The value of place

Cult Stud of Sci Educ (2014) 9:165–171 DOI 10.1007/s11422-013-9552-1 FORUM The value of place Michael W. Dentzau Received: 21 July 2013 / Accepted: 21 July 2013 / Published online: 12 December 2013  Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 Abstract This commentary seeks to expand the dialogue on place-based science education presented in Katie Lynn Brkich’s article, where the connections fifth grade students make between their formal earth science curriculum and their lived experiences are highlighted. The disconnect between the curriculum the students are offered and their immediate environment is clear, and we are presented with examples of how they strive to make connections between the content and what they are familiar with—namely their surroundings. ‘‘Place’’ is identified as a term with complex meanings and interpretations, even in the scope of place-based science education, and understanding how the term is used in any given scenario is essential to understanding the implications of place-based education. Is place used as a location, locale or a sense of place? To understand ‘‘place’’ is to acknowledge that for the individual, it is highly situational, cultural and personal. It is just such attributes that make place-based education appealing, and potentially powerful, pedagogically on one hand, yet complex for implementation on the other. The argument is posed that place is particularly important in the context of education about the environment, which in its simplest manifestation, connects formal science curriculum to resources that are local and tangible to students. The incorporation of place in such a framework seeks to bridge the gap between formal school science subjects and students’ lived experiences, yet acknowledges the tensions that can arise between accommodating place meanings and the desire to acculturate students into the language of the scientific community. The disconnect between guiding policy frameworks and the reality of the Next Generation Science Standards is addressed opening an avenue for further discussion of the Lead Editor: A. J. Gallard Martı́nez. This review essay addresses issues raised in K. Brkich’s paper Urban fifth graders’ connections-making between formal earth science content and their lived experiences. DOI: 10.1007/s11422-013-9505-8 M. W. Dentzau (&) Columbus State University, Columbus, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected] 123 166 M. W. Dentzau importance of socio-cultural frameworks of science learning in an ever increasing era of accountability. Keywords education Place-based
Contextual
Science learning
Environmental Two young girls set their gazes on a tree farm of tall pines in seemingly endless rows stretching out in all directions. The first was born and raised in a densely urbanized community consisting of row homes, asphalt and concrete, gridlock traffic, commercial and industrial centers and a scattered park reclaimed from demolished buildings. From her perspective these trees are large, majestic and tower over those from her neighborhood that are found in the small strip of land between the homes and roadway where the concrete has not grown together. Her contextual background provides meaning to the place as one that is natural and perhaps even wild. The second girl has rural roots and substantial time invested exploring wilderness ecosystems. Pine flatwoods, seepage streams and cypress domes are her provenance, where hours were spent hiking without encountering another soul. Upon viewing the same area at the same time, instead of seeing a natural area she forms an impression of an anthropomorphized landscape; an area that has been converted by humans and retains little of what she knows as wild. The physical location of this ‘‘place’’ is the same for both, but the meaning or essence of the ‘‘place’’ for each lies worlds apart. To understand ‘‘place’’ is to acknowledge that for the individual it is highly situational and has specific meaning arising from their unique cultural and social identities. It is just such attributes that make place-based education appealing, and potentially powerful, pedagogically. It is these same attributes, however, that make implementation of place-based education complicated. To discuss the role of place-based education in science education, we must first discuss the multiple meanings of ‘‘place’’; however ‘‘defining a connotation-rich term like ‘place’ is’’ a difficult task (Nespor 2008, p. 478). Cynthia Williams Resor (2010) articulates three aspects of ‘‘place’’—as a location, as a locale, and as a ‘‘sense’’ as in a sense of place. While these do not encompass the full range and variability of ‘‘place’’ definitions, it does serve well to frame our discussion with respect to science education, in general, and in this issue, Katie Lynn Brkich’s example with urban fifth graders in particular. The most recognizable use of ‘‘place’’ is as a location—a geographic position. This may be identified as a name, address, latitude and longitude, or a mark on a map, and the meaning of ‘‘place’’ would be harmonious among most users. Locale, as a ‘‘place’’, is slightly broader and is defined by the objects and surroundings of an individual. While it can also be a geographic position, it is not as precise as a location and it takes on different meanings for different individuals. The students may have lived in the same city in Central Florida, but came from different homes or perhaps, different neighborhoods or locales. Continuing outward from specificity is the third aspect of ‘‘place’’—a ‘‘sense of place’’—which refers to an individual’s ‘‘subjective and emotional attachment’’ to a ‘‘place’’ (Resor 2010, p. 186). Place therefore becomes defined by the intersection of its biophysical attributes, social and cultural meanings, and political processes (Cheng, Kruger and Daniels 2003). It is therefore the least generalizable, and most personal, of place meanings. A person may look upon a forest and see the vital components that drive the ecosystem interactions that support their very existence. A second may see nothing more the economic benefit to be realized from harvesting the timber, or the suitability of the site for development. Each is in the same location, and perhaps even in the same locale, but have a substantially different sense of ‘‘place’’. 123 The value of place 167 When considering place-based science education, therefore, we need to understand what specific meaning of ‘‘place’’ the user is enacting. Some science educators consider placebased education as ‘‘the study of natural attributes in local or regional areas’’ (Endreny 2010, p. 501). Here it would be most closely aligned with ‘‘place’’ as a location, such as a nearby natural resource. The value in this perspective lies in the use of local surroundings to connect students to science content, instead of using the iconic examples contained in text books and standardized curriculum. Do not misconstrue, the plight of the polar bear in the face of global warming is important and valuable for students to comprehend; however, so is the decline of the gopher tortoise, which may be located in the students’ backyards, and which many could have the opportunity to directly observe. On the other boundary, instead of using a location to teach science there is the sense that science and learning are all about ‘‘place’’. This place-conscious perspective calls ‘‘attention to the importance of place in how we understand ourselves and each other as individuals and as members of a larger community, and how we situate our practices of science and science teaching’’ (Aikenhead, Calabrese Barton, and Chinn 2006, p. 403). This embodies the ‘‘sense of place’’, and instead of attempting to align standards with everyday experiences, or to fold learners into the practices of the ‘‘dominant’’ community, this philosophy ‘‘fundamentally challenges the function and role of standards’’ and is grounded in the understanding that what matters most is science that is relevant to students’ lives outside of school (Aikenhead, Calabrese Barton, and Chinn 2006, p. 413). In Katie’s article, ‘‘place’’ and place-based education are situated between these two incompletely defined boundaries—it is neither instruction about a location nor concerned with ‘‘challeng[ing] the assumptions, practices, and outcomes taken for granted in dominant culture and in conventional education’’ (Gruenewald 2003a, p. 3). In the case of these fifth graders, ‘‘place’’ is used as a means to connect students with formal science standards by relating it to their lived experiences. ‘‘Place’’ here is more closely aligned with locale, but by privileging the individual interpretation is also imbued with a ‘‘sense of place’’. Within this framework the adaptability of ‘‘place’’ is used to ‘‘help overcome the disjuncture between school and children’s lives that is found in too many classrooms’’ (Smith 2002, p. 593). This perspective, however, does acknowledge there are inherent tensions that arise between the appropriate incorporation of ‘‘place’’ and the desire to provide students with the tools and language of western science in order to situate learners within the community of scientists. In Katie’s article we are introduced to fifth grade students who are provided a chance to connect their school’s earth science curriculum to their urban world. It was not a model of place-based curriculum or instruction that was offered to the students; instead it was an external opportunity given to the students that allowed them to demonstrate how they can make connections between a decontextualized curriculum and their daily lives. Katie concluded that ‘‘[s]tudents made the most concrete connection to concepts they had observed or could directly observe in their everyday life’’, and that in the absence of directly observable objects and processes ‘‘created analogies to make sense of the formal earth science concepts they were taught at school’’ (Brkich this issue). This is how these students made sense of what would otherwise be abstract science content. It is unclear whether the curriculum was supported by textbooks or standards that could be covered in a high stakes accountability assessment. Of what we can be reasonably sure, however, is that any assessment given to these students to measure their success, and that of the teacher and school, would not attempt to connect the weathering of faraway granite mountains to the erosion of concrete curbs leading from the sidewalk in front of the school, ultimately to a storm drain. 123 168 M. W. Dentzau A cautionary note is appropriate here. Katie’s study involved six students drawn from a population that is best classified as ‘‘an urban school of color and of poverty’’, and while these students might clearly share commonalities when compared to those from an urban, middle-class school, for example, assuming they all come from the same ‘‘place’’ is risky. They might have similarities given their common location and shared locales, but I would argue their understanding of ‘‘place’’ may be quite different. The students in the study had ‘‘varying ability levels’’, and it is reasonable to consider from a socio-cultural perspective that Man–Man, the 13 year old fifth grade student, because of his circumstances, may view school and the classroom, and perhaps his options for the future, differently than some of the others. He might have a different ‘‘sense of place’’ and how he makes sense of the curriculum could be substantially different. This possible scenario serves to highlight several points. First, generalizability, even within what appears to be finely parsed subgroups, it is a precarious slope, and strengthens the position of Aikenhead, Calabrese Barton and Chinn (2006) provided earlier. In fact, it is safe to say that no two individuals make sense of their world in the same way, and from that perspective, generalizability as driven by accountability measures will always be doomed to fail. Second, the difficulty that such sociocultural perspectives raise for the professional educator are substantial and these difficulties continue to be unacknowledged as such by the dominant groups directing formal education. Third, and on a more positive note, embracing ‘‘place’’ in all of its meanings has the ability to connect many more students to science curriculum. It may be argued, as with my example of the polar bear, that teaching about earthquakes and lava should constitute essential earth science content that all students should have. For students growing up in urban Central Florida, however, it would be difficult to make these concepts relevant. The forced recognition of these seemingly irrelevant concepts would be of little value to these students outside of school. Formal education would be advised to consider the contributions from the informal science literature that considers ‘‘learning as a cultural process’’ occurring throughout life and ‘‘influenced by personal and contextual factors’’ (National Research Council 2009, p. 216). ‘‘Place’’, therefore, is important to, and inseparable from, learning. This is not to suggest that learning is limited to the context in which it occurred; only that ‘‘what someone learns, let alone why someone learns, is inextricably bound to the cultural and historical context in which learning occurs’’ (Falk and Dierking 2000, p. 41). Yet there are differences between formal and informal education as practiced. It is beyond the scope of this commentary to discuss if these are essential differences or if they developed in response to neoliberal policies. Working with ‘what we have’ and within the current system, it is appropriate to consider how the Next Generation Science Standards (n.d.) will deal with the issue of ‘‘place’’ in the formal context. Appendix D, All Standards, All Students, indicates that ‘‘’place-based’ science education is consistent with culturally relevant pedagogy’’ (p. 10), and that effective classroom strategies should include ‘‘connecting science education to students’ sense of ‘place’ as physical, historical, and sociocultural dimensions’’ (p. 7). This policy language is welcomed and encouraging, as it acknowledges the cultural and situational nature of learning science. However, simply acknowledging it in the supporting documentation is not enough. When it comes to the development of curriculum, the focus is not placed on the guiding language of the document, but rather on the specific standards arising from the document. Unfortunately, as we look at the specific standards references to ‘‘place-based’’, ‘‘personal experience’’, ‘‘lived experience’’, or ‘‘culture’’ are absent. There are occasional references to ‘‘real-world contexts’’, but nothing that supports a ‘‘sense of place’’. It will be these standards that will guide the development of curriculum and the next set of standardized assessments, and as it 123 The value of place 169 has been before, the potential value of ‘‘place’’ will be overpowered by accountability measures. Clearly a disconnect remains. In response to this, I offer a quote from David Gruenewald (2003b p. 620): The point of becoming more conscious of places in education is to extend our notions of pedagogy and accountability outward toward places. Thus extended, pedagogy becomes more relevant to the lived experience of students and teachers, and accountability is reconceptualized so that places matter to educators, students, and citizens in tangible ways. Place-conscious education, therefore, aims to work against the isolation of schooling’s discourses and practices from the living world outside the increasingly placeless institution of schooling. As I consider ‘‘place’’ in education, I do so from the perspective of its connection with environmental education. Mitchell Thomashow (1996) viewed place as the learning laboratory of ecological literacy. To me, education about the environment is important and should be considered a foundational component of science for all. Other than personal health, what better skills to provide our young citizens with than an understanding of the science essential for making informed decisions about the well-being of their local environment, and therefore by proxy, of our shared environment? Unfortunately, the major sources of environmental information for children and young adults are television and school (Rickinson 2001), and there is little evidence to suggest that much of this is provided in a context that is regional and tied to the place-meaning of the students. My own work supports the value of the place, for providing that spark that makes the content about the environment come alive and persist. This became clear as I reviewed and coded interviews from fourth grade students that attended a four day program at a nature center. As an example, when asked what she recalled from her last trip to the nature center Matilda offered Well the [environmental center] it was a really good place especially if you wanted to really learn about like the environment, because when I stopped going there after our fourth field trip, I never really looked at the environment the same way again…Like I used to think it was there and its always going to be there, but like after I went to the [environmental center] I learned that there are things closer up than what appears. In response to the same prompt, Andrew replied One thing that sticks out the most is when we seen [sic] this – I think it is called a burrow spider on a tree limb….you could hardly see it cause it was camo…it looked like just a regular old spiders nest. Well there was [sic] holes – a hole in the top end…like we dropped something down it –like half way down it and the spider jumped up and grabbed it! These comments, which were offered 5 months after their last visit to the nature center, demonstrate the impact the experience had on these students. I would argue that the context learning occurred within were powerful driving forces in these memories. Here ‘‘place’’ would of course encompass a location, the nature center, but it also captures the ‘‘sense of place’’ which allowed the students to connect these experiences with other lived experiences. Notice, that while both quotes evidenced some type of connection to prior knowledge, ‘‘place’’ was not necessarily the same for both students. While we know that information alone about environmental issues is often not sufficient to engender environmentally responsible behavior, there is promise that an individual’s 123 170 M. W. Dentzau connection to a setting—place attachment—can be influential (Vaske and Kobrin 2001). Harold Hungerford and Trudi Volk (1990) support such a position and conclude that students must go beyond knowledge and awareness to ‘‘develop the sense of ‘ownership’ and ‘empowerment’ so that they are fully invested in an environmental sense and prompted to become responsible, active citizens’’ (p. 17). The most direct way to accomplish this is to engage students in their local environments, both natural and man-made, invoking all three aspects of ‘‘place’’—location, locale and ‘‘sense of place’’. Ideally, this resource or ‘‘place’’ would be easily accessible to students in and out of school, so that repeated visits would work cumulatively to develop the sense of ‘‘place’’ attachment. In the context of Katie’s classroom, the manmade materials that have their genesis in rocks and minerals of earth science were identified as a clear and relevant pathway to connect the mandated curriculum to the students’ everyday lives. Connections and relevance could also be found in lakes, wetlands, sink holes and the groundwater that supplies their drinking water, which are a part of their everyday lives, but perhaps not expressed as openly through their immediate locales. When considering the role of ‘‘place’’ or place-based education in a setting, one needs to not only understand the nuances of term meaning, but also that ‘‘place’’ is highly situational, cultural and personal for the individual. It is just those features that mainstream education tends to gloss over that make connections to ‘‘place’’ a potentially powerful mechanism for engaging students, particularly those that seem to be underserved by the current educational framework. I agree with Gruenewald’s (2003a, p. 645) statement that Places are fundamentally pedagogical because they are contexts for human perception and for participation with the phenomenal, ecological, and cultural world. What we know is, in large part, shaped by the kinds of places we experience and the quality of attention we give them. If we fail to connect students to a ‘‘sense of place’’, we do them a great injustice. ‘‘Place’’ is such a strong component of our human identity; one that developed evolutionarily over time (Wislon 1984), and is part of our fabric. Learning in general and science learning in particular, should seek to reengage our youth with a ‘‘sense of place’’. This may or may not improve our standardized test scores, but it ‘‘should equip them also to participate thoughtfully with fellow citizens in building and protecting a society that is open, decent, and vital’’ (Project 2061, AAAS 1989, Introduction, 2). References Aikenhead, G., Calabrese Barton, A., & Chinn, P. W. U. (2006). Forum: Toward a politics of place-based science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 403–416. Cheng, A. S., Kruger, L. E., & Daniels, S. E. (2003). ‘‘Place’’ as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: Propositions for a social science research agenda. Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal, 16(2), 87–104. Endreny, A. H. (2010). Urban 5th graders conceptions during a place-based inquiry unit on watersheds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 501–517. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Gruenewald, D. A. (2003a). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32, 3–12. Gruenewald, D. A. (2003b). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 619–654. 123 The value of place 171 Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of environmental education, 21(3), 8–22. National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Nespor, J. (2008). Education and place: A review essay. Educational Theory, 48(4), 475–489. Project 2061 (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1989). Science for all Americans Online. Retrieved from: http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/intro.htm. Resor, C. W. (2010). Place-based education: What is its place in the social studies classroom? The Social Studies, 101, 185–188. Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of the evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7(3), 207–320 Smith, G. A. (2002). Place-based education: Learning to be where we are. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 584–594. Thomashow, M. (1996). Ecological identity: Becoming a reflective environmentalist. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vaske, J. J., & Kobrin, K. C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 16–21. Wislon, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Author Biography Michael W. Dentzau recently completed his Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction at Florida State University. He is an Assistant Professor of Science Education at Columbus State University and the Executive Director of the Oxbow Meadows Environmental Learning Center. His current research focus is on the impact of out-of-school environmental education programs on elementary aged students. This interest builds upon over 25 years as an environmental scientist. 123 View publication stats