Page 245 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

17 Invoking the Ontological Realm of Place: A Dialogic Response 219

in science education (I have to say this is a separate question from gaining profi-
ciency in test scores). Students are left with fragmented or compartmentalized
views of the world and science. I am not saying students fail to find purpose or
make meanings. On the contrary I believe a lot of students do so (as Keith did in
the article Jen mentioned). But my point is that the burden of doing so lies with the
students since most often science schooling is not designed to nor pays attention to
making those connections.
I believe the place-based approach has a lot to offer for science education, espe-
cially this challenge in science education since PBE attempts to foreground students’
place in its educational pursuit. Of course we are up against the dominant culture of
schooling, which frames (or diminishes) education to be dichotonomous acts
between object and subject and marginalizes “place” and students’ local identities.
However, students’ identities, what we can call place identities in this context, will
not be “wished away.” Thus, when students’ place identities are in conflict with the
demands or expectations of schooling, they work against each other, and students
will have to resist, disengage from, or compartmentalize learning. In other words,
when schooling aligns with their place identities, meaningful and purposeful learning
can occur. I think what Karrow and Fazio advocate, explicit consideration to the
ontological realm, is a first step for PBE to acknowledge and address in the connection
between students’ lifeworlds and educational attempts.
Sheliza: What strikes me here is the “burden” Miyoun describes, of having con-
nections between science and place lie on the shoulders of the students. I find that
facilitating or supporting place-based connections that nurture science identities or
traditional ecological knowledge is incredibly difficult for science educators to do in
everyday schooling. There are a myriad of dominant or ruling relations that form the
conventions of science instruction. In this sense, one view is that teaching science
is often teacher-centered, curriculum-focused, and founded upon school-based prac-
tices contained within the four walls of the classroom. The other view assumes an
effort to teach science that is learner-centered, environmentally/ecologically focused,
and community or place-based so as to reach beyond the boundaries of schooling,
which does not seem as accessible with the dominant relations. Perhaps a balance
between the two views is needed.
Karrow and Fazio advocate for an ontological PBE as a means of possibly
addressing the connection between students and place. Further research is still
needed to investigate how easily it can be adopted into a teacher’s philosophical and
pedagogical practices in the science classroom. For this reason, I am keen to see the
field of research grow in PBE with science education, and witness some of the
enacted pedagogies that successfully work in the science classroom to nurture science
identities and place-based affinities.
Miyoun: Toward the end of their chapter, Karrow and Fazio argued, “PBE theory
that considers the ontological is founded upon our unique and foundational capacity
for care.” While they did not fully explain what they meant by care or how it would
come about, I think they raise an interesting question on “foundational capacity for
care” as grounds for ecojustice. They offer a connection on how PBE, with consid-
eration of the ontological realm, could support ecojustice theory and education,