Socially Conscious Youth Using STEM (SYSTEM): Toward "Vision III" Science Literacy

• In Event: 67.018 - STEM: Power, Spectacle, and Resistance

Abstract

Although there is much to celebrate about contributions of science and technology to biotic and abiotic wellbeing, including improvements to human longevity from medical techno-sciences, there also are many associated harms. Perhaps most worrisome are threats from climate change linked to petroleum-based techno-sciences (Klein, 2014), but commodities like manufactured foods, nuclear power, electronic surveillance systems, etc. also cause concerns. While culpability for such harms is complex, financiers and corporations, etc. seem to have generated networks that, essentially, funnel wealth towards themselves, often at expense of other living and nonliving things (McMurtry, 2013). Since many governments appear to be enmeshed in such power networks, it seems clear that science education must help educate students about possible causes of and actions to address harms (Hodson, 2011). Although there have been some successes in this regard (e.g., Levinson & PARRISE Consortium, 2017), fast-emerging ‘STEM’ (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics) education initiatives seem possibly limiting. While often portrayed as a ‘savior’ that can generate numerous wonderful commodities, related jobs and successes in economic competitions, studies suggest that many STEM initiatives — although contributing, for example, to greater inclusion for women and people of color — tend to ‘punctualize’ (reduce) and de-problematize technosciences’ ontologies and epistemic practices (Bencze et al., 2018). Emphases appear to be placed on celebrating ‘achievements’ and idealized methods of techno-sciences. With such a relatively ‘technicist’ and promotional science education, community members may be disinclined to critique and act to address harms they perceive. Moreover, with a society perhaps naively supportive of STEM fields and socio-economic systems using them, governments may further implement neoliberalism-informed policies (Giroux & Bhattacharya, 2017). This may mean, for example, ‘muzzling’ scientists from publishing research about negative side-effects of commodities and prioritizing petroleum-based energy systems.
As an alternative to reductionist and de-problematized STEM education, we have been promoting student-led research-informed and negotiated action projects by, for instance, prioritizing student expression of pre-existing perspectives, etc., more direct instruction of less-discoverable phenomena and teacher-facilitated practice (Bencze, 2017). In this paper, we report on one teacher’s case, in which most students generated action projects that tended to de-punctualize (e.g., expose many, often hidden, connections to entities) (Callon, 1991) and problematize (e.g., highlight possibly-problematic roles of corporations) commodities. Using constructivism-informed constant comparative methods (Charmaz, 2014), it appeared that a major factor — among several — apparently contributing to such critical and action-oriented STEM education was this teacher’s decision to emphasize direct instruction and student practice (‘application-based learning’) in uses of actor-network theory (Latour, 2005), conceptions of network power relations (Foucault, 2008) and semiotics of consumerism (Baudrillard, 1998). In light of such findings, it appears that many STEM education initiatives may benefit from exposure to and reflections on education towards what Sjöström et al. (2017) have called ‘Vision III’ forms of science literacy; that is, science education that aims to expose learners to more holistic and ‘realistic’ (including problematized) ontological conceptions and helps them develop expertise, confidence and motivation for epistemic practices that may address their concerns around social justice and/or environmental health.

Authors

• John Lawrence Bencze, OISE/University of Toronto

• David Del Gobbo

• Sarah Halwany, University of Toronto

• Mirjan Krstovic, Peel District School Board

• Minja Milanovic, University of Toronto

• Kirby Mitchell, University of Toronto

• Majd Zouda, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto