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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
STEPWISE is the acronym for Science & Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing for Individuals, Societies & Environments. Some details about this framework are provided below, but it is a schema that organizes teaching/learning goals in ways that encourage students to engage in critical and active civic participation. For more information, refer to: www.stepwiser.ca
- 2.
A dispositif (Foucault 2008) is a relatively organized network of living, nonliving and symbolic entities (‘actants’) that – like a machine – generally co-support each other in ways that serve common purposes.
- 3.
The STP consists of a 2-dimensional grid. Its horizontal axis spans a continuum ranging from Rationalist through Naturalist positions regarding the nature of theory negotiation. Rationalists tend to believe in highly systematic methods of science, including rational judgements about theory. Naturalists, by contrast, assume that conduct of science is highly situational and idiosyncratic, depending on various factors, including psychological, social, cultural and political influences. The vertical axis depicts a continuum reflecting the truth value of knowledge, with Realist through Antirealist positions. Realists tend to believe that science knowledge can correspond to reality, while (extreme) Antirealists claim that each person’s constructions are valid. More moderate Antirealists believe in useful knowledge.
- 4.
A repertory grid is a two-dimensional rectangle suggesting, in our case, associations between teaching strategies and learning outcomes.
References
Behr, H. (2017). The populist obstruction of reality: Analysis and response. Global Affairs, 3(1), 73–80.
Bencze, J. L. (1996). Correlational studies in school science: Breaking the science-experiment-certainty connection. School Science Review, 78(282), 95–101.
Bencze, J. L. (Ed.). (2017). Science & technology education promoting wellbeing for individuals, societies & environments. Dordrecht: Springer.
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.
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.
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.
Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decisionmaking and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78(2), 185–201.
Blum, A., & Murray, S. J. (2017). The ethics of care: Moral knowledge, communication, and the art of caregiving. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
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.
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.
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.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). New York: Sage.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
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.
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.
Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collége de France, 1978–1979 (M. Senellart, Ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gaines, B. R., & Shaw, M. L. G. (1993). Knowledge acquisition tools based on personal construct psychology. Knowledge Engineering Review, 8(1), 49–85.
Gough, A. (2015). STEM policy and science education: Scientistic curriculum and sociopolitical silences. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(2), 445–458.
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.
Hodson, D. (2011). Looking to the future: Building a curriculum for social activism. Rotterdam: Sense.
International Baccalaureate Organization. (2014). Diploma programme: Biology guide. Retrieved from http://www.sdgj.com/ckfinder/userfiles/files/9a6ff27578e18e3f1023a4dc046beef1.pdf
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.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69–119.
Levinson, R. (2018). Realizing the school science curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 29(4), 522–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2018.1504314.
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.
Ministry of Education [MoE]. (2008). The Ontario curriculum, grades 9 and 10: Science. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Mirowski, P. (2011). Science-mart: Privatizing American science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2010). Merchants of doubt. London: Bloomsbury Press.
Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95(4), 601–626.
Pierce, C. (2013). Education in the age of biocapitalism: Optimizing educational life for a flat world. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Roth, W.-M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768–790.
Sadler, T. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and trends. Dordrecht: Springer.
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.
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.
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.
Springer, S., Birch, K., & MacLeavy, J. (Eds.). (2016). The handbook of neoliberalism. New York: Routledge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bencze, J.L., El Halwany, S., Zouda, M. (2020). Critical and Active Public Engagement in Addressing Socioscientific Problems Through Science Teacher Education. In: Evagorou, M., Nielsen, J.A., Dillon, J. (eds) Science Teacher Education for Responsible Citizenship. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 52. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40229-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40229-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-40228-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-40229-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)