Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 425–448 | Cite as

Relational epistemologies in land-based learning environments: reasoning about ecological systems and spatial indexing in motion

  • Priya Pugh
  • Megan McGinty
  • Megan BangEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Social and cultural practices in learning settings are sites for leveraging and/or remediating sustainable and just conceptions of nature–culture relations to meet changing environmental demands of twenty-first century. In this study, we examine epistemic navigation among Indigenous youth in an outdoor, land based, STEAM (science, education, arts, math, and science) camp which not only leveraged nature-culture relations as part of critical engagement with socio-ecological systems, but also as a site for Indigenous resurgence and well-being in learning spaces. We take a microethnographic (Gee and Green in Rev Res Educ 23:119–169, 1998.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1167289) approach to examine sense-making among three youth while engaged in a walking activity in which they were asked to embody a plant as part of cultural practices of reading the land. We found that the micro-practice of spatial indexing dynamically mediated sense-making about ecological systems as participants coordinated attention and observations between humans and more-than-human kinds. This form of sense making reflected both cultural and historical experiences, which students leveraged in their understandings of complex socio-ecological systems.

Keywords

Land-based education Ecological education Spatial indexing Indigenous education 

Notes

References

  1. Bang, M. (2016). A case study: Learning gardens in an urban indigenous community: Expanding the scope of learning. In S. Brown, K. McIvor, & E. Hodges Snyder (Eds.), Sowing seeds in the city (pp. 257–268). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Bang, M., Curley, L., Kessel, A., Marin, A., Suzukovich, E. S., III, & Strack, G. (2014). Muskrat theories, tobacco in the streets, and living Chicago as Indigenous land. Environmental Education Research, 20(1), 37–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.865113.Google Scholar
  3. Bang, M., Faber, L., Gurneau, J., Marin, A., & Soto, C. (2016). Community-based design research: Learning across generations and strategic transformations of institutional relations toward axiological innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 23(1), 28–41.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2015.1087572.Google Scholar
  4. Bang, M., & Marin, A. (2015). Nature–culture constructs in science learning: human/non-human agency and intentionality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 530–544.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21204.Google Scholar
  5. Bang, M., Marin, A., Medin, D., & Washinawatok, K. (2015). Learning by observing, pitching in, and being in relations in the natural world. In R. Mejía-Arauz, M. Correa-Chávez, & B. Rogoff (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior: Research on how children learn by observing and contributing in their families and communities (Vol. 49, pp. 303–313). Amsterdam: Elseiver.Google Scholar
  6. Bang, M., & Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: supporting the navigation of multiple epistemologies. Science Education, 94(6), 1008–1026.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20392.Google Scholar
  7. Bang, M., Medin, D. L., & Atran, S. (2007). Cultural mosaics and mental models of nature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(35), 13868–13874.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706627104.Google Scholar
  8. Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (1998). Culture, chaos and complexity: Catalysts for change in Indigenous education. Opinion Paper, Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Knowledge Network.Google Scholar
  9. Brayboy, B. M. J., & Castagno, A. E. (2008). How might native science inform “Informal science learning”? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(3), 731–750.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9125-x.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, B. A., Mangram, C., Sun, K., Cross, K., & Raab, E. (2016). Representing racial identity: Identity, race, the construction of the African American STEM students. Urban Education, 52(2), 170–206.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916661385.Google Scholar
  11. Burkhart, B. Y. (2004). What Coyote and Thales can teach us: An outline of American Indian epistemology. In A. Waters (Ed.), American Indian thought: Philosophical essays (pp. 15–26). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Cajete, G. A. (1999). Igniting the sparkle: An Indigenous science education model. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Cajete, G. A. (2000). Native science: Natural laws of interdependence. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Calderon, D. (2014). Speaking back to Manifest Destinies: A land education-based approach to critical curriculum inquiry. Environmental Education Research, 20(1), 24–36.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.865114.Google Scholar
  15. Dehghani, M., Bang, M., Medin, D., Marin, A., Leddon, E., & Waxman, S. (2013). Epistemologies in the text of children’s books: Native-and non-native-authored books. International Journal of Science Education, 35(13), 2133–2151.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.823675.Google Scholar
  16. DeLiema, D., Lee, V. R., Danish, J. A., Enyedy, N., & Brown, N. J. S. (2016). A microlatitudinal microlongitudinal analysis of speech, gesture, and representation use in a student’s repeated scientific explanations of phase change. In A. A. diSessa, M. Levin, & N. J. S. Brown (Eds.), Knowledge and interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences (pp. 135–159). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Deloria, V. (1991). Research, redskins, and reality. American Indian Quarterly, 1991, 457–468.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1185364.Google Scholar
  18. di Sessa, A. A., Levin, M., & Brown, N. J. (Eds.). (2015). Knowledge and interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757360.Google Scholar
  19. Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1167289.Google Scholar
  20. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.  https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100.Google Scholar
  21. Goodwin, C. (2000a). Practices of seeing: Visual analysis: An ethnomethodological approach. In T. V. Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 157–182). London: Sage Publications.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X.Google Scholar
  22. Goodwin, C. (2000b). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522.Google Scholar
  23. Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53–73.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507069457.Google Scholar
  24. Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003.Google Scholar
  25. Grosfoguel, R. (2012). The dilemmas of ethnic studies in the United States: Between liberal multiculturalism, identity politics, disciplinary colonization, and decolonial epistemologies. Human Architecture, 10(1), 81.Google Scholar
  26. Grosfoguel, R. (2013). The structure of knowledge in westernized universities: Epistemic racism/sexism and the four genocides/epistemicides of the long 16th century. Human Architecture, 11(1), 73.Google Scholar
  27. Grotzer, T. A., & Tutwiler, M. S. (2014). Simplifying causal complexity: How interactions between modes of causal induction and information availability lead to heuristic-driven reasoning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 8(3), 97–114.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12054.Google Scholar
  28. Headrick Taylor, K., & Silvis, D. (2017). Mobile city science: Technology-supported collaborative learning at community scale. Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  29. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307–331.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701413401.Google Scholar
  30. Hutchins, E. (1991). The social organization of distributed cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 283–307). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.  https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-012 Google Scholar
  31. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_4.Google Scholar
  33. Jensen, O. B., Sheller, M., & Wind, S. (2015). Together and apart: Affective ambiences and negotiation in families’ everyday life and mobility. Mobilities, 10(3), 363–382.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2013.868158.Google Scholar
  34. Kohn, E. (2013). How forests think: Toward an anthropology beyond the human. Berkeley: University of California Press.  https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520276109.001.0001.Google Scholar
  35. Latour, B. (1991/2012). We have never been modern. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 831–880). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Inventing a “mid level” to make ends meet: Reasoning between the levels of complexity. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 1–47.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000701798479.Google Scholar
  38. Mack, E., Augare, H., Cloud-Jones, L. D., Davíd, D., Gaddie, H. Q., Honey, R. E., et al. (2012). Effective practices for creating transformative informal science education programs grounded in Native ways of knowing. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(1), 49–70.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-011-9374-y.Google Scholar
  39. Marin, A., & Bang, M. (2018). “Look it, this is how you know:” Family Forest walks as a context for knowledge-building about the natural world. Cognition and Instruction, 36(2), 89–118.Google Scholar
  40. Marin, A. M. (2013). Learning to attend and observe: Parent-child meaning making in the natural world. Ph.D., Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  41. Marker, M. (2006). After the Makah whale hunt: Indigenous knowledge and limits to multicultural discourse. Urban Education, 41(5), 482–505.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085906291923.Google Scholar
  42. Massey, D. (2005). For space. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Limited.Google Scholar
  43. Medin, D. L., & Bang, M. (2014a). Who’s asking? Native science, Western science, and science education. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Medin, D. L., & Bang, M. (2014b). The cultural side of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 4), 13621–13626.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317510111.Google Scholar
  45. Nasir, N. S., Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Lee, C. D. (2006). Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 489–504). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Ojalehto, B., & Medin, D. (2015). Emerging trends in culture and concepts. Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0064.
  47. Olsen, I. C. (2015). Situating complexity: Relational epistemologies and complex systems thinking. Ph.D., Northwestern University (3686620).Google Scholar
  48. Paine, R. T. (1995). A conversation on refining the concept of keystone species”. Conservation Biology, 9(4), 962–964.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09040962.x.Google Scholar
  49. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Rosebery, A. S., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., & Warren, B. (2010). “The coat traps all your body heat”: Heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 322–357.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2010.491752.Google Scholar
  51. Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Tucker-Raymond, E. (2016). Developing interpretive power in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10), 1571–1600.Google Scholar
  52. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. In Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 7–55).Google Scholar
  53. Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1997). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. Abingdon: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203422724.Google Scholar
  55. Simpson, L. B. (2014). Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 3(3), 1–25.Google Scholar
  56. Smith, L. T. (2013). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books Ltd..Google Scholar
  57. TallBear, K. (2011, April). Why interspecies thinking needs indigenous standpoints. In American Anthropological Association Meeting, Montreal, CA.Google Scholar
  58. Taylor, K. H., & Hall, R. (2013). Counter-mapping the neighborhood on bicycles: Mobilizing youth to reimagine the city. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 18(1–2), 65–93.Google Scholar
  59. Tuck, E., McKenzie, M., & McCoy, K. (2014). Land education: Indigenous, post-colonial, and decolonizing perspectives on place and environmental education research.Google Scholar
  60. Unsworth, S. J. (2008). The influence of culturally varying discourse practices on cognitive orientations toward nature. Ph.D., Northwestern University (3331165).Google Scholar
  61. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009421303064.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Sciences and Human Development, College of EducationUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations