Advertisement

Bringing Inferentialism to Science Education

  • Edward CaustonEmail author
Article
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1995). Reflections on a fifth-grade life science lesson: making sense of children’s understanding of scientific models. International Journal of Science Education, 17(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G., & Ritchie, S. M. (2006). Metaphor and analogy. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education (pp. 1–9). Dordecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bächtold, M. (2013). What do students “construct” according to constructivism in science education? Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2477–2496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakker, A., & Derry, J. (2011). Lessons from inferentialism for statistics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(1–2), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanchette, I., & Dunbar, K. (2000). How analogies are generated: the roles of structural and superficial similarity. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 108–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit: reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating reasons: an introduction to inferentialism. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brandom, R. (2007). Inferentialism and some of its challenges. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74(3), 651–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coll, R. K., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Derry, J. (2008). Abstract rationality in education: from Vygotsky to Brandom. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(1), 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Derry, J. (2013). Vygotsky philosophy and education. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.
  13. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Dunne, J. (2005). An intricate fabric: Understanding the rationality of practice. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 13(3), 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fodor, J., & Lepore, E. (2001). Brandom’s burdens: compositionality and inferentialism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(2), 465–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gentner, D. R., & Gentner, D. (2014). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental Model (pp. 99–127). New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Haglund, J. (2013). Collaborative and self-generated analogies in science education. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 35–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrison, A. G. (2006). The affective dimension of analogy. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education (pp. 51–63). Dordecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Teaching and learning with analogies: friend or foe? In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education (pp. 11–24). Dordecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hesse, M. B. (1966). Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  25. Heywood, D. (2002). The place of analogies in science education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heywood, D., & Parker, J. (2009). The role of analogies in learning. In D. Heywood & J. Parker (Eds.), The Pedagogy of Physical Science (pp. 39–64). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marabini, A., & Moretti, L. (2017). Assessing concept possession as an explicit and social practice. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51(4), 801–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Matthews, M. R. (1993). Constructivism and science education: Some epistemological problems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(1), 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matthews, M. R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: a further appraisal. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McDowell, J. (1994). Mind and world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: a theory-guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Noddings, N. (1990). Constructivism in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, 4, 7–210.Google Scholar
  37. Noorloos, R., Taylor, S. D., Bakker, A., & Derry, J. (2017). Inferentialism as an alternative to socioconstructivism in mathematics education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(4), 437–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Ogborn, J. (1997). Constructivist metaphors of learning science. Science & Education, 6, 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Osborne, J. F. (1996). Beyond constructivism. Science Education, 80(1), 53–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peregrin, J. (2014). Inferentialism: why rules matter. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pittman, K. M. (1999). Student-generated analogies: Another way of knowing? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prien, B. (2010). Robert Brandom on communication, reference, and objectivity. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 18(3), 433–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Schindler, M., Hußmann, S., Nilsson, P., & Bakker, A. (2017). Sixth-grade students’ reasoning on the order relation of integers as influenced by prior experience: an inferentialist analysis. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(4), 471–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Sellars, W. (1953). Inference and meaning. Mind, 62(247), 313–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Taylor, S. D., Noorloos, R., & Bakker, A. (2017). Mastering as an inferentialist alternative to the acquisition and participation metaphors for learning. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51(4), 769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. von Glasersfeld, E. (2001). The radical constructivist view of science. Foundations of Science, 6(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vygotsky, L. S. (1939). Thought and speech. Psychiatry, 2(1), 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Williams, J. J., & Brandom, R. (2013). Inferential man: an interview with Robert Brandom. Symplokē, 21(1–2), 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nottingham Trent International CollegeNottinghamUK
  2. 2.Wimborne, DorsetUK

Personalised recommendations