Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 999–1021 | Cite as

Which values regarding nature and other species are we promoting in the Australian science curriculum?

  • Carolina Castano Rodriguez
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Through a critical textual analysis of the content and structure of the new Australian science curriculum, in this paper I identify the values it encourages and those that are absent. I investigate whether the Australian science curriculum is likely to promote the attitudes needed to educate generations of children who act more responsibly with other species and the environment. Over the past decades, there has been an increasing awareness of the human impact on the environment and other species. Consistently, there is a growing awareness of the role of education in encouraging children to act in a more ethical, responsible, and caring way. However, it is still unclear as to whether national curricula can (or will aspire to) accomplish this. In Australia, a national science curriculum has been implemented. In this paper I argue that the Australian science curriculum is likely to miss the opportunity to cultivate values of care for nature and other species. Instead, it is likely to reinforce anthropocentric attitudes toward our natural environment. The importance of explicitly promoting values that encourage care and respect for all species and challenges anthropocentric views of other animals and nature are discussed.

Keywords

Curriculum Values Care Attitudes Human–animal relationships 

Resumen

Hay una creciente preocupación por la falta de valores en la sociedad y la necesidad de transformar nuestras actitudes hacia acciones de cuidado hacia los demás, incluida la naturaleza. Autores como Julie Andrzejewski, Helena Pedersen y Freeman Wicklund (2009), sugieren que las instituciones y prácticas educativas han tenido un papel en la promoción de comportamientos insostenibles y prácticas poco éticas. Esto podría deberse, como explica David Orr (2004), a un sistema educativo que pone la naturaleza y otras especies en función de atender nuestras necesidades y a nuestra disposición. Además, como sostiene Sonia Kuzich (2011), la educación occidental poco ha logrado fomentar la consideración de las consecuencias de nuestra forma de pensar y actuar hacia otros seres humanos, animales y la naturaleza. A través de un análisis crítico del contenido y la estructura del nuevo currículo Australiano, en este artículo identifico los valores que se promueven y aquellos que están ausentes. El currículo Australiano fue publicado para validación por primera vez en diciembre de 2010. El proceso de implementación inicio en febrero de 2011.

El currículo Australiano pretende preparar a las futuras generaciones. En las últimas décadas, ha habido una creciente concientización del impacto humano sobre el medio ambiente y otras especies. Esto ha conllevado a un interés en el papel de la educación en alentar a los niños a actuar de una manera más ética, responsable y cariñosa. Sin embargo, sigue siendo confuso si los planes de estudios nacionales pueden (o si aspiran a) lograr esto. En este artículo argumento la necesidad de realizar un análisis crítico del currículo Australiano para examinar la relación humano - animales no humanos, los valores que son privilegiados y aquellos que están ausentes. Este examen crítico proporciona una oportunidad para discutir abiertamente las diversas perspectivas que son promovidas en las escuelas y los valores que guiarán la participación activa de las futuras generaciones de estudiantes en la comunidad Australiana. Los resultados que presento sugieren que el currículo Australiano perdería la oportunidad de cultivar los valores de cuidado hacia la naturaleza y otras especies. Por el contrario, es probable que refuerce actitudes antropocéntricas hacia nuestro entorno natural. También discuto la importancia de promover explícitamente los valores que fomentan el cuidado y el respeto y desafían perspectivas antropocéntricas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adams, C., & Donovan, J. (2006). Introduction. In C. Adams & J. Donovan (Eds.), Animals and women: Feminist theoretical explanations (pp. 32–55). London: Duke University Press. doi: 10.1111/1468-5914.00096.Google Scholar
  2. Andrzejewski, J., Pedersen, H., & Wicklund, F. (2009). Interspecies Education for Humans, Animals, and the Earth. In J. Andrzejewski, M. Baltodano, & L. Symcox (Eds.), Social justice, peace, and environmental education: Transformative standards. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Arkow, P. (2006). ‘Old wine in a new bottle’: New strategies for humane education. In A. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on animal assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (2nd ed., pp. 425–451). San Diego, California: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, ACARA. (2014). Australian Curriculum. Accessed 20th of February, 2015 from: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/science/curriculum/f-10?y=F&y=1&y=2&y=3&y=4&y=5&y=6&y=7&y=8&y=9&y=10&s=SU&s=HE&s=IS&c=1&c=2&c=3&c=4&c=5&c=7&c=6&p=3&p=1&p=2&layout=3#page=10
  5. Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (1999). Towards a paradigm for research on social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 29(2), 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bekoff, M. (2008). Increasing our compassion footprint: The animals’ manifesto. Zygon®, 43(4), 771–781. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00959.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beyerbach, B., & Nassoiy, T. D. (2004). Where is equity in the national standards? A critical review of the INTASC, NCATE, and NBPTS standards. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 2(4), 29–42.Google Scholar
  8. Birke, L. (2006). Exploring the boundaries: Feminism, animals, and science. In C. Adams & J. Donovan (Eds.), Animals and women: Feminist theoretical explanations (pp. 32–55). London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Caravita, S., Valente, A., Luzi, D., Pace, P., Valanides, N., Khalil, I., et al. (2008). Construction and validation of textbook analysis grids for ecology and environmental education. Science Education International, 19(2), 97–116.Google Scholar
  10. Castano, C. (2012). Fostering compassionate attitudes and the amelioration of aggression through a science class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 961–986. doi: 10.1002/tea.21023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clément, P. (2013). Values in science and in science education. In Abrougui M. et al., Science and technology education for development, citizenship and social justice (IOSTE-14), 2012, France. Journal INEDP (Tunisia) (Vol. 1, p. 26).Google Scholar
  12. Crist, E. (2000). Images of animals: Anthropocentrism and animal mind. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  13. DEEWR. (2008). At the heart of what we do: Values education at the centre of schooling. Report of the values education good practice schools project—Stage 2. Melbourne, VIC: Curriculum Corporation. Available from: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/values/val_vegps2_final_report,26142.html
  14. DEST. (2006). Implementing the national framework for values education in Australian schools. Report of the values education good practice schools project—Stage 1: Final Report, September 2006. Melbourne, VIC: Curriculum Corporation. Available from: http://www.valueseducation.edu.au/values/default.asp?id=16381
  15. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press, Mcmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fogelberg, K. (2014). Unsilencing voices: A study of zoo signs and their language of authority. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 9(4), 787–799. doi: 10.1007/s11422-013-9566-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279–296. doi: 10.1080/09500690701787909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  20. Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and resistance in education. Michigan: Bergin and Garvey Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Gullone, E. (2003). The proposed benefits of incorporating non-human animals into preventive efforts for conduct disorder. Antrozoos, 16(2), 160–174. doi: 10.2752/089279303786992215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests (J. Shapiro Trans.). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  23. Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670. doi: 10.1080/09500690305021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahn, R., & Humes, B. (2010). Marching out from Ultima Thule: Critical counterstories of emancipatory educators working at the intersection of human rights, animal rights, and planetary sustainability. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 14, 179–195.Google Scholar
  26. Kuzich, S. (2011). It’s not only green that matters: Understanding education for sustainability in schools. International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 7(3), 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Layton, D. (1986). Revaluing science education. In P. Tomlinson & M. Quinton (Eds.), Values across the curriculum (pp. 158–178). London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lovat, T. (2010). The new values education: A pedagogical imperative for student wellbeing. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey, & N. Clement (Eds.), International research handbook on values education and student wellbeing (pp. 3–18). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Manfredo, M. J., & Dayer, A. A. (2004). Concepts for exploring the social aspects of human–wildlife conflict in a global context. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(4), 1–20. doi: 10.1080/10871200490505765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MCEETYA. (2008). Melbourne declaration on education goals for young Australians. Available at http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf
  31. McLaren, P. (2007). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon press.Google Scholar
  32. Nibert, D. (2003). Humans and other animals: Sociology’s moral and intellectual challenge. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23(3), 4–25. doi: 10.1108/01443330310790237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ogawa, M. (1995). Science education in a multiscience perspective. Science Education, 79(5), 583–593. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730790507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Orr, D. W. (2004). Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  35. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. A report to the Nuffield Foundation. London: King’s College.Google Scholar
  36. Pedersen, H. (2010). Animals in schools: Processes and strategies in human–animal education. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Roberts, D. (1982). Developing the concept of “curriculum emphases” in science education. Science Education, 66, 243–260. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730660209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rollin, B. G. (1996). Bad ethics, good ethics and the genetic engineering of animals in agriculture. Journal of Animal Science, 74, 535–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schillo, K. K. (1997). Teaching animal science: Education or indoctrination? Journal of Animal Science, 75(4), 950–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shanor, K., & Kawal, J. (2009). Bats sing mice giggle: Revealing the secret lives of animals. London: Icon Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  41. Taylor, N., & Twine, R. (2014). Introduction: Locating the ‘critical’ in critical animal studies. In N. Taylor & R. Twine (Eds.), The rise of critical animal studies: From the margins to the centre (pp. 1–16). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Verhoog, H. (1999). Animals in scientific education and a reverence for life. In F. Dolins (Ed.), Attitudes to animals: Views in animal welfare (pp. 26–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Young, I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Catholic UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options