Science curriculum-making for the Anthropocene: perspectives and possibilities

References

• Bang, M., Faber, L., Gurneau, J., Marin, A., & Soto, C. (2016). Community-based design research: Learning across generations and strategic transformations of institutional relations toward axiological innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 23(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2015.1087572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, P., Bang, M., Suárez, E., Morrison, D., Tesoriero, G., & Kaupp, L. (2019). Learning to see the resources students bring to sense-making. OER Professional Development Session from the ACESSE Project. http://stemteachingtools.org/pd/sessiong
   Google Scholar
• Bencze, L., Alsop, S., Ritchie, A., Bowen, M., & Chen, S. (2015). Pursuing youth-led socio-scientific activism: Conversations of participation, pedagogy and power. In M. P. Mueller & D. J. Tippins (Eds.), Ecojustice, citizen science and youth activism (Vol. 1, pp. 333–347). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Eliyahu, A., Moore, D., Dorph, R., & Schunn, C. D. (2018). Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement across science activities and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53, 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowers, C. A. (2016). A critical examination of STEM issues and challenges. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bradshaw, C. J. A., Ehrlich, P. R., Beattie, A., Ceballos, G., Crist, E., Diamond, J., Dirzo, R., Ehrlich, A. H., Harte, J., Harte, M. E., & Pyke, G. (2021). Underestimating the challenges of avoiding a ghastly future. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 1, 615419. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419
   Google Scholar
• Buckley, W.F. (1967). Sociology and modern systems theory. Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Cabrera, D., Cabrera, L., & Cabrera, E. (2022). Perspectives organize information in mind and nature: Empirical findings of point-view perspective (p) in cognitive and material complexity. Systems, 10(3), 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10030052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cabrera, D., Cabrera, L., & Powers, E. (2015). A unifying theory of systems thinking with psychosocial applications. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 32(5), 534–545. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2351
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cassone McGowan, V., Cooke, H., Ellis, A., & Campbell, T. (2023). Designing for collective futures: The engineering for ecological and social justice framework. In X. Fazio (Ed.), Science curriculum for the Anthropocene, volume 2. Curriculum models for our collective future (pp. 13–36). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, B., & Sumara, D. J. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• DeBoer, G. E. (2023). The use of content standards for curriculum reform in the United States: A historical analysis. In N. G. Lederman, D. Ziedler, & J. S. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, volume III (pp. 817–849). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Doll, W. E., Jr. (2012). Complexity and the culture of curriculum. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 9(1), 10–29.
   Google Scholar
• Doll, W. E., Fleener, M. J., & Julien, J. S. (Eds.). (2005). Chaos, complexity, curriculum and culture: A conversation (Vol. 6). Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the pluriverse. Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fazio, X. (2020). Reorienting curriculum for the Anthropocene. UNESCO Futures of Education Ideas LAB. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/reorienting-curriculum-anthropocene
   Google Scholar
• Fazio, X. (2022a). Science curriculum for the Anthropocene, volume 1: Complexity, systems, and sustainability perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Fazio, X. (2022b). Chapter 2: Science curriculum and sustainability. In Science curriculum for the Anthropocene, volume 1: Complexity, systems, and sustainability perspectives (pp. 25–50). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Fazio, X. (2022c). Chapter 3: Systems, complexity, and curriculum. In Science curriculum for the Anthropocene, volume 1: Complexity, systems, and sustainability perspectives (pp. 51–76). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Fazio, X. (2022d). Chapter 4. Rethinking science curriculum-making using complexity and systems thinking. In Science curriculum for the Anthropocene, volume 1: Complexity, systems, and sustainability perspectives (pp. 77–105). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Fazio, X., & Karrow, D. D. (2015). The commonplaces of schooling and citizen science. In M. P. Mueller & D. J. Tippins (Eds.), Ecojustice, citizen science and youth activism (Vol. 1, pp. 179–192). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Fazio, X., Kemmis, S., & Zugic, J. (under review). Viewing science teacher learning and curriculum enactment through the lens of theory of practice architectures. Science Education, xx–xx.
   Google Scholar
• Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuck, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Golding, C. (2015). The community of inquiry: Blending philosophical and empirical research. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 34(2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-014-9420-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayward, B. (2020). Children, citizenship and environment: #Schoolstrike Edition (2nd ed.). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, E. D., & Vachula, R. S. (2024). Geologic limitations on a comprehensive Anthropocene. Anthropocene, 46, 100434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2024.100434
   Google Scholar
• Hertz, T., Mancilla Garcia, M., & Schlüter, M. (2020). From nouns to verbs: How process ontologies enhance our understanding of social-ecological systems understood as complex adaptive systems. People and Nature, 2(2), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10079
   Google Scholar
• Hodson, D. (2020). Going beyond STS education: Building a curriculum for sociopolitical activism. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 20(4), 592–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-020-00114-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022a). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
   Google Scholar
• Jacobson, M. J., Kapur, M., & Reimann, P. (2016). Conceptualizing debates in learning and educational research: Toward a complex systems conceptual framework of learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1166963
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeong, S. K., Britton, S., Haverkos, K., Kutner, M., Shume, T., & Tippins, D. (2018). Composing new understandings of sustainability in the Anthropocene. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(1), 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9829-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, S. R., Cheng, M. M. W., Karpudewan, M., Campbell, T., Melville, W., Verma, G., & Park, B.-Y. (2023). OntoEpistemological realities and assumptions beyond western science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 34(6), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2023.2220174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung, J., & Pinar, W. D. (2016). Conceptions of curriculum. In D. Wyse, L. Hayward, & J. Pandya (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 29–46). Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, A. V. (2009). The curriculum: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Labate, H. (2020). Knowledge access and distribution: The future(s) of what we used to call ‘curriculum’. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374153
   Google Scholar
• Learning in Places Collaborative. (2021). Storyline frameworks for educators. http://learninginplaces.org/storyline-frameworks/
   Google Scholar
• Marope, M. (2017). Reconceptualizing and repositioning curriculum in the 21st century: A global paradigm shift. http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/news/documentreconceptualizing-and-repositioning-curriculum-21st-century.
   Google Scholar
• Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing. (Original work published 1998).
   Google Scholar
• Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000. Science education for the future. King’s College London, School of Education, Cornwall House.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education Singapore. (2022). Science teaching and learning syllabus: Primary three to six standard/foundation. https://www.moe.gov.sg/-/media/files/primary/syllabus/2023-primary-science.ashx
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison, D. L., Macnevin, B., & Bell, P. (2021). Navigating the political dimensions of climate change teaching and learning. STEM Teaching Tool. https://stemteachingtools.org/brief/78
   Google Scholar
• Nature Editorial. (2023). The world’s plan to make humanity sustainable is failing. Science can do more to save it. Nature, 618(7966), 647. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01989-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nazar, C. R., Barton, A. C., Morris, C., & Tan, E. (2019). Critically engaging engineering in place by localizing counternarratives in engineering design. Science Education, 103(3), 638–664. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21500
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2023). PISA 2025 science framework. https://pisa-framework.oecd.org/science-2025/
   Google Scholar
• Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607081138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. (2023). Science, scientific literacy, and science education. In N. G. Lederman, D. Ziedler, & J. S. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, volume III (pp. 785–816). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pickel, A. (2007). Rethinking systems theory: A programmatic introduction. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 37(4), 391–407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierson, A. E., Brady, C. E., Clark, D. B., & Sengupta, P. (2023). Students’ epistemic commitments in a heterogeneity-seeking modeling curriculum. Cognition & Instruction, 41(2), 125–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2022.2111431
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priestley, M. (2011). Whatever happened to curriculum theory? Critical realism and curriculum change. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 19(2), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2011.582258
   Google Scholar
• Priestley, M. (2019). Curriculum: Concepts and approaches. https://impact.chartered.college/article/curriculum-concepts-approaches/
   Google Scholar
• Priestley, M., & Nieveen, N. (2020). Understanding curriculum. In Chartered College of Teaching (Ed.), The early career framework handbook (pp. 135–143). Sage Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Rennie, L. J., Venville, G., & Wallace, J. (2013). Knowledge that counts in a global community: Exploring the contribution of integrated curriculum. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, volume II (pp. 559–572). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwab, J. J. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(3), 239–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1983.11075885
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwab, J. J., Westbury, I., & Wilkof, N. J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strijbos, S. (2017). Systems thinking. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (2nd ed., pp. 291–302). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stroh, D. P. (2015). Systems thinking for social change. Chelsea Green Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022b). Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/
   Google Scholar
• Turner, J. R., & Baker, R. M. (2019). Complexity theory: An overview with potential applications for the social sciences. Systems, 7(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7010004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. A report from the International Commission on the Futures of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Vakil, S., & Ayers, R. (2019). The racial politics of STEM education in the USA: Interrogations and explorations. Race Ethnicity and Education, 22(4), 449–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2019.1592831
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Eijck, M., & Roth, W. M. (2007). Improving science education for sustainable development. PLoS Biology, 5(12), e306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Washington State Senate Bill 5092, Section 522. (2021). http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5092-S.SL.pdf?q = 20210624123335
   Google Scholar
• Weinbaum, D. R. (2015). Complexity and the philosophy of becoming. Foundations of Science, 20(3), 283–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-014-9370-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, P. J., Ardoin, N. M., Eames, C., & Monroe, M. C. (2023). Agency in the Anthropocene: Supporting document to the PISA 2025 science framework (OECD Education Working Papers, Vol. 297). https://doi.org/10.1787/8d3b6cfa-en
   Google Scholar
• Wikimedia Commons. (n.d.). Iceberg Model.png. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iceberg_Model.png
   Google Scholar
• Williams, M., & Dyer, W. (2017). Complex realism in social research. Methodological Innovations, 10(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799116683564
   Google Scholar
• Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research, and practice. In Handbook of research on science education, volume II (pp. 711–740). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Zeyer, A., & Dillon, J. (2014). Science|Environment|Health – towards a reconceptualization of three critical and inter-linked areas of education. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1409–1411. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.904993
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar