Social Studies and Science Education: Developing World Citizenship Through Interdisciplinary Partnerships

George Richardson & David Blades

Department of Secondary Education
University of Alberta

 

Abstract

This paper explores the possibilities that interdisciplinary projects in science and social studies have for developing world citizenship. Using the example of a joint project designed around monoculturing, the authors argue that students can develop the analytic skills, reflective qualities, and global awareness necessary to become hopeful and active citizens in the Twenty-first Century.

 

"Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see." Neil Postman, The Disappearance of Childhood

In his reflection on developments in science and technology, environmentalist David Suzuki notes that

within the lifetime of our elder citizens, the planet has changed almost beyond recognition. Their childhood recollections are not simply the romantic musings of old folks for the good old days, but they constitute a living record of the cataclysmic degradation that has taken place around us in the span of a single human life. (1988, 127)

Little has changed to reverse this trend since Suzuki published these words. In his overview of the state of the world as we move into the 21st century, Brown (2000) observes that human civilization faces well-entrenched practices that may compromise our future, such as the industrial production of carbon dioxide, depletion of water tables from irrigation, shrinking cropland through urbanization, worldwide deforestation, and loss of biodiversity through human-induced extinction. At the same time, rapid technological innovations in the areas such as human cloning and the production of androids are forcing ethical and moral issues that require immediate public attention (Blades, 1999). But humankind already faces pandemics of AIDS and tuberculosis, regions of chronic conflict, waste from obsolete nuclear weapons, and unpredictable stock markets-to name only a few issues on our present agenda. Indeed, the 21st century may well prove to be crucial in our history; we will either make substantive and lasting changes to the way we live with each other and our planet or this century may well prove to be our last (Blades, 2000; Bright, 2000; Leslie, 1996; Orr, 1992).

In his book The Ingenuity Gap (2000) Thomas Homer-Dixon argues that the demands in resources and tools created by the advent of billions more people on the planet has forced humanity to "continually make faster and more sophisticated decisions about technologies, policies, and institutional arrangements" (26); yet this demand has not led to an increase in our ability to make these decisions-an "ingenuity gap." He remains optimistic about the future of humankind, however, insisting that we have the potential to close the ingenuity gap by changing our values and perceptions of ourselves, a "slowing down" of our demanding nature through communication, preparation and cooperation. There is evidence to support Dixon's belief such changes are possible. In an editorial in Canadian Geographic magazine, Rick Boychuk (1999) reminds Canadians that it was once common practice only a few decades ago for people to throw garbage out the windows of automobiles, pour used motor oil down sinks, use leaded gas in our cars, use PCBs in transformers and CFCs in aerosol cans. He points out that such changes in social practices give us hope since in some cases "something that everyone takes as an unchangeable fact of life becomes unthinkable" (11).

As one of the first agencies responsible for developing public awareness and perceptions, the systematic education of children can serve as the engine of social change. In his reflection on the roles of schools, John Dewey proposes that all "society has accomplished for itself is put, through the agency of the school, at the disposal of its future members. All its better thoughts of itself it hopes to realize through the new possibilities thus opened to its future self" (1990/1900, 7). Achieving a sustainable future, argues Tomkins (1995), "may well involve a huge change in societal values, and in this schools have a long record of assisting change" (260). But schools play more than a supportive role in effecting societal change; our schools also serve as the primary agency for the development of civic perspectives. Palmer (1998) suggests this role is possible because schools ensure public spaces for a broad cross section of the public to engage in common work. He suggests the interactions possible in schools allow us to "reweave our tattered civic fabric" (92) and thus "educational institutions are among our most important looms" (92).

Given the planetary scope of the issues facing humankind, education needs to build on the ability to develop civic perspectives and promote social change towards establishing a sense of planetary citizenship founded on participatory democracy. As Martha Nussbaum notes in Cultivating Humanity, global or planetary citizenship should ideally be the ultimate 'project' of education and should be founded on the notion that

citizens who cultivate their humanity need…an ability to see themselves not simply as citizens of some local region or group, but also, and above all, as human beings bound to all other human beings by ties of recognition and concern. (1997, 10)

In Strong Democracy, Benjamin Barber argues that "only direct political participation-activity that is explicitly public-is a completely successful form of civic education for democracy" (1984, 235). Such civic participation will require our children to be able to draw from a wide range of disciplines if they are to work with others worldwide to form social policy and make decisions that lead to a more hopeful future. As educator and environmentalist David Orr notes, the looming crises facing humankind "cannot be solved by the same kind of education that helped create the problems" (83). He decries the subject specialisation typical of secondary schools, arguing for an approach to education that cuts across subject specialisation. An important focus of this integration may be the development of a "multidimensional citizenship" (Kubow, Grossman and Ninomiya, 1998) that begins with the acknowledgement that:

In an increasingly interconnected world where the issues affecting people's lives are global and, hence cross-cultural in nature, the concept of citizenship itself becomes more complex. (1998, 116)

In the face of this interconnectedness and complexity, it then becomes imperative that multidimensional citizenship education "infuse the whole atmosphere of the school, shaping and pervading all aspects of education" (1998, 132).

Unfortunately, such a broad, interdisciplinary and international understanding of citizenship education is not yet reflected in most curriculum. Traditionally, the development of citizenship is the focus of "social studies" in the school curriculum. However this isolation creates a two-fold dilemma. First, locating citizenship entirely in the social studies risks 'freezing' it as a discrete, subject-bound concept. While it remains solely within the precincts of social studies, and in a contemporary educational environment that is increasingly driven by high stakes testing and out-comes based philosophies, (Apple, 1998) citizenship becomes just another notion to be acquired, tested and discarded rather than a living practice in which students actively engage social issues in civic society (Richardson and Couture, 2000). Second, citizenship education, kept within the exclusive domain of social studies, tends to ignore the fact that many critical issues facing the future of humankind arise from other fields of human inquiry, most notably science and technology.

Concerns for the way scientific discoveries and technological innovations affect society has led science educators to call for a new approach to school science education that emphasizes and explores the relationships between the nature of science, technological innovation, societal issues and environmental concerns (STSE). The purpose of an STSE orientation in science education is to teach children about the "social responsibility in collective decision making on issues related to science and technology" (Aikenhead, 1994:49). This approach has wide support in Canada, where it appears as a guiding principle in every provincial science curriculum document and is considered foundational to the new national Canadian school science curriculum, Common Framework of Science Learning Outcomes (Council of Ministers of Education, 1997). Internationally, STSE education in some form has appeared in the curriculum of most countries, leading many science educators to declare STSE a new paradigm in science education curriculum (McFadden, 1990; Pederson, 1992; Yager, 1992).

An STSE approach, notes science educator Derek Hodson, necessarily goes beyond simply learning about the dynamic relationships between science, technology, society and the environment. To help children find hope amidst issues that are increasingly global in scope, students must have the opportunity to act on their insight through direct involvement in participatory democracy. In his Teaching and Learning Science (1998) Hodson argues that an STSE science education must ensure students acquire the knowledge and skills to intervene in the decision-making process and ensure that alternative voices, and their underlying interests and values, are brought to bear on policy decisions. (22)

As knowledge of STSE issues translates into opportunities for involvement in decision-making, school science education becomes with social studies essential components in developing the multidimensional citizenship of our youth.

Despite world wide calls for an STSE education, however, in many cases the classroom practice of science education focuses on the "over-zealous selling of the professional disciplines of science and technology, largely through intense transmission of idealized products of those fields" (Benze, 2000, 124-125). Forced to such a narrow focus due to high stakes final exams, typically teachers have little time to explore STSE connections and even less for investigating the role of science in participatory democracy.

Conversely, although social studies provides a forum for developing the skills for participation in a democracy, it often lacks a study of the background knowledge necessary to examine important issues, many that are the consequence of science and technology. This situation is untenable in the light of the state of the world; clearly if our children are to find a hopeful future they need to begin to think as citizens of the planet in ways that move freely between disciplines and traditional fields of inquiry. The ideal place to begin this healing process is through interdisciplinary science and social studies research projects that initiate students into the multidimensional complexity of citizenship.

Given the content-heavy nature of most programs of study and of the secondary curriculum in particular, finding such interdisciplinary possibilities will be a challenge. We believe, however, that any secondary school could begin to meet this challenge by arranging the school's timetable to include "Interdisciplinary Partnerships" in school timetable selections that link social studies with particular science courses such as biology, for example. In these partnerships students in one course would also be automatically enrolled in the other; the teachers of these courses would then use this opportunity to plan interdisciplinary units, or even a single combined, double blocked course in "social science" as the partnership develops.

These partnerships would enable teachers normally isolated by subject disciplines in the school to share their perspectives and expertise. Planning with a social studies teacher naturally prompts science teachers to consider joint projects and studies that develop an STSE approach to science education. At the same time, social studies teachers will find that the controversial issues that arise through the exploration of science topics provide excellent contexts for examining the role and responsibilities of citizens in a democracy that faces a future increasingly dominated by science and technological innovation. We believe the "cross fertilization" of perspectives by teachers jointly planning units and eventually entire courses would greatly enhance the ability of schools to help students develop the multidimensional citizenship needed in today's world and the future.

We acknowledge that the current educational environment makes the adoption of such Interdisciplinary Partnerships difficult. It is clear, however that topics within most school curricula do allow for the kind partnerships that could lead to the interdisciplinary civic activism we suggest.

The Program of Studies for the province of Alberta, for example, reveals possibilities for linking social studies and science in ways that allow for the development of more complex notions of citizenship. In Social Studies 20, Topic B, Theme IV "Alternative Futures" notes that social action is one possible solution to global problems such as pollution, the greenhouse effect and energy depletion, deforestation, desertification. Biology 20, Unit 3 "Energy and Matter Exchange in Ecosystems" calls for an STSE approach that involves students researching the effect single-crop monoculture has on food webs and species diversity in the ecosystem, and the influence of the needs and interests of society on this practice. Suppose students were to take the science topic of monoculturing and use their backgrounds in social studies to discover avenues for social action on the issues that arise from monoculturing? The following example demonstrates how just this one joint social studies-science topic can encourage the development of active, multidimensional citizenship.

Monoculturing: An Interdisciplinary Social Studies/Science Project

Replacing existing biodiversity with monocultures is common agricultural practice. A field of canola, for example, in no way resembles the great diversity of life on a typical prairie plain (Leslie, 1996). Similarly, destruction of the Amazon rainforest in favour of crop plantation or cattle ranching not only destroys-forever-the existing diversity but threatens those areas of the rainforest not harvested to damage by forest fires (Bright, 2000). The study of the often-complex interrelationships within ecosystems is an important part of the Biology 20 programme. Understanding how this seemingly destructive activity of monoculturing has developed historically and possible alternatives to this practice could be featured as part of the "Alternative Futures" component of Social Studies 20. Linkages between courses would be developed as students tackle joint assignments while engaged in a sustained, interdisciplinary discussion that might proceed through the following phases:

Phase 1 Gathering Information.

The unit begins as students select a particular monoculture practice to study (i.e., tea plantations in Kenya, cattle-raising in the Amazon basin, canola production in Canada, "reforestation" around the world). Working in groups, students would use their science studies to research the effect such practices have on food webs and species diversity in the ecosystem. Students might use such technologies as concept mapping and graphing programmes to illustrate and display their research.

Phase II: Establishing the Political, Social and Economic Context of Single-crop Monocultures.

Once clearly understanding the type of monoculturing practice they are investigating, students would be invited to research the background of the examples they have chosen to explore why decisions were made to move to specific single-crop monocultures. Students would need to draw on skills developed in social studies to conduct Internet searches, access to government, industry and activist groups' sites and organizations as well as historical studies. Combining their science and social studies research, student groups could prepare and present briefing papers to their class, schools, or even communities about the political, social, scientific and economic factors that led to the decision to establish single crop monoculture.

Phase III: Examining the Impact of Single-crop Monoculture

Focusing on their responsibilities as global citizens, students would be required to move their background research towards examining the impacts-both positive and negative-of single-crop monoculture on the quality of life of a particular society. Attention would be given to the global connections of particular monoculture farming practices. Through presentations using PowerPoint or some other media, such as videotape, students would share with each other their concerns and hopes for particular practices, thus developing with their peers a community of informed citizens.

Phase IV: Taking Action

It is not sufficient for students to outline a situation or discover the complexity of monoculturing. If students are to become citizens of the planet, they need to find ways to effect change in the present social order. Such action, considered in our proposal as an integral part of their social studies-science education, could involve: