Troubling Norms and Values in Science Teaching Through Students’ Subject Positions Using Feminist Figurations

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 15)

Abstract

This study explores how 15-year-old students choose to position themselves in relation to the prevailing norms and values in a discourse practice: the 2009 Swedish national test in chemistry. The prevailing discourse in the test calls on students to embrace a scientific identity. This identity is male-coded and builds on Cartesian thoughts and thereby on the mind-body, culture-nature dichotomies. The overarching aim has been to trouble this scientific identity that the test is positioning itself within. The aim has also been to sketch a possible alternative to this discourse, that is, what feminist figurations can be interpreted through students’ subject positions and what alternative science teaching can be sketched in the means of them. The study has been conducted by analysing 188 student answers from one of the open-ended socio-scientific test items that allow students to take stances and express their thoughts. The position that students take is broadly in opposition to the prevailing discourse. The interpreted feminist figurations show a possible and alternative science teaching that points at a science teaching that takes into account students’ interests and involvement.

Keywords

Chemistry teaching Students’ subject positions Feminist figurations 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ah-King, M. (2013). Queering animal sexual behaviour in biology textbooks. Confero, 1(2), 46–89. doi:10.3384/confero.2001-4562.13v1i21d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alaimo, S., & Hekman, S. (Eds.). (2008). Material feminisms. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alsop, S. (2011). The body bites back! Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6, 611–623. doi:10.1007/s11422-011-9328-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arvola Orlander, A., & Wickman, P.-O. (2011). Bodily experiences in secondary school biology. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6, 569–594. doi:10.1007/s11422-010-9191-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway. Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham/London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berge, B.-M., & Widding, G. (2006). En granskning av hur kön framställs i ett urval av läroböcker. [An examination of how sex is produced in a section of textbooks]. Underlagsrapport till Skolverkets rapport “I enlighet med skolans värdegrund?”. Umeå universitet.Google Scholar
  7. Braidotti, R. (2002). Metamorphoses. Towards a materialist theory of becoming. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Braidotti, R. (2011). Nomadic subjects. Embodiment and sexual difference in contemporary feminist theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brickhouse, N. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 282–295. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<282::AID-TEA1006>3.0.CO;2-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butler, J. (2007). Genustrubbel: feminism och identitetens subversion [Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity] (Suzanne Almquist, Trans.). Göteborg: Bokförlaget Daidalos AB. (Original work published 1990).Google Scholar
  11. Butler, J. (2011). Bodies that matter. On the discourse limits of “sex” (2nd ed.). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Englund, T. (1997). Undervisning som meningserbjudanden. [Teaching as an offer of meaning]. In M. Uljens (Ed.), Didaktik: teori, reflektion och praktik (pp. 120–145). Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  13. Folkeryd, J. (2006). Writing with an attitude. Appraisal and student texts in the school subject of Sweden. Doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University, Department of Linguistics and Philology.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (2008). Diskursernas kamp/Michel Foucault: texter i urval av Thomas Götselius och Ulf Olsson [The discourse of struggle.] (Lars Bjurman and Jan Stolpe Trans.) Stockholm: Brutus Östlings Bokförlag.Google Scholar
  15. Fox Keller, E. (1977). The anomaly of woman in physics. In S. Ruddick & P. Daniels (Eds.), Working it out (pp. 78–91). New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  16. Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analyses: Theory and method (4th ed.). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science. Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  18. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions. Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women. The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Haraway, D. (1992). The promises of monsters: A regenerative politics for inappropriate/d others. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 295–337). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Haraway, D. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hasse, C. (2002). Gender diversity in play with physics: The problem of premises for participation in activities. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(4), 250–269. doi:10.1207/S15327884MCA0904_02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klafki, W. (1997). Kritisk, konstruktiv didaktik. [Critical constructive theory]. In M. Uljens (Ed.), Didaktik: teori, reflektion och praktik (pp. 215–228). Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  26. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope. Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex, cop.Google Scholar
  29. Lemke, J. L. (2011). The secret identity of science education: Masculine and politically conservative? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(2), 287–292. doi:10.1007/s11422-011-9326-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lykke, N. (2009). Genusforskning: En guide till feministisk teori, metodologi och skrift. [ Gender studies: A guide to feminist theory, methodology and texts]. Stockholm: Liber.Google Scholar
  31. Miller, P. (2006). Contemporary perspectives from human development: Implications for feminist scholarship. Signs, 31(2), 445–469. doi:10.1086/491680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Milne, C., & Rubin, K. (2011). Embodying emotions: Making transactions explicit in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6, 625–633. doi:10.1007/s11422-011-9354-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Östman, L. (1995). Socialisation och mening: NO-utbildning som politiskt och miljömoraliskt problem. [Socialization and meaning. Science education as a political and environmental-ethical problem]. Doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University: Department of education.Google Scholar
  34. Östman, L. (1998). How companion meanings are expressed by science education discourse. In D. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 54–70). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  35. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roberts, D. (1998). Analyzing school science courses: The concept of companion meaning. In D. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 5–12). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  37. Roberts, D., & Östman, L. (Eds.). (1998). Problems of meaning in science curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project: An overview and key findings. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  39. Skolverket. (2014, January 29). Nationellt ämnesprov i kemi våren 2009 och tillhörande bedömningsanvisningar. Umeå universitet: Institutionen för tillämpad utbildningsvetenskap. Retrieved from http://www.edusci.umu.se/np/nap/tidigare-givna-prov-lpo94/
  40. SOU. (2004:103). Lärande för Hållbar utveckling. [Learning for sustainable development]. Stockholm: Fritzes offentliga publikationer.Google Scholar
  41. Stromquist, N. (1993). The practical and theoretical bases for empowerment. Paper presented at the international seminar on Women’s education and empowerment, UNESCO Institute for Education, Hamburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  42. Ståhl, M., & Hussenius, A. (2016). Chemistry inside an epistemological community box! – Discursive exclusions and inclusions in Swedish National tests in Chemistry. Culture Studies of Science Education, 1(11), 1–29. doi:10.1007/s11422-016-9730-z.Google Scholar
  43. Ståhl, M., & Folkeryd, J. (2016). Scientific norms and students’ evaluative language use. In M. Ståhl, Kemiämnets normer och värden. Diskursanalytiska studier av nationella prov i kemi och tillhörande elevtexter. Doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University, Department of Education.Google Scholar
  44. Søndergaard, D. M. (1996). Tegnet på kroppen. Køn: Koder og konstruktioner blandt unge voksne i akademia. [Signs on the body. Sex: Codes and constructions among adults in academia]. Köpenhamn: Museum Tusculanums forlag, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  45. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. von Wright, M. (1999). Genus och text - när kan man tala om jämställdhet i fysikläromedel? [Gender and texts – When is it possible to talk about equality in physics’ textbooks?] Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations