The mangle of school science practice: Teachers’ negotiations of two nature of science activities at different levels of contextualization

Abstract

Nature of science (NOS) has increasingly been emphasized as an important element in science education. This paper engages in the question of how teachers negotiate different approaches to and contexts for NOS teaching. This exploratory study is part of a three-year longitudinal project where six in-service teachers developed and negotiated their NOS-teaching practices. Pickering's (1995) theory of the mangle of practice is used for the analysis of teachers' focus-group discussions. In a mangled practice, school science traditions, policy documents, and students' and teachers' expectations and identities are rubbed against each other. As part of the project teachers planned, implemented, and reflected on two NOS activities at different levels of contextualization. The concepts alignment, resistance, and accommodation are used as an analytical tool to understand the processes of the mangle in relation to teachers' negotiations concerning the two activities during the focus groups. The results of the mangle are presented in relation to a backdrop of three teaching traditions (facts, lab-work, and discussions) that the teachers' claim to depart from. The results show how the alignment and resistance of different components of the mangle lead to various accommodations as regards both the activities and the three traditions. The article concludes by discussing how the teachers' negotiations highlight what becomes possible and what becomes challenging when NOS meets existing traditions, and what this means in respect of possibilities for NOS learning. K E Y W O R D S in-service teachers, levels of contextualization, nature of science, science teaching traditions, the mangle of practice learning of science concepts (

Science teaching in upper primary school through the eyes of the practitioners

“…Regarding traditions, a recent study found that Swedish science teachers ranging from Grade 4 to 9 spontaneously identified different teaching traditions during discussions surrounding contexts for teaching the nature of science (Leden, Hansson, & Ideland, 2019). These traditions stem from three abilities for students to develop which are part of national science syllabi.…”

“…This is considered a challenge to the development of conceptual understanding since it tends to fragment the syllabi. One reason for preferring concrete, fact-based practices might be found in the results of Leden et al (2019), which show an existing reluctance among teachers to conduct classroom discussions, since it is considered a waste of time that could be used to teach facts instead. It is also viewed as a practice involving the risk of having to handle social as well as ethical dilemmas in science, for which teachers feel unprepared.…”

“…Regarding planning for students to develop the three abilities presented in science syllabi, Anders described the ability to understand and use concepts and scientific models, as well as the ability to conduct systematic studies, as easier to work with in Grade 4-6 than the ability referred to as discussion (cf. Leden et al, 2019). He suspected that students at these ages struggle with discussions due to limitations in their prior knowledge and even suggested that perhaps this ability ought to be completely omitted from primary school science:…”

“…An emphasis on students' development of the fact ability (cf. Leden et al, 2019) seemed just as important as it has traditionally been in secondary school science. Whether this view is expressed through presentational-style teaching or other practices remains unclear, but it raises some concern regarding the quality of hands-on tasks in primary school as pointed out by Tytler (2010).…”

“…However, repeated mention of talk as a way to ensure students' understanding of terms provided a hint about the purpose being clarification and consolidation of facts rather than to offer opportunities to practice discussing scientific issues in order to develop the discussion ability (cf. Leden et al, 2019). Anders described the latter as difficult, if not impossible, with younger students.…”