In search of a rationale for multicultural science education

z zyxwvut zyxwv zyxwvut In Search of a Rationale for Multicultural Science Education DEREK HODSON The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada INTRODUCTION zyxw Science curriculum developments during the 1960s and 1970s brought about a major shift of emphasis from an almost exclusive concern with the acquisition of scientific knowledge toward ensuring familiarity with the structure of scientific theories and the processes of scientific inquiry. During the 1980s and early 1990s, science educators have created a climate of opinion for another shift of emphasis, in which the following are seen as increasingly important: 0 0 0 0 addressing “real-life’’ situations relating science to wider societal and technological issues developing scientific literacy in the context of active and responsible citizenship promoting science as a cultural phenomenon ensuring that science is more person oriented starting from and building on children’s existing knowledge and experience using problem-solving activities to develop creativity and promote decisionmaking and social skills enhancing each student’s self-image and self-worth. These changes in emphasis, which could be summed up as (1) making science education more society oriented and (2) making science education more learner centered, have particular relevance to the issue of multicultural science education. For example, emphasis on the value of science education in promoting responsible and active citizenship raises questions of interests and values, both within and between societies, majority vs. minority interests, aspirations and expectations of different cultural and ethnic groups, matters of international concern, third-world issues, and so on. Addressing real-life situations demands that we consider a range of perspectives. After all, real life varies enormously between different countries, between different areas of the same country, and, of significance in the context of this discussion, between different social, cultural, and ethnic groups. Taking account zyxwvu zyxwvutsrq Science Education 77(6): 685-71 1 (1993) 0 1993 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-83261931060685-27 zyxwvuts zyxwvut zyxw 686 HODSON of science as a cultural phenomenon means paying attention to all societal influences on decision making in science-not just western perceptions of science and not just western economic and social considerations. Atlhough there are a number of science curricula that have taken up some of these challenges, and attempted to provide a more philosophically and sociologically valid view of science, many still portray science as located within, and exclusively derived from, a western cultural context. The implicit curriculum message is that the only science is western science and the only worthwhile contributions have been by Westerners. Making science education more learner centered means taking account of all children. Recent research into children’s learning in science emphasizes the need to begin teaching with the knowledge and experiences of the learners and build from that base to assist the development of their understanding of the world. As yet, however, there has been little research focusing on the different perspectives and experiences of children from different cultural groups. Although some major differences in perceptions between Africans and Europeans-use of mythicomagical explanations, alternative concepts of time, and the view that nature is benevolent-have been well documented by Odhiambo (1972) and Jegede and Okebukola (1991), there is little documentation of the far more subtle differences that may exist among cultural and subcultural groups in the same society. Neither the Children’s Learning in Science Project (CLISP) in Britain nor the Learning in Science Project (LISP) in New Zealand considered ethnicity as a major variable in studying children’s understanding of scientific concepts. However, recent work in the Caribbean (George & Glasgow, 1988, 1989) has sought to establish the ways in which everyday explanations (what the authors call “street science”) interact with school science and impinge differentially on children from different cultural backgrounds, and a cross-cultural study by Thijs (1987) found that children’s intuitive ideas of force and movement were more resistant to displacement and modification in Zimbabwe and Lesotho than in The Netherlands. Both these studies suggest that cultural factors outside the school environment play an important role in the development of children’s scientific concepts. Thus, when teachers talk of science education assisting children to greater understanding of the world they need to be clear whether they mean their world (the immediate world of the child), our world (our particular society and environment as perceived by ourselves-both as scientists and nonscientists), or the world (in the sense that each child is encouraged and enabled to take account of multiple perspectives). It is my view that multiculturalism demands that cognizance is taken of all three interpretations. Concern with enhancing self-image and feelings of self-worth-a key strategy in creating a climate of success in schools-raises further multicultural issues. Even a cursory glance at data relating educational attainment with ethnicity reveals that it is often children of ethnic minorities (Maori in New Zealand, Aboriginal children in Australia, those of Afro-Caribbean descent in Britain, Native Americans, African Americans, and Inuit in the United States and Canada, for example) who fail to achieve these affective goals (Eggleston et al., 1986) and, as a consequence, underachieve in secondary school science and are underrepresented in science courses at the tertiary level. It seems that the science curriculum does little to raise the self-esteem of children from some ethnic minority groups and is seen by many zyxw zyxwvuts zy zyxw zyxwvu zyxw RATIONALE FOR MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 687 as irrelevant to their experiences, needs, interests, and aspirations. Among the several causal factors are the following: 0 0 0 Science curriculum content is often exclusively western in orientation. Many curriculum materials are covertly racist, just as many are still covertly sexist. Teaching and learning methods are sometimes inappropriate to the cultural traditions of minorities. The image of the scientist as the controller, manipulator, and exploiter of the environment is in conflict with the cultural values of some children. It is the purpose of this article to explore some of the ways in which these deficiencies can be rectified to help all children acquire scientific knowledge, interests, skills, and ways of thinking without doing violence to their particular cultural beliefs and experiences. The article attempts to identify guidelines for curriculum development that are appropriate for undertaking this task in industrialized, English-speaking countries. In doing so, it necessarily addresses the question of what constitutes “scientific knowledge”-in particular, whether it is the learner’s understanding (their science), the knowledge accepted by and utilized by the (western) scientific community (what we might call our science), or the meanings established by other sociocultural groups and legitimated as “sciences.” With some minor modifications, the recommendations might be appropriate for non-English-speaking, industrialized societies. However, they should not be considered to apply to science education in developing countries. PERSPECTIVES ON MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION For some, multicultural education is concerned with coping with the learning problems created by cultural diversity within the classroom and dealing with the educational challenges posed by children from ethnic, cultural, or religious minorities. In meeting these challenges, the aim is to assist those seen as “educationally disadvantaged’’ to conform and accommodate to the dominant culture. Thus, the main concerns of this assimilationist approach are the perpetuation, transmission, and promotion of the cultural beliefs and norms of the dominant community. This was an early tradition in American education, where the principal aim was to “Americanize the people” (Cubberley, 1919), and was widely regarded as official policy in the United Kingdom during the 1950s and 1960s (Home Office, 1964). During the 1960s, the assimilationist view was, to an extent, superseded by an integrationist approach that aimed for equal opportunity within a culturally diverse and mutually tolerant society (Mullard, 1982). It was envisaged that mainstream society would become enriched by the admixture of attitudes, beliefs, customs, languages, and cultural achievements of ethnic and religious minorities. Differences would be accepted, tolerated, and absorbed, to create what Aspin (1987) has called a cultural mosaic, in which “the heterogeneity of the individual parts make up an identifiable cultural homogeneity.” In New Zealand, integrationism had been prominent in curriculum debate from the mid-1950s (Bray & Hill, 1973), and it zyxwvuts zyxwvuts zyx 688 HODSON became firmly established as government policy with the publication of the Hunn Report in 1960. Elsewhere, this perspective arrived a little later. For many white liberals, integrationism represented an (unattainable?) ideal. However, for many radicals and activists in the emerging ethnic cultural awareness and revitalization movements it represented a rhetorical smokescreen that masks an underlying assimilationist goal. What they demanded was a shift toward ethnic and cultural pluralism, which accepts and actively promotes diversity. The intentions are that members of the dominant community learn to appreciate, understand, and value the different conventions and cultural norms of other and smaller groups of citizens, and that members of racial and ethnic minority communities reinforce and perpetuate their own cultural identities, thereby developing more positive selfimages. Cultural pluralism is now the dominant interpretation of multiculturalism in Europe, North America, and Australasia, although it has to be admitted that the notion is still subject to a wide variety of interpretations (Aspin, 1987; Shaw, 1988). Often, the only thing on which writers agree is that multiculturalism is not well understood or well articulated! In recent years, some have argued that celebration of diversity is no more than patronizing tokenism unless it is accompanied by a vigorous antiracist approach, a view that was endorsed by the Swann Report in the United Kingdom [Department of Education and Science (DES), 19851. Antiracism is concerned to reveal and combat racist attitudes and practices that disadvantage and discriminate against some minority groups and result in an unequal distribution of opportunity, wealth, and power. As the Institute of Race Relations (1982) has pointed out, “Just to learn about other people’s cultures is not to learn about the racism in one’s own.” Indeed, Troyna (1987) has argued that the kind of multiculturalism practised in many British schools-to which he gives the pejorative label “The Three Ss Approach” (saris, samosas, and steel bands) because of its emphasis on the presentation of superficial curiosities of custom and dress and the more exotic aspects of minority group life-style-can even reinforce racism. What antiracist education advocates is a critical stance toward the way our society is organized, the values on which it is based, and the ways in which power is exercised and restricted. However, teachers anxious to promote an antiracist approach should proceed cautiously; it seems that too overt an approach can sometimes prove counterproductive (Chambers & Pettman, 1986; Stenhouse & Verma, 1981). zy TOWARD AN APPROACH FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION Clearly, “multicultural science education” can mean many things to many people. Relative emphases will need to vary from country to country, region to region, and even from school to school and class to class. The priorities in schools with high ethnic minority populations will be significantly different from those in schools in which the student population is drawn largely from the dominant culture. Indeed, the demand for a straightforward, unified, and unambiguous perception of multicultural education could be said to run counter to the notions of pluralism and antiracism. Consequently, there is a real danger in adopting any view of multiculturalism that is too prescriptive or too narrowly and rigidly defined. For example, if multiculturalism is seen solely in terms of increasing levels of involvement and zyxwv zy zyx zyx RATIONALE FOR MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 689 levels of attainment of ethnic minorities we might choose to have separate courses designed specificallyfor particular ethnic groups, a move that many would consider divisive and counter to the claim that multiculturalism is about the elimination of racism. If we take the view that multiculturalism is no more than using examples of science in and from other cultures, we might consider it sufficient to provide curriculum units on such matters as housing or diet in the third world. In that case, we risk charges of tokenism and irrelevance to contemporary needs, and even of reinforcing stereotypes of primitive peoples in faraway places engaged in quaint and puzzling activities. If we adopt the view that multiculturalism is just about overcoming linguistic differences, establishing culturally appropriate behaviors, and accommodating to differences in classroom expectations, then we fail to alert students to the wider sociopolitical and economic considerations that impinge on the activities of scientists and technologists-for example, the distribution and use of economic power, militarization and exploitation, issues of justice, equality, and freedom, concern for environmental protection, and matters relating to health care, population control, and animal and human experimentation. Sufficient breadth of perspective can only be achieved by regarding multicultural science education as comprising three basic elements: education of diverse cultural groups, through a wide range of culturally impregnated experiences, for life in a multiracial and multiethnic society at both local and global levels. The ultimate goals are the promotion of social cohesion through critical awareness and the establishment and maintenance of a socially just society through the acceptance and celebration of diversity, the enhancement of the self-esteem of all, and the elimination of racism. Troyna (1987) has stated that approaches to promoting cultural diversity are incompatible with antiracist education because of fundamental differences in the way in which racism is regarded. In the cultural diversity approach, he argues, racism is understood primarily as the product of ignorance. Learning about other cultures is intended to educate children “out of their prejudices’’ (Lynch, 1986). In the antiracist approach, racism is seen to derive from and be sustained by social and political structures. Antiracist education is built on the premise that it is necessary to recognize, confront, challenge, and oppose racist beliefs and practices directly. I believe that the two approaches are reconcilable if emphasis is on meeting individual needs within a culturally diverse social environment and due attention is given to raising awareness of issues of equality, justice, and power. The remainder of this article is directed toward establishing a framework of guidelines to assist the planning of a science curriculum capable of achieving this synthesis. Although there is considerable overlap and interaction among the proposals, there does appear to be a convenient division into three basic categories: “science education in a multicultural setting,” “antiracist science education,” and “multicultural perspectives for science education” (or “taking a global view”) (Fig. 1). Embedded within this framework are three different perceptions of science: first, science as perceived by the students-their understanding of scientific concepts, their explanations for phenomena and events, their knowledge of scientific procedures; second, science as perceived by the community of scientists and expressed in the science curriculum as particular conceptual and procedural knowledge (our science); third, alternatives to the traditional view of the nature of science zyxwvuts zyxwvut zyxwvutsrqp 690 HODSON I. Science Education in a Multicultural Setting 1. We should adapt our use of both written and spoken language to avoid disadvantage to those with language difficulties, especially those for whom English is a second language. We should also pay attention to the 'language of science education' and provide more opportunities for students to use language to explore and develop understanding. 2. We should employ content that recognizes and utilizes the culturally-determined knowledge, beliefs and experiences of students. In setting science within a 'human context', we must ensure that the examples we use are relevant to all cultural groups. 3. We should adopt learning experiences that are culturally more appropriate to those we teach and take account of differences in religious beliefs, customs and styles of human interaction. 11. Anti-racist Science Education 1. We should review textbooks, worksheets and other curriculum materials for the purpose of identifying and replacing all offensive and racially stereotyped content. 2. We should establish more democratic school organizational procedures, more interactive and learner-driven teachinghearning methods, and more student control of curriculum content and assessment methods. 3. We should draw attention to ways in which science and scientific ways of presenting information are sometimes misused to underpin racist attitudes and to legitimate discrimination against minorities. 111. Multicultural Perspectives for Science Educ a tion ('Taking a Global View') 1.We should design curriculum materials that use exemplars from a variety of cultures and countries, so providing a 'global view' of science and technology. 2. We should ensure that the contributions of non-Western and pre-Renaissance scientists to our Western cultural heritage are recognized. 3.We should emphasize the culturally-specific nature of scientific and technological practice 4. We should challenge the conventional views that science has a well-defined, infallible and all-powerful method and that scientists are disinterested and value-free in their approach. 5. We should acknowledge that some scientific change and technological development enriches the lives of some, while impoverishing the lives of others. We should recognize that issues ofjustice, equality and freedom are inseparable from the proper discussion of scientific and technological practice. zyx Figure 1. Some guidelines for the development of multicultural science education. and scientific inquiry that reflect different philosophical and sociological perspectives on the purposes and procedures of scientific practice. In a sense, these three views of science reflect the three priorities for multicultural science education identified earlier: assisting children toward a better understanding of their world, our world, and the world. SCIENCE EDUCATION IN A MULTICULTURAL SETTING Issues of Language Language is a cultural artifact. The ways in which we use it for remembering, reasoning, evaluating, communicating, and so on are socioculturally determined zyxwv zy RATIONALE FOR MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 691 and have to be learned. In the context of multicultural science education, there are several aspects to the “language problem”: diversity of mother tongue, the language of science (specialized terminology, use of everyday words in specific, restricted contexts, and style of written communication), the stylized language of classroom interaction in general, and the use of language-based activities to bring about learning. Clearly, members of ethnic minorities whose first language is not English form a group requiring special attention. Inevitably, reading and writing in English will constitute a major barrier to learning for these students. Alternatives to writing tasks include talking and making tape recordings, drawing and painting, making models and setting up displays, taking photographs, and making videos. Similarly, there are several ways of circumventing the immediate problems presented by reading tasks (Reid & Hodson, 1987). Collaborative learning provides opportunities for language development to be supported by peers, especially if there is the possibility of discussion within groups being in the mother tongue as well as in English. Jones and George (1981) provide teachers with guidance on some of the specific linguistic difficulties likely to be encountered by native speakers of certain Asian languages and Caribbean dialects. There is a need for more works of this kind. For many, it is not standard English that constitutes the problem. Rather, it is the terminology of science and, more particularly, the specialized usage that science makes of familiar words (energy, force, work, etc.), together with the formalized language that teachers impose on verbal and written transactions in the classroom and laboratory-what Barnes (1971, 1976) calls “the language of secondary education.” Acquisition of the language of science is, of course, a worthwhile curriculum goal. However, it is a long-term goal. Too early an insistence on precise terminology and formal writing style can be frustrating for those with limited linguistic skills. It can lead to withdrawal or even alienation from science. Johnstone and Wham (1982) and Bulman (1985) advise teachers, in general terms, on ways of simplifying linguistic exchanges in class and of reducing what they refer to as “linguistic noise”; Tunnicliffe (1986) and Hoyle (1987) orient their broadly similar suggestions toward the particular problems of ethnic minorities. In recent years, the attention of teachers has been drawn to the role of language in concept development. As Sapir (1966) points out, “It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving problems of communication.” Rather, it is that language is the means of rationally reconstructing reality; it is the mediator in the continuous matching and reorganization that takes place as we juxtapose “things as we perceive them” and “things as the community knows them.” Thus, poor linguistic skills can inhibit learning. For example, Orr (1987) has shown that the scientific understanding of many African Americans is adversely affected by the “linguistic interference” generated by their nonstandard usage of English. If it is correct that talking, reading, writing, and listening all play a part in the development of scientific understanding, then it is important that science teachers make much greater use of language-based learning activities and, from the multicultural perspective, it is crucial that such activities take account of cultural and subcultural variations in language use. zy zyxwvuts zyx 692 HODSON Drawing on the Knowledge, Beliefs, and Experiences of Children Research findings arising from LISP and CLISP reinforce Ausubel’s (1968) dic- tum that “the most important single factor influencing children’s learning is what the learner already knows.” Thus, learning activities should be designed to assist children to explore, challenge, and develop their own views, rather than merely to promote or confirm the teacher’s views (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Driver & Bell, 1986). Whatever attempts are made to heed this advice-and they are often deplorably few (!)-tend to assume a common starting point, located within a mainstream, middle-class European or North American cultural framework. Science teachers invariably ignore whatever cultural variations in children’s background knowledge and experiences may be present in the class and fail to capitalize on the splendid teaching opportunities they afford. For example, lessons on nutrition are often developed around standard North American or European patterns of diet. Such lessons are unsatisfactory on three counts: They ignore the background knowledge and experiences of significant numbers of children; they give undue emphasis to a particular set of customs and, thereby, may encourage children to regard dietary patterns that differ from them as inferior; and they waste a valuable resource that could be made available to all children. Lessons that utilize children’s existing knowledge and experience of other foods meet the Ausubelian dictum and also contribute to combating racism by challenging cultural conventions, preferences, prejudices, and taboos. In addition, they can help to promote a “global view” through a discussion of the inequalities in food production and distribution (see below). Culturally determined differences in knowledge of plants and animals, dress, health practices, energy resources, tools and utensils, and so on provide opportunities for matching the learning situation to the needs and experiences of individuals and for recognizing students themselves as learning resources. Potentially more important than teachers’ knowledge about other cultural practices is their willingness to utilize children’s knowledge and experiences for the benefit of the other children. Such practices could be expected to have value in raising self-esteem and in combating racism because all racial, cultural, and religious groups are seen to possess important knowledge and to have had significant experiences. Just as importantly, teachers are cast in the role of learner. The reversal of the usual roles of teacher and learner has considerable impact on both, and helps focus attention on relationships of power and authority (see below). zyxwvut Teaching and Learning Styles In recent years, teachers have been encouraged to adopt a style of teaching that not only puts value on children’s own ideas (see above) but also gives a significant measure of responsibility to the learner and uses student-controlled discussion methods as a way of developing ideas. It should be recognized that children from certain cultural groups may find it more difficult than others to meet the new expectations that teachers have of them. In addition, some parents may fail to support, or may actively oppose, the introduction of learning styles that encourage RATIONALE FOR MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 693 children to adopt a critical and questioning stance. Durojaiye (1980) comments on this problem from an African perspective: zy Whilst the school encourages talking, the exchange of ideas, questioning and curiosity, the home may put a premium on being seen but not heard as a hall-mark of good behavior. The child’s school experience often belongs to an entirely different world from his [sic] home experience. Girls brought up within an Islamic tradition may experience difficulty in challenging the authority (as they see it) of an adult, male teacher-a problem in many Canadian and British schools. Similar problems may exist for Polynesian immigrants into New Zealand: Many have learned from their parents that the teacher, like the priest or pastor, holds valuable knowledge and as such is to be respected, not questioned by mere students. Indeed, to ask a question can be a sign of lack of attention and disrespect. (Jones, 1985) The teacher represents the adult and “know-all” passing on knowledge to the students, while the students remain passive and very much dependent on the teacher. . . To teach the children to be critical thinkers and to ask cluestions in an inquiry approach is certainly opposing the conforming aspects of the culture. (Moli, 1991) zyxwvuts zyxw In addition, there may be conflict between the traditional Polynesian emphasis on cooperation and the attitudes and aspirations required for sudcess in an education system based on the Euro-American values of competition and individualism. While these kinds of distinctions seem to verge on stereotyping and may, therefore, be considered potentially racist in themselves, there does seem to be some validity in the claim that there are culturally determined preferences in learning style. In New Zealand, for example, radical Maori educators have used this notion to articulate a set of guidelines for a preferred Maori pedagogy based on a whanau (family) structure (Jones et al., 1990; McKinley et al., 1992; Rata, 1990). The wide age range present within each classroom enables teachers to employ a form of peer tutoring based on the traditional tuakana-taina (elder-younger relatives) relationship. Cooperative learning is expected and recognition of group efforts and achievements replaces the Western principle of rewarding individual accomplishment. The strong oral tradition of Maori culture is reflected in the extensive use of storytelling and song. Clearly, there is scope for other ethnically appropriate teaching and learning intiatives to be trialed elsewhere in the world. Within the classroom, there can be all kinds of “negative messages” conveyed to particular ethnic groups by teachers’ remarks and actions. Certain styles of teacher-student interaction may be culturally inappropriate or even unconsciously and inadvertently racist. In this respect, teachers need to pay attention to language (especially forms of address, tone, and inflexion), gesture and body language, eye contact, question type and distribution, allocation of tasks, and responses to children’s work and contributions in class. For example, how closely a teacher approaches a child, who sits and who stands, whose head is higher, and whether eye contact is maintained are all of significance in Polynesian society. zyxw zyxwvuts zyxwvuts 694 HODSON Even the emphasis on laboratory work, now such a prominent feature of contemporary science education in many countries, can cause problems for some learners. Siraj-Blatchford (1987) has argued, for example, that the use of discovery learning methods may cause students who do not discover the “correct” result to account for their “failure” in terms of their ethnicity, gender, or social class. In addition, the use of complex and expensive equipment may implicitly promote the view that science is the preserve of the rich, industrialized nations (but see below). ANTIRACIST SCIENCE EDUCATION Reviewing Curriculum Materials Existing curriculum materials should be reviewed regularly and all out-of-date, inaccurate, racially stereotyped, and ethnically insensitive content removed. It should be replaced by material that features people from more than one racial group engaging in tasks of equal esteem and shows modern science and technology being utilized in all parts of the world (see the next section). Among others, Smail et al. (1985) and Secondary Science Curriculum Review (SSCR) (1987) provide useful “antiracism checklists” for teachers engaged in evaluation and development activities, although little is to be gained by reproducing those lists here. Setting children the task of conducting a “racism check” on books and other written materials is a way of bringing some of the issues of racist language, stereotyping, “invisibility” of ethnic minorities, and lifestyle bias into the open. It helps students develop valuable skills for evaluating critically what they read in newspapers and see on television and in the movies. School biology is an area of the curriculum that is particularly fraught with potential for cultural insensitivity. For example, reference to experiments on human embryos may be deeply offensive to those from Islamic cultures; the use of eyes, hearts, and lungs in laboratory exercises, now common practice in many schools, may be offensive to Jewish and Muslim children if they are from a pig and to Hindu children if they are from a cow; storing human skulls and skeletons and preserving the bodies of dead animals in the laboratory may be offensive to Maori. Certain fundamentalist Christian groups share with Islam an opposition to the teaching of evolution. Parental attitudes toward sex education may cause problems in any school, but in a multicultural setting the problems may be insoluble short of “ethnic streaming.” Sex education highlights another major problem for multicultural education: the apparent incompatibility of contemporary feminist perspectives with the traditional views of certain ethnic and cultural groups. Even to debate the position of women may be a contravention of strict Islamic principles-a dilemma that is discussed at length by Ramazanoglu (1986), Walkling and Brannigan (1986, 1987), and Troyna and Carrington (1987). There may be several other aspects of science education in which there is potential conflict between regard for diversity and the need to forge a socially cohesive set of educational goals, a problem highlighted by Craft (1986): Educationalists have to decide at what point the acculturation necessary for full participation in society becomes a repressive assimilation; and at what point the celebration of diversity ceases to enrich and becomes potentially divisive. zy zy zyxw zyxwv RATIONALE FOR MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 695 Establishing More Democratic Procedures Antiracism involves exposing and challenging the practices and values that support racial inequality, injustice, and the unequal distribution of power. However, it makes little sense to focus attention with respect to these matters on curriculum materials (see the subsection above) while ignoring the powerful influence of classroom procedures and school organization. As Jackson (1968) observed nearly a quarter century ago, schools are institutions in which “the division between the weak and the powerful is clearly drawn.” It is this division that should constitute a focus of attention. Within the typical authoritarian and hierarchical school system, it is inevitable that children will learn that power and status are the most significant features of human relationships. Curriculum decisions and matters of school organization are in the hands of teachers; students are rarely, if ever, consulted. Although it is naive to assume that all children learn best by the same methods, many teachers seem to act as though they believe it. More significantly, they use their power to enforce learning styles that may not be appropriate for some students. Often, there is an almost unrelieved diet of instruction-based teaching and worksheet-driven practical work. Not only is this practice pedagogically unsound, it reinforces those implicit messages about power and authority. Moreover, because senior positions in most schools are held by white males there is an additional powerful message relating status and power to ethnicity and gender. A more democratic school system and more democratic classroom organization could project a different set of messages: mutual tolerance, respect and value for all, and the importance of conflict resolution through negotiation and compromise. Needless to say, a more equitable distribution of senior posts would project a significantly different message about ethnicity, gender, status, and power. Recommendations on appointments and on alternative styles of school government (such as the collegial system operated within the Rudolph Steiner schools, for example) fall outside the scope of this article, but recommendations for alternative teaching and learning methods and alternative forms of curriculum organization do not. Above all, there needs to be a much greater emphasis on mutual responsibility (between teacher and student) and negotiation. Recognition of the existence of preferred learning styles (see above) leads to the notion of extending choice of learning method to the learner. The introduction of a modular approach to course organization opens up the possibility of extending choice of content to the learner. Much more radical would be a suggestion for student choice of assessment method. However, the increasing number of research studies revealing an ethnic or gender bias in many assessment procedures (Crooks, 1988) provides a powerful case for it. Replacing contrived and restricted “tests” by a negotiated collection of authentic learning tasks (a portfolio) would enable students to use knowledge to explore and develop their personal understanding. This kind of assessment is educative in the sense that it enhances and promotes learning by engaging students in activities that are interesting, challenging, and significant learning experiences in themselves. Thus, assessment becomes an integral part of teaching and learning, not just something additional to it. A portfolio might include, for example, a “letter to Grandma,” a personalized concept map, zyxwvu zyxwvuts zyxwvuts 696 HODSON a poem, a drawing, a collection of newspaper clippings, and an essay. Each portfolio would be personal and idiosyncratic. The use of portfolios is a logical extension of a classroom culture that bases practice on a constructivist psychology of learning (Collins, 1992; Freundlich et al., 1992). When used appropriately, portfolios also play a particularly significant role in the democritization and personalization of the classroom. In combination, these various suggestions for ceding a measure of control and decision making to the learner constitute an argument for learning contracts. A learning contract is “a collection of activities designed so that each pupil can select, in consultation with the teacher, activities that collectively form a programme of work suited to his or her background, interests and aptitudes” (Terry, 1977). It is a notion that seems to fit perfectly into the underlying philosophy of antiracist education. zyxw Countering Scientific Racism As Siraj-Blatchford (1990) says, “Most popular cultural chauvinistic and racist beliefs are ultimately justified by reference to scientific or ‘pseudo-scientific’ ideas .” Because of the status afforded to science and scientists in Western society, there is a tendency for scientific ideas and scientific research-indeed, almost any statement that is presented in a “scientific way” (i.e., presented as our science, in the terms previously employed)-to be accepted as true. As a consequence, science can be misused by groups of people to promote their own interests. The term “scientific racism” refers to the misuse of scientific language and findings in support of contentions that particular human groups are innately superior to others. Such misuse can be unconscious racial stereotyping at a personal level (e.g., “All blacks have natural rhythm”), or it can be deliberate and sinister misuse by organizations such as the National Front, the Ku Klux Klan, and other neo-Nazi and racist groups to justify racist attitudes and legitimate discrimination and injustice. There is also the collective (and sometimes socially “invisible”) scientific racism that formerly underpinned colonialization and now serves to legitimate “economic and cultural imperialism.” It is a matter of some urgency that the school science curriculum address these matters. The case is well put by the SSCR (1985): zyxw Science or “pseudo science” has been used to justify racism and the oppression of minority groups at home and of conquered poeples abroad. Pupils should be aware of this misuse of science and at the same time be able to understand the basic sameness of the human race and the different ways in which groups have adapted to their environment. A critical approach to science (see the next section) can be used to confront and eliminate racism. It can be used to reduce the ignorance, suspicion, fear, and hostility that leads to stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, and scapegoating by encouraging students to examine taken-for-granted assumptions and distinguish between beliefs based on critical appraisal of evidence and those based on irrational prejudice and between those that reflect perfectly natural cultural preferences and zy zy zy zyxwv zy RATIONALE FOR MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 697 those that are rooted in an unwillingness to consider or acknowledge alternative perspectives. A suitable program for secondary school science might include the following: 0 0 0 study of the concept of “race” consideration of the ways in which the notion of race has been misused by certain groups to perpetuate stereotyping and institutionalize injustice discussion of other examples of the misuse of science for sociopolitical motives. In classrooms with a wide racial mix, it should be fairly easy for sensitive teachers to gather data to show that there is more variation within a group (among members of the same race) than there is between or among the means of different racial groups. Indeed, many biologists have ceased to use race as a taxonomical category. Subspecies of humans (races) are different from other taxonomic categories because members can interbreed freely. This means that differences between subspecies are not fixed. They vary over time, and may eventually disappear altogether in some societies. The inevitable conclusion from this line of argument is that race is more a social convention than a meaningful biological distinction. As Stone (1985) remarks, “the same individuals of mixed ancestry may be considered ‘white’ in Brazil (provided that they are reasonably wealthy), ‘coloured’ in Barbados, and ‘black’ in Birmingham, Alabama.” Discussion of differences in the ways in which different societies classify people, and the reasons why they do so, establishes a suitable base for stage two: the consideration of scientific racism. Suitable examples for presentation to students are the 19th-century misuse of the Darwinian principle of natural selection to argue that white Europeans are superior to Africans in evolutionary terms (and so justify colonialization) (Fryer, 1984; Gould, 1981), misinformation about sickle cell anemia to exclude African Americans from active flying duties in the U.S. Air Force and prevent them achieving flight status with some commercial airlines (SSCR, 1985, 1987), and the continuing misrepresentation of research by psychologists such as Eysenck and Jensen to claim the intellectual superiority of Caucasians. On this latter subject, Brush (1989) provides powerful food for thought in his description of the background to the Stanford-Binet IQ test, still widely used as an objective measure of intellectual capacity, and the basis of the Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SATs): When Lewis Terman tried out the first version of his intelligence test on white California schoolchildren, he found that the average score for girls was a little higher than for boys of the same age. The result was inconsistent with his preconception that males are at least as smart as females. So he balanced the test items on which boys tended to do better against those on which girls do better, in such a way that the average score would be 100 for each sex. . . But when Terman and other psychologists administered the test to blacks and found that they scored several points below whites on the average, they did not make a similar revision to equalize the average scores; they were content with the “discovery” that whites are smarter than blacks. (Brush, 1989) Because SAT scores are used to control admission to selective colleges in the United States (and hence to positions of power and privilege in American society), zyxwvuts zyxwvut 698 HODSON bad science is seen to play a key role in sustaining the institutional racism of contemporary American society. The history of sickle cell anemia research provides another striking example of racially driven priorities. For decades, the disease (which primarily affects those of African descent) was ignored by American scientists. When it did gain a measure of attention, funding was directed toward the “elitist aspects of the biochemistry of the sickling process” rather than toward screening and counseling programs (Michaelson, 1987). Case studies such as these may then be used to introduce a discussion of the wider political implications of misinformation and suppression of scientific knowledge (see also below). The goal of scientific literacy, and its relationship to responsible citizenship, demands that curriculum attention be directed to such matters. MULTICULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE EDUCATION (“TAKING A GLOBAL VIEW”) Drawing on Material from a Wide Range of Cultures and Countries Little needs to be said in elaboration of this point. Opportunities abound in biology (plants, animals, food, health practices, etc.), chemistry (metal extraction and recycling, paper making, salt extraction, water purification, etc.), and physics (reference to different styles of clothing and housing when teaching about heat transfer, discussion of the needs and resources of different societies when dealing with energy, use of diverse musical instruments in lessons on sound, etc.). An essential part of this approach is the consideration of real-life science and technology. Students need to recognize and confront the various problems of food production, sanitation and water supply, medical care, deforestation and erosion, housing, transportation, and so on that occur in different parts of the world. Critical appraisals of the nature of the problems, and consideration of the possibilities for effective solution, should be made in several contrasting areas-for example, the advanced industrialized countries, the Pacific islands, and the arid regions of Africa. Any treatment of third-world science and technology must be handled carefully because of the risk of reinforcing stereotypes (the “igloos and mudhuts” syndrome) and fostering the view that the technology of the affluent western countries is either inappropriate for the poor and underdeveloped third world, or can be utilized without modification and adaptation, despite the significantly different environmental and social conditions. Similarly, discussions of third-world problems of malnutrition, overpopulation, and poor health care must be set within the appropriate religious, cultural, economic, and political context (including western exploitation or indifference) if the often woefully inadequate attempts at solution are not to reinforce prejudiced views about the inferiority of other ethnic groups (see also below). In dealing with third-world problems and solutions, the key concept is appropriate technology. By studying some of the technology used in developing countries, and engaging in problem-solving exercises based on them, students will quickly come to appreciate that solving problems in poor rural areas involves considerable ingenuity (“low tech” does not mean intellectually inferior) and will recognize that zyx zyx zy zy RATIONALE FOR MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 699 solutions are often achieved with considerably less environmental damage than is usually the case in affluent western societies. Multicultural History and Contemporary Practice of Science The all too prevalent myth that science is exclusively European or North American (i.e., white ethnocentered) can be dispelled or avoided altogether by developing materials that show the contributions made by nonwestern scientists in the ancient and modern worlds. Studies in the history of medicine, astronomy, and technology-particularly rich in Islamic, Indian, and Chinese exemplars-help promote awareness that current scientific ideas are not derived solely from postRenaissance western societies (Selin, 1992). Even courses dealing with topics as up-to-date as the “high-tech” world of information technology can be enriched by sociohistoric studies focusing on the origin of number systems and the development of writing, paper making, and printing. Needham (1954, 1969) points out that the inventions he regards as the three most important of the millennium-paper making and printing, gunpowder, and the navigational compass-were each used in China several hundred years before their alleged “discovery” by Westerners. However, in many science texts Chinese science is dismissed as “folk knowledge” or as “mere technology,” creating the impression that it was little more than haphazard trial and error or a series of chance discoveries. Needham (1981) provides substantial evidence to the contrary: that it was theoretically driven (although its philosophical basis was radically different from that of western science) and involved observation and careful experimentation. It is not only Chinese science that has been devalued by authors of science textbooks. Islamic, Indian, and African scientific achievements have been similarly trivialized or falsely attributed to Westerners. When the Arab contribution to the growth of science is mentioned at all, it is portrayed as no more than that of custodian of ancient Greek texts. In reality, what was passed on to Europe was a sophisticated Islamic culture that united art, religion, and science within a distinctive world view (Ashrif, 1986; Nasr, 1968, 1976). However, many of the discoveries of Islamic scientists (including the pulmonary circulation of the blood and heliocentric theories of the solar system) are ignored or presented as solely European in origin. Indeed, Sardar (1989) suggests that the western world systematically plagiarized the work of Muslim scientists: zyxwvut Piracy was so common that as early as the twelfth century a decree was issued in Seville, forbidding the sale of scientific writings to Christians because the latter translated the writings and published them under another name. A similar fate befell much of Indian science (Kumar & Kenealy, 1992; Machwe, 1979). Even more serious in the context of antiracist science education (see the previous section) is the systematic denigration, distortion, and suppression of African cultural history-a key element, of course, in the racist ideology that formerly legitimated slavery and colonial exploitation and still serves to deny a sense of cultural zyxwvuts zyxwvut zyxwvut zyxwvu zyx 700 HODSON identity to those of African descent. Despite the spectacular achievements of the civilizations of Ethiopia, Benin, and Zimbabwe, the myth is still propagated that significant African history began with the imperialist invasions. Moreover, the great civilization of Egypt is portrayed as Semitic rather than African. By contrast, van Sertima’s (1983) book Blacks in Science: Ancient and Modern provides evidence of a steel-making technology in what is now Tanzania some 1500-2000 years ago and an agricultural civilization in the Nile valley several thousand years earlier than previously believed. He points to many other astronomical, mathematical, and medical discoveries by African scientists. In Black Athena, Bernal(1987) has shown the African roots of classical Greek civilization-a history long suppressed by western scholars. Nor is the debt that science and technology owes to people of diverse cultures only an historic one. The science curriculum should ensure that students recognize that contemporary scientific practice is not culturally restricted. Provided that care is taken to avoid the impression of tokenism, poster displays, films, and materials such as Biographies of Black Scientists (Watts, 1986) and Black Pioneers of Science and Invention (Haber, 1970) can be used to dispel the notion that contemporary scientists are exclusively white and male-a common misperception among young children (Ward, 1987). There are three major goals associated with such an approach: 0 0 0 Students gain some understanding of the historic development of important scientific principles and theories. Students recognize that there have been some major contributions to science and technology by non-Europeans. Students appreciate that past scientific explanations that may no longer be accepted were valid in their time (see the next subsection) and that early technologies are still valid in some cultural contexts (see above). (This latter point is central to the development of the idea of appropriate technology, a key notion in good environmental education.) zyxwvu Science as Culturally Determined Practice Increasingly, science curricula are recognizing that scientific and technological practice is a human endeavour that influences and is influenced by the sociocultural context in which it is located. As Young (1987) says: Science is not something in the sky, not a set of eternal truths waiting for discovery. Science is practice. There is no other science than the science that gets done. The science that exists is the record of the questions that it has occurred to scientists to ask, the proposals that get funded, the paths that get pursued. . . Nature “answers” only the questions that get asked and pursued long enough to lead to results that enter the public domain. Whether or not they get asked, how far they get pursued, are matters for a given society, its educational system, its patronage system and its funding bodies. Once it is acknowledged that science is a human activity, driven by the aspirations and values of the society that sustains it, it is legitimate to ask whether different societies might define and organize science differently because their aspirations zy zyxw zyxw RATIONALE FOR MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 701 and values are different. Clearly, different societies have different priorities for science and identify different technological problems, for which different “criteria of success” are applicable. As a consequence , different theories and knowledge bases are generated, by different investigative strategies and methods. It follows that different scientific theories and different technological solutions emerge. In other words, scientific and technological knowledge are, to a significant extent, culturally determined and reflect the social, religious, political, economic, and environmental circumstances in which science and technology are practiced. The ways in which social and cultural influences determine the kind of science developed can be highlighted by studying such scientific curiosities as phlogiston theory, transmutation of the elements, and theories of spontaneous generation and by consideration of contemporary “alternative” or pseudosciences. Why, for example, is acupuncture dismissed by western scientists despite its widespread and successful use in the east? The work of Wilhelm Reich, Immanuel Velikovsky, and Erich von Daniken might make an interesting study. So, too, the history of the notion of continental drift, now the basis of plate tectonics, but once dismissed as fanciful. Of course, a full appreciation of the impact of sociocultural factors on the development of scientific ideas cannot be gained by a simple chronological survey. To gain that insight, children need to understand the nature of the problems as they appeared at the time; they need to see the false starts and unproductive lines of speculation that were followed, on occasion; they need to appreciate the part played by individual creativity, personal ambition, and social pressures. In other words, historic studies must enable learners to immerse themselves in the cultural and intellectual milieu of the time (drama, literature, music, and art can play a key role here in establishing the appropriate context). Only then can a faithful picture of the nature of scientific theory building be established; only then can alternative theories and alternative technologies be seen to reflect cultural diversity, and different societal priorities and experiences, rather than western superiority. As Needham (1976) points out, the differences are essentially sociological and depend on “what you do science for, whether for the benefit of the people as a whole, or for the private profit of great industrial enterprises, or for the development of fiendish forms of modern warfare.” The differences also depend on “whom you get to do it, whether you confine it to highly trained professionals, or whether you can use a mass of people with only minimal training.” Within a general framework, applicable internationally, it should be possible to cater for local needs. In New Zealand, for example, it would be appropriate to augment general materials with a detailed study of Maori horticulture, herbal medicine, and flax treatment and with a discussion of how the ready availability of greenstone (New Zealand jade) made it unnecessary for Maori to develop a metal technology despite the abundance of iron sands in New Zealand. In a North American context, it would be appropriate to study the astronomy (Cornell, 1981) and agriculture (Weatherford, 1988) of Native Americans. The ways in which social and cultural influences can lead to distortion and misuse of science for political goals can be highlighted by studies of phrenology and its role in underpinning the unjust social system of 19th-century England (Hodson zyxwvuts zyxwvut 702 HODSON and Prophet, 1986) and the Soviet suppression of Mendelian genetics in favor of Lamarckism during the 1950s. In a similar vein, recent articles by Arnold (1990, 1992) reveal the extent to which some German archaeologists collaborated with the Nazi regime in promoting the claims that the Germanic culture of Northern Europe had been responsible for virtually every major achievement of western civilization and that the Greeks were really Germans who had migrated south during Neolithic times to avoid a natural catastrophe. Changing Conventional Views about the Nature of Science Thus far, it has been argued that science in school is presented in a culturally specific way that makes it unattractive, or even inaccessible, to many students who are members of ethnic minority groups. The problems may, however, run rather deeper than matters of presentation. They may concern the way we perceive science itself. Concern with multiculturalism and antiracism demands that we question the image of science presented in school: its purpose, its methods, the role and status of scientific knowledge and theory, the nature of evidence, the criteria of validity employed by its practitioners, and the ways in which scientific knowledge is recorded and reported-in fact, a critical scrutiny of everything that characterizes the western perception of science (our science as I called it earlier). The admission that scientific practice and scientific knowledge are culturally dependent (see above) calls into question traditional assumptions about the rationality and objectivity of science. Our so-called objective observation of phenomena and events is always, and necessarily, influenced by our existing knowledge and experience of the world. From this position, it is but a short step to an admission that scientific objectivity includes our values, aspirations, and feelings and to the consequent recognition that the objectivity and rationality of western science are, themselves, cultural artifacts. My view is that objectivity in science is both more dynamic and more diffuse than school science usually admits (Hodson, 1993). It is still common, however, for the school curriculum to present scientific discovery as the inevitable outcome of the correct application of a rigorous, objective, valuefree, and all-powerful scientific method. A philosophically more valid view is that scientific inquiry is an untidy, unpredictable, idiosyncratic activity that requires each scientist to choose a “method” appropriate to the particular situation, and that scientific knowledge is negotiated within the community of scientists by a complex interplay of theoretical argument, experiment, and personal opinion (Duschl, 1988, 1990; Hodson, 1988, 1993). The way in which the relationships among observation, experiment, and theory are usually presented in school, especially through the much-used discovery learning methods, has been severely criticized by a number of authors on both epistemological and psychological grounds, although space precludes presentation of the arguments and research findings here. Suffice it to say that opinion is strong that discovery learning is epistemologically mistaken, psychologically unsound, and pedagogically unworkable (Atkinson & Delamont, 1976; Driver, 1975; Selley, 1989; Stevens, 1978; Strike, 1975; Wellington, 1981). It is also to be deplored from the perspective of antiracism because it creates the illusion of certainty regarding evi- zyxwvut zy zy zyxw zyxw zy zyx RATIONALE FOR MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 703 dence that is, in reality, often tenuous, indirect, and ambiguous. As a consequence, students wonder why previous generations failed to recognize the “self-evident,” attributing it to a “failure” of their science. Taking account of other cultural perspectives regarding the nature of scientific rationality is a key element in multiculturalism. The image of the scientist most frequently projected by the curriculum is the western one of a self-assured, technologically powerful manipulator and controller (Smolicz & Nunan, 1975). By contrast, Islamic scientists stress the need for humility, respect for what is studied, and recognition of the limitations of science: Muslim scientists sought to understand, not to dominate the object of their study, their respect for which was almost reverential. Bacon’s dictum that “nature yields her secrets under torture” would have sent shudders down al-Biruni’s spine! Humility, recognition of the limitations of the scientific method, respect for the object of study: these primary lessons can be adopted at the very start of the journey to rediscover the heritage and contemporary meaning of Islamic science. And this, in essence, is also the message of Islamic science to the world (Sardar, 1989) Appropriate respect and recognition of spirituality (of forests, mountains, and the sea, for example) are important aspects of the Maori approach to phenomena and events in the natural world. Science education in New Zealand should provide all children with the opportunity to enter a volcanic crater, a cave, or a forest, or visit the seashore, under the guidance of someone able to present this alternative perspective. Such experiences are valuable to both Maori and non-Maori (Pakeha), for different reasons. For the Maori, the motive is cultural renaissance and enhanced self-esteem. For the Pakeha, it is concern for antiracism and the presentation of alternative cultural perspectives. Similarly, ways of “building bridges” between western science and the science of Alaskan Natives have been explored by Pomeroy (1992). Concern with maintaining a harmonious relationship between people and the natural world is also a key element in many African cultures. Western science (with its emphasis on controlling and manipulating nature) and western science education (with its emphasis on individuality and competition) come into direct conflict with the fundamental concern for “family” and “community” that are seen to govern all human and cosmic reality (Prophet, 1990). It is intriguing, in such circumstances, to enquire whether it is meaningful to recognize a distinctive “African science”a style of inquiry in which priorities, practices, and criteria of judgement are more in sympathy with traditional values and beliefs (Jegede, 1989). Christie (1991) asks similar questions with respect to the science practiced by the Aboriginal people of Australia. There is much to be gained from confronting students with such questions. It could be argued that the way in which students are required to write in science lessons and the style in which science is written in school textbooks are further examples of the western image of science. The conventional style helps create and sustain the aura that science is a body of true knowledge, founded on verifiable facts and established by rational, objective procedures. A multicultural approach to science education requires that teachers explore and encourage other ways of zyxwvuts zyxwvuts zyxw zyxwvut 704 HODSON writing as a way of challenging these perspectives. It requires that teachers draw a clear distinction between the “private language” of science, through which individual students explore and develop their ideas (their science), and the “public language” of science, through which it is conventionally reported (our science). This public language represents a particular (western) view of how science ought to be presented. It is culturally determined. It could be otherwise! Issues of Freedom, Equality, and Justice It is increasingly common for school curricula to recognize that the scientific and technological developments that bring benefits to some may also bring problems, disadvantages, and loss of amenities to others. Adopting a multicultural perspective means recognizing that many of those who suffer from scientific and technological change are the underprivileged members of society, a section of the community that includes a disproportionately large number from ethnic minority groups. Within a global context, it means recognizing that material benefits in the west are sometimes achieved at the expense of those living in the third world. What is sought is an awareness that science and technology serve the rich and powerful in ways that are often prejudicial to the interests and well-being of the poor and powerless, sometimes giving rise to further inequalities and injustices. Gill and Levidow (1987) put the case well when they state that economic exploitation is sustained not only by science but also, albeit indirectly, by science education. Suitable issues for inclusion in the curriculum are a consideration of world food production, the effect on third-world economies and living standards of western demand for cash crops, and the depletion of mineral resources and deforestation because of the west’s demand for materials. There may be teachers who feel able to extend these discussions to include issues such as the ethics of linking economic, agricultural, and medical aid from the industrialized countries with trade or military agreements and the ethics of “dumping” on third-world countries pharmaceuticals that have been superseded or banned in the west. The assumption that the importance of any material only begins at the point of use in the west is, at best, ethnocentric and inadvertently racist. In teaching about metal extraction, for example, it is no longer acceptable for teachers to treat the source of the metal as unproblematic. Students should consider the effects of such industries on the lives of people in mining areas. In dealing with land, water and mineral resources, and energy production, attention should not be restricted to technological matters but should focus on social, economic, political, and environmental issues. By addressing issues such as the infringement of Aboriginal land rights and the destruction of the Amazonian rain forest in pursuit of financial gain and economic growth, students can be made aware that crificaf consideration of scientific and technological development is inextricably linked with questions of the distribution of wealth and power, and that problems of environmental degradation are rooted in societal values. Education for empowerment (a central platform in all three aspects of multicultural science education considered here) requires that science education is much more overtly political in flavor, which entails recognizing that the environment is zy zy zyxw RATIONALE FOR MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 705 not just a “given” but a social construct. It is a social construct in two senses: (1) We act upon and change the natural environment, and so construct and reconstruct it through our social actions; and (2) we perceive it in a way that is dependent on the prevailing sociocultural framework. Thus, our concept of “environment” itself is a social construct, and so could be different. Indeed, many indigenous peoples do perceive it in significantly different ways (Knudtson & Suzuki, 1992). Recognition of these socioculturally determined perceptions serves to highlight the point (made earlier) that when teachers talk of assisting children to greater understanding of the world they need to be clear whether they mean their world (the immediate world of the child), our world (our particular western view of society, science, and the environment), or the world (in the sense that each child is given access to alternative perceptions). It remains my belief that multiculturalism demands that we take cognizance of all three meanings. By encouraging students to recognize the ways in which the environment is socially constructed, we can challenge the notion that environmental problems are “natural” and inevitable. If “environment” is a social construct, environmental problems are social problems, caused by societal practices and structures and justified by society’s current values. It follows that solving environmental problems means addressing and changing the social conditions that give rise to them and the values that sustain them. This realization shifts questions of enviromental improvement from the technical domain into the sociopolitical domain. The solution to environmental problems does not lie in a quick “technological fix” but in sociopolitical action [see Hodson (1992) for a fuller account]. Teachers of science have grown accustomed to projecting both a vision of continual progress and the expectation of constantly improving living standards consequent upon technological innovation. It will not be easy for them to temper this approach with a consideration of issues of freedom, equality, and justice that challenge the western preoccupation with economic growth. Needless to say, it will be necessary to generate suitable curriculum materials to assist teachers in making such adjustments. AFTERTHOUGHTS AND CONCLUSION zy The theoretical underpinnings to the recommendations in the section of the guidelines on science education in a multicultural setting are that learning in science should be personalized and that personalization involves knowledge, experiences, language, and behaviors that are socioculturally determined. In learning science, students are exploring their own understanding (their science) and developing it in response to experiences provided by, and challenges issued by, the teacher. Although it is part of the teacher’s role to ensure that students incorporate the particular meanings specified in the curriculum plan (our science) into their personal frameworks of understanding, we need to bear in mind that meanings held by different individuals are never identical. Personal frameworks of meaning are idiosyncratic and include a range of denotative and connotative elements, together with a complex of affective associations, that are profoundly influenced by the particular sociocultural context in which learning is located. Throughout the section 706 HODSON zyxwvuts zyxwvu of the guidelines on antiracist science education, the predominant perception of science is a western one (our science, in the terms previously employed). Recommendations on reviewing curriculum materials and countering scientific racism concern the ways in which western science (and its translation into science education practice) has been used, and continues to be used, to oppress and disempower minority groups. The previous section explores some of the ways in which an awareness of the influence of sociocultural factors on the history and development of western science (our science) can be used to question some traditional assumptions about its rationality and objectivity and introduce some intriguing questions about “alternative sciences” rooted in different ideological values and criteria of validity. It is inevitable that a curriculum that acknowledges and encourages a wide variety of cultural and religious perspectives on science and technology will lead to a discussion of certain moral and ethical issues, such as experiments on animals, research involving human embryos, use of mind-altering drugs (both “recreational” and medical), transplant surgery, genetic engineering, biological warfare, and so on. Inevitably, too, creationist doctrines will need to be addressed-an area where teachers need to tread carefully to avoid cultural and religious insensitivity (see above). Recognition that science and technology are culturally determined will focus attention on current priorities in scientific practice and the societal values that establish and maintain them. Perhaps it is too much to hope that contemporary western governments and multinational companies will reorder their priorities to take more generous account of third-world socioeconomic and environmental problems, but introducing such matters into the science curriculum of all students might constitute a tentative step toward future enlightenment and concern. By illuminating the ways in which science and technology are culturally determined, science education can play a crucial role in combating racism and developing the kind of critical scientific and political literacy that is essential to the redirection of the scientific and technological endeavor along more socially just and environmentally sustainable lines (Hodson, 1992; May, 1992). The direction of technological change is not inevitable and irresistible. We can control technology and its environmental and social impact or, more significantly, we can control the controllers and redirect technology in such a way that adverse environmental impact is reduced (the notion of appropriate technology) and issues of freedom, equality, and justice are kept in the forefront of discussion during the establishment of policy. We can reorient our science and technology away from the reckless pursuit of economic growth toward more humanitarian ends-the alleviation of human misery (poverty, hunger, poor health, political oppression, etc.)-and toward the solving of current environmental problems and the establishment of environmentally sustainable technological practices. The classroom is one of the places where we can begin the task of reorientation. zyxwvut zyxwvutsr zyxwvu REFERENCES Arnold, B. (1990) The past as propaganda: Totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Germany. Antiguity , 64,464-478. zyxwv zy zyxwvu zyxw RATIONALE FOR MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 707 Arnold, B. (1992). The past as propaganda. Archaeology, 45, 30-37. Aspin, D. N. (1987). Critical openness, building bridges and the paradox of multicultural education. Paper presented at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Ashrif, S . (1986). Eurocentrism and myopia in science teaching. Multicultural Teaching, 5, 28-30. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educationalpsychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Atkinson, P., & Delamont, S. (1976). Mock-ups and cock-ups: The stage management of guided discovery instruction. In M. Hammersley & P. Woods (Eds.), The process of schooling: A sociological reader. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Barnes, D. (1971). Language, the learner and the school. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Bernal, M. (1987). Black Athena-The Afroasiatic roots of classical civilization. London, UK, Free Association Books. Bray, D. H . , & Hill, C. G. N. (1973). Polynesian and Pakeha in New Zealand education. Vol. 1. The sharing of cultures. Auckland: Heinemann. Brush, S . (1989). History of science and science education. Interchange, 20, 60-70. Bulman, L. (1985). Teaching language and study skills in secondary science. London, UK: Heinemann. Chambers, B., & Pettman, J. (1986). Anti-racism: A handbook for adult educators. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Christie, M. (1991). Aboriginal science for the ecologically sustainable future. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 37, 26-31. Collins, A. (1992). Portfolios for science education: Issues in purpose, structure, and authenticity. Science Education, 76, 451-463. Cornell, J. (1981). The first stargazers: A n introduction to the origins of astronomy. New York: Charles Scribner. Craft, A. (1986). Multicultural teaching. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Controversial issues in the curriculum. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438-481. Cubberley, E. P. (1919). Public education in the United States. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Department of Education and Science. (1985). Education for all. Report of the committee of enquiry into the education of children from ethnic minority groups (The Swann Report). London, UK: HMSO. Driver, R. (1975). The name of the game. School Science Review, 56, 800-805. Driver, R., & Bell, B. (1986). Students’ thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view. School Science Review, 67, 443-456. Duschl, R. A. (1988). Abandoning the scientistic legacy of science education. Science Education, 72, 51-62. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press. Durojaiye, M. 0. A. (1980). The contribution of African universities to the reform of education. Paris: UNESCO. Eggleston, J., Dunn, D., & Anjali, M. (1986). Education for some. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham Books. Freundlich, J., Gitomer, D., Duschl, R., & Faux, R. (1992). Constructing portfolio assessment in science classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Boston, MA. zyxwvut zyxwvut zyxwvuts zyxwvuts zyxwvutsr zyxwv zyxwvuts 708 HODSON Fryer, P. (1984). Staying power: The history of black people in Britain. London, UK: Pluto Press. George, J., & Glasgow, J. (1988). Street science and conventional science in the West Indies. Studies in Science Education, 15, 109-118. George, J., & Glasgow, J. (1989). Some cultural implications of teaching towards common syllabi in science: A case study from the Caribbean. School Science Review, 71, 115-1213. Gill, D., & Levidow, L. (Eds.) (1987). Anti-racist science teaching. London, UK: Free Association Press. Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Haber, L. (1970). Black pioneers of science and invention. New York: Harcourt Brace & World. Hodson, D. (1988). Toward a philosophically more valid science curriculum. Science Education, 72, 19-40. Hodson, D. (1992). In search of a meaningful relationship: An exploration of some issues relating to integration in science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 541-562. Hodson, D. (1993). Teaching and learning about science: Considerations in the philosophy and sociology of science. In D. Edwards & E. Scanlon (Eds.), Issues in science education: Teaching, learning and assessment (forthcoming). Hodson, D., & Prophet, B. (1986). A bumpy start to science education. New Scientist, 1521, 25-28. Home Office (1964). Second report of the Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council, London, UK: HMSO. Hoyle, P. (1987). Science education in and for a multicultural society; some language issues. In SSCR (Ed.), Better science: Working for a multicultural society. Curriculum Guide 7. London, UK: HeinemandASE. Hunn, J. K. (1960). Report of the Department of Maori Affairs. Wellington, N Z : Government Printer. Institute of Race Relations (1982). Roots of racism. London, UK: Institute of Race Relations. Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Jegede, 0. (1989). Toward a philosophical basis for science education of the 1990s: An African viewpoint. In D. E. Herget (Ed.), The history and philosophy of science in science teaching. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University Press. Jegede, O., & Okebukola, P. (1991). The relationship between African traditional cosmology and students’ acquisition of a science process skill. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 37-47. Johnstone, A. H., & Wham, A. J. B. (1982). The demands of practical work. Education in Chemistry, 19, 71-73. Jones, A. (1985). Which girls are learning to lose? Gender, class, race in the classroom. New Zealand Women’s Studies Journal, August, 15-27. Jones, A., & George, N . (1981). The subject teacher in a multicultural school. In C. Sutton (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom. London, U K : Hodder & Stoughton. Jones, A., McCulloch, G., Marshall, J., Smith, G. H., & Smith, L. T. (1990). Myths and realities; schooling in New Zealand. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press. Knudtson, P., & Suzuki, D. (1992). Wisdom o f t h e elders. Toronto, Ontario: Stoddart. Kumar, A., & Kenealy, P. (1992). An issue of cultural diversity in science. In S. Hills (Ed.), The history and philosophy of science education. Vol. 11. Kingston, Ontario: Queen’s University. zyxwvutsr zy zy zyxwvutsr RATIONALE FOR MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 709 zyxwvutsr zyxw Lynch, J. (1986). Multicultural education: Principles and practice. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Machwe, P. (1979). Hinduism: Its contribution to science and civilization. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House. May, W. T. (1992). What are the subjects of STS-really? Theory into Practice, 31, 73-83. McKinley, E., McPherson Waiti, P., & Bell, B. (1992). Language, culture and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 579-595. Michaelson, M. G. (1987). Sickle cell anaemia: An “interesting pathology.” In D. Gill & L. Levidow, (Eds.), Anti-racist science teaching. London, UK: Free Association Press. Moli, S . (1991). Science student-teachers’ views of teaching and learning: A Samoan case study. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research (cited by McKinley et al. 1992). Mullard, C. (1982). Multiracial education in Britain: From assimilation to cultural pluralism. In J. Tierney (Ed.), Race, migration and schooling. London, UK: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Nasr, S . H. (1968). Science and civilization in Islam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nasr, S . H. (1976). Islamic science: A n illustrated history. London, UK: World of Islam. Needham, J. (1954). Science and civilization in China (7 vols). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Needham, J. (1969). The grand titration: Science and society in East and West. London, UK: Allen & Unwin. Needham, J. (1976). History and human values: A Chinese perspective for world science and technology. In H. Rose & S . Rose (Eds.), The radicalization of science. London, UK: Macmillan. Needham, J. (1981). Science of traditional China; A comparative perspective. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press. Odhiambo, T.R. (1972). Understanding of science: The impact of African views of science. In R. G. Gilbert & M. N. Lovegrove (Eds.), Science education in Africa. London, UK: Heinemann. Ogunniyi, M. B. (1988). Adapting western science to traditional African culture. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 1-9. Orr, E. W. (1987). Twice as less. New York: Norton. Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science. The implications of children’s science. Auckland: Heinemann. Pomeroy, D. (1992). Science across cultures: Building bridges between traditional western and Alaskan Native sciences. In S . Hills (Ed.), The history and philosophy of science in science education. Vol. 11. Kingston, Ontario: Queen’s University. Prophet, R. B. (1990). Rhetoric and reality in science curriculum development in Botswana. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 13-23. Ramazanoglu, C. (1986). Gender and Islam-the politics of Muslim feminism. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 9, 258-263. Rata, E. (1990). Kura Kaupapa Maori. New Zealand Post-Primary Teachers Association Journal, 3, 30-32. Reid, D. J., & Hodson, D. (1987). Science for all: Teaching science in the secondary school. London, UK: Cassell. Sapir, E. (1966). Culture, language and personality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Sardar, Z. (1989). Explorations in Islamic science. London, UK: Mansell. zyxwvu zyxwvuts zyxwvuts zyxwvu zyx zyx 710 HODSON Secondary Science Curriculum Review. (1985). Science education for a multicultural society. Leicestershire, UK: SSCRlLeicestershire Education Authority. Secondary Science Curriculum Review. (1987). Better science: Working for u multicultural society. Curriculum Guide 7. London, UK: Heinemand ASE. Selin, H. (1992). Science across cultures: An annotated bibliography of books on nonwestern science, technology and medicine. New York: Garland Press. Selley, N. J. (1989). Philosophies of science and their relation to scientific processes and the science curriculum. In J. J . Wellington (Ed.), Skills and processes in science education. London, UK: Routledge. Shaw, B. (1988). The incoherence of multicultural education. British Journal of Educational Studies, XXXVI, 250-259. Siraj-Blatchford, J . (1987). Creating an anti-racist ethos. School Science Review, 68, 756758. Siraj-Blatchford, J. (1990). What is an anti-racist atom? School Science Review, 71, 127131. Smail, B., Roach, T., & Watts, M. (1985). The presentation of race, gender and class in teaching resources. In G. Brandt, S. Turner, & T. Turner (Eds.), Science education in a multicultural society. Report on a conference at the University of London. Smolicz, J. J., & Nunan, E. E. (1975). The philosophical and sociological foundations of science education: The demythologizing of school science. Studies in Science Education, 2, 101-143. Stenhouse, L., & Verma, G. K. (1981). Educational procedures and attitudinal objectives: A paradox. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 13, 329-337. Stevens, P. (1978). On the Nuffield philosophy of science. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 12, 99-1 11. Stone, J . (1985). Racial conflict in contemporary society. London, UK: Fontana. Strike, K. A. (1975). The logic of learning by discovery. Review of Educational Research, 45, 461-483. Terry, C . (1977). Learning contracts-one small step towards independent learning. School Science Review, 59, 368-369. Thijs, G. D. (1987). Conceptions of force and movement: Intuitive ideas of pupils in Zimbabwe in comparison with findings from other countries. Paper presented at the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, Ithaca, NY. Troyna, B. (1987). Beyond multiculturalism: Towards the enactment of antiracist education in policy, provision and pedagogy. Oxford Review of Education, 13, 307-320. Troyna, B., & Carrington, B. (1987). Antisexidantiracist education-a false dilemma: A reply to Walkling and Brannigan. Journal of Moral Education, 16, 60-65. Tunnicliffe, S. (1986). Teaching science to children from ethnic minority groups. School Science Review, 67, 607-61 1. van Sertima, I . (1983). Black pioneers of science and invention. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Walkling, P., & Brannigan, C. (1986). Anti-sexidanti-racist education: A possible dilemma. Journal of Moral Education, 15, 16-25. Walkling, P., & Brannigan, C. (1987). Muslim Schools-Troyna and Carrington’s dilemma. Journal of Moral Education, 16, 66-68. Ward, A. (1987). Magician in a white coat. School Science Review, 68, 348-350. Watts, S. (1986). Biographies of black scientists. In M. Hollins (Ed.), Science teaching in a multi-ethnic society: Issues, practices, resources. London, UK: ILEA. zyxwvut zyxwvutsrq zyxwvu zy zyxwv zyxwvuts RATIONALE FOR MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 711 Weatherford, J. M. (1988). Indian givers: How the Indians of the Americas transformed the world. New York: Crown. Wellington, J. J. (1981). What’s supposed to happen, Sir? Some problems with discovery learning. School Science Review, 63, 167-173. Young, R. M. (1987). Racist society, racist science. In D. Gill & L. Levidow (Eds.)., Antiracist science teaching. London, UK: Free Association Press. Accepted for publication 1 June 1993