Page 205 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

182 D.J. Tippins and M.P. Mueller

Keller’s unique experience. Even the seemingly reasonable assumption that ecologically
damaging practices need to be replaced by ecologically sound ones may reflect
a tacit set of experiences and a web of dialectical relationships grounded in pas-
sionate, personal participation in events. The cultural ecological analysis of these
root metaphors advocated by Martisewicz, Lupinacci, and Schnakenberg enables us
to consider our assumptions about the very purpose of schooling and the ways in
which cultural and environmental commons interact. Malulucci, in her response,
reflects on the power of language to create both enclosures and possibilities for
inquiry and reflection. She echoes the call for invoking the sacred in determining
whether something is moral or valuable. Bentley likewise writes of the importance of
our ultimate inability to fully know. In the spirit of what is sacred, these scholars
emphasize the need for a science and science education that recognizes the ways in
which the cultural and the spiritual are embodied in acts of thinking, inquiry, and
knowing. With these thoughts in mind, we are left wondering whether the represen-
tatives gathering in Copenhagen will move beyond the constraints of language to
create shared understandings and possibilities. Will they invoke the sacred to create
a meta-awareness of how the worlds’ population, both human and nonhuman,
might live their lives “in relation to” others?
In his description of teaching and learning science in the rural Canadian village
school of St. Paul’s Rivers, and later, in his collaboration with students and other
community members to advocate for the Hagan Creek watershed, Roth extends the
conversation on ecojustice in science education by reflecting on the difference
between education and schooling. The story of his attempts to enact an ecojustice-
oriented, place-based curriculum in these rural communities conveys a sense that the
concept of relation is fundamental to education. Roth explains that cultural-historical
activity theory can shed light on our understanding of education as a way of being “in
relation to” the environment in culturally specific and historical ways. In pondering
the question of why we should teach science and math if it is not usable in everyday
life, Roth characterizes education as a way to introduce his students to modes of being
and acting in the world in ways which prepare them to participate in the social life of
a community. We suspect that Roth, in his efforts to create meaningful science educa-
tion experiences, drew inspiration from generations of local knowledge and perhaps,
ultimately, learned more than his students. What does Roth’s story have to offer the
participants in the Copenhagen summit? His story serves as a valuable perspective on
the importance of context or diverse systems of meaning in understanding phenomena
such as climate change. Once again, we wonder whether participants in the
Copenhagen summit will be aware of how their different perceptions of reality will
shape the questions they formulate about global climate change. Furthermore, we
wonder to what extent participants will affirm the existing environmental knowledge
of indigenous communities such as the ones Roth describes.
As Mueller and Zeidler note in their discussion of genetically modified organisms
(GMO’s) such as Glofish, socioscientific issues are grounded contextually in experi-
ences that can foster moral-ethical reasoning and the development of character as
integral components of science teaching and learning. Global climate change, as a
socioscientific issue, has value, significance, and the potential to engage students in