Examining Teacher Framing of Socioscientific Issues in High School Science Classrooms From an Ecological Perspective

• In Event: Roundtable Session 6
  In Refereed Roundtable Session: Climate Change, Sustainability and Education

Proposal

Introduction
The present moment in the Anthropocene carries profound challenges for the planet and all its inhabitants in the light of human-caused changes in climate and its ramifications for various planetary processes. However, crisis framings risk an engagement in shorter-term actions and not address root causes of the problem (Mitchell & Mueller, 2011). There is also a need for an analysis of social, institutional, and global power relations and inequalities that simultaneously drive climate change and shape our responses to it (Newell et al., 2021). Research on how teachers think about such power relations and allow for their sensemaking by the students in science classrooms is sparse but critical from the perspective of shaping future global citizens. Responding to this gap, this study asks - how do high school science teachers’ frame (Goffman, 1974) socioscientific issues (SSIs) in their thinking and practice?

Theoretical Framework
The study adopted a framework of framing processes between the teacher and the students based on Busch (2016) who adapted it from Scheufele's (1999) in communication studies. Within this framework, the teachers make frame building choices based on the curriculum, personal values, etc. which they then present to the students through the process of frame setting in the classroom. These two processes cumulatively contribute towards students’ own framing of the topics.

Methodology
The study adopted a comparative case study methodology (Yin, 2009) and recruited two high school science teachers, Radha (11th grade biology) and Sheela (10th grade chemistry) teaching in a charter school in Southern California as participants. Both names are pseudonyms. Data were collected for six weeks in each teacher’s classroom including semi-structured interviews, classroom PPTs generated by teachers, and field observations. The analysis started with inductive thematic coding and the constant comparative method (Glaser, 1965) to identify emergent themes followed by deductive coding of rest of the data based on identified themes.

Findings
Radha’s topic for the unit observed was genetics and biotechnology and she articulated her values towards promising possibilities of environmental modification through biotechnology and their positive impact on humans.

Sheela’s topic was climate change and her values centered on the interconnectedness between components of the environment and critiquing the role of humans in disrupting these interconnections.

A comparative analysis of the two teachers’ thinking and practice revealed that Radha adopted the frame of “anthropocentric success” while Sheela adopted the frame of “ecocentric success”.

Discussion
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (NGSS Lead States, 2013) is clear in its anthropocentric intent to “better prepare high school graduates for the rigors of college and careers”. In this context, the findings raise the question of whether anthropocentrism is normatively associated with topics like genetics and biotechnology and science education in general, with topics like climate change pushing teachers to adopt an ecocentric perspective because of their nature. This problematizes the normativity of anthropocentrism in science education policy documents like NGSS and highlights the need for revisiting such a focus in the light of current ecological challenges.

Author

• Sushil S, University of California San Diego