Advertisement

The Materiality of Scientific Instruments and Why It Might Matter to Science Education

  • Catherine MilneEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 18)

Abstract

The issue I explore in this chapter began with my decision to investigate the history of how science came to know about the relationship between boiling point of water and air pressure (Milne C. Creating stories from history of science to problematize scientific practice: a case study of boiling points, air pressure, and thermometers. Paper presented at the twelfth biennial international history, philosophy and science teaching (IHPST) conference, University of Pittsburgh, PA, June 19–22, 2013). My studies into the history of this relationship led me to realize how much I had taken an instrument, the humble thermometer, for granted. This experience led me to realize that a focus on conceptual elements of science with an emphasis on theory development can seduce educators into ignoring the cultural affordances of the material practice of scientific instruments. I explore the question of why there is so little attention given to understanding the role of instruments in the construction of knowledge, especially in science education.

References

  1. Achieve Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Baird, D. (2004). Thing knowledge: A philosophy of scientific instruments. Berkley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
  3. Barad, K. (1998). Getting real: Technoscientific practices and the materialization of reality. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 10(2), 87–128.Google Scholar
  4. Barad, K. (2000). Reconceiving scientific literacy as agentic literacy or learning how to intra-act responsibly within the world. In R. Reid & S. Traweek (Eds.), Doing science + culture (pp. 221–258). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28, 801–831.  https://doi.org/10.1086/345321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyle, R. (1682). New experiments physico-mechanical, touching the spring of the air and its effect. London: Miles Flesher for Richard Davis.Google Scholar
  8. Camuffo, D. (2002). Calibration and instrumental errors in early measurements of air temperature. Climatic Change, 53, 297–329.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014914707832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carroll-Burke, P. (2001). Tools, instruments and engines: Getting a handle on the specificity of engine science. Social Studies of Science, 31, 593–625.  https://doi.org/10.1177/030631201031004005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang, H. (2004). Inventing temperature. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/0195171276.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dintzis, H. M. (2006). The wandering pathway to determining N to C synthesis of proteins. Some recollections concerning protein structure and biosynthesis. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 34, 241–246.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.2006.494034042642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Golinski, J. (2000). “Fit instruments”: Thermometers in eighteenth century chemistry. In F. L. Holmes & T. H. Levere (Eds.), Instruments and experimentation in the history of chemistry (pp. 185–210). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grew, N. (1684). The description and use of the pores in the skin of the hands and feet. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 14, 566–567.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1684.0028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harré, R. (2003). The materiality of instruments in a metaphysics for experiments. In H. Radder (Ed.), The philosophy of scientific experimentation (pp. 19–38). Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hooke, R. (1665/2003). Micrographia. Mineola, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
  16. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom, Continuum. London.Google Scholar
  17. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation – Philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowledge, 3(2), 29–64.Google Scholar
  19. Middleton, W. E. K. (1966). A history of the thermometer and its use in metrology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  20. Milne, C. (2013). Creating stories from history of science to problematize scientific practice: A case study of boiling points, air pressure, and thermometers. Paper presented at the twelfth biennial international history, philosophy and science teaching (IHPST) conference, University of Pittsburgh, PA, June 19–22, 2013.Google Scholar
  21. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  22. Petty, W. (1691). The political anatomy of Ireland. To which is added verbum sapienti [word to the wise]. London. D. Brown, and W. Rogers, at the Bible without Temple-Bar.Google Scholar
  23. Raman, V. V. (1973). Where credit is due: The gas laws. Physics Teacher, 11, 419–424.  https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2350104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Eisenberg, M. (2000). Beyond black boxes: Bringing transparency and aesthetics back to scientific investigation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 7–30.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0901_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rheinberger, H.-J. (1995). From microsomes to ribosomes: Strategies of representation. Journal of the History of Biology, 28, 48–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rheinberger, H.-J. (2000). Cytoplasmic particles: The trajectory of a scientific object. In L. Daston (Ed.), Biographies of scientific objects (pp. 270–294). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rouse, J. (2002). How scientific practices matter (reclaiming philosophical naturalism). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Siekevitz, P., & Zameczik, P. C. (1981). Ribosomes and protein synthesis. Journal of Cell Biology, 91, 53s–65s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Etten, H., & Oughtred, W. (1653). Mathematical recreations and description and use of the general horological ring and the double horizontal dial. London: William Leake.Google Scholar
  30. van Helden, A., & Hankins, T. L. (1994). Introduction: Instruments in the history of science. Osiris, 9, 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1086/368726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Warner, D. J. (1990). What is a scientific instrument, when did it become one, and why? British Journal for the History of Science, 23, 83–93.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087400044460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations