重新引入“科学方法”在学校引入科学探究?

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Markus Emden
{"title":"重新引入“科学方法”在学校引入科学探究?","authors":"Markus Emden","doi":"10.1007/s11191-021-00235-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There are some crucial critiques on <i>scientific inquiry</i> and “the” Scientific Method in current science education. Recent research literature is replete with arguments against inquiry’s legitimacy to be included in science classes, and it has even been abandoned from the <i>Next Generation Science Standards</i>. Critics of <i>scientific inquiry</i> in schools blame it to be a caricature of authentic inquiry suffering from five shortcomings: (1) <i>knowledge becomes desocialized</i> from its generative contexts, (2) <i>scientific inquiry</i> in schools suggests <i>methodological monism</i> favoring (3) a <i>primacy of experimentation</i>, (4) which portrays <i>scientific inquiry</i> as a <i>knowledge automaton</i> (5) raising an <i>illusion of determination</i> with regard to the generation of knowledge. This article argues for a reorientation of <i>scientific inquiry</i> in schools tentatively embracing “the” Scientific Method anew since critics appear not to sufficiently consider that <i>scientific inquiry</i> operates differently in schools from science. It will be shown that most critiques can be defused when untangling such an illegitimate mix-up of science proper with school science. It will be argued that current (and recent) descriptions of how science generates knowledge lack authoritative validity and should be fundamentally revisited. “The” Scientific Method will be shown to be a valid idealization that can serve as a frame of reference for introductory science classes. Still, it is understood that science education needs to extend beyond “the” Scientific Method if it is to prepare for science-related careers.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56374,"journal":{"name":"Science & Education","volume":"30 5","pages":"1037 - 1073"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11191-021-00235-w","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reintroducing “the” Scientific Method to Introduce Scientific Inquiry in Schools?\",\"authors\":\"Markus Emden\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11191-021-00235-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>There are some crucial critiques on <i>scientific inquiry</i> and “the” Scientific Method in current science education. Recent research literature is replete with arguments against inquiry’s legitimacy to be included in science classes, and it has even been abandoned from the <i>Next Generation Science Standards</i>. Critics of <i>scientific inquiry</i> in schools blame it to be a caricature of authentic inquiry suffering from five shortcomings: (1) <i>knowledge becomes desocialized</i> from its generative contexts, (2) <i>scientific inquiry</i> in schools suggests <i>methodological monism</i> favoring (3) a <i>primacy of experimentation</i>, (4) which portrays <i>scientific inquiry</i> as a <i>knowledge automaton</i> (5) raising an <i>illusion of determination</i> with regard to the generation of knowledge. This article argues for a reorientation of <i>scientific inquiry</i> in schools tentatively embracing “the” Scientific Method anew since critics appear not to sufficiently consider that <i>scientific inquiry</i> operates differently in schools from science. It will be shown that most critiques can be defused when untangling such an illegitimate mix-up of science proper with school science. It will be argued that current (and recent) descriptions of how science generates knowledge lack authoritative validity and should be fundamentally revisited. “The” Scientific Method will be shown to be a valid idealization that can serve as a frame of reference for introductory science classes. Still, it is understood that science education needs to extend beyond “the” Scientific Method if it is to prepare for science-related careers.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56374,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science & Education\",\"volume\":\"30 5\",\"pages\":\"1037 - 1073\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11191-021-00235-w\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science & Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-021-00235-w\",\"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":"Science & Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-021-00235-w","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}
引用次数: 13

摘要

当前科学教育中存在着对科学探究和“科学方法”的批判。最近的研究文献中充满了反对探究性被纳入科学课程的合法性的争论,它甚至被从下一代科学标准中抛弃了。学校科学探究的批评者指责它是真实探究的讽刺漫画,有五个缺点:(1)知识从其生成环境中变得非社会化,(2)学校科学探究暗示了方法论一元论,倾向于(3)实验的首要地位,(4)将科学探究描绘成一种知识自动机(5)在知识的生成方面提出了一种确定的错觉。本文主张在学校中重新定位科学探究,暂时重新接受“科学方法”,因为批评者似乎没有充分考虑到科学探究在学校中的运作方式与科学不同。它将表明,当解开科学本身与学校科学的这种非法混淆时,大多数批评是可以化解的。有人认为,目前(和最近)关于科学如何产生知识的描述缺乏权威的有效性,应该从根本上重新审视。“科学方法”将被证明是一种有效的理想化,可以作为入门科学课程的参考框架。然而,如果要为科学相关的职业生涯做准备,科学教育需要超越“科学方法”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reintroducing “the” Scientific Method to Introduce Scientific Inquiry in Schools?

There are some crucial critiques on scientific inquiry and “the” Scientific Method in current science education. Recent research literature is replete with arguments against inquiry’s legitimacy to be included in science classes, and it has even been abandoned from the Next Generation Science Standards. Critics of scientific inquiry in schools blame it to be a caricature of authentic inquiry suffering from five shortcomings: (1) knowledge becomes desocialized from its generative contexts, (2) scientific inquiry in schools suggests methodological monism favoring (3) a primacy of experimentation, (4) which portrays scientific inquiry as a knowledge automaton (5) raising an illusion of determination with regard to the generation of knowledge. This article argues for a reorientation of scientific inquiry in schools tentatively embracing “the” Scientific Method anew since critics appear not to sufficiently consider that scientific inquiry operates differently in schools from science. It will be shown that most critiques can be defused when untangling such an illegitimate mix-up of science proper with school science. It will be argued that current (and recent) descriptions of how science generates knowledge lack authoritative validity and should be fundamentally revisited. “The” Scientific Method will be shown to be a valid idealization that can serve as a frame of reference for introductory science classes. Still, it is understood that science education needs to extend beyond “the” Scientific Method if it is to prepare for science-related careers.

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 Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1117
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science & Education publishes research informed by the history, philosophy and sociology of science and mathematics that seeks to promote better teaching, learning, and curricula in science and mathematics. More particularly Science & Education promotes: The utilization of historical, philosophical and sociological scholarship to clarify and deal with the many intellectual issues facing contemporary science and mathematics education.  Collaboration between the communities of scientists, mathematicians, historians, philosophers, cognitive psychologists, sociologists, science and mathematics educators, and school and college teachers. An understanding of the philosophical, cultural, economic, religious, psychological and ethical dimensions of modern science and the interplay of these factors in the history of science.  The inclusion of appropriate history and philosophy of science and mathematics courses in science and mathematics teacher-education programmes.  The dissemination of accounts of lessons, units of work, and programmes in science and mathematics, at all levels, that have successfully utilized history and philosophy.  Discussion of the philosophy and purposes of science and mathematics education, and their place in, and contribution to, the intellectual and ethical development of individuals and cultures.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信