![]() |
Education Learning About Relationships Among Fields of Science & Technology and Societies & Environments |
Introduction
Welcome! This page provides ideas, resources and links to relevant websites for STSE Education; i.e., learning about conceptions in relationships among (and the nature of) fields of science & technology and societies & environments. Although not found in all curricula around the world, it is listed first among three goals for science and technology education in Ontario, where most of my work occurs. |
|
'STSE' stands for relationships among: Science, Technology, Society & Environment. Such relationships are depicted at right, although - as shown below - the 4 items are more overlapping than portrayed here. Although STSE education prioritizes understanding relationships, it also is important to have realistic conceptions of each element - including about the nature of science and technology (NoST), the nature of societies (e.g., sociology) and the nature of environments (e.g., ecology and environmental sciences). Particularly important in studies of STSE relationships are controversies arising from different opinions about some relationships - often related to various political positions. I believe, however, we must focus on potential harms. | ![]() |
Given the STSE model
above is, likely, somewhat misleading - in that it
suggests separation of the four elements in it - perhaps
the model below is more realistic, recognizing societal
and environmental embeddedness of science and
technology; and, recognizing possibilities for
overlapping of goals, procedures and outcomes of science
and technology. It also stresses needs for foci on Sociopolitical ('WISE')
Activism to overcome Socioscientific
(STSE) Harms. |
![]() |
STEM Education and STSE Education With advent of 'STEM' education initiatives, one might add engineering & mathematics to the STSE mix; ie 'STEM-SE.' Although the model below may do this reasonably-well, we have to keep in mind that - at least based on actor-network theory - that STEM fields are dynamically and, to a great extent, unpredictably, interrelated with many or most other 'entities,' including living, non-living and symbolic entities. Such a view makes it extremely difficult to depict science and technology (or STEM) in any kind of static, two-dimensional, way. Nevertheless, such a STEM-SE schema may be important to emphasize, given that many STEM education initiatives appear to limit considerations of many societal and environmental relationships - particularly those regarding adverse effects of powerful people and groups on STEM fields and, in turn, wellbeing of individuals, societies & environments. ![]() |
Although science has traditionally
been studied separate from other subjects, studies of
STSE relationships has become more common. This seems
to have occurred due to more general awareness of harms linked to
science and related fields. Fields of science and
technology have led to many societal advances. Many
medical and surgical treatments, such as heart surgery
and antibiotic treatments have saved and/or prolonged
human lives. Communication tools, such as open-access
aspects of the Internet, have helped people share
ideas and cultural perspectives, etc. Such
relationships need to be celebrated. However, where
there are harms (or hints of harms) like those
noted below and here,
they likely should be addressed:
|
Although there is much
controversy about causes of harms in STSE relationships,
many scholars and others suggest that excessive human
orientation towards for-profit production and consumption
of goods and services is largely at fault. John McMurtry (1999),
a prominent philosopher and social commentator, says that
we are in the 'cancer
stage
of
capitalism' - in which 'cells' (capitalists) within
us are damaging our 'bodies' (humanity). It seems clear
that many products of science and technology, supported
by companies and financiers, are generating much
social and environmental degradation. Perhaps because of seriousness
of problems like those mentioned at left, STSE
Education is part of school science and
technology curricula. It is, however, a
neglected aspect of students' education in
many educational situations. It is common, for
example, for STSE to be addressed in terms of
telling students about many positive products - such
as medical devices, etc. - that may be attributed to
science and technology. Possible negative STSE
relationships are seldom mentioned, particularly as
they may relate to adverse influences of powerful
individuals (e.g., financiers) and groups
(e.g., corporations). Without attention to such
potential power-related harms, humanity's harms are,
clearly, likely to persist and/or get worse. As
indicated by the STSE framework above,
humans are intimately connected to all other living
things and their non-living environments. We can
either choose to influence these in positive or
negative ways. |
As mentioned above, STSE is part of some
official curricula - such as for Ontario
schools. It is apparent, however, that many STSE
goal statements (and those, as discussed below, in many
STEM education initiatives) tend to be oriented towards
positive 'applications' of science and technology - a
tack tending to suggest that science and technology are
'good,' 'successful' and 'beneficial.' While that is not
untrue in many cases, there are a number areas of STSE
relationships about which we should be concerned (see WISE Problems). A useful
way of analyzing and planning for STSE Education along
these lines has been developed by Derek Hodson (2003).
He suggests that there are four 'levels' of commitment
to STSE education; that is,
I believe that
students need to focus on all four such categories of
STSE education. |
|
Educational
researchers, politicians, teachers, etc. have choices in
ways in which they represent relationships among fields
of science and technology and societies and environments
(STSE). Some choices I want to be used in S&T
education, which tend - I believe - to be avoided in
many science/STEM education initiatives, can be
understood via the schema below: |
![]() |
The
above schema is meant to depict relationships between
the 'actual' nature of science & technology
(S&T) in different contexts (on the left) and ways in
which S&T may be portrayed in education (on the right). Conversions
between left and right in the schema can be considered
to be kinds of translations. As in translating
between two languages, there may be inefficiencies or
mis-translations; here, called "gaps." Some may be
unavoidable, such as ontological gaps (e.g., due to
differences in composition of people and descriptions of
them) and epistemological gaps (e.g., due to different
research methods used to depict S&T). Ideological
gaps in translations, though, are intentional.
There is much evidence, for instance, that many STEM
education initiatives - and many science education
programmes - tend to avoid references to roles
of "Powerful Entities" in influencing STEM fields
shown on the right above. I believe, like several
colleagues, that it is students' democratic
rights to be informed about such problematic
aspects of STSE relationships. |
|
Assessment and
evaluation (A&E) of students' expertise
regarding STSE relationships
is complex. It should be carried out
differently, depending on the phase of the
instructional model being used. When getting students to
express (demonstrate) their pre-instructional
STSE ideas, for example, it is important to
encourage them to freely express their ideas -
knowing there are no 'right' answers.
Accordingly, A&E at this stage should
emphasize effort. During the 'Learning Ideas'
phase of the instructional model, on the other
hand, teachers can use more traditional A&E
techniques - since the purpose in that phase of
learning is to teach particular ideas, concepts,
etc. However, because there is much controversy
about whether or not STSE relationships are
positive or negative (often due to a person's political
stance), all A&E in STSE Education
must be flexible - allowing for different
perspectives, as long as they appear logical.
Indeed, room must be reserved for students to
decide what STSE relationships make most sense
to them. This represents the Judging Ideas
phase of the constructivism-informed
instructional framework. This is a crucial part
of STSE education, since decisions about STSE
relationships and action(s) stemming from them
can - philosophically - only be made in the
context of 'real-life' situations, involving
many, often simultaneously changing and
interacting, variables. For example, decisions
about production and use of such manufactured
foods as potato chips are controversial and can
only be made through negotiation among various
'stakeholders'; such as among company
representatives, consumers, government
officials, scientists, lawyers, etc. Some specific
suggestions for A&E in the area of STSE
Education are provided at right. |
Assessment/Evaluation
Suggestions/Resources
|
As indicated above,
there are different teaching approaches for STSE
Education. There are, accordingly, many possible resources
in support of various approaches. Many of these are
located at: STSE web links.
A very popular STSE Education approach is the 'case method'; that
is, activities
('methods') that get students to interact with case
studies (also called documentaries) about some STSE
issue. Several of these are provided at: Action
BioScience. Some case methods are available for
field-testing by writing to me. |
The above case methods are part of a
larger set of resources
developed as part of the STEPWISE research and
development programme.
|