Bringing Inferentialism to Science Education
- 20 Downloads
In this article, I introduce Robert Brandom’s inferentialism as an alternative to common representational interpretations of constructivism in science education. By turning our attention away from the representational role of conceptual contents and toward the norms governing their use in inferences, we may interpret knowledge as a capacity to engage in a particular form of social activity, the game of giving and asking for reasons. This capacity is not readily reduced to a diagrammatic structure defining the knowledge to be acquired. By considering the application of these ideas to the concept of electrical current and the use of analogies in science education, I hope to illustrate how they may be given practical employment as the child comes to explore within the concepts derived from historical scientific endeavours and not merely meander through her individual experiences of scientific phenomena themselves. In moving away from the representational role of analogy, our focus shifts from the quality of the analogy itself toward the quality of the discourse utilising the analogy.
I would like to thank Professor Jan Derry for introducing me to many of the ideas discussed in this article and for her invaluable assistance in its preparation.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
- Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit: reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating reasons: an introduction to inferentialism. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Derry, J. 2017. An introduction to inferentialism in mathematics education. Mathematics Education Research Journal. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13394-017-0193-7. Accessed 15 Aug 2017.
- Dunbar, K. 2001. What scientific thinking reveals about the nature of cognition. In: Crowley, K., Schunn, C.D., & Okada, T. (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings. Psychology Press, pp. 103–116.Google Scholar
- Gil-Pérez, D., Guisasola, J., Moreno, A., Cachapuz, A., Pessoa de Carvalho, A. M., Martínez Torregrosa, J., Salinas, J., Valdés, P., González, E., Gené Duch, A., Dumas-Carré, A., Tricarico, H., & Gallego, R. (2002). Defending constructivism in science education. Science & Education, 11(6), 557–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hesse, M. B. (1966). Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
- Mayer, R. E. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 141–159). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- McDowell, J. (1994). Mind and world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Noddings, N. (1990). Constructivism in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, 4, 7–210.Google Scholar
- Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2007). Theoretical origins of concept maps, how to construct them, and uses in education. Reflecting Education, 3(1), 29–42.Google Scholar
- Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Ryle, G. (1945). Knowing how and knowing that: the presidential address. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, volume 46. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
- Schwedes, H., & Dudeck, W. G. (1996). Teaching electricity by help of a water analogy (how to cope with the need for conceptual change). In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: current issues and themes (pp. 50–63). London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
- Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar