Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 5, Issue 1, Foreword (Apr., 2004)
Robert E. YAGER
Using Social Issues as Contexts for K-16 Science Education
Previous Contents Next

Centrality of Contexts for Reform

Since a starting point for this essay was the centrality of STS as my introduction to using social issues in science classrooms and in schools, it should be seen as a way of promoting learning across an entire school and beyond as well as with the immediate family and local, state, and national communities. In essence social issues provide the contexts which invariably require the concepts and skills that comprise science programs in typical schools. Instead of starting with a curriculum and proceeding through it, the student is more central and becomes the magnet for the need of what is generally taught merely because it is there and outside persons have dictated it and assumed its relevance for all learners. Generally, everything is taught “because it will be useful—Trust Me!” But, for most students such use is never found. Instead the study is something that is done for all who wish to pursue college/university study, especially for medicine, health sciences, and engineering—and also important for performing well on college entrance examinations. I would argue that our major problem remains: science is justified and offered as important for further (and deeper?) study of science at the next level (grade by grade in schools) or for the college track in high school and for college entrance. It is not seen as something important and useful for all.

STS by name broadens the focus to something other than a consideration of the concepts that characterizes biology, chemistry, physics, and to a much lesser extent, the earth/space sciences. It also includes technology (the human-made world) as well as a focus on the objects and events in the natural universe. And, it includes society which is easy for life science enthusiasts since it represents a level of focus in biology (i.e., ecology). It is also related to the social studies (ala sociology, economics, government, geography, and psychology).

But, it is insufficient to assume a universal understanding of science itself. To most persons science is what is studied in school. What is studied usually ends up as topics or chapters organized around precise concepts which are traditional features of textbooks, and often coincide to courses in college departments where science teachers have had direct experience as students during their preparation.

Science needs to be understood by all as a human endeavor which all people can understand, experience, and use. The NSES goals previously elaborated and discussed exemplify a holistic view of science. Carl Sagan (NRC, 1998) has emphasized a vital point when he observed that every human starts as a scientist. However, as the child grows and attends school, he/she is discouraged from practicing real science and is taught skills in science classes which are alien to science itself. Science consists of four essential features—all of which should be a part of school and every child’s experience. These include:

1)
 asking questions about the objects and events observed in the natural world;
2)
 proposing answers (possible explanations) to these personally constructed questions;
3)
 designing tests or preparing logical reasons to establish validity for the proposed answers;
4)
 communicating the question, proposed explanations, and the evidence assembled to support the explanation to others (especially others, who have pondered and investigated similar objects and events in nature).

Science is a human endeavor which is characterized by curiosity and wonderment, attempts to explain, and the desire to determine the accuracy of each explanation advanced, and responsibility for sharing and communicating the process to others (in science at the research level, this means to others comprising the science establishment). If science were advanced with this four point sequence, goal one of NSES would be met. And yet, it rarely occurs and remains a major issue in science education. But, how would real science ever be offered in a textbook, a teacher’s lecture, or a state framework? But, complete science is what STS is about—and science for all!

Technology was to be eliminated from all school science programs in the 60s. Technology was relegated to the shop; it was placed in vocational departments designed for the non-college bound students. Interestingly, it was not seen as preparation for engineering or any other collegiate endeavor.

Technology can simply be defined as a focus on human-made world, including television, airplanes, highways, architecture, computers, atomic energy plants, and thousands of other “technological” achievements so central to our living. Is it any wonder that eliminating technology content from school science meant eliminating the context so many found interesting and relevant?

Although the procedures for technology are the same or for science, there are two major differences. In the case of technology, the answer is the starting point. For example, we want an airplane, new energy source, a better highway, an air conditioner, and thousands of other “technologies” that are so familiar to our daily lives. We can dream of things that will improve our lives and then use our knowledge of the natural world to produce them. In the case of technology the results are getting the world (situation, gadget, structure) we wanted and needed. In the case of science, we only have the satisfaction of knowing better—or more completely—how the objects and events in nature operate or come about; our curiosities are satisfied for their own sake—without getting a product we wanted when we started.

Society is a term in biology that defines a group of living forms with certain features. Common social structures can be (and are) studied, such as bees, ants, monkeys. But, of greater interest perhaps is human society—and the various interactions of it as cultures have developed and as human evolution has occurred over thousands of years.

Society—for many STS enthusiasts—is where the study of technology and science should begin. It begins with humans and their minds. It exemplifies the one distinguishing feature of humans and other forms of life. For technology the relationship and value of the procedures and of the products are easy to see. The human intellect is titillated in wanting something seen to improve human existence. The question becomes “how to get it?” For science it is but curiosity about stars, mountains, oceans, living forms, light, sound, energy, substances.

Understanding science as a kind of human endeavor seems illusive in typical courses and where teachers purport to help students “learn” science. Instead most never experience real science. Often they experience technology—even though it is often but replicating something already “discovered”. And yet, this re-discovery of the laws of nature never encourages a real (and complete) experience with science. Seldom does typical school science start with an open entry into a study of the objects and events that comprise the natural universe.

STS should stand for society-technology-science (in this order). It is a way of illustrating how science operates, what it is, how previous “knowledge” and skills can be used to answer further questions of the objects and events found in nature. Science starts with people’s questions. So should science teaching! Society should be the starting point for science and technology as experienced in courses.

Social issues is a term used here to mean the problems/controversies/debates in human society that people identify. These issues (questions) about the natural world and the human-made world provide motivation for most people. They can and should provide the structure for science (and technology) studies. Instead most structures are determined by teachers, curriculum guides, textbooks without any other reason than someone else has determined their importance—and made promises about their use later in life for dealing with the issues/problems of our time. But, again this is our failure—the realization between what is taught—and seemingly learned—and that that can be used. This USE could be basic to the realization of goals two, three, and four of the NSES. Once again these goals—though elaborated as justifications for school science for nearly 25 years—have provided little evidence (from textbooks, state frameworks, research reports) that the goals are being met in any class, or observed or measured in any way. Using social issues as “up-front” organizers for science and technology studies seems to be an answer—one deserving trial and “evidence gathering” concerning their effectiveness. But, how to change common practice? This is where the NSES visions for changing programs and systems are needed. And yet, these standards receive scant attention by political leaders and policy makers. All seem to start with identifying minute concepts and special (often glamorized) skills, and then encouraging drill and practices with them as precursors to solving problems later. The failure is one of providing no meaningful context or situations or indicators of the utility of the skills and concepts we are so quick to teach.

Joe Piel, the chair of the STS team for Project Synthesis, has been a proponent for the STS approach since his early involvement with a curriculum project called “Engineering Concepts Curriculum Project”—later called the “Man-Made World” in the late 60s. This program for use in high schools made little impact for the reasons outlined above. It was not considered important for college entrance, but merely as a way of helping students experience real (traditional) science or technology (still in the shop).

Piel often talked of organizing lessons, units, and courses around daily newspapers. He often started speeches and workshops with the latest newspaper in hand. He could show how ninety percent of newspaper headlines, including obituaries, advertisements, editorials, and current news, could result in more questions, need for information, thinking, and evidence gathering. This is what STS is about; it is an example of using current social issues as organizers and entree to science and technology concepts and skills. Although the “Man-Made World” never captured the attention and use it deserved, several newer programs are attempts to provide similar pathways. Two middle high school programs exemplify STS and the use of social issues in science education. These are “Event-Based Science” (Wright, 2001) and Integrated Mathematics, Science—and Technology (Center For Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 1998). But, the challenge remains in making these innovative programs the choice for more teachers and schools. They can be of great help in providing ways of using social issues as “up-front” organizers and motivating contexts for K-12 science programs.

 

Copyright (C) 2004 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 5, Issue 1, Foreword (Apr., 2004). All Rights Reserved.