Advertisement

Educational Tools to Teach STEAM Subjects Integrating Linguistic Rights, Collaboration, and Critical Thinking

  • Zehlia Babaci-WilhiteEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, I will examine how the introduction of the Arts into the teaching of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects represents a new model of education that improves science learning and satisfies human rights criteria for education. I will argue that the incorporation of the Arts into an open and investigate process, based on the “inquiry-based approach”, using local languages and cultural references will improve learning and strengthen human rights. This model is particularly important in educational systems which today use dominant languages and culture in their instruction, disregarding local languages and local knowledge. In contrast to conventional approaches to education, I argue that teaching is more effective when it is based in local languages and culture which include the Arts. Therefore, I introduce a pedagogic model that expands the traditional STEM method to include the Arts. I will conclude with a discussion of the importance of national and international aimed at promoting collaborative learning as well as a pedagogical model that expands the traditional STEM to STEAM and contributes to human rights in education. This includes the introduction of digital narratives into the classroom and a virtual and international collaboration across the Art–Science divide. These narratives are grounded in both local and global cultures, and they include a diversity of knowledge within the human rights framework in education. This model of teaching gives human rights its rightful place in the model of educational.

References

  1. Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. Research Based Classroom Practice, 61(5), 364–373.Google Scholar
  2. Alfredsson, G., & Eide, A. (Eds.). (1999). The Universal declaration of human rights: A common standard of achievement. The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Babaci-Wilhite, Z. (2012). A right based approach to Zanzibar’s language-in-education policy. Special issue on right based approach and globalization in education. World Study of Education, 13(2), 17–33.Google Scholar
  4. Babaci-Wilhite, Z. (2014). Local language as a human right in education: Comparative cases from Africa. Vol. 36 of the series: Comparative and International Education: A Diversity of Voices. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Babaci-Wilhite, Z. (2015). Zanzibar’s curriculum reform: Implications for children’s educational rights. Prospects, UNESCO’s Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-015-9341-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Babaci-Wilhite, Z. (Ed.). (2016). Human rights in language and STEM education: Science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Babaci-Wilhite, Z. (2017). A rights-based approach to science literacy using local languages: Contextualizing inquiry-based learning in Africa. International Review of Education, 63, 381–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Babaci-Wilhite, Z., & Geo-JaJa, M. A. (2014). Localization of instruction as a right in education: Tanzania and Nigeria language-in education’s policies. In Z. Babaci-Wilhite (Ed.), Giving space to African voices: Right in local languages and local curriculum (pp. 3–21). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barber, J. (2005). The seeds of science/roots of reading inquiry framework. Retrieved from http://scienceandliteracy.org/sites/scienceandliteracy.org/files/biblio/barber_inquirycycle_pdf_54088.pdf.
  10. Bigozzi, L., Biggeri, A., & Boschi, F. (2002). Children “scientists” know the reasons why and they are “poets” too. Non-randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a strategy aimed at improving the learning of scientific concepts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XVII(4), 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bostad, I. (2013). Right to education—for all? The quest for a new humanism in globalization. World Studies in Education, 14(1), 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bravo, M. A., Cervetti, G. N., Hiebert, E. H., & Pearson, D. P. (2008). From passive to active control of science vocabulary. In The 56th yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 122–135). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.Google Scholar
  13. Brock-Utne, B. (2016). English as the language of science and technology. In Z. Babaci-Wilhite (Ed.), Human rights, language in STEM education (pp. 111–128). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 631–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Barber, J., Hiebert, E. H., & Bravo, M. A. (2007). Integrating Literacy and Science the Research We Have, the Research We Need.Google Scholar
  16. Dewey, J. (1939, Reprinted in 2007). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Freire, P. (1970, Reprinted in 1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London, UK: Penguin Books, Ltd.Google Scholar
  18. Geo-JaJa, M. A. (2013). Education localization for optimizing globalization’s opportunities. In S. Majhanovich & M. A. Geo-JaJa (Eds.), Economics, aid and education: Implications for development. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Haug, B. S. (2014). Inquiry-based science: Turning teachable moments into learnable moments. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 79–96.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9375-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mahiri, J. (2011). Digital tools in urban schools: Mediating a remix of learning. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mahiri, J., & Sims, J. (2016). Engineering equity: A critical pedagogical approach to language and curriculum change for African American males in STEM. In Z. Babaci-Wilhite (Ed.), Human rights, language in STEM education (pp. 55–71). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mchombo, S. (2016). Language, scientific knowledge, and the “context of learning” in African education. In Z. Babaci-Wilhite (Ed.), Human rights, language in STEM education (pp. 129–150). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ngugi wa Thiong’o, J. (1986, Republished in 1994). Decolonising the mind: The politics of language in African literature. London and Portmouth, UK: James Curry Ltd.Google Scholar
  24. Odora, C. H. (Ed.). (2002). Stories of the hunt—Who is writing them? In Indigenous knowledge and the integration of knowledge systems. Towards a philosophy of articulation (pp. 237–257). Claremont, South Africa: New Africa Education.Google Scholar
  25. Pearson, P. D. (2007). An endangered species act for literacy education. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(2), 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pearson, P. D., & Hiebert, E. H. (2013). Understanding the common core state standards. In L. Morrow, T. Shanahan, & K. K. Wixson (Eds.), Teaching with the common core standards for english language arts: What educators need to know (Book 1: Grades PreK-2; Book 2: Grades 3–5) (pp. 1–21). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  27. Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459–463.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robeyns, I. (2006). Three models of education rights: Rights, capabilities and human capital. Theory and Research in Education, 4(1), 69–84.Google Scholar
  29. Samoff, J. (2003, Re-edited 2007). Institutionalizing international influence. In R. F. Arnove & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Comparative education: The dialectic of the global and the local (pp. 52–91). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Spreen, C. A., & Vally, S. (2006). Education rights, education policies and inequality in South Africa. International Journal of Educational Development, 26(4), 352–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tomasevski, K. (2006). Human rights obligation in education: The 4-A scheme. Enfield, UK: Enfield Publishing & Distribution Company.Google Scholar
  33. UNDP. (2006). Human development report. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  34. UNESCO. (2005). Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions. Paris, France: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  35. United Nations. (1948). The universal declaration on human rights. Adopted by the general assembly on 10 December 1948. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.Google Scholar
  36. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Wolff, H. (2006). Optimizing learning and education in Africa—the language factor. A stock-taking research on mother tongue and bilingual education in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 26–55). Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA): UNESCO Institute for Education- Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit. ADEA 2006 Biennial Meeting (Libreville, Gabon, March 27–31, 2006).Google Scholar
  38. Wortham, S., & Jackson, K. (2012). Relational education: Applying Gergen’s work to educational research and practice. Psychological Studies, 57(2), 164–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.San Jose State UniversitySan JoseUSA

Personalised recommendations