Advertisement

Promoting Students’ Critical and Active Engagement in Socio-scientific Problems: Inter-Trans-national Perspectives

  • Larry BenczeEmail author
  • Lyn Carter
  • Audrey Groleau
  • Mirjan Krstovic
  • Ralph Levinson
  • Jenny Martin
  • Isabel Martins
  • Chantal Pouliot
  • Matthew Weinstein
Chapter
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 6)

Abstract

There are many potential harms to individuals, societies and environments associated with powerful networks of living, nonliving and symbolic entities (actants), such as financiers, banks, think tanks, transnational trade organizations and agreements, competitiveness, scientists, engineers, universities, governments, military, advertisements, entertainment, etc. Among myriad harms, perhaps the most serious is devastation from climate change linked to fossil fuel uses. Given apparent roles of many governments in supporting powerful problematic networks that involve fields of science and technology, many scholars recommend that school science not only enlighten students about harms and encourage them to make logical personal decisions about associated controversies but also prepare them to take socio-political actions that might contribute to their conceptions of a better world. In this chapter, international science education scholars discuss their uses and analyses of the ‘STEPWISE’ curricular and pedagogical framework—which is intended to facilitate such critical and activist science education. After a theoretical defence of the framework, a description is provided of a teacher’s 3-year efforts to use it in his secondary school science teaching. This is followed by five summaries of theoretical analyses of the framework by scholars from five countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, the UK and the USA), including in terms of discursive psychology, neoliberalism, critical discourse analyses of well-being, inquiry-based learning, professional development and network mobilization in informal (online gaming) and formal school science and teacher education contexts. The chapter concludes with a brief summary of some relative merits of the STEPWISE framework and with a call for continued critical reflective practice.

Keywords

Socio-scientific issues Neoliberalism Inquiry Activism STEPWISE 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Lucy Avraamidou (Associate Professor, Science Education, University of Groningen, the Netherlands), Chair, and other members of the International Committee of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) for their thorough and helpful work in selecting us as the presenters for the NARST-sponsored session at the 2017 ESERA conference. This chapter arose from that presentation. Also note that the section above addressing Socio-Scientific Inquiry-Based Learning received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement no. 612438 and PARRISE-project: Promoting Attainment of Responsible Research and Innovation in Science Education.

References

  1. Alsop, S., & Bencze, L. (2014). Activism! Toward a more radical science and technology education. In L. Bencze & S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist science and technology education (pp. 1–19). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Apple, M. W. (1982). Education and power. Boston: Ark.Google Scholar
  3. Apple, M. W. (2014). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative era (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bencze, J. L. (Ed.). (2017). Science & technology education promoting wellbeing for individuals, societies & environments. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Bencze, L., & Alsop, S. (Eds.). (2014). Activist science and technology education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Bencze, L., & Carter, L. (2011). Globalizing students acting for the common good. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 648–669.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bencze, J. L., & Carter, L. (2015). Capitalists’ profitable virtual worlds: Roles for science & technology education. In P. P. Trifonas (Ed.), International handbook of semiotics (Vol. 1 & 2, pp. 1197–1212). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bencze, L., Reiss, M., Sharma, A., & Weinstein, M. (2018). STEM education as ‘Trojan horse’: Deconstructed and reinvented for all. In L. Bryan & K. Tobin (Eds.), 13 questions: Reframing education’s conversation: Science (pp. 69–87). New York: Peter Lang.  https://doi.org/10.3726/b11305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 132–161). London: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03351.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1998). Discourse in late modernity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  13. Foucault, M. (2008). In M. Senellart (Ed.), The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collége de France, 1978–1979. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Harré, R. (1984). Personal being: A theory for individual psychology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999). The dynamics of social episodes. In R. Harré & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory (pp. 1–13). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Hodson, D. (2011). Looking to the future: Building a curriculum for social activism. Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Humbel, L., Jolliet, F., & Varcher, P. (2012). 3 key competencies in ESD for learners and teachers: Make a deconstruction, operate a reconstruction and ask critical questions. A case study in college classrooms about some SAQ (Socially acute questions) concerning ‘le fait religieux’ (unpublished paper).Google Scholar
  18. Krstovic, M. (2014). Preparing students for self-directed research-informed actions on socio-scientific issues. In L. Bencze & S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist science and technology education (pp. 399–418). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Levinson, R., & PARRISE consortium. (2017). Socio-scientific inquiry-based learning: Taking off from STEPWISE. In J. L. Bencze (Ed.), Science & technology education promoting wellbeing for individuals, societies & environments (pp. 477–502). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loving, C. C. (1991). The scientific theory profile: A philosophy of science model for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 823–838.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McGillivray, M. (2007). Human well-being. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.  https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McLaren, P. (2000). Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the pedagogy of the revolution. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  24. McMurtry, J. (2015). The cancer stage of capitalism: From crisis to cure. London: Pluto.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ministry of Education [MoE]. (2008). The Ontario curriculum, grades 9 and 10: Science. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.Google Scholar
  26. Mirowski, P. (2011). Science-mart: Privatizing American science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Owen, R., MacNaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pierce, C. (2013). Education in the age of biocapitalism: Optimizing educational life for a flat world. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Preston, L. (2011). Green pedagogy – Guidance and doubt in teaching outdoor and environmental education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 367–380.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2011.614686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Qizilbash, M. (1998). The concept of Well-being. Economics and Philosophy, 14(1), 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rocard, M. (2007). Science education NOW: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  32. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768–790.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sahlberg, P. (2015). Finnish lessons 2.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  34. Sauvé, L. (2005). Currents in environmental education – Mapping a complex and evolving pedagogical field. The Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 10(1), 11–37.Google Scholar
  35. Stiglitz, J. E. (2016). Inequality and economic growth. The Political Quarterly, 86(S1), 134–155.Google Scholar
  36. Strauss, V., & Sahlberg, P. (2012, June 29). How GERM is infecting schools around the world. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/how-germ-is-infecting-schools-around-the-world/2012/06/29/gJQAVELZAW_blog.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.12cc616fd203. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  37. Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wood, L., & Kroger, R. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OISEUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of Education and ArtsSchool of Education MelbourneFitzroyAustralia
  3. 3.Département des sciences de l’éducationUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresTrois-RivièresCanada
  4. 4.Peel District School BoardMississaugaCanada
  5. 5.Institute of EducationUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  6. 6.ILSTEAustralian Catholic UniversityEast MelbourneAustralia
  7. 7.NUTESUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  8. 8.Université LavalQuébecCanada
  9. 9.School of EducationUniversity of Washington-TacomaSt. TacomaUSA

Personalised recommendations