Mangling with Practices

Our readings this week focused on both the practice and the practices of science. Unlike the articles read last week, these did not specifically relate to classroom instruction or learning environments, but instead focused on the community of scientists.

Collins detailed four different areas that he considered scientific knowledge, theories and models, forming questions and hypothesis, designing and carrying out investigations, and data analysis, although each of these areas can be considered a part of the scientific process. Collins argued that schools too often base science education on memorization of facts and definitions, but instead science actually “involves inquiry to make sense of phenomena in the world and find solutions to problems we face as a society”. I tend to agree that most of what we consider to be science education falls woefully short of empowering students with the tools to be an active participant in the scientific community.

Pickering offers an even bigger picture view. He likens scientific practice to the culture of science. He describes it not as a static body of information that is to be learned and memorized (as it is traditionally taught), but as a dynamic relationship between human agents (scientists) and nonhuman agents (machines) in which they struggle together to make sense of the natural world around us. He calls this relationship the mangle. Both Pickering and Collins acknowledge that each new discovery leads to more questions. I appreciated the quote from a philosopher on page 6 from Collins, “the mains source of problems in the world is solutions”. I think it aptly sums up why we must consider the culture of science as a priority in science education.

As I read these articles and tried to situate them in what I understand about K-12 education, I was excited and overwhelmed by the possibilities. Collins details many different forms of models and gives examples to show how different models can be used to highlight different properties of a particular phenomena. As a teacher, how necessary is it to be explicit about labeling types of modeling? Is it beneficial to discuss the different types of models as part of learning the process of modeling? Or does the idea of labeling them turn this dynamic process into static information. In other words, is it better for students to explore their own ideas before placing labels on them?