Rethinking the classroom science investigation
Rethinking the classroom science investigation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/tea.21625
复制
发表时间：
2020-02-28
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Schauble, Leona
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Manz, Eve;Lehrer, Richard;Schauble, Leona
现在有一部重要的研究文献致力于重新定义科学活动的概念，如建模、解释和论证，以实现课堂上科学即实践的愿景。然而，到目前为止，并不是所有的科学实践都得到了同样的关注。计划和开展调查是《下一代科学标准》中确定的八项科学实践之一，心理学和科学教育传统都有一系列研究，涉及与调查有关的主题，如证据的产生和解释。然而，在最近的研究和侧重于科学即实践的教学设计努力中，调查并没有受到协调一致的概念的重新界定。在这篇文章中，我们提出了一个框架，将调查作为构建现象、数据和解释性模型之间的比对的关键地点，并使科学家在开发和稳定比对时所从事的工作变得可见。我们认为，这些排列目前在教学环境中没有得到充分的理论性和充分的利用。我们探索了四个机会，我们认为这四个机会既是学生从小就能获得的，也可以支持概念创新。这些是(A)发展经验系统，(B)掌握经验系统，(C)将数据确定、定义和运作为“证据”，以及(D)理解经验系统的结果对我们理解有什么帮助。
There is now a significant research literature devoted to reconceptualizing scientific activities, such as modeling, explanation, and argumentation, to realize a vision of science-as-practice in classrooms. As yet, however, not all scientific practices have received equal attention. Planning and Carrying out Investigations is one of the eight scientific practices identified in the Next Generation Science Standards, and there is a long line of research from both psychological and science education traditions that addresses topics about investigation, such as the generation and interpretation of evidence. However, investigation has not been subject to concerted reconceptualization within recent research and instructional design efforts focused on science-as-practice. In this article, we propose a framework that centers the investigation as a key locus for constructing alignments among phenomena, data, and explanatory models and makes visible the work that scientists engage in as they develop and stabilize alignments. We argue that these alignments are currently under-theorized and under-utilized in instructional environments. We explore four opportunities that we argue are both accessible to students from a young age and can support conceptual innovation. These are (a) developing empirical systems, (b) getting a grip on empirical systems, (c) determining, defining and operationalizing data as "evidence," and (d) making sense of what the results of empirical systems do and do not help us understand.