2020 Vision: Envisioning a new generation of STEM learning research

Key contributors

We continue the tradition in this issue of CSSE, of honoring Key Contributors to the field of science education, by observing either an institution supporting science education research, and/or a scholar whose work has influenced a growing body of research in science education. This particular key contributor piece is connected to the larger theme of this issue, and in particular, the papers in the previous section. A. Susan Jurow recognizes Kris Gutiérrez, Distinguished Professor in Literacy Studies and Learning Sciences and Human Development at University of Colorado, Boulder. In Kris Gutiérrez: designing with and for diversity in the learning sciences, Jurow reviews the significance of the theoretical and practical contributions that Gutiérrez has made to research in science education. Her pioneering ideas about design and equity have inspired scholars to investigate how to leverage learners’ everyday practices to make meaningful connections to disciplinary-based knowledge and skills. Her work has provided invaluable direction about how to create and foster more equitable futures through critical understanding of cultural diversity as a resource for transformative learning.

In Penuel’s original paper, “Studying science and engineering learning in practice,” he posits that the key goal of science and engineering education is to provide opportunities for people to access, interpret, and make use of science and engineering to address practical human needs, yet most education research, focuses on how best to prepare students in schools to participate in forms of science and engineering practices that resemble those of disciplinary experts. He argues that education research is needed that focuses on how people use science and engineering in social practices. Drawing upon social practice theory, he maintains that learning is an essential part of these activities, not only because people access and make use of science knowledge while participating in these practices, but also because participation transforms the ways that people imagine themselves and expands their possibilities for action. He believes that research can inform and support these efforts, both directly and indirectly, by accounting for the conditions of science and engineering learning and by diagnosing inequities in access to science and engineering that might address pressing human needs.

Roth’s paper, “On the societal nature of praxis and organic research,” presents an approach built on societal-historical activity theory that also takes activism as a major category for theorizing participation, thus allowing researchers to empirically consider the production of inequity and restrictions to access science and engineering that are characteristic of many societies.

Key contributors

The second key contributor piece by Léonie Rennie, “John Falk and Lynn Dierking: building the field of informal/free-choice science education” recognizes Falk, Sea Grant Professor of Free-Choice STEM Learning, Oregon State University and Director, Institute for Learning Innovation, and Dierking, Sea Grant Professor of Free-Choice STEM Learning and Associate Dean for Research, Oregon State University. Rennie discusses their on-going efforts, in both their collaborative and individual work, to highlight the critical importance of “context” in science learning, a concept that has underpinned their academic contributions to science education research overall, and specifically to the field of informal/free-choice science learning research. Rennie also notes that although their interests and skills overlap in complementary ways, both have made significant individual contributions; Falk in his work on identity and impact, and Dierking in her work on community, youth, family and equity. Their commitment to innovation as science education leaders and scholars is demonstrated by their vision for this special issue’s theme, and the SYNERGIES project, within a diverse and under-resourced community in Portland, where they are attempting to re-conceptualize and collaboratively reconfigure in-school and out-of-school science learning as a complex, integrated ecosystem. This project is highlighted in the final synthesis paper.

In their original paper, “Scientific media education in the classroom and beyond—a research agenda for the next decade,” Reid and Norris posit that scientific media education (SME), which provides learners the ability to draw upon knowledge of media and science, in order to choose, understand, evaluate, and respond to representations of science across diverse media genres, is the most important content area that can be taught in and out of the science classroom. Thus rather than focusing on which individual STEM disciplines or topics to include or not, they identify a research agenda focused on scientific media education. They argue for making scientific media education a key content area in both formal and informal science learning environments with particular focus on those research avenues designed to better understand: (1) limitations in current practices of scientific media education; (2) what scientific media education should look like in the future; and (3) strategies that might alleviate the barriers to implementing new and improved scientific media education.

In Storksdieck’s Forum piece, “Critical information literacy as a core skill for lifelong STEM learning in the twenty-first century: Reflections on the desirability and feasibility for widespread science media education,” he maintains that there are issues with Reid and Norris’ approach to the problem of selecting STEM content—both how they define the problem and how they propose solving it. Furthermore he argues for the need for a stronger intellectual/research foundation than they recommend. He concludes that making SME an integral part of STEM education is unrealistic, and instead offers the broader concept of information literacy, which better aligns with the current strong movement to conceptualize STEM education through science and engineering practices and within the broad goals of strengthening learners’ twenty-first century learning skills. Although the focus of Storksdieck’s paper is not on Principle 6, “Describe how existing and emerging technologies and new media are, and will continue to shape and redefine the content and practice of STEM learning research,” his Forum piece does raise important considerations vis-à-vis the role that existing and emerging technologies and new media play in STEM learning.

In Rowe’s paper, “Re-authoring research conversations: Beyond epistemological differences and toward transformative experience in professional development of educators,” he discusses the commonplace concern among education researchers studying learning in both formal and informal learning contexts that many educators, both master teachers and those practicing the craft as novices, do not embrace educational research. Primarily viewed as a deficiency on the part of teachers and the profession of teaching, speaking from his own experience working with classroom teachers and educators in a wide range of out-of-school settings, Rowe suggests this has more to do with researchers and the nature of the research being conducted, than oft-noted reasons that research is too difficult to understand, unrelated to practice and that teachers’ and researchers’ epistemologies differ. He extends the conversation beyond epistemology, by raising additional issues related to: (1) the presentation of self in the teaching profession; (2) research as a tool that often conflicts, and, in many cases, transgresses its subjects’ opportunities to author their own life experiences and self; and, (3) the role of re-authoring/re-narrativizing in moving beyond transgression to transformation, by bringing educator’s voices to the table as partners in authoring a joint vision of teachers, teaching, and we would argue, research. In this vein, Rowe’s paper connects to earlier papers urging new, more participatory approaches to research (Tobin, Penuel, Civil, Rahm), which not only demonstrate how people access and make use of science knowledge while participating in science (and engineering) practices, but also document how such participation can transform learners’ views about what science is, who does it and their relationship to it, potentially encouraging further participation and action.

Integrating the 2020 Vision research principles

A final synthesis paper, “The SYNERGIES project: A 2020 Vision case study”, authored by John Falk, Lynn Dierking, Nancy Staus, Jennifer Wyld, Deborah Bailey and William Penuel discusses an on-going longitudinal study being conducted in a diverse, under-resourced community in Portland, Oregon, with the hope of measurably improving STEM learning, interest and participation, both in school and out of school for middle school-aged youth and their families. Although the earlier papers and Forum pieces provide innumerable research ideas and directions, and each offers a big view, they focus on a specific aspect of the 2020 research vision; in great part, because that was the charge authors were given. We write this final paper to provide a synoptic view of what future STEM learning research could look like, providing one example of how the 2020 Vision research principles might be integrated into a comprehensive STEM learning research (and practice) effort.

Organized around the original six research principles, authors examine how each is integral to this research effort with a design attempting to: (1) more accurately reflect learning as a lifelong process occurring across settings, situations and time frames; (2) take into account the broader socio-cultural-political contexts of the needs and concerns of the larger global society; (3) examine learning as a cultural process, involving varied repertoires of practice across learners’ everyday lives; (4) consider what STEM content is worth learning; (5) directly involve practitioners (and learners) in the research process; and, (6) document how existing and emerging technologies and new media are, and will continue, to shape and redefine the content and practice of STEM learning research. It is an ambitious effort and we discuss the challenges and successes thus far.

In closing, we would like to thank CSSE’s Editorial Board for providing us the opportunity to publish these papers in this special issue to foster on-going dialogue and debate about the future of science education research broadly writ. We hope that the papers, and the consequent conversations, enable us as a community of researchers to be proactive as we move forward, embracing new ideas and approaches to conducting research in the twenty-first century.