The core epistemologies underlying science education have changed little over the past 40 years: whereas science educators tend to take constructivist stances, many or most teachers tend to be concerned with the appropriation and transfer of facts and theories mandated as outcomes in the curriculum guidelines of the relevant authorities (e.g., school boards, provinces, or nations). All of the going epistemologies, in and despite their diversities, have in common that they oppose the learner (subject, with identity) and the thing learned (object) and these are linked by the doings of the former (agency). The underlying master ontology is a Platonic one, in which entitative, self-identical things act upon other entities that are external to them. But is this the best way of thinking about how we know and learn? A radical (because incommensurable) alternative is a relational ontology of an organic type. Such an ontology has flux and becoming (as opposed to being) as its basic figures of thought, a way of thinking initially proposed by Heraclitus and later advocated by philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, William James, Henri Bergson, Alfred North Whitehead, and (more recently) Gilles Deleuze. As a result, our educative and investigative concerns no longer are entitative things (students, teachers, identities, curricula, activities, conceptions) but interrelated lines of becoming. This is a view in which stable things are but abstractions from a world-as-event that is forever becoming. In this study, using material aspects of gardening, I articulate and explain a different way of theorizing and understanding the world. I use growing (vegetables, trees) as a metaphor because of its capacity to express the proposed organic ontology. In this case, the lines of becoming (or lines of flight) include gardener-becoming-tree and tree-becoming-gardener: the gardener grows as he grows plants. The metaphor of growing in the modality of growing-together troubles present discourses in the field of science education, which fail to acknowledge that flux of life comes with intransitive qualities and the quality of becoming is affected by all the other events that are cogredient with human lives.

在过去的 40 年里，科学教育背后的核心认识论几乎没有变化：虽然科学教育者倾向于采取建构主义的立场，但许多或大多数教师倾向于关注事实和理论的挪用和转移，这些事实和理论被规定为课程指南中规定的结果。有关当局（例如，学校董事会、省或国家）。所有正在进行的认识论，尽管存在多样性，但它们的共同点是它们反对学习者（主体，具有身份）和所学的事物（客体），而这些都与前者（机构）的行为相关联。底层的主本体是柏拉图的本体，其中实体的、自我相同的事物作用于它们外部的其他实体。但这是思考我们如何认识和学习的最佳方式吗？一个激进的（因为不可通约）替代是有机类型的关系本体。这样的本体有通量和成为（而不是作为）作为其思想的基本人物，最初由赫拉克利特提出的，后来由哲学家如尼采，威廉·詹姆斯，柏格森，怀特海和（最近）倡导的思维方式吉尔斯德勒兹。结果，我们的教育和调查关注不再是实体事物（学生、教师、身份、课程、活动、概念），而是相互关联的生成线。在这种观点中，稳定的事物只不过是从永远发生的世界即事件中抽象出来的。在这项研究中，我使用园艺的物质方面，阐明并解释了一种不同的理论化和理解世界的方式。我用成长（蔬菜，树木）作为隐喻，因为它能够表达提议的有机本体。在这种情况下，生成线（或飞行线）包括园丁成为树和树成为园丁：园丁在种植植物时也在成长。在共同成长的烦恼模式中成长的隐喻呈现了科学教育领域的话语，它没有承认生命的流动具有不及物性质，而生成的质量受所有其他与人类相关的事件的影响。生活。