The Political Subject: Student Discussions About and in Public Issues in Science Education

Author(s):

Iann Lundegård(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)

Format:

Paper

Session Information

30 SES 09, ESE Learning through Innovative Teaching

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-04

11:00-12:30

Room:

B119 Sala de Aulas

Chair:

William Scott

Contribution

This study focuses on authenticity in education and problematizes what is meant when one talks about classroom activities as being authentic for the students or not. In everyday contexts it is sometimes said that teaching is estranged from the students reality and in “lack of personal meaning” (Andrée 2012, 426). The students are in school primarily for the acquisition of generic knowledge, abilities and competences that are required to meet future needs later in life. This article discusses authenticity in education and problematizes what we mean when we talk about education being connected to real life or not. It examines different ways in which discussions in science offer the participants opportunity to relate to an actual problem in the public space (Dewey 1927). It examines how students' participation shifts between either distanced talk about subject matter on a factual level and a more evaluative discussion where they take a stand on the issues as a "political subject", on a personal level (Lundegård & Wickman 2012).

The purpose of an education based on Socio Scientific Issues (SSI) (Roberts 2007) is that students will learn natural science in connection to complex social issues. Douglas Roberts (2007) has made a distinction between what is called Vision I and Vision II in science education. Vision I states that the student should learn from the systematic structure of the academic science subject. Vision II instead emphasises science education in the context of social issues. The later is close to what is usually discussed in environmental education. Here complex socio-scientific issues are dealt with connected to values and ethics and the students are given the opportunity to make decisions. Moreover pluralism and political subjects are concepts that have been debated in connection to education for sustainable development, human rights and democracy and in the discussion on SSI (Rudsberg & Öhman 2011). In this context individuals’ agency in relation to what is described as the universal interests of humanity, cosmopolitan /global agreements and norms are also discussed (Todd 2010). Will the growing up generation only be accepted as cosmopolitans if they join the pre- given criteria of what it means to belonging to humanity? On what grounds should one be allowed to participate and what is required to be invited to the democratic processes? In what is called a radical democracy, the importance of transferring power to the participants is stressed (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985/2001). Lundegård and Wickman (2012) define a political subject as taking a personal stand on public issues (Lundegård & Wickman 2012). This study examines how classroom discussions involving issues related to science offer students various opportunities to relate to issues in the public space.

Method

The students came from a suburban school outside of Stockholm. They were in their second year of high school and attended a course on global environmental protection. They were twelve in number, and their assignment was to without assistance from their teacher find information about problem areas related to sustainable development, genetic modification, climate problems, equitable allocation of resources, and to bring up questions that they found to be important for discussion in class. The introduction and the students’ discussions were video taped and the students’ discussions were transcribed. The study focuses on the different ways students, through communicative action, position themselves in relation to the issues in the activity. The study takes its departure from the problem areas and the questions that the students have chosen by them selves. The analysis reveals if the students discuss the subject matter on a factual level or if they establish aesthetic relationships to the problems that arise on a personal level (see also Lundegård 2008). A discussion is defined by Parker and Hess (2001) as a group activity where participants both speak and listen. A typology of three different types of discussions is seminars, deliberations and conversations (Parker & Hess, 285). A discussion can be arranged so that it focuses on either one of the three types, but if it is spontaneous it of course switches between them. The analysis of the conversation in this study uses two of Parker and Hess’ (2001) concepts, deliberation and conversation. • In a conversation the participants seek to bring order to the aim and purpose of what is to be achieved. They create a vision but without making a decision about what route to take. A conversation answers the questions: what do we want to achieve, what kind of society do we want to have and what kind of life do we want to live? • Deliberation aims to reach a decision about which course of action to take in order to reach a predetermined goal, a plan of action to solve problems. Deliberation answers the questions: what should we do and how should we do it?

Expected Outcomes

The result indicated that students’ experience in a discussion differed depending on which question initiated it. If the questions allowed the students to distance themselves from the subject matter, then one type of content was created. If, on the other hand, the questions gave the students an opportunity to establish emotional relations to current social issues, then the content became something else. The results are built around three illustrative examples that demonstrate differences in students' ways of discuss and relating to the issues at hand and highlight what contributes to their ability to act as political subjects. The discussions about, food supply in the world, the individual’s relationship to the law in questions concerning sustainable development and ecological footprint landed sometimes on a factual level. Sometimes the conversations and deliberations ended up in real, personal and particular consequences for the students, on a personal level where they created emotional relations to the issues at hand. Theoretically, this can also be linked to Todd’s (2010) discussion of teaching that is shaped by radical democracy. That is, an education where young people are given the space to clarify their own involvement in the lives of others and in relation to others’ needs, and from there reflect over the relation between their own freedom and responsibility in relation to public issues.

References

Andrée, M. 2012. Altering conditions for student participation and motive development in school science: learning from Helena’s mistake. Cultural Studies of Science Education 7, no. 2; 425–438. Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and education. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Dewey, J. 1927/1954. The Public and Its Problems. New York: Holt. Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. 1985/2001. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso. Lundegård, I. 2008. Self, values and the world – young people in dialogue on sustainable development. In Values and Democracy in ESD – Contribution from Swedish Research, ed. J. Öhman. 123–144. Stockholm: Liber. Lundegård, I. and Wickman, P.-O. 2012. It takes two to tango: studying how students constitute political subjects in discourses on sustainable development. Environmental Education Research 18, no. 2: 153–169. Parker, W. C. and Hess, D. 2001. Teaching with and for Discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education 17, no. 3: 273–289. Ranciere, J. 1998. Disagreement. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press. Roberts, D. 2007. Scientific literacy/science literacy. In Handbook of research on science education, ed. S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman. 729–780. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rudsberg, K. & Öhman, J. 2011. Pluralism in practice – experiences from Swedish evaluation, school development and research. Environmental Education Research 16, no. 1: 95–111. Todd, S. 2010. Toward an Imperfect Education. Facing Humanity, Rethinking Cosmopolitanism. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

Author Information

Iann Lundegård (presenting / submitting)

Stockholm University

Department of mathematics and science education

Stockholm

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.