Send message to Authors

Short abstract:

The paper discusses how physical properties of spatial arrangements and processes of tacit knowledge affect the possibilities for students’ participation and argues that inclusive teaching requires attention to the ways socio-material arrangements influence opportunities for participation.

Long abstract:

Scientific knowledge production in the natural sciences has historically depended on direct observations of nature and controlled laboratory experiments. The practice of field- and laboratory work still constitutes a central teaching method and entry point to the cultural norms of science. Moreover, practical work is often associated with research-based teaching and highlighted for its potentials for high quality learning. While critics have pointed to the lack of clarity about the conceptions and aims of practical work, the mechanisms of in- and exclusion involved in this teaching format have received less attention.

This paper focuses on the spatial dimension of the mechanisms of in- and exclusion in practical work in higher science education. It compares ethnographic studies of fieldwork in Earth science and lab-based teaching in the experimental sciences, drawing on recent theorizing of space and exclusion in education. Departing from the naturalised understanding of space often assumed in inclusive education approaches, we approach space as a physical arrangement, which interrelates with fluid micro-spaces and interlink with larger structural dynamics. The paper discusses how physical properties of spatial arrangements and processes of tacit knowledge affect the possibilities for students’ participation and shape their learning opportunities.

The paper argues that inclusive teaching requires attention to the ways socio-material arrangements influence opportunities for participation. It shows the need for considering the implications of such mundane aspects as the physical teaching space and access to interaction, and question who benefits from practical work.