Advertisement

Critical and Active Public Engagement in Addressing Socioscientific Problems Through Science Teacher Education

  • John Lawrence BenczeEmail author
  • Sarah El Halwany
  • Majd Zouda
Chapter
  • 22 Downloads
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 52)

Abstract

During the current so-called anthropocene epoch, earth’s biotic and abiotic systems appear to be facing numerous existential threats linked to fields of science and technology (S&T)—including, for example, cancer, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes associated with manufactured foods and immense dislocation and suffering from human-generated climate change. Meanwhile, small fractions of societies are increasingly concentrating wealth and wellbeing. Given severity and persistence of such problems, along with significant culpability of powerful individuals and groups, it seems clear that general populations must become more critical of processes and products of S&T fields and, where they perceive harms, be prepared to develop and implement actions to address them. In light of its roles in selecting potential S&T workers and others about such fields, science education programmes could significantly contribute to development of more critical and action-oriented citizenry. Through the ‘STEPWISE’ programme outlined here, it seems clear many teachers have had some ‘successes’ in this regard. On the other hand, implementation of STEPWISE-related perspectives and practices appear relatively confined to unique contexts. Accordingly, in this chapter, through our collaborative case study of our earlier action research projects with three science educators in different educational contexts, we provide some insights into living, nonliving and symbolic entities that educators and others may find relevant (likely among many others) in working to assemble networks of entities (dispositifs) that may be conducive to critical and action-oriented science education in particular situations.

Keywords

Socioscientific issues Critical and activist science education Dispositifs Teacher practice Ecojustice 

Notes

Acknowledgements

True to our adherence to actor-network theory and the dispositif concept, content of this chapter should be seen as an amalgamation of myriad living, nonliving and symbolic actants. Symbolically, for instance, this work is driven by various senses of injustice. Meanwhile, the extent to which this chapter deals with them seems connected to multiple technologies, animate and inanimate. Integrated into all of these, however, we are extremely grateful to long-term commitments to this project by the three teachers highlighted in this study (Nurul Hassan, Mirjan Krstovic & Tomo Nishizawa) and numerous others over about the last decade and knowledge-generation assistance from many graduate students who have been part of this project at various times.

References

  1. Behr, H. (2017). The populist obstruction of reality: Analysis and response. Global Affairs, 3(1), 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bencze, J. L. (1996). Correlational studies in school science: Breaking the science-experiment-certainty connection. School Science Review, 78(282), 95–101.Google Scholar
  3. Bencze, J. L. (Ed.). (2017). Science & technology education promoting wellbeing for individuals, societies & environments. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bencze, L., & Krstovic, M. (2017). Resisting the Borg: Science teaching for common wellbeing. In J. L. Bencze (Ed.), Science & technology education promoting wellbeing for individuals, societies & environments (pp. 227–276). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bencze, L., Bowen, M., & Alsop, S. (2006). Teachers’ tendencies to promote student-led science projects: Associations with their views about science. Science Education, 90(3), 400–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decisionmaking and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78(2), 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blum, A., & Murray, S. J. (2017). The ethics of care: Moral knowledge, communication, and the art of caregiving. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), The handbook of theory: Research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.Google 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.Google Scholar
  11. Carter, L. (2008). Globalisation and science education: The implications for science in the new economy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 617–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  14. El Halwany, S., Bencze, L., Hassan, N., Schaffer, K., Milanovic, M., & Zouda, M. (2017). Exploring connections between a college instructor’s relationships to nature and to his practices on socio-scientific issues: A life history approach. Paper presented at the semi-annual conference of the European Science Education Research Association, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  15. Forzieri, G., Cescatti, A., Silva, F. P., & Feyen, L. (2017). Increasing risk over time of weather-related hazards to the European population: A data-driven prognostic study. The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(5), e200–e208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collége de France, 1978–1979 (M. Senellart, Ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Gaines, B. R., & Shaw, M. L. G. (1993). Knowledge acquisition tools based on personal construct psychology. Knowledge Engineering Review, 8(1), 49–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gough, A. (2015). STEM policy and science education: Scientistic curriculum and sociopolitical silences. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(2), 445–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Hodson, D. (2011). Looking to the future: Building a curriculum for social activism. Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. International Baccalaureate Organization. (2014). Diploma programme: Biology guide. Retrieved from http://www.sdgj.com/ckfinder/userfiles/files/9a6ff27578e18e3f1023a4dc046beef1.pdf
  22. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levinson, R. (2018). Realizing the school science curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 29(4), 522–537.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2018.1504314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ministry of Education [MoE]. (2008). The Ontario curriculum, grades 9 and 10: Science. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.Google Scholar
  28. Mirowski, P. (2011). Science-mart: Privatizing American science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2010). Merchants of doubt. London: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
  30. Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95(4), 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pierce, C. (2013). Education in the age of biocapitalism: Optimizing educational life for a flat world. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sadler, T. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and trends. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schaffer, K., Milanovic, M., El Halwany, S., Hassan, N., Zouda, M., & Bencze, L. (2017). Inertial tensions in promoting socio-political actions among future technoscience technicians. Paper presented at the semi-annual conference of the European Science Education Research Association, Aug. 21–25, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  36. Schwandt, T., & Gates, E. F. (2018). Case study methodology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 341–358). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Springer, S., Birch, K., & MacLeavy, J. (Eds.). (2016). The handbook of neoliberalism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Wood, G. H. (1998). Democracy and the curriculum. In L. E. Beyer & M. W. Apple (Eds.), The curriculum: Problems, politics and possibilities (pp. 177–198). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  39. Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 697–726). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Zouda, M., Nishizawa, T., & Bencze, L. (2016). What do youth know about socioscientific issues? Reflecting for socio-political actions. A paper presented at the annual conference of American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, April, 2016.Google Scholar
  41. Zouda, M., Nishizawa, T., & Bencze, L. (2017). In the eye of the hurricane’: Using STEPWISE to address urgent socio-political issues in Venezuela. In J. L. Bencze (Ed.), Science & technology education promoting wellbeing for individuals, societies & environments (pp. 339–357). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OISE, University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations