Roth2005
| Roth2005 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Roth2005 |
| Author(s) | Wolff-Michael Roth |
| Title | Ethnomethodology and the R/Evolution of Science Education |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, science education |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2005 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, & Technology Education |
| Volume | 5 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 185–198 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/14926150509556652 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Sherman (2004) articulated a critique, grounded in ethnomethodology, of the way in which science educators have used situated‐cognition and science studies research to redesign classroom science. Whereas I employ an ethnomethodological approach in my own research, I believe that using the tool on its own has shortcomings that are relevant to the very self‐understanding of a critical educator. Drawing on cultural‐historical activity theory as a framework, I suggest that the critique (a) fails to appreciate the evolutionary nature of disciplinary discourses, (b) conflates the languages of analytic method and normative discourse, (c) underestimates the degree to which we need educational change, and (d) provides a possible vision for the future use of ‘authentic science.’
Notes
