It has been 40 years since science, technology, society, and environment (STSE) education first appeared in science education research and practice. Although supported among many educators worldwide, there is much confusion surrounding the STSE slogan. Widely differing discourses on STSE education and diverse ways of practicing, have led to an array of distinct pedagogical approaches, programs, and methods. We are left wondering how we might orient ourselves amid such a diversity of propositions. What does STSE look like in practice? What ideological orientations underpin its practice? In this paper, we review the research literature and educational practices in STSE education to (1) map out a typology of STSE education in the form of currents and (2) provide a heuristic that educators can use for critical analysis of discourses and practices in the field. We identify, explore, and critique six currents in STSE education: application/design, historical, logical reasoning, value-centered, sociocultural, and socio-ecojustice currents. We suggest that these currents may serve as a didactic tool for others, a framework that will assist educators in informing their own theoretical understandings, choices, and practices in the context of STSE education.

This paper addresses one of the key challenges for work on education, sustainable development and climate change: the overall conceptualisation of central ideas such as Environmental Education (EE), Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and Climate Change Education (CCE). What do these concepts mean in diverse contexts and amongst diverse actors? The paper draws on evidence from Denmark, Singapore, Canada and the UK to highlight both the similarities and differences found within national discussions around these essentially contested concepts and their relationships to policy and practice. It further argues that such debates about how EE, ESD and CCE are conceptualised remain highly relevant, not just to academic work itself, but also to wider international discussions regarding both the current and potential relationships between conceptual understanding, policy and practice.

No abstract

In 1971, Basil Bernstein presented his thesis on the packaging and distribution of educational knowledge, a curricular arrangement in which its classification and framing into disciplinary categories benefited those within the hierarchical structures. In the 50 years since Bernstein’s proposition, there has been a growing awareness and rejection of such disciplinary approaches in favour of integrating curricular knowledge across disciplines, not only through areas of science, math, and technology, but also across all school subjects, whereas Bernstein, and a certain strand of literature building on Bernstein’s thesis, asked why and who benefits from curriculum framing, a parallel strand in the curriculum integration literature. In the following article, we re-visit Bernstein’s hypothesis by examining selected interests involved in curriculum framing, but here, we specifically investigate who stands to gain when curriculum is integrated. From an extensive and persistent literature review, analysis, and collegial discussion, we cluster support of curriculum integration into six broad categories, scrutinizing each according to their major premise, aims of education, main curriculum interest(s), understanding of knowledge, and key supporters for each. We then extend this analysis by examining what interests are most salient, where and how these interests overlap, and where support for particular forms of curricular packaging is conspicuously silent. In our synthesis, we highlight a “Worldly Perspective” to curriculum delivery, an approach with potential to both deepen and broaden student learning, and which, unlike a singular disciplinary or integrated approach, is not similarly beholden to narrow interests.

No abstract