Reimagining Science Education in Neoliberal Global Contexts: Sociocultural Accounts of Science Learning in Underserved Communities
Reimagining Science Education in Neoliberal Global Contexts: Sociocultural Accounts of Science Learning in Underserved Communities
复制标题
重新构想新自由主义全球背景下的科学教育：服务不足社区科学学习的社会文化解释
DOI：
10.1080/10749039.2016.1201514
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Carol B. Brandt
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jrène Rahm;Carol B. Brandt
这个特刊汇集了研究人员努力与生产的社会文化和人类学帐户的科学教育在一个时代的特点是复杂和矛盾的科学教育政策框架和不同的方式，这些政策是由新自由主义的通知。该特刊致力于并旨在“解除”当前对基于市场驱动的教育体系的规范科学的关注，该教育体系具有高学术标准，预定结果和持续的高风险评估。这个问题也质疑了国家对科学教育的控制，这种控制是由一种方便的统一性驱动的，这种统一性为少数成功人士狭隘地定义了科学，同时使排除差异合法化（Ambrosio，2013; Bencze & Carter，2011; Calabrese巴顿，2001; Smith，2011; Tan & Calabrese-巴顿，2012）。以全球经济为基础的市场驱动的教育体系导致了对专业科学的误解-作为一种有助于市场的科学，但不是个人，社会和环境的福祉-以及以限制学生贡献感的方式集中学习个性化的话语（Bencze & Carter，2011）。这种市场驱动的科学是由新自由主义意识形态这只看不见的手“塑造”的，这只手是复杂和不确定的;它以难以确定和命名的方式悄悄地接近我们，以及整个教育。然而，认真参与、远离和抵制市场驱动的教育私有化、青年的可处置性以及“对社区、公共价值观和公共利益近乎病态的蔑视”（Giroux，2012，第46页;另见Ambrosio，2013; Harvey，2005; McGregor，2009）对改革科学教育至关重要。在过去的十年里，教育发生了根本性的转变，以反映市场竞争的企业模式。在这种模式下，评估是通过定量评估的形式来评估学生，教师，学校和整个地区的表现。Hursh（2015）认为，政府计划与改革教育的结合不是偶然的发展：“教育工作者不能把经济理论、政策和实践留给经济学家，而是必须理解经济理论和政策，以便揭开它们的神秘面纱，以及它们在创造我们生活的世界中所扮演的角色”（第3页）。同样，史密斯（2011）认为，越来越多的教学科学的理由继续服务于科学和技术行业的需求。我们不断听到需要在科学，技术，工程和数学（STEM）的多元化劳动力和科学家的创造力和创新解决社会和环境问题的能力的需求。虽然这一呼吁似乎侧重于社区和社会福利，但它是由公司议程驱动的。正如Smith（2011）所指出的，这些支持科学教育改革的论点突出了个人与其社区之间的紧张关系，即“市场化已被视为事物的自然秩序”（第1276页）。
This special issue brings together researchers grappling with the production of sociocultural and anthropological accounts of science education in an era marked by complex and contradictory policy frameworks for science education and the divergent ways these policies are informed by neoliberalism. The special issue engages with and aims to “desettle” the current focus on canonical science grounded in a market-driven educational system with high academic standards, predetermined outcomes, and continuous high-stakes assessments. This issue also questions state control of science education, driven by a convenient uniformity that narrowly defines science for a successful few while legitimizing the exclusion of difference (Ambrosio, 2013; Bencze & Carter, 2011; Calabrese Barton, 2001; Smith, 2011; Tan & Calabrese-Barton, 2012). The market-driven education system, grounded in global economies, has led to the misrepresentation of professional science—as a science that contributes to markets, but not to the wellbeing of individuals, societies, and the environment—and a discourse that centers on the individualization of learning in ways that limit students’ sense of contribution (Bencze & Carter, 2011). This market-driven science is “shaped by” the invisible hand of neoliberal ideology, which is complex and uncertain; it sneaks up on us, and education as a whole, in ways hard to pin down and name. Yet seriously engaging in, moving away from, and resisting the market-driven privatization of education, the disposability of youth, and the “nearpathological disdain for community, public values, and the public good” (Giroux, 2012, p. 46; see also Ambrosio, 2013; Harvey, 2005; McGregor, 2009) is crucial to reforming science education. Education has been transformed radically in the last 10 years to reflect a corporate model of market competition. In this model, evaluation is measured through tests in the form of quantitative assessments to evaluate the performance of students, teachers, schools, and entire districts. Hursh (2015) argued that the alignment among government programs to reform education is not an accidental development: “Educators cannot leave economic theories, policies, and practices to economists, but must understand economic theory and policies so as to demystify them and the role they play in creating the world in which we live” (p. 3). Similarly, Smith (2011) contended that increasingly, the justification for teaching science continues to serve the needs of industry in science and technology. We continually hear about the need for a diverse workforce in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) and the demand for scientists with the creativity and the ability to innovate solutions to social and environmental problems. Although this call seems to focus on community and social welfare, it nevertheless is driven by corporate agendas. As Smith (2011) pointed out, these arguments for reform in science education highlight the tensions between the relationships of the individual to their communities whereby “marketization has come to be seen as the natural order of things” (p. 1276).