Page 76 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 76
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 5–6
concerning density. Some children seemed to have acquired new concepts
but in fact did not understand what they imply or how to use them cor-
rectly in scientific contexts.5 The teacher, in this view, did not support the
children’s conceptual learning because she did not follow up on their con-
clusions or discuss them further or in any greater depth, she also did not
introduce concepts in a scientifically correct way. One explanation may
be that she did not fully understand the concept of density. Indeed, pre-
school teachers are required to teach science, yet often do not possess nec-
essary knowledge, as research shows (see ibid., pp. 277–278, for an exten-
sive overview). They have insufficient subject matter knowledge, which
limits them in answering children’s questions about complex natural phe-
nomena in a scientific way accessible to young children. Low levels of sub-
ject-specific knowledge also result in low self-confidence and reluctance
to teach science. But Andersson and Gullberg propose that, instead of
regarding teachers as the problem, it is worth ensuring that researchers
e.g. “investigate what happens if the natural sciences per se and /that/ the
view of the sciences are scrutinized” (ibid., p. 278).6 This becomes possible
when using the second perspective, defined by a feminist approach, where
the floating-sinking activity is investigated by focusing on whether it con-
tributes to a feeling of participation in a scientific context for the children
and, if so, what is the teacher doing to promote this inclusion. This view
examines the potential held by preschool science activities in developing
values and knowledge other than children’s conceptual understanding.
This perspective showed that the children’s scientific proficiency benefit-
ed from the situation and that they had a positive experience with den-
sity, which was reinforced by the teacher. By using the experimental ap-
proach and having some freedom to experiment on their own outside of
the teacher’s structure, the children discovered that they possessed pow-
er over their own learning. The teacher had an important role in challeng-
ing and encouraging the children in learning science. These findings show
5 One girl used the word “experiment”, but did so in a way that did not make sense.
6 The dominant view of scientific knowledge as value-neutral and context-independent is
partly a consequence of the many technological and medical advances which have helped
secure the natural sciences’ status of authority in the twentieth century in Euro-Western
societies (Keller & Longino, 1996, in Andersson & Gullberg, 2012, p. 278). This dominant
view had been questioned, however, by feminist scholars like Donna Haraway (1991) and
Sandra Harding (1986), who had argued that the natural sciences are culturally situated
and hierarchically organised. Feminist science education researchers emphasise the im-
portance of cultural aspects of learning. They are curious about which knowledge counts
as scientific and why, while stressing the importance of active reflection and informed and
engaged criticism of: the social construction of science; the impact science has on society;
and of the power dimensions in the scientific community (Hildebrand, 2001, in Anders-
son & Gullberg, 2012, p. 278).
74
concerning density. Some children seemed to have acquired new concepts
but in fact did not understand what they imply or how to use them cor-
rectly in scientific contexts.5 The teacher, in this view, did not support the
children’s conceptual learning because she did not follow up on their con-
clusions or discuss them further or in any greater depth, she also did not
introduce concepts in a scientifically correct way. One explanation may
be that she did not fully understand the concept of density. Indeed, pre-
school teachers are required to teach science, yet often do not possess nec-
essary knowledge, as research shows (see ibid., pp. 277–278, for an exten-
sive overview). They have insufficient subject matter knowledge, which
limits them in answering children’s questions about complex natural phe-
nomena in a scientific way accessible to young children. Low levels of sub-
ject-specific knowledge also result in low self-confidence and reluctance
to teach science. But Andersson and Gullberg propose that, instead of
regarding teachers as the problem, it is worth ensuring that researchers
e.g. “investigate what happens if the natural sciences per se and /that/ the
view of the sciences are scrutinized” (ibid., p. 278).6 This becomes possible
when using the second perspective, defined by a feminist approach, where
the floating-sinking activity is investigated by focusing on whether it con-
tributes to a feeling of participation in a scientific context for the children
and, if so, what is the teacher doing to promote this inclusion. This view
examines the potential held by preschool science activities in developing
values and knowledge other than children’s conceptual understanding.
This perspective showed that the children’s scientific proficiency benefit-
ed from the situation and that they had a positive experience with den-
sity, which was reinforced by the teacher. By using the experimental ap-
proach and having some freedom to experiment on their own outside of
the teacher’s structure, the children discovered that they possessed pow-
er over their own learning. The teacher had an important role in challeng-
ing and encouraging the children in learning science. These findings show
5 One girl used the word “experiment”, but did so in a way that did not make sense.
6 The dominant view of scientific knowledge as value-neutral and context-independent is
partly a consequence of the many technological and medical advances which have helped
secure the natural sciences’ status of authority in the twentieth century in Euro-Western
societies (Keller & Longino, 1996, in Andersson & Gullberg, 2012, p. 278). This dominant
view had been questioned, however, by feminist scholars like Donna Haraway (1991) and
Sandra Harding (1986), who had argued that the natural sciences are culturally situated
and hierarchically organised. Feminist science education researchers emphasise the im-
portance of cultural aspects of learning. They are curious about which knowledge counts
as scientific and why, while stressing the importance of active reflection and informed and
engaged criticism of: the social construction of science; the impact science has on society;
and of the power dimensions in the scientific community (Hildebrand, 2001, in Anders-
son & Gullberg, 2012, p. 278).
74
