Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 3, Issue 1, Foreword (June, 2002) Derek HODSON Some Thoughts on Scientific Literacy: Motives, Meanings and Curriculum Implications Previous Contents Next

Politicizing the Curriculum

One of the absurdities of some current curriculum initiatives is that they attempt to teach that science is a value-laden activity (the nature of science element in the STS emphasis, for example), but try to do so in a value-free way. Many teachers studiously avoid confronting the political interests and social values underlying the scientific and technological practices they teach about, and seek to avoid making judgements about them or influencing students in particular directions. This makes little or no sense. First, it asks teachers to attempt the impossible. Values are embedded in every aspect of the curriculum: content, teaching and learning methods, assessment and evaluation strategies are selected using criteria that reflect and embody particular value positions, whether we recognize it or not. Second, it mistakes the very purpose of education in science, which, in my view, is to ensure critical scientific and technological literacy for everyone as a means to social reconstruction. Its purpose is to enable future citizens to look critically at the society we have, and the values that sustain it, and to ask what can and should be changed in order to achieve a more socially just democracy and to ensure more environmentally sustainable lifestyles. Hence my view of science education is overtly and unashamedly political. Politicization of science education can be achieved by giving students the opportunity to confront real world issues that have a scientific, technological or environmental dimension. By grounding content in socially and personally relevant contexts, an issues-based approach can provide the motivation that is absent from current abstract, de-contextualized approaches and can form a base for students to construct understanding that is personally relevant, meaningful and important. My inclination is to provide a mix of local, regional/national and global issues focusing on: health; food and agriculture; land, water and mineral resources; energy resources and consumption; industry and technology (including biotechnology); information transfer and transportation; freedom and control in science and technology (ethics and social responsibility). As argued elsewhere (Hodson 1994), this kind of issues-based approach can be regarded as comprising four levels of sophistication.

• Level 1: Appreciating the societal impact of scientific and technological change, and recognizing that science and technology are, to some extent, culturally determined.
• Level 2: Recognizing that decisions about scientific and technological development are taken in pursuit of particular interests, and that benefits accruing to some may be at the expense of others. Recognizing that scientific and technological development is inextricably linked with the distribution of wealth and power.
• Level 3: Developing one's own views and establishing one's own underlying value positions.
• Level 4: Preparing for and taking action.

The principal goal of such a curriculum is to equip students with the capacity and commitment to take appropriate, responsible and effective action on matters of social, economic, environmental and moral-ethical concern. However, socially and environmentally responsible behaviour will no more follow directly from knowledge of key concepts than ability to conduct scientific investigations will follow directly from experience of carrying out exercises based on the sub-skills of science. The keys to the translation of knowledge into action are ownership and empowerment. Those who act are those who have a deep personal understanding of the issues (and their human implications) and feel a personal investment in addressing and solving the problems. Those who act are those who feel personally empowered to effect change, who feel that they can make a difference. At level 1, students are encouraged to recognize the societal and environmental impact of science and technology. At level 2, they are sensitized to the sociopolitical nature of scientific and technological practice. At level 3, they are encouraged to become committed to the fight to establish more socially just and environmentally sustainable practices. But only by proceeding to level 4 can we ensure that students acquire the knowledge and skills to intervene effectively in the decision-making processes and ensure that alternative voices, and their underlying interests and values, are brought to bear on policy decisions.

As Curtin (1991) says, it is important to distinguish caring about and caring for. It is almost always much easier to proclaim that one cares about an issue than to do something about it! A politicized ethic of care (caring for) entails becoming actively involved in a local manifestation of a particular problem, exploring the complex sociopolitical contexts in which the problem is located and attempting to resolve conflicts of interest. Preparing students for action necessarily means ensuring that they gain a clear understanding of how decisions are made within local, regional and national government, and within industry and commerce. Without knowledge of where and with whom power of decision-making is located, and awareness of the mechanisms by which decisions are reached, intervention is not possible. Furthermore, the likelihood of students becoming active citizens is increased substantially by encouraging them to take action now (in school), and by providing opportunities for them to do so. Suitable action might include conducting surveys, making public statements and writing letters, organizing petitions and consumer boycotts of environmentally unsafe products, publishing newsletters, working on environmental clean-up projects, assuming responsibility for environmental enhancement of the school grounds, and so on. It is not enough for students to learn that science and technology are influenced by social, political and economic forces; they need to learn how to participate, and they need to experience participation. It is not enough for students to be armchair critics! A fundamental part of my argument is that education for critical scientific literacy is inextricably linked with education for political literacy and with the ideology of education as social reconstruction. As Kyle (1996, p.1) puts it:

Education must be transformed from the passive, technical, and apolitical orientation that is reflective of most students' school-based experiences to an active, critical, and politicized life-long endeavour that transcends the boundaries of classrooms and schools.

The kind of social reconstruction I envisage includes the confrontation and elimination of racism, sexism, classism, and other forms of discrimination, scapegoating and injustice; it includes a substantial shift away from unthinking and unlimited consumerism, towards a more environmentally sustainable lifestyle that promotes the adoption of appropriate technology. Adopting appropriate technology entails the rejection of any technology that violates our moral-ethical principles, exploits or disadvantages minority groups, or has adverse environmental impact. The curriculum proposals outlined here are unashamedly intended to produce activists: people who will fight for what is right, good and just; people who will work to re-fashion society along more socially-just lines; people who will work vigorously in the best interests of the biosphere.

Unfortunately, there are many students who feel disempowered by their experiences in school and are increasingly alienated from science. There are many who feel no sense of ownership and certainly no feelings of empowerment, and who continue to regard science as a body of fixed, authoritative knowledge located in textbooks and technology as something beyond their control. It is to these matters that I now turn.