‘Grasp of Practice’ as a Reasoning Resource for Inquiry and Nature of Science Understanding

This article articulates how a ‘grasp of practice’ serves as a reasoning resource for inquiry and citizenship abilities associated with nature of science (NOS) understanding. Theoretically, this resource is elaborated through an overlapping concern with ‘practice’ in two literatures, science studies and psychology of learning, bringing attention to two key roles in scientific practice, Critiquers and Constructors of claims. Empirically, this resource is made plausible by the results of an expert-novice study and a classroom study. In the expert-novice study, reactions of scientists and laypeople to science-related claims in the popular media were contrasted, underlining the appropriate ways scientists tend to Critique such claims. In the classroom study, sixth-grade students engaged in a 2-week ramp experiment, experiencing first hand the roles of Critiquers and Constructors of claims, and were subsequently assessed with a novel experimental task. Performances suggest that students had attained a grasp of practice, going well beyond mere execution of methods or procedures. These results challenge a common assumption that declarative knowledge best characterizes learning targets for supporting inquiry and NOS understanding.

[1]  Randy L. Bell,et al.  Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science , 2002 .

[2]  A. Ahlgren,et al.  Science for all Americans , 1990 .

[3]  J. Shea National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[4]  Randy L. Bell,et al.  The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural , 1998 .

[5]  J. Greeno THE SITUATIVITY OF KNOWING, LEARNING, AND RESEARCH , 1998 .

[6]  D. Klahr,et al.  All other things being equal: acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. , 1999, Child development.

[7]  B. Rogoff The Cultural Nature of Human Development , 2003 .

[8]  A. Reber Implicit learning and tacit knowledge , 1993 .

[9]  Marcello Pera,et al.  The discourses of science , 1994 .

[10]  J. Wertsch Mind as action , 1998 .

[11]  J. Osborne,et al.  Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education , 2002 .

[12]  Percy Williams Bridgman,et al.  The nature of physical theory , 1936 .

[13]  Geoffrey B. Saxe,et al.  Culture and cognitive development , 1990 .

[14]  Michael P. Clough,et al.  The Nature of Science in Science Education: An Introduction , 1998 .

[15]  P. Machamer,et al.  Scientific Normativity as Non-Epistemic: A Hidden Kuhnian Legacy , 2003 .

[16]  Mary Ratcliffe,et al.  What “ideas‐about‐science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community , 2003 .

[17]  B. Latour Science in Action , 1987 .

[18]  Stillman Drake,et al.  Galileo's Discovery of the Law of Free Fall , 1973 .

[19]  L. Vygotsky Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes: Harvard University Press , 1978 .

[20]  Norman G. Lederman,et al.  Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry , 2004 .

[21]  T. P. Carpenter,et al.  Problem Solving as a Basis for Reform in Curriculum and Instruction: The Case of Mathematics , 1996 .

[22]  Joseph T Rouse,et al.  Knowledge and Power: Toward a Political Philosophy of Science , 1987 .

[23]  Randy L. Bell,et al.  Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues , 2003 .

[24]  P. Kitcher The Advancement of Science , 1993 .

[25]  Rola Khishfe,et al.  Influence of Explicit and Reflective versus Implicit Inquiry-Oriented Instruction on Sixth Graders' Views of Nature of Science. , 2002 .

[26]  H. Longino The Fate of Knowledge , 2001 .

[27]  Randy L. Bell,et al.  Just do it? impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students' understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry , 2003 .

[28]  J. Fodor,et al.  Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong , 1998 .

[29]  M. Shamos,et al.  The Myth of Scientific Literacy , 1995 .

[30]  Joseph T Rouse,et al.  Engaging Science: How to Understand Its Practices Philosophically , 1996 .

[31]  William A. Sandoval,et al.  High school students' ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit , 2003 .

[32]  Gregory J. Kelly,et al.  Methodological considerations for studying science-in-the-making in educational settings , 1998 .

[33]  A. Pickering The mangle of practice : time, agency, and science , 1997 .

[34]  Milena K. Nigam,et al.  The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction: Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning , 2022 .

[35]  M. Cole Cultural psychology: a once and future discipline? , 1996, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

[36]  N. Cartwright Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement , 1995 .

[37]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Essential Tension , 1977 .

[38]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  How do students make sense of science , 1993 .

[39]  I. Hacking,et al.  Representing and Intervening. , 1986 .

[40]  David Klahr,et al.  Cognitive development and science education: ships that pass in the night or beacons of mutual illumination? , 2001 .

[41]  Deborah G. Mayo,et al.  Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge , 1996 .

[42]  Michael J. Ford,et al.  The Game, the Pieces, and the Players: Generative Resources From Two Instructional Portrayals of Experimentation , 2005 .

[43]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[44]  Martin Goldstein,et al.  How We Know: An Exploration of the Scientific Process. , 1980 .

[45]  P. Kitcher,et al.  The advancement of science : science without legend, objectivity without illusions , 1995 .

[46]  Arthur S. Reber,et al.  Cognition Unawares. (Book Reviews: Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge. An Essay on the Cognitive Unconscious.) , 1996 .