Science Education as a Call to Action

Abstract

This article takes the view that both science, technology, society, environment (STSE) education and conventional forms of socio-scientific issues (SSI)-oriented science education are inadequate to meet the needs and interests of students faced with the demands, issues, and problems of contemporary life. A much more politicized approach is advocated, with major emphasis on social critique, values clarification, and sociopolitical action.

Résumé

Le point de vue de cet article est que ni l'enseignement des sciences, technologies et société, ni les formes traditionnelles d'enseignement des sciences orientées sur les questions socio-scientifiques, ne sont en mesure de satisfaire aux besoins et intérêts d’étudiants qui sont aux prises avec les exigences et les problèmes de la vie contemporaine. Une approche beaucoup plus politisée est préconisée, mettant l'accent sur la critique sociale, la clarification des valeurs et l'action sociopolitique.

SCIENTIFIC LITERACY AND THE NEED TO EXTEND STSE EDUCATION

Since the term scientific literacy first appeared in the educational literature more than half a century ago, most notably in papers by Paul Hurd (1958) and Richard McCurdy (1958), there have been numerous attempts to delineate its key components and numerous discussion papers arguing for why we need it. In response to this diversity of arguments, Shen (1975) identified three categories of scientific literacy: practical, civic, and cultural. Practical scientific literacy is knowledge that can be used by individuals to cope with life's everyday problems (diet, health, consumer preferences, technological competence, and the like); civic scientific literacy comprises the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values necessary for making decisions on matters such as energy policy, use of natural resources, environmental protection, and moral–ethical issues raised by technological innovations; cultural scientific literacy includes knowledge of the major ideas and theories of science and the sociocultural and intellectual environment in which they were produced. Wellington (2001) arrived at a broadly similar conclusion when he argued that there are three basic justifications for curriculum content: (a) intrinsic value (cultural scientific literacy); (b) citizenship needs (civic scientific literacy); (c) utilitarian arguments (practical scientific literacy). Though I recognize that civic, cultural, and practical scientific literacy overlap, and that all three are important focuses for the school science curriculum, I believe that civic scientific literacy does warrant some measure of priority. In similar vein, the authors of Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future (Millar & Osborne, 1998) stated that science education between the ages of 5 and 16 (the years of compulsory schooling in the UK) should comprise a course to enhance general scientific literacy, with more specialized science education delayed to later years:

The structure of the science curriculum needs to differentiate more explicitly between those elements designed to enhance “scientific literacy”, and those designed as the early stages of a specialist training in science, so that the requirement for the latter does not come to distort the former. (p. 10)

The drive to equip students with an understanding of science in its social, cultural, economic, and political contexts is, of course, the underpinning rationale of the so-called science–technology–society (STS) approach—more recently expanded to STSE (where E stands for environment). James Gallagher (1971), one of the pioneers of STS education, captured its overall flavor particularly well.

For future citizens in a democracy, understanding the interrelations of science, technology, and society may be as important as understanding the concepts and processes of science. An awareness of the interrelations between science, technology, and society may be a prerequisite to intelligent action on the part of a future electorate and their chosen leaders. (p. 337)

Aikenhead (2005, 2006) described how the early emphasis on values and social responsibility was systematized by utilizing a theoretical framework deriving from sociology of science: (a) the interactions of science and scientists with social aspects, issues, and institutions external to the community of scientists and (b) the social interactions of scientists within the scientific community. Interestingly, as consideration of the nature of science has become a much more prominent part of regular science curricula, even a central part in many educational jurisdictions, so emphasis in STSE education has shifted much more toward confrontation of socio-scientific issues (SSI). Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, and Howes (2005) contrasted SSI-oriented teaching with STS or STSE education in terms of its emphasis on developing habits of mind (specifically, developing skepticism, maintaining open-mindedness, acquiring the capacity for critical thinking, recognizing that there are multiple forms of inquiry, accepting ambiguity, and searching for data-driven knowledge) and “empowering students to consider how science-based issues reflect, in part, moral principles and elements of virtue that encompass their own lives, as well as the physical and social world around them” (p. 357). They argued that though STS education emphasizes the impact of scientific and technological development on society, it does not focus explicitly on the moral–ethical issues embedded in decision making:

STS(E) education as currently practiced … only “points out” ethical dilemmas or controversies, but does not necessarily exploit the inherent pedagogical power of discourse, reasoned argumentation, explicit NOS considerations, emotive, developmental, cultural or epistemological connections within the issues themselves … nor does it consider the moral or character development of students. (p. 359)

In a further attempt at delineation, Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, and Simmons (2002) claimed that the SSI approach has much broader scope, in that it “subsumes all that STS has to offer, while also considering the ethical dimensions of science, the moral reasoning of the child, and the emotional development of the student” (p. 344). Though this may or may not be true, I do not believe that current conceptions of STSE or SSI-oriented science education go far enough. My inclination is toward a much more radical, politicized form of SSI-oriented teaching and learning in which students not only address complex and often controversial SSI, and formulate their own position concerning them, but also prepare for, and engage in, sociopolitical actions that they believe will make a difference.

The shift in curriculum perspective I am advocating can be interpreted in terms of Habermas's (1971) theory of knowledge and human interests. Technical rationality and the goal of self-interest are apparent in the economic rationalist goals of efficiency and production and in the desire to control and exploit the environment in pursuit of short-term economic gains (a goal implicit, and sometimes explicit, in many of the curriculum documents produced by the Ontario Ministry of Education in recent years); interpretive or hermeneutic rationality is apparent in the desire to gain a clearer understanding of the multitude of competing human interests from the perspectives of the various actors and, thereby, a better understanding of the underlying causes of social disadvantage and environmental degradation (the goal of some STSE curricula); critical rationality is apparent in the emancipatory goal of self-critical reflective knowledge, free from the ideologically oriented interests of particular individuals and groups, that can form the basis for the kind of social action that reforms society and its practices (the goal of the curriculum I am proposing).

BUILDING A CURRICULUM

Of course, identifying the most appropriate SSI and organizing them into a coherent and theoretically justifiable curriculum is no easy matter. What might be the criteria for inclusion? Student interest? Perceived importance in contemporary society? Cutting-edge science? Controversy? Ready availability of curriculum resources? My inclination is to provide a mix of local, regional/national, and global issues and a range of idiosyncratic personal interests, focusing on seven areas of concern: human health; land, water, and mineral resources; food and agriculture; energy resources and consumption; industry (including manufacturing industry, the leisure and service industries, biotechnology, and so on); information transfer and transportation; ethics and social responsibility (i.e., freedom and control in science and technology). As argued elsewhere (Hodson, 1994, 2003, 2009a), the kind of issues-based approach I am advocating can be regarded as comprising four levels of sophistication.

• Level 1: Appreciating the societal impact of scientific and technological change and recognizing that science and technology are, in substantial measure, culturally determined.

• Level 2: Recognizing that decisions about scientific and technological development are taken in pursuit of particular interests and that benefits accruing to some may be at the expense of others. Recognizing that scientific and technological development are inextricably linked with the distribution of wealth and power.

• Level 3: Developing one's own views and establishing one's own underlying value positions.

• Level 4: Preparing for and taking action on socio-scientific and environmental issues.

At curriculum level 1, case studies of revolutionary scientific thinking, such as Darwin's theory of evolution and Einstein's relativity theory, and of major technological inventions such as the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, the printing press, and the computer, can be used to show that scientific and technological developments are both culturally dependent and culturally transforming and to foster awareness that science and technology are powerful forces that shape the lives of people and other species and impact significantly on the environment as a whole. They arise directly from the social milieu, from the problems we encounter, the needs and interests we develop, and the questions we ask. In turn, the products of our scientific and technological endeavors impact very directly and profoundly on the social, cultural, and economic fabric of society, including the language in which we express our thoughts and the ways in which we conduct our daily lives. In other words, science, technology, and what some have called technoscience are products of their time and place and can sometimes change quite radically the ways in which people talk, think, and act. For example, the science of Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein changed our perceptions of humanity's place in the universe and precipitated enormous changes in the way people address many of the issues encountered in daily life. Recent developments in gene therapy and gene manipulation have thrown into question our conception of life and death, our view of what is natural or artificial, and our sense of personal identity; presented us with profound moral–ethical problems; and posed some major challenges to our concepts of freedom, equality, and democracy. The steam engine, internal combustion engine, printing press, and computer precipitated far-reaching social and economic changes that impacted the lives of almost everyone on the planet. This level 1 awareness also includes recognition that large-scale technological innovation is a complex, far-reaching, and not entirely predictable activity. It can result in unexpected benefits, unanticipated costs, and unforeseen risks. The benefits of scientific and technological innovations are often accompanied by problems: hazards to human health, challenging and sometimes disconcerting social changes, environmental degradation, major moral–ethical dilemmas, and sometimes restriction rather than enhancement of individual freedom and choice.

Much of STS, STSE, and environmental education, though recognizing these adverse features of development, is currently pitched at the level where decision making is seen simply as a matter of reaching consensus or effecting a compromise among competing interests (what Levinson [2010] called the “dialogic/deliberative” approach to citizenship education). In contrast, the intention at level 2 is to enable students to recognize that decisions about scientific research and technological developments are taken in pursuit of particular interests, justified by particular values and sometimes implemented by those with sufficient economic or political power to override the needs and interests of others. As a consequence, the advantages and disadvantages of these developments often impact differentially. What benefits some may harm others. Case studies can be used to achieve a level of critical scientific literacy that recognizes how science and technology serve the rich and the powerful in ways that are often prejudicial to the interests and well-being of the poor and powerless, sometimes giving rise to further inequalities and injustices. Such studies help students to see that material benefits in the West (North) are often achieved at the expense of those living in the developing world. It is here that the radical political character of the curriculum begins to emerge. The intention is that students will recognize that critical consideration of scientific and technological development is inextricably linked with questions about the distribution of wealth and power and that problems of environmental degradation are rooted in societal practices and the values and interests that sustain and legitimate them. Further, most environmental problems can be interpreted as social justice issues, with race/ethnicity, gender, and class often being the major factors determining who controls and benefits from the businesses and institutions that cause environmental degradation and who experiences the adverse impact. Indeed, it could be argued that the frequency with which environmental degradation impacts the poor, the disadvantaged, the marginalized, and the powerless much more than the rich and powerful warrants use of the term environmental racism.

Level 3 is concerned primarily with supporting students in their attempts to formulate their own opinions on important issues and establish their own value positions, rather than with promoting the “official” or textbook view (the prime motive of what Levinson [2010] called the “deficit view” of citizenship education). It focuses much more overtly on values clarification, developing strong feelings about issues, and actively thinking about what it means to act wisely, justly, and “rightly” in particular social, political, and environmental contexts. In building this alternative curriculum, or any curriculum for that matter, we need to pay very careful attention to the values we wish to promote and to the values that might be implicit in the materials and methods we employ. This is not to say that we should seek to indoctrinate students into a particular way of thinking, on the one hand, or try to present a value-free education, on the other. Though the former is ethically unacceptable (though clearly discernible in many science and technology curricula, as a number of critical theorists have pointed out), the latter is impossible. Addressing SSI necessarily entails consideration of values. Indeed, for Zeidler et al. (2005) this is the very raison d’être for including SSI in the curriculum. If we are to prepare students to deal with controversial issues rationally, diligently, tolerantly, and morally, we need to ensure that they have the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and confidence to scrutinize diverse views and analyze and evaluate them; recognize inconsistencies, contradictions, and inadequacies; reach their own conclusions; argue coherently and persuasively for their views; use them in making decisions about what is right, good, and just in a particular context or situation; and (in stage 4 of the curriculum) formulate appropriate and effective courses of action. The curriculum I am advocating here is rooted very firmly in a commitment to reject actions that are merely convenient, expedient, or solely in our own interests in favor of careful and critical consideration of what is good, just, and honorable. It is driven by a deep commitment to antidiscriminatory education; that is, exposing the common roots of sexism, racism, homophobia, Eurocentrism, and Westism (or Northism) in the tendency to dichotomize and generate a sense of other; working actively to confront the “us and them” mentality that invariably sees us as the norm, the desirable and the superior. It culminates in commitment to the belief that alternative voices can and should be heard in order that decisions in science and technology reflect wisdom and justice rather than powerful sectional interests.

The final (fourth) level of sophistication in this issues-based approach is concerned with students findings ways of putting their values and convictions into action, helping them to prepare for and engage in responsible action, and assisting them in developing the skills, attitudes, and values that will enable them to take control of their lives, cooperate with others to bring about change, and work toward a more just and sustainable world in which power, wealth, and resources are more equitably shared. Socially and environmentally responsible behavior will not necessarily follow from knowledge of key concepts and possession of the “right attitudes.” As Curtin (1991) reminded us, it is important to distinguish between caring about and caring for. It is almost always much easier to proclaim that one cares about an issue than to do something about it. Put simply, our values are worth nothing until we live them. Rhetoric and espoused values will not bring about social justice and will not save the planet. We must change our actions. A politicized ethic of care (caring for) entails active involvement in a local manifestation of a particular problem or issue, exploration of the complex sociopolitical contexts in which the problem/issue is located, and attempts to resolve conflicts of interest.

FROM STSE RHETORIC TO SOCIOPOLITICAL ACTION

Writing from the perspective of environmental education, Jensen (2002) categorized the knowledge that is likely to promote sociopolitical action and encourage pro-environmental behavior into four dimensions: (a) scientific and technological knowledge that informs the issue or problem; (b) knowledge about the underlying social, political, and economic issues, conditions, and structures and how they contribute to creating social and environmental problems; (c) knowledge about how to bring about changes in society through direct or indirect action; and (d) knowledge about the likely outcome or direction of possible actions and the desirability of those outcomes. Although formulated as a model for environmental education, it is reasonable to suppose that Jensen's arguments are applicable to all forms of SSI-oriented action. Little needs to be said about dimensions 1 and 2 in Jensen's framework beyond the discussion earlier in the article. With regard to dimension 3, students need knowledge of actions that are likely to have positive impact and knowledge of how to engage in them. It is essential that they gain robust knowledge of the social, legal, and political system(s) that prevail in the communities in which they live and develop a clear understanding of how decisions are made within local, regional, and national government and within industry, commerce, and the military. Without knowledge of where and with whom power of decision making is located and awareness of the mechanisms by which decisions are reached, intervention is not possible. Thus, the curriculum I propose requires a concurrent program designed to achieve a measure of political literacy, including knowledge of how to engage in collective action with individuals who have different competencies, backgrounds, and attitudes but share a common interest in a particular SSI. Dimension 3 also includes knowledge of likely sympathizers and potential allies and strategies for encouraging cooperative action and group interventions. What Jensen did not mention but would seem to be a part of dimension 3 knowledge is the nature of science-oriented knowledge that would enable students to appraise the statements, reports, and arguments of scientists, politicians, and journalists and to present their own supporting or opposing arguments in a coherent, robust, and convincing way (see Hodson [2009b] for a lengthy discussion of this aspect of science education). Jensen's fourth category includes awareness of how (and why) others have sought to bring about change and entails formulation of a vision of the kind of world in which we (and our families and communities) wish to live. It is important for students to explore and develop their ideas, dreams, and aspirations for themselves, their neighbors and families and for the wider communities at local, regional, national, and global levels—a clear overlap with futures studies/education. An essential step in cultivating the critical scientific and technological literacy on which sociopolitical action depends is the application of a social and political critique capable of challenging the notion of technological determinism. We can control technology and its environmental and social impact. More significantly, we can control the controllers and redirect technology in such a way that adverse environmental impact is substantially reduced (if not entirely eliminated) and issues of freedom, equality, and justice are kept in the forefront of discussion during the establishment of policy.

The likelihood of students becoming active citizens is increased substantially by encouraging them to take action now (in school) and by providing opportunities for them to do so and by giving examples of successful actions and interventions engaged in by others. With respect to an environmental focus (by way of illustration), suitable action might include any (or all) of the following: monitoring and publicizing pollution levels in local waterways, disseminating advice to householders, farmers, and local industries on safe disposal of toxic waste; instituting recycling programs for glass, paper, and aluminium cans; organizing consumer boycotts of environmentally unsafe products and practices; working on environmental cleanup projects; building a community garden; constructing and installing nesting boxes for endangered birds; setting up a garbage-free lunch program; assuming responsibility for environmental enhancement of the school grounds; monitoring the school's consumption of energy and material resources; and setting up a “green purchasing” network. Suitable actions on other matters might include making public statements and writing letters, building informative Websites, writing to newspapers, organizing petitions and community meetings, working for local action groups and citizen working groups, making posters, distributing leaflets, demonstrating, making informative multimedia materials for public education, and exerting political pressure through regular involvement in local government affairs.

It is sometimes useful to distinguish between direct and indirect action. The former includes such things as recycling, cleaning up a stream, using a bicycle rather than a car, and using “green” bags at the supermarket; the latter includes organization of petitions, writing to newspapers, and making submissions to the local council. It is common for environmental educators to put much more value on direct actions than indirect ones. Before rushing to such a judgment we should look carefully at the likely effectiveness and sociopolitical significance of particular actions, both in the short term and long term. Though direct action can be enormously important and have some significant impact, it can also divert attention from the root causes of the problem in our social, political, and economic activities. The optimum approach would seem to be a blend of the two. Of course, indirect action needs to be authentic action: not just a classroom exercise in which a letter to an imaginary newspaper editor is composed but a real letter to a real newspaper editor to express real concerns or to make a series of real debating points or policy recommendations. In these circumstances, a great deal of knowledge is required, including a substantial measure of argumentation and media literacy skills. It is also useful to distinguish between individual actions and collective actions. Though the former are likely to be fairly limited in their impact, the latter have the potential to bring about fundamental societal change.

A key part of preparing for action involves identifying action possibilities, assessing their feasibility and appropriateness, ascertaining constraints and barriers, resolving any disagreements among those to be involved, looking closely at the actions taken by others (and the extent to which they have been successful), and establishing priorities in terms of what actions are most urgently needed (and can be undertaken fairly quickly) and what actions are needed in the longer term. It is essential, too, that all actions taken by students are critically evaluated and committed to an action database for use by others. From a teaching perspective, it is important that care is taken to ensure both the appropriateness of a set of actions for the particular students involved and the communities in which the actions will be situated and the overall practicality of the project in terms of time and resources. As well as having the right to negotiate, select, and evaluate the projects with which they wish to be involved, students should also have the right to opt out of any project, either individually or as a group, at any time. And that right should be respected and vigorously defended against peer pressure.

IN SUMMARY

It is important for students to learn that scientific/technological activity is influenced by a complex of social, political, and economic forces, and it is important for them to formulate their own views on a range of contemporary issues and problems and to care passionately about them. But the curriculum needs to take them further. Students need to learn how to participate in sociopolitical action, and they need to experience participation. Moreover, they need to encourage others to participate, too: parents, grandparents, friends, relatives, neighbors, local businesses, etc. It is not enough for students to be armchair critics. As Kyle (1996) put it: “Education must be transformed from the passive, technical, and apolitical orientation that is reflective of most students’ school-based experiences to an active, critical, and politicized life-long endeavor that transcends the boundaries of classrooms and schools” (p. 1).

In advocating this four-level curriculum model (which Levinson [2010] might characterize as a combination of the “conflict and dissent” mode of citizenship education and “science education through praxis”), my intention is not to suggest that all action and preparation for action is delayed until the final years of schooling. Rather, students should proceed to whatever level is appropriate to the topic in hand, the learning opportunities it presents, and the stage of intellectual and emotional development of the students. In some areas of concern it is relatively easy for students to be organized or to organize themselves for action; in other areas it is more difficult. It is also the case that, for some topics, level 3 is more demanding than level 4. For example, it is easier to take action on recycling than to reach a considered and critical judgement of recycling versus reduced consumption versus use of alternative materials. It is highly unlikely that all students will be motivated by the same issues, problems, experiences, or situations. Nor will all students be in a position to make substantial changes to their daily behaviors and routines and, more particularly in the context of education at the school level, effect changes in their families behaviors and routines. Further, individuals can vary quite substantially in their disposition to act (that is, in terms of differences in knowledge, self-esteem, values, commitment, emotional involvement, and so on). Clearly, these variations make it difficult to plan an action-oriented curriculum for all. But there is no reason why we should expect different students and groups of students to participate in the same project. Different views and different priorities could (or should) lead to involvement in different projects. One final point: it is important that a particular action is not viewed as an end in itself. Students need opportunities to evaluate the action taken, reflect on its nature and impact, and possibly reformulate the action. The simple point is that an action orientation and an action competence (as Jensen, 2004, called it) are established over time and are rooted in reflective practice.

Though my inclination would be to give over the entire science curriculum to this kind of issues-based approach, I am not so naïve as to think this is likely to happen any time soon. Indeed, Nashon, Nielsen, and Petrina (2008) noted that although “high church” STS (to use Steve Fuller's [1993] term for science studies courses emphasizing academic issues in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science) is rapidly gaining popularity at the university level, “low church” or activist STS is losing ground in schools, at least in British Columbia. However, it is possible to implement the kind of issues-based approach advocated in this article alongside a more conventional subject-oriented curriculum, provided that neither students nor teachers see it as a mere add-on or motivational adornment. Confrontation of issues, consideration of underlying values, and taking action need to be fully integrated into the curriculum.

Of course, there are teachers who will argue that politicization is not a legitimate goal of science and technology education (or of any school-based education, for that matter) and that sociopolitical action has no place in school. There will also be those who support these activities in principle but are uncertain about what constitutes appropriate, acceptable, and worthwhile action. Many questions spring to mind. Who decides what is acceptable and responsible action? What are the relevant criteria? What is the balance to be drawn between socially acceptable actions that may be politically ineffective and effective actions that may be widely seen as socially unacceptable? Will teachers be prepared to support student actions that provoke the disapproval of parents, school administrators, local politicians, or local businesses? Are we prepared for a situation in which students who are well coached in action skills choose to direct those skills against aspects of the institution in which they study and/or the community in which they live? Those teachers who promote involvement and develop action skills are “riding a tiger,” but it is a tiger that may well have to be ridden if we really mean what we say about education for civic participation. I do not seek to minimize the difficulties that teachers face in deciding a course of action. All I can do is urge teachers and students to be critical, reflective, robust in argument, and sensitive to diverse values and beliefs but above all to have the courage and strength of will to do what they believe is right and good and just.