Advertisement

The Intended Curriculum: Nature as Represented in a Science Textbook

  • Ajay Sharma
  • Cory Buxton
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter is a reprint of our paper on human-nature relationships in school science that was published in 2015 in the journal Science Education. It explores how the language of science textbooks works to represent the world for students in distinct ways that have serious implications for their ecological literacy. Using a methodological framework based on critical discourse analysis and systemic functional linguistics, we focus on clarifying the textual representations of the relationships between natural and social systems as portrayed in a seventh-grade science textbook that is widely adopted in middle schools in Georgia, United States. Results indicate that this science textbook offers outdated representations of natural systems’ relationships with social systems and the role of human agency in these relationships. We discuss implications of these textual representations and call for reformed science textbooks that underscore the ecological embeddedness of the social world.

References

  1. Alessa, L., & Chapin, F. S. (2008). Anthropogenic biomes: A key contribution to earth-system science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(10), 529–531.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, K., Berg, L., Christopher, B., Dushek, J., & Taylor, M. (2008). Georgia: Holt science and technology: Life science. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  3. Altheide, D., Coyle, M., DeVriese, K., & Schneider, C. (2010). Emergent qualitative document analysis. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 127–151). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Ansari, A. A., Gill, S. S., Lanza, G. R., & Rast, W. (2010). Eutrophication: Causes, consequences and control. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Assaraf, O. B.-Z., & Damri, S. (2009). University science graduates’ environmental perceptions regarding industry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(5), 367–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ball, D. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (1988). Using textbooks and teachers’ guides: A dilemma for beginning teachers and teacher educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(4), 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernard, J. M., & Philip, G. (2000). Technocratic discourse: A primer. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 30(3), 223–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boano, C., Zetter, R., & Morris, T. (2007). Environmentally displaced people: Understanding the linkages between environmental change, livelihoods and forced migration. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford, Department of International Development.Google Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (2001). New liberal speak: Notes on the new planetary vulgate. Radical Philosophy, (105). Retrieved from http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/default.asp?channel_id=2187&editorial_id=9956
  10. Bradshaw, G. A., & Bekoff, M. (2001). Ecology and social responsibility: The re-embodiment of science. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 16(8), 460–465.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02204-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bunker, S. G. (1990). Underdeveloping the Amazon: Extraction, unequal exchange, and the failure of the modern state. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Carlone, H. B., & Webb, S. M. (2006). On (not) overcoming our history of hierarchy: Complexities of university/school collaboration. Science Education, 90(3), 544–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Covitt, B. A., Tan, E., Tsurusaki, B. K., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Students’ use of scientific knowledge and practices when making decisions in citizens’ roles. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching from http://edr1.educ.msu.edu/EnvironmentalLit/publicsite/html/report_2009.html
  14. de los Heros, S. (2009). Linguistic pluralism or prescriptivism? A CDA of language ideologies in “Talento,” Peru’s official textbook for the first-year of high school. Linguistics and Education: An International Research Journal, 20(2), 172–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dennis, C. (2011). Measuring quality, framing what we know: A critical discourse analysis of the common inspection framework. Literacy, 45(3), 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302(5652), 1907–1912.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eagles, P. F. J., & Demare, R. (1999). Factors influencing children’s environmental attitudes. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(4), 33–37.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969909601882 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
  20. Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (1992). Healing the planet. Sydney, NSW: Surrey Beatty & Sons.Google Scholar
  21. Ellis, E. C., Klein Goldewijk, K., Siebert, S., Lightman, D., & Ramankutty, N. (2010). Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19(5), 589–606.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00540.x Google Scholar
  22. Ellis, E. C., & Ramankutty, N. (2008). Putting people in the map: Anthropogenic biomes of the world. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(8), 439–447.  https://doi.org/10.1890/070062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  25. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Text analysis for social research. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Fairclough, N. (2004). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 121–138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fang, Z., Lamme, L. L., & Pringle, R. M. (2010). Language and literacy in inquiry-based science classrooms, grades 3-8. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Fehr, E., & Gintis, H. (2007). Human motivation and social cooperation: Experimental and analytical foundations. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 43–64.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131812 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Feinstein, N., & Kirchgasler, K. (2015). Sustainability in science education? How the next generation science standards approach sustainability, and why it matters. Science Education, 99(1), 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Finn, C. E., & Ravitch, D. (2004). The mad, mad world of textbook adoption. Retrieved from http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2004/200409_madworldoftextbookadoption/Mad%20World_Test2.pdf
  34. Foster, J. B. (1999). Marx’s theory of metabolic rift: Classical foundations for environmental sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Freudenburg, W. R. (2005). Privileged access, privileged accounts: Toward a socially structured theory of resources and discourses. Social Forces, 84(1), 89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. G8+5. (2009). G8+5 Academies’ joint statement: Climate change and the transformation of energy technologies for a low carbon future. Retrieved from www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
  37. Grant, D. S., Bergesen, A. J., & Jones, A. W. (2002). Organizational size and pollution: The case of the U.S. chemical industry. American Sociological Review, 67(3), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
  39. Halliday, M. (2004). The language of science (Vol. 5). New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
  40. Halliday, M., & Martin, J. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  41. Hanrahan, M. U. (2006). Highlighting hybridity: A critical discourse analysis of teacher talk in science classrooms. Science Education, 90(1), 8–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hardin, G. (2009). The tragedy of the commons. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 1(3), 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Hempel, L. C. (1996). Environmental governance: The global challenge. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  45. Himley, M. (2008). Geographies of environmental governance: The nexus of nature and neoliberalism. Geography Compass, 2(2), 433–451.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2008.00094.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kelly, G. J. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 443–470). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Kempton, W., Boster, J. S., & Hartley, J. A. (1995). Environmental values and American culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Laurance, W. F. (2010). Habitat destruction: Death by a thousand cuts. In N. S. Sodhi & P. R. Ehrlich (Eds.), Conservation biology for all (pp. 73–86). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lee, V. R. (2010). Adaptations and continuities in the use and design of visual representations in U.S. middle school science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1099–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Leighton, M., Shen, X., Warner, K., & Zissener, M. (2011). Policy and institutional mechanisms to address the needs of climate-related migrants. Retrieved from http://i.unu.edu/media/unu.edu/publication/000/027/540/Research-Brief-3.pdf
  52. Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., … Taylor, W. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317(5844), 1513–1516.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change Part A: Human & Policy Dimensions, 17(3/4), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lorenzoni, I., & Pidgeon, N. (2006). Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change, 77(1), 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McKinney, M. L., Schoch, R. M., & Yonavjak, L. (2012). Environmental science: Systems and solutions. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC.Google Scholar
  57. Menzel, S., & Bogeholz, S. (2009). The loss of biodiversity as a challenge for sustainable development: How do pupils in Chile and Germany perceive resource dilemmas? Research in Science Education, 39(4), 429–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Merkl-Davies, D. M., & Koller, V. (2012). ‘Metaphoring’ people out of this world: A critical discourse analysis of a chairman’s statement of a UK defence firm. Accounting Forum, 36(3), 178–193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2012.02.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Miller, G. T., & Spoolman, S. (2007). Environmental science: Problems, concepts, and solutions. Toronto, ON: Brooks Cole.Google Scholar
  60. Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Myers, N. (2002). Environmental refugees: A growing phenomenon of the 21st century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 357(1420), 609–613.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2001.0953 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). National curriculum standards for social studies. Silver Spring, MD: Author.Google Scholar
  63. National Council for the Social Studies. (2010). National curriculum standards for social studies: A framework for teaching, learning and assessment. Silver Spring, MD: Author.Google Scholar
  64. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  65. Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284(5412), 278–282.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5412.278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Peters, M. A. (2001). Poststructuralism, Marxism, and neoliberalism: Between theory and politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  67. Potter, E. F., & Rosser, S. V. (1992). Factors in life science textbooks that may deter girls’ interest in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(7), 669–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph, G. O. G. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 365–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rudel, T. K., Defries, R., Asner, G. P., & Laurance, W. F. (2009). Changing drivers of deforestation and new opportunities for conservation. Conservation Biology, 23(6), 1396–1405.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01332.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The cold war reconstruction of American science education. New York, NY: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rudolph, J. L. (2003). Portraying epistemology: School science in historical context. Science Education, 87, 64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Saad, L. (2011). Water issues worry Americans most, Global warming least. Gallup Politics. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/146810/water-issues-worry-americans-global-warming-least.aspx
  74. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  75. Schnaiberg, A. (1980). The environment, from surplus to scarcity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Schnaiberg, A., Pellow, D. N., & Weinberg, A. (2000). The treadmill of production and the environmental state. Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research.Google Scholar
  77. Sellers, C. C. (2012). Crabgrass crucible: Suburban nature and the rise of environmentalism in twentieth-century America. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  78. Sharma, A. (2012). Global climate change: What has science education got to do with it? Science & Education, 21(1), 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sharma, A. (2013, April). Where are the people? understanding representations of society-nature relationships in a middle grades science classroom. Paper accepted at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  80. Sharma, A., & Anderson, C. (2009). Recontextualization of science from lab to school: Implications for science literacy. Science & Education, 18(9), 1253–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sharma, A. & Buxton, C. (2012, March). Where are the people? Understanding representations of society-nature relationships in State Science Standards in United States. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
  82. Smolkin, L. B., McTigue, E. M., Donovan, C. A., & Coleman, J. M. (2009). Explanation in science trade books recommended for use with elementary students. Science Education, 93(4), 587–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  84. Sterman, J., & Sweeney, L. (2007). Understanding public complacency about climate change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Climatic Change, 80(3), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Takacs-Santa, A. (2007). Barriers to environmental concern. Human Ecology Review, 14(1), 26–38.Google Scholar
  86. The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tikka, P. M., Kuitunen, M. T., & Tynys, S. M. (2000). Effects of educational background on students’ attitudes, activity levels, and knowledge concerning the environment. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(3), 12–19.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960009598640 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Treanor, B. (2010). Environmentalism and public virtue. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23(1), 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tyson, H. (1997). Overcoming structural barriers to good textbooks. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.Google Scholar
  90. Weaver, A. A. (2002). Determinants of environmental attitudes. International Journal of Sociology, 32(1), 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Baniflower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K–12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.Google Scholar
  92. Westra, L. (2009). Environmental justice and the rights of ecological refugees. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  93. Zak, K. M., & Munson, B. H. (2008). An exploratory study of elementary preservice teachers’ understanding of ecology using concept maps. Journal of Environmental Education, 39(3), 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zeitvogel, K. (2011). 50 million ‘environmental refugees’ by 2020, experts say. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jnW80NlFZ259UCgMAHSd3ekHutiQ?docId=CNG.aa651167cd0af745b3cb395cf1d402e3.c41

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajay Sharma
    • 1
  • Cory Buxton
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Educational Theory and PracticeUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations