Advertisement

Scientific Practices as an Actor-Network of Literacy Events: Forging a Convergence Between Disciplinary Literacy and Scientific Practices

  • Kok-Sing TangEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 49)

Abstract

Researchers working in the intersection of literacy and science education have increasingly acknowledged and emphasised the convergence between disciplinary literacy and scientific practices. Although there is a need to connect disciplinary literacy and scientific practices, there has been little theoretical development that bridges the two areas with a common conceptual frame of reference. In this chapter, I explore several key ideas that inform recent developments in disciplinary literacy and scientific practices and subsequently develop an approach based on actor-network theory to link those ideas. In particular, I conceptualise scientific practices as an actor-network of literacy events distributed across human and non-human actors over time and space. Using examples from classroom events, I illustrate how this approach provides a way to analyse the enactment and characteristic of scientific practices in terms of the network configuration of literacy events that are observable and interactionally constructed through language.

References

  1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. E. Law (Ed.), Power, action, and belief: A new sociology of knowledge (pp. 196–233). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  4. Coupland, N., Sarangi, S., & Candlin, C. N. (2014). Sociolinguistics and social theory: London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Erduran, S. (2015). Introduction to the focus on … scientific practices. Science Education, 99(6), 1023–1025.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation science standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041–1048.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gee, J. P. (2005). The new literacy studies: From ‘socially situated’ to the work. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (Vol. 2, pp. 177–194). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Gee, J. P. (2011). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Hayakawa, S. I., & Hayakawa, A. R. (1990). Language in thought and action (5th ed.). San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  13. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hymes, D. (1964). Introduction: Toward ethnographies of communication. American Anthropologist, 66(6), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim, M., & Roth, W.-M. (2014). Argumentation as/in/for dialogical relation: A case study from elementary school science. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 9(4), 300–321.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2014.955498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  17. Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545–552.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611402512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Latour, B. (1996). Aramis, or, the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, UK/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Leander, K. M., & Lovvorn, J. F. (2006). Literacy networks: Following the circulation of texts, bodies, and objects in the schooling and online gaming of one youth. Cognition and Instruction, 24(3), 291–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  24. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McComas, W. F., & Nouri, N. (2016). The nature of science and the next generation science standards: Analysis and critique. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(5), 555–576.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9474-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mody, C. C. M. (2015). Scientific practice and science education. Science Education, 99(6), 1026–1032.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  29. National Research Council. (2014). Literacy for science: Exploring the intersection of the next generation science standards and common core for ELA standards, a workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  30. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rodriguez, A. J. (2015). What about a dimension of engagement, equity, and diversity practices? A critique of the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 1031–1051.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (1997). Cascades of inscriptions and the re-presentation of nature: How numbers, tables, graphs, and money come to re-present a rolling ball. International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 1075–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stroupe, D. (2015). Describing “science practice” in learning settings. Science Education, 99(6), 1033–1040.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tang, K. S. (2016). Constructing scientific explanations through premise–reasoning–outcome (PRO): An exploratory study to scaffold students in structuring written explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1415–1440.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1192309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tang, K. S., & Danielsson, K. (Eds.). (2018). Global developments in literacy research for science education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Tang, K. S., Ho, C., & Putra, G. B. S. (2016). Developing multimodal communication competencies: A case of disciplinary literacy focus in Singapore. In M. Mcdermott & B. Hand (Eds.), Using multimodal representations to support learning in the science classroom (pp. 135–158). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tang, K. S., & Putra, G. B. S. (2017). Infusing literacy into an inquiry instructional model to support students’ construction of scientific explanations. In K. S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.STEM Education Research GroupCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations