Making explicit some tensions in educational practice: science education in focus

Camillo J.; Mattos C.R.

Cultural-Historical Psychology - №1 / 2022 | Перейти к описанию

Scopus
Web of Science СС

Previous issue (2021. Vol. 17, no. 4)

Included in Web of Science СС (ESCI)

Included in Scopus

Journal Quartiles 2020

CiteScore : Q2
SNIP: Q3
SJR: Q3

Details on scimagojr.com/

Cultural-Historical Psychology

Publisher: Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

ISSN (printed version): 1816-5435

ISSN (online): 2224-8935

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/chp

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published since 2005

Published quarterly

Free of fees
Open Access Journal

Affiliated ISCAR

RU In Russian

Cultural-Historical Psychology
2014. Vol. 10, no. 2, 110–115
ISSN: 1816-5435 / 2224-8935 (online)

Making explicit some tensions in educational practice: science education in focus ¹¹⁶⁴

Camillo J.
PhD Student, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Mattos C.R.
PhD, Professor, Institute of Physics, University of Sa~o Paulo, Sao Paolo, Brazil
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5927-8742
e-mail: mattos@if.usp.br

PDF (RUS)
Online translation in english

The relevance of Science Education to the modern world nowadays is the subject of many authors. There are a lot of expected outcomes and also a lot of different perspectives that teachers, researchers and educational policy makers have been using to grasp teaching-learning process and to plan/conduct educational activities in science classrooms. Most of these perspectives are grounded in a logic that is incapable to deal with contradictions reinforcing dichotomies and most of them are unable to properly analyze controversial social issues that are more frequently introduced in sci- ence educational practice. The main consequence of this framework is the emerging apparent oppositions between individual and collective; ontology versus epistemology; alienation versus emancipation. Bearing in mind these cir- cumstances we understand the necessity of a dialectical approach. In this paper we address some of those emerging ten- sions analyzing its consequences to Science Education considering Cultural Historical Activity Theory. To deal with those oppositions we propose three analytical categories for tensions: a) the subject of activity; b) the content of activ- ity; c) the outcome of activity to fully understand the dialectical nature of contradictions.

Keywords: Tensions, Science Education, Activity Theory, Alienation, Emancipation, Formation of the Individuals

Column: Scientific Life

For Reference

Camillo J., Mattos C.R. Making explicit some tensions in educational practice: science education in focus. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2014. Vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 110–115. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)

Bastos P. W. , Mattos C. R. Um exemplo da dina^mica do perfil conceitual como complexificac,~ao do conhecimento cotidiano. Revista Electronica de Ense~nanza de las Ciencias, 2009. Vol. 8 (3), pp. 1054—1078.
Black P. Innovation and change in Science Education. In: Proceedings of GIREP-ICPE International conference. Ljubljana, 2006, pp. 23—33 .
Camillo J. Experiences in context: experimentation in a socio-cultural-historical perspective. Dissertation, 2011. University of S~ao Paulo. Brazil.
DeBoer G. Scientific Literacy: Another look at its his- torical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to sci- ence education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2000. Vol. 37 (6), pp. 582—601.
Duarte N. Education as mediation between the individ- ual's everyday life and the historical construction of society and culture by humankind. In: Critical perspectives on activi- ty theory: explorations across education, work, and everyday life. Cambridge, 2006, pp. 211—237.
Duschl R. Restructuring Science Education: The impor- tance of theories and their development. Teachers College Press, 1990. 176 p.
Engestrom.. Y. Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 2001. Vol. 14 (1), pp. 133—156.
Fourez G. Scientific and Technological Literacy as a Social Practice. Social Studies of Science, 1997. Vol. 27 (6), pp. 903—936.
Fourez Gerard. Crisis in science teaching? Investigac,~oes em Ensino de Ciencias, 2003. Vol. 8 (2), pp. 109—123.
Gough B., Fry G., Grogan S., Conner M. Why do Young adult smokers continue to smoke despite the health risks? A focus group study. Psychology & Health, 2009. Vol. 24 (2), pp. 203—220.
Ilyenkov E.V. The Ideal in Human Activity. Marxists Internet Archive, 2009.
Jenkins E.W. School Science, Citizenship and the Public Understanding of Science. International Journal of Science Education, 1999. Vol. 21 (7), pp. 703—710.
Kirschner P.A., Sweller J., Clark R.E. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experien- tial, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 2006. Vol. 41 (2), p. 75—86.
Lawson A.E., Clark B., Cramer6Meldrum, E., Falco6 ner, K.A., Sequist J.M., Kwon Y.J. The development of reason- ing skills in college biology: Do two levels of general hypothe- sis-testing skills exist? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2000, Vol. 37 (1), pp. 81—101.
Leontiev A.N. The Development of Mind: Selected Works of Aleksei Nikolaevich Leontyev. Marxists Internet Archive, 2009. 419 p.
Marx K. Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. Penguin Books. England, 1973. 912 p.
Mattos C.R. O ABC da Ci^encia. In: A pesquisa em ensi- no de Fisica e a sala de aula: articulac,~oes necessarias. S~ao Paulo: Sociedade Brasileira de Fisica, 2010, pp. 141—156.
Nielsen J.A. Co-opting Science: A preliminary study of how students invoke science in value-laden discussions. International Journal of Science Education, 2012. Vol. 34 (2), pp. 275—299.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris, 2006. 187 p.
Roth W.6M., Lee Y.6J., & Hsu P.6L. A tool for changing the world: possibilities of cultural-historical activity theory to reinvigorate science education. Studies in Science Education, 2009. Vol. 45 (2), pp. 131—167.
Sannino A., Daniels H., Gutierrez K. Activity theory between historical engagement and future-making practice. In: Sannino A. , Daniels H. and Gutierrez K. D. , eds. Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory. Cambridge, 2009, pp. 1—15.
Stetsenko A. Activity as Object-Related: Resolving the Dichotomy of Individual and Collective Planes of Activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 2005. Vol. 12 (1), pp. 70—88.
Yang F.Y. Exploring high school students' use of theo- ry and evidence in an everyday context: the role of scientific thinking in environmental science decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 2004, Vol. 26 (11), pp. 1345—1364.
Yang F.Y., Anderson O.R. Senior high school students' preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 2003. Vol. 25 (2), pp. 221—244.