Abstract
Although in-depth educational reviews can be carried out building on curricular theories, the appropriation of this knowledge by science education scholarship can still be considered timid. In this paper, our intention is to work on this interface; we first introduce basic concepts from the main curricular frameworks and bring possible corresponding curricular emphases assumed by science education. Then, we highlight the post-critical curricular perspectives to problematize discursive demands and articulations as part of processes of struggle for the fixation of particular meanings in the field of science education. With emphasis on discourse theory and categories such as discourse, articulation, hegemony and antagonism, we sought to identify hegemonic and counter-hegemonic discourses defended in the struggle for curricular proposals of science education and teacher-training in Brazilian scholarship and in some international examples. In our analysis, the traditional and critical conceptions of science education were discursively identified as antagonist, in a scenario of uncertainties and lack of fundamentals, without, therefore, either one being able to represent a single and definitive intervention. Traditional curricular and teacher-training projects were seen as products of discursive articulations in defense of the universalism of West Modern Science (knowledge itself) and of the technical rationality. Scientific literacy with a social function and a critical teacher-training proposal were identified as antagonist to traditional curricular discourses and approximated to educational perspectives that defend more generic and contextual educational competences (knowledge to do something). However, recent curricular discourses adequate to the new configurations of social organization that tend to blur the antagonism between these discourses in the name of social justice and democratic equality, from a post-critical point of view, create a paradox: If these demands are treated as prescription and control, they will expel all differences and uniqueness of education, rendering meaningless education, justice and democracy, which are constructs that require alterity to exist in the social.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aikenhead, G. S. (1994). What is STS science teaching? In J. Solomon & G. S. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 47–59). New York: Teachers College Press.
Aikenhead, G. S., & Jegede, O. J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive explanation for a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199903)36:3%3c269:AID-TEA3%3e3.0.CO;2-T.
Alsop, S., & Fawcet, L. (2010). After this nothing happened. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(4), 1027–1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-010-9298-y.
Auler, D. (2007). Articulação entre pressupostos do educador Paulo Freire e do movimento CTS: Novos caminhos para a educação em ciências. Contexto & Educação, 22(77), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.21527/2179-1309.2007.77.167-188.
Bomfim, A. M., Vieira, V., & Deccache-Maia, E. (2018). A crítica da crítica dos mestrados profissionais: uma reflexão sobre quais seriam as contradições relevantes. Ciência & Educação, 24(1), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-731320180010016.
Brasil (1998). Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais: Parte I—Bases Legais. Brasília.
Brasil. (2017). Documento da área de Ensino. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior http://capes.gov.br/images/documentos/Documentos_de_area_2017/DOCUMENTO_AREA_ENSINO_24_MAIO.pdf. consultado em 26/07/2017.
Carter, L. (2004). Thinking differently about cultural diversity: Using postcolonial theory to (re)read science education. Science Education, 88(6), 819–836. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20000.
Carter, L. (2010). The armchair at the borders: The “messy” ideas of borders and border epistemologies within multicultural science education scholarship. Science Education, 94(3), 428–447. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20323.
Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2001). Defining science in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85(1), 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200101)85:1%3c50:AID-SCE5%3e3.0.CO;2-G.
Fourez, G. (1997). Alfabetización científica y tecnológica—Acerca de las finalidades de la enseñanza de las ciencias. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Colihue.
Freire, P. (1987). Pedagogia do oprimido. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Paz e Terra.
Gabriel, C. T. (2016). Conhecimento escolar e emancipação: uma leitura pós-fundacional. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 46(159), 104–130. https://doi.org/10.1590/198053143551.
Hall, S. (2012). Quem precisa de identidade? In T. T. Silva (Ed.), Identidade e diferença—A perspectiva dos estudos culturais. Editora Vozes: Petrópolis, RJ.
Laclau, E. (2011). Emancipação e diferença. Rio de Janeiro: EdUERJ.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1987). Hegemonía y estrategia socialista: hacia uma radicalización de la democracia. Madrid, Siglo XXI.
Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1%3c71:AID-SCE6%3e3.0.CO;2-C.
Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3%3c296:AID-TEA1007%3e3.0.CO;2-R.
Lemke, J. L. (2006). Investigar para el futuro de la educación científica: nuevas formas de aprender, nuevas formas de vivir. Enseñanza de Las Ciencias, 24(1), 5–12.
Lopes, A. C. (1999). Pluralismo cultural em políticas de currículo nacional. In A. F. Moreira (Ed.), Currículo: políticas e práticas. Papirus: Campinas, SP.
Lopes, A. C. (2013). Teorias pós-críticas, política e currículo. Educação, Sociedade & Culturas, 39, 7–23.
Lopes, A. C. (2015). Por um currículo sem fundamento. Linhas Críticas, 21(45), 445–466.
Lopes, A. C., & Borges, V. (2015). Formação docente: um projeto impossível. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 45(157), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1590/198053143065.
Lopes, A. C., & Macedo, E. (2004). Currículo de ciências em debate. Campinas, SP: Papirus Editora.
Lopes, A. C., & Macedo, E. (2011). Teorias de Currículo. São Paulo: Cortez.
Macedo, E. (2004). Ciência, tecnologia e desenvolvimento: uma visão cultural do currículo de ciências. In A. Lopes & E. Macedo (Eds.), Currículo de ciências em debate. Campinas, SP: Papirus.
Macedo, E. (2016). Base nacional curricular comum: a falsa oposição entre conhecimento para fazer algo e conhecimento em si. Educação em Revista, 32(2), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-4698153052.
Maués, O. C. (2011). A política da OCDE para a educação e a formação docente: a nova regulação? Educação, 34(1), 75–85.
Moreira, M. A., Studart, N., & Vianna, D. M. (2016). O mestrado nacional profissional em ensino de física (MNPEF) uma experiência em larga escala no Brasil. Latin-American Journal of Physics Education, 10(4), 4327-1–4327-6.
Mueller, M., & Tippins, D. (2010). van Eijck and Roth’s utilitarian science education: Why the recalibration of science and traditional ecological knowledge invokes multiple perspectives to protect science education from being exclusive. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(4), 993–1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-009-9236-z.
Rezende, F., & Ostermann, F. (2005). A prática do professor e a pesquisa em ensino de Física: novos elementos para repensar essa relação. Caderno Brasileiro de Ensino de Física, 22(3), 316–338. https://doi.org/10.5007/%25x.
Rezende, F., & Ostermann, F. (2015). O protagonismo controverso dos mestrados profissionais em ensino de ciências. Ciência & Educação, 21(3), 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-731320150030002.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10113.
Santos, W. L. P. (2007). Educação científica na perspectiva de letramento como prática social: funções, princípios e desafios. Revista Brasileira de Educação, 12(36), 474–492. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-24782007000300007.
Santos, W. L. P. (2009). Scientific literacy: A Freirean perspective as a radical view of humanistic Science education. Science Education, 93(2), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20301.
Silva, T. T. (1993). Sociologia da Educação e Pedagogia Crítica em Tempos Pós-Modernos. In T. T. Silva (Ed.), Teoria Educacional Crítica em tempos Pós-modernos (pp. 122–140). Artes Médicas: Porto Alegre.
Silva, T. T. (1994). O Adeus às Metanarrativas Educacionais. In T. T. Silva (Ed.), O Sujeito da Educação (5th ed., pp. 247–258). Rio de Janeiro: Vozes.
Silva, T. T. (2000). Documentos de Identidade. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica.
Snively, G., & Corsiglia, J. (2001). Rediscovering indigenous science: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85(1), 6–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200101)85:1%3c6:AID-SCE3%3e3.0.CO;2-R.
Soares, M. (1998). Letramento: Um tema em três gêneros. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica.
Souza, J., Rezende, F., & Ostermann, F. (2016). Apropriação discursiva de modelos de formação docente em trabalhos de conclusão de um mestrado profissional de um ensino de Física. Ensaio-Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 18(2), 171–199. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21172016180208.
Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. W. (1994). Multiculturalism, universalism, and science education. Science Education, 78(4), 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730780405.
van Eijck, M., & Roth, W.-M. (2007). Keeping the local local: Recalibrating the status of science and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in education. Science Education, 91(6), 926–947. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20227.
Zeidler, D., Sadler, T., Simmons, M., & Howes, E. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048.
Zouda, M. (2018). Issues of power and control in STEM education: A Reading through the postmodern condition. Cultural Studies of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9820-6.
Acknowledgements
Funding was provided by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (Grant No. 304432/2017-2).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Lead editor: Alejandro J. Gallard Martínez.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rezende, F., Ostermann, F. Hegemonic and counter-hegemonic discourses in science education scholarship from the perspective of post-critical curricular theories. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 15, 1047–1065 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09969-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09969-0