The paper we’ll be discussing this week is: Archer, Louise et
al. 2010. “‘Doing’ science versus ‘being’ a scientist: Examining
10/11-year-old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through
the lens of identity”, Science Education 94(4): 617–639. doi:
10.1002/sce.20399. Download PDF (146kB) - Do the findings
reported in the paper mirror your own experience — that gender
differences account for the degree to which students engage with
school science after primary school and that students can
“enjoy” science without wanting to “become” scientists? Why? -
Can you think of ways in which we can challenge the prejudices
some children may have about a “science identity” being
“undesirable” or even “unthinkable”? - The authors state that
“in its present form, science appears to be constructed as ‘too
feminized’ for (many) boys and ‘too masculine’ for (many)
girls”. Would one way of dealing with this be to insist on
teaching boy and girls separately? - To what extent do you agree
that “as Osborne and Dillon (2008) h