Page 247 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

17 Invoking the Ontological Realm of Place: A Dialogic Response 221

anytime” education that seems to have lost its intimate and unique connection with
the local community (Sobel 1996). “Educating-within-place,” by bringing our
attention to the ontological nature of our very being that is the inseparable nature
of human relationship with a place, could help PBE to challenge the object subject
dichotonomous perspective and move toward “here and now” education.
Jen: This separation between the “what” and “how” of a place reinforces the
Cartesian dualism that Ladislaus Semali and Joe Kincheloe (1999) often denounce,
“this western modernist way of producing knowledge and constructing reality…
[seeks] to produce not local but translocal knowledge” (p. 28). They describe this
process as “Cartesian reductionism,” where problems are broken into separate com-
ponents, described and categorized, and questions of context are dismissed. This
reminds me of museum displays that aim to present a comprehensive view of bio-
diversity. In such exhibits, flora and fauna are presented in such a way that completely
removes them from their context in what Kahn (1995) describes as heterotopias –
combinations of different places as though they are one. They are listed with their
scientific pedigree (evolutionary relationships) and their geographical ranges; how-
ever, oft missing is their role in their given ecosystems – their relationships to other
living things and their natural environment – nor are there any hints about how they
are known by local/indigenous people who share their ecosystems. There seems to
be no room for the ontological realm in science. This is the same situation that we
re/create for ourselves and for our students if we consistently approach PBE and
environmental education (for that matter) from this dichotomous perspective. This
issue raises a question about the relationship between PBE and environmental edu-
cation and as they are both commonly enacted, there is very little difference. I think
we all agree that the ontological realm is an important yet often missing aspect that
makes PBE a meaningful pedagogy in science education and in other disciplines.
I also think that environmental education, if approached with PBE methodologies
and enacted with PBE pedagogies that center on peoples’ connections with places,
is PBE as it is truly meant to be.
Sheliza: Karrow and Fazio describe how meanings of place are usually based on
place as an object discussed or studied from the standpoint of a subject (as if by
some “irresistible modern habit” we reflect on place in this manner). In this sense,
perhaps more so for science educators, I began to think that as teachers try to get
through a lesson that requires them to be more “place conscious,” their efforts may
go against PBE. This is assumed because if we define place as an object, and the
students/teachers together as subjects educating themselves or reflecting upon place,
then we see “educating” as an action. In this sense, the act of educating probably is
unmindful of the ontological realm because we are educating ourselves about place
but not in place. Should we say that students are educating in a place rather than
students are educating about a place? Would that small change invoke the ontological
realm during place-based moments? Karrow and Fazio state that they wish (through
their conception of PBE) to blur the object/subject distinction by positioning PBE as
“educating-within-place” in order to convey a sense of ongoingness, intimacy,
embeddedness, the active, inevitable, evocation of the possible. This draws in the
“here” and “now” approach to PBE that Miyoun describes earlier.