Challenges+to+SSI+reform

I feel that these SSI reform initiatives have a better chance of being productive if well-founded on thoughtful analysis of why we are doing this, then developing sound theoretical frameworks (these may be many & diverse, locally based, but with some common goals and assumptions). Science educator James Donnelly has outlined his objections in 5 recent papers (2004 added to SSI Articles page). I think it is important that over time we address his critique. A second challenge I am aware of relates to the use of citizenship as a goal in science education,by Davies (2004) (Article added) There are doubtless other challenges which can be added to this page and to which we can collectively respond to build a solid foundation for our efforts. Clare
 * Challenges to SSI reform.** This section is for the consideration of challenges to reforms which include SSIs in school science.

Thanks Clare. I agree with you about Donnelly. What follows are some immediate thoughts which I hope we can develop. I think Donnelly's point is that the objects of science are, ontologically, non-human entities, that science is at source reductive and instrumental. I don't think he has a problem with anything that is said by the political/social role of science in society, just that he questions its presence //as// science in the curriculum. I would suggest that the work of Basil Bernstein, from a sociological perspective, is also relevant in relation to science's strong boundaries and framing in the curriculum, that science socially and historically has developed impermeable boundaries which makes it difficult to combine with other disciplines and ways of knowing. One way forward is to reconceptualise science in the curriculum and have another subject such as science in society. The problem then, however, is that it becomes 'low status' and is not taken seriously. 'Pure' subjects like maths and physics are high status, biology, psychology the humanities progressively less so. How far can politically-laden subjects like SSI be taken seriously within schools which are hierarchical and undemocratic in nature and resist change? Should SSI be something that starts from outside of schools, i.e. as a form of informal education? And just as an additional thought, I wonder if the initial conceptualisations of SSI were themselves rather anti-progressive in nature. What happened to STS which had much more radical formulations? If you look at Nuffield 2000 report [] the discourse is about co-option. The discourse behind much of the research from Zeidler and Sadler is about morality, how the atomised individual acts, little about social justice which goes back to Larry's definition.

Ralph October 13th I have just re-read Donnelly’s 2004, 2005 & 2006 papers (see Bibliography). I think his critique is very important and find myself agreeing with him if the aim of reform efforts is to completely revise the foundation of science in the curriculum. But as I understand it, in the UK Core Science (issues-based, but still with one of 2 main ‘pillars’ being science explanations, the other ‘ideas about science’) is one of 3 courses for 16 year olds, with Additional Science General (concept-led) and Additional Science Applied (work-related). Not sure if UK middle years curriculum has changed. This would not appear to undermine the scientific body of knowledge as the main focus in the curriculum. Perhaps you can fill us in on this Ralph? In Australia’s new national curriculum we have 3 strands, Content, Process & Science as Human Endeavour – the latter strand is very diffuse, ill-defined and SSI’s get a passing mention. My own position on the need for change is well expressed by Edgar Jenkins, that if we do not engage in school science with contemporary issues, we leave students confronted with “two seemingly conflicting, if perhaps overlapping, visions of science: one constructed and institutionalized in the school curriculum, and another which is much less secure and develops from their own, rapidly enlarging experience of the social, physical and emotional worlds which they inhabit." (Jenkins, 2000, p. 209) I think the consequences could be serious in terms of public cynicism & the undermining of science as a knowledge resource. But I don’t see the need to do what Donnelly suggests is on the way. Neither do I agree with his view (2004, p. 781) that “such questions [ssi’s] should grow organically from the subject matter of science, and return to it” as I think this would simply assure that nothing changes. I agree though with his final comment (2004) that we need for this humanistic reform initiative “a more nuanced account of its possibilities, methods and limits”. In his 2005 paper he gives some analysis of the nature of SSIs which raises important questions. Re SSIs happening outside schools Ralph, I think we must make some claim to the territory since science is now so central to many issues. Somehow environmental science got separated off, and an opportunity was lost. I am concerned how SSIs get conceptualised, objecting to the individualised moral education focus of much US research which you note Ralph. Keen to hear from others, especially re what is happening with this kind of reform in other countries, Pedro, Larry? Clare 17 October ||  Perhaps I can help start discussion re the second challenge to SSI reform from Davies (2004) by summarising his critique. Davies first outlines the 4 assertions made by science educators which link sc ed with citizenship. He then describes the history of citizenship education in the UK, noting how since 2002 it has been a foundation subject in the UK national curriculum for ages 11-16. Interestingly Larry, he describes one of the motives for this reform as “a desire to promote a communitarian vision” (p. 1753) and citizenship seen as “encompassing social and moral responsibility, community involvement and political literacy”. He supports sc ed for citizenship but argues that the link and the idea of citizenship thus far has been superficial, with “little sustained reflective discussion about matters related to citizenship” and “some curious tokenism at work”, with explicit mention of the // Beyond 2000 // report. He notes the lack of discussion of democracy by Millar in the chapter titled ‘Sc ed for democracy’. Davies reports that there are “fierce debates” about the nature of citizenship, summarised by Brett (2003)(see biblio). The tokenism he refers to relates to citizenship providing a slogan for science educators to promote ‘relevant’ science education. The point is the tendency of science educators not to explore the // problematic nature of citizenship //itself. So here is something we need to address. Ralph, your ASERA paper on democracy relates directly, perhaps your forthcoming book too. And Larry this connects well with your work.......Over to us! Clare 12 November
 * || [|clarabel48]
 * Re citizenship**

> [|Need help formatting text?]
 * 1) Subject
 * 2) Reply
 * 3) Monitor this topic
 * 1) Post [|Cancel]