Keywords

Introduction

Over the years, a range of factors including increased attention towards science and social responsibility, the prevalence of socio-scientific issues such as genetic engineering and nuclear power, a desire to humanize science, decreasing enrolment in physical sciences, and a surge of interest in the environment, have provided a fertile ground from which Science Technology Society and Environment (STSE) education has emerged. Originally, this movement began as Science Technology and Society (STS) education and then later evolved to include the environment (STSE). In this entry, we use STSE throughout, understanding that its roots are STS.

At a macro level, STSE education examines the interface between science and the social world. It is an umbrella term that supports a vast array of different types of theorizing about the connections between science, technology, society, and environment, and places science squarely within social, technological, cultural, ethical, and political contexts. At a micro level, STSE education includes decision-making, the coupling of science and values, integration (with other subject areas), nature of science (NOS) perspectives, and action. For many, STSE represents a shift from the status quo, a post-positivist vision for science education that emphasizes a science for all philosophy. What is clear is that there is no single, widely accepted view of STSE education. STSE in theory and practice emerges from different places for different people, influenced by particular contexts and circumstances and used for different purposes.

One of the earliest mentions of STSE appears in an article written by Jim Gallagher (1971) in Science Education. He argued strongly for a broader model of science teaching that included understanding the conceptual and process dimensions of science, as well their relationships to technology and society. Joan Solomon’s and Glen Aikenhead’s work (see, e.g., Solomon and Aikenhead 1994) did much to bring STSE to the fore. A range of significant texts during the 1980s and 1990s marked an ongoing commitment to STSE education and a collective desire for fundamental change in school science. Today, this desire for change in school science continues. For many jurisdictions STSE has become an important part of school science curriculum and the student experience.

Structure of the Field (STSE Theoretical Frameworks)

From what has gone before, it is clear that STSE is a complex construct. Other than a few broad principles, it is difficult to define what exactly constitutes STSE education. Indeed widely differing discourses have led to an array of distinct approaches, programs, and methods. To a great extent this is simultaneously the strength and weakness of the STSE movement. Despite this fluidity, over the years several have tried to develop classifications or typologies to pinpoint a structure for STSE and guide its further development, particularly its implementation in classrooms. However, it is important to note that these various schemas are not easily comparable. In particular no one is more comprehensive or more correct than the others. Rather the various efforts provide insight into different dimensions of the topic.

Ziman (1994), one of the earliest advocates of STSE, provides a general conceptual framework, useful for locating STSE and supportive of a multiplicity of approaches for its implementation. According to Ziman (1994), STSE contains philosophical, sociological, and historical dimensions, which in themselves can serve as approaches for implementation. Additionally, he proposes that STSE contains other ideological dimensions suggestive of other approaches, for example, utilitarian (vocational, relevance), transdisciplinary, and problem-based approaches. While Ziman’s work is mostly philosophical and theoretical in nature, Aikenhead (1994), on the other hand, has written extensively about the spectrum of meanings and degrees of STSE inclusion found in existing science courses and programs. He captures the relative importance afforded to STSE by analyzing content structures and methods of student evaluation within a wide variety of science courses. Aikenhead’s classification consists of eight categories that represent a spectrum. At one end (category one), STSE content is given the lowest priority compared to traditional science content, while at the other end (category eight), it is given highest priority. The eight categories are as follows: (1) motivation by STSE content, (2) casual infusion of STSE content, (3) purposeful infusion of STSE content, (4) singular discipline through STSE content, (5) science through STSE content, (6) science along with STSE content, (7) infusion of science into STSE content, and (8) STSE content. It is important to note that this scheme does not attempt to link STSE to any particular set of educational goals or priorities nor does it address specific teaching methods. In other words, Aikenhead’s work describes how STSE might be integrated into the science curricula, but not the why and what of STSE education.

Pedretti and Nazir (2011) provide a classification that tackles these latter aspects. They provide a typology of possibilities for STSE education or what they call “currents” through consideration of the overall aims of science education, perspectives from the psychology of education, and examples of strategies or pedagogy for science programs. Within their typology, they identify and explore six currents in STSE education: (1) application/design, (2) historical, (3) logical reasoning, (4) value centered, (5) sociocultural, and (6) socio-ecojustice. They characterize the sociocultural current, for example, as promoting an understanding of science and technology within a broader sociocultural context, while engaging in an analyses of the complex social structures within which science operates. They link this current to the overall aim of teaching science as an important cultural and intellectual achievement and identify its dominant approaches as holistic, reflexive, experiential, and affective. Examples of pedagogical strategies include the use of case studies, storytelling, and integrated curricula. While Pedretti and Nazir are careful to caution that their classification is not exhaustive and that no current is “better” than the other, they suggest that their typology can be used by educators for critical analysis of the various discourses and practices within STSE, as it exists today.

Challenges to STSE Education

STSE programs and themes have been developed worldwide, at the elementary, secondary, and tertiary levels. In general, programs have been designed in an effort to interpret science and technology as complex socially embedded enterprises and to promote the development of a critical, scientifically and technologically literate, citizenry capable of understanding STSE issues, empowered to make informed and responsible decisions, and able to act upon those decisions. In Canada, for example, several provinces have continued to emphasize STSE as an important part of school science and retain it as an integral and primary focus of K-12 science curricula.

Although (STSE) education has gained considerable force in the past few years, it has made fewer strides in practice. An emphasis on STSE education presents challenges for educators – both practical and ideological in nature. Many have written about the practical challenges inherent to adopting an STSE approach. Practical challenges and barriers include the following: lack of time and resources, assessment issues, lack of professional development opportunities in STSE, and issues related to teacher confidence. Many fear that extensive coverage of socio-scientific subject matter devalues the curriculum and may alienate some science students. Furthermore, STSE instructional strategies often include, for example, town halls, debates, and role-plays. These activities (with their focus on decision-making, ethics, action, transformation, and empowerment) are not traditionally part of science teachers’ repertoires.

Fewer, however, have written about the ideological bents and assumptions that underpin different formulations of science education in general and STSE education in particular. For example, a view that science education should be focused on teaching science content (a predominantly transmissive view) rather than focused on social reconstruction and change (a transformative view) can produce radically different experiences and challenges in the science classroom. For example, coupling science and values education can be problematic for some. How do educators reconcile teaching about science and values? How does a teacher position himself/herself? How do teachers address personal values in the classroom and accommodate diverse views, cultural contexts, and ways of thinking about the world? Action and the politicization of science present another set of problems. The notion of a sociopolitical science curriculum that promotes social justice and transformation provides a very different vision of science teaching and science education, and for some, this can be disconcerting. Such competing ideologies represent a major shift in the way that science education and therefore science teaching are conceptualized and may challenge science teachers’ professional identities. These practical and ideological challenges provide rich avenues for future research in STSE education that is rooted in classroom praxis, pedagogy, teacher professional development, and student learning.

STSE and Other Related Movements

STSE has evolved to include other movements and manifestations. In Pedretti and Nazir’s (2011) mapping of the field, they use the metaphor of currents to describe the evolution of STSE over time. According to them, STSE education is comparable to a vast ocean of ideas, principles, and practices that overlap and intermingle one into the other. At any one time the field has been characterized by certain ideas coming together to form discernible currents. These currents are constantly changing and shifting according to the context in which they occur. It can be argued that new and emerging currents remain within the STSE fold because they share a similar post-positivist view of science and science education discussed earlier on.

Two currents or movements that have evolved over time and which are particularly strong today are socio-scientific issues (SSI), based on the work of Dana Zeidler and his colleagues, and environmental education (EE). It can be argued that SSI and EE share similar principles, visions, and pedagogies as STSE education (although proponents of these movements may argue differently). The SSI movement pays particular attention to the ethical aspects contained within socio-scientific issues. It focuses on the moral and character development of students. Zeidler’s work takes a justice-based, cognitive moral developmental approach to science education. He proposes the use of carefully selected problems from the domain of science to stimulate moral deliberation and consequently moral development in science classes. The SSI model is fortuitously supported today by a resurgence of interest in values education worldwide. Environmental education is another strong current within STSE today. EE, in general, has been gaining momentum worldwide, as the idea of humankind’s negative impact on the environment and the consequences for the continued existence of all life on the planet becomes increasingly accepted. STSE has always shared many of the philosophical and educational ideas underpinning the ecojustice movement. In particular, EE derived from an STSE base tends to emphasize the economic and sociopolitical aspects of environmental problems and the need to provide people with the tools (skills, knowledge, and dispositions) to actively transform society. Citizenship that promotes civic responsibility (to humans and non-humans), agency, and emancipation are key features of this current.

In conclusion, STSE education situates science in a rich and complex tapestry – drawing from politics, history, ethics, and philosophy. Although a challenge politically, ideologically, and practically, STSE presents an opportunity to learn, view, and analyze science in a broader context while recognizing the diversity of needs of students and classrooms. STSE, in its many forms and currents, brings relevancy, interest, and real-world connections to the science classroom.

Cross-References