分子之间的场中。也就是说,生物学把我们描述为吃卡路里,化学把我们描述为吸入卡路里,而物理学则发明了一个抽象的物体(场)作为能量的容器。然后,我展示了每个学科的概念化是如何从核心学科承诺、模型和概念中产生的,这些承诺、模型和概念构成了什么是“算数”的解释。因此,这种概念的多元性对于学科意义是必不可少的。虽然这种多元化的概念化似乎与科学认识论相反,科学认识论优先考虑连贯性和依赖单一结构进行转移的认知模型,但我借鉴了最近的研究,认为这两种担忧都没有充分的根据。最后,我建议在这些截然不同的概念之间建立桥梁,以回应跨学科的问题和框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Science & Education
Science & Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
14.00%
发文量
0
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 [...]
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信