A Cartographic Approach Toward the Study of Academics’ of Science Teaching and Learning Research Practices and Values

Disciplinary Bias, Money Matters, and Persistence: Deans’ Perspectives on Science Faculty with Education Specialties (SFES)

“…While boundary work has its origins in the demarcation between science and religion, SFES may represent a new realm of boundary work that distinguishes a distinctly science discipline-based approach to science education-with unique approaches, values, and cultural normsfrom a traditional social science approach to science education (Lamont, 2001;NRC, 2012). The extent to which the SFES phenomenon reflects an explicit attempt by scientific disciplines to engage in boundary work in science education is unclear; perhaps the common requirement that SFES are "card-carrying scientists" emerges more from implicit biases about professional identity within the culture of science than explicit boundary demarcations (Brownell and Tanner, 2012;Wooten, 2018Wooten, , 2019. As shown in previous research on SFES (Bush et al, 2008(Bush et al, , 2013, the absence of joint appointments or more extensive collaborations with colleges of education, alongside a preference for basic science credentials over science education training in the desired professional qualifications of SFES, suggests that SFES positions represent the construction of a clear boundary between these discipline-based science education efforts and traditional science education efforts in colleges of education.…”

“…While boundary work has its origins in the demarcation between science and religion, SFES may represent a new realm of boundary work that distinguishes a distinctly science discipline–based approach to science education—with unique approaches, values, and cultural norms—from a traditional social science approach to science education ( Lamont, 2001 ; NRC, 2012 ). The extent to which the SFES phenomenon reflects an explicit attempt by scientific disciplines to engage in boundary work in science education is unclear; perhaps the common requirement that SFES are “card-carrying scientists” emerges more from implicit biases about professional identity within the culture of science than explicit boundary demarcations ( Brownell and Tanner, 2012 ; Wooten, 2018 , 2019 ). As shown in previous research on SFES ( Bush et al.…”

“…In still other instances, these education specialists are scientific trainees, often postdoctoral fellows, who partner with permanent faculty to foster innovation and change (Wieman, 2009(Wieman, , 2017Bush et al, 2010;Chasteen and Code, 2018). Regardless of the specifics of these different position types, how well education positions will be accepted and integrated into the culture of the natural sciences is unclear (Brownell and Tanner, 2012;Wooten, 2018Wooten, , 2019, and little systematic research has been conducted on most of these models.…”

“…, 2010 ; Chasteen and Code, 2018 ). Regardless of the specifics of these different position types, how well education positions will be accepted and integrated into the culture of the natural sciences is unclear ( Brownell and Tanner, 2012 ; Wooten, 2018 , 2019 ), and little systematic research has been conducted on most of these models.…”

Practice Teaching of Landscape Survey Course Based on eCognition Remote Sensing Image Interpretation* Technology

“…The traditional knowledge export-oriented talent training model has profoundly changed to the innovation ability guided by practice teaching. Digital technology has become the core carrier of today's classrooms and tomorrow's workplace (Wooten, 2018). In view of the comprehensive, practical and logical characteristics in modern landscape architecture education, practice teaching should centre on the cultivation of students' comprehensive ability and creative practice ability, and through digital analysis put emphasis on students' cooperative training of problem discovery, analysis and solving in practice, forming a full-process systematic knowledge structure of "problem discovery and induction →scientific assessment and judgment → conceptual scheme generation → program discussion and deepening → outcome expression and verification" (Wu, 2015).…”