Advertisement

Elementary Students’ Ways of Seeing Globalization in Science

  • Bhaskar Upadhyay
Chapter
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 5)

Abstract

Globalization has to be a new educational imperative in science education policy, teacher preparation programs, and curricular development initiatives. As geopolitical, cultural, and economic boundaries are blurred because of globalization, there is an urgent need to understand and document the effects of globalization in our youths’ everyday actions and choices inside and outside the school environments. In everyday urban science classrooms teachers and students are engaged in many science related activities but globalization is missing from the science discourses. This chapter presents fifth-grade urban students’ engagements with science content and activities and how their classroom engagements are parts of larger local and global events in the process of globalization. In this chapter I draw on three notions of globalization – deterritorialization, interconnectedness, and time and space compression – and look through the sociocultural lens to examine the interactions and discourses that take place in a poor urban science classroom. Using the interpretive research paradigm I attempt to answer the following three questions linking science and globalization: (1) How do elementary students see globalization in a science classroom context?; (2) How do elementary students engage in science when Western-scientific knowledge and non-Western knowledge interact as global and local knowledge structures?; and (3) How do students view their connection to larger global issues and the science they learn in school? The students in the fifth grade class took the initiative to connect science content to the recent earthquake disaster in Haiti and engaged in discussions and actions that created bonds between the students and the events in Haiti. The students not only discovered the role of their actions in being a part of the global event but also managed to redefine how science learning could reshape their thinking about distant people. Similarly, the students also wrestled with the standard science knowledge that the science books and school curriculum teach and the local and personal knowledge gained over long periods of time. As the process of globalization sweeps across many distant local communities and people, the struggle to retain and preserve local knowledge will become more acute. The interactions between local and global values and beliefs will spill into the social and cultural fabric of many communities. The voices that the students will bring into local science classrooms are at the heart of understanding and documenting what science education in the age of globalization should do for these students and their lives. Therefore, nations and communities have to rethink science education so that it will engage students in making sense of the interactions between science learning and the process of globalization and their role now and when they become adults.

Keywords

Science Education Local Knowledge Science Learning Science Classroom Science Content 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, D., & LeTendre, G. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World culture and the future of schooling. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bowers, C. A. (2009). Rethinking social justice issues within an eco-justice conceptual and moral framework. Journal of Educational Controversy, 4. Retrieved on November 21, 2009, from http://www.wce.wwu.edu/Resources/CEP/eJournal/v004n001/a006.shtml
  4. Carter, L., & Dediwalage, R. (2010). Globalisation and science education: The case of sustainability by the bay. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5, 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In R. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research: A collection of readings (pp. 109–128). Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  6. Comaroff, J., & Comaroff, J. (2001). On personhood: An anthropological perspective from Africa. Social Identities, 7, 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, S. (1997). Symbols of trouble. In K. Gelder & S. Thornton (Eds.), The subcultures reader (pp. 149–162). New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cox, K. R. (1997). Spaces of globalisation: Reasserting the power of the local. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  9. Crane, D., Kawashima, N., & Kawasaki, K. (2002). Global culture: Media, arts, policy, and globalization. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Du Gay, P. (1997). Introduction. In P. Du Gay (Ed.), Production of culture: Cultures of production (pp. 1–10). London: Sage/Open University.Google Scholar
  11. Elden, S. (2005). Missing the point: Globalization, deterritorialization and the space of the world. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographer, 30, 8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elliott, A. (2009). Contemporary social theory: An introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Erickson, T. H. (2001). Tyranny of the moment: Fast and slow time in the information age. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fadzillah, I. (2005). The Amway connection: How transnational ideas of beauty and money affect Northern Thai girls’ perceptions of their future options. In S. Maira & E. Soep (Eds.), Youth-scapes: Popular cultures, national ideologies, global markets. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gibson-Graham, J. K. (1996). The end of capitalism (as we knew it): A feminist critique of political economy. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Giroux, H. A. (2001). Stealing innocence: Youth, corporate power, and the politics of culture. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  17. Glasson, E. G. (2010). Revitalization of the shared commons: Education for sustainability and marginalized cultures. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5, 373–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grumet, M. (1981). Restitution and reconstruction of educational experience: An autobiographical method for curriculum theory. In M. Lawn & L. Barton (Eds.), Rethinking curriculum studies: A radical approach (pp. 115–130). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  19. Harding, S. (1998). Is science multicultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Peterson, J. (1999). Global transformations: Politics, economics, and culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lipsistz, G. (2005). Forward. In S. Maira & E. Soep (Eds.), Youthscapes: The popular, the national, the global (pp. vii–xiv). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  23. Maira, S. (2004). Imperial feelings: Youth culture, citizenship, and globalization. In M. Suarez-Orozco & D. Qin-Hillard (Eds.), Globalization: Culture and education in the new millennium (pp. 203–234). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Maira, S., & Soep, E. (2005). Youthscapes: The popular, the national, the global. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCarthy, C., Giardina, M. D., Harewood, S. J., & Park, J.-K. (2003). Contesting culture: Identity and curriculum dilemmas in the age of globalization, postcolonialism, and multiplicity. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 449–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McLuhan, M. (1962). The gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  27. Merryfield, M. M. (2002). The difference a global educator can make. Educational Leadership, 60, 18–21.Google Scholar
  28. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Minnesota Department of Education. (2010). Academic standards: Science K-12. Retrieved on July 24, from http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Academic_Excellence/Academic_Standards/Science/index.html
  30. Nakashima, D., & Roué, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge, peoples and sustainable practice. In T. Munn (Ed.), Encyclopedia of global environmental change (pp. 314–324). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. Nordgren, R. D. (2002). Globalization and education: What students will need to know and be able to do in the global village. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 318–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ong, A. (1999). Flexible citizenship: The cultural politics of transnationality. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rival, L. (2000). Formal schooling the production of modern citizens in the Ecuadorian Amazon. In B. Levinson, K. Borman, M. Eisenhart, M. Foster, A. Fox, & M. Sutton (Eds.), Schooling the symbolic animal: Social and cultural dimensions of education (pp. 108–122). New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  34. Sassen, S. (2005). When national territory is home to the global: Old borders to novel borderings. New Political Economy, 10, 523–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scholte, J. A. (1996). The geography of collective identities in a globalizing world. Review of International Political Economy, 3, 565–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scholte, J. A. (2000). Globalization: A critical introduction. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  37. Singh, B. P. (2002). Nontraditional crop production in Africa for export. In J. Janick & A. Whipkey (Eds.), Trends in new crops and new uses (pp. 86–92). Alexandria: ASHS Press.Google Scholar
  38. Tal, T., & Alkaher, I. (2010). Collaborative environmental projects in a multicultural society: Working from within separate or mutual landscapes? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5, 325–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor, P. J. (2000). Izations of the world: Americanization, modernization and globalization. In C. Hay & D. Marsh (Eds.), Demistifying globalization (pp. 49–70). Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  41. Turnbull, D. (1997). Reframing science and other knowledge traditions. Futures, 29, 551–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. United Nations Development Programme [UNDP]. (2010). Retrieved November 16, 2010, from http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Complete.pdf
  43. Upadhyay, B. (2009). Teaching science for empowerment in an urban classroom: Using Hmong students’ funds of knowledge. Equity and Excellence in Education, 42, 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vennum, T., Jr. (1988). Wild rice and the Ojibway people. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press.Google Scholar
  45. Williams, C. H. (2003). Nationalism in a democratic context. In J. Agnew, K. Mitchell, & G. Toal (Eds.), A companion to political geography (pp. 356–377). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Curriculum & InstructionUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations