Possible+Discussion+Topics


 * Possible Discussion Topics**

** This is the place to publish possible topics for discussion about SSI and SSI Education. **

//I'm thinking it may be easier to follow the to and fro of discussion if we alternate fonts so putting my additions in italics this time (Clare)//


 * Possible focus question re the role of concept knowledge (Clare) **

One aspect of the rationale for including SSIs in school science is to provide a meaningful context for the teaching of science concepts. A focus on concepts may be the only appeal of SSIs for many traditional science teachers. The role of concept knowledge in decision making on SSIs, however, is far from clear. Only a few studies have examined this specifically in situ and little theoretical background has been developed. What are the grounds for proposing the teaching of concept knowledge as a rationale for the inclusion of SSIs in school science? What is the role of concept knowledge in decision making on SSIs? Does this rationale limit or enhance the scope of the discussion of SSIs? Does this rationale affect how teachers view and implement discussion of SSIs e.g. could it narrow their focus and undermine engagement with science-society dimensions?

[Interesting questions, Clare. I am guessing, since I have not looked into this, that 'traditionalists' and, perhaps those with a more Positivist philosophies, might promote 'concept'-based decision making, as opposed to decisions on other bases - such as emotional ones; Larry] [Both a pragmatic and metaphysical problem, Clare, and one which exercises teachers and curriculum designers. This has been a constant and recurring problem in a system which is exam-focused; SSIs need to be justified if they carry appropriate concepts with them. the problem is that the concepts we learned in school are transformed and re-situated in social contexts - Jim Ryder's article in JCS in 2001 or 2002 and the book Inarticulate Science deal with this problem.Ralph]

//Yes Ralph the Layton book and Jim’s analysis are excellent re this. Maybe what comes out of discussing SSIs is exactly this recontextualised content? At least doing this at school means we have a chance to keep science (including NOS understanding) in the picture in this recontextualisation process. In my PhD study (young adults & mobile phone safety) science dropped out of the picture I think partly because the concept knowledge was missing (almost zero understanding of radiation). So there can be an argument for strengthening concept knowledge through recontextualising it. I guess at the same time the teachers need to be committed to SSI inclusion for other reasons, but I think Ralph you reported in your Valuable Lessons study that they generally do feel this way, which is encouraging! So perhaps it’s important to argue a rationale from a wide base and not get hung up on the content issue.(Clare)//

Given the potential harmful effects of 'negative' relationships amongst fields of science and technology and societies and environments, it seems clear that we need a more activist citizenry - which might be achieved partly through activist orientations in school science. I believe there is considerable rationale for promotion of a more activist citizenry, including: - the need to address many of the issues in the near future, because of the harm that appears to be occurring; - deeper learning; since learning without action is 'inert'; and self-directed reciprocal relationships between representations and phenomena of the world promotes deep commitments/attachments (Wenger, 1998). - SSIs, like all knowledge, may be reifications of reality; only having meaning in action, in specific unpredictable contexts; - improvements to the actor's personal life, as well as improvements to wellbeing of societies and environments, because of the idea of social epistemology; i.e., that all things are interconnected, historically and concurrently. - connected to the above reasons, students may develop deeper understanding of the general nature of SSIs & actions; this is a 'meta-understanding.
 * Possible focus on sociopolitical activism to address SSIs (Larry)**

[Larry, I think there is a big step from discussion & decision making on SSIs to activism. Does it change the role of the teacher? It is a possible outcome but do we need to keep a rationale for including SSIs broad enough to encompass a wider range of outcomes? Clare] [I agree, Clare, that it a move towards activism is difficult; but, for the reasons I listed above, I think it is necessary. Certainly, though a move in this direction does not preclude a breadth of outcomes....they are, to a great extent, necessary as 'resources' leading up to activism. We have evidence from classroom-based (schools and teacher education) that this can work....but, again, there a numerous inhibiting factors. A highly simplified framework for thinking about such factors is Schwab's 'commonplaces'; i.e., the teacher, students, curricula, and the milieu surrounding teaching and learning. Nevertheless, at the risk of being overly repetitious, I think - above all - that the state of the world demands a more activist citizenry to bring about improvements in terms of social justice and environmental sustainability. Awareness of issues isn't, in my view, enough; perhaps actually contributing to the status quo. - Larry] [After our recent discussion about promotion of activism, there was general agreement that the term 'activism' should, likely, be open to discussion. Some might prefer a 'softer' term, like 'social action(s).' - Larry]

//Larry, I’m sure you’ve had this discussion a zillion times, but, this is quite a strong position to advocate, a breadth of outcomes as necessary as ‘resources’ leading up to activism. As a longtime activist myself I am happy with activism or social action but I don’t feel it is necessary or wise to make it the main goal in educational endeavours. I agree that awareness isn’t enough but I suspect it’s as far as one can go as an educator. Having said that I guess I am also convinced of the rightness of Freire’s pedagogy for action in particular cases! Also aren’t stronger approaches with teenagers as likely to alienate as to convince? I would see critical thinking as a major educational goal particularly the ability to use evidence. // //If we use the term social activism do we need to define it in terms of personal as well as collective decision making and action? (Clare) // [Yes, Clare, I agree that making activist THE focus of science education is dramatic and impractical (in terms of realities of school systems), but perhaps you would agree that it could/should be oriented towards 'softer' terms, like 'social action,' 'community service' or 'care.' Again, at the top of my list is the severity of the potential problems if societies don't act soon. I do believe we are in a mess; corporations have control of the agenda and they a destroying the planet as they try to enrich themselves in the short term. They have to be stopped! I can give some academic reasons, but that is my main reason; Larry] I agree with the idea of focussing on the use of the term social action as a way to get people to engage with the idea but ensure that this is a a very broad notion not a narrow version of personal action. (Debbie) //Yes I do agree Larry that this is a vital orientation for including SSIs in school science. Maybe we should say personal or social. If we say only social students may think of larger responsibility and be daunted by it, whereas changing their own behaviour is also a worthwhile start (Clare)//

Often, students are asked to negotiate and argue their positions with regards to SSIs on the basis of their personal pre-conceived notions, teaching they experience and secondary research (e.g., internet searches) they conduct. These and other sources of ideas, perspectives, etc. can help them make decisions about SSIs (including activism). But, for deeper commitments to the issues (including acting to address them...), it seems best that they also conduct primary research to generate data/findings that may inform and direct their interactions with SSIs. Primary research, such as a correlational study of peers' iPod™ uses as affected by age and gender, for example, may promote deep commitments because, through student control of decision-making, they develop 'ownership' of - and, perhaps, responsibility towards - the issues. Among objects of study in encouraging and enabling students to conduct primary research as an influence on their SSI decisions/actions might be the 'prestige' associated with knowledge developed by them in relation to that developed by others (e.g., professional scientists).
 * Possible focus on student-led primary research as bases of choices about SSIs (Larry)**

[Our group discussed the idea that promotion of student-led research may call into question students' and non-scientists' rights to be involved in decisions (and actions) regarding SSIs. Actor Network Theory (ANT) may provide some guidance in this regard, however, in the sense that it suggests that any one 'actant' is in a reciprocal relationship with every other actor in a network - which may imply a role for amateurs, as well as experts, in decision making.] [This seems very promising Larry. It would be interesting to do some work on this. ANT sounds a promising way forward. I was reading an article somewhere, I can't remember who, it might have been Les Levidow from Science & Culture or jerry ravetz about scientists working with 'amateurs' on an issue and how this is transformed where scientists share the same values and commitments as the laypeople involved.Ralph]

//Larry, I was involved here in a successful project involving high school students-as-researchers examining why their low SE suburb was under-represented at local universities. Their research & actions led to real change. They did need training in research methods of course but what was impressive was their level of commitment. Several of them went on to tertiary study and their actions led to ongoing support for others to follow (Clare)// [Great stuff, Clare! This is the sort of thing I have been promoting. And, yes, a major reason for the primary research is to help them to identify with issues that THEY helped determine; not just those we/curriculum leaders determine.]

I'm not entirely happy with this question but I think it contains the gist of my thoughts. In school SSIs are chosen to fit with the science content (see Clare on concept knowledge above) whereas one could start by identifying something which is problematic and working with a variety of interested parties to resolve the problem, and of course in true dialectical fashion, create new ones. There are many issues which can be addressed in schools - working environment, drinks machines, ability classes, recycling - which lend themselves to jopint action with interested and conflicting parties. But what happens to the science? Research based on ANT (eg Roth and van Eijck) show that it's problematised and often challenges authoritative science. It also means that science is but one aspect of a whole network of interconnections. [I agree with you, Ralph, that an - if not //the// - important pedagogical principle may be to encourage educators to start instruction with engaging learners in SSIs, making the focus of subsequent learning (and actions!) an effort to address the SSIs - and, essentially, to bring about a better world. For me, this often may translate into a focus on technologies and their relationships in a network, rather than science content, such as cell phones, soft drinks ('pop,' 'soda,' etc.), contraceptives, TV programmes, etc. Anyway, this reminded me of this group: Humane Education; see, especially, Zoe Weil's TED Talk.- Larry]
 * How can we improve things in scientific issues for the communal good? (Ralph)**

//Does this bring us full circle to the curriculum issue so that engaging learners with SSIs is mandatory? As it is in our draft national curriculum but alongside huge lists of content! But there is still a problem re keeping the science in there e.g. to consider issues involving radiation doesn't one need to understand what radiation is and how it works? (Clare)// [I agree; making SSI consideration mandatory is a great idea, but it can challenge 'time' spent on content. Having said that, there are lots of studies problematizing the utility of much science content, suggesting that it is more important to companies/experts than average citizens. I would also add David Layton's work (and others) indicating that abstract, decontextualized, knowledge (e.g., certain chemicals prevent rusting of iron) often is 'inert,' in the sense that its real meaning only applies to specific, often unpredictable, contexts (e.g., metal on cars coated in rust proofer can cause rusting because slight cracks and bends in the metal cause water and salt to pool - encouraging iron oxide formation!). This aligns well, also, with ANT - in that 'real' meaning is something that occurs within networks, not at their points.]

//I think this can work in our favour Larry in that (have mentioned above) the discussion of SSIs necessarily recontextualises the concepts. Re my participants in the mobile phone study I feel sure that they would be more likely to understand the concept of radiation and its value as a knowledge resource if introduced to it in the context of their mobile phones.// //I realise that in the Layton spirit this means more than just providing a context. I like the sound of ANT for theorising this - do you have a good starting reference?//(//Clare)// [I like van Eijck's recent paper, in which he provides a summary: van Eijck, M. (2010). Addressing the dynamics of science in curricular reform for scientific literacy: The case of genomics. //International Journal of Science Education, 32//(18), 2429-2449.; Larry]


 * SSI's and the enacted curriculum (Debbie)**

What is the scope with the curriculum to undertake SSI's. This is particularly important as science curriculum documents in some countries focus on content. This then links back the SSI's and content debate that represents the first question as we explore whether teachers start with content ideas or issues to explore. [In Ontario, we are (somewhat) fortunate in that the curriculum places STSE education (and action) first among the 3 main goals for science education. I say "somewhat" because implementation has been difficult. But, our centre-right government has been pretty good about raising the profile of STSE and, especially, environmental education. One of my critiques of this, though, is that they tend to shy away from social issues...especially economic ones connected to poverty and social stratification. But, to answer Debbie (blue text), I think you're right in that teachers and texts, etc. tend to focus on content education, regardless of the name; so, STSE/SS issues often are justified as a way to get kids to learn content. I have been linking this to general societal consumerism, in which people who have few needs are convinced to spend money on 'wants' - STSE is often justified as a way to get kids to 'want' to 'consume' content, whether or not it is or may be relevant to their lives; Larry). //﻿Like your idea of 'consuming content' Larry - makes me think of indigestion immediately! And it's certainly all-consuming in science education too. Yes I think it's important to be clear with teachers about the wider goals of citizenship. Linking science with citizenship is a very new idea for science teachers and probably needs a lot of attention. Maybe what we mean by citizenship is worthy of a focus question since it is now being used widely in curriculum documents. Relevant here is the Davies (see biblio) critique of how science educators are using this as a slogan or catchcry with little theorisation.(Clare)//