nach oben

Cultural Studies of Science Education

Erschienen in:

26.06.2014

STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response

verfasst von: Dana L. Zeidler

Erschienen in: Cultural Studies of Science Education | Ausgabe 1/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The ubiquitous of STEM education initiatives in recent years has created a bandwagon that has moved at nearly light speed. The impulse of the science education community and policy-makers is to grab hold for dear life or be marginalized from subsequent discussions about the necessity and consequences of using STEM initiatives to prepare and inform our next generation of citizens. This commentary questions the prudence of STEM-related science education goals, as typically represented and discussed in the literature, and likens the current practice to a deficit framework. A sociocultural perspective framed through socioscientific considerations is offered as an alternative conceptualization as well as surplus model to hegemonic STEM practices.

Vorheriger Artikel 2020 Vision: Envisioning a new generation of STEM learning research

Nächster Artikel Collaborating on global priorities: science education for everyone—any time and everywhere

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

AAAS. (1990). The liberal art of science: Agenda for action. Washington, DC: AAAS.

AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.

Aikenhead, G. S., Orpwood, G., & Fensham, P. (2011). Scientific literacy for a knowledge society. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, D. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 28–44). New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.

Association of American Universities. (2011). Five-year initiative for improving undergraduate STEM education: Discussion draft. Retrieved from http://www.aau.edu/policy/article.aspx?id=12588.

Boy Scouts of America. (2013). STEM in scouting. Retrieved from http://www.scouting.org/stem.aspx.

Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. K. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89, 779–802. doi:10.1002/sce.20069.CrossRef

Cartwright, C. C., & Simpson, T. L. (2001). The relationship of moral judgment development and teaching effectiveness of student teachers. Education, 111, 139–144.

Cummings, R., Maddux, R., Richmond, A., & Cladianos, A. (2010). Moral reasoning of education students: The effects of direct instruction in moral development theory and participation in moral dilemma discussion. Teachers College Record, 112, 621–644.

Department of Homeland Security. (2012). DHS announces expanded list of STEM degree programs. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/news/2012/05/11/dhs-announces-expanded-list-stem-degree-programs.

Duncan, A. (2009). Secretary Arne Duncan’s remarks to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/10/10232009.html.

Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 2289–2315. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.667582.CrossRef

Fensham, P. J. (2007). Values in the measurement of students’ science achievement in TIMSS and PISA. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in science education (pp. 215–229). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Flinders, D., Noddings, N., & Thornton, S. J. (1986). The null curriculum: Its theoretical basis and practical implications. Curriculum Inquiry, 16, 33–42. doi:10.2307/1179551.CrossRef

Fountain, R. M. (1998). Sociologics: An analytical tool for examining socioscientific discourse. Research in Science Education, 28, 110–132. doi:10.1007/BF02461646.CrossRef

Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31, 279–296. doi:10.1080/09500690701787909.CrossRef

Friedrich, P. (1992). Interpretation and vision: A critique of cryptopositivism. Cultural Anthropology, 7, 211–231. doi:10.1525/can.1992.7.2.02a00040.CrossRef

Fulton, K., & Britton, T. (2011). STEM teachers in professional learning communities: Good teachers to great teaching. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Gauch, H. G, Jr. (2009). Responses and clarification regarding science and worldviews. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), Science, worldviews and education (pp. 303–325). The Netherlands: Springer.

Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Green, T. F. (1999). Voices: The educational formation of conscience. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press.

Greene, J. C., DeStefano, L., Burgon, H., & Hall, J. (2006). An educative, values-engaged approach to evaluating STEM educational programs. In D. Huffman & F. Lawrenz (Eds.), Critical issues in STEM evaluation. New directions for evaluation, 109 (pp. 19–34). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., et al. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304, 521–522. doi:10.1126/science.1096022.CrossRef

Harris, S. (2010). The moral landscape: How science can determine human values. New York: Free Press.

Institute of Educational Sciences. (2010). What works clearinghouse: Procedures and standards handbook (Version 2.1). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v2_1_standards_handbook.pdf.

Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kincheloe, J. L., & Tobin, K. (2009). The much exaggerated death of positivism. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 513–528. doi:10.1007/s11422-009-9178-5.CrossRef

Klosterman, M., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1017–1043. doi:10.1080/09500690902894512.CrossRef

Kohlberg, L., Boyd, D., & Levine, C. (1990). The return of stage six: Its principle and moral point of view. In T. Wren (Ed.), The moral domain: Essays in the ongoing discussion between philosophy and the social sciences (pp. 151–181). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lacey, H. (2007). The interplay of scientific activity, worldviews and value outlooks. Science & Education, 18(6–7), 839–860. doi:10.1007/s11191-007-9114-6.

Lawrenz, F., & Huffman, D. (2006). Methodological pluralism: The gold standard of STEM evaluation. In D. Huffman & F. Lawrenz (Eds.), Critical issues in STEM evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 109, 19–34. doi:10.1002/ev.176.

Lederman, N. G., & Zeidler, D. L. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71, 721–734. doi:10.1002/sce.3730710509.CrossRef

Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 925–953. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.625505.CrossRef

Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S., Krajcik, J., Herman, B., et al. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 2079–2113. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.749546.CrossRef

MacCullum, J. A. (1993). Teacher reasoning and moral judgment in the context of student discipline situations. Journal of Moral Education, 22, 3–28. doi:10.1080/0305724930220101.CrossRef

Maxwell, J. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11. doi:10.3102/0013189X033002003.CrossRef

Mueller, M. P., & Zeidler, D. L. (2010). Moral–ethical character and science education: Ecojustice ethics through socioscientific issues (SSI). In D. Tippins, M. Mueller, M. van Eijck, & J. Adams (Eds.), Cultural studies and environmentalism: The confluence of ecojustice, place-based (science) education, and indigenous knowledge systems (pp. 105–128). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3929-3_8.CrossRef

Narvaez, D., & Bock, T. (2002). Moral schemas and tacit judgment or how the defining issues test is supported by cognitive science. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 297–314. doi:10.1080/0305724022000008124.CrossRef

National Academy of Sciences. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/bose/dbasse_071971#.UZoAtrQaj8s.

National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying effective approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Committee on Highly Successful Science Programs for K-12 Science Education. Board on Science Education and Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2013a). Next generation science standards for states by states: Appendix H. Understanding the scientific enterprise: The nature of science in the next generation science standards. Retrieved from: http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix%20H%20-%20The%20Nature%20of%20Science%20in%20the%20Next%20Generation%20Science%20Standards%204.15.13.pdf.

National Research Council. (2013b). Next generation science standards for states by states: Appendix J. Science, technology, society and the environment. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/APPENDIX%20J%204.15.13%20for%20Final%20Release.pdf.

National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Foundation. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033.pdf.

Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45, 1–42. doi:10.1080/03057260802681839.CrossRef

Sadler, T. D. (2011). Situating socio-scientific issues in classrooms as a means of achieving goals of science education. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 1–9). Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4.CrossRef

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 909–921. doi:10.1002/tea.20327.CrossRef

Tippins, D. J., Mueller, M. P., van Eijck, M., & Adams, J. (2010). Cultural studies and environmentalism: The confluence of ecojustice, place-based (science) education, and indigenous knowledge systems. The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3929-3.CrossRef

Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1387–1410. doi:10.1080/09500690601068095.CrossRef

Wingo, G. M. (1974). Philosophies of education. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.

Yakman, G. (2008). STΣ@M education: An overview of creating a model of integrative education. Retrieved from http://www.steamedu.com/2088_PATT_Publication.pdf.

Yang, F. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2012). Personal epistemology and science learning: A review on empirical studies. In B. J. Fraser, et al. (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 259–280). New York: Springer.CrossRef

Zeidler, D. L. (2002). Dancing with maggots and saints: Past and future visions for subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge in reform and science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 27–42. doi:10.1023/A:1015129825891.CrossRef

Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research and practice. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on Science Education (pp. 697–726). Mahwah, NY: Routledge.

Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S. M., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in science classrooms: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 277–306). The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4_16.CrossRef

Zeidler, D. L., Berkowitz, M., & Bennett, K. (2014). Thinking (scientifically) responsibly: The cultivation of character in a global science education community. In M. P. Mueller, D. J. Tippins, & A. J. Steward (Eds.), Assessing schools for generation R (responsibility): A guide to legislation and school policy in science education (pp. 83–99). The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2748-9_7.CrossRef

Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B., Ruzek, M., Linder, A., & Lin, S. S. (2013). Cross-cultural epistemological orientations to socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 251–283. doi:10.1002/tea.21077.CrossRef

Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7–38). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press. doi:10.1007/1-4020-4996-X.CrossRef

Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character and care. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201–216). The Netherlands: Springer.

Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions of socioscientific reasoning. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, D. A. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 176–192). New York: Routledge.

Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74–101. doi:10.1002/tea.20281.CrossRef

Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377. doi:10.1002/sce.20048.CrossRef

Titel: STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response
verfasst von: Dana L. Zeidler
Publikationsdatum: 26.06.2014
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Cultural Studies of Science Education / Ausgabe 1/2016
Print ISSN: 1871-1502
Elektronische ISSN: 1871-1510
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9578-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2016

A rejoinder to Jrène Rahm’s “Stories of learning, identity, navigations and boundary crossings in STEM in non-dominant communities: new imaginaries for research and action”

Scientific media education in the classroom and beyond: a research agenda for the next decade

On the societal nature of praxis and organic research

STEM learning research through a funds of knowledge lens

Re-authoring research conversations: beyond epistemological differences and toward transformative experience for researchers and educators

Studying science and engineering learning in practice