Page 336 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

310 D.B. Zandvliet

theory and practices of education. Ecological frameworks aim to build on a specific
understanding; that humankind is an interconnected part of both the human and natu-
ral worlds. Further, to understand ecologically is to make sense of the human world
as part of, not apart from, nature; it is to understand humankind’s “implicatedness in
life” (Orr 1994, p. 105). Understanding ecologically also has an emotional core: one’s
knowledge about ecological processes and principles is made meaningful due to a
personal and emotional attachment to the world and its living communities.
As noted, ecological conceptions of education place an emphasis on the inescap-
able “embeddedness” of humans and their technologies in natural systems. Rather
than seeing nature as “other,” ecological education involves the practice of viewing
humans as one part of the natural world, where human societies and cultures are a
product of the interactions between our species and the places in which we find
ourselves (Smith and Williams 1999). Such an approach also negates issues of
“right” or “wrong” and allows individuals or groups to consider multiple perspec-
tives (including diverse moral and ethical stances) on an issue or problem, thereby
allowing the relevant sociocultural critiques to be placed alongside scientific consid-
erations. Such frameworks are also congruent with the socioscientific, issues-based
(SSI) approach described in the previous section.
The concept of an ecological model for science education lies also at the nexus
of a science education, which emphasizes particular forms of knowledge construc-
tion conceived of and implemented outside of “authentic” communities, and grass-
roots “environmental learning” which instead juxtaposes this knowledge with other
“place-bound” sociocultural, values-based constructs, which have been described
as an environmental ethic. It is my assertion that these ecological principles can be
mapped onto a more holistic model, which might allow science education to flourish
in a more inclusive framework – one that allows standardized curriculum to be
“interpreted” for local sociopolitical conditions. The model would also assert the
notion of “place” having primacy in the interpretation of formal curriculum.

Connections to Place-Based Education

Semken and Brandt note in their work that stronger connections have recently been
made between sense of place and the practice of place-based education (e.g.,
Semken 2005). They note that students bring their own senses of place into any
learning environment or activity, and argue that these should be acknowledged and
constructively leveraged by both the teacher and curriculum. The enrichment of
sense of place in the course of learning science is seen as a valid and assessable
learning outcome for place-based education – particularly in contested places (such
as Superior – the context for one of their reported case studies). These ideas are
enriched by the inclusion of ethical and moral reasoning that is beginning to emerge
as espoused in the socioscientific issues-based approaches.
Semken and Brandt further relate that “place” is fundamental to both our indi-
vidual and collective sociocultural identities and that it is also a set of persistent