Understanding the limits of Marxist approaches to sociocultural studies of science education

In the first three sections of this paper we comment on some of the ideas developed in the forum papers, pointing out possible misunderstandings and constructing new explanations that clarify arguments we made in the original article. In the last section we expand the discussion raised in the original paper, elaborating on the limits of the use of Marxist approaches to sociocultural studies of science education. Following insights suggested by Loxley et al. (Cult Stud Sci Edu. doi:10.1007/s11422-013-9554-z, 2013) and detailed by Zuss (Cult Stud Sci Edu, 2014) on the commodification of knowledge, we sketch an analysis of how knowledge is transformed into capital to understand why contemporary scholars are likely to be engaged in a relation of production that resembles capitalist exploitation.     

Conceptualizing the margins in science education: the limits of multicultural analyses

Cultural Studies of Science Education - Using a phenomenographic design, this research reports on a study of a cohort (N?=?22) of graduate students’ conceptualizations of...     

The limits of socialisation

The article deals with the question of living with others, one of the most significant relationships of human life, and challenge the common understanding of the origins of living with others, where a human being is not just becoming a social but also a moral being through social institutions of societies. This common understanding of a social relationship, fostered and nurtured by a given society, places the responsibility for the possibility of living with others on the other. Drawing on the work from the sociologists Zygmunt Bauman and George Simmel and the philosophers Emmanuel Levinas and Knud Løgstrup we argue that the possibility of living with others is based on the rights of the other rather than of the rights to determine whom the other is.By focusing on the relation between the individual and the society on the one hand, and the connections between being moral and being social on the other hand, we suggest that the process of socialisation is devastating not only for human beings individuality and his or her moral capacity but also for a responsive educational praxis. We explore the ways in which an understanding of socialisation as the making of the social being is intimately linked to how institutional education ‘thinks itself.’ This exploration is followed by a critical discussion of the limits of socialisation, and therefore also the limits of education. By considering some of the problems about the making of the social being we arrive at the conclusion that there is the possibility for education to be somewhere else rather than within socialisation. This conclusion leads us to explore the possibilities for an educational praxis that embraces the other without holding the individuals otherness against them.     

Postcolonial foldings of space and identity in science education: limits, transformations, prospects

The four essays reviewed here constitute a worthwhile attempt to discuss various aspects of postcolonial theory, and offer constructive ideas to ongoing academic as well as public conversations with respect to whether science education can meet the challenges of educating an increasingly diverse population in the 21st century. These essays are grounded in the assumption that it is difficult to make meaningful and transformative changes in science education so that educators’ efforts take into consideration the dramatic changes (i.e., diverse culture and racial origins, language, economic status etc.) of ‘an era of globalization’ in order to meet the demands of today’s schools. Each of these four essays problematizes various aspects of the social and cultural conditions of science education nowadays using different ‘postcolonial’ ideas to interpret the implications for science learning and teaching. Although the term ‘postcolonial’ has certainly multiple meanings in the literature, we use this term here to describe the philosophical position of these essays to challenge long-standing and hegemonic practices and taken-for-granted assumptions in science education. Through critical analysis of these essays, we engage in a dialogue with the authors, focusing on two of what seem crucial issues in understanding the potential contributions as well as the risks of postcolonial concepts in science education; these issues are space and identity. We choose these issues because they permeate all four essays in interesting and often provocative ways.

计算极限的方法小结

极限计算是微积分的基本计算之一,文章针对不同类型的极限问题,给出了一些极限计算的思想方法及具体操作过程。     

The origins of science

In Part I of this essay, we had tried to locate a time, a place and a man in history from whom, one could argue, the great enterprise that we call science began. In this second and concluding part, we will examine the course of philosophy immediately after Thales’ great intellectual leap.     

The origins of science

Science is arguably the most revolutionary social activity known to us. It has transformed us and our environment in ways unimaginable three thousand years ago. If we are healthier, wealthier and wiser (but maybe not happier?) than our forefathers, it is largely due to modern science. Unfortunately, not many of us stop to reflect on how this unique social activity originated. In this essay in two parts, I hope to offer an account that is representative rather than comprehensive or definitive. It reflects and is limited by my own reading on this subject but I hope that it may persuade the reader to enquire further into the nature of the origins of science. Part I deals with the period leading to the great intellectual leap made by the Ionian philosopher Thales. Part II, which will appear in a future issue will complete the study of the Greek odyssey into philosophy immediately after Thales.     

浅析科学普及、公众理解科学、科学传播之异同

科学普及、公众理解科学、科学传播代表了20世纪科学传播事业发展的三个阶段,是由传统的单向的科学普及转向一个新的形态即科学传播。从这个变化的过程中理解科学普及、公众理解科学、科学传播具有深刻的意义,明晰科学普及与科学传播差别,从而更好地去适应新时期新时代视野更广、内含更深的广义科学普及的事业发展。     

The philosophical basis of observation in science and science education

Observation plays a fundamental role in scientific investigation. Scientific observation sometimes involves relatively simple activities requiring little preparation and unsophisticated interpretation. At other times, however, scientific observation is an extremely complex activity, indeed among the most challenging enterprises in which human beings engage. The science education field typically portrays only that segment of scientific observation at the simple end of this spectrum. In doing this, there is a risk that students will acquire a distorted image of scientific observation, and develop observational skills which are not at all adequate for the role which observation plays in science. An alternative account of observation in science is presented and its implications for science teaching are discussed.     

The relationship between attitudes toward science and science achievement

This study investigated the relationship between elementary pupils' attitudes toward science and their science achievement. Residualized gain scores were used to analyze the data. By using residualized gain scores, the effects of individual differences can be minimized. In addition to controlling for these differences, residualized gain scores do not possess the measurement errors that are normally associated with simple change scores. The subjects of this study were 583 intermediate elementary pupils. The average class size was 21. A pretest-posttest design was used. To insure consistency in the teaching of the lesson, each teacher was given an identical detailed science lesson that included all the instructions and materials needed for the activity. The pupils were pre- and posttested. The pupils' science achievement was assessed by a test, the “Hough Pupil Process Test.” It consisted of multiple choice and fill-in questions. The attitude instrument, the “Hough Attitude Inventory,” was given to the elementary pupils involved in this study. It was field tested and found to discern attitudes. The instrument consisted of six statements to which the subjects responded by circling either yes, I don't know, or no. The analysis revealed that there was a significant relationship between the pupils' residualized gain scores on the “Hough Pupil Process Test” and their residualized gain scores on the “Hough Attitude Inventory” (r = 0.45).