Page 117 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

94 K. Love et al.

are practiced. Roth’s examples show how teachers used communities as sources of
knowledge and investigation for students. Roth neglects to offer which frameworks
(or pedagogies) govern both the teachers’ and the students’ decision-making processes.
Were these teachers and students operating in an environmental education framework
(framed by?), ecojustice theory, ecofeminist guidance, some kind of hybridized
framework, or something else? In my own teaching at Central Connecticut, my
students and I attend to the potential limits and/or hidden curricula that are
always present in different teaching practices as well as the pedagogies in which
they are rooted.
For example, ecofeminist theorists have discussed relationships and mindsets of
humans being separate from nature and human domination over nature rooted in
descriptions like being environmental “stewards” or using a “problem-based learning”
model where nature is unintentionally viewed as a problem that humans need to
solve (Spencer 2005). This “separation” might be carried forward through discourse
present in an environmental education framework if not attended to more explicitly.
Teachers need to be supported in their teacher education programs, as well as in
their in-service professional developments, to know the technical practices, but also
discourse and theory that undergird these things. This support helps them and their
students identify and create questions for their own investigations that do not
perpetuate hegemonic thinking or actions. To be clear, I bring this idea up only as
a general point to be included in our discussions about how to support teachers and
students moving toward some deeper levels of understanding how to live for the
longer-term.
There is no doubt that teaching toward the longer-term is both possible and
challenging. It challenges us to deeply question industrial culture that is well-
established and heavily invested in the USA and other nations. There are deeply
rooted issues of morality, ethics, and metaphorical mindsets that make up the
“water” discussed in Roth’s chapter, which may be initially difficult for the “fish”
to see. We are fish too! Roth shows us that students are very successful in their
explorations and community participations and that these things help to connect
students with their environment. This type of teaching provides much hope and
guidance in terms of how we might continue to develop our thinking, teaching, and
relationships with nature and the larger community.
Teddie: Your point is well taken and while the frameworks chosen for the
Environmental Youth Summit are meant only as an introduction to community-
based action to empower students and their teachers, they offer a step-by-step
approach that could limit creativity (and thinking in relation to underlying
ideologies). Furthermore, frameworks do imply an end-point arc once the action
project has taken place or the problem is dissolved. Because of limited time and
resources for working on community projects, I chose these frames/models to
begin a process in the hopes that teachers and students will continue to question
and replace their perceived rules for engagement that these models might pro-
mote. In some cases, it works. I have been pleased with the longer-term school
and community partnerships that I already mentioned. But unfortunately, these
things are short-lived and are the exception – not the rule. Most teachers need the