Page 332 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

306 D.B. Zandvliet

education by combining it with science (Layton 1993). In reviewing the variety
of science–technology–society (STS) courses, Layton distinguished between the
following: (1) science-determined courses in which the sequence of knowledge is
identical to that of traditional disciplinary science education, with the STS material
added on; (2) technology-determined courses in which the science content is deter-
mined by its relation to the technology or the socio-technological issue being studied;
and (3) society-determined courses in which the science and technology to be
studied are determined by their relevance to the societal problem under consider-
ation. Unfortunately, none of these options truly recognized the value of localizing
these curriculum efforts in the context of place-bound communities.
Solomon (1993) summarized that the STS movement should not only aim at
providing future citizens with authentic real-world issues, but intend to challenge
students’ engagement in science and technology by learning socioscientific issues
and by participating in making informed, responsible decisions, based on scien-
tific knowledge. For more than two decades, proponents of the STS movement
advocated for the integration of science, technology, environment, and social issues
in science curricula claiming that there is no such thing as “pure science” and
that science education should consider the way scientific investigation is subject to
social, environmental, and political considerations and contexts.
Though well-intentioned, I assert that STS problem-based approaches became over-
structured in their implementation and often communicated (implicitly) that science
and technology are seen as potential solutions to social or environmental problems. As
a result of this inherently technocentric focus, STS curricula were seldom critically
examined for their own underlying values and dominant (hegemonic) practices. While
this outcome is not what the proponents of STS frameworks had envisioned – it is often
what has translated into practice within the educational policy realm and in the view-
points of practicing teachers who work on a daily basis with these curricula.
A more humanistic or socially influenced vision for science curriculum calls on
students to instead communicate effectively with others in the process of decision-
making within the context of complex social and scientific issues. Aikenhead
(2005) suggests that students need to ask questions, obtain evidence, understand
characteristics and limitations of science processes, identify value positions or ide-
ologies of both sides, and have access to appropriate social criteria for judging
credibility of scientists. Since values are a constant feature of decision-making,
Aikenhead relates that there is much evidence that students often give higher prior-
ity to values, common sense, and personal experience than to knowledge. This is
also a strong argument for the inclusion of “place” and “community” as the reposi-
tory for this experience in our mainstream curriculum reform efforts.

Science, Technology, Society, Environment – STS(E) Frameworks

As discussed in the previous section, the development of science curricula that
attempt to address the characteristics of more humanistic forms of science education
while also addressing social interactions within and among scientific and local