Page 331 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

25 Responding to Place 305

“Place” in the Context of Technocentric Curriculum Reform

In my work, I adapt a framework for thinking about pressures, which often drive
change in an increasingly technological world and I use this to situate my argu-
ments for what place-based education is responding to. The model consists of three
spheres of influence: described as the ecosphere, sociosphere, and technosphere
(Gardiner 1989). The ecosphere relates to a person’s (or group’s) physical environ-
ment/surroundings, whereas sociosphere relates to an individual’s interactions with
other people within that environment. Lastly, technosphere is described as the total
of all person-made things (present and future) in the world.
Realistic interpretations of change incorporate a balance between the contribu-
tions from each of the spheres of influence. However, for many organizations, the
influence of the technosphere often drives dominant changes in a system. In relating
curriculum reform to this model, I assert that the technosphere relates effectively to
“teaching about the tools.” A central assertion I make here is that this influence
manifests itself in formal school curricula through the adoption of technocentric
curricula. This often occurs at the expense of other mediating influences, which
include the effects from local geographies (ecosphere) as well as those from local
cultural and social norms (sociosphere). The next section argues that the implemen-
tations of science–technology–society (STS) curricula are salient examples of an
increasingly technocentric view of curriculum.

Science–Technology–Society (STS) Frameworks

Worldwide calls for scientific/technological literacy are historically based on the
premise that technological societies need sufficient numbers of qualified profes-
sionals who can participate fully in the modern scientific-technological endeavor
and who can propagate or maintain economies. Therefore, scientific literacy
became a technological goal for a “science education for all citizens” (American
Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] 1989, 1993). Evolutions in
science and technology, coupled with community-based environmental concerns
and reforms in science education during the last three decades contributed to the
creation of the science–technology–society (STS) perspective within science
education in the USA (Bybee 1993). Such shifts were also seen in the development
of distinct technology curriculum in Australia, Canada, the UK, and in many devel-
oping countries (National Research Council [NRC] 1996; Council of Ministers of
Education 1997). In response to this pressure, many nations began including techni-
cal education components across the curriculum in keeping with this general trend
to make education more vocationally relevant.
In consideration of the historical development of STS frameworks, there were
several arguments for incorporating technology into the curriculum of a general