Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 335–353 | Cite as

Looking forward by looking back: equity in science education as socially just and morally healing action

  • Alaina SzostkowskiEmail author
  • Bhaskar Upadhyay
Original Paper

Abstract

In this conceptual paper, we argue that social justice, morality, and healing must be at the core of an equity agenda for science education. When we view equity through this lens, teachers’ and researchers’ historically informed moral stances become just as important as the equitable distribution of teaching and learning resources and the achievement of excellent learning outcomes for all students. Without looking back to the history of science and its prejudices, we miss the reasons why equity in science education continues to be so hard to attain. Incorporating insights from critical race theory, we see ideas of social justice and morality overlapping as well as supporting our understanding of a new direction for equity in science education. We do not frame moral decisions as autonomous actions carried out on the basis of universal a priori principles; rather, we believe they are dialogically informed by culture and context. We therefore place emphasis on responsibilities rather than rules. In this article, we first describe equity through the lens of social justice and present an overview of recent equity research in science education. We next examine the idea of collective morality as we have conceptualized it as science educators and researchers. Then we discuss how morality and social justice intersect with histories of science and offer a different way to consider equity in science education. Finally, we propose some historical case studies that might be of use to the science education community to illustrate how morality and social justice could be a part of rethinking equity-oriented science education.

Keywords

Equity Morality Healing Conceptual paper 

Notes

References

  1. Albrecht, N. (2015). Views of science teaching and learning by immigrant Somali elders: Perceptions of conflict and acceptance. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy. http://hdl.handle.net/11299/177080.
  2. Apple, M. (1988). What reform talk does: Creating new inequalities in education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(3), 272–281.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X88024003006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Applebaum, B. (2005). In the name of morality: Moral responsibility, whiteness and social justice education. Journal of Moral Education, 34(3), 277–290.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240500206089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atwater, M. M. (2012). Significant science education research on multicultural science education, equity, and social justice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), O1–O5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barton, A. C. (1998). Feminist science education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  6. Barton, A. C. (2001). Capitalism, critical pedagogy, and urban teacher education: An interview with Peter McLaren. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 847–859.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bencze, L., & Alsop, S. (2014). Activist science and technology education. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bianchini, J., Akerson, V., Calabrese Barton, A., Lee, O., & Rodriguez, A. (Eds.). (2013). Moving the equity agenda forward: Equity research, practice, and policy in science education. Rotterdam: Springer. ISBN: 978-94-007-4466-0 (Print) 978-94-007-4467-7 (Online).Google Scholar
  9. Brickhouse, N. (2013). Conceptions of inequality in the era of Bush/Obama. In J. Bianchini, V. Akerson, A. Calabrese Barton, O. Lee, & A. Rodriguez (Eds.), Moving the equity agenda forward: Equity research, practice, and policy in science education (pp. 39–51). Rotterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bronowski, J. (1972). Science and human values. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  11. Carlone, H. B., Haun-Frank, J., & Webb, A. (2011). Assessing equity beyond knowledge- and skills-based outcomes: A comparative ethnography of two fourth-grade reform-based science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 459–485.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carr, D. (2007). Moralized psychology or psychologized morality? Ethics and psychology in recent theorizing about moral and character education. Educational Theory, 57(4), 389–402.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2007.00264.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carter, P. L., & Welner, K. G. (2016). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give all children an even chance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cobern, W. W. (1991). World view theory and science education research. Scientific literacy and cultural studies project, Paper 44. http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/science_slcsp/44. Accessed Feb 2019.
  15. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. New York: Rowan & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  17. Gonzalez, L. (2009). Teaching mathematics for social justice: Reflections on a community of practice for urban high school mathematics teachers. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 2(1), 22–51.Google Scholar
  18. González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practice in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Grande, S. (2004). Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer. New York: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Korver-Glenn, E., Chan, E., & Ecklund, E. H. (2015). Perceptions of science education among African American and White Evangelicals: A Texas case study. Review of Religious Research, 57, 131–148.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-014-0194-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). “Stakes is high”: Educating new century students. Journal of Negro Education, 82(2), 105–110.  https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.2.0105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ladson-Billings, G., & Donnor, J. (2005). The moral activist role of critical race theory scholarship. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3, 279–301.Google Scholar
  24. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–67.Google Scholar
  25. Lynch, S. (2000). Equity and science education reform. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCright, A., Dentzman, K., Charters, M., & Dietz, T. (2013). The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Medin, D., & Bang, M. (2014). Who’s asking? Native science, Western science, and science education. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczuga, S. (2016). Science achievement gaps begin very early, persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 18–35.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16633182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. NARST. (2017). A message to the NARST community. NARST. http://www.narst.org/docs/NARST_Board_message_020917.pdf. 9 February 2017.
  30. Nasir, N., Rosebery, A., Warren, B., & Lee, C. (2006). Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 489–504). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2011). Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads. Washington, D. C.: The National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/12984.Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  33. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pew Research Center. (2015a). Americans, politics and science issues. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/americans-politics-and-science-issues/. 1 July 2015.
  35. Pew Research Center. (2015b). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/. 29 January 2015.
  36. Planas, N., & Civil, M. (2009). Working with mathematics teachers and immigrant students: An empowerment perspective. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(6), 391–409.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-009-9116-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Powell, D. (2016). Trump’s first 100 days: Science education and schools. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-first-100-days-science-education-and-schools/. 5 December 2016.
  38. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  39. Rodriguez, A. J. (2015). What about a dimension of engagement, equity, and diversity practices? A critique of the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 1031–1051.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4–27.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Skloot, R. (2010). The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  43. Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. (1994). Multiculturalism, universalism, and science education. Science Education, 78(4), 387–398.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730780405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stirling, J., & McGloin, C. (2015). Critical pedagogy and social inclusion policy in Australian higher education: Identifying the disjunctions. Radical Pedagogy, 12(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
  46. Taylor, P. C. (2011). Counter-storying the grand narrative of science (teacher) education: Towards culturally responsive teaching. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6, 795.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-011-9368-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40. http://decolonization.org/index.php/des/article/view/18630/15554.
  48. United States Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top program executive summary. U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf. Accessed Feb 2019.
  49. Upadhyay, B. (2010). Middle school science teachers’ perceptions of social justice: A study of two elementary teachers. Equity and Excellence in Education, 43(1), 56–71.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680903492704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Walls, L. (2012). Third grade African American students’ views of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1–37.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Walls, L. (2015). Awakening a dialogue: A critical race theory analysis of US nature of science research from 1967 to 2013. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21266.Google Scholar
  52. Wessel, L. (2017). Hundreds rally for science at demonstration near AAAS meeting. Science (news). http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/hundreds-rally-science-demonstration-near-aaas-meeting. 19 February 2017.
  53. World Medical Association. (2015). Medical ethics manual (3rd ed.). https://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Ethics_manual_3rd_Nov2015_en.pdf. Accessed Feb 2019.
  54. Zeidler, D. L. (1984). Moral issues and social policy in science education: Closing the literacy gap. Science Education, 68(4), 411–419.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730680406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zeidler, D. L. (2016). STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(1), 11–26.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9578-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Curriculum and InstructionUniversity of Minnesota Twin CitiesSE MinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations