STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response
- 3.7k Downloads
The ubiquitous of STEM education initiatives in recent years has created a bandwagon that has moved at nearly light speed. The impulse of the science education community and policy-makers is to grab hold for dear life or be marginalized from subsequent discussions about the necessity and consequences of using STEM initiatives to prepare and inform our next generation of citizens. This commentary questions the prudence of STEM-related science education goals, as typically represented and discussed in the literature, and likens the current practice to a deficit framework. A sociocultural perspective framed through socioscientific considerations is offered as an alternative conceptualization as well as surplus model to hegemonic STEM practices.
KeywordsSTEM Socioscientific issues Sociocultural issues Scientific literacy
- AAAS. (1990). The liberal art of science: Agenda for action. Washington, DC: AAAS.Google Scholar
- AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.Google Scholar
- Aikenhead, G. S., Orpwood, G., & Fensham, P. (2011). Scientific literacy for a knowledge society. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, D. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 28–44). New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
- Association of American Universities. (2011). Five-year initiative for improving undergraduate STEM education: Discussion draft. Retrieved from http://www.aau.edu/policy/article.aspx?id=12588.
- Boy Scouts of America. (2013). STEM in scouting. Retrieved from http://www.scouting.org/stem.aspx.
- Cartwright, C. C., & Simpson, T. L. (2001). The relationship of moral judgment development and teaching effectiveness of student teachers. Education, 111, 139–144.Google Scholar
- Cummings, R., Maddux, R., Richmond, A., & Cladianos, A. (2010). Moral reasoning of education students: The effects of direct instruction in moral development theory and participation in moral dilemma discussion. Teachers College Record, 112, 621–644.Google Scholar
- Department of Homeland Security. (2012). DHS announces expanded list of STEM degree programs. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/news/2012/05/11/dhs-announces-expanded-list-stem-degree-programs.
- Duncan, A. (2009). Secretary Arne Duncan’s remarks to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/10/10232009.html.
- Fensham, P. J. (2007). Values in the measurement of students’ science achievement in TIMSS and PISA. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in science education (pp. 215–229). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
- Fulton, K., & Britton, T. (2011). STEM teachers in professional learning communities: Good teachers to great teaching. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.Google Scholar
- Gauch, H. G, Jr. (2009). Responses and clarification regarding science and worldviews. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), Science, worldviews and education (pp. 303–325). The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
- Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Green, T. F. (1999). Voices: The educational formation of conscience. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
- Greene, J. C., DeStefano, L., Burgon, H., & Hall, J. (2006). An educative, values-engaged approach to evaluating STEM educational programs. In D. Huffman & F. Lawrenz (Eds.), Critical issues in STEM evaluation. New directions for evaluation, 109 (pp. 19–34). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
- Harris, S. (2010). The moral landscape: How science can determine human values. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Institute of Educational Sciences. (2010). What works clearinghouse: Procedures and standards handbook (Version 2.1). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v2_1_standards_handbook.pdf.
- Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
- Kohlberg, L., Boyd, D., & Levine, C. (1990). The return of stage six: Its principle and moral point of view. In T. Wren (Ed.), The moral domain: Essays in the ongoing discussion between philosophy and the social sciences (pp. 151–181). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Lawrenz, F., & Huffman, D. (2006). Methodological pluralism: The gold standard of STEM evaluation. In D. Huffman & F. Lawrenz (Eds.), Critical issues in STEM evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 109, 19–34. doi: 10.1002/ev.176.
- Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 925–953. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.625505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mueller, M. P., & Zeidler, D. L. (2010). Moral–ethical character and science education: Ecojustice ethics through socioscientific issues (SSI). In D. Tippins, M. Mueller, M. van Eijck, & J. Adams (Eds.), Cultural studies and environmentalism: The confluence of ecojustice, place-based (science) education, and indigenous knowledge systems (pp. 105–128). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3929-3_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- National Academy of Sciences. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/bose/dbasse_071971#.UZoAtrQaj8s.
- National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying effective approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Committee on Highly Successful Science Programs for K-12 Science Education. Board on Science Education and Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2013a). Next generation science standards for states by states: Appendix H. Understanding the scientific enterprise: The nature of science in the next generation science standards. Retrieved from: http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix%20H%20-%20The%20Nature%20of%20Science%20in%20the%20Next%20Generation%20Science%20Standards%204.15.13.pdf.
- National Research Council. (2013b). Next generation science standards for states by states: Appendix J. Science, technology, society and the environment. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/APPENDIX%20J%204.15.13%20for%20Final%20Release.pdf.
- National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- National Science Foundation. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033.pdf.
- Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Sadler, T. D. (2011). Situating socio-scientific issues in classrooms as a means of achieving goals of science education. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 1–9). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wingo, G. M. (1974). Philosophies of education. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar
- Yakman, G. (2008). STΣ@M education: An overview of creating a model of integrative education. Retrieved from http://www.steamedu.com/2088_PATT_Publication.pdf.
- Zeidler, D. L. (2002). Dancing with maggots and saints: Past and future visions for subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge in reform and science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 27–42. doi: 10.1023/A:1015129825891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research and practice. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on Science Education (pp. 697–726). Mahwah, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S. M., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in science classrooms: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 277–306). The Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4_16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zeidler, D. L., Berkowitz, M., & Bennett, K. (2014). Thinking (scientifically) responsibly: The cultivation of character in a global science education community. In M. P. Mueller, D. J. Tippins, & A. J. Steward (Eds.), Assessing schools for generation R (responsibility): A guide to legislation and school policy in science education (pp. 83–99). The Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-2748-9_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7–38). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-4996-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character and care. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201–216). The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
- Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions of socioscientific reasoning. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, D. A. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 176–192). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar