Page 248 - Cultural Studies of Science Education
P. 248
222 J.D. Adams et al.
Edward Casey notes, “to live is to live locally and to know is first of all to know
the place one is in” (1996a, p. 18). To know the place one is in does not simply
mean to study it, but to be in it. Perhaps to live in the “here” and “now” evokes the
ontological realm, thus to live is to connect and relate to and grow in a place that
becomes reshaped and redefined in personal ways. This serves our growth as a person
and shapes our identity and our sense of being or existing in place. In a related quote,
Arif Dirlik says, “place consciousness … is integral to human existence” (1998, p. 8).
Here, an awareness of place aims to blur that object/subject dichotomy. Thus, place
is not a single-dimensional object, but it is a multidimensional entity to experience
and connect with.
Invoking the Ontological in Place-Based Education
Sheliza: Karrow and Fazio draw attention to the varied representations of place-
based education in order to emphasize the theoretically formative or immature
(Nespor 2008) nature of the field of practice (examples cited by Karrow and Fazio
include, Teaching the Commons: Place, Pride and the Renewal of Community by
Paul Theobald [1997], Revitalizing the Commons by Chet Bowers [2006], and A
Critical Pedagogy of Place by David Gruenewald [2003]). To further the argument,
Karrow and Fazio reference Gruenewald (2003) who states that “place-based educa-
tion, in its diverse incarnations, is currently less a pedagogy per se and more an
alternative methodology that lacks a coherent theoretical framework.” (p. 3).
This is a rather moot point in the field and I grapple with this: How do we con-
ceptualize PBE? I offer two possibilities: the first possibility assumes that we apply
PBE as a methodology for teaching science. In this case, we need to embrace a more
prescriptive analogy for PBE, where a set of steps or rigorous methods are needed
to conduct and implement place-based practices in schooling. While this may make
PBE seem more accessible to science educators due to the ease of gathering and
following resources, we must be wary of “globalizing” approaches that are meant to
be local and contextualized. The second possibility is to conceptualize PBE as a
pedagogy, such that we embrace a more evolutionary and formative conceptualization.
In this case, learning and knowledge is socially constructed within place.
My impression is that in order to invoke an ontological realm, as Karrow and Fazio
argue for in PBE, we must allow PBE to evolve based on the experiences and relation-
ships humans have with place. Thus, invoking the ontological realm will influence
pedagogical practices, but it may do little for rigid methodological practices. Maybe
this is the difference between outdoor education and place-based education. Do most
outdoor education programs mirror NatureWatch, in that it is “simple … standardized”
(p. 16) as opposed to what scholars advocate for PBE (for example, a critical peda-
gogy, sociopolitical and phenomenological … and of course now, ontological?)
Jen: Sheliza, your discussion about pedagogy and methodology has important
implications for making PBE accessible to educator-practitioners. As researchers,
we often focus on the theoretical realms of what we believe to be effective