Search

In this paper, I examine the nature of primary science expertise using an ethnographic and sociocultural approach and a theoretical analysis that conceptualises educational practice in terms of the resolution of dilemmas. Using data from an in-depth investigation of the perspective and practice of a single teacher, I discuss some of the "dilemmas" faced by this expert science practitioner as she tries to find the most successful ways for facilitating children's learning. The dilemmas I discuss here describe tensions around how scientific knowledge should be presented to children, how children learn science and modes of pedagogy. I show that while some of these dilemmas arise from a conflict between the teacher's own ideals and the external requirements placed upon her, others reflect important tensions within her own values and commitments. I argue that a language of dilemmas allows us to understand pedagogic practice as "dynamic" in character, as frequently involving difficult choices, in which ideals are traded off against one another. This dilemmatic perspective contrasts sharply both with those views of primary science teaching that treat it as the authoritative transmission of basic skills or facts and those that treat it as the acting out of a coherent ideology.

While the use of ethnographic and qualitative research methods has spread across many fields of educational inquiry, until recently this has had little impact on research in science education. However, there is currently a methodological shift taking place in this area, prompted by the rise of a sociocultural perspective on cognition, which sees knowledge as tied to action, and treats expertise as being defined by relevant communities of practice. There is a close affinity between this perspective and ethnography. In this paper, I discuss a recent ethnographic investigation of primary science expertise guided by this perspective: an in-depth study of the perspective and practice of a single teacher. I focus on some of the problems involved in this study, arising from the divergent orientations of the researcher and the practitioner in the context of their collaboration. These difficulties threatened the completion of the study, but in the end were negotiated successfully. However, they raise important questions about the relationship between ethnographer and informant in the context of ethnographic research.