Abstract
Many scholars and jurisdictions have urged educators to interrelate and/or integrate education in fields of science and engineering—most recently as ‘STEM’ (science, technology, engineering & mathematics) education. A promising movement that could assist in this regard engages students in multi-disciplinary decision-making about socioscientific issues, such as debates about (de-)regulation of fossil fuel industries linked to climate change. Some scholars also suggest, however, that, because of significant problems associated with capitalist influences on fields of science and technology, much more politicized and action-oriented education is necessary. Accordingly, we studied promotion of secondary students’ research-informed and negotiated technology designs of possible for-profit commodities that considered wellbeing of individuals, societies and environments. Qualitative data analyzed using constant comparative methods based on constructivist grounded theory suggested that students not only were able and willing to design socially and environmentally conscious technologies, but they did so in ways considering a range of interconnected and often-hidden living and non-living, and associated semiotic, actants. In other words, when conceiving of commodities, students thought of them as networked—as embodying such actants as miners, advertizers, corporations, bankers, government, manufacturing labourers, etc. This outcome may interest educators and policy-makers open to critical and liberatory science and technology education that encourages links to diverse other fields, such as history, philosophy, sociology, economics and (geo-)politics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Angell, M. (2004). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House.
Barber, B. R. (2007). Consumed: How markets corrupt children, infantilize adults, and swallow citizens whole. New York: Norton.
Barnes, R. L., Hammond, S. K., & Glantz, S. A. (2006). The tobacco industry’s role in the 16 Cities Study of Secondhand Tobacco Smoke: Do the data support the stated conclusions? Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(12), 1890–1897.
Baudrillard, J. (1998). The consumer society. London: Sage.
Bencze, J. L. (2001). ‘Technoscience’ education: Empowering citizens against the tyranny of school science. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(3), 273–298.
Bencze, J. L., & Alsop, S. (Eds.). (2014). Activist science & technology education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Bencze, L., & Carter, L. (2011). Globalizing students acting for the common good. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 648–669.
Bencze, L., Reiss, M., Sharma, A., & Weinstein, M. (in press). STEM education as ‘Trojan horse’: Deconstructed and reinvented for all. In L. Bryan & K. Tobin (Eds.), Thirteen questions in science education (pp. xx–xx). New York: Peter Lang.
Bencze, L., Sperling, E., & Carter, L. (2012). Students’ research-informed socioscientific activism: Re/Visions for a sustainable future. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 129–148.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), The handbook of theory: Research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.
Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 132–161). London: Routledge.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). New York: Sage.
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada [CMEC]. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K-12. Ottawa, Canada: CMEC.
dos Santos, W. L. P. (2009). Scientific literacy: A Freirean perspective as a radical view of humanistic science education. Science Education, 93(2), 361–382.
Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collége de France, 1978–1979 (M. Senellart, Ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of the oppressed (New Revised 20th-Anniversay ed.). New York: Continuum.
Gough, A. (2015). STEM policy and science education: Scientistic curriculum and sociopolitical silences. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(2), 445–458.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2009). Commonwealth. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Hileman, B. (1998, August 17). Industry’s privacy rights: Is science shortchanged? Chemical & Engineering News, 76, 36.
Hodson, D. (2011). Looking to the future: Building a curriculum for social activism. Rotterdam: Sense.
Hoeg, D., & Bencze, L. (2017). Values underpinning STEM education in the USA: An analysis of the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Education, 101(2), 278–301.
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418.
Klein, N. (2014). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. Toronto, ON: Simon & Schuster.
Kleinman, D. L. (2003). Impure cultures: University biology and the world of commerce. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Krstovic, M. (2014). Preparing students for self-directed research-informed actions on socioscientific issues. In L. Bencze & S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist science and technology education (pp. 399–417). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Leonard, A. (2010). The Story of Stuff: How our obsession with stuff is trashing the planet, our communities, and our health – and a vision for change. New York: Free Press.
Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69–119.
Loving, C. C. (1991). The Scientific Theory Profile: A philosophy of science model for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 823–838.
McMurtry, J. (2013). The cancer stage of capitalism: From crisis to cure. London: Pluto.
Ministry of Education [MoE]. (2008). The Ontario curriculum, grades 9 and 10: Science. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Mirowski, P. (2011). Science-mart: Privatizing American science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2010). Merchants of doubt. London: Bloomsbury Press.
Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95(4), 601–626.
Pierce, C. (2013). Education in the age of biocapitalism: Optimizing educational life for a flat world. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Rennie, L., Venville, G., & Wallace, J. (Eds.). (2012). Integrating science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Issues, reflections and ways forward. New York: Routledge.
Roth, W.-M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768–790.
Sadler, T. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and trends. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391.
Sismondo, S. (2008). Science and technology studies and an engaged program. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 13–31). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Turner, C. (2013). The war on science: Muzzling scientists and wilful blindness in Stephen Harper’s Canada. Vancouver, Canada: Greystone.
Vasil, A. (2007). Ecoholic: Your guide to the most environmentally friendly information, products and services in Canada. Toronto, ON: Vintage.
Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of an argumentation intervention on Grade 10 students’ conceptual understanding of genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–977.
Weber, K. (Ed.). (2009). Food Inc.: How industrial food is making us sicker, fatter, and poorer – and what you can do about it, A participant media guide. New York: Public Affairs.
Wood, G. H. (1998). Democracy and the curriculum. In L. E. Beyer & M. W. Apple (Eds.), The curriculum: Problems, politics and possibilities (pp. 177–198). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
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.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgement through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74–101.
Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix A
Appendix A
1.1 Grade 11 University Chemistry
1.1.1 Unit 1: WISE-Technology Design Project
1.1.1.1 Introduction
The main purpose of this project is for students to propose plans (and possibly implement and develop prototypes) for technology that considers the well-being of individuals, societies and environments (WISE). You will learn about the relationships between science and technology as you explore effects on WISE of some common, but potential hazardous, household chemicals.
Task
You will propose WISE-Technology designs that will lessen the harmfulness of various chemical products that we find at home, school or workplace. Your creative ideas can be put to a test and your WISE inventions may contribute to a better world.
1.1.1.2 Part I – Expressing Your Pre-conceived Ideas
1.1.1.2.1 Four Corners Activity
Consider the following statements and decide if you SOMEWHAT AGREE, STRONGLY AGREE, SOMEWHAT DISAGREE or STRONGLY DISAGREE.
- Statement 1:
-
“Sports drinks are unnecessary and counterproductive for most people.”
- Statement 2:
-
“It’s okay to eat processed foods (snacks, fast food) because companies are always finding ways to make them more nutritious (e.g. adding vitamins).”
1.1.1.2.2 Academic Controversy
In groups of 4–5 students, you will be assigned to either the PRO or CON side of an argument. The teacher will guide you through the academic controversy surrounding the following statement:
E-cigarettes, a new form of technology, should be banned
1.1.1.2.3 Reflection Journaling
In your reflective journal, write about your perspective regarding the nature of technology design. Discuss what technology is and what kind of things could be considered technology? What are some important considerations when making new technologies?
1.1.1.3 Part II – WISE Tech Design
In Part I of WISE Tech Design project you expressed your views on several controversial socio-scientific issues such as sports drinks, processed foods and electronic cigarettes, all which could be considered forms of technology. You reflected in your journal on a broader view technology and important considerations that need to be made when designing new technology.
For Part II of WISE Tech Design, we will discuss various types of actants involved in creating new technologies and considerations we need to make when designing alternative ‘WISE’ technology.
1.1.1.3.1 Video Group Discussion
The Life Story of Foundation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhN6PS1GT9cv by a grade 10 student from last year
Watch the video above and in your group discuss the following:
-
(i)
What are the stages in the life cycle of a product?
-
(ii)
What are three types of actants involved in each stage of the life cycle of foundation? (Actants can be material (living and non-livings things) and semiotic messages (e.g., cool, pretty, sexy, etc)
-
(iii)
Considering cosmetics as an example of technology, which actants can align to support common semiotic messages about cosmetics.
-
(iv)
What new actants can be introduced to change dominant semiotic messages about cosmetics/foundation?
1.1.1.3.2 Eco-friendly Businesses
Your tutorial group (TG) will be assigned ONE of the top ten eco-friendly businesses. You will visit their website and report of the following. Individual member of your TGs has to answer all of these questions. As a group you will discuss your answers.
-
(i)
What does the company specialize in and what do they value? Check out the ‘About Us’ section of their website (100–150 words)
-
(ii)
What specific Products and/or Services do they provide? (50 words)
-
(iii)
How are their products and/services examples of technology that considers WISE? Discuss in terms of various actants that this company considers to make the new product. (150 words)
1.1.1.4 WISE Technology Design – Part III
1.1.1.4.1 Actants and Eco-friendly Businesses Group/Class Discussion
Discuss with your group the following points and be prepared to share with the rest of the class:
-
1.
Brainstorm a list of all the actants that your group members identified (living, non-living and semiotic) that were explicitly (or implicitly) mentioned in Cathy’s video. Use the chart paper provided.
-
2.
Circle actants that align to support a dominant semiotic message about cosmetics/liquid foundation.
-
3.
Suggest new actants that can be introduced to change the dominant semiotic message.
-
4.
Share the eco-friendly business that you researched with your group members. Discuss how are their products and/services examples of technology that considers WISE. Discuss in terms of various actants that this company considers to make the new product.
-
5.
Be prepared to share 1–4 above with the rest of the class during whole group discussion.
1.1.1.4.2 Actor-Network Map
In the past, and perhaps still in the present, chemists/technologists often develop products without considering their full effects on the well-being of individuals, societies and environments. The practice of ‘WISE Technology’ involves the inventions, design and use of products and processes that have minimal personal, social and environmental impacts.
You and your group will pick one everyday product (cleaning, personal hygiene, beauty, medical, etc) and you will work individually to create an actor-network map showing as many actants involved in each stage of the life cycle of this product. Begin by brainstorming what you already know with your members, before you begin your independent research.
By next week Monday (March 3, 2014) you need to have your Actor-Network Maps completed with references showing where you got your information.
1.1.1.4.3 Critical Analysis of the Technology
Analyze and critique the technology for which you created the actor-network map. Consider the following questions for your critical analysis:
-
1.
To what extent does your selected product ensure sustainability and safety? In other words, does it use renewable materials, are toxic chemical used and produced and how is the health of individuals and environments impacted? (200 words)
-
2.
How might the product be like Trojan Horse? Consider the actants from your Actor-Network Map in your analysis. (100 words)
-
3.
Propose an alternative technology design that not only looks at functionality but also considers other actants (not only the chemicals inside the product). What are the advantages and some disadvantages of the new, alternative technology that considers WISE? (250 words)
Your critical analysis should be double space and 12 point font. It should include at least two-three references in proper APA format. It is due Monday, March 3, 2014.
1.1.1.5 WISE Technology Design – Part IV
1.1.1.5.1 Summary of What We Accomplished
We started the project by expressing our views about some controversial technologies such as sports drinks, processed foods, e-cigarettes, etc. You watched several green technology videos that I posted to Twitter™ (@MrKrstovic) to get an idea of what may constitute sustainable technology development. However, just because technology is eco-friendly does not mean that it considers issues of social justice (e.g., fair labour practices). In your technology designs, you need to be mindful of personal, social and environmental issues.
We watched Cathy’s video about Liquid Foundation/Cosmetics and identified various actants involved in each stage of in the life cycle of Liquid Foundation. We discussed how dominant semiotic messages about cosmetics and beauty can be changed by inserting new actants. You learned that actants can be living, non-living or semiotic. You explored one eco-friendly business and discussed how it considers the well-being of individuals, societies and environments.
Finally, in Part III of WISE Technology Design, you selected one common, but potentially hazardous, household product and created an actor-network map. You were expected to research various actants related to your selected product. You wrote a critical analysis about this product and proposed an alternative with overview of advantages and disadvantages.
1.1.1.6 What’s Next?
1.1.1.6.1 Focus Group Discussion:
You and your group will compare your actor-network maps and focus your discussion on your answers to the critical analysis questions.
1.1.1.6.2 Developing Alternative Technology Designs That Consider WISE
You will plan, develop, design and market a product that considers WISE. You will be purposeful in your design. Your product will illustrate your group’s commitment to the well-being of individuals, societies and environments. You will put the product to the ultimate test: convincing investors to support its production.
1.1.1.6.3 Secondary Research
In your group, you may need to conduct more research to learn more about
-
The principles of green chemistry
-
The principles of social justice as it relates to technological production
-
What makes technology products that consider WISE appealing to investors and consumers
1.1.1.6.4 Primary Research
You will need to conduct some original market research (e.g. market surveys) on your product prior to defending your WISE tech design.
Describe you design briefly to a selection of potential shoppers (e.g. students, parents/teachers) and judge responses in terms of gender, age, approximate family income, etc. Your survey should include no more than five questions. Choose one dependent variable (either gender, age, or other). Gather, analyze and interpret the data prior to your product defence presentation.
1.1.1.6.5 Identify Solutions and Make Decisions
Now you will design an alternative to the conventional product that you selected. You may challenge yourself and be creative with your WISE Technology designs. For example, you may design a board game, or a computer game, which when played allows consumers to learn about alternatives to your selected product while also becoming conscious about many of the actants related to the conventional product.
1.1.1.7 The ‘WISE’ Product
Develop explanatory responses to the following questions:
-
How does your product and the production process consider WISE? (250 words)
-
What makes your product more attractive to a consumer? (100 words)
1.1.1.7.1 Dragons’ Den!
You may have seen the CBC television program Dragons ’ Den, in which investors, entrepreneurs, and product designers try to sell their ideas to a panel of potential investors. You will take turn in the dragons’ den! In your group, plan and present your ‘pitch’ to a panel of investors (selected classmates, teachers, admin, etc). Your pitch must include
-
Attention grabbing introduction
-
Information about your ‘WISE’ product (contrasted with the conventional options)
-
A clear and concise evaluation of your products considerations for WISE
-
A wrap-up to convince the investors to back your product/design
After listening to your pitch, the investors will confer and give their answer.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bencze, L., Krstovic, M. (2017). Science Students’ Ethical Technology Designs as Solutions to Socio-scientific Problems. In: Bencze, L. (eds) Science and Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing for Individuals, Societies and Environments. Cultural Studies of Science Education, vol 14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55505-8_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55505-8_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55503-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55505-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)