When the black box springs open: practical work in schools and the nature of science

The aim of this paper is not to bury practical work in school science but to (once again) reconsider it. We draw on three main areas of discussion: accounts of science and ‘school science work'; teachers and others’ views of the nature of science; and our own data on teachers’ reactions to ‘critical incidents’ and practicals which go wrong. We use this as a basis for re‐thinking the role of practicals. An account of practical work is suggested which has as its main feature diversity rather than a single model or template. Within this diversity we believe that teachers should be open and honest with pupils about which type of practical work they are doing and why. We advocate that students should be made aware of the different kinds of practical work they do and the purposes of this practical work. In short, teachers should explain to students what type of practical work they are doing and why. Our second message is that teachers’ views about the nature of science both inform and are informed by their classroom practices and experiences‐‐especially during lab‐work. To encourage, promote and support critical reflection of these classroom practices and experiences is therefore a vital part of teacher professional development; this in time will promote science curriculum development.     

Eliciting,Interpreting and Developing Teachers' Understandings of the Nature of Science

This paper covers three main areas : eliciting teachers' views of the nature of science; interpreting and understanding these views; and developing them in the context of initial or in-service teacher education. The three areas clearly overlap but we begin with eliciting : this section includes a look at past probes, and then presents the notion of critical incidents, with a range of examples. We argue throughout that critical incidents can be used partly as a means of probing teachers' views of science, but also have value as a tool for professional development. We then discuss interpreting and understanding teachers' responses to critical incidents, based on our research with over 300 teachers and student teachers who have worked with them. In the third section, on developing, we pursue the argument that teachers' understandings of the nature of science are located in their professional experience. We argue that if teachers' understandings are embedded within their professional practice this has important consequences for appropriate teacher education and professional development in the area of the nature of science.     

Shaping the field: the role of academic journal editors in the construction of education as a field of study

In a previous British Journal of Sociology of Education article (Nixon & Wellington, 2005 Nixon, J. and Wellington, J. 2005. ‘Good books’: is there a future for academic writing within the educational publishing industry?. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(1): 91–103. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]) we examined current trends in book publishing and how these have influenced and will influence the construction of the field of educational studies. (The latter study was a follow‐up to an earlier study reported in Nixon [1999 Nixon, J. 1999. Teachers, writers and professionals. Is there anybody out there?. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2): 207–221. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar]].) The present article focuses on journals and their editors and, to a lesser extent, the role that the peer review process plays in shaping the field of educational studies. We use (critically rather than deferentially) notions drawn from the work of Bourdieu (1996 Bourdieu, P. 1996. The rules of art: genesis and the structure of the literary field, Cambridge: Polity Press. (Trans. S. Emanuel) [Google Scholar])—the ‘field of power’, defining boundaries, systems of dispositions, right of entry and the ‘illusio’—to consider and conceptualise data from interviews with 12 journal editors. Our own position in writing this article is as academic practitioners involved in reading, peer‐reviewing and editing academic journals within the field of educational studies.

The plea is to recognise that the pen is a mighty sword. We are of course embedded in practices and constrained by them. But these practices owe their dominance in part to the power of a normative language to hold them in place, and it is always open to us to employ the resources of our language to undermine as well as to underpin the practices. We may be freer than we sometimes suppose. (Skinner, 2002 Skinner, Q. 2002. Visions of politics. Volume 1: regarding method, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  [Google Scholar], p. 7)