How do people make sense of conflicting beliefs? Although Gottlieb & Wineburg’s paper is about highly educated professionals reading history, informal science educators will recognize similar issues when working with people who hold beliefs incompatible with scientific ways of understanding the world. “Epistemic switching” was a way of considering criteria for truth, reliability, and validity according to one belief system or another. Rather than simply believing or excluding ideas as people who held to only one value system, the people with multiple, competing affiliations actually more
What do images communicate about humans’ place in nature? Medin and Bang posit that the artifacts used to communicate science—including words, photographs, and illustrations—commonly reflect the cultural orientations of their creators. The authors argue that Native Americans traditionally see themselves as part of nature and focus on ecological relationships, while European Americans perceive themselves as outside of nature and think in terms of taxonomic relationships.
This study focused on girls’ engagement with science and how they negotiate identities with and in opposition to science in a three-year study of community-based afterschool initiatives. Rahm conducted a multi-sited ethnography, observing girls’ whose families had recently immigrated to Montreal, Canada and were participating in a community organization creating science newsletters and science fair projects.
In this study of preschoolers’ understandings and enactments of racial and ethnic difference, Park asks, “How do different ideas about diversity play out in the day-to-day interactions and activities of young children?” Park takes a sociocultural perspective, seeking to understand the ways children talk about difference and behave toward others in their preschool.
In order to broaden the conceptualizations of argument in science education, Bricker and Bell draw from diverse fields: the sociology of science, the learning sciences, and cognitive science to help practitioners think of new ways to bring argumentation into learning spaces while expanding what counts as scientific argument.
This study examines student choices relating to the selection of STEM courses for high school and university study. The main focus here is on the subjective value of the choice as perceived by the individual, and the individual’s expectation of success in the subject or the study. The argument put forward in this study is supported by a broad and international body of literature, and highlights a number of key factors affecting students’ (and especially girls’) engagement with STEM subjects. This discussion will have particular significance for ISE educators currently working to promote youth
Parents committed to bringing their children to zoos ascribed the value of the visits to promoting altruism to prepare their children for future social encounters; transferring their own environmental values; encouraging self-esteem; and inculcating cultural norms. This article suggests that ISE educators can attract/engage parents through appealing to moral development for children.
This article was written in the context of the science education reforms of the 1990s, such as the AAAS Project 2061, the NSTA science scope and sequence, and the NRC’s national standards for science education. While the researchers note that this reform movement was broad, progressive, and inclusive, they contend that, at the time of writing, it was being implemented in narrow and conventional ways: focusing on conceptual knowledge as the most important outcome, and opportunities to engage in practices of “real sciences” as the means to this end. This approach, they claimed, failed to appeal
Explanation and argument are often confused or blended in science education literature and policy documents, a problem the authors have noticed and attempted to address in this paper. The authors believe that distinguishing between the two is important for educators so that students are taught to accurately construct their own explanations and arguments and identify them in others, as both are abilities necessary for the creation and justification of new science knowledge. The authors describe the features of explanation and argument, the differences between them, and where they overlap.
A review of 94 studies indicates that small group science discussions function more purposefully and understanding improves most when leadership is strong, specific roles are allocated, and clear tasks set. A diversity of views is important, while single sex (generally friendship) groups work best. Training in leadership and argumentation is recommended.
This paper will be of value to ISE professionals interested in designing communication strategies to influence visitor behaviour. The author draws on persuasive communication theory to discuss the design and delivery of messages to target behaviours. This study reflects on the difficulties encountered during a process of identifying and prioritising behaviours to target in zoo contexts.
Collaborations between schools and ISIs potentially offer powerful learning opportunities, yet assessing the varying needs and perspectives of each partner is not always easy. In this research, Mosian presents an open and honest account of a collaborative project and provides a valuable insight into the important stages of effective collaboration.