Advertisement

Becoming Part of the Solution: Learning about Activism, Learning through Activism, Learning from Activism

  • Derek HodsonEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 9)

Abstract

After making the case for an action-oriented science curriculum as a major component of education for responsible citizenship, the author contends that building such a curriculum has four key elements. First, learning about the issues, that is, focusing on the science and technology aspects of important socioscientific issues (SSI), recognizing the social, cultural and economic contexts in which they are located, developing the nature of science knowledge that builds robust understanding of contemporary scientific practice, and acquiring the media literacy necessary to access and read with critical understanding a wide variety of information sources. Second, learning to care about issues and the people impacted by them, including a focus on dealing with controversy, addressing values and developing concern for the views, needs and interests of others. Third, engaging and managing the powerful emotions often generated by SSI. Fourth, learning about sociopolitical action, taking action and evaluating action. For this key fourth element, the author advocates a 3-stage apprenticeship approach comprising modelling, guided practice and application.

Keywords

Individual action Collective action Direct action Indirect action Apprenticeship 

References

  1. Alsop, S., & Bencze, L. (2012). In search of activist pedagogies in SMTE. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 12(4), 394–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). Eight rungs on the ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ballantyne, R., Connell, S., & Fien, J. (1998). Students as catalysts of environmental change: A framework for researching intergenerational influence through environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 4(3), 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballantyne, R., Fien, J., & Packer, J. (2001a). Programme effectiveness in facilitating intergenerational influence in environmental education: Lessons from the field. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 8–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ballantyne, R., Fien, J., & Packer, J. (2001b). School environmental education program impacts upon family learning: A case study analysis. Environmental Education Research, 7(1), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banks, J. (2004). Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Brusic, S. A. (1992). Achieving STS goals through experiential learning. Theory into Practice, 31(1), 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burbules, N., & Callister, T. (2000). Watch IT: The risks and promises of information technology. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  9. Carlson, C. (2005). Youth with influence: The youth planner initiative in Hampton, Virginia. Children, Youth and Environments, 15(2), 211–216.Google Scholar
  10. Chawla, L., & Flanders Cushing, D. (2007). Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research, 13(4), 437–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dimick, A. S. (2012). Student empowerment in an environmental science classroom: Towards a framework for social justice science education. Science Education, 96(6), 990–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elam, M., & Bertilsson, M. (2003). Consuming, engaging and confronting science: The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory, 6(2), 233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emdin, C. (2010). Urban science education for the hip-hop generation: Essential tools for the urban science educator and researcher. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Fletcher, A. C., Elder, G., & Mekos, D. (2000). Parental influences on adolescent involvement in community activities. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10(1), 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forester, J. (2006). Exploring urban practice in a democratising society: Opportunities, techniques and challenges. Development Southern Africa, 23(5), 569–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  17. Fullick, P., & Ratcliffe, M. (Eds.). (1996). Teaching ethical aspects of science. Totton: Bassett Press.Google Scholar
  18. Garrett, R. K. (2006). Protest in an information society: A review of literature on social movements and new ICTs. Information, Communication and Society, 9(2), 202–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ginwright, S., & Cammarota, J. (2007). Youth activism in the urban community: Learning critical civic praxis within community organizations. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(6), 693–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Girod, M., Rau, C., & Schepige, A. (2003). Appreciating the beauty of science ideas: Teaching for aesthetic understanding. Science Education, 87(4), 574–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goleman, D. (1985). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  22. Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  24. González-Gaudiano, E., & Meira-Cartea, P. (2010). Climate change education and communication: A critical perspective on obstacles and resistances. In F. Kagawa & D. Selby (Eds.), Education and climate change: Living and learning in interesting times (pp. 13–34). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Hart, R. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship (UNICEF Innocenti Essays, No.4). Florence: International Child Development Centre, UNICEF.Google Scholar
  26. Hart, R. A. (2008). Stepping back from ‘the ladder’: Reflections on a model of participatory work with children. In A. Reid, B. B. Jensen, J. Nikel, & V. Simovsla (Eds.), Participation and learning: Perspectives on education and the environment, health and sustainability (pp. 19–31). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hodson, D. (1994). Seeking directions for change: The personalisation and politicisation of science education. Curriculum Studies, 2, 71–98.Google Scholar
  28. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hodson, D. (2009). Putting your money where your mouth is: Towards an action-oriented science curriculum. Journal of Activist Science & Technology Education, 1(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  30. Hodson, D. (2011). Looking to the future: Building a curriculum for social activism. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. House of Commons, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. (2003). Conduct of the GM public debate. Eighteenth report of session 2002–2003. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  32. Irwin, A. (2008). STS perspectives on scientific governance. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 583–607). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jensen, B. B. (2002). Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jensen, B. B. (2004). Environmental and health education viewed from an action-oriented perspective: A case from Denmark. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(4), 405–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (1997). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 3(2), 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones, A., McKim, A., & Reiss, M. (Eds.). (2010). Ethics in the science and technology classroom: A new approach to teaching and learning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Kelly, T. (1986). Discussing controversial issues: Four perspectives on the teacher’s role. Theory and Research in Social Education, 14, 113–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kenis, A., & Mathijs, E. (2012). Beyond individual behaviour change: The role of power, knowledge and strategy in tackling climate change. Environmental Education Research, 18(1), 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kyle, W. C. (1996). Editorial: The importance of investing in human resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1–4.Google Scholar
  41. Laessøe, J. (2010). Education for sustainable development, participation and socio-cultural change. Environmental Education Research, 16(1), 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lester, B. T., Li, M., Lee, O., & Lambert, J. (2006). Social activism in elementary science education: A science, technology, and society approach to teach global warming. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 315–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2005). ‘Loveable’ mammals and ‘lifeless’ plants: How children’s interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 655–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Liston, D. (2004). The allure of beauty and the pain of injustice in learning and teaching. In D. Liston & J. Garrison (Eds.), Teaching, learning and loving: Reclaiming passion in educational practice (pp. 101–116). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lloyd, D., & Wallace, J. (2004). Imaging the future of science education: The case for making futures studies explicit in student learning. Studies in Science Education, 39, 139–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lousley, C. (1999). (De)Politicizing the environment club: Environmental discourses and the culture of schooling. Environmental Education Research, 5(3), 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Matthews, B. (2005). Emotional development, science and co-education. In W. W. Cobern, K. Tobin, H. Brown-Acquay, M. Espinet, G. Irzik, O. Jegede, L. R. Herrara, M. Rollnick, S. Sjøberg, T. H-L, & S. Alsop (Eds.), Beyond Cartesian Dualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science (pp. 173–186). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2004a). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., & Zeidner, M. (2004b). Seven myths about emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Maxwell, N. (1984). From knowledge to wisdom. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  53. Maxwell, N. (1992). What kind of inquiry can best help us create a good world? Science, Technology & Human Values, 17(2), 205–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McClaren, M., & Hammond, B. (2005). Integrating education and action in environmental education. In E. A. Johnson & M. J. Mappin (Eds.), Environmental education and advocacy: Changing perspectives of ecology and education (pp. 267–291). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. McGinnis, J. R., & Simmons, P. (1999). Teachers’ perspectives on teaching science-technology-society in local cultures: A sociocultural analysis. Science Education, 83(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Menzel, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Values, beliefs and norms that foster Chilean and German pupils’ commitment to protect biodiversity. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 5(1), 31–49.Google Scholar
  57. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
  58. Morgensen, F., & Schnack, K. (2010). The action competence approach and the ‘new’ discourses of education for sustainable development, competence and quality criteria. Environmental Education Research, 16(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Munby, H. (1980). Analyzing teaching for intellectual independence. In H. Munby, G. Orpwood, & T. Russell (Eds.), Seeing curriculum in a new light: Essays from science education (pp. 11–33). Toronto: OISE Press.Google Scholar
  60. Pancer, S. M., & Pratt, M. W. (1999). Social and family determinants of community service involvement in Canadian youth. In M. Yates & J. Youniss (Eds.), Roots of civic identity (pp. 32–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95(4), 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pouliot, C. (2008). Students’ inventory of social actors concerned by the controversy surrounding cellular telephones: A case study. Science Education, 92(3), 543–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (1998). Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools. London: QCA.Google Scholar
  65. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Remtulla, K. A. (2008). Democracy or digital divide? The pedagogical paradoxes of online activism. In D. E. Lind & P. R. Carr (Eds.), Doing democracy: Striving for political literacy and social justice (pp. 267–280). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  67. Roberts, D. A. (1982). Developing the concept of “curriculum emphases” in science education. Science Education, 66(2), 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rodriguez, A. J. (2001). Courage and the researcher’s gaze: (Re)defining our roles as cultural warriors for social change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Roth, W.-M. (2009a). Activism or science/technology education as a by product of capacity building. Journal of Activist Science & Technology Education, 1(1), 16–31.Google Scholar
  70. Roth, W.-M. (2009b). On activism and teaching. Journal of Activist Science & Technology Education, 1(2), 33–47.Google Scholar
  71. Roth, W.-M. (2010). Activism: A category for theorizing learning. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 10(3), 278–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Roth, W.-M., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Roth, W.-M., & Désautels, J. (2002). Science education as/for sociopolitical action. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  74. Saarni, L. (1990). Emotional competence: How emotions and relationships become integrated. In R. A. Thompson (Ed.), Socioemotional development: Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 36, pp. 115–182). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  75. Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  76. Salovey, P., & Meyer, M. V. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and personality, 9, 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Salovey, P., & Shaytor, D. (Eds.). (1997). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  78. Sammel, A., & Zandvliet, D. (2003). Science reform or science conform: Problematic epistemological assumptions with/in Canadian science reform efforts. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 3(4), 513–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schusler, T. M., Krasny, M. E., Peters, S. J., & Decker, D. J. (2009). Developing citizens and communities through youth environmental action. Environmental Education Research, 15(1), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sharp, P. (2001). Nurturing emotional literacy. London: David Fulton.Google Scholar
  81. Simovska, V. (2008). Learning in and as participation: A case study from health-promoting schools. In A. Reid, B. B. Jensen, J. Nikel, & V. Simovska (Eds.), Participation and learning: Perspectives on education and the environment, health and sustainability (pp. 61–80). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Snook, I. A. (1975). Indoctrination and education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  83. Sperling, E. (2009). ‘More than particle theory’: Action-oriented citizenship through science education in a school setting. Journal of Activist Science & Technology Education, 1(2), 12–30.Google Scholar
  84. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Steiner, C. (1997). Achieving emotional literacy. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  86. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Taylor, L. K. (2008). Beyond ‘open-mindedness’: Cultivating critical, reflexive approaches to democratic dialogue. In D. E. Lind & P. R. Carr (Eds.), Doing democracy: Striving for political literacy and social justice (pp. 159–176). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  88. Zeidner, H., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2009). What we know about emotional intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations