Abstract
Vexation A zoologist friend of mine once remarked, ‘‘The science is in the debate.’’ He was referring to community process—to scrutiny of contested claims in a public forum, with resolution dependent about judging the quality of inquiry. Those debating hold stature according to their expertise while aspiring to achieve explanatory ideals, which may be, in turn, under debate. Presumably, debate and scrutiny promote the progress of understanding as well as uphold standards of reasonable discourse. These ends (progress and reason) depend upon how a community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991), in pursuit of shared purposes, organizes its patterns of interaction and communication. These patterns ought to restrain the irrationality of individuals and thus contribute to the common good. In large measure, the existence of the profession of science educators depends upon translating and transforming patterns characteristic of ‘‘what scientists do’’ into school science. This shared purpose permeates science educators’ community of practice and leads to educational as well as explanatory ideals. Among these are introducing science to novices as a culture—with distinctive patterns of discourse, methods of investigation, and approaches to adjudicating disputes made explicit. The science education community, in concert with political processes and policies, has codified this aim into various state and national standards for teaching and learning science. These standards function to hold students (and schools) accountable to prescribed ends; these ends embodying what scientists do and know. Central to this codification for the sake of accountability is the depiction of what patterns of communication and interaction among scientists promote progress in understanding and the achievement of explanatory ideals.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call