Page 252 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

226 J.D. Adams et al.

various particulars such as (i) appreciating the societal impact and somewhat cul-
turally determined nature of scientific and technological change; (ii) recognizing
that decisions about science and technology may be taken in pursuit of particular
interests, linked to the distribution of wealth and power, and may yield benefits to
some at the expense of others; (iii) establishing one’s own perspectives and position
on issues (based on moral values and decency); and (iv) willingness to take action
and work for the sake of good intentions (Hodson 1998, p. 655). Further still, more
current literature goes so far as to suggest a reconceptualization of STSE such that
it centers around the environment renaming it as E-STS (Blades 2006), where taking
up the E-STS approach as a core principle for science education might fuel a wave
of “pedagogical possibilities toward a rising tide of social justice” (p. 657). This
draws attention to the ways in which place-based pedagogies might pursue the type
of learning that science education calls for.
In our discussions about place-based approaches, it is important not to lose sight
of PBE for the teaching and learning of science education. We must be cognizant
of its purposes for science education: What is it for? Who is it for? If we assume
an STSE framework for the teaching and learning of science education, then might
we conclude that place-based practices might serve as a useful pedagogy or meth-
odology for enacting the type of science education that is expected (e.g., a science
education that is sustainable, activist, environmental, moral, community-referenced,
and all the other descriptors of an STSE framework)?
Jen: The National Science Education Standards (National Research Council
[NRC] 1996) cite the goal of science education as educating students to (i) experience
the richness and excitement of knowing about and understanding the natural world;
(ii) use appropriate scientific processes and principles in making personal decisions;
(iii) engage intelligently in public discourse and debate about matters of scientific and
technological concern; and (iv) increase their economic productivity through the use
of the knowledge, understanding, and skills of the scientifically literate person in their
careers. These goals, they note, “define a scientifically literate society.” While these
goals are germane for individual advancement in science knowledge and application,
there is very little about the importance of collective science literacy and this is where
the community-referenced descriptors (unlike Ontario’s STSE framework) would be
of more relevance (interestingly, an electronic search of the NRC document for the
word “sustainability” turned up naught).
I believe that a definition of a scientifically literate society should include
collective-referenced (such as “societal impact”) notions of environmental sustain-
ability and environmental equity, especially in a nation that aims to be truly
democratic. These collective-referenced notions would invoke a sense of social
responsibility and would afford room, within the standards, for enacting science
education with a PBE framework.
Miyoun: I think the collective is an important point to propose as a meaning
and goal of science education. Often when collective meaning is concerned, it is
discussed within an economic development context and not within an ecological or
sustainability context. A PBE and sustainability concern could broaden collective
purposes and goals for science education in society.