The local production of order in traditional science laboratories: A phenomenological analysis

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 107-136

  Roth, Wolff Michael ^a   McRobbie, Campbell J ^b   Lucas, Keith B ^b   Boutonné, Sylvie ^a  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031161371     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00013-8     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Amann, K., & Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1988). The fixation of (visual) evidence. Human Studies, 11, 133-169.
2. Amerine, R., & Bilmes, J. (1990). Following instructions. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 323-335). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
3. Bauersfeld, H. (1992). Integrating theories for mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 12(2), 19-28.
4. Bergqvist, K., & Säljö, R. (1994). Conceptually blindfolded in the optics laboratory. Dilemmas of inductive learning. European Journal of Psychology in Education, 9, 149-158.
5. Collins, H. M. (1982). Tacit knowledge and scientific networks. In B. Barnes & D. Edge (Eds.), Science in context: Readings in the sociology of science (pp. 44-64). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
6. Dreyfus, H. L. (1991). Being-in-the-World: A commentary of Heidegger's 'Being and Time,' division 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
7. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.
8. Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
9. Feyerabend, P. (1976). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.
10. Garfinkel, H. (1991). Respecification: evidence for locally produced naturally accountable phenomena of order*, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc. in an as of the essential haecceity of immortal ordinary society, (I) - an announcement of studies. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 10-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., & Livingston, E. (1981). The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 131-158.
12. Gieryn, T. (1996). Policing STS: A boundary-work souvenir from the Smithsonian exhibition on "Science in American Life." Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21, 100-115.
13. Gooding, D. (1990). Mapping experiment as learning process: How the first electromagnetic motor was invented. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15, 165-201.
14. Gooding, D. (1992). Putting agency back into experiment. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 65-112). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Heidegger, M. (1977). Sein und zeit [Being and time]. Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer.
16. Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 70, 33-40.
17. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. M. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research. 52, 201-217.
18. Jordan, K., & Lynch, M. (1993). The mainstreaming of a molecular biological tool: A case study of a new technique. In G. Button (Ed.), Technology in working order: Studies of work, interaction, and technology (pp. 162-178). London: Routledge.
19. Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1992). The couch, the cathedral, and the laboratory: On the relationship between experiment and laboratory in science. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 113-138). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
22. Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Lynch, M., Livingston, E., & Garfinkel, H. (1983). Temporal order in laboratory work. In K. D. Knorr-Cetina & M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science (pp. 205-238). London: Sage.
24. McRobbie, C. M., Roth, W. -M., & Lucas, K. B. (in press). Multiple learning environments in a physics classroom. International Journal of Educational Research.
25. Mulkay, M., & Gilbert, G. N. (1986). Replication and mere replication. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 16, 21-37.
26. Pollner, M. (1987). Mundane reason: Reality in everyday and sociological discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Roth, W. -M. (1994). Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 197-223.
29. Roth, W. -M. (1995). Affordances of computers in teacher-student interactions: The case of Interactive Physics™. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 329-347.
30. Roth, W. -M., & Bowen, G. M. (1995). Knowing and interacting: A study of culture, practices, and resources in a Grade 8 open -inquiry science classroom guided by a cognitive apprenticeship metaphor. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 73-128.
31. Roth, W. -M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 127-152.
32. Roth, W. -M., Lucas, K. B., McRobbie, C., & Boutonné, S. (1996). One class, many worlds, (in preparation).
33. Roth, W.-M., McRobbie, C., Lucas, K. B., & Boutonné, S. (in press). Why do students fail to learn from demonstrations? A social practice perspective on learning in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
34. Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Is it minds-off science? A concern for the elementary grades. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 5, 87-96.
35. Säljö, R., & Bergqvist, K. (in press). Seeing the light: Discourse and practice in the optics lab. In L. Resnick, C. Pontecorvo, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning. New York: Springer.
36. Schollum, B., & Osborne, R. (1985). Relating the new to the familiar. In R. Osborne & P. Freyberg (Eds.), Learning in science: The implications of children's science. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
37. Schwegler, H. (1991). Konstruierte Wissenschaftswelten: Die Erfahrungen eines Physikers [Constructed worlds of science: The experiences of a physicist]. In S. J. Schmidt (Ed.), Kognition und Gesellschaft. Der Diskurs des radikalen Konstruktivismus II (pp. 257-276). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
38. Shepardson, D. P., Moje, E. B., & Kennard-McClelland, A. M. (1994). The impact of a science demonstration on childrens' understanding of air pressure. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 243-258.
39. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Suchman, L. A., & Trigg, R. H. (1993). Artificial intelligence as craftwork. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 144-178). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403-418.
42. Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. J. (1987). What happens in high school science classrooms? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 549-560.
43. Tweney, R. D., & Chitwood, S. T. (in press). Scientific Reasoning. In S. Newstead & J. Evans (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking and reasoning: Essays in Honor of Peter Watson. Hove, E. Sussex: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1993). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
45. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1987). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
46. Woolgar, S. (1990). Time and documents in researcher interaction: Some ways of making out what is happening in experimental science. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 123-152). Cambridge, MA: MIT.