Science Education and the Learning Sciences

doi:10.1017/9781108888295.030

24 - Science Education and the Learning Sciences

A Coevolutionary Connection

from Part V - Learning Disciplinary Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2022

Nancy Butler Songer and

Yael Kali

Edited by

R. Keith Sawyer

Show author details

R. Keith Sawyer: Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The chapter discussed four areas where the learning sciences and research on science education have worked together synergistically. First is the shift away from viewing learning as an individual cognitive process to the idea that knowledge and learning are situated in social and cultural context. Second is the exploration of what learning outcomes should be the focus. Learning outcomes have shifted from memorizing content knowledge to mastering the practices of science, such as the ability to solve open-ended and ill-structured problems. Third is the focus on pedagogy: what classroom practices would best support learning of scientific practice in addition to content knowledge? Fourth is a shift in the target audience for who should learn science. The shift has been away from the idea that only talented students should learn science and enter scientific careers, from a belief that science literacy is important for all students and citizens.

Keywords

science education situated learning disciplinary core ideas scientific practices crosscutting concepts citizen science

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 486 - 503

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.030 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Atias, O., Benichou, M., Sagy, O., Ben-David, A., Kali, Y., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2020). “Sometimes you’re not wrong, you’re just not right”: Advancing students’ epistemic thinking about science through in-school citizen science programs. In Proceedings of the 12th Chais Conference for the Study of Innovation and Learning Technologies: Learning in the Technological Era. Raanana, Israel: The Open University of Israel.Google Scholar

Ballard, H. L., Dixon, C. G., & Harris, E. M. (2017). Youth-focused citizen science: Examining the role of environmental science learning and agency for conservation. Biological Conservation, 208, 65–75.CrossRef Google Scholar

Barab, S., & Dede, C. (2007). Games and immersive participatory simulations for science education: An emerging type of curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 1–3.Google Scholar

Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2016). Epistemic (meta) cognition: Ways of thinking about knowledge and knowing. In Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., & Bråten, I. (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 409–424). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (1963). High school biology: BSCS green version student manual, laboratory, and field investigations. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar

Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. In Büching, C. & Walter-Herrmann, J. (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors (pp. 203–222). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar

Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473–498.Google Scholar

Brown, A., Ellery, S., & Campione, J. C. (1998). Creating zones of proximal development electronically. In Greeno, J. G. & Goldman, S. (Eds.), Thinking practices: A symposium in mathematics and science education (pp. 341–368). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Egyptian Ministry of Planning and Economic Development. (2016). Sustainable development strategy: Egypt’s vision 2030. Retrieved December 1, 2020 from https://mped.gov.eg/EgyptVision?lang=en#:~:text=Egypt%20Vision%202030%20focuses%20on,life%2C%20in%20conjunction%20with%20high%2C Google Scholar

Golumbic, Y. N., Fishbain, B., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2019). User centered design of a citizen science air-quality monitoring project. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 9(3), 1–19.CrossRef Google Scholar

Harris, E. M., Dixon, C. G., Bird, E. B., & Ballard, H. L. (2020). For science and self: Youth interactions with data in community and citizen science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(2), 224–263.Google Scholar

Hecker, S., Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel, J., & Bonn, A. (2018). Citizen science: Innovation in open science, society and policy. London, England: UCL Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hod, Y., Bielaczyc, K., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2018). Revisiting learning communities: Innovations in theory and practice. Instructional Science, 46(4), 489–506.Google Scholar

Hod, Y., & Sagy, O. (2019). Conceptualizing the designs of authentic computer-supported collaborative learning environments in schools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(2), 143–164.Google Scholar

Hod, Y., Sagy, O, Kali, Y., & TCSS. (2018). The opportunities of networks of research-practice partnerships and why CSCL should not give up on large-scale educational change. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(4),457–466.Google Scholar

Holland, D., & Lave, J. (2009). Social practice theory and the historical production of persons. Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2, 1–15.Google Scholar

Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York, NY: Basic Books.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kali, Y. (2016). Transformative learning in design research: The story behind the scenes. In Looi, C. K., Polman, J. L., Cress, U., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners (Vol. 1, pp. 4–5). The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2016. Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

Kali, Y. (2021). Guiding frameworks for the design of inquiry learning environments. In Golan Duncan, R. & Chinn, C. A. (Eds.), International handbook on inquiry and learning (pp. 39–59). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kali, Y., Linn, M. C., & Roseman, J. E. (2008). Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Kali, Y., Sagy, O., Benichou, M., Atias, A., & Levin-Peled, R. (2019). Teaching expertise reconsidered: The Technology, Pedagogy, Content, and Space (TPeCS) knowledge framework. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2162–2177.CrossRef Google Scholar

Karplus, R., & Thier, H. D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar

Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D. (2010). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In Goswami, U. (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed., pp. 497–523). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. In Pea, R. & Brown, J. S. (Eds.), Learning in doing: Social, cognitive, and computational perspectives (pp. 29–129). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Metz, K. (2000). Young children’s inquiry in biology: Building the knowledge bases to empower independent inquiry. In Minstrell, J. & van Zee, E. (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 371–404). Washington, DC: AAAS.Google Scholar

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Learning through citizen science: Enhancing opportunities by design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

National Research Council (NRC). (2019). Science and engineering for grades 6–12: Investigation and design at the center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10/17226/2516 Google Scholar

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved on November 10, 2021 from www.nextgenscience.org Google Scholar

OECD. (2018). OECD: The future of education and skills education 2030. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf Google Scholar

Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved May 29, 2013 from www.p21.org/tools-and-resources/policy-maker#defining Google Scholar

Pea, R., & Collins, A. (2008). Learning how to do science education: Four waves of reform. In Kali, Y., Linn, M. C., & Roseman, J. E. (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 3–12). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Pellegrino, J. W. (2020). Sciences of learning and development: Some thoughts from the learning sciences. Applied Developmental Science, 24(1), 48–56.CrossRef Google Scholar

Penuel, B., & Reiser, B. J. (2018). Designing NGSS curriculum materials. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_189504.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm2Z0Q3-AmNoAk1sIBFM6krh_BYbqQ&nossl=1&oi=scholarr Google Scholar

Pietrocola, M., Rodrigues, E., Bercot, F., & Schnorr, S. (2020, June 2). Science education in pandemic times: What can we learn from COVID-19 on science technology and risk society. doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/chtgv CrossRef Google Scholar

Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.Google Scholar

Rogoff, B., Moore, L., Najafi, B., Dexter, A., Correa-Chavez, M., & Solis, J. (2007). Children’s development of cultural repertoires through participation in everyday routines and practices. In Grusec, J. E. & Hastings, P. D. (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 490–515). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42.Google Scholar

Sadler, T. D., Friedrichsen, P., Zangori, L., & Ke, L. (2020). Technology-supported professional development for collaborative design of COVID-19 instructional materials. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 171–177.Google Scholar

Sagy, O., Golumbic, Y., Abramsky, H., et al. (2019). Citizen science: An opportunity for learning in a networked society. In Kali, Y., Baram-Tsabary, A., & Schejter, A. (Eds.), Learning in a networked society: Spontaneous and designed technology enhanced learning communities (pp. 97–115). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

Sharon, A. J., & Baram‐Tsabari, A. (2020). Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life? Science Education, 104(3).Google Scholar

Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 20(7), 4–14.Google Scholar

Songer, N. B. (2006). BioKIDS: An animated conversation on the development of curricular activity structures for inquiry science. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 355–369). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Songer, N. B., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A. (2009). How and when does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 610–631.CrossRef Google Scholar

Tabak, I., Ben-Zvi, D., & Kali, Y. (2019). Technology-enhanced learning communities on a continuum between spontaneous and designed. In Kali, Y., Baram-Tsabary, A., & Schejter, A. (Eds.), Learning in a networked society: Spontaneous and designed technology enhanced learning communities (pp. 25–37). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387–1410.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). New directions in socioscientific issues research. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 1–9.Google Scholar

Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.