Page 246 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

220 J.D. Adams et al.

providing that explicit opportunities for students to express their ontology with and
in a place (to describe and interpret) would “nurture and let flourish foundational
capacity for care.”
Jen: Miyoun, I also had similar questions when I read that section, but I surmise
that care is an aspect of ontology; as one cares for and/or protects what one knows.
However, care – what it means to care for something – has many philosophical con-
siderations and can take on different meanings when in reference to ecojustice. Mike
Mueller and Deborah Tippins (2010) urge researchers to “listen to and value the
local narratives, many of which may embody emotional, aesthetic or even spiritual
qualities.” They use the term “heartfelt” to describe the types of discussions they
convey. It is in these affective connections to place where an ethic of care is evident
and where people make deeper connections to place and the flora and fauna within
it. Situating this within ecojustice philosophy, people will be motivated to become
better informed about local environmental issues, thus able to make decisions that
are both viable and beneficial to their communities.

Educating-Within-Place: Localization of Learning

Miyoun: As Karrow and Fazio challenge object–subject dichotomies (what they
call “irresistible modern habit”), they propose educating-within-place as a concep-
tual structure to explore relationships between place, being, and educating beyond
the typified dichotomies. As it has been problematized during our conversation,
PBE practices may end up defeating the purpose of PBE itself, and behind those PBE
practices there may exist the subject object dichotomy. In these efforts, place is
treated as “object” (whether it is viewed as a natural realm, community, or diversity,
as Karrow and Fazio described) and students are considered as subjects that con-
duct the “study” of the object rather single dimensionally. When PBE is carried out/
practiced based on this simplistic object–subject dichotomy, what is being neglected
or ignored is essential connections and relationships between students and place
(i.e., what is the nature of the relationships and how are the relationships being
developed and nurtured), thus failing to provide authentic PBE experiences and
defeating the purpose of taking up place-based approaches. In other words, these
PBE efforts tend to focus on “what” is in a place, yet limited attention is being paid to
“how” or in what ways students nurture relationships and connections with and in
a place. I think PBE should not be limited to just about “what” students would learn
about their place but should pay attention to “how” students interact with and expe-
rience their place, in ways which nurture them to develop connected understanding,
empathy, and care.
How PBE efforts tend to focus on “what” of place seems to reflect the current
educational climate, which has deprioritized the importance of place to accommo-
date the push toward standardization and universalization of “what” students need
to know and how they can best demonstrate that knowledge (Sanger 1998). The
result is that regardless of where students live, students tend to get “anywhere and