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
   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253