Attending to the public understanding of science education

A response to Furtak and Penuel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

This commentary is a response to Furtak and Penuel (2019), and raises four key points. The first is to reframe Furtak and Penuel's argument as an appeal for a public understanding of science education, and by extension, science education reform. The second is to note that such a public understanding of science education must include attention to more than the structure and content of science curricula and the enactment of a “practice turn”; it must also include a robust vision of science pedagogy—something that is markedly absent from the recent Next Generation Science Standards and Framework documents. The third is to make the case that the use of terminology like “hands-on” is really a marker for a conception of science education, and by attempting to communicate a competing model of science education, reformers are aiming to effect conceptual change among the public about science education itself. Finally, I argue that logical and rational efforts to communicate a public understanding of science education are likely to fall short if affective factors—which are highly activated when discussing science and science education publicly—are not taken into account.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1294-1300
Number of pages7
JournalScience Education
Volume103
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jan 2019

Fingerprint

science
education
Public Understanding of Science
Science Education
technical language
appeal
curriculum
reform

Keywords

  • conceptual change
  • public understanding of science
  • public understanding of science education
  • science pedagogy
  • science standards

Cite this

@article{0a2992af42d9442f97fc671307966c04,
title = "Attending to the public understanding of science education: A response to Furtak and Penuel",
abstract = "This commentary is a response to Furtak and Penuel (2019), and raises four key points. The first is to reframe Furtak and Penuel's argument as an appeal for a public understanding of science education, and by extension, science education reform. The second is to note that such a public understanding of science education must include attention to more than the structure and content of science curricula and the enactment of a “practice turn”; it must also include a robust vision of science pedagogy—something that is markedly absent from the recent Next Generation Science Standards and Framework documents. The third is to make the case that the use of terminology like “hands-on” is really a marker for a conception of science education, and by attempting to communicate a competing model of science education, reformers are aiming to effect conceptual change among the public about science education itself. Finally, I argue that logical and rational efforts to communicate a public understanding of science education are likely to fall short if affective factors—which are highly activated when discussing science and science education publicly—are not taken into account.",
keywords = "conceptual change, public understanding of science, public understanding of science education, science pedagogy, science standards",
author = "Douglas Larkin",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/sce.21537",
language = "English",
volume = "103",
pages = "1294--1300",
journal = "Science Education",
issn = "0036-8326",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "5",

}

Attending to the public understanding of science education : A response to Furtak and Penuel. / Larkin, Douglas.

In: Science Education, Vol. 103, No. 5, 01.01.2019, p. 1294-1300.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Attending to the public understanding of science education

T2 - A response to Furtak and Penuel

AU - Larkin, Douglas

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - This commentary is a response to Furtak and Penuel (2019), and raises four key points. The first is to reframe Furtak and Penuel's argument as an appeal for a public understanding of science education, and by extension, science education reform. The second is to note that such a public understanding of science education must include attention to more than the structure and content of science curricula and the enactment of a “practice turn”; it must also include a robust vision of science pedagogy—something that is markedly absent from the recent Next Generation Science Standards and Framework documents. The third is to make the case that the use of terminology like “hands-on” is really a marker for a conception of science education, and by attempting to communicate a competing model of science education, reformers are aiming to effect conceptual change among the public about science education itself. Finally, I argue that logical and rational efforts to communicate a public understanding of science education are likely to fall short if affective factors—which are highly activated when discussing science and science education publicly—are not taken into account.

AB - This commentary is a response to Furtak and Penuel (2019), and raises four key points. The first is to reframe Furtak and Penuel's argument as an appeal for a public understanding of science education, and by extension, science education reform. The second is to note that such a public understanding of science education must include attention to more than the structure and content of science curricula and the enactment of a “practice turn”; it must also include a robust vision of science pedagogy—something that is markedly absent from the recent Next Generation Science Standards and Framework documents. The third is to make the case that the use of terminology like “hands-on” is really a marker for a conception of science education, and by attempting to communicate a competing model of science education, reformers are aiming to effect conceptual change among the public about science education itself. Finally, I argue that logical and rational efforts to communicate a public understanding of science education are likely to fall short if affective factors—which are highly activated when discussing science and science education publicly—are not taken into account.

KW - conceptual change

KW - public understanding of science

KW - public understanding of science education

KW - science pedagogy

KW - science standards

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070377226&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/sce.21537

DO - 10.1002/sce.21537

M3 - Article

VL - 103

SP - 1294

EP - 1300

JO - Science Education

JF - Science Education

SN - 0036-8326

IS - 5

ER -