MULTICULTUWLL SCIENCE EDUCATION: AN ANALYSIS OF CURRICULUM: AND POUCY IN ONTARIO

Aamer Shujah

A thesis submitted in confodty with the requirements for the degree of Master of Atts

Department of Cdculum, Teaching and Lnming Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the

Univessity of Toronto

S Copyright by Aamer Shujah 1999

National Library l*I of,,,, Bibliothèque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques

395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington Ottawa ON K I A ON4 Ottawa ON KI A ON4 Canada Canada

Your lFk Votre rdIerena3

Our Ma Notre rdldrence

The author has granted a non- exclusive licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell copies of this thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.

The author retains ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substarztial extracts fiom it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.

L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette thèse sous la forme de microfichelfilm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantieIs de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.

Muiticdtural Science Education: An Amdysis of Cwsicdum and Policy in Ontario Master of Atts, 1999 Aamer Shujah Department of Cdculum, Teaching and Leaming Ontario Institute for Studiea in Education of the Univetsity of Toronto.

Where science is viewed as a cultutal construct, imbued Mt. parti& values and rooted in

the context and backdrop fiom which it unetges, there is increasing recognition that science

education is postulated within a Western or Euro-American cultuta frnmework, cteathg a situation

of c u l d imposition and dominance over many others originatbg fiom diverse backgrounds. This

thesis presents a paradigm for multidturai saence education, airned at providing saentZc literacy

for aJl and amelionMg the cross-cultural tensions which ernerge, which cornpxises three

fundamental domains: the pexsonalization of leaming (and knowledge), the demythoIogization of

saence and the science enterprise, and the politicization of science educatioo. Subsequeat d y s i s

and evaluation of Ontario's curent policy and practice regatding multicultural and science education

prognms, under the dehed criteria of multidtural science education, rev& several inadequaaes

and defiaenaes in temis of the education minisûy's provisions. This thesis condudes with

recommendations for science d d u m poli cy and practice refonn in Ontario.

1 begh in the name of Allah (Arabic for God), The Beneficm~ The Mer& All praises axe

due to Albh, the Lord of the Universe (and all that it contains) and may He send constant peace and

blessMgs upon His hrill prophet and messenger, Miihnmmad, who is recorded in an authentic

tradition as relating, 'Whoever does not thank people, does not thank Allah," (found in Musnad

Imam A m a d and Sunun Inmm Tirnidhi, two of the canonid collections of the prophetic traditions in

Islam). With this in min& 1 wish to acknowledge and thank ail those whom Alkh has phced in my

path, who have contributed to the successful completion of this thesis.

Fitstly, 1 wish to acknowledge the efforts of my thesis committee and t h d them for th&

immense assistance. 1 wish to rbank Professor Howaxd Russell for sharhg his wealth of expezience,

knowIedge and insight, e s p e d y regarding matters related to Ontario cutriduni policy and

practice, but also for providing insight into perspectives of curriculum evaiuation and assessment.

Interestingly? the most insighdul moments seemed to be generated hom his anecdotes h m the golf

course, luncheons, diuners, or various informal encounters. 1 also wish to t h d my thesis

supervisor, Professor Der& Hodson, who was particulady instnimentiil in the €inal formulation of

this thesis in its race to the h h . When he wasn't canying on about the athlecic exploits of

Manchester United and th& recent triple ccown championship, he managed to provide invaluable

assistance in maners related to both multicultural science education and saence education in g e n d

But moreover, he generously conmiuted to the final editlig and polish of this manuscript The

professionaüsm of these gentlemen is greatly appreâated, but for thek patience and

accommodation, especially in the more kenzied moments, 1 am exttemely gratefuL May Allah guide

you and better pou in your affws.

S e c o n e 1 wish to thank the unendhg m o d support fiom all m . Muslim brethrm and

fkiends, particulâtly those &om the Istiqamah lslamic Centre of Ontario. In particulat, 1 wish to

iii

t h d those individuals who gave me a good push wheneves I should s a and were ever prepared

to help in whatever m e r possible. Without making spe&c mention of names, for theh prayers

and moral support I say jazahlhb~ M~l+run (may Allah reward you with good) to the Imam of the

mosque, the Istiqamah Board of Directors and the various cornmittee chab and manbers.

However, 1 do wish to single out diose brothers with whom 1 feel dosest and who I feel provided

the p t e s t support and encouragement, Sheikh Kais Istephan, Syed Nournan A s h d and my

dearest cornpanion, Riad Khaa May Allah reward you with good.

F i d y , 1 wish to thank the kztctmiaable support and encouragement of my -y, whose

conmiution to the completion of this thesis was while less prolific, was perhaps greatest. 1 say

jaxakuIhh k h b to my father for his quiet, snirdy and unassuming suppon; to my bxother and 2

sisters, Atif, Shazia and Sarah, for providing me with ample aggravation, added Ilixiety, good cheer

and kidelible memones to hopewy laugh about in the future; and to my greatest supponer, and in

many ways my best hiend, my mother - Marna Shujah, who as any good mother does, was constant

and vigilant in houndmg me conceming my thesis completion, who shaxed my aemendous anxiety

and pressure more than anyone else, and who sought to make thhgs at home as easy and

cornfortable for me as possible, di the while assuring me that if 1 didn't get it done, I'd be getting

done. May Allah reward you all with good for your patience in puttlig up with me and for the

various forms of support you offered.

V d y , all praises are due to Allah that this thesis could be completed. Whatever good or

benefit may corne of it is surdy fÏom Allah, and whatever enor or deficiency it may hold is surely

fkom my own wealmess. Glorified be You, O Allah, and all p& is for You; 1 t e s e that there is no

other deity than You; and 1 seek forgiveness fiom You h e m .

TABLE OF CONTENT'S

Chaptet 1 Multicultura( Educstiao: Fooundational Perspec~ves hr Educsrion h Ont&

1 . 1 Introduction 1.2 Penpectmes and Defmition oEMulticultutal Education 1.3 Towards Anti-racist Education 1.4 From Policg Fomiulation on Mduculturalism in Canada and its Impact

on Education 1.5 Towards Policy and Practice on the Provincial Landscape of Ontario 1.6 CUmculum Implications

2.1 Introduction 2.2 Advocating Saentific Literacy 2.3 In Seanh of Dehning Saentific Literacy 2.4 CUmculum and Pedagogid Implications 2.5 Dilemma within a Multidtutal Domain 2.6 Progressing Towards a Solution

Chaptet 3 Mula'dlnual Sdmce Educntion: PMosophfi Objectives nod Paspectives

Introduction Perse- Lmmiag and Knowledge Border Crossing Towards Endturation Without Assimilation DanythologiPng the Science Enterprise PoliticuUip Science Educauon CUtriculutll Considerations Final Thoughts and Reflections

Chaptet 4 An-s of the Cuneot Untario SuWéoce CmDCUIum and its Supponhg Educarioond Policy

4.1 Introduction 4 2 Current Policy and Pradce in Ontario Regatding Multidtural Education 4.3 Axial.& of the Ontario Suence CUmdum for Grades 1-8 43.1 Analysis of Provisions for the Pexsonaliaation of Leamiag 43.2 Analysis of Provisions for the Demythologization of Suence

4.3.3 Analysis of Provisions for the Politicization of Science 82 4.4 Anaysis of the Ontvio Science CUmculum for Grades 9-10 84 4.5 ClosingCommentq 86

Chapter 5 F d u Rdectl'ons On Intnodu&g a Multicultura[ Suknce Education

Ineroduction Providing Support for Appropriate Pedagogy Measures for Pre-Service Traliing Measures for Pro fessiod Development Other Supportme Responses Issues Related to CUtficulum Textbook Concenis Alternative Assessrnent Schemes Exploring Culturally Centered CUmcula lmplementation Consaaints Final Refletions

Chapter 6 Recommend~tions for Suoence CumCulum Po&y and Plrctice R e m in Ontan'o 104

6.1 Recommendations for Refonn 104 6.2 Towards a More Relevant and Critically Reflectme Science Curriculum 106

Re ferences 108

CHAPTER 1

MULTICULTURAC EDUCATION: FOUNDATIONAL PERSPECTmS FOR

EDUCARON IN ONTARIO

1 INTRODUCTION

In the e d y 1960s, an eminent Canadian professor at the University of Toronto, by the name

of Marshall McLuhan, spoke of what was then a novel concept He called it the "Global V i '

(McLuhan, 1964). H e predicted that with rapid technological innovation would follow npid

globalization. McLuhan contended that people of diverse backgrounds and experiences would be

forced to understand one another, as they vould corne into icicreas"g1y geata contact with a&

other.

In the decades that followed, our generation has witnessed the Luition of McLuhan's vision.

Today, we live in a soaety in whlch b k e m of physical proximity have been dimini';hed by the

preponderance of infortnation, whidi has become the most valued commodity. Indeed, with the

proMeration of mass media outlets, whedier p ~ f television, or electronic, never hs the

dissemination of information been more rampant and widespread, and so casily access1'bIe through

the fiee Qowing chmels of global commuaication. This has had a verg r d impact on the wway in

which Canadian soaety is evolving. Canadians are constandy bombarded wîth facts, opinions,

images, sound bites, and icons, which o h conmibute more to confbsion than to dantg.

Education enta as an agent toward aeating such clarity. EEducation serves to infonn,

instruct and indcate the lemer with an appropkte set of knowledge, ski& and values, regardhg

the cit:cumstances of a situation or environment, to be able to comprehend and negotiate problems,

issues and challenges. Its fundamental purpose is to provide cladkation, undexstanding and insight

in any @en subject Educntion aims to provide a comprehensive anay of experiences, infomtion,

and insights which will arm one with the inteIleaual and ethicai prowess to productively h c t i o n on

an individual, group, commuaity and socieral land, in order to contebute to the preservation and

progress of one's cultute and ci<rilization.

C d y , an enviroment charncterized by the representation of a multiplicity of views,

beiiefs and attitudes requires the leamer to acquLe a significant dimension related to the skills and

knowledge set imparted by a *en cwticulum - that of criticai cognizance and reflection, which

allows one to respect, appreciate and admowledge, comprehend, evaluate, and negotiate the merit

and functionality of any pdcular conceptualization, philosophy or thought One's pesonal values,

beliefs, attitudes, perspectives, preferences, practices, philosophy, thought, ethos, conceptions, mode

of expression and communication are cerminly a function of one's d t u r e and experiences -

c o n t r i i u ~ g to the indipiduality of leamers. Such persond effects rue dierished dearly by

individuals and sustalied saongly by them. If the leamer is not pertnitted to express and meintain

such bdividuaiiv, and is subject to an environment, and a realm of experiences, which requite

assimilation and conformity to a cultural paradigm which confliicts with one's own, tensions WU

ce&y ernerge sesuking in either one's participation and cornpliancc with the new dture, or one's

rnmginalization and exclusion fiom the wider spectra of soàety. With the emergence of such cross-

cultural conflict, cultural suppression and imposition wouid ceaaliy result in the discontent and

animositg of s i g n i h n t segments of souecg who would view thek personal, ethnic, d tura i or

religious integrity as having been aansgressed and vioiated. Hence, the need for a paradigm and

philosophy which accommodates rather than impedes, which indudes rather than exdudes, which

acknowledges rather than &regards, whîch celebrates rather chan scoms, which ensures appropriate

representation and cultural preservation tathet than misrepresentation and cultural eradication,

which enmes participation rather than rnarpinaiization, and which ensures fiee expression rather

than codhed suppression.

hdeed, m d t i c u l d education psesurnes to provide such a philosophy and patndigm which

operates on the premise of ameüorating such a situation and aims at aba* if not dtogether

abolishing, such cross-cultural temiom and conflict, and the possible disentianchisement of the

lemer. Muleidtuml education is limed at accommodating cultural diversitg and the challenges of

balancing the requisite needs of the host culture with those of the multicultural population of

leax~lers. Since learaers' preconceptions and fhmeworks inevitably emanate fiom th& parti&

cultural milieu, it follows that gaining m appreciation for, and a comprehensbe scope of, the

student's culture should ensure and faalitate a more efficacious delBre.y of the particulac d c u l u r n

content However, the question of expkcidy de- how to proceed, and in which manna,

remains problematic for educators.

Certainly, residing in a microcosmic ''global village", such as Canada and in parti&

Ontario, inherently fumishes complex challenges and predicaments. The focus under such

Qrcums*inces m u t extend beyond the intP_miinabIe debates on issues of perspectives, to the

examination of the mariifest ramifications of policies and dedsions which have been executed in

both the ptesent and the pst, and chose which have been proposed for the future, within the arma

of education. One simply c m not ignore the immense impact that such initiatives bear on the

formulation and implementation of the educational curridum of the day, which presumably serves

as a primary foundation to establish, compose, configure, and dictate the concepts, notions and

views of the societal framework. Hence, the aims and directives of an educatiod d d u m based

on specific content and objectives wodd serpe as a venue for investigation, whueby one would

want to probe for factors and issues detemiining the content and objectives deemed v h b l e and

relevant, while also keeping sight of thek application in a socially practical, relevant, and xesponsible

mannez As an adjunct to such investigation, one must consider issues of conaol, manipulation and

exploitation of a leaming mvironment which may br in codict with the c u l d values of children

coming fiom varykig backgrounds. Such issues and concems would need to be a d h s e d by any

educatiod patadigm promoted by multiculturat education.

Hence, one would need to nwey pespectmes and definitions for mulacultural education.

Who is it intended for? What problems are supposed to be addressed and what are the proposed

solutions? What does it propose to practice and adiieve? What is the Canadian policy and practice

of multicuitural education? What is the Ontario policy regarding m u l t i d d education? How is it

reflected in the Ontmio &nilm documents?

Consequently, this chapter shail bnefly survey the relevant litexature on multidtural

education and subsequently draw parti& focus upoo Canada and Ontano. This chapter shall seek

to provide perspectives on assimilation, cultural and ethnic plutalism and anti-racist educatioa The

puepose of this chapter is to detkie the concept of rndticuiturd eàucation and its related issues and

fuabermore, to ccntextualize them and d e h e them for Ontatio. Hence, it lays the foundation for

subsequent chapters and discussion.

1.2 PERSPECTIVES AND DE-TION OF MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION

The notion of formal education is n o d y associated with ditferse objectives, content and

scgle, where such dimensions evolve over tirne in reaction to changing Nnents of thought within

education and soaety. Yeb despite whatever alterations and adjusmients were accommodated, prior

to the 1 %Os, the educational system had for the most part abided by a fundamental cornmitment to

monocultutalisrn (neras & mot, 1992). The ideal of cultural assimilation prevailed witbli the

school systems of Western demoaatic societies such as the United States, U.K, and Canada.

However, much has changed over the kst few decades. With the evolution of education due to

shifang paxadigms and philosophies, subsequently reflected in dculurn contenr, objectives, and

implememtion schemes, and in response to the ofien codicting demands of an increashgly

diverse and complex technological soâety, issues of culture and context subsequently sutfnced, and

have not only endund but, indeed, pervade much of the contemporay debate smounding

education. Such focus, of course, has become dearly &est in the fomi of mdtidtural

education.

Prior to the 1960s, the predominant emphasis of Western souety school systems, having to

contend with childten fxom ethnic, cultutal and religious minorities, was an educational pro-

designed to ensure mkaIarn*mbrion. The objective was to assist su& lemers to codonn, comply

and adapt to the dominant culture. This was the domestic policg practiced in such Western

democratic nations as the United States, U.K, Australia and Canada up to and through the 1960s

(Banks, 1986,1997~~; Fleras & Elliot, 1992). ki Canada, such conformist ideology sought to absorb

Mmigrant children directly into the schema of Canadian society by stripping them of language

and/or culture (Bengman, 1988). Fleras and ELliot (1992: 183) note that "ali aspects of sdioollig ia

English-speakhg Canada, from teachers and textbooks to poiicy and CUMculum, were rooted in the

principles of assimilation and anglo-confoanity. Anythg whidi veered outside this anglo-centtic

b e w o r k was ignosed as kelmant or counterproductive." Hence, the focus of this approach of

cultutal assimilation was geared toward the perpenuition, transmission and promotion of the cultural

beliefs and nomis of the hast society and its dominant culture.

During the 1960s, Westem soueties were faced with the emergence of the ethnic

revitalization movements. These movements were triggered by the civil rights movements led by

Afican Americans in the United States, but wimessed resonance in the other Westem demoaatic

nations. The West Indians and Asians in Bn& the Indonesians and Surinamese in the

Nethhds, the Abongines in Australia, and the Fr& and North American Natives in Canada, a i l

fomed a s e g of ethaic movements expressing their rage and discontent towards the establishment

and "demanded that the institutions within th& nation-states become moie responsive to th&

needs, hopes and dreams," Panks, 1986: 3). Such commotion saw the previously employed

mshihaiiknirt approach supplanted by a more liberai

culhimlIy and ethnidy disparate peoples within the

assimilationis t approach

wider spectta of soaety

se- to intepte

(Banks, 1986). This

integrationist approach aimed to provide equal opportuniq and access within a C u l M y diverse

and mutually tolerant soaety (Miillard, 1982). 'Tt was envisaged that mainstream societg would

become eMched by the admixture of attitudes, beliefs, customs, languages and cultural

achievements of ethaic and religious minorities," podson, 1993: 687). Diffaences berneen

cultutally disparate groups were to be accepted, tolerated and absorbed in ordee to produce a newly

forged and pemasive cultural domain, what Aspin (1987) has temied a d t m d no~mè, in which "the

heterogeneirg of the individual paas make up an identifiable cultural homogeneity."

While the promotion of cultural iotegzationism by white l i b d offeted an altmistic

appearance of cultural egalitarhnism as a new oend taking over the old establishment, such thetoric

was only a façade. Both policy and practice surrouacihg cultuta integrationism through the 1960s

and 1970s served only to reinforce the akeady prevalmt assunilatory processes and procedures of

North American society, while o f f k g little in temis of mPanGigful change. Banks (1986) cites the

incentmes of economic, political and sociai rnobility as the prime cogent factors which contributed

then, and continue to conmiute now, to the assimilation of ethnic groups into their natioaal

societies. T h e strong appeal of attaining social rnobility withli the indusmalized nation-states such

as the United States, Canada, Ausûalia, motivated many citizens of these nations to tid themselves

of most aspects of thek ethnic cultures and to become skeptical and asharned of folk d tu re s and

traditionalisrn," (Banks, 1986: 4)). C d y , without any substantial change directed at the policies

and practices of accessibiliy to participation in the economic, political and social atenas of soaety,

one would expea litde effect in turning the tide of the strong underlying assirnilationist CUtrents. If

anytbing, one would expect such cultural assimilationist CUtrents to persist Dissatisfaction with this

situation gave rise to active lobbying towatd a policy and practice of ethnic and cultural pluralism,

which entails political (and subsequeatty souetal) acknowledgemenh acceptrnce, appiecktion,

taierance of, and s u p p o ~ ~ for, the ethnic and culaial diversiy f ~ m d within the mWTder community

(CE& 1984). A young fiedgling of the mid to late 1970~~ ethnic and cultutal plualism took fidl

fbght through the 1980~~ most visibly in the fonn of the multicultural education juggemaut

Hodson (1993) notes that for most white i i b d , the notion of cultural integrationism

represented a seemhgly unattainable ideaL Yet, with the emergence of ethnic cultural awarrness

and revitalkation movements (of the late 1960s, and through the 1970~)~ sadicals and a c t i . t s

vogfiously rdled against a poiicy wbich was viewed as representhg linle more than a "rhetorical

smokesaeen that masks an underlykg îssimilatioaist goal," (Hodson, 1993: 688). Hodson (1993:

688) encapsulates what ensued:

What they demanded was a shift toward etbnic and culluml~lmuh, which accepts and promotes diversieg. The intentions are that members of the dominant c o m m ~ t y leam to appreciate, understand and value the different conventions and cultural noms of other s d gtoups of citizens, and that rnembers of r a d and ethaic minoritg conirnunities perpetuate theh own cultural identities, thereby developing more positive self-images. Cultural pluralism is now the dominant intqretation of mdtidtualism in Europe, North AmePca and Ausûalasia, although it has to be admitted that the notion is s t i l l subjea to a wide vatiety of interprerations (Asph, 1987; Shaw, 1988). O h , the only thing on whidi writers agree is that multiculturaJism is not weli understood or well articulatedl

Multiculnztal education has becorne a generic temi encornpassing a wide anay of policies,

programs and practices whidi entait the negotiation and management of soao-cultural dmersity

within the educational environment. While Iargdy endorsed by educators concemed with culniraly

diverse learning envkonments, and adamantly advocated by its adherents, ambiguity of the term

renders it subject to vast intqretation and opinion. As with any particuhr pandigm, philosophy,

ideology or concepuon, t h e exists a wide spectrurn of theoq and thought. Hence, multiculd

education may be deked in a variety of manners, depending on the origin of dehnition and the

endemic emphasis of its souce perspective. Fos some, the focus should be dved on assimilatory

procedures for the leaming populace to indodnate students to the host cuIture,.in osder to ensure

successhL conformitg and contxibution to society. For others, the emphasis should rest upon

promothg and cdebrating cultural divmity and pluralism, while adopting an agenda aimed at

intepting souo-CU1nuaUy dispuate peoples into the educational schema, and subsequently. the

various armas of soaety. Yet, for others, the objective shodd be to aitically address the les-

probiems and educational challenges which emerge kom the promotion of cultural and ethnic

plwllism in a rnanner whkh balances the needs of sotiety with those of individuals to presme the

integiity of th& personal c u i d values, beliefs, practices, and identity, whilst engaged in a

campaign targetted towards dismantlhg sacist and prejudicial pxactices and institutions, and ensuring

the participatory integration of the cultutally diverse atizenrg. tbereby, as an adjunq secUrhg viable

representation in the power brokerage r a d s of society.

Definmg mdtidtutal education is c d y no easy endeavour (Lynch, 1981). Buillvant

(1981: 1) bas noted that "lere is no one agreed body of ideas about multicultural education or the

philosophy of multicdniralism: instead thete is a very confused number of definitions and

cornpethg ideas about these veq important issues." Indeed, this dilernma of dehition is

exacerbated by the verp nahire of the dehniuon process. Definitions may focus on any number of

dimensions, fiom hct ions to structure to process, each with various emphases entded within,

dependhg on the perspectives held by the source of dehition. In seeking to define multicultural

education, one faces the veq same phenornenon, where one's definition varies and conelates with

one's personai, social, politicai, economic and dtura l perspectives p c h e l o e & Steinberg, 1997;

Mitchell & Salsbuy, 1996), and whether one subscribes to assimilationist, integrationist, cultural

pluraiist or ami-racist approadies (Mogdd, Vernia, Mallick & Mogàil, 1986). While perspectives and

deEinition of mdticultural education extend oves an immense span of litetanire, thought and debate,

for the sake of brevitg, ody a s d selected sumey of definitions d be offued here.

Fleras and Elliot (1993: 187) delineate the range of de5nition which mdtidtutal education

encompasses:

At a minimum, it would seem that multidtuml education entails some degree of responsiveness to the presence of dd ditiersity within the school emiroament This wodd indude an appreciation for the rich array of cultures in soaety and th& contri'butions in the past and at present At maxim~~11, muiticultural education encompasses a comprehmsive p h for transforming educational policies, ptognms, and practices at all leveis and across most domains. Refonns are rill-encompassing, and hdude the total school

environment such as policy, counselling programs, assessrnent and t e s h g procedures, teaching methods and mateeals, f o d courses of study, staff adtudes and expechtions, the hidden &culum, k t i t u t i o d n o m , and community input and relations (Melnictx, 1986).

Th& own definition atternpts to encompass such vantage points. Fleras and Elüot (1993:

187) d e h e multidtural education as "an organized effort to accommodate and manage racial and

ethnic diversity as an integral componeat of the school system, A cornmitment to multicultural

education openly acknowledges ethnocultural variation, recognizes its validity withki the educational

environment and r d b s its role in the formulation of phüosophy, objectives, contenh and

delivery of semices to students." Centtal to the& definition "is the belief that cultural diversity is not

inimical to studmt needs or school goals. hstead, schools accept this diversiy as a key ingtedient in

f k E b g their educational mandate," (Fleras & Elliot, 1993: 187).

In her endeavour to seek out a dear definition which accounts for the spectrum of emphases

of rnulticultuta education, Katz (1982: 16-17) offers the following:

Mdticultural education is preparation for the s o d , political and econornic realities chat individuais expaience in d d y diverse and complex human encounters.. . . Multidturai education could indude, but not be limited to, expexiences which O promote analficd and evaluative abilities to confiont issues such as p d p a t o x y dernocracy, racism and sexism, and the party of power; (il develop skilis for values daritication inciuding the study of the manifest and latent transmission of values; (ii examine the dynarnics of diverse cultures and the implications for developing teachmg strategies; and (ii) examine linguistic variations and diverse Iearning styles as a basis for the development of appropriate teaching strategies.

Lynch (1986: 14) defhes multidtural education thtough its purpose and objective:

The task of mult iculM education in a democratic sotiety is thdore, to assist the individual by mûins of emanapato y cutricular and educational pedagogies wbich appeal to and extend rational judgemenf to reach out to and achieve a higher stage of ethnic and cul& existence than is the case initially, so that there exists suftiluent c u l d and social ov&p for societg to function, and for discourse across aras of crisis and conflict to *ike place. ...This is one major teason why multicultural education must nim contindy for higher leveis of intdectual functioning and for affective and SOCS cornpetence increments. For ethnic captiviq is a state which is debilitathg bot . to membm of minonty commuaities, because of the negative self-images which they will have absorbed, and to mernbers of majority communities, becluse the? do not recognize as negative the seIf-image they have absotbed and the relationships whidi these irnply with other cultutal commuilties withia a pluralist soaety as being destnidve of the s o d cohesion which is necessarp foc culturai hersity to W e .

Fsom the preceding selection of dehitions, one may c d y sunnise that multicultural

education as a concept, addresses a vast laay of concems and objectives. A recurring theme which

nuis as a thtead thzough the various dehnitions, is the devotion to negotiating and nxmagbg the

diallenges posed by a soao-cuiturally diverse educational environ men^ and providhg policies,

psograrns and practices which support and sustain ui educational experience which mwes quity

and empowerment for all. Citcumven@ the course of direct definition, Banks (1997a) descnies

multicuitural education as three thuigs: an idea or concept, an educational tefonn movement, and a

psocess. As a concept, it incorporates the notion of ensurhg equitable access and opposturtiq to

learn and succeed in school without violaMg the basic integrity of one's cultutal vdues. As an

educational reform movement, it aims to affect change within the policies, practices and politics of

educaaon, the school environment, and c ~ c u l u m content and delivery, while preserrring e q d

opportunity to leam for students fiom all social class, gender, r a d and d d groups. Fkillly, as a

process, Banks (1397a) refers to it as the putnJt of an ideal, whose goals will nevex be fully realized.

While one targets the mdication of prejudice and &m, and aims to ensue equality, h ' b q and

justice within the educatiod arena, one shouid never be aaivdy deluded h o believîng that such

objectives will evet be M y attained. Banks (1997a) argues for continually stnving toward the

educational ideai, while renliing one foot in che reality that prejudice, racism, seirism and

discrimination agakist the disempowued rernain an inevitable and inescapable fact of IXe* I

' ' M u l t i d d education must be viewed as an ongoing process, and not as something we ccdo" and

thereby solve the problems that are the targets of m u l t i d ~ educatiod refonn," (Banks, 19971:

4). Such a notion is c&y subscnied to, hexe, in this thesis, by v i e m d t i a education as

a constantly evolving process which aims to encompasses an enth spectmm of problems and

issues*

Hence, mdtidtutaf education mzy be viewed as a p r o c e d d pa~tadigm h m which to

launch Cumcuiar and pedagopid responses to the various chnltenges posed by a diverse leaming

population, whüst keeping sight of the targets it aims to stdce. It should se& to not only provide

education for emanapation (Parekh, 1986), but &O to improve upon a quality standard of acadanic

achievement (Banks, 1997a). Personal equity and empowennent in, and through, education should

be echoed in the policies, programs and practices which are implemented. As such, multidtural

education should not be viewed as static or immutable, but able to adapt and evolve to the dilemmns

and challenges which present themsdves withia a progressive educatiod e~~vironment

t3 TOWARDS ANTI-RACIST EDUCATION

Mdticuitural education is a concept which is deeply entrenched within the Canadinn

educational psyche. Yeh as with any pmdigm, philosophy, ideology or conception, there are both

proponents and detractors. Some critics take aim at its inen capaaty to meanh@y confiont

rninority grievances and aspirations. Some contend that celebration of dmersity is liale moze than

paaonizkig tokenism. Othm charge bt multidtural education f d s to fumish an agenda which

adequatdy focuses on dism?uiciing discrimination and the perpehiation of prejudice and racism,

expliat or implici~ contained within the schoot system, and both the social and politid arena': of

sociey in general. As a result, ait ics would contend that equitlble access and opportunity for

participation is not only cornpromised, but often denied for minotities (Walcott, 1993). Hence, the

emergence of a variant of multicultutal education known as a d - r a d education (Lee, 1985).

While c& p d e l s with mult iculd education are readily apparenh "ad-racist

education encompasses a distinctive orientation dong a unique set of objectives that sets it apart

fiom multidtural education, in large degree by c o n f i g a 6cradicai h g edge" to the whole

concept of mmagïng diversiq within the school systern," (Fieras & EUiob 1392: 195). Where anÜ-

racism is concemed with uncovering and combatting prejudickl and sackt attitudes md pradces

which disadvantage and discriminate a g i n s t minorities, resulting in an unequal dismiution of

o p p o h t y , wedth and power, ami-racist education is an action oriented sirategy for institutionaI,

systemic change to address the issues of racism and the interlockhg systems of social oppression

(Sefa Dei, 1994,1996).

A cornmimient to ad-racist education represents a logïcal altemative to the shoxtcomings of

multicultural education (Cam, 1996). Mdticuitural education has bem mtifized for its fdwe to

redress issues of systemic m d societal disMiminntion +st minorities and to tackle th& grievances

and ambitions (Walcott, 1993; C m , 1996). An ernphasis on culture may prove to be a disservice to

minonties siace it intaferes with the naturd process of cultural adaptation to the environment

(Ramcharan, 1989). Cnticism also stems from ib unwillingness to restructuxe the education system

in a mannez which ensures p t e r access and opportuniq for minority students (Flera~ & ELliot,

1992; Walcott, 1993, Cam, 1996). Moreover, much of what passes for rnulticultural education may

be criticized for being excessively folkloric or based on attitudinal studies which ignore the

institutional basis of domination and disaimination &ynch, 1986). Troyna (1987) has assated that

the type of multidnualism practiced in most British schools may be even rrinforchg ra&m by

focusiag on what he pejoratively labels 'The Thxee Ss Approach" (saris, samosas, and steel bands),

where celebrating diversity places emphasis on the presentation of superfiaal curiosities of different

customs and dress, festivals and holidays, and the more exotic aspects of the parti& ethnic

Westgle. An analogue to Troyna's (1987) "Three Ss" may be found on our domestic shores, where

some in varlous Ontario school boards (particularly in the Greater Toronto Area) refer to 'The

Thxee Cs" of multidtutalisrn: celebrations, dothing and cooking. Such an approach is not only

steeped in patronking tokmism, it studiously avoids tackling the undedying racLm and racist

discrimination inherent in the school system, and soâety in g e n d In such iighh multicultural

education rnay be viewed as a strategy of containment (neras & mot, 1992), where ethniuty

becomes de-politicized by sechanne- into the xealm of culture, not that of structure or power

(M&&w, 1987).

hti-ra&t education may be viewed as a natural progcession kom the multidtutal

education agenda, to provide a paradigm and pedagogical instnunent which aims to penetrate and

reaiEp the systemic and souetal inequities previously rendered irnpenetrable (Walcott, 1993); a view

which is shared, and subscribed to, in this thesis. Anti-racist education advocates a critical agenda

allned at recogaiPog mcial discrimination as systemic and embedded withli the policies and

practices of institutional structures, their organization, the values which undetscore them, and the

manner in which they subsequently exexcise and resPia powers. It is premised on the notion of

infomiing students, and ensuring that they comprehend the nature and characteristics of these

discriminatoq barnets, in order to ensure that the prevPiling disaibution of resouces and rewvds

no longet temal is intact Rather, they are dismantled and restruauted, both witbio the educational

establishment and the broader spectmm of soûetg (Fieras & Elliot, 1992).

On a pdculat point of darification, prior to proceeding in this turt, it should be

understood, fa aU intensive purposes, that when this thesis rnakes futther mention of multicultural

education, it is thought of to indude anti-racist education, which itself impliady indudes a stance

against discrimination, not just solely on the bas& of race, but &O on the basis of gender, culture,

soûo-economic s t a t u , political indination, etc. This does not predude adrnowledgement of those

who dearly differentiate between mdtidtural education and anti-racist education, on the basis that

they do not &axe the same oogins, philosophy, assumptions and end goals, and that tbere are

iwconalable difXerences between the two perspectives (Tropna, 1987). Howevet, while this thesis

dearly advocates coupling mdtidtural education with anti-mcist education, as promoted by many

sudi as Troyna (1987), the view which is adopted hexe is that the mult icu ld education paradigm

has progressed in several dixections over t h e , encompassing a broad spectmm of issues, chaUeages

and concerns, and that such progression and evolution has aeated a shift t o w d the mti-racist

education agenda, which muiticultuml education has now corne to indude.

î.4 FROM POLICY FORMUTATION ON MULTICUL-SM IN CANADA

AND ITS IMPACT ON EDUCATION

With the promulgation of multidtutalism as Canadiau state policy in 1971, the foundation

was established fiom which radical change could be launched within the arena of Canadian

edudon. Certakily, since its inception, much debate, controversy and confusion has ensued The

Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, upon introducing the legislation, dticized and denounced

the assimilationist ideology which dominated policy and practice at the t h e , and summoned the

nation towards a Canadian societg which was proud of its multidtural diversity. Trudeau (1971: 1)

There cannot be one c u l d policy for Canadians of British and French origkis and one for aboriguial people and yet a third for all the others. For although there are two official languages there is no official culture, nor does any ethnie goup take precedence over any other. No citizen or goup of citizens is othec than Canadian, and all should be treated fady.

With this initiative, the Canadian govemment provided the impetus to introduce

m u l t i c u l e into various arenas and aspects of Canadian souety, in accordance with liberal ideas

of egaIi&mism and social justice which nui prevalenh in the 1970~~ aaoss the nat iod conscience.

Rezai-Rashti (1995) notes that focus was accordingIy h e d on affecthg change through education.

The educational system was targetted as the site fiom where m u l t i c u l d ideas, views and principles codd be diffused among young Canadians. Students were perceived as the individuals most likely to be receptioe to the new programs of educational pluralism and exposure to o h , non-Western, cultures. They, therefore, couid easily adapt and respond to the needs of a rapidly changlig Canadian cultural mosaic, (+ai-Rashti, 1995: 3).

This, of course, subsequedy spurred the multidtural education movemenh produchg an

abundance of literanire, discourse and debate resulting in refonn to educational policy and practice,

affecting both cumcumculum and pedagogy.

Since the cenaal focus of this thesis is science education in Ontario, it is not appropkte to

kunch into a detaiIed account of the various subsequent federal and provincial responses to the

n e initiated naaonnl policy of multicullnirallm (see Masanana & Cummins, 1985: 13-23; Lynch,

1986: 25-28; Mitcheli & Salsburg, 1996: 5945; Seydegw Caccia, Cu&, McLaren & Ponce, 1994).

However, attention should be h w n to c h events. In 1972, a Minister of State for

Multiculturalisni was appointed, ta oversee multicultuml program acnvities whkh were to be

administered through the Multiculturalism Dkectorate of the Department of the Seaetaq of State

by oEcers in Ottawa and in regional district offices of the Department of the Secretary of State.

The Multidturalism Dkectorate was charged with the responsibility to operate a vaxietg of

programs and initiatives, of whidi the most sigrdiant in the presmt context wae the Cultural

Emichment Prognm and the MulticulNralism in Education prograrn initiatives. This marked the

beghnhg of a sustained series of concerted efforts aimed at reaLPng the natiod policy of

multiculturalism, and achieving multiculturajism arirhia a bhguaI h e w o r k , unique in Western

nations, (Lynch, l986), leading up to its enshtinement in law in 1988.

C d y , with the institution of a new national policy, there utisted awareness and dialogue

at the highest levels of provincial govemment "For the provinces, impiemmtation or development

of f i d e r multicultural poliaes focussed on a x a s that were of provincial concem: reception

semices for immigrants, d i s d a t i o n in relation to housing and empioyment, language &ses in

French or English for immigrants, violation of human zights for worken in the workplace (e.g. racial

tauna, dothing requirements), education of adults and children, cultural activities of established and

newcorner ethnocultural groups, access to provinciai government semices for non-speakers of

English or Ftench, and training of "fiont-lines* civil swants to deal wi& a muiticultural generai

public," (Mas- & Cummins, 1985: 17). Each province devdoped an vray of procedues and

guidelines to contend with the multidtuml r d t y of Canadian sociey.

In spe&c regard to education, with Canada's educational policies determined through the

Minister of Education in each province. response was v d Several provinces, such as Ontz90,

Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Albe- launched a series of conferuces with represeatatfcres fiom all

ethndtural groups, redting in several recommendations conceming education to be comidered

and eflacted. In the Northwest Texritoies and ùle Yukon, concem with multicultural education

cmtered predominantly around the teaching of aborigkial knguages and the provision of services

for Dene, Métis, and Inuit chilcken. In the Atlantic provinces, ernphasis was placed on equitabh

educatiod provision for all students, with partïcular attention paid to the needs of Micmac Indians,

Blacks, French and recent immigrants.

The culmination of such activity was witnessed in November 1981, with the National

Confixeme on Mdticultural Education, organized in Winnipeg by ad hoc committees ftom each of

the provinces and tenitories in Canada, and with the support of the Mdticultural Directorate. This

resulted in the founding of a new organization, the Canadian Council on Mdticultural and

Intucultural Education (CCMIE), with representatives fkom various p r o v i n d and territorial

committees. As well as fostering a commitment to multidtutalism and equal recognition and

consideration in educational institutions of all cultures, one of the objectives of the CCMIE is to

combat n&m and discrknliation. The organization represuits a coalition of political, academic,

lay, administrative and othet representaaves fiom dif%etent culturai and racial groups. Combined

with the efforts of the Cound of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), as weil as various otheç

govenltnental groups and agencies, the permeation of commitment to mda'dturalism and anti-

k m has gone hrther than any other Western nation in achieving a national consensus &pch,

1986). "h parti&, the multifaceted nature of the approach has ensured that, in addition to

legislative measues to achieve equality of educational opportunity and to outlaw racism, hancial

and political support has been foahcoming for major initiatives at all levels, evm tddng into account

the criticisrns which Canadians thunselves make of the Canadian poliy of multiculturalism,"

&ynch, 1986: 28). Indeed, despite whatevet problems may &t or criticisms be lwelIed against the

C-dian brand of multiculturalism, Canadians are hgely looked upon as the wodd leadets in the

multidhltal education movPnent QMitchell& Salsburg. 1996).

5 TOWARDS POLICY AND PRACTICE ON THE PROVINCLAL LANDSCAPE OF

ONTARIO

In 1979, the Toronto Boaxd of Education became the b t school board, not ody in Ontario

but in all of Canada, to fonnulate and adopt an official policy on race dations. This monumental

event set in motion a chah reaction, where today, within the province of Ontatio, more than f o q

boards of education have foilowed suit by formalhg their own policies on race and ethaic

relations. &ai-Rashti (1995) reported recedy rbat some twenv-he othet boards were in the

process of officially s e h g in place gmilar policies. However, Remi-Rashti (1995) comments how

this situation contrasts rather negatively with the realization that more than half of the boards of

education in Ontario still temain without a fonnal policy on race and ethnic relations.

Following rnuch policy discourse, in 1985, the Ontario govemment through its Ministy of

Education, moved to establish an Advisory Committee on Race Relations. The mandate of this

official advisorg body induded, among others, the following duties:

1. to promote the developmait of a Race and Ethno-cultural Equity Policy by d school boards in the province.

2. to assist and advise the Minisq of Education in the creation of guidelines for equirg poli y development and to recommmd pziority areas for policy development

3. tu identifg strategies that will assist boards in devdoping and implementlig racial and e t h n o - d d equiy policies.

4. to place concepts such as multiculturalisrn, race, and ethnodturaI relations and anti- racist education in th& historical context as an aid to th& propet use in equity policy developrnent, and to identifg the threads that link them. (Mhstry of Educltion of Ontario, 1987: 2).

In 1987, the Advisory Committee on Race Reiations published its much antiapated report.

The report was largeiy concerned with m d t i c u l d education and its shortcomings, advocating the

adoption of an anti-racist education agenda to bumess the limitations of the m e n t muIticuItuta

education progam. The report was aiticked on s e v d levels: for being too cornplex, o c d o d y

vague, and ladm with jargon and temis that needed to be defined in order the position being

asserted; and moreover, for faJing to explidy define the institutional poliaes and pnctices which it

sought to target with its summons Cor an anti-racist agenda to steu m u l t i d u education (Rezai-

Rashti, 1995). Despite whateoer criticisms were levded lgainst the report, this event did mark a .

idhuitid jun-e for the multicultural education program in Ontario, which was now spdeaded

by an anti-rht education agenda.

In 1989, the Ontario Ministry of Education commissioned a study to investigate the

implementation of race and ethnodtural equity policies in Ontario School Boards. Publication of

the teseuch kdings, in 1990, revealed that policg formulation within this domain is o h a long

and drawn-out process; a major conpibuthg faaor to such deky is that "there is o h tremmdous

resistance to overcome in policy development and itnpIernenation: this resistance may be obvious

or covert," (Mo& & Masemann, 1990: 59). While school boards in Ontario have remained vested

with the au thor i~ to formulate and ma th& own explicit policy and practice regatduig race and

e t h n o c u l d equity, the report hdings indicated that the boards have been generally awaiting the

Ministy of Education "to provide leadership and modelluig for policg developmat and

implementation by rnandating policf' and look to the Ministry to "provide both f i n a n d and

human resources and guidelines for boards in keeping with th& needs and situations," (Mo& &

Masemam, 1990: viii, 59-60). Among the chef recommendations for change was that "a policy

devdopment manual should be developed, based on the results of the study, to present vaPous

models of policy development and practical step-by-step guidelines on implement9tion," (Mock &

Masemanq 1990: 63). Other recommendations induded the provision of resources and ÛaLiing for

educators and those seeking teacher cereincation in Ontario, @Io& & Masemann, 1990).

In response to such recommendations, the provincial Minisag of Education published a

resource guide for educators to supplement curent d c u i u m documents @histry of Education of

Ontario, 1992). In 1992, the Ontario goveaunent fiirther followed through with the 1990

recommendations wock & Masemann, 1990) by legislaMg Bill 21, an amendment to its Education

Act, req.iring all Ontazio school boards to develop and knplanent mti-ra&m and etbndtufal

ecpiq policies. Subsequently, in 1993, the provincial govemment produced its most recent

mdticultural education policy document through its Ministrg of Education and Trainhg, providing

guideluies for ana-racist and e t h n o d d policy development and implementation for school

boards across Ontario, to ensure that "the p ~ t i p k s of anhdsm and ethnodtural e q e axe

observed everywhere in Ontario's school system," (Mhktq of Education and Tnining, Ontario,

1993% 1). The provincial policy manual was designed to work in conjmction Mth and futther

supplement "the p~ciples, practices and outcomes of antitacist and ethocultural equity education"

as "enunciated in Tbe Common Cknicuhm, G&.J 1-9 and other Ministry guidelines and resoutce

documents," Wtry of Education and TraLiing, OntMo, 1993a: 5).

CertaLily, in p d e l to such events, much literanire has been published inEluacirig

educatiod practice in Ontario. This has meant several changes at the administrative level of school

boards, induding the appointment and h h g of consultants and advisors on race relations to

faciiitate formulation and irnplunuitation of poiiy and to maintain an ongoing dialogue with

various cornmunity groups representiug the extensive ethnic diversity found in Ontaxio. Chuigkig

philosophy and thought regwding multiculniral education has also been reflected to varging degrees

in ptovincial curriculum documents and resoutces, as well as pedagopical practice. Educators

themselves have sought to produce their own resource materid within this domain, an example of

which is the recent publication by the Ontaeo Secondary School Teacherd Federation (OSS'JT)

(Coelho, Costiniuk, & Newton, 1995), designed to provide a practical guide for educators by

educators, aiming to r&e multiculturrtl and anti-ra&t education within school practice.

While much has developed in Ontario within the domain of m u l t i d d education policy

and practice, critia st i l l charge chat the gap between the prhciples stated in policy md the a d

implementation of such policy has not been bridged satisfactorily enough (Rezai-Rashti, 1995).

Rezai-Rashti (1995) points to two issues whidi in h a opinion deseme greater attention and resource

allocation, hancial and otherwise: staff development prognms for teadien and Faising students'

awareness of ethnic and r a d issues. Multidtural education in Ontario has c d y not teached

its ideai end, and should be viewed, as stated e d e r , as an ongokg, e v o l . process. Mdticultural

education p o k y and practice in Ontario should c o n ~ u e to address new issues, chan-, and

concerns, as they emerge.

Actiflsts for multiculturalism and a n t i - d m have found themselves hchg a damthg

challenge, a sezious force of concem to contend with, in the form of the hecudy residing

Consemative govcniment in Ontario, which recently enjoyed re-election to a second consecutirre

tenn. Csitics charge that Premiet Mike Harris has 'kipped spart most of the province's prognms to

give minorities a foothold in Ontario," me Toronto Star, 1999). They point to several signifiant

actions taken by the govemment: the repealing of the Emplopent Equity Aa in 1996, which

requires employers to set goals for hiring and promothg visible minorities, women and the disabled;

the tremendous cutting of b d s to the Ontario Humaa Rights Commission, which handles

cornplaints about discrimination; and (what is most relevant hue) the distnantling of the education

ministry's anti-racism unit (The Toronto Star, 1999). Critics fuaher charge that the Consematives

made no mention of combattlig disMimination in th& las t election blueprint With the unveihg its

newly fomdated, revamped cu.rriculum documents in 1998, some have applauded the efforts of the

govemment to introduce more mdticultural and anti-rackt content in various aspects of its

d d u m , such as history and social studies, while othm have criticized the govemment for not

bolstecing the new Cumculum with a more d e s cornmitment to multicultuta education and not

providing the funding and tesources for implementation of mdticultural and anti-racist d c u l a r

schernes. Monover, &tics chuge that by dismantling the education minisay>s anti-~cism unit, the

govanment has fded to provide any altematme body to act under such responsibility. Fuaha

charges are that the government has yet to d e h e its own policy mandate or take any continued

strides towads ht thue is a province wide policg and pzadce of multidtural education. The

government has up to now diffused such charges by pointhg to &Mg policy documents fiom

previous govetnments, cicitllig the non-necessity to provide redundant policy documeats, and

fiiaheni[lote has deflected responsibiliq to On& school boa& for failing to adopt adequate

policg and/or practice- How the MLiistry of Education and Training of the cutrently residing

Consemative government seeks to proceed wïthin the do& of mdticultural education, or respond

to the conhnued criticism regardhg m u l t i d d and anti-ra&t educatiod agenda, semains to be

t6 CURRICULUM IMPLICATIONS

Thete is no dispute that the curriculum shodd be responsive to the multicultuml e d u d o n

agenda, aithough debate may persist regardhg the most effective manner of Nmculum formulation

and implementation (Banks, 1997b; McCarthy, 1993, 1995). The c-cul= should be able to

refiect the cultural and ethnic diversity of its leamiag audience, wirhout straying fiom the overall

objectives of providmg an efficaaous and purposehl education to prepaxe everyone for the

complexities of life and positive partiapation witbli the vatious strata of soaety. The p ~ u p a l

conceni is to avoid marpinaii2ing minority students with th& expexiences and cultutes and ensuring

that the i&g program does indeed refiect th& d r m m s , aspirations and perspectives (Banks,

1997b; Tomlinson, 1986). C d y , "students leam best and are more hghly motivated when the

school Cumculum sefiects th& cultures, ucperimces, and perspccthes," (Ehnks, 199b: 229-230).

Convusely, many minoritg students are likely to be "aiienated in the school in part because they

experience cultural conf ia and discontinuities that result fiom the cultural diffesences between th&

school and community," (Banks, 1997b: 230). Mdticulturai education seeks to alleoiate tbe cross-

c u l d tensions which are likely to d a c e in a culturdy diverse educatiod environment by

ensurhg c-cuh are reflective of the cultures, experiences, and perspectives of the leaming

popuhtion.

W e the OnPeo education ministq and the many school boards, dong with educators

auoss the province, have made strïdes by produchg and publishing s e v d &dm documents

and resources in an mdeavour to respond to the multicultural education agenda, practice does not

seem to have strayed very far beyond the h e e (celebrations/customs, clothing and cooking),

duded to d e r * While Masemann & Cummins (1985) direct attention to Cumcular change "in dl

course material", their focus does not extend beyond the subject ueas of social snidies, history, or

reading, where they advocate: introduchg a greater divezsity of reading and social studies texts and

materiah; the production of new readm in the elementary grades and a greater emphasis on ethaic

diversi9 in Cumculum materials in s o d studies and history; and sirnilar dianges to be affected at

the high school levd for bistory and souology courses. Indeed, provincial Cumculum documents

have fded to make any significant &des beyond the concems that hfasemann & Cummh (1985)

identifie& the anti-racist education agenda semis to be restricted to these same subject domains.

Textbook publishers have responded in kind, with focus prkmdy on the subject areas of s o d

studies, history and reading.

h r b (1997b) echoes a concern conveyed by many (in Canada, two examples are:

Masemanu & Cummins, 1985; Kehoe, 1982): that the multidtural education program penetrate all

aspects of the Cumculu~ and subsequent pedagogical practice for al l subjects, whether English,

wding, ianguage arts, history, social studies, mathematics, or science. Yet, in OntaPo, the provincial

curriculum documents for mathematics and science have yet to be affected in any such serious

mariner (Bhgly-Smoiska, 1989)). If the curriculum is to be t d y responsive to, and r e f l ehe of, the

multidturd education patadigm, then it would seem only reasonable that it shouid extend to ai l

areas of the cllmcuiq induding mathematics and science. Yet, one major reason that mathematics

and science currïcula have not yet been affected, is the prevalent perception of these domains as

"niltumlly neutrai" subject areas. In recent y-, such perceptions have bem challnged.

The following chapters will seek to ampli9 this discussion for science education. Chnpter 2

will seek to resolve the notion of science education and saentZc literacy, explorhg vaiious

conceptions, and seek to translate such discussion wid& the mulaculnual domain, beginning to

defke Curpculat and pedagogid implications. Subsequenttp, chapter 3 d present the multidturai

science education para@ elaboratiag its phiiosophy, aims and perspectives.

IN SEARCH OF SClENTIFIC UTERACY: SEEBING TRANSLATION IN A

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Science education has consistmtly echoed concem for students to acquite and develop

meanin* conceptuai understandings of science dongside its mpnners and methods for the

description, explication, prediction, application, control and manipulation of n a d phenomena.

Cmtral to thiç goal is the cultivation and development of what saence educators have temied as

"saentific literacy". Over the recent decade or so, "sciencific literacy" has become a fashonable

slogan employed synonymously with science education (Aikenhead, 1990; Hodson, 19921; Hodson

and Reid, 1988; Pedretti, 1994; Roberts, 1983, 1988 ), emerging as a predorninant d d u m

emphasis (Robeas, 1983). Indced, in recmt yeacs, the phrase has emerged as an umbrella objective

for samce education, apparently off* the potenrial to shape automatically whae counts as

samce education, thus elimLiaeLig a l l the tumultuous triai and ttiiulation of policy formulation

(Roberts, 1988). However, w h t exactly saentîfïc Iiteracy entails is dehed by several disparate

conceptions. How such dehnition then translates into Cumculum formulation and subsequent

pedagogical practice becomes anothec avenue of concem. Moreover, within a mdtidtural soaety,

concemed with miiindnbg certain aims and objectives, f o w rnight be directed at how such

definition and translation would impact on the 1eaming envitonment

Hence, this chapter d seek to briefly SUftrey the various calls for "saentific literacy" as an

d-encompassing slogan for saence education. Subsequend., with scienàfic l i tacy as an advocated

agenda, focus will be directed towards surveying definîtions and intqretations of ccsaentific

literacy" and their translation into Cumculum and pedagogy- Finslly, this chaptet wiU seek to shift

such translation to within a multicultutal domnin of education.

2.2 ADVOCATING SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

With the notion of scientific and technologid advancement pmading mudi of our hes

and prominently embedded in the conscience of North Arnerican soaety as being equated to

economic and politid p h c y , poiitical, sociai, cultural, and economic iuterests have prompted

calls for scientKc Iiteracy Poberts, 1983). Thomas and Durant (1987), upon an "extensive and

diversey7 review of the literature, identified nine arguments proffered for the promotion of the public

understanding of science. These propositions are distiaguished by refuaice to the benefits

associated mith them, namely, benefits "to science i tse to national prospetity, national powet and

influence, democratic govemment, souetg as a whole, intellechial life, aesthetic application and

rnorah$* Hence, with the pressing perception of vast vested interests at stake, "scientific Iiteracy"

emerged initially as a rallying symbol for educational ideology, not as a dehed objective Poberts,

1983,1988). However, this subsequently translated into a powerful pktform for promoting saence

educa tion.

The 1960s matked a pexiod of rapid and revamphg refomi for not only science education,

but the entire arena of education. This decade also niggered contemplation and consideration of the

notion of saentifïc Iiteracy (Roberts, 1983). By 1969, much thought and opinion had been

expressed regarding suentinc literacy. Hurd (1969), commenting on the scene, diaracterized it as

follow s:

No one seems to deny that developing a sùentific literacy is an essential component of g e n d education, dthough t h e is little agiteement as to just what this means. One idea does seem quite d e the tole of science in our culture7 its integmtion hto neady epery aspect of human M e and humaa needs, demuids a revamping of saaice teaching to develop a coherence of science and soaety. The present curriculum refomi has resulted in

courses that are bound to scientifïc disciplines neglecMg the social aspects of scimce, kp.108-109).

With the constantiy changing face of suenSc and technologid progress, dissemination of

fiindamend undestanding and cornpetence hm taken precedence in the arena of education, from

its most elementay levels. The development and implementation of a coherent educatiod

c~culurn that addresses fundamental issues, such as content and methodology, is viewed as

instrumental in ensuring the continued development of out socieq thtough the propet education

and numtring of young mirids, in order to ensure future success. With the prevaillig and widely

accepted view of education as the fundarnentll fouadauon to any sociecg, the concem extends

beyond the a d acquisition of knowledge to the application and manifestation of it for social,

political, economic and culturai gain and bmefit Consequently, calls for scientifïc Zteracy abound:

American Association for the Advancement of Scimce (1986,1993); Economic C o u d of Canada

(1992); Govemment of Canada Consultation Papm (1991a, 1991b); Ministry of Education of

Ontario (1988); Ministrg of Education and Training (of Ontario) (1998); National Assessrnent of

Educational Progress (1988); Science Councii of Canada (1984). In response to what has been

envisagecl as a & in scientific literacy, various organizations and governmentPl agenaes have

issued recornmendations for curricula, encompassing an iuray of pesspectives (Pedretti, 1 994). The

foiIowing constitutes a small sampllig of such propos&.

In 1982, the National Science Teaches Association PSTA), in the United States, issued the

The goal of science education during the 1980s is to develop saenafically literate individu& who understand how science, techn010gy and souety idumce one an0the.t- and who are able to use this lmowledge in thùt everyday decision-making. The scientificaily literate person has a substantial knowledge base of fa-, concepts, conceptd neo~orks and ptocess skih which enable the individual to learn and think logidy. The individual both appreciates the value of science and technology in soaety and understands th& limitations.

Foliowing on the heels of a lengthy and thorough, in-depth investigation of the way science was

taught in Canadian schools, the Science Council of Canada (1984: 10) urged that science be taught in

such a mannes as to:

1. Encourage full participation in a tedinological souety; 2. Enable fuaher study in science and technology; 3. Facilitate entep into the world of work; and 4. Promote i n t e l l e d and moral development arnoog men and women. .

In 1986, came the release of the widely publicized repo* Project 2061, by the American Association

for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which offend its particular conception of scientific

Education has no higher purpose than preparlig people for persody Mikg and responsible lives. For its part science education - meaning education in science, mathematics, and technology - should help students to develop the understandings and habits of muid they need to become compassio~te human beings able to thLik for themselves and to face life head on. It should equip cititens in building and protecting a soaety that is open, decent and vitai. America's future - in abiliq to aeate a t d y just soaety, to sustain its economic vitaiities - depends more rhan ever on the diaracta and quality of the education cbat the nation provides for all of its children, (AAAS, 1986:12).

More recently, with the publication of its Project 2061 Benchmarks, the AAAS noted that:

People who are literate in samce are not necessady able to do saence, mathematics or engineering in a professional sense, any more rhan a music-literate person needs to be able to compose music or play an instrument Su& people are able, however, to use the habits of mllid and knowledge of saence, mathematics, and tedinology they have acquired to think about and make smse of many of the ideas, dpims, and events that they mcounter in evergday life. Accordingly, saence literacy enhances the ability of a person to obseme events perceptively, cefiect on them thoughthlly, and cornprehend urplanations offered for them. In addition, those interna1 perceptions and reflections can provide the p a o n with a bat& for making deasions and taking action, ( U S , 1993:322).

While the t a n "scientZc literacy" has been scattered about with great promiscuitg and

arnbiguity (Roberts, 1983), it remains very much an absaact irmge which directs saence education

reform (Eisenhart et al., 1996). hdeed, in reviewing such s u n d r y summons for scientSc litetacy,

c* cornmon elements do ernerge. Students are encounged to appreciate, apply and

comprehend science, recognize th& powes and hitatiom, engage in responsible deasion-making

and recognize the interrelatedness of science, technoIogy and societg (Pedretti, 1994), thereby

produchg hdividuals who contribute consûuctively to society in a mannes whïch is ""interes*

responsible and productive," (AAAS, 1993: xi]. However, despite the common elements, the notion

of 'literacy" stemming fkom science education srill dernands furth- consideration.

2.3 IN SEARCH OF DEFINING SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

While strongly advocated by science educators (educational researchexs, ciuadum workexs

and instructors) en =se, the ambiguity of scientific literacy offers many disparate interpretations

(Aikenhead, 1990; Eisenhaa et ai., 1936; Fensham, 1988; Jenhs, 1990; Pedretti, 199+ Roberts,

1983,1988). With the widespread adoption of a pkdorm considered to be both comprehensive and

exhaustive, by numerous groups, each caaging its own competing dernands (Fmsham, 1988), one

would nanirally anticipate the proliferation of multiple interpretations and dehitions em~vlatîng

6rom several soaetal sectors, each Iaykig stress to objectives cornmensurate with its own respective

interests. Hence, while it is dear that diverse views ate held c o n c ~ what exady scientifïc

Iiteracy constitutes, there &O &ts considerable conhision and connict (I?edretti, 1994). For the

sake of brevity, the following text only briefly examines a sample of the many dehitions of

scientinc literacy in the conternporary science education literanire.

MiIlex (1383) attempts to masure scient& literacy dong the " h e e constitutive dimensions

of: the noms and methods of saence; cognitive saence knomledge; and attitudes towards

organized science." J e n h s (1990) notes that these dimensions were evident in the investigation by

the National Science Foundation of saentifc literacy among adults in the United States in 1979. H e

h h e r asserts that "this combined an understanding of the scientific appsoach, of basic saence

constmcts and of science policg issues into a single mesure of public understanding of science,"

(Jenkins, l5)9O:46).

Thornas and Durant (1987) conduded from th& substantd survey of the existing literature,

that scientific literacy entailed some, or dl, of the following Ught charactesistics

An appreaation of the nature, aims, and general limitations of saence; a grasp of the 'scientifk approach' - rational arguments, the abiliq to genenlize, systematize and extrapolate: the roles of theory and observation. An apprcciation of the nature, Ums and limitations of tefhnology, and of how these diffa fiom those of science. A knowledge of the way in which science and technology actually wok, including the fundmg of sesearch, the conventions of saentik practices and the relationship betwem research and development. An appreciation of the inter-relationships between science, technology and society, induding the role of saentists and technicians as wcpexts in socieq and the stnicture of devant decision-rmkkig processes. A p e r d grounding in the language and some of the key conspucts of science. A basic grasp of how to interpret numerid data, e s p e d y relating to probability and statistics* The ability to assllnüate and use technical idormation and the products of tedinology; 'user-cornpetence' in relation to technologically-advanced products, (pp.12-13). Some ide. of where and fiom whom to seek infomtion and advice about matters relating to science and technology.

While scient& literacy dearly extends beyond mere mastery of a specific set of scientik

concepts and theories, to what degree it extends is ceaainly a contestable issue. Despite widespread

usage for more than a decade within science education literature, there is still no consensus about

what precisely saentifïc literacy entails (Jenklis, 1990; Eisenhvt et al., 1996; Galbraith et al., 1997).

Indeed, Orpwood and Garden (1998) comment on the great d i f f i d q and arduous challenge of

spnthesizing an assessrnent scherne for sornething still not dearly defhed or universally agreed upon.

While some rnay view saentifîc literacy as the capacity to read, with reasonable

understanding, lay articles regarding saentific and technologid a& and themes published in the

popular media, others would tegatd it as behg in possession of the requisite knowiedge, ski& and

attitudes deemed appropriate for a professional saentist Others more ambitious, such as the

AAAS, attempt to incorponte both elements, where a saentincally literate individual is d e h d as

one who '5s aware that saence, mathematics, and technology are interdependent human enterprises

with strengths and limitations; understands key concepts and p d p l e s of science; is Eimiliat with

the nanvat wodd and recognizes both its diversicg and unity; and uses scientSc knowledge and

saentific ways of thinking for individual and social purposes," (AAAS, 1989:4). They &er direct

attention towards scient& litemcy for a more soaally compassionate and envitonmentally

sesponsible democracy whm they dedve that science may provide knowledge "to develop effective

solutions to its global and local problems" and may foster "the kind of intelligent respect for nature

thar should inforni decisions on the uses of technology" and without which, they wam, ' k e are in

danger O t recklessly destroying our Me-support sy stem." However, they fd lamentably, to suggest

that saentifïc üteracy rnight also indude the capacity and disposition to behave in envkonmmtally

responsible and s o d y just ways. Such a component appeaxs absent fiom the definition proposed

by the Cound of Ministers of Education (1997:4) to guide & d u m constnaction thtoughout

Canada. Hete, scienti6c literacy is seen as "an evolving combination of the science-related at&udes,

skills, and knowledge students need to develop inquiry, problem-sol- and decision-making

abilities, to become Melong leamers, and to maintain a sense of wonder about the wodd atound

them."

It shodd be noted that there are those who would argue that such notions of widespread

saentific Kteracy are too grand and ambitious as a concept and attempt to encompass more than

they axe capable of delivering. These aitics contend that such a broad and k-readung p l a b

should be abandoned for an agenda more likely to be sealistically achievable (Bauer, 1992; Jenhs,

1990; Sharnos, 1995). Jenkins, (1990) suggests a more restriacd concept of "saentinc fiteracf', in

favout of adopting universal scienatic literacy as an educatiod objective, bakncing "a more

positive and conventional range of mean* of scientifïc Iiteracy as a detenninant of objectives of

school science education," b.50). Bauer (1992) contends that saentific literacy should put las

ernphasis on the traditiod notions of the scienciac method and seek to provide more of a

sophticated social understanding and context for science in the vein of STS (Science-Technology-

Society) education, notlig it to be "more important than science itself for a liberal education,"

@.17). Hence, suentZc literacy might seme as a brandi of social litemcy. Finally, Shamos (1995)

suggests that the notion of developing a @tant saentifx litemq for the public domain is "1ittle

more than a romantic idea, a dream that has little bearing on reality," (p.215). Hence, he argues t h t

it should be abandoned dtogether, to be replaced by more realistic goals such as fosteriog "science

awareness" or "science apptecktion", and that the public musc leam "to seek credible advice hom

(scient&) experts" who wouid serpe not so mu& "as surrogates for the public in detemiiniag

proper course of action on science/technology-based s o d issues, but as advisors on the purely

tedinical aspects of such issues, fiom which the public might hopeWy reach better-iufomed

judgrnents," @p.206-207). Nthough the preceding wcamples appear to advocate a concerted SM

away hpm scientik literacy, it may be argued chat uich of them represents a parti& interpretation

of what may still be temied "scimtific iiteracy", while definhg it with its own respective emphases

and s W g its particular focus of intended goals in parti& directions.

As an urample of such a semantic s u the Scottish Consultative Council on the CUmculum

(SCCC, 1996: 15) has adopted the temi "saentific capability" instead of "scimcinc literacf' on the

gounds that "it conveys mote dearly a Davour of saence education for action as well as for

pusonal enlighterunent and satisfaction." SaenGc clpability is defined in temis of five distinq but

dearly intenelated, aspects: scient& curiosity (an enquinng disposition), scientific cornpetence (the

ability to conduct a saentific investigation), sûentifïc understandhg (an understandLig of scient&

ideas and the way science works), saentific aeativity (the abiliv to ehLik and act creatively), and

scientinc sensitivity (a critical awareness of the role of science in society, combined with a cax@ and

responsible disposition). Hence, scientific capabrlity extends considerably beyond the acquisition of

scienti.6~ knowIedge, sküls and understanding but also encompasses the development of personal

qualities, attitudes, aitical awareness and reasoaing, offering a more personalued and politicized

form ofwhat might sd l be teaned "saentific literacy".

From such an abundance of diverse defïdions and interpretations, Roberts (1983:27) points

to what he desuibes as "the most exhaustive composite definition of scientSc literacy to appear in

the saence education literature to dater', r e f e to the "theoreticai model of suenSc literacy"

developed by Gabel (1 976). Gabel's (1976) model enmerates eight "dimensions*', each of which

refers to an asDect of science education advocated in the literature.

Organization of knowledge. Intellecnial processes. Values and ethics* Process of inquiry. Human endeavour. Interaction of science and techin010gy. Interaction of science and society. Interaction of science, technolog and soaety.

Gabel(1976) added a second dimension to his model which combining the six major categories for

cognitive objectives (knowledge, comprehension, application, d y s i s , synthesis, and evaluation),

widely employed through taxonomy developed by Bloom (1956) and othas, with the thne major

aitegories for affective objectives (valuing, behaving and advocating) provided by Knthwohl et al.

(1964). Roberts (1983) notes that what is immediately striking about Gabel's model is that it

indudes, undet the definition of scieatific literacy, every conceivable category of science education,

and eveq dimension or facet of the Ieaming process, even ven- into both the cognitive and

affective domains.

W1th such a wide range of de finitions and interpretations of scientSc literacy, the problem is

to sort though them, make an appropriate seleaion, and translate them into a viable science

education d d u m , which supports, and is supported by, viable pedagogy. This wiU m e as the

focus for the following section, an examination of implications for both CUMcuIum and pedagogy.

2.4 CURRICULUM AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

Given the dauntiag ange of disparate conceptions, the notion of synthesiziog a d c u l u m

in pursuit of saentific litera y, presents a formidable task for science educators. While the messiness

of policy formulation is seemingly removed by adoption of the umbrella platforni of sdentific

lituacy, this perception is illusory. Because of the considerable scope for dehition and

intetpreracion, the problems policy makm have in adjudicatlig amongst the conflicting wishes of

saikeholdm s a r&s (Robexts, 1988). Indeed, the situation is ftaha exacerbated by the

cornpetition of sweral additional factors, which influence d d u m construction and final

formulation. Fensham (1988) offers insight into the compeMg segments of society which phce

th& personal demands on schooling and science education. He indicates that there are certain

souetal demands which compete for prioritg in a science d c u l u m ' s emphases; these are rooted in

the preswation and primacy of the foliowing interests: political, economic, cultural, social,

inchidual and subject maintenance. Fensham (1 988) a s s m h t each of these elements plays a vital

role in influencing and impacthg decisions about schooling and science education. Each, of coune,

emphasizes objectives cornmensunite with its own respective interests.

Roberts (1983,1988) describes seven science CUtJCiculum emphases, which rnay be found

fiom sufveyhg the history of science education pradce in elementay and second- schoois in

Nonh Amerka, and asserts that scientinc literacy is adieved tkough the balance of these

competing CU1Iiculum emphases. The respective tide of each d d u m emphasis is kgel . self-

exphatozy and suggestive of its inherent meaning. They are:

An eveqday coping emphasis, which orients science teachïng towards the application of science to objects and events of faity obvious irnpomce to the student A sttucatre of science emphasis which orients teaching in such a way h t the student cornes to understand how science fundons as an i n t e l l e d entexprise. A science, techn010gy and decisions emphasis which draws attention to the limitations of science, but also to its semgths, in deallig with the practical affairs of rmmkind. The scient& ski11 development emphasis has science subjea matter taught in the service of developing sophisticated concephial and rnanipulative skills, such as obs- masuring, expuYneneing, hypothesizing, etc It represents an emphasis on the meam of saentific inquiy. The correct explanations emphsis focuses heavily on the ends of suentinc inquky, rathu than the muuis. The emphasis is familiar to anyone engaged in saence teadiing as the "master now, question later" strategy. The self as exphinez emphasis, which concentrates on the s imh i t ies betwea a student's explanato y activities within &/ha cultural context and the explanatory ideas of scientists within theh own cultural ma&. Thus, the idea of saentific ideas shows up as a function of human purpose, and it is only a short step fiom there to lookhg at other modes of expianation, such as religion or magic, to see that a diEferent kind of hurnan purpose is s m e d by them. The solid foundation emphasis answers the student query about the purpose of leamhg "this s d f " in a straightforwatd rnanner: "to get ready for the 'stuf î you arc going to leam next year." In some ways this is the ruissuring cuniculum emphasis, for it indicates to the student that he/she is leamkg something that fits into a structure which has been thought about and pianned. (Roberts, 1983:13-15).

Consequentiy, scienatic literacy is viewed as a composite curriculum emphasis which encompasses

and balances the preceding individual emphases for saence education.

In line with the Science-Tedinology-Society (STS) educational movemenr, Fe&& (1994)

off'ers five p r d e n t paradigms, adapthg Hodson's (1992a) concepntal h e w o r k for a saence

education curriculum which attaches priority to univaal saenac literacg. Without laundiuig into

STS education in much detail, it essenMy rests on the premise of hterpreMg science and

technology as complex s o d y embedded enterprises and seeks to promote the development of a

aitical, scientincally and technologicllly literate atizenrg capable of understanding STS issues,

empowered to make înformed and responsible dedons and able to act upon such deasions

(Pedretti, 1994). Pedrem (1994) argues dut the inclusion of SLS d a d a in science education is

one attempt to fiirthet promote and engage students in scient& and technolo~cal literacy building.

Pedretti's h e w o r k is developed h m a synthesis of the work completed by Hodson (1992a),

Prakash and Waks (1985) and Shen (1975), and represents different aspects of science and

tedinology education which affect cwiculum development, reform and teacher practices.

Hodson (19922) presents a convenient way of vie- science education as comprisiog three

major elements. Firstly, doing saence, which invoives actually engaghg in and developing expertise

in scientific inquirg and problem solving. Secondly, legming saence, which entails acquiring and

developing conceptual and theoretical knowledge. And Lstiy, 1- about saence, which

comprises developing an understanding of the m u e and methods of science, and an awareness of

the complex interactions among science, technology, soaety and eavixonment

In pursuit of scientSc (and technologid) literacy, Pedretti (1994) presents a simikr model:

five prevalent pamdigms, cornprising different dimensions of such literacy. Firsdy, dohg science

and technolog entails a practicai ütmcy aimed at both the processes and practices involved in

conducting a saentific and/or technological utercise. Secondly, l d g science and technology

requLes a rutionai liemg, where acquisition and development of appropriate knowledge (conceptual

and theoretical) takes precedence, and where such a process is closdy related to doing science.

Lastly, Ieaming about saence and technology demands a mihimol literacy which ensures culturai

awareness, relevance and application of knowledge; a personai Ltmacy, where one's individual values,

attitudes and skius ate incorporated with those of science and technology, leading to a pwonalized

leaming ensuring relevance and f à m i l h i ~ and son( i m ni& Lhag, which empowers the individual

with the knowledge, skills and attitudes of science and technology, towards a politicized leamkg. In

P e d d ' s (1994) view, the hst chree are highly integrated and interdependent aspects of Iitemcy.

In reviewing the various slfmmons and delinitions of scient& literacy, certain common

elements become evident Chie*, that "students are encouraged to appreciate, apply and

understand saence (and technology), recognize th& powem and limitations, engage in nsponsible

deasion-maloog and recognize the intenelatedness of science, techn01ogy and souety," Pedretti,

199415). Indeed, each of the preceding paradigms for suentifk literacy seeks to m e a

comprehensive curriculum which preswes the integriq of sùuice education without neglefang

social concenu and implications. In this vein, Hodson and Reid (1988) c d for a curriculum which

ensues universal scientific literacy, accessible to d students, regatdless of social, cultural and

economic considerations, and Lrespective of th& diffment Literests, experiences and abilitiu. Th&

"science for all" Cumculum outhes aspects which should be incorporated as a minimum in the fiml

fonnuIation of my science d c u l u m .

Saence knowledge - c M a i n facts, concepts and theories. Applications of knowledge - the direct use of saentific knowledge in real .and conteved situations. Skills and tactics of saence - familinnty with the processes of saence (dassifgink hypothesizing, etc.) and in the use of apparatus and instruments. Problern sol* and investigations - application of knowIedge, understanding, skilis and tactics to real investigations. Interaction with technology - pmctid problem sohring, emphashbg scimtifk, aesthetiç economic, s o d , and utilitarian aspects of possible solutions. Socio-economic-poiitical and ethical-mord issues in scimce and technology. History and development of saence and technology. Smdy of science and saentific practice - philosophical and soaological considerations centring on scientSc methods, the role and status of saentitic theory and the activities of the cotnmunity of scientists. (Kodson & Reid, 1988:658659).

To &ente a point made e d e r in this text, any science education &dm seeking pdcular

educational objectives enmes its viability by s u p p o ~ g and bekg suppoaed by appropriate

pedagogical practice. Indeed, the dispaetg between the "intended" Cumculum and the

"implemented" ~ c u l u r n is a consequence of a number of factors: availabiliy of resources,

teachîng con- available support, teachet beliefs. Also key to this incongnUq betwem the

intended and implemented, is an approach to d d u m development which fVls to iden* and

engage teaches as the key agents of diaage, and ignotes the uniqueness of educational se-. In

other mords, suentific literacy will not be achieved successfdly except through a viably formulated

amiculum, which balances the various emphases in suence education and recondes cornpethg

interests, coupled with pedagogy which accounts fot the Eactors cornmensurate with its

implementation and deIivery. This wodd necessitate a Currriculum which ensures provisions and

tesources in favour of uitical pedagogical practice. However, this must also indude a seciprocation

on the part of teachers to ensure adherence and advocacy of the curriculum directives.

The past two decades have witnessed extensive tesearch into childten's alternative

conceptions in science, which has led to the formulation, devdopmmt and widespread adoption of

constmctivist appsoaches to teaching and ieaming science (Atwater, 1996; Cobeni, 1993; Driver et

al, 1994; O 'Lcugb 1992; Tobin, 1993; Tobin & Tippins, 1993). ConstnictiViSm refus to a

pedagogicai paradigm for the practice of science education cunendy in vogue. While the term

"constructivism'' encompasses a wide a ~ a y of theoreti4 positions (Good, 1993; Geebn, 1997), and

has been variously used to refer to diverse views about leaming, teadiing, d d u m deveiopment

and pedagogical development, what is cornmon to constnictmist leaming theories is that they

squarely place the action of leamhg with the leamer. In essence, construct'rvist psychology assens

that all knowledge is consmiaed as a result of cognitive processes wkh the leamer, tbrough theV

expePences rooted in pdculat contexts. Constnictivism is a way of thinking about knowing, a

referent for building models for l d g , teaching and Cumculum, to be put to use in the leaming

environment vobin, 1993; Tobin & Tippùis, 1993). In summay, there are four main pedagogical

processes thzough which leamuig is preapitated (Hodson & Hodson 1998:34):

Identifg studmts' ideas and vieas. Geate opportunities for studmts to explore th& ideas and test theu robustness in egplainiog phenornena, accounting foc events and making predictions.

Provide stimuli for students to develop, m o d e and, where necessary, change their ideas and views. Support th& attempts to re-think and reconstmct theL ideas and views.

In this regard, kom a constructivist pexspective on pursuing stieatitic Iiteracy, students'

preconceptions and cognitive h e w o r k s command prime attention, especially since

preconceptions and fkunewoxks inevitably emerge kom one's cultural milieu Hace, understanding

the student's culture would facilitate more effective teaching. Within a mdtidtural educatiod

domain, such consideration would be of considerable sigm6cance. Indeed, the various dehitions

and interpxetations of saentific literacy offered here, suggest a signtficant social and cultural factor

which is s u r e to have impact on the learning process and environment.

2.5 DILEMMA WITHIN A MULTICULTURAL DOMAIN

The intersection of science and sotiety demands focus on a @tant dimension which

pervades both - dture. Cucainly, there a p p m to be a considerable consensus arnongst educators,

both researdias and practitioners, that leamkg is an exercise acutely affected by the impact of

culture, context and environment Consequently, withio the span of scientinc Iiteracy, which

encompasses a focus on science, technology and socierg, a consideration of culture represents a

aitical avenue of exploration and evaluation of saence education and leamhg and how they are

influenced by the impact of culture and its various facets.

Living in a rndticultural souety, such as Canada, inherently d e s with it curain challenges

and dilemmas. Aside fiom debating issues of petspectives such as assimilation, integration, and

ethnic and cultural pluralism (recall chapter l), it is vital to view the extensive d c a t i o n s of

poliaes and decisions regarding eduution, which serve as a p x b q foundation to estabhh,

compose, configure, dehe, and dictate concepts and notions of any soaetal frJunework, The

purpose of an educational CUEculum based on speciEic content and goals then becomes a venue for

inves@tion, whereby one would want to seek out factors and issues deteminhg the content and

objectives deemed valuable and relevant Narrowhg the focus wodd subsequently lead one to

analyze specinc subject areas and the concept of theit application in a socialiy pradcal, relevant, and

responsible rnanner. Further: to this, emerge issues of conlml, manipulation and exploitation of a

leaming environment which rnay be in conflict with the cultural values of children coming fiom

varying backgronds.

The p- goal of science education hm h y s been to aid students in developing

rneanhgfd c~iiceptual understandings of science and its mmners and methods of desa%%

expkialig, predicting, applying, controhg and manipulaMg naniral phenornena. Fostering and

developing saentific literacy (wirh an emphasis on knowledge acquisition) vnongst students has

remained a cuitrd goal of science education. Towatd this end, science instruction has consistmtly

been designed to integrate saence processes and conceptual knowledge. W e wbat science

educatos hope to achieve, with regard to scientific literacy, continues to reside within some g e n d

domain of objectives, the question o f how to achieve such objectives has persisted in debate

through the history of science education. The saence curriculum has consistently been geaxed

toward faditaMg the educative process, in the most efficaaous marner deemed appropriate, by

focusing on investigations and activities designed to heip students modify their intuitive, "evqday''

modes of explaining nature and the universe. Through such modification, studrnts are expected to

displace thek fomu seemingly dysfiuictional theories, by fiesh and functionally vdid theories of

science, to be adopted and incorporated wivithin th& personal h e w o r k of scientific concepts and

ways of thinlrlig. However, what of codict still p&ting with the leamer's concephial fÎamework

and the conceptuai understandhg proffered by the teacher?

0ve.r the 1st few decades, saence education emphasis has shified fiom a "scknce for

saentists" focus to a "science for a l ' focus and science education has shed to foster scienfic

literacy among a much k g e x aoss section of soaety. Thus, science education has become an

enterprise engaged in incorporating saenofic know1edge, skih and attitudes within the distinctbe

Tzimework of a very diverse leaming audience (Atwatet & Riley, 1993). It is important to

admowledge that dl arguments for scientifïc iiteracy are value laden and rnay not easily aoss

national or even sub-cultural boundaries ~enklis, 1990). In a multicultural dassroom, therefore, the

problern is that students m u t cross quite formidable boundaries in order to gain access (Atwater,

1995).

In other words, one can not ignore "that science and science education are culturaI

enterprises which form a part of the wider cultural ma& of society and that educational

considerations conceming science mut be made in light of this wider perspective," (Maddock,

1981:lO). Socidnual factors conmbuting to one's social and cultual identity, comprishg gender,

ethnicity, religion, economics, politics and the sotioculniral environment, impact quite considerably

on the leamhg process. Science education is no exception (Amater, 1996; Amatex & Rilep, 1993;

KruglySmolska, 1989; O'Loughlin, 1992).

The cultural milieu has long bem secognized as a major influence on scieneific thought

(Aikdead, 1996; Knigly-Smolska, 1989). Anyone who has introduced concepts and notions of

science and technology into a community either within, or hom, a developing nation, or those who

have attempted to teach science to chilken in such commmities will appreciate the fidl impact of

such staternent (Aikenhead, 1980). For instance, manjr cuinites do not beiîeve as we do in the value

of relating events in temis of the reiationship between cause and effect (Aikenhezd, 1980). Hence,

science must be viewed as a social phenornenon in which people are trained to view the world in

certain ways. Such world views are bound by traditional habits of perceming and thuiking, Stuated

withia a cultural mindset Indeed, Cobem (1993) has asserted that different cultural enviroments

give rise to d.erent '"worldviews", defined as composite sets of beliefs, values and ethos,

mnintained consciously or subconsaously, regarding the nature of reaJity and the process of

pusuing knowledge conceming it Such 'koddviews" predispose people's emotions, thoughts and

behaviow in parti& ways. Consequently, one should anticipate verg conspicuous cross-cultural

differences to emerge in the ways people conceptualize and intmct 6th the nanial environment

end, hence, significantly diverse manna of response to Western science and its endemic protocol

for conceptualijng and investigating natural phenornena. Hence, educational research becomes

vital in seeking to understand and develop a pedagogical approach sensitive to the larger dpaamics

suwunding education, such as ovmiding social, political, economic and cultural contexts and

issues.

If science is a culturnl constnict, imbued with partic* values tooted in the con= and

backdrop from which it emerges, science education may also be viewed as being postuiated within a

Western, or Euro-American7 nild fkamework and aeatlig a situation of c u l d imposition and

dominance over many otbers who originate fiom diverse backgrounds (Aikenhead, 1993, 1996;

Atwater & Riley, 1993; Hodson, 1992b7 1993,1999; Jegede, 1997; Rakow & Bemiudez, 1993; Stanley

& Brickhouse, 1994). Because literacy is inextricably Iinked to hguage and cultute, the litera y of

saentinc literacy is that of Western dture, so that when science content and methodology are

taught, thete is a simultaneous conveyance (iistniction, and to a signîflcant extmt indoCmaation) of

a dimension of Western culture (Aikeabead, 1996; Hodson, 1992b, 1993; Knigy-Smolska, 1989;

McKinley et al, 1992). As a consequence, ctoss-cultural tensions are Wsely to surface. Within the

mdticultural domain of education, how are such situations to be addressed? How are such tensions

to be ameliorated? 1s the integrity of science education and saentifïc l i tacy compromisedl 1s the

integrky of the child's cultural beliefs, values and ethos violated, even if the child is initiaIly wiaware?

Transla6.q scientific literacy into a d d u m and an effective pedagogy poses sîgdïcant ptoblems,

as outllied earlier. These probluns are considewbly exacerbated by the mdticultural domain, with

seEous concem duected at the problan of reconcüing cultural integriq with scientSc uitegriv.

2.6 PROGRESSING TOWARDS A SOLUTION

Previous discussion bas argued that the task of teaching science in contempo- Western

soaeties requkes that we support all chilken in th& effom to acquite scientific knowledge,

interests, skills, attitudes and ways of thinking without committing violence against thek parti&

cultural beliefs and experiences (Hodson, 1992% 1993). An approach needs to be sought w h i h

establishes a ~ e w o r k of guidelines to assist the planntng of a science curriculum and a

pedagogical approach capable of achieving a synthesis between multicultural and mti-racist

procedures. This approach should emphasize the reconciliation of individual needs within a

d d y diverse s o d environ men^ while also ensuhg that due attention is paid to raising issues

of equality, justice and empowennent. Taking account of science as a d d phenornenon means

giviag attention to all soaetal iduuices which vie for their dernands to be ernphasized in the

decision making process of the saence cbculum. Given the goal of scient& literacy for ail, and

the reality of a mul t icu ld soaety, it becomes necessay to ensure the maintmance of equitable

access and the climination of sociocdtural marginalization and disenfranchisernent of leamers.

Hence> within the sphere of saence, technology and souety education, the notion of scientinc

literacy necessitates a much broader s o d and c d d consideration 06 and zeflecrion on, the

histozy, philosophy and souology of science The next chapter focuses on the philosophy,

objectives and perspectives of m u l t i d d saence education.

CHAPTER 3

MULTICULTURAL SCIENCE EDUCATION: PHILOSOPHY, OBJECTIVES AND

PERSPECTIVES

Tkümc, Ii'oqet.

S.owme, Imember,

bvoiie me, luodmtaad

Ancient Chinese Provetb

As suggested earlier, there is increasing recognition that science education is posailated

Mthin a West- or Euro-American cuiniral hmework, creating a situation o f cultural imposition

and dominance over many others, people and ideas, originating from dmeEe backgrounds

(Aikeahead, 1993, 1996; Atwater & Riley, 1993; Hodson, 1993, 1999; Jegede, 1997; Rakow &

Bemiudez, 1993; Stanley & Brickhouse, 1994). As a resdt, aossdtural tensions emerge.

Multicdhiral education operates on the premise of amelioratuig such a situation and, moreover,

mbkkhg, if not dtogether elimiaa~g, su& tensions and the possible marghabation of students

(Atwater, 1993, 1995, 1996; Atwater & RiIey, 1993; Hodson, 1993, 1999; Stanley & Brickhouse,

1994). Since preconceptions and h e w o r k s inevitably emanate fiom one's cultural milieu,

understanding the studmt's culture is an essential element in faciiitating a more effective deliveq of

the parti& curriculum content

Atwater (1996) has noted that traditional pmdigms for science education focused on the

leaming of sumce with little regard for the sociocultural context, or the d d composition, of its

lemer audience. Aikenhead (1996) notes the emergence of a literature addressing such issues,

pointhg to a semina i volume of Sf~&e.r in Scient Edwcabon, in which Maddock (1981) proposed

"that science and science education are cultural enterprises which fomi a part of the wider cultural

ma& of society and that educational considerations conceming suence m u t be made in the light

of this wider pmpective," @.IO). ilikenhead (1996) also notes that the same volume contahed

Wilson's (1981) comprehensive review of a diverse body of literature dealing with the c u i d

contexts of saence education. "OPer the ensuing years, resemch into muitidtural science

education has enriched Maddock's and Wilson's original wotlg" (Aikenhead, 1996: 1).

According to Atwatex (1996: 822), "Mdticultnral science education is a field of inquiry with

constructs, methodologies, and processes limed at equitable opportuaities for P students to leam

quality science." Earlier, Pomemy (1994) had identXed the major issues and tensions daving the

mdticultural movement in saence education and explored numerous programs and research

propos&, analyzing them into nine research agendas, each depicMg a distinct facet of cross-cultural

eadeavours. Ali of the studies in Pometoy's (1994) surpey examined science education in non-

Western nations, or in idgrnous societies, or science educatioa for minorities in indusmalized

countries (groups undempresented in science and technology professions). Her discussion of the

nine agendas creates a general progression ftom a more stltic view of mdticultumlism, which

milintains the statu quo structure of institutions of saence and culture, to a more dyaamic inter-

culturai or cross-cultural view whidi requkes the deconstniction of Westem science as &ersal and

a kesh construction of, and most importantly rccess to, altematme views and methods.

Hodson (1993, 1999) categ&es major thrusts of multidtural science education as:

personalization of leaming (which this thesis advocates as the most sipifkant elemmt), the

demythologization of saence, and the politicbation of saence education. Toward this end, the

d e ~ g n d s of c u l d p l d m a d anti-racism musc be r e c o d e d with cultural diversitg md the

science entexprise. In examhbg the mdtidtutal saence education agenda, this thesis unploys

Hodson's (1993,1999) dassifïcations as a way of fliditating discussion of the pertinent objectives

and considerations identified in d e r chapters. This chapter is principdy concemed with the

implications of the fomulation of a sdence cuaidum for universal s c i m t i f i c literacy and with

debating its practicality and validiq in the context of a m u l t i d d society, bePring in mind the

previous distinctions dnwn among assimilation, integration, ethnic and dtural pluulism, and a d -

racism

3.2 PERSONALIZING f,FIARNING AND KNOWLEDGE

'Tenorialization of learnlig means taking account of the knowledge, experience, needs,

intexesa and aspirations of each Iûimer, regardless of th& sodocultural ba-omd, and

admowledging that cultural factors outside the immediate environment of the school play an

impomt role in the deveiopment of students' scientinc concepts and, thesefore, in the ways they

respond to &duni urperiences" (Hodson, 1999: 217). The past two decadw have witnessed

extensive research into children's aitemahe conceptions in saence, which has led to the

fornidation, developmait and widespread adoption of constructivist appmaches to teachjng and

leaming science (Atwater, 1996; Cobem, 1993; Driver et al, 1994; O'Loughlki, 1992; Tobin, 1993;

Tobin & Tipphs, 1993). Cons~uctivism is a way of thinklig about kuowing, a refermt for building

models for leaming, teaching, and curriculum, to be put to task in the leaming envitonment pobin,

1993; Tobin & Tippkis, 1993). Its basic essence is centered on studmts ' consauction of lmowledge

and understanding through a personalized experiena leaming process. In summnrg, there are four

main stages to the constntctbist approach: idenafging students' ideas and vîews; creatiag

opportunities for students to explore th& ideas and test th& cogency and soundness in explnioing

phenornena, accounting for events and making predictions; providing stimuli for students to

develop, rno* a d , where necessary, change their ideas and views; supporthg their attempts to re-

thkik and reconsttuct their ideas and views (Hodson, 1999). Lt follows that students'

preconceptions and cognitive fkameworks command pPme attention, especially since

preconceptions and frameworks inevitably emerge fiom one's cultural milieu. Hence, a good

understanding of the student's culture should Eicilitate more effective teaching.

Posner et al (1982) have argued that new 1eaming is attained when lemers are dissatisfied

with th& m e n t convictions, and understanding, and have ready access to a new or seemingly more

accornmodathg notion. They fiitthe~: argued that the acceptability of a new conception is

contingent upon c d aiteria. Fkstly, it mut be inteligi'ble, in that the h e r must comprehend

what it means and how it can and should be applied. Secondly, it must be plausible, so that it shodd

be consistent with and reconcihbie with other aspects of the students' understanding. Thirdly, there

should be dissatisfaction with existing conceptions, either prior to, os as a consequence of, exposure

to the aew conception. Lady, the new conception should prove fhitful, in that it should possess

the capacity to provide somebng of value to the leamer by not only solving signiticant problems,

and suggesting new interpretations, but fuatiennore, leading to new hsights md discoveeies.

Discontent with a prevadbg notion may reside in experienciq an anornaly whai attempting

intqretation, or in the cutrat conception's inability to correctly predict, control or manipulate

events beyond its previously restricted context That is, it no longer proves huithl in the new

situations one confiants. It "ight also be encountered in the realization that other alternative

modes of exphnation sa&+ the conditions of intelligibility and plausibility more adequatdy than

existing beiiefs- Hodson (1999) States that the conceptual change approach desdbed by Hearson

and Thotley (1989) regads teaching and levning science as a mattes of modifping the s*tnis of riva

conceptions with respect to the aforementioned conditions of Posner et ai (1982). "Put simply, the

teacher's task is to Iowa the status of the exisfing ideas and the raise the status of the new one,"

(Hodson, 1999: 218).

However, there are two limitations to this conceptual change view of lcaming, whîch

Hodson (1999) has indicated. Firstly. it ignores the tendencg of students to p d t e n ù y ding tu

existing views despite the overwhelming widence to the conaarg, and despite the p o w d

arguments in favour of the tacher's proffered alternative "For example, y o q childtren atrempthg

to explain fioating and sinking will quite bppily shifi kom explanations based on weight to those

based on size or texture, dependiug on the parti& contua. If cbildren donPt expect consistency

among explanations, then inconsistency between exisMg views and 'offiaaJ, vie- is not an

incentive for change," (Hodson, 1999: 218).

A second limitation exists in the treamimt of concephial diange as an entirely rational

process in which leamers decide between &al conceptions, or competing theories, on the basis of

compelling empincal eviderrce, and/or theoretical assertion. B y contrast, Kuhn (1 970) has

d t a i n e d that scimtifîc revolutions (major theoretical revisoas) may not dways be explained in

enàtely rational ternis. Skice, it is not possible to conduct aitical expahents capable of fumishiug

theozpindependent data, it follows that thue are no puely logical aiterin (in the famüiar usage of

the temi) for substantiating the supezioity of one theory over anothet (Hodson, 1999). "In othet

words, theories axe empiiically under-determined. Empincal adequacy is not enough In itself to

establish validity and, in praciice, empiricai hadequacg is fiequently ignored by individual saentists

fighting passionately for a wd-loved theo y, and is often considered subordhate to the 'context of

discovesy' by the community appointed validators," (Hodson, 1993: 218).

In other wotds, knowledge is negotiated within the community of saentists by a complex interplay of theoretid argument, e x p d e n t and personal opinion, undefpinned by a complex of personal feelings and attitudes rooted in social, economic, political moral and ethicai considerations. If the commuuity of saentists changes its views for aU h d s of 'non- rational' reasons, why should it be my different for individual leamers? A l&s goals, aspirations, feelings, experiences, vaiues and attitudes will play a par^ So, too, wili the leamer's other knowledge @oth scient& and non-saentific), intelleaual tools, linguistic competmce, and overatching episternoIogical and metaphysical beliefs. The greatest influence of dl, however, may be the sociocultural location of the leamer and his/her sense of identity - principdy, &ss, gender and ethnic identitg. Hence, 'non-mtiod' factors that might innuence an individuai leamex's acceptance or rejection of a new idea in a science dass indude: interest; perception of relevance; self-interest; feelings of dLiXiety, uncertainq,

satisfixction, coddence and pride; aesthetic, political, economic and moral-ethical concaas. Put simply, how students Fed about the ideas being presented to them, for whatever reasons, influences their leaming. Feelings of wonder, deiight, amuseme* interest, &sinteres< boredom and disgust d deatly impact in dLfferent ways on a leaming tlsk - sometimes favourably, somethes unfavouably. (Hodson, 1999: 219)

In addition to the aforementioned limitations to constructmist approaches, OZougfUin

(1992) has contended that constructivism is bwed because of its iuability to corne to grips with the

essential issues of culture, power and discourse in the dassroom. He presented a sociocdtural

approad to teacbing and leaming which takes seriously the notion that leaming is situated in

conturts; studmts bPng th& own subjectivities and cultural perspectmes to bear in construchg

comprehemion; issues of power cvist in the dassroom that wapant addressiqg and "education h t o

scientific ways of knowing requires understanding modes of dassroom discourse and enab% 8

students to negotiate these modes effectively so that they may master and critique scientik ways of

kriowhg without, in the process, sacriticing th& own persondy and cuinirally consmacd ways of

knowing," (O'Lougblin, 1992: 791). This approach has been advocated by others and adopted

under the banner of social constnictivism (Atwatet, 1996; Cobb, 1994; Driver et al 1994). The

common consensus amoog its advocates is that social consenictivism provides a b e w o r k for

saence educators and researdius to snidy the nature and qualiq of socidy and culturally sïtuated

constructions in science education (Atwater, 1996). Essentially, this translates into two major

responses: regardhg scientifïc undustanding as the development of a personal h e w o r k of

understanding, within which seemingly anomalous conceptions can CO-exisr, and affo~dhg a more

prominent role to the affectme and social dimensions of leamhg. Bo& of these concems shall be

addressed later hough the course of this t a

Anothet objection raised against the conventional rhetoric of constructivism, though of a

fiiadamendy different kind, is the charge of neglecting and trhbhbg scimtitic understanding

(Hodson, 1999). At the huut of such critickm is the concem that construcapist approaches imply

that students who constmct th& own understandhg of the world of n a d phenornena are also

building scientifïc understanding. Opponents to a sociocultural approach firrther: charge proponents

with not taking science se8ously, allowiag anything to count as science (Go04 1995; Loving 1995),

with the aiteria of scientific tmth disregarded in favouç of appenüng to students' cultural rdevancy

and ensuring equitable educational access for ail. "Students are to be knmersed in issues relevant to

th& pdcular region, sdiool, dassroom, and culture - a potentially relativiçt notion if studenoi are

fiee to choose evetythtng they snidy in each setting," @ving, 1995: 342).

While Hodson (1993) advocated teaching m u l t i d d science so that students can "acquke

stientific knowledge, intesests, skiUs and ways of chinking without dokig violence to their particular

cultural beliefs and urperiences", Williams (1994) levelled thtee charges agahst hirn, stating that such

an approach does violence to science, it pamnizes ethaic and dturai minonties, and it "dash(es)

with the accepted goah and d u e s of education in a Western democratic soaeq." Hodson (1994)

argued, however, that bis curriculum propos& were "tooted very W y in the notion of titical

thinking and soaopolitical action by students on matters rhat relate to suentific, technologid, and

environmenta issues." If such approach were to dash with existing goals and vaiues, Hodson

(1994) prodaimed himselfgdty, though not for the rasons W i s (1994) presented Moseover,

far fiom margkialuing minority group students, mul t i cu ld science educatioa was designed

ppmady a> empower them.

ScientSc knowledge is more than personal belief reinforced by persody gathered

obsemational confkmation; it is an attempt to e x p h and account for the real nature of the physical

universe, regardess of whether it is cogent in the cornmon conveyance of such expression @odson,

1988,1999; Koeage, 1996). "Indeed, much scientSc knowledge fies in the face of conmon smse,

aad the physics of W e o , Newton or Einstein compares uatiivourab1y with Aristotelian views if

common sense is to be the ~rbiter" Podson, 1999: 220). A c m d component of saence education

comprises understanding the pdculat: rationaliq which scientists employ in perating and

validating daims, what chat rationaity is, and how it might be iduenced by social, economic,

p o I i ~ 4 moral and ethicai factors (Hodson, 1988; Koertge, 1996). Howeoer, definition of

rationality and the degree to which such factors infiuence it, is a matter of some contention

(Hodson, 1988,1999), not to be discussed hae for the sake of breviq. Suffice it to say that leaming

suence travels beyond conducting a "fair test" by systematically manipulafing variables in order to

satkfg oneself concunlig a parti& belief, but rather involves inculcation of "established

techniques, strategies, standards and aiteria of saence," (Hodsoq 1988). Hodson (1 988) argued

that his understanding entails aitical cognizance of the nature of scientSc evidence, understanding

the role and statu of scientific knowledge, and recognition of the social situation, and thezefore

c u l d contingence, of the saentific enterprise.

It is endturation into these d i s ~ h e l y scieûtific ways of ho-, acting and communica~g that consutute one of the p ~ c i p d go& of saence and te ch no log^ education. However, this goal of enculturation does not mean that the drive to personalize leaming has to be abandoned. Nor does it mûui that students have to give up other beliefk and values they may cunendy hold. Endtumtion without assimilation is possible. Science education as endturation c m be reconciled with the notion of pmonalization through a reconsidetation of the name of saentitic understanding and the elabontion of the idea of a personal h e w o r k of understanding. (Hodson, 1999: 220).

There is no den& that children are inculcated with a certain belief systern whidi is

introduced from the elementary stages of schooling, where they are expliütly exposed to a certain

cultural fhmewock, that of the host culture, through fiterature used to aquire basic 1iteracy ski&

(Houser, 1996). The notion of educational subjects being laden with values and centered on a

parti& culture is w d established in the fiteranire, whether iu historg, Luigulge studies or science

Po-, 1996; KniglySmolska, 1989). For example, consider the use of the Arnexican readhg

s a of Di& Juie and Spot In cettain cultures you would never have Di& and Jane piaying

togethq but Di& and John, or they would not play with Spot the dog but Spot the cat, or some

0th- animal, or they would not be playing with Spot but rather would be eathg him. Educating

through such materials immediately conveys cultural concepnializations, views, beliefk, pradces, and

norms. This challenge might be accornmodated through c ~ c u l u m mat& that reflect cultural

dmersity, so that chitdren recognize for themselves that they and other people do things difzerently,

so that one does not adopt an individual cultural view as the Law of the universe. However, the

psoblem is that despite exposuxe to d i v a e cmiculum mat-, what is a c M y taught very much

subsaibes to the culturai views, beliefs, practices and n o m , of the host culture, &et reinforced

by the media, society, and the sphere of public interaction, including education (Houser, 1996).

Does mdticultural education thm reaily achieve what it has set out to target? In a science context,

what does multicultural science education intend to achieve? Moreover, what ptecïsely does it

propose and for whom?

lhmg in a mulucultural soaety requires and necessitates abandoning, s a d c i n g and

relinquisbmg certain culniral beliefs, noms and practices - one cm't possibly reaeate one's

kidigenous enWonment without impediug someone else's ability to do the same. We must d e at

some sort of dtural nunis - a meeting place of diversiq. In essence, to adopt a common culture

for utilitarian purposes of functionihg in this soaety, so that we in effect accommodate everyone, is

perhaps to accommodate no one. However, we can mate in the host soaety a much greatu range

of options, level of flexibility and accommodation to different ways of thinking, and

believing, though accommodation will necessasily be of a relatively limited degree due to the

parameten defined by the dominant culture (Houser, 1996).

Development of a personalized leamhg framework runs countex to the traditional

methodoIogy of science education to ignore, suppress, or eliminate, personai, idiosynaatic and

exnotional connotations (Hodson, 1988,1999; Koertge, 1996). For exampIe, the science enterprise

demnnds the emplopment of spea?lited scientific terminology and the insistence on a fonnalized

vemacular. Hodson (1999) has noted tbat while speaalized temis such as photosynthesis' offer

inaeased explanatoq power, which is d u e n t cause for th& use, jvgonization often increases

difficulty, decreases interest, and possibly alienates some chiIdren fiom saence. He presents the

view of encouraging rather tha. discouragkig the connotathe aspects of understanding, and their

sub-cultural vaxhtions, as "it is likely that these other, personalized aspects of meaning, with theit

everyday associauons, c m provide the key anchorhg points for new leaming, md so tender it moce

meanhgfW @. 221).

Nuauting and fostexing saentitic literay for all students, in tetms of adopMg a persod

b e w o r k of knowledge and leaming, necessitates enculturation and personal incorpontion of

s a e n S c concepts and ways of tbnking which are si& to, or coinadent with, those accepted and

sanctioned by the scimt5c community, or th& school cwiculum versions. The pc imq task of

science educators is to aid students in developing meaningful conceptuai understandings of science

and its maMers and methods of describing, predicting, urplaining, conaoiiing and manipulating

natural phenornena. Subsequendy, saence instruction is specifîcally steered to integrate science

processes and conceptual knowledge (Koertge, 1996.). The samce cllmculum is further geared

toward facilitating this process by its focus on investigations and activities designed to heIp students

modifg and develop th& pusonalîzed knowledge and leaming, so that th& intuitive, "evqdaf'

modes of interpretation, explanation, and prediction, incorposate the desired scienfic aspects of

meaning and a comprehensive grasp of their appropriate use.

However, adopMg new rne?ning should not necessdy entail reliaquishhg the old.

Ceaainly, approved s4en&c meanings can exist, jwtaposed to a wide range of personal,

idiospnaatic beliefs, mdmtandings, and associations ( f i d e a d , 1996; Cobem, 1993; Hodson,

1993, 1999; Jegede, 1995, 1997). Hodson (1999) offaed the simple example of the saentific

undestanding that cucumbers and tornatoes are hi& yet it does not ptedude the comrnon smse

understanding that they are located in the vegetable section of a grocerg store. He stresses the

importance ''in recognizing when parti& meanings are approptiate and being able to use them

properly w i t h the appropriate discourse."

Sociocultural factors conmiutlig to one's sooal and culnital identity, compnsiag gender,

ethniaty, religion, economics, poliacs and the sociocultural environ men^ impact quite considerably

on the learning process, with the science education endeavour itself being no exception (Atwater,

1993, 1996; Chamberlain, 1986; Jegede, 1997; O'hugblin, 1992). Cobem (1993) argued that

different cultural enviro~ients produce different "worldviews", defïned as composite sets of beliefi,

values, and ethos, maintained consaously or subconsciously, regardhg the nature of r d ~ and the

process of pursuing knowledge concerning it Such '3vorldviews" thm predispose people's

emotions, thoughts and behaviours in p d c u k r ways. Conseqwntly, one shodd expect very

conspicuous cross-culd diffaences to become manifest in the ways people conceptualize and

interact wïth the natural envitonment and, hence, signtticandy diffaent rnanners of response to

West- saence and its endemic protocol for conceptualiPng and investigating the n a d world.

Jegede (1995, 1997) has discussed, at considerable length, the challenges faced by E c a n

students and their science educators due to the incompatiibility and incongruency of the AfZcan

woddview with the worldview implicit and inherent in Western Science. Moreover, Hodson (1993)

has pointed toward other ucamples of cultures facing simikt crisis, such as the No& Amenencan

Natives, Maoe of New Zealand, Japanese, and Muslims. Consequently, it should be realized that

such problems are not conhned to non-Westem nations. Rather, they exist in any Ciassroom

comprised of a diverse student population, swing fioom various sub-cultural backgrounds, where

various woddviews corne into contact with a common lgenda of learning science (Atwater; 1995;

Chamberlain, 1986), staged on the common platforni defined by the host culture, which is impliutly

Western o k t e d In the case of mdtidtural soaeties such as Canada, Britah, America and

Austda.

3.2.1 BORDER CROSSING

Gkoux (1992) refeeted to movements berneen the various groups and sub-groups one

belongs to, and intuaas with, as "order cxossing''. Each of us d e s particulat social and cultural

knowledge sets, comprishg values, beliefi and etiquettes, which allow us to communicate and

interact with a number of societal sub-groups, where each group and sub-group c m be thought to

possess its own "culture". Effective participation in such groups is dependmt on one's possession

of the appropriate d t u r a l knowledge set In consequence, one's profle of cultural knowledge is

unique, reflecthg the partidar constellation of group memberships. This fluther &borates the

concept of each student's dis~ctive and unique personal framework of understan- which would

translate into the developmmt of unique personal leaming contexts. An appreciation of this would

p~ovide greater insight into leaming facilitation, so that teachers might conceive how students

negothte certain boundaties s u c c e s s ~ y and are impeded by others.

Aikenhead (1996) has explored bordez crossing into the subculture of science. 3:udents

cross various b o r d a fiom the home culture, to the host societg's culture, to the school culhite.

Science leamers encouter an addiaonal border to cross, that of the culture of science, or the

particular CUMculum vusion of it Aikmhead (1996) seeks to idmtify the vaxious borders that

saence studmts aoss, in reference to four types of transitions, where: congruent worlds support

smooth transitions, different worlds tequk transitions to be negotiated, diverse wodds lead to

hazardous transitions, and highly discordant wodds cause students to resist ttansitions which then

become vimially impossible. He points to the work of Costa (1995), who, guided by this model,

identified five distinctive pattemed groups regardhg the relationsbip between personal experiences

and success in school and saence, drawing attention to the necessitg of currïdum and school

pradces that faditate the integmtion of students' multiple worlds. Costa's tme categones are:

'Totential scientists": whae the worids of family and hiends are congruent with the

worlQ of both school and science. hence transition into the school science culture is

unproblematic; such students usually have educational and vocational aspirations

prorninently ued to science.

"Other s~ kids": where the wod& of M y and &ends are congruent with the

world of school but inconsistent with that of saence; su& students negotiate transition

into school saence culture with little di€ficu.ity, and while science is not of paramount

interest to hem, they c m d e potmtially instrumental use of it in theit educational or

vocational pursuitS.

"'I donyt know' studmts": where the wodds of f d y and &ends are inconsistent with

the worlds of both school and saence; transition into school science culture is

hazardous, possibly at some persod expense; usuaily. sudi sntdmts will negotiate the

dunaads of the system, obraining rasonable grades, wkhout ever gaîning a ami

grounding in the matesial.

"Outsiders": where the wodds of family and &ends are discordant with the worlds of

both school and science; such students wiil tend to be disillusioned with, or alienated

fiom, school; generaily, transition into the school saence culture will be essentially

deasible; they neither know, nor axe, about science.

"Inside outsiders": where the wodds of f d y and fiends are irrecoadable with the

wodd of school, but are potmtially compatible with the world of science; while such

students possess a n a d interest in saence, transition into the culture of school saence

is prevmted thtough lack of support fiom both inside and outside school, and fkther

by thet distrust ofschook and teachers.

Hence, science education becomes a aoss-cuItural event for most students (Costa's

"Outsiders", '7 don't know studmts" and "Other s m a r t kids"), which begs the question of whether

science cuuicula can be developed for students idenaed by thek border uossing needs. After dl, it

is quite likely that students stemming fiom different ethnic groups will perceive boundaries

differently and employ différent sttategies for adaptation as they move, or attempt to move, between

sociocultural s e h g s (Aikenhead, 1996). Research conducted on gender issues in science education

is quite extensive (Atwater, 1996) pouifiog to the notion of gitls perceioing boudaries differently

than boys, and hence adopting distinct strategies for effecting transition. Hodson (1999) comrnents

that for any pa.rti& individu4 patterns are not necessady stable over time and may be

profoundly affected by changes ki the dassroom or school environment, family ciimate and peer

group relationships. It is @tant to note that in Costa's (1995) snidy, smdats in the "Inside

ouhidei' category were entirely Afkican h e r i c a n . Moreoves, she observed that the population for

whom transition into the school suence cultue was smooth and unproblunatic, were primariy

fiom white middle &ss family groups, and that transitions were g e n d y easier for boys than girls.

3.2.2 TOWARDS ENCULTURATION WITHOUT ASSIMILATION

Any muiticultural science education Cumculum would need to consider students' cultural

perspective and utperiences with school saence in tenns of aossing borders fiom the subcultures

associated with pem, f d y , media, and the school, into the subculnires of stience and school

saence. A cultural perspective should recognhe science teaching as a process aimed at

endturation, or assindation - cultural transmission that supports or replaces one's We-wodd

subcultures, respectively (Aikenhead, 1996). Aikenhead (1996) comments tbat smooth border

crossings are experienced by students whose lifewodd subdtures harrnonize with that of samce.

Hence, for than science instruction would be encultutation. However, for the réIrnainder of

students whose lXe-wodd subdttues, to varping degrees, are at odds with the subculture of science,

conventional instruction in school would translate into assimilntion.

One of the intended goals of mdticulnunl science education wodd be to seek out

appropriate insûuctional strategies to allow children to be enniltured withia a parti& b e w o r k

(that of scimtik culturai procedure), without having to asgrnilate, and therefore compromise, th&

particutai: cultural belief system. Cledy, science educators need to be more cognizant of the ways in

which transition into the school science culture may be eased for those leamers currendy

experiencing difticulties, or who quit in the face of excessive emotional stress (Hodson, 1999). Any

science d d u m assessment should include investigahng the possibility of compatiifity, or

conaict, between the d c u l u m goals, the leaming expaiences and the assessment s h e

(Hodson, 1986). Whether it is indeed possible to not only accommodate all this within science

education, but also to actually achieve ih is a subject of contention in the arena of education and

educa tional research.

Opposition to treating science as a cultutal enterpose i s rooted in the p r d e of the

pldosophical presupposition known as "the universality of science" - that science is the slme

evexywhere. Moreover, science is conceived as an enterprise which uncovers knowIedge, or solves

problems, irrespective of the culture, race, or gender of the individual scientist involved (Staniey &

Brickhouse, 1994). Proponmts of uaiversalism in saence education (Good, 1995; Loving, 1395;

Williams, 1994) question the kind of science that would be taught and produced if it catered to

cultural rdevanq, charging that established expectations for scientifïc and technological litemcy

would take a back seat However, it should also be noted that such thinking is usually synonyrnous

with advocating the fidi d d assimilntion of the US. melting pot Their opponents (Aikenhead,

1996; Hodson, 1993,1995; Rakow & Bermudez, 1993; Stanley & Brickhouse, 1994,1995a, 1995b)

would contend that suence does indeed hathut norms, values, beliefs, expectations and

conventional actions which are generalfy shared in various ways by commuaities of sclentists, and

hence science fomis a culture of its own. However, these n o m , values, etc vary with individual

saentists and gniation~ (Arkenhead, 1996). f i d e a d (1996) has compiled a list descniing the

cultuta features of Western science: mechanistic, materialistic, mascullie, reductionistic,

mathernatidy id&ed, pagmatic, empirical, exploitative, elitist, ideolopid, inquisitive, objective,

impmon4 rational. r versa^ d e c o n t d e d , commud, violent, value-hee, and embracing

disinterestedness, suspension of belief, and parsimony. This may be contrasted, for example, widi

Jegede's (1997) charactexizatiort of the Afeican mode of thought, which is: anthropomorphic;

monistic-vitalistic and metaphysical; based on cosmology interwoven with traditional religion (as

opposed to Western saence which is public propeag, divorced fkom religion); orally communicated;

unchsllenging of the elder's repository of Imowledge; accepted as truth (contrasted with Westem

science where mth is tentative and challengeable by all); a process of learning as a communal

activiv, rather than an individual enterprise.

Multicdtural saence education would s d l fundarnentally preseme the saentXc process of

investigation, d a t i o n and discovuy, as there m u t be some common forum for saence

communication, process, evaluation and dissemination. Howevet, it would d o w for souoculttd

factors which might affect perspectives on process, results and intupretation due to one's personal

~ e w o t k , se- to enculture one with the science process without soaocdhually assimilahg

individu&. Pomeroy (1994) focuses on modifications that may be effected by science educators,

including provision of career support, adoption of d d y sensitive pedagogy, promotion of

suence language skills, and epistemologid studies. However, of paramount precedence is the need

to aeate school structures and &dum experimces whkh would facilitate border aossing and

not texpke students to abandon or suppress ~~t features of tbeir lives outside the science

dassroom, in order to a& access to science. This would entail "the creation of a school culture

that values dinerences, ensures that all students feel a smse of belonging and self-worth, centralizes

the i d d of s o d justice, and places a high value on teachers who c q themselves, move &ee$ and

comfortably between dZfere]at s o d setüngs. It also requkes a Nmculurn that shows students how

science impacts on the lmes of d students, on the lmes of th& &ends and families, and on the

environment, both locdy and globally," (Hodson, 1999: 226). In tbis regard, M&ey et a1 (1992)

have noted that conceni regardhg the pdcipation and achievement of Maori students in saence

education has led to cons iddons of th& culture (beliefs, traditions, knowledge, heritage,

experiences and values) and the Maori language in saence lessons. They caU for future research in

science education to be directed at the interaction of language, culture and science education.

Jegede (1995) has developed the notion of coilateral leatning which refers to the cognitive

cultivation of paralle1 beworks of undetstanding, founded on a pacticular d t w d system of

values and beliefs, so that it becomes possible to hold and develop, for example, Westem suentinc

thinking dongside traditional Afxican knowledge and understandhg (Jegede, 1995, 1997;

Mundangepfuph, 1986). This would provide a process whereby the non-Westem leamet may not

only constmct knowledge rooted in Westem culture alongside traditional cultural views, but one

may stcategidy switch modes depexiding on the environment, or Qrcumstance. The only problem

1 would perceive with t . , is having to compromise the integrity of one's sociodtural ~ ~ o r k ,

and system of beliefs and basic ethos, dependhg on the situation or setting- It appears to me that

the amal construction and the subsequent adoption and ualization of a cultutal system, or mode,

which is inherently at odds with one's own soc ioculd milieu of values, beliefs and etiquettes, is by

its nature hedia te ly in violation of one's personai sociocultural integity. Yet, the response that is

Iikdy to be givm would echo my d e r cornrnents on residing in a multicultural society, where one

mat irievitab1y "check" certain cultural bagage "at the door". Moreover, collateral leaming shodd

facilitate border crossings into alternate woddviews and permit a process geared towards

enculturation within catpin h e w o r k s , without assimilation into the larger- cultural domain.

Hence, a key thrust of multicultural science education is to ease those border crossings, &om

wherever students are, whether at home or in the wider community, into the subculture of scimce.

CMdren &om cenain b a ~ o m d s hnd it easier to move into saence culture because the language

of science and the ways of thhkiqg of saence are quite similar to the language and ways of thinking

of other sub-groups they are members 06 and so they find it easiee to "get in". Subseguendy, it

becomes fundamentally imperative to do whatever one can to make bordu crossings for other

students easier. This easing might have to do with knguage, materials, or presentation. Critical

reflection upon such matters should serve to better understand the challenges posed by educational

encultmation and assimilation into a host culture, which should provide insight for science educators

working toward an epistemology that allows for the personalization of knowledge and learning.

3 3 DEMYTHOLOGIZING THE SCIENCE ENTERPRISE

Another major thrust of multicultural science education is to demyth010gize the suentZc

establishment and science enterprise as being the pazadigm of truth and in possession of superior

knowledge, reinforced by the media, government, societal peneptions a t large and w e n t

education. "Despite a major effort ia recent yean to direct the attention of teach- and curdculum

developers to the impottmce of considerations in the historg, philosophy and sociology of saence,

maay school science cur.cicula continue to promote deficient or distorted views of science. Apart

kom concern that a signiticant aspect of humankind's cultural achievement should be so poorly

understood by students, there are dear indications that these distortions and fnlsehoods s m e to

exclude many girls and members of ethnic minorities born crossing the borda into the culture of

saence," @odson, 1999: 228-229).

The science c u r r i d cupencly taught in most schools, which cover only the achievements of

the Western wodd and view technology as a panacea, fail to acknowledge the perspectives and

achievements of other cultues as w d as the dangers inherent in having b h d faith in the Western

scienahc process (Hodson, 1993). In doing so, they present students with a naww, biased, and

ultimately limiting view of science which distorts the auth and alienates many students. Cd&

changes must then be a part of any effort to inject rnulticultutalism into science education. nie

most effective changes in d c u l a involve effom to show the b i t s of Westem saence and the

contributions of people of all cultures while still maintainhg a solid grounding in the dominant

discourse of Western science.

The hrst facet of a multidtural science curriculum is that it must recognize the sdentific

contributions of people from non-Westem cultures. Cunmt science curricuIa o h ignore the

contributions of other cuitui:es to the histoxy of sueace, and in doing so imply that saence is and

has always been done solely by white males. The iack of attention to the mdticulhiral histo y of

science is e s p e d y puzzlLig gben the fact that the Egyptians, Near-Eastern MuslLns, and Chinese,

among others, had thriving scientifïc comunities centuries before there was any important saence

bUng done in Europe. For example, Muslim scientisa had developed a heliocenüic view of the

solar system in the melMi centwy, many years b e h e Copemicus' theories (Hodson, 1993). In this

light it becomes quite emdent that current science Cumcula suffer hom a myopic focus on the

accomplishments of Westemezs, and that the indusion of the conmbutions of other cultures to the

histo y of science is merely exposing reality.

Hence, a key thnist in d e m y t h o l o ~ science is to illustrate its culturaUy diverse ongins.

Effectively one wants to demonstrate that the science which we currently know as West- science

has its roots in non-Western cultui:es: in China, in India, Anb and Islarnic sciencq Afican saence,

and to try to show what those roots have been. And, in addition, to recognize that othet societies

practice other ways of knowing about the natucil world which are d i s s k n k to Western saence, and

that there are alternative fkanzeworks for understanding the natural wodd. Some of them are not

dsat much different fiom science and some are tadically different €tom science, but they are all ways

of knowing about the n a d environment, It is also important to show science and technology

being utilized in diverse cultures at the momait, but in different manners.

However, it is insuffiaent to focus attention on the contributions of people of other cultures

thtough scienrific history. The contemporary multidhual face of science, where suentists from

diffuent cultural cornmuniries are making sipaiacant contributions to the science enterprise, should

be reflected in the && materials employed Many materials have n&t undertones expressed

in a variety of manners. One of the most common is that many textbooks depict only white

scientists and students, or they depict saentists and students of other cultures performing

subordhate roles to whhs (Hodson, 1993).

Such d c u h r changes serve wo main purposes. Firsrly, images of multicultural sciehts

may serve as powerhil role models for all students. Role models cm serve to break the dilin of

negative thoughts conceming self-esteem, and educational and vocatiod aspirations, by showhg

them they can succeed @ow Br Bermudez, 1993). Secondly, by teachmg about the conm'butions

of scientists of odier cultures, and using anti-racist materiais, all students, including whites, leam that

the science enterprise is not just dictated by white people. Th fuahez lads to an appropriate

appreciation for the conm3utions of othu cultures.

Mdticultural science Cumcuia must &O teach students the limits of the Western saenttfiic

process. White Western science is an adequate system for desmihg the wodd, and students need

to become proficient in it in order to be welI equipped for Me, it is fu fiom perfect, nor is it the

onlp possible systern. Unfortunately, in many of today's classrooms it is pomayed in a positivist

Eght; that is, saentists are seen as objective obserrrers pedorming reproduabe expPrriments which

provide tlnambiguous support for theories which accurately desaibe the wodd (Stanley &

Brickhouse, 1994). This belief obviously results in students placing a p t deal of faith in scientZc

hding3. Students can be @en a more realistic, u s e u and lierathg view of Western science

through a dianged scientifïc curridum.

Most fundamentally, in this regard, students should be able to recognize that science,

because it is a human institution, is necessad. fiawed, in all the ways that any human institution is

tlawed. Some of this may involve prejudice and stereotyping, pPncip?uy sexÎsm and racism. Sdmce

exhibits both of those characterktics. In what ways is saence sescisr or racist? One may look at

science being misused for raast purposes, as in Nazi Get?nany, the Soviet Union and the Eugenics

movement in the United States (Eodson, 1993). Moreover, one might examine the whole

conceptualization and ways of proceeding tbat scientists use. Since science was developed largely by

men, it necessarily knplies, if there is indeed such a t b g as masculine ways of thinking, that suence

is gokg to be it, par excellence. What are those characteiistics? Cui you change them and it still be

samce? Should you change them? How do you change hem? Then, examining how science is

being misused for racist and sexist purposes, such as with the recent publication mtitled Th BeU

Cmve (Hemistein & Murray, 1994), which contends that low-income groups and AfScan AmePcans

possess infeeot cognitive abilities to others as a result of an iaherited disposition; and endeavouring

to rnake students aware of such evmts and processes, and fuahennore, dowing them to utamine

and critique the supporthg arguments, underlping assumptions, and relating them to soaal and

politid contexts and agendas.

Furhennore, samce students should be made aware that science and technoIogy in the 2 0 ~

cennirp can behave ia oppressive wayq e s p e d y towards the poor and the powerless. Ctmicula

must begïn to teach that technology and development that result fÏom Western science have sezious

costs, as well as benefits, and that both resources and people are exploiteci. Lessons about economic

geology, for example, might involve discussions of the environmental damage inflicted by mining in

thixd world nations, and physics classes 1eamin.g about radiation might also discuss the problems of

nucleax power, nudear weapons and the issue of nudeat testhg in Tahiti. As Hodson (1993) States,

dasses need to be taught to ccrecognize that issues of justice, equality and fieedom are iriseparable

from the proper discussion of saentitic and technological practice."

If students can leam how the purposes of scientüic activity have varied in different cultures and historicai times, and how othex cultures have developed saences to meet these purposes, then they can also 1eam that the fonn of contemporq Westem saence is not universal, inevitable, or unchangeable. This kind of undestandmg is needed to encourage the critical thhking about the purposes Westem science has semed, and how these could be changed to create future sciences that bettes meet the needs of the diverse societies that support them. (Stanley & Brickhouse, 1994 396).

3.4 POLITICIZING SCIENCE EDUCATION

Hodson (1999: 234235) has noted that "politicization of science education can be achieved

by the provision of o p p o h t i e s for confionting a wide range of souoeconomic issues tbat have a

saentific, techn010gical or environmental dimension. By goundhg curriculum content Li socially

and personally relevant contexts, an issues-based approach can provide the motivation that is absent

fiom muent abstract, decontexnialized approaches and can form a base for students to construct

understanding that is personally relevant, meanin@ and important."

Hodson (1993) notes that education for empowerment requires that science education

assume a more ovedy political fkvour, which entails that the environment is not just a c'given" but

a sociai construct. "It is a social consmiet in ORO senses: (1) we act upon and change the natural

envitonment, and so construct and reconstruct it through out social actions; and (2) we perceive it in

a way that is dependent on the prwailing sociocultutal frsimework. Thus, our concept of

'envitonment' itselfis a s o d consma and could be different," wodson, 1993: 705). Indeed, many

indigenous peoples do possess different perceptions Wudtson & SunilS, 1992). Hodson (1993)

has W e r remarked that by encouraging students to recognize the ways in which the environment

is s o d y constnicted, we can challenge the notion that envkonmentai problems are natuml and

inevitable. In other words, if ''mvirotment'' is a social construct, then environmental problems are

social probluns, amibuted to souetal pradces and structures, and justined by society's m e n t

values (Hodson, 1993). Consequmtly, addressing such problems means pursuiag change ki the

social conditions sesponsile for them.

One of the purposes of multicultud and anti-ra&t education is to cecognize that people in

positions of power tend to corne from the same sub-groups, and to recognize where power of

decision is located and to see if it can be innuenced so that alternative voices are heatd. Its whole

purpose is to ag to change socieq to ensure chat minority voices not only get heard, but that th&

views are acted upon by gaining access into positions of power and influence, and participation.

Although, it is laxgely the case that people's grievances are heard out of tokenkm and rarely acted

upon. However, the cturicuium objective is to empower students with stimtitic howI.edgt through

a petsoaalized fnunework of 1- and understan* dowing hem to petfonn proficiently with

a political pkdonn toward change.

3.5 CURRICULUM CONSIDERATIONS

The parti& perspectmes offued and urplored essentially echo Drîeys (1925,1938,1943)

notions of leamhg achieved through an expeciential process induding both the indipidd continuiq

of expetience and interaction with othets. Tyler (1949) echoes this same philosophy when he States

that 'leamhg takes place hough the active behaviour of the student; it is what he does that he

leams, not what the teacher does. It is possible for two students to be in the same dass and for

thun to be having two different experiences ...Th e essential means of education are the experiences

provided, not the rhings to wbich the student is exposed," (pp.63-64). PeaagOgies d k e d hom

constructivist theorg appear verg much to reverberate a similar sentiment, where the teacher's role is

q p i d y characterized as that of facilitating students' inveswtions and explorations (C~bb, 1994).

Such considerations need then be applied to a d curriculum fornidation, where the

aforernentioned objectives outllied for multicuitural science education should be fkther rehed

with expliat statements, and subsequently assessed.

It is in keeping with the spirit of such considerations that Reiss (1993) has engaged in a fàirIy

thorough examination of science Cumcufa for an ethnicaliy and culturally plwalist societg. One of

his key concems is teaching controverual issues in science, fot whi& he explores three approaches.

Firstly, there is the appsoach of udvoucy, where the teacher might argue in favour of a paficukt:

position, perhaps personally heid, although there is the danga of trampLing on the student's

autonomy. Secondly, thete is uj7matr'be neutruu'iy where the teacher presents as m a q sides of

controveq as possible, without indicating persod support for any parti& position, although

there is dificuity in rnaintaiaing a balanced presentation and fuahemiore, the lesson may become

very didactic, f i g to engage the interest and involvement of many in the cl?ssroom. Lastly, thete

is pmndvml neu~ruu'ly, where the teacher semes as a facilitator, elioting difkent points of view fkom

the students, without evu revealing his/her personal position. However, this might sgll require -

evennia kitmention; fot example, in a lesson conceming evolution, where a position must be

adopted for the sake of proceeding further. Despite this problem, such dialogue does at lest expose

learners to diverse way s of thmkiq and understandiag.

Education is necessady "offensive", that is one of irs prime characteristics. Its purpose is

not to mderpin the beliefs that students corne to the table with, but to question them and ask

whethet th& beliefi ate adequate/good/worthwhile? By presenting altemathm and reqyiring

students to submit to a challenge, one might reinforce those beiiefs, one might undemiioe them, or

even destcoy them entitely. Though challengkig may not be perceived as "doing violence", to

borcow Hodson's (1993) phrase, to beliet systems, there are c d practices within the public

domah diat düectty codict with aspects of the sub-cultural domain - representhg huge codiict,

especially when the host culture teaches and reinforces c& values. Issues then are not redy

ptesented for debate but are presented with some predetennined stance, so that one rmy disagree

with accepted pndces and norms but the result is being margmahed, ostracized and cast in a

negative Iight Hence, a major cuniculw consideration would have to be the presentation of a

much greater range of options, level of flexl'bility and accoxrunodation \ to different ways of thmkhg,

a&g, and believbg. It t such curriculum considerations that are addressed by mdticultural sarace

educa tion.

3.6 FINAL THOUGHTS AND REFLECTIONS

Stanley & Brickhouse (1 994) have noted that arnong the questions raised by multidturalists

are: Whose culture are we teaching? Whose knowiedge is of most worth? Who bmefits and who is

harmed by current approaches to c-da? The theoretical underpinnings of rndticultural

education are usually presented within tbe public education domain, seekmg to accommodate people

hom various sociocuitural badrgrounds. However, what appears to be ignored is the possibility of a

private domain of accommodation in a multiculmal society. ECiJmes (1989), in considerhg Muslim, i

Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Afro-Caxibbean penpectmes on &ducation, condudes that knowledge

is vatiously dehed and acquired quite differentty k o u g h particular cultures. This redbation

subsequently directs one to a series ofnew questions.

To what extent is it indeed possible to accommodate "everyone" within the public domah,

without offending anyone? If public education inevitably, and inescapably, involves the conveyuice

of various hcets of the host culture, would not such concems be more suitably addressed in private

edudon? C*, the private domain would afford one the opportunity to provide a d d u m

which M y integrates one's own personal soc ioculd system of beliefs, values and eùios. 1s chis

not the intended purpose of the Separate School System, in Ontario, to enculture and asgrnilate

within a Catholic environment, allowiag childten to be inculcated with the Catholic cultural belief

systern? L believe this represents a tremendous concern and chnllenge for m u l t i c u l d education

within the public educational dormin.

However, despite the dornain of accommodation, the major thnists of m d t i c u l d science

education remain applicable, though it might be contexhialued quite diffaen* in the private

education dornain. Central to the cote of muleicultural science education is development of a

personalized h e w o r k for l h g , which involves knowledge, expmknces, langoage and

behavioufs, which are socioculturaily detemiined. Additionally, the Cumculm objectives should

indude: demythologiPag the saence enterprise, so that l e m h g and excelling in samce are not

intimidating to leamers; and politicizing saence, so that students become empowered with saence

knowledge which would s w e them in the souopolitical arenas of Life. With scientific literacy for all

as an accepted goal dtiving science education in a multidtural society, it becomes necessary to

ensure equitable access and Jimination of sociodtural marginalkation of luiniers. Science

educational instruction should be specifically aimed at integrating scimtilic processes md conceptuai

knowledge within a socioculturally persooalized bework., geared toward fostePng and developing

scienîific literaq for d students. By involving studeno, instead bf exciuding them, a h

educational e x p d c e of l d g and undustanding should be established, and successfiilly

attained.

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT ONTARIO SCIENCE CURRICULUM AND ITS

SUPPORTING EDUCATIONAL POLICY

4.1 INTRODUCTION

In the spring of 1998, foUoMng a general public mood of disgrundement and dissatisfziction

directed towatd the residing Consemative govemment of Ontario that had witnessed a series of

mass public protests and smkes, there was anticipation and excitement in the air for a new provinaal

edwtion initiative. It was in this dimate that, at the end of Match of 1998, then Minister of

Education Dave Johnson stood on a podium at the Ontario Science Centre and unveiled the new

provincial science and technology ~ c u l u m doniment for grades 1-8 (Small, 1998).

The newly promulgated Ontario science and teduiology d c u l u m seems to have won

applause ftom sorne quarters (Hall, 1998; The Toronto Star, 1998a) for produchg a more xigorous

documm~ praised for its quality of content, and for behg the kt provincial science CUtficuIum in

Canada to fd in liae with the goals and program of the Pan-Canadian protocols for saence

education of the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada (Cound of Ministers of Education,

Canada [CMEC], 1997). It has also been heralded for establishg for the kt time a common

d o r m fhmework for teaching science and technology across Ontario (Hall, 1998; The Toronto

Star, 1998a; Small, 1998), whexe previously each school board essentially set its own science program

in line with provinaal CUfficulum guidelines. Yet, it has also subsequently met some shaq criticism

fiom other quarters, for being too prescriplive and constrictive in ia presentation and delivery of

suence education, and for perpetuathg a dture of conformïty (Bencze, 1999). This thesis endorses

remazks and endeavours to add another fomi of criticisrn of the Ontario science d c u l u m = that of

bekig mtirdy negligent at responding to and accornmodating the ethaic and cultural divesity which

pervades the provincial leaming population, and for fptling to provide multicultural and ad-mcist

Cumculum content and objectives.

In the preceding chapters, this thesis sought to d e h e scientSc literacy in a mdücultural

doxnain, subsequently explorhg and explicating the underlying philosophy, petspedves and

objectives of the rndtidtud science education agenda. This chapter employs the objectives of

rnuiticultuta science education, oudined in Chapter 3, as criteria for d y s i s and evaluation of the

curent Ontario science and tedinologg c h c u l u m documents md its supporthg policy.

4.2 CURREM' POLICY AND PRACTICE IN ONTARIO REGARDING

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION

The m e n t state of multidtural education policy and practice in On&o was outlined in

Chapter 1 of this thesis. To recapinilate, much ceticism has been directed at the current

govanment conceming the rnultidtural and anti-racist agenda, or kck of it (I'he Toronto Star,

1999). Educators and activists have rebuked the provincial government's actions of dismanthg the

Miaistty of Education and Training's mti-racism unit, responsible for overseeing and reviewing the

anti-racism and echnocultud equity policy, programs, and pnctices, of the various school boards

aaoss the province. Cntics have charged that the province has yet to provide any altemative body

to act in such capaùty. Moreover, aitics charge that with the Ministrg's a n t i - r a k unit removeà,

there is no way to enforce the Ministrg>s policy memorandurn, Policy Memorandum No. 119 (see

Appendix 4 of Ministry of Education and Traiaing, Ontario P T O ] , 1993a), which induded

Iegishtion of a M d 31, 1995, deadline for all school boa& to subrnit their ad-racism and

ethnocultural equitg policies, or policy proposah, and împlementation pians, for Ministry approvnL

The impIemmtation of Ministy approved poliaes and programs was to take effect by September 1,

1995.

Such course of actions were iotemipted, and essmWy came to a halt when the

Consematives were elected to powez in 1995. Instead, the Tory govemment legiskted Bill 104 in

hpd of 1997, effectmely amalgamaring 129 school boards into 72 (The Toronto Star, 1998b). Thus,

whatever policy proposais were presmted fiom those school boards lacking any o f f i d mdticultuml

education policy, were effecavely discarded and th& efforts reversed, with the Imaig.rmtion of the

vadous school boards. As a result, many school boatds remain without any o f f i d policy or

imp1ementation scheme for anti-racism and ethnocultural equity, despite the fact that there may be

some in various stages of formulating such parti& policy and prognims. Futthemiore, the

provincial govemment has fded to produce any new policg documents to buttress is new

curriculum documents.

Hence, the kst mdticultural education policy document to be produced by the govemment

was the Ministry's guidellies for policy development and implementation (METO, 1993a), which

was, as noted in Chapter 1, designed to work in conjunction with and fuaher supplement "the

principles, practices and outcornes of antiracist and e thnocu ld equitp education" as %nm&ted

in Tbe Cornun Chnimhrn, Gmdes 1-9 and other ministy guidelines and resource documents,"

W T O , 1993a: 5). The provinaal policg manual was designed to seme as a guiding insment for

school boards responsible for not ody fomuiating and knplementing th& own policy, but also to

devise th& own cwrlculum programs in &ne with the goals set out by Tbc Common Chkuhm. In

1993, the Ministry noted that "much of the traditional & d u m focuses on the vdues, experiences,

acbievmients, and perspectives of white-European members of Canadian souecg and exdudes or

distorts those of other gxoups in Canada and throughout the world," e.13). Subsequently, it voiced

a f m t concmi that "students need to understand and respect cultures and dtematbe ways of

living, and benefit kom a knowledge of the experiences and contû'butions of people of othet

cultures and races other than th& own," WTO, 1993a: 13). Stemming fiom such an objeclme,

the M h k q oudined a program for muiticdninl and ana-rack CUmcuIum devdopment and

sdection "made on the basis of what a student sequites ta h c t i o n effedvdy in a culturally and

r a d y dmuse society," (MFiTO, 1993a: 14). The core objectives for such d d u m development

and selection set out by the Ministy induded the fouowing. idenafping '%as and discrimin?itoy

barriers in existing curriculum structutes, policies, programs, and leaniiog rmterials"; and ensuiing

that "all elements in the process of curriculum review, development, and itnplemmtation are

consistent with ant i rah and etbnocuIturaf equity objectives"; and &O enhnncbg "teachers'

abilities to use b k e d materiak consmictively to develop students' critical thliking about ra&ms'

QMETO, 1993a: 14). Just prios to the election of the Haais reghe in Ontario, in 1995, the Ministry

set about remsing its 1993 Cumculum, publishmg Tbe Common Cknmrlmc Pohzk and 0utcome.r

(METO, 1995). which echoed the preceding core objectives, and emphasized that "implementation

of the Common CUmculum must be linked to the developmait and implementation of poliaes on

antiraasm and ethnocultural equitp", @.4), drawing parti& attention to the 1993 policg document

(METO, 1993a) dealing with such rnattets.

However, with the arriva1 of the new cwriculum documents in 1998 and 1999, which

provide a d o r m ~ e w o r k and curridum scheme for the entire province, The Cornmon Cmbcuiruw

and d its associated documents have beea discarded. Combined with the eradication of the

Ministry's anti-racism unit, all power conceming official multidtural education poli y and practice

has fden into the govemment's hands, which has yet to produce any signincant initiative other than

dismanhg existing ones which served the multidtural education agenda io Ontario. No new

provinciai directive has been foahcoming. Indeed, the Ha& govemment has stated that dokg so

would be an exercise in seduadancy, pointhg to recent policy documents, which (as argued here)

have been tendered in- and impotent due to its educltional refomis. To be fut, however, the

Miaistry has introduced mtzlticultural and ad-racist content into select areas of the Cumdum

dealing with reading, history and social studies. Yeh such concem seuns entirely absent fiom the

suence and technology ~ c u l u m , as wiU be discussed in the following text

4.3 ANALYSIS OF T m ONTARIO SCIENCE CURRICULUM FOR GRADES 1-8

In launchmg the new science curciculum for Ontario, in the spring of 1998, (former)

Educatioa Minister Dave Johnson commented t h a ~ "Our young people stand on the bank of the

next den ium. It is our responsibility to make cenairr that they have acquked the s~ent inc literacy

they udl need to hdp them understand our increasingly technological wodd," (Small, 1998: Al).

He, of course, boldly portrayed the new science curcidum as the remedy for what ails Ontario's

students: inadequate suentZc hteray, coupled with ili preparation for the future, due to deficient

curricuia employed in the past. The Ontario science curriculum for grades 1-8 (METO, 1998) pedes

itself on providmg saence educators with outcornes and expectations for sumtZc knowledge and

skills which are "consistent with the goals of science education oudined in the Cornnon F r m m k of

~~ Lmning Outcumeer, K to 12 (CMEC, 1 997); (p.3). The Pan-Canadiau guidelines (CMEC, 1 997)

themselves have bem heralded as ground-breaking, being developed over two years undet the

auspices of Canada's provkid rninisters of education (Sm& 1998: A18).

The CMEC guidellies for saence education emphatically note that saence activities "occur

within a socio-cultural contexc, are intezpreted within that context, and are designed to extmd and

challeoge &tkg views" (CMEC, 1997: 7, that science itsclf is a socio-cdtural constnict that may

vary aaoss cultures and contexts. Howwer, where the CMEC (1997) affirms such fact and provides

concrete examples to confirm it, the Onmio science nimdum evades even acknowledgement of ih

vaguely a o ~ g diat "saence and technology both exist in a broadex social and economic context,"

(METO, 1998: 4). Where the Pan-Canadian protocol for saence C u m d (CMEC, 1997) indudes

historical, souologid, philosophical dimensions in its discussion of science and cuiture, the Ontario

d c u l u m W T O , 1998), which professes to be based on such guideiiaes, is completely silent on

such mattem, and îs devoid of any content which rnemïqfidy dates to the cul& diversity of its

leaming population,

The Ontario science Cumculum is orgaaized dong a three ptonged offensive for

disseminating saence Its purported "Goals of Science and Teduiology Education" (OM]ETy 1998:

4), whidi comprise the essential Tamewotk of the document, are to help students leatn:

'Concepts'; ie. "to understand the basic concepts of science and technology"

'Sltius'; i.e. "to develop the skills, strategies, and habits of mind requited for scientifïc

inquky and technoloj$cal design"; and,

'Applications' (of the concepts 1-ed); ie. "to relate sciencinc and technological

knowledge to each othcr and to the world outside the school"

It is the latter which presurnably hMk the expectations of the STSE (science, tedmology, sotiety

and the environment; r e d Chapter 2) provisions foundational to the CMEC (1997) guidelines. It is

here, wirhin this pdcular domain, that the Canadian guidelines for science education (CMEC,

1997) presents its greatest provisions for m u l t i d d science education, explo~g the nature,

rektionships and contacts of suence and the saence entexprise. Yet, again, the Ontario curriculum

fails to advance any such aims for science education. It &O fails to d e any substantial provision

for the personalizauon of leaming, demythoIogizing of science or politicization of science education.

4.3.1 ANALYSIS OF PROVISIONS FOR THE PERSONALEATION OF LEARNING

The CMEC (1997) guidelines advocate an essentially coastuctivist approach to science

education (secail Chapters 2 & 3) to promote the pmonalization of leacning, noting that '"student

leaming is affected by personal and cul& preconceptions and prier ImowIedge," (p.7). In its

acknowledgement ùiat "students leam most effechvely when their study of science is rooted in

conaete leaming experiences, related to a pd& context or situation, and applied to theh world

wheze appropriate," (CMEC, 1997: 7). the CMEC (1997) promotes a leamhg process of 'linkiog

newly constructed undersrandings with prior knowledge and adding new contuds and experimces

to cunent understaridings," @.7).

Of the three goals set out by the Ontario cuniculum, it is devdopment of the skih set which

presumably is in place to "ernpower l e m m to construct th& own knowledge (e-g. laws and

theories) and devdop theix own solutions to problerns (e.g. inventions) a d , thus, g o w in directions

unique to th& strengths, needs and interests, rather than to those who would plan th& education"

pense, 1999: 19). Benue (1999) notes tfiat while a i s l u k i n g this cceqectation" as policy may

appear "quite progressive, quite Lbmarl', it is readily apparent that the govemment has, "althou&

possibly unconsaously, taken steps to mlliimue cseativity and choice" (p.19). H e commeats th,

As a d e , any s&l& students develop are to be limited to those of a ' t e c l i n i ~ nathes than those of on 'engineer.' Knowledge i t l~nt ion is to be discouraged. Skills are to be used, prhady for the mnjmahon of the numerou 'Concepts' and 'Applications' students are expected to accept Generdy, this is to be accomplished through an ikon of~crCngFc dtjtovesy. (Benae, 1999: 19).

Hence, while advising science educators that the three aforementioned goals may "be achieved

sllnultaneously through leaming advities that combine the acquisition of knowledge with both

inquiry and design processes in a concrete, practicai conturi' (METO, 1998: 4), the Ontario

d d u m is p l a ~ e d for students to conduct "scientific investigations" and "design" tasks which

are to direct hem, not toward conclusioas and solutions evident to students, but rather, toward the

concepts and applications prescnied ("expected") (Benae, 1999). "In other words, nitha Lhan

'being Iüce scien&tst and constnictiog non-presclibed ideas fiom evidence and argument, student

thinking is to converge on preordained conclusions," (Benae, 1393:ZO).

Typical expedons fiom the 'Concept" domain such as students being able to "iden*,

through experimentation, ways in which chernical energy cm be tnmsfomed into elecixical energy

(e-g-, build a circuit using a lemon or a potato)" (METO, 1998: 64), or k i n g able to "determine,

through experimentation, the mas-to-volume ratio of different amounts of the same substance (cg.

copper pennies)" (METO, 1998: 49), are libely to prove problematir When students e q g e in th&

pseudo-urperimentation, and do not accumulate data which coinades with the consensus of the

efforts by instructing them in the correct methud to achieve the desked results, or contepe th&

knowledge cons~ction by suge.nY'ng the correct conduson. Indeed, recent snidies (Nott & Smith,

1995) expose teachers as o h suneptitiously tadoring pmctical exp&ces, or experiments, to

ensure that students arrive at die desired results. Such manoeuvres are deatly deceptme and

mis1ead.43 e s p e d y in light of the uoderstood "messiness" of science and experimentation

(Hodson, 1996). Furthemiore, students are likely to e x p b c e feelings of disempowerment when

they have had hdings and undastandings apparent to hem invalidated and ovemded by an

authority? usudy the teacher. Indeed, students' self-esteem is likdy to suffer when, a h having

conducted hvestigations and design projects and d e d at condusions which may deviate

s ~ c a n t l y 6rom those of mainstream Westem science and technology (Cobem, 1996; also recall

Chapter 3), they are instructed to revise them to become cornmensurate with "the right answer".

Moreover, by continudy attempthg to eliminate and eradicate students' ccmisconceptions" P T O ,

1998: 12). the message students may receive is that they are only pemiitted to think and act as

"expected" (or, more accurately, as prescnied by the Cumculrn).

The curriculum c%xpectations" generally appw to be organized such that, for every

Toncept" and its "Applications" to be developed by students, there is a conespondhg " S W

expectation promoting the g~&d dtscomy or mnhivcd cotfstructzon of that concept Benae (1999) offers

the following example: grade 7 students are to leam '%ow heat is trmsmitted [transferredj by

conduction, convection, and radiation in solids, liquids, and gases'' (METO, 1998: 66), the

correspond@ "Skill" expectation advises thun to "fomiulate questions about and iden* needs

and problems related to heat (e.g., interactions involving energy wsfezs) . . ." WTO, 1998: 67).

Other examPles indude: grade 8 students expected to leam the "Concept" of %ow objects or

media r e h q transmit, or absorb Iight'' WTO, 1998:68), with the conesponding " S W

atpemtion advishg them to "fonnuiate questions about and identifp needs and problem~ sehted to

the properties a d behaviout of Iight (e.g., interactions between light and different rmtezisls) 2'

(METO, 1998: 69); grade 3 shidents expected to leam the "various £hors that affect plants and

laimals in a spedic habitat (e.g., availability of water, food sources, iight; ground features; weather

conditions)" W T O , 1998: 21)' with the conesponduig 'SW expectation advishg students to

"formulate questions about and i d m e the needs of anllnals and pknts in a parti& habitat"

WTO, 1998: 21); grade 1 students expected to 1a.m the "fiiaction of différent structures (eg.,

house, car, bridge, chair, umbrella, television, wheelbarrow)" F T O , 1998: 72), with the

conesponding "Skill" expectation advising students to "ask questions about and idmOfg needs or

problems related to sixuctures in their immediate environment (e-g., a toy bridge,. . .)" (METO, 1998:

72). Indeed, the Ontatio science cu&culum (METO, 1998) is replete with such examples.

Such an approach promotes an "intdectual dishonestg" through which "pupils are expected

to explore phenornenon for themselvcs, collect data and make inferences based on it" and yet the

'cpsocess is intmded to lead to the currently-accepted saentifïc hw or p ~ c i p k " (Driver, 1983: 3).

Bencze (1999) condemns such "stage-management of student thought" n o h g that thete is little

authentic about such "inquky and design." Futthemiore, he argues, the "expectation" of students

behg essentially demoralized and defeated in order to subscxibe to the curriculum tenets appears to

border on fascism, with its veiled "mind control and behaviour management," (Bmae, 1999).

Despite whatever emancipatory iIlusions it may trg to present, the Ontario sa-

curriculum (METO, 1999) appears to be preoccupied with promoting, preserPing and perpetuathg a

scientSc culnire of unifomiity, where students are "expected" to be encultured and assmilated into

what it defines as science, which in the absence of any socio-cultural considerations is inherently

Western science ( r e d Chapter 3). Wbile pres* a guise of concem for persondhation of

leaming, the Ontario cutricuium WTO, 1999), in fact, makes 'cprovisions for many puz'nt-by-nmbw

experimces in the province's elementary schools" (Bencze, 1999: 18). Benue (1999) attacks tfie

d c u l u m for serPing as "a cotporam ma.jCesto, and @prnrttesb$ fm m t r s u t n e ~ ~ ' , whese ccnthet than

being allowed to 'consrnct thek own knowledge,' they ue taught to acquiesce, to faithfidly accept

all claims, and to leave the 'meaning mnking' to experts," @.19). Furthemore, with no provisions

made to facilitate students' "border crossings" (recall Chapter 3) between contexts and cultures, di

students, regaxdless of th& vaxious soaocultural and ethnic backgrounds, interests, abilities and

perspectives, students must strictiy abide by and achieve the measurable standards, the more than

one hundred '?Expectations" the Ontario saence curriculum (METO, 1998) catalogues for each

grade, in ordex to be deemed "successM" The bottom h e is that with litde room to permit

individuai qression, creativity, and decision making, "students are behg told precisdy how to

thLik and act in order to succeed in Ontario" (Benae, 1999: 18).

43.2 ANALYSIS OF PROVISIONS FOR THE DEMYTHOLOGIZATION OF

SCIENCE

The Canadian guidehes for science d c u l a (CMEC, 1997) attempt to demonstnite the

tentative nature of science and technology and to inculcate a sense of demythologukig the science

enterprise by seekmg to inject content which refieeets the history, philosophy and sociology of

science. They seek to promote the notion that theories of science are contindy "tested, modined,

and improved as new knowledge and theories supersede exisüng ones," (p.9). The document seeks

to communkate the fact that "saentifïc debate on new obsemations and hypotheses that challenge

accepted knowledge involves many participants with diverse background. This highly cornplex

interplay, which has o c m e d thtough historg, is fuelled by theoretid discussions, urpenimentation,

social, culhval, economic, and politicai influences, pexsonal bises, and the need for peer recognition

and acceptance" (CMEC, 1997: 9). Moreover, it ammpts to convey the view thac 'ctechn~logy, Iike

suence, is a creative huma. actrvity with a long histoxy in all cultutes of the wodd," (CMEC,

1997:9), with its appearance and application raking many forms, korn seemingly simple or primitive,

to advanced and cornplex. Yec despite being adamant about being f f i i h f d to such Cumculum

prescriptions, the Ontario saence curriculum W T O , 1998) fails to incorporate even the slightest

discussion about the nanire of saence and technology, let alone iadude any content whkh proje-

the history, philosophy and soaology of samce as it rehtes to both dtures and contexts

The Ontdo guidelines (METO, 1998) appear to perpetuate the myth that saence is the

paradigm of tnith, with a fïxed and highly regulated set of principles, processes and procedures,

whkh indude a "commitment to accuracy, precisiori, and integrieg in observation, experimentation,

and reporting, respect for evidence; concern for the obsemance of safety procedures; and respect foc

living things and the enVir:onrnen~" k.9). Respect for the representation of culturally diverse

perspectives and individual expression does not appeax to be pazt of the Haais agenda- This despite

the Canadian science guidelines (CMEC, 1997) presuibing curcicula which indude outcomes in

whi& students axe indcated with critical iiwareness: "realize that the applications of science and

technoIogy can have both intended and unintended effects" (ii terms of impacthg on people's lmes

adversely, or with parti& social, or cultural agendas in mind); "recognize that women and men of

any cultural background can conmbute equally to science"; '%e sensitive to and develop a sense of

respomibility for the welfare of other people, other living ttiings, and the envitonment"; 'cappreÛate

that the applications of science c m have advantages and disadvantages"; md "apprechte and respect

that science has evolved k m diffkrent views held by women and men fiom a variev of soueties

and cultural backgrounds" (pp.30-31). Such prescriptions are completely absent fiom the ~ m n t

provincial science d c u 3 a (METO, 1998).

Benae and Hodson (1999) present several myths concetaing saentific inquiry that were in

evidence in the previously employed Common Cm*cuclum (METO, 1993):

Obsemation provides direct and reliable access to secure knowledge. Science starts with observation. Saence proceeds via induction. Experllnents are decisive. Science comprises disaete, genetic processes. Scientific inquiy is a simple, algorithmic procedure. Saence is a value-hre acttvity. b.522)

Such mythical perceptions are evident in the curent provinaal Cumculum WTO, 1998),

pervading nearly every aspect of the document's view of science and scienti.6~ inquiry.

Whüe the Ontario curriculum undersoddably commits to presentiog pattiotic content

wherevet applicable or possible, concem should extend beyond Canada's role or contributions to

that of the soles and conmiutions of its culturally diverse populace and th& global and

international counterparts. Moreover, if the curriculum is to be deemed relevant fiom the

pcapective of this diverse audience, should it not also aim to incorporate themes to exploit the hill

histoy, philosophy and sociology of science, as it relates to cultural diversity? For example, the

Grade 6 unit on "Space" could have been bolstered by making explicit mention of Canadians fiom

dmuse backgrounds contribuMg to space and technology in various supporthg roles and indusmal

contriburioas, aside fiom highlighting prominent pusonalities such as Marc Garneau and Rob-

Bondar WTO, 1998: 100). Whcn the science CUMculum directs students to "idenofg and describe

past and present-day contributions of astronomy to the quality of human life (e.g., development of

the calendar; prediction of events such as edipses and seasons; provision of information about space

and the)" (METO, 1998: IOO), should it not make expliat reference to non-Western paspectives

and conmiutions? In &e&g students to 'cdemonstrate [an] understanding of factors that

conmibute to good heaith" (METO, 1998: 23), the fiocus should not be upon the established medical

mainstreatn. What of injecting content the acknowledges aiternative approaches to medicine

practiced in diffaent cultures (cg. in a Canadian context, aboriginal medical practice)? When

snidents are expected to comprehend "the basic needs of humans with the needs of other liviog

things (e.g., the need for food, air, water, light)" (MZTO, 1998: 10, the curriculum could have been

urtmded to indude consideration of the various constraints which may serve to influence such

needs, such as envkonmental, economiç social and cultural factors.

Unfomuiately, the Ontario saence -dm (METO, 1998) E3s to provide anything at dl

in the way of s o c i d t u r a l considerations for science. Instead of directhg the content to

demythologize the saence enterpAe, it seeks to preserpe and perpetuate the mythical perspectives

inberent to Western suence ( r e d Chapter 3). Moreover, it fails to address the CMEC (1997)

directives to iuject historg, philosophy and sociology of science as it relates to matters of race,

culture and individuality.

4.3.3 ANALYSIS OF PROVISIONS FOR THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE

The Pan-Canadian psotocol for science curricula (CMEC, 1997), indudes provisions for the

politicization of saence (recd concept fiom Chapter 3), havhg students: "realize that the

applications of science and technology an have both intended and unintended effects" (that

sometimes personal agendas and beneh are at stake); 'Be sensitive to and develop a sense of

responsibility for the welfàre of 0th- people, other living thmgs, and the envkonmmt"; md that

they "appreciate that the applications of science c m have advantages and disadvmtages" @p.3031).

With regard to these matters, the Ontario science & d u m does endeavour to sefiect CMEC

guidelines in its content Howeoer, where the CMEC (1997) guidelines ask for students to '%e

sensitive and responsible in maintaining a balance berneen the needs of humans and a sustainable

environmat" to "project, beyond the pe~onal, consequences of proposed actions" and to

"appreciate that the applications of science and technology can raise ethicai dilemmas", the Ontario

Nmdum (METO, 1998) does not seem to stray beyond the immediate and readily apparent

implications and impact of actions or deQsons dkected by saence. In other words, it is supdcial

in its concems with politicization.

Some examples may serve to diustrate this kst point Consider the "expectation" h t

students ccdescriie ways in which humans can affect the natural wodd (e-g. urban development

forces some speaes to go elsewhere and enab1es othet species to multiply too rapidly; consemation

areas can be established to pzotect habitats)" (METO, 1998: 22). What of hurmns affecting the lmes

of other humans? What about the practice of samt%c progress impacting on human Ne? What of

urban development fotcing people to selocate, or even to be eradicated? What of species beiug

eradicated altogether, raùier than merdy fluctuating in population çize or rdocatlig? What happens

when conservation areas are not established? Or when they are, if they are violated? Whüe the

"eXtiLlction of a plant or animal species" is acknowledged as affecting "the r a t of the n a d

communi~ and humans" (METO, 1998: Z), there is no mention of the continued extinction of

human ethnic groups as a consequuice of the actions and practices of orhers, whether dire* or

indirectly . Consider

forms of energy

the curridum "expectation" of a s h g students to be able to select common

and to 'predict the effect on th& lives if it wue no longu: avaikble" (METO,

1998 54). No mention is made of directing students' concems to the effect on other peoples' k e s

in order to fumish such energy. 1s energy furnished at the utpense of others? What of pollution,

radioactive waste, or e i edcd powerllie radiation, adverse affecthg both the n a d environment

and senled envkoamenn where people reside? What about the economic, social, cultural and

ethicai issues that may be raised?

Fiaally, consider the prescription for students to "recognize that dean water is an

inaeasingly scarce tesource in many parts of the world and tbat the water we use is p ~ a of ou.

environment and should be used wisely (eg., taps should be tumed off while brushing teeth; toxic

substances such as paint should not be poured down the drain)" WTO, 1998: 92). When is the

mention of the underlying rasons conmbuting to, and causing, such a situation? Which practices

are p k t t e d (su& as corporate dumping of certain "allowable" levels) and whidi are not @ouring

paLit d o m the dtain)? Who decides? Why? Based on what considemtions? Who benents? Who is

hamied? 1s thexe anythlig for ctitically aware atizms to do about it? When the provincial

curriculum directs students to c ' d y s e factors that affect the productivity and distcibution of nnunal

speaes in marine and f7iesh water envkonments (eg., water released from a nu* p1a.n~ oil spills)"

(METO, 1998: 104), what of the impact on humans tmder similar circumstances? No mention is

made of man-made disasters such as Hiroshima, or ChunobyL 1s science not capable of behaving

in veq powerfully destructive ways, as dernonstrated by the precedhg examples?

Hence, while the Ontario d d u m W T O , 1998) does seek to rnake some promsions for

the politickation of saence, it appears to have mandated a superficial treatment of it There semis

to be a deliberate intent to distance students fiom engaghg in any critical and refiedve questions, or

&om debating moral, ethicai and politicai dilemmas. The d c u l u m fails to poIitidy charge any

issues, subsequently failing to foster any sense of chic or political participation, os to seek remedies

or recafication of perceived social, mord, cultural, or envkonmental injustices. Instead, it appears

content to offet students an opportuniq to be informed of issues and consequences, on a non-

probing, politicdy inert level, where focus tends to highlight the immediate and obvious impact thae

the practice of saence and technology may have on the enviconment There is no sense of

incdcating students with critical awueness, providing insight to the s o d y , economically, or

cuiturdy contxived agendas which rnay dkect the practice of saence and technology, or to politicdy

charge and empower them. Instead, it a p p a s to p r a m e the sa- quo of power structures in

sociey. Again, in this regad, the Ontario Cumculum (METO, 1998) fails to M y comply with the

CMEC (1997) guidelines, and fails to incorporate the multicultural science ageada.

4.4 ANALYSIS OF THE ONTARIO SCIENCE CURRICULUM FOR GRADES 9-10

Public respoose to the unvuling of the provinaal science d c u l u m for grades 9 and 10

(METO, 1999) was in sPrk contras to the antiapation and appiause which greeted the d c u l u m

for grades 1-8 (METO, 1998). Trepidation and uncertaiaty greeted the grades 9 and 10 science

guidelines (METO, 1999) with conceni that it was being rushed in temu of lx>& publication and

implernmtation (The Toronto Star, 1938~). Nonethelas, the stmctural organization of the grades 9

and 10 d c u l u m (METO, 1999) r&ed intact. It presemed its three domains of saence

education - "Concepts", "Skills" and "Applications" - explicated earlier in this text The ody major

diffmnce is the division of the content of each grade into "Academic'' and "Applied" streams.

Otherarise, the format remains unchanged

Since the grade 9 and 10 curticulum (METO, 1999) follows the same formula for its

d c u I a , it is subjea to a similv aitique. Hence, for the sake of avoiding redundmq, and for

brevity, sufice it to say t h the grade 9 and 10 @NETO, 1999) s u f f i s fxom the very

same defidemies as the antecedent grades 1-8 guidelines WTO, 1998) and thus, the same bvbed

criticisms apply.

Special mention shodd be made of c& "Specinc Expectdons" which do mdeavour to

introduce some socio-cultural considerations, dthough quite sparsely, to refiect the CMEC (1997)

expectations of students being able to "appreciate and respect that saence has evobed fiom

different views held by women and men from a variety of soaeties and backgrounds'' and to ''value

the conm~utions to suentinc and technological dedopment made by women and men from m q

societies and cultural backgrounds" (p.31). With students "expected" to "demonstrate an

understanding of the historical development of reproductive biology and outline the contribution of

the microscope to knowledge in the field" (MJ2T0,1999: 8), it is a question of whether that would

indude non-Westem history and scient& contributions, especially since both items of concern have

roots in non-West- science.

The ~cexpectarion" to have students "relate the beliefs of various cultures conceming celestial

objects to aspects of th& avilization ( e g , aboriginal beliefs, Greek mythology, Mayan civilization)"

(h4ET0, 1999: 21) while a commendable s m to inaoduüng facets of mdticulhual science, falls

into the trap of being concerned more with viehg culturai peculiarities or s u p d d customs than

vie* the impact that such beliefs and customs have had in conmiuthg to contemporarg

understanding. SSimüarly, the "expectation" to have sudents "describe ways in which the

relationships betareen livuig organisms and their ecosystems are viewed by other cultures (e.g., Fkst

Nations)" (METO, 1999: 24) fails to extend tmdastznding fat enough. What about such views

translating into saenac pradce, whether hdigenous or contemporarg Westexn? What about

comparing and conaasting the mdts of each paradigm of practice? What about presenhg other

paxadigms of practice as being aedible fonns of scientific practice in that own right?

Hence, while the grades 9 and 10 cuuicuium (MElTO, 1999) essentially reflects the stmctural

hmework, organization, format and, hence, defiaent quaiities of its predecessor (METO, 1998), it

does offer some conaete socio-cultural consideratiom. However, these few items are relatmely

insubstantial and insignüicant in the context of the entLe cwiculum, ki shoq the content in

question is woehliy supetficial and suggestive of tokenism.

4.5 CLOSING COMMENTARY

Premier Hariis and his cohorts may daim to be following the Royal Commission's

recommendations (Royal Commission on Leam& 1994), yet they d i s d y fail to comply with any

of the recommendations for equity considerations dlected at introdudng greater mdticultutal and

ad-racist Without any goveming multidtural and anti-racist education policy document,

provincial science Cumcula can cenainly not be expected to off= a program of multiculniral science

education. Indeed, as pointed out earlier, the Ontario science cuxricula (METO, 1998, 1999) skkt

the major issues and fails to abide by the guidelines set out by the CMEC (1997) for pmo&ation,

demythologization md politickation - three essential elements in multicultural saence education.

While the H d govemment rnay pride itself on abiding by the Pan-Canadian protocol

(CMEC, 1997), it does so only in temis of the 'literal science" subject content It wodd not at ail

be an exaggeration to state that the Ontario cu.tri& (METO, 1998, 1999) Ed to make any

provisions for mdticulniral science education, friling entirely to abide by the socio-culd

considerations of the CMEC (1997) saence cunidum guidelines os to indude its conesponding

content Indeed, while the CMEC (1997) outcornes indude sigaificant hutorical, philosophicai and

soaological dimensions for samce education, the Ontario curriculum is entirely devoid of snch

content The Ontario science cunicula (METO, 1998,1999) fail on several fronts, by: providing far

too much content "expectationY', whwe the content itself may be too clifficult and too abstract;

providing little (essmtially, no) l t t M p t to deal with philosophical, historiai, social, economid,

moral, cultural and ethical issues; providing linle integration of the sciences and few interdisaplinarg

endeavours; paying litde (again, essentially, no) attention to the individuaiity of le* needs; and

providing few

personalLation

(jj any) critical and reflective dimensions.

of leatnin%, demythologization of science, ot

They fail to provide any m e

politicization of science, and, in

consequence, as such are negligent and deficient in th& capacity to provide multicultutal science

education.

However, the establishment of multicultutal science education does extend beyond the

formulation of appropriate curricula to O ther factors and issues. It is these other hctors and issues,

related to multicultutal saence education, which seme as the focus for the next diaprer.

CHAPTER 5

FURTHER REFLECTIONS ON l[NTRODUCING A MULTICULTURAL SCIENCE

EDUCATION PROGRAM IN ONTARIO

5.1 LNTRODUCîION

The institution of a mdticulturaf science education program in Ontario must be predicated

on taro principal intmelatcd and interacting foundations: Cumcuium and pedagogy. CertlLily, for

any science &dm (or any &culum at all) to establish its educational objectives with any

sustainable viabîlity, it must support, and be supported by, appropriate and efficacious pedagogical

practice (as explicated in Chapters 2 and 3). To echo an e d e r assertion (made in Chaptu 2) the

dispaxity between the "intended" cuuiculum and the "impemented" &culum may be a

consequence of a number of factors: availnbilitg of resowes (professional expertise, t h e , energy,

hance, && mateds, etc.), teaching context, available support (public, governmatai, or

institutionll), teacher beliefs and ethos, etc. An additional conmibuthg hctor is an approach to

d c u i u r n development which fails to idenafg and mgage teadius as the key agents of change, and

ignores the uniqueness of educational se*. It is deat chat a comprehensive, critically refiectme

scientific literacy will not be achieved without a d c u l u m , which balances the vlrious emphases in

science education, reconciles cornpethg kiterests (recall Chapter 2), and displays an appropriate

pedagogy. This &O requires that the curriculum has content and resouices that Eivour critical

pedagopical practice and that teachers adhere to and promote such d d u m dlectives.

A d c u l u m which aims to foster and achieve a c r i t idy reflective sciatific (and

technologicai) Lteracy must be ernbedded within a paradigm of d d u m development whidi pims

to engage teachers, with encouragement and support, in becoming uitically refiective and m*tically

literate about th& own educationai practices (Pedretti, 1994). The m d t i c u l d science education

paradigm h s been ptesented here as being a Cumculum mode1 which seeks to accommodate such

provisions. The intention of this chapter is to supplement the concepts and perspectives presented

in the precediog chapters by reflecting and expounduig upon telated issues of concem which a h e a

CUtfidurn and pedagogy, as it relates specScally to the hplernentation and delivey of a

multicultural science education program in Ontano.

5.2 PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR APPROPRIATE PEDAGOGY

The capaaty to implement appropriate pedagogical pradce cornmensurate with a parti&

d c u l u m program is dependent on the level of support provided There are three main fronts to

be considered: pre-service teacher education, continued professional developrnent pro-, and

other suppoctme measures provided by administrative initiatives (at the levels of minisag, school

board, and local school). The emphaçis in this chapter is on supportive measuns for a mulacultural

science education d d u m , with little attention afforded to the a d pedagogiml practice which

should accompany it Exp11cation of appropriate pedagogical response bas akeady been offezed Li

Chaptet 2, and in greatet detail in Chapter 3. Hence, for the sake of brevity, and to avoid much

redundancy, focus will be laxgety limited to proposed supportme measures.

5,2,1 MEASURES FOR PRE-SERVICE TRAINING

With the teadier playing such a central and influentid role in curriculum deliverg and

knplementation, the training with which the? are provided assumes fundamental focus as a vital

venue for incdcating appropriate attitudes, beliefs, philosophy and perspectives, as it relates to th&

pedagogy. kideed, pedagogid training must equip teachus to serve in a productive capacity, whh

th& pnctice edioing the perspectives and objectives uitailed within wharever d c u l u m program

is adrninistered. In Ontario, the University pre-sdce teacher education programs axe a

foundational site for sodizhg prospective educators into the profession, and hmce, inculcating

thun with the EmowIedge, vdues, and SU set deemed appropriate Within the renlm of

mdticulturai science education, this would require adequate pre-service pteparation on two fionts:

m u l t i d d (and ad-rackt) education and science education; both of which appear to be

inadepte, as shall be elucidated in the proceeding text

Rezai-Rashti (1995) contends that most who seek enmance to the teaching profession arrive

with litde or no braining in race relations, with Litde change* if any, effected through a pre-semice

teacher ptogram. She fiirther asserts tht the hnilties of education offer nothing 9gnincant, in

temis of courses, to train teachea u i t i d y conceming the roles which schools play in pexpetuathg

inequalities based on aspects such as race, gender and dass. 'The furthesr that some teacher training

institutions might go is to offer courses on cross-cultuta communications. However, in most cases,

this is done to provide extra qualification to those teachers who are interested in teaching English as

Second Language courses," (Rezai-Rashti, 1995: 12).

If preparation prior to entrance tu the dassroom is inadequate, as behg suggested here, with

leaming opportunities to foster critical t bdchg in race and ethnic relations quite spatse, there is little

chance that these graduates once among the professional tanks of teachers, will r&e and

apprekte the gravicg of such relations, and theit impact, in everyday classroom experiences. Rezai-

Rashti (1995) comments that while it may be cornmonplace for pmdtioners to heax teachers

insisting that they do not require race and ethnic relations training, since "they treat every diild

My", a serious problem confiontkg teachers is their inabiliq to recognize and negotiate th& own

biases, as suggested by Tator (1387188) and Lee (1985). This is more Iikeiy to be appuent with

recent arrtvals in the profession who have yet to mature with th& pedagogical philosophy,

perspectives and pracace. Although, for the same reason of professional imrmturiv, they offer a

prime target to effect meaningful change in pedagogid practice, by saering them dong a critidy

reflective avenue,

The vast majoetg of elementaq teachers possess a relatively weak badrgromd in science,

and are o h overwhekned by saence, "regarchg it 3s a body of cornplex and con cep^ dEcuIt

knowledge ptopedy understood only by experts" (Bencze & Hodson, 1999: 528). Such trepidation

is c d y compounded by hadequate pre-service tmhhg, where elementarg teachers lacking a

strong science background wodd find themselvs feeling ill-prepared to contend wih the science

d c u l u m . Consequently, the best perceived recouse would be to engage in a vuy didactic and

foxmulaic approach to science education, to simply tmskte the curriculum for studmts, a

contention supported by the 6ndings of Benue & Hodson (1999)).

With regard to a multicultural science education program, d e r n e n t q or senior

science teachers would also require supplementation with sig.lricant elements of histoxy, philosophy

and soaology of science. However, as Bencze & Hodson (1999) note, despite the abundance of

literature that has become available, and the greater prominmce attached to the histoy md

philosophy of saence in rnany pre-service tacher education programs, many teacheR persist in a

practice locked in the philosophical rnindset of the 1960s and eady 1970s, where science govems

with precise procedure, idallibility and objectbity. 'Rh suggests that, even where pre-service

programs do accommodate such elements, suffisent tirne and attention is not beiag afforded to

them. Research by Benue & Hodson (1999), Pedrem & Hodson (1995) and Pedretti (1994) would

seem to suggest that such aspects of pre-semice training are largdy absent in Ontario. Indeed,

Pedretti (1994) urges those with responsiiiüty for pre-service tacher e d u d o n programs cm

Ontario) to afford greater prominmce to both aitical cornpetence in science education and

elements of historg, philosophy and sociology of science, as well as providing greater resowces and

aaining to such ends. These rem& suggest that curriculum guideiines and resources in Ontario do

not place any signifiaut ernphasis on such elements of science education, otherwise they wodd be

reflected more promhently, not only in pre-service oaining, but also in in-semice prograrns of

professional developmmt Hence, professional developmmt programs would seme as another

venue of support for the desKed pedagogy.

5.2.2 MEASURES FOR PROFEiISSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

In-semice teacher professional development programs constitute a means to build upon the

foundations laid in pre-service progtams, to bolster cornpetency and b c t i o d t y in d c u l u m

delivezy, but &O to incorporate innovative ideas and methodology in teachw practice. Professiod

developrnent aimed at ~Uaforcîng pareicuiar pedagogical practices is aucial to sustain desired and

efficacious curriculum implementation and deliveq schemes. Again, concem here is directed to mo

fronts: m d t i c u l d (and anti-racist) education, and saence educatioa.

On the multicultutril education fi0115 Raà-Rashti (1995) takes aim at m e n t staff

development prograrns for raising teachers' awareness of racial and ethnic issues in the dassroom,

refkmhg to the present situation as abysmal. She cornments chat ongohg in-service programs in

tbis domain are b o s t nonexistent. "Cunently, staff development prognims for teachers take the

fomi of one-shot sessions, and partiapation in them is voluntq. This kind of staff development

training is refemd to by some North American consultants as "hit and nin" or "flash and dash",

which highlights the marginal nature of thwe ptograms within the school" (Rezai-Rashti, 1995: 13)).

Not suprisingly, many educators in the United States are now rehising to participate in such

professional devdopment programs (Sleeter, 1990).

Raai-Rashti (1995) nfas to her own experiences as a practitioner, commenthg that much

of these one-shot programs are concemed more with aeating some measure of sensitivity and

tolerance among teachers, as well as infomiing them about certain salient features from different

cultures, mthu t h ahhg to affect change in teadung strategies ot pedagogy. 'Wot suprisingly, in

time some of the teachers who had partiupated in these staff developmmt programs SLmpIy turn

themselves off by beliewig thar they had learned w~~ that is to be lurmed about

multid&m, and that the field has little more to off' to them. They distance themselves from

ethnic and mce relations activities, completel. oblivious to the faa that they faied to gnsp the

pervasiVeness of institutionahed racism, both within the educatiod system and in soaetp at large,"

Qezai-Rashti, 1995: 13).

Two factors are cited for the present situation: attitudes of educators and the la& of prioritg

attached to m d t i d d education programs. Rezai-RIrshti (1995) points to a needs assessrnent

smey conducted by one of the (former) boards of education within Metcopolitan Toronto,

focusskig on sections of the race and ethnic relations policy. The teachers' responses indicated that

many wese not ody opposed to anti-racist education, but also to the mitder policies of multidniral

education, p r e f k g to advocate the outdated ideology of d tura i assimilation, an ideology

explicitly rejected by Canadian legkhtion (Rezai-Rashti, 1995). Hence, teacher attitudes serve as a

major irnpediment conmbutkig to the lack of prioP~ attached to such professiod developrnent

programs. Yet, this is a problem M e r compounded by the la& of bd resources aliocated to

supporting such in-service programs, both at the miniçtry and school board lwels, agah a

consequence of the prevalent attitudes (Rezai-Rashti, 1995).

On the saence education fiont, with the recent introduction of the new Ontario science

cwiculum documents (METO, 1998,1999), much uiticism has been dimted at the goverximent's

etadication of in-service programs designed to aid teaches in becoming fully convasant and

competwt with the newly introduced d c u l a (Small, 1998; The Toronto Star, 1998a, 1938~).

Conceni has emamted not only from aitical quarters, but &O fiom supporters of the new cwricula,

induding one of the chief architects behind the new saence d c u l a , Graham Orpwood, a

professot at York University's F a d y of Education, who has warned that a fiim ongoing

gov-ent cornmitment will be required to get educators up to speed on the new d c u l u r n

(Small, 1998). Orpwood has noted h t such cornmitment wiii requke much more than the three

months of tacher trahing which was proposed by the Ontatio govemment: 'Tt3 take three years"

in his estimation (Small, 1998). Instead, many teachers have found themseEFres ill-prepared to

administer the & d u m in th& dassrooms. Compounding the problem is school bovds hnving

to scrarnble to reallocate prioBties conceming in - sdce ptograms, many of which have been

eradicated due to provincial initiatives aimed at streadhing the hnances and organization of

education in Ontatio.

Within whatever spvse in-service programs are shn available, focus d no doubt be h e d

h n l y on masures to cope with the new d c u l a and just being able to impIement it with some

level of cornpetence, leaving no tirne or concem for aitical reflection, or introduchg elemats of

science historg, pbilosophy and sociology. Pedtem (1994) has expressed concem over the la& of in-

service programs in Ontaxio geared toward an STS focus, which entails considerations not ody of

history, philosophy and sociology of science, but also issues of science and culture. Recent s e s e d

findings by Bmae & Hodson (1999) seem to support such a contention, with th& own voices

added to echoing similat concems. With the la& of attention paid to socio-cultural considuations,

and the la& of provisions for aitical ceflection w i t b in-service science educntion programs, the

prospects for an effective m u l t i d d science education are grLn. Moreover, with teaders' m e n t

p~eoccupation with becoming fuoctional with the new science curricula, the situation is not likdy to

change in the immediate future.

5.2.3 O T m R SUPPORTIVE RESPONSES

Masures for supporthg appropriate pedagogical practice cornmensurate with the

d d u m objectives must extend beyond teaches training. through pre-semice and in-service

prog*uns. Supportive administrative responses a e essential fiom all levels of the educational

system: ministry, school board and local school The curent non-supportive environment a n onlp

result in the h h e r dernoralization of educators contributhg to ineffective curticulum

implernentation, and inaeasing mimnatch between the intended and implemented d d u m .

WhiIe the cunmt Ontario govemmmt has provided a political and economic commitment

for its recently introduced science the agenda appears entirely preoccupied with ensuhg

complete confonnity to its d d u m directives. Advocates of the new science d c u l a , such as

one of the p ~ d p a l players xesponsible, Graham Orpwood, milintain that the curriculum does not

mandate expliat pedagogid practice. Rathu, teadiing and leamhg methods are Ieft to the

disaetion of individual teachers and th& board appointed &ers, so that any existing apptoachea

to teaching pariicular content which remain relevant to the new d c u l u m content, may persist

(Hall, 1998). However, provincial Ministy initiatives appear to coatrdict such contention.

Any teachers wishing to facilitate a more open-ended science progrm, such as that

proposed by multicultural science education, are likely to experience numerous barciers to its

Mplunentation (Benae, 1999). "Chief among these is the sheer rolumc of &culum 'contenf; that

is, the number a d complexitg of the Specitic Expectatians for the Concepts' and 'Applications'

domaias. Effedveiy addressing these can completely use up any t h e chat might be available for

students to conduct aurhencic inquiry and design projects, which g e n d y requke proportionntely

more t h e than more predictable content lessons" (Bencze, 1999: 27). Indeed, until the gov~ment

reduces its cunicuiurn expectations, teachers will have little choice but to strict$ abide by the

prescnied content, restricting students' scienahc and tedinologid activities to those requiEng 1ittle

aeatipity and imagination (Bencze, 1999), and completely cuaailing any sgn1.5caa.t effort to engage

in critical re£le&on. At present it is a spuggle sirnply to cover the expansive materia within the

allotted time fiame of the school yeu.

With the pxovincial govetnment's legislative initiatives aimed at inaeashg centralization of

authority and accountabili~, the downsizing of school boards and genenl elimination of localized

powers, sdiool boards and lad schools are rendered helpless md chmiselves obliged to abide bp

the Ministry directives. In the process, teachers' prepatation h e and in-service professiod

development prognms have been greatly curtailed. The Hank govemment's demands for greater

proficiency fkom Ontario's educators bas largely cast teachers in an davourable light, where, as

Benae & Hodson (1999) contend, the pe~ona l p m d d knowledge of teachem and &eir ability to

e x d e sound judgements conceming appropriate leaming exp&ences and assessment/evduation

a d t i e s for particular students in parti& learning contexts are ignorecl. Instead, "the Mure of

d c u l u m innovations can and will be blamed on teachers" (Benae & Hodson, 1999: 524). Recent

provincial propos& to require replat evaluation and appraisal of teachers and th& level of

familiarity and competence with the cup~ently employed cumcumcda, in order to mainPin th&

professional certification, has only setved to aggmvate teachers fhher. The Ministry's attempts to

drme c-dum diange by means of linking notions of accountabili~ and assessrnent has resulted

in the introduction of standardized teshg of students at particular stages of th& scholastic careus.

This has served to send teachem into a fienzied pinic, to ensure that the d c u l u m expectations are

eutensively covered, &en by the desire to produce favourable results. With the public

dissemination of such data, the Ministy only heis public opinion and its impact on the culture of

the school and the expectzcions phced on teachers and schools. In the process, the govcrtlment

achieves a sense of public accountability for educators. Tea&ers become coerced by the rnany

constraints codionting them, and the only available recouse is to subscribe to the particular

pedagogical practice presaibed by the cuuiculum, despite its undesirability or inappropriateness.

'Witbin this dimate, the implernentation of standardized tes* of students at particular stages of

school careers as a means of providing data for a performance-based

linked to merit pay, promotion and contact renewal cannot be fat away"

533).

Hence, the introducti0~1 of a mdticultural science educatioa

teacher appraisal sdieme

(Benae & Hodson, 1999:

program, or any of the

innovations to cuûculum dwelopment advocated hue, wodd require a b t i c change in direction,

contray to the course which the provincial government is currendy steering. With teachers

ovexwroughf overworked, demonlized, having to contend with time, energy, fiscal, resource, and

in-service trnining consttahts, it appears that the Ministy has succeeded in providing anythîng but a

supportive environment hdeed, the Mïnistry has fostezed support for an environment of high

pressure and paranoh, with the sword of Damodes dangitig pdously over teachers' heads. Any

notions about iutroducing innovative d d u m development or pedagogy which stray fiom die

presuibed provincial program are likely to be perceived by eduutors as fàr too precleous a

professional path to tread. In other words, the Ministry has fostexed an educatiod envitonment

predicated by, and preoccupied with, confonnity to its Nmculum directives, perrnitthg linle room

for deviation or innovation. Instead of providing supportive responses to t e a k concems, the

provinciai govemrnent has forciily instituted refomis that squash any protests by educators and

suppressing ail urgent pleas to the contrary.

5 3 ISSUES RIELATED TO CURRICULUM

As stated d e r , d d u m and pedagogy seme as the principal fomdations to facilitate

institution of an educative program, whethet that of mdticultural science education or any othet.

Considerable attention has already bem directed to the curridum framework for mdticultural

science education ( r e d Chapter 3), and to the requisite responses rdated to supporting an

approphte pedagogy, in the preceding text Consequently, this chapter provides a brief insight into

other considerations deemed s i g n i f i a n t to supporthg multicultural saence education initiatives in

Ontario. Ifs p ~ u p a l concems are: an examination of textbooks cu~ently anployed with science

Cumcula; inaoducing alternative assessrnent schanes; exploring culturally centexed Cumcula to

enhance ment content; md eliminahg implementation constratnts.

5,3,1 TEXTBOOK CONCERNS

To reassert a contention made in Chapter 3, science textbooks ofien present a

predomhantly Eurocmtric, male view of science, ignoring the accomphhments and roles that

people fiom diverse cultural backgrounds have adieved and continue to achieve (Hocison, 1993;

Reiss, 1993). Futthesmore, textbooks often po-y only white suentists and studmts, with any

depictions of suentists or students fiom other cultutes casting them in roles subordinate to whites

(Hodson, 1993). Similady, McCarthy (1998) coments that textbooks serpe as the primary vehide

for conveying Eucocentec biases in the cwiculum and in the dassroom. McCarthy (1998) charges

that the tactbook, which serves as the centrepiece of the school Cumculum in North Amerka,

fiequently perpetuates the supmnacy of white, Eutopean achievements and those of th& (North)

Ametican counterparts over those of ail other, non-white cultures. In the process, achievernents

from other cultures come m be seen as immaterial and inconsequential, with Merior status.

Consequently, he contends, (North) "AmeBcan schoolchildren come to lmow the wodd as one

made by Eutopean ancestors and white people gmerally". At the same t h e , they come to know "a

wodd ove-populated by minonties and third-world people", a world poctrayed as having b e a

bmugbt fo mkution by "these people of other lands," (McCaahy, 1998: 111).

Reiss (1993) suggests four main reasons for the biased (and prejudiaai) presmtation found

in textbooks. Firstly, textbook authors rnay not be cognjzant of the contributions of other cultures.

Secondly, some areas of learning which are of importance to women and pexsons fiom 0th-

cultures are o h exduded kom the usuai defitions of science, despite curriculum initiatives such

as &ncbmmkr/or SRcnn Litwacy (AAAS, 1993) or the Pan-Canadian science Nmculum guideiines

(CMEC, 1997) encounging a broader view of science. Thirdly, textbooks fd to address the

discrimination against women and people of colour, which may have prevmted many of these

people &om obtaiaing an adequate education in samce or ensured that contributions by women

and saentists of colour wue not reported Fdy, Reiss (1993) comments that science textbooks

also fail to ceptesent the fhctors whkh influence or determine the topics saentists choose to study.

For example, saence textbooks rately cover the effea of power sauggles and race rehtion on sidrle

c d anaemia reseuch, and yet sickIe c d anemia is u d y discussed in biology textbooks.

AU of this smes to underscore the need to d e and review science textbooks employed

in Ontleio. Mozeover, ail other science CUIfidum materials and resources should undergo a similar

evaluatipe review. The purpose of such ucamination and review of textbooks is to iden* and

replace all offensive and r a d y stereotypical cutridum mater&. To reitexate the emphasis fkom

Chapter 3, the objectives and content of mdtidtutal science education should be reflected in the

d& matcrials employed, with particular attention paid to textbooks, which serve as a

fundamental instrument for Cumcuium implernentation in the dassroom.

53.2 ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT SCHEMES

The new approaches to science tac- and science (=upridum constmction bekig

advocated by this thesis, requk a fiesh approach to assessment and evaluation, one that d B " very

sigdlcantly from the standardized testing and assessment schemes the Ontaxio govefnment hss

semed to intmduce dongside its new -cula. The problematic nahire of standardized assessment

schemes, and their inherent biases, is wd established Li the educational literature, with emphasis

placed on the f h of such assessments to measure what students r d y know (Luft, 1998; Bnrba,

1998). Maay have advocated alternative assessment schemes which seek to provide a holistic

approach to evaluation in science education (Barba, 1998; Gough & Gfiths, 1994; Tippins &

Dana, 1993; Luft, 1998; Pedretti, 1994). Moreover, assessment should be deemed context

dependent; it should refiect the nature of the subjea matter; and it should address the unique

cul& aspects of dass, school and comrnunity pippins & Dana, 1993). Such perspectives would

be in keeping with the provisions sought by mdticultilral saence education to facilitate the

personalization of science leamhg and knowledge, while maintaining sight of socidtural

considerations.

%'hile ththe expliat criteria of such altemative assessment schemes may be subject to différent

intexpiecations and emphases (LI& 1998). there is some agreement as to what such Iltemative

assessment schemes shodd entail (Barba, 1998; Gough 8c Grifflths, 1994; TîppYis & Dam, 1993;

Lufc, 1998). B a y , this indudes incorporating such schanes as: cooperative lenming and group

assessment, where students must engage in a dialogue which seqirires hem to constmct and

negotiate a shared manhg of th& science leaming, and in the process corne to understand and

apprechte socio-cultural differences; journal wri- where o p p o h t y is afforded for students to

foster connections between urperiences and theory, and to engage in personal scientSc discoutse,

allowing for greater fimiliari?.ation of scktifiic vocabdq uid the articulation of th& thought

processes; concept mapping, which requires students to share, discuss, negotiate and agree upon

meaaings; and poafolios, which should seme to provide a developmental record of growth in

concephial understanding for both teachers and students, and would indude concept maps, wrinen

journal, records of oral intewiews and cooperative group work, and the Wre (ïippins & Dana, 1993;

Baba, 1998; Gough & Gfiths , 1994). "Any discussion of assessment must be linked to

understanding what we teach, how we teach, and why we teach. A mdtiethnic and mulatacial

suence cutricuium and le?ming environrnen~ as well as c u l d y relevant assessment stxategies, can

enable teachers to better prepare their students for the muiticdtural socierg in wbich we Lme"

(ïippkis & Dana, 1993: 47).

53.3 EXPLORING CULTURALLY CENTERED CURRICULA

To r e m to an d e r discussion in Chapter 3, the private domain of education would

afford greatet opportunity to provide culturally cmtered d n i l n which M y integrate one's own

personal s o a o c u i d system of beliefs, dues and ethos. Fletas & Elliot (1932) offer the example

of native-contxolIed education, whose aims are twofold. Firstly, it seeks to impart those skgs wbidi

childm d require to succeed in the outde world. Secondly, it aims to immerse children in an

environmat that is resolutely aboriginal in content, style and outcorne.

the secent emetgmce of Fkst Nations schools (Greene, 1998), signifîcant efforts hve

been undertaken to fornulate dtumlly centered currï& The devdopment of such cmicula

appears to have contriiuted to the heightened awareness and credmce of aboriginal suentific

knowledge and practice (Ho, 1999). Another notable example is the Kurakaupapa Maori initiative in

New Zealand (see Hodson, 1993), which aims to present Maori perceptions of the n a d

environment dongside those of Western science, and reinforced by a prefened Maori pedagogy.

Such culniraly centered curricuia, whether Fkst Nations or for other cultures, could also provide

valuable refmences and resources for a mul t i cu ld science education program. W1& private

schools steadüy on the increase in Canada, largely centered around dture and religion (Fleras &

Elliot, 1992), p a t e r culturally centered c w x i d are lilrely to be produced, providing a possible

valuable resource pool for mulucultutal saence education, and ensurhg a more acnirate

representation of the scientinc philosophy, historg, perspectives and pradce of various cultural

groups.

5.3.4 IMPLEMENTATION CONSTRAINTS

As alteady noted, any curriculum is subject to implementation constraints, ioduding: la& of

suppott on a governmental, school board, public or local institutional levef; la& of economic

resowces or cornmitment, la& of provisions for time, energy and resources for tachers to faciltate

efficacious curridum de1ive.y; la& of supportive initiatives for appropxiate pedagogical practice;

la& of supportive environment for teachers; and lack of supportive environment for the &culum,

on the part of educators, politicians (se- reform), or the public. Indeed, doshg the divide

between the intended and implemented Cumculum is dependent on the ways in wbich these are

addressed. It h o s t goes without saying that such mattes shouid be afforded a much bigha level

of priori~.

5.4 FINAL REPLErmONS

M u i t i d d saence education rnay mean many things to rmny people, with relative

emphases vvging between countties, regions, schools and dwrooms (Hodson, 1993). In Ontario,

the needs of uban studeats will contrast with those of students fkom rural Ontario, where there are

different degrees of exposure to dmese cultures, peoples and backgrounds. Indeed, the pnorities in

schook with a highly mixed ethnic population will sigdicantly diffe~ fiom those in schoob in which

the student population is iargdy drawn fiom the dominant culture. Some might argue that the needs

and provisions for multicultural science education should be cornmensurate with the degree of

exposure to and intexaction with ethnically heterogeneous populations. In othet words, such

p t d o n s are more important and rquked for large urban areas or in communities wbich exhibit

visible diversity. However, this ignores the fact that Ontario's population is ethnidy and r a d y

diverse, refiective of the diversity which pervades Canada. Sdiools do not exkt in isolation but

rather, each comprises a cornponent of the wider spectmm of society. Consequently, with students

going on to funber education, job trPining and employment, the? m u t be equipped to partiapate

effectively in broader society, where there is a rnarked need for multiculnital (science) education

initiatives, regardless of the composition of th& immediate community or school enviroment

Indeed, some contend that such initiatives may prove more valuable in homogeneous ieamlig

environrnents dominated by white Mdren, in order to combat the prejudices and biases likely to

accrue without such soaoculnvally b e exposure (Mann, 1991). Hence, multidtural science

education would seek to foster a aitically refiective saentinc literacy for ail students, regardless of

th& sociodtural backgrounds, not maely for ethnic minorities.

In surveying the various considerations for responsive provisions rehted to d d u m and

pedagogy, for the institution of a m u l t i d d saence education program in Ontario, it must be

stressed that there is a danger in adopting a view which is too presaiptive, or too nawwly and

rigidy defined (Hodson, 1993), a quality which the O n ~ o science curzicula (METO, 1998, 1999)

have in abundance ( r e d Chapte 4). Suffitient breadth of perspective c m be achicved kough the

presenration of the pbilosophy, objectmes and puspectives undedying the three main tbrusts of

multidtural science education, outlined in Chapter 3: the personaliaation of saence ieaming and

knowledge, the demythologization of the science enterprise, and the politickation of science. This

diaptes has sought to &borate the full scope and magnitude of inhoduchg a new science

CUmcuIum program for Ontario, outIining obstades that exist and problems which must be

remedied in ordex to ensute that muiticultural science education d d u m is buttressed witb the

appropriate supportive provisions. In the &ai chapter, attention is directed at synthegziag

tecornmendations for policy and practice refonn in Ontario to reflect the goals of muiticulRiral

scieace education,

C-ER 6

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SCIENCE CURRICULUM POLICY AND PRACTICE

REFORM IN ONTARIO

6.1 RECOMMEINDATIONS FOR REFORM.

This thesis has sought to engage a discourse for w h t it proposes as an improved science

Cumculum program. Toward this end, multicdtural science education has beai presented as a

d c u l u m development program which aims to accommodate sociocultd kctors, acknowledged

by educators as impaalig on Iearning. Furthennore, concem for such a program has also beai

directed at engaging teachem in a critically reflectme pedagogical practice, inculcating c8tically

re f lehe ski& among science students, and EostePng a aitical and comprehensive scientSc litefacy

within a mdtidturai domain. Subsequently, analysis of the m e n t policy and practice for

multicultural and science education prograrns in Ontvio was undeden, with d c u l u m evaluation

conducted under the criteria of m u l a c u l d science education dehed in Chapm 3, deheating

several defiaencies in terms of the MUiistrg's provisions. Chapter 5 sought to reflea futtber upon

provisions which should be considered in suppoxthg and susteuung a mdticultural suence

c-cul= paradigm, wivith focus directed on m o fronts: measures related to suppoflng appropriate

pedagogy and issues relaied to curriculum implernentation.

This thesis has aimed to provide an undercurrent of aitical refiection in its presentntion of

mdtidturai science education for Ontario. It is with this same objective that the presentation of

the various considenitions, related to curriculum policp and practice in Ontazio, has bem offend.

The entke focus of this thesis though, has been directed at estabiishing the foundation for providkig

recommendations for saence education refonn in Ontario.

It is proposed that the Ministrg of Education and Trainhg examine CUftent provisions for

multicutd science education contained in curceat -dm policy and practice in Ontaio in the

light of cunmt sesearch fïndings and academic debate, as presented in this thesis. In paxticuhr,

attention should be dixected to the following considerations.

The Ministry of Education and Traiauig for OntaSo should formulate a poky

conceming muit iculd (and anti-racist) education, to influence curriculum

development and pnictice in OntaBo, with direches for the school boards aaoss the

province to fornidate th& own parti& poliçg and program initiatives w i t b the

MinisPry's mandate.

Saence d c u l u m provisions should be made to incorporate the three domains of

rnultidtural suence education: the personalization of science leaming and knowledge,

the demythoIogization of the science enterprise, and the politickation of saence

education. This may achieved by: affording prominent attention to the individuality of

Ieambg needs; promoting appropriate pedagogical practice commeasuate with the

objectives of facilitahg border crosshg for studena; promoting appropriate pedagogical

practice which seeks to enculture stuclents to the manners and methods of authentic

scientifk investigation and procedure without assimilating them cul-; affording

prominence to soc iocu ld considerations in science education; deploying historical,

philosophical and sociologicd dimensions of science; infusing content which encourages

uitical and reflective questions md exacises; addressing issues whidi require moral,

ethical and political debate; fostering a sense of pvticipation and empowerment for

students.

The Ministy should administer measu~es to provide a supportive environment for

appropzîate pedagogical pnctice by ensuring the biIowing provisions: bolsterhg pre-

skce tacher education programs for mdticultural (anti-racist) education, science

education and m d t i d d saence education; the te-introduction of greateq and

impsoved, in-service professional development prograrns Xor the same; enacting

administrative initiatives responsive to the mulucultural science cuzriculum mandate for

teachers and thek needs, which irnplies re-introducing adequate fked thne for teacher

preparation, diminishing the volume of d c u l u m expecotions assigned to each grade

so that teachers can manage the d d u m more proficiently, providiag greater

nimculum resources and haining to facllitate impsoved knplementation, and providing

m mWonment where teachers axe not compeiled to conform or face conMuhg

pressure over retention of professional acaeditation and employment

The Ministry shodd adminiçter the following measures in support of MplernenMg a

muiticuld suence cutriculm review all tmbooks and otfiez Cumdurn materials

with the aim of idendjmg and tephchg ail offensive or r a d y stereotyped content;

intmduce altemative assessrnent schemes aimed at providing a holistic evduation of

saence snidents; examine and explore the possibi1ity of introducing nilturaly centexed

samce d c u l a to enhance &cular dimensions of dturally diverse history,

philosophy and perspectives; and elLninate implementation constraints rekted to

pedagogy, resources and administcatioa.

6.2 TOWARDS A MORE RELET?ANT AND C R I T X W Y REFLECîIVE SCIENCE

CURRICULUM

Mdticultutal science education has been presented in this thesis as a pntadigm for

d c u l u m devdopmmt to fumish a science curriculum deerned more relevant to the cultudy

diverse Ieuning population of Onmio. To re-emphasle an earliet contention (fiom Chapter 3),

mdticultural saence education would still hdamentdy preserve the suent& process of

investigation, d t i o n and discovery. Since there must be some common fonun for science

commuaication, process, evaluation and dissemination. However, it wouid d o w for soaocultural

factors which might affect perspectives on process, results and interpretation to be recognized Its

goal would be focused on seeking to endture students with the science process without

socioculturaliy assbdating them. In this regard, particular ernphasis wodd be afforded to f0steiin.g

u3ica.i reflection amongst students.

How science education proceeds in Ontario should refiect out concems and expectations for

adiievernent and accomplishment by our students. It is widely argued that success in today's wodd

is depmdent on one's capaaty to access and negotiate the socio-cultutal diversity of the global

dage. If this is true, do studaits not require a science curriculum which is Finnly grounded in

divenity? Only then, will they be M y conversant and hctional in today's global village. Given the

patadigm of multicultural saence education presented here, my response is a resoun* '?es."

Anything ~ S S , wodd be chathg th& &mee

Aikenhead, G.S. (1980). Saence in S o d Issues: Implications for Teachinp. (I'oronto: Guidance Centre, UnivetSity of Toronto/Samce Council of Canada/Supply and Services Carilda). (A discussion papes presented December, 1980 for the Science C o u d of Canada.)

Aikenhead, G.S. (1 990). Scimt%c/ tcchnological literacy, criticai reasoning, classgoom practice. In L PhiIlips & S. Non& @ds.), Foundirtions of Etera Poky in Cana& (Calgaxy, Albeaa: Detseiig Enterprises Ltd), 127-145.

Aikenhead, G.S. (1993). Foreword: multicultutal issues and perspectives on science edudon. Saeace Educabaq 77(6): 659460.

Aikenhead, G.S. (1996). Science education: border aossing into the subcultuse of science. Stuirs in Science Education, 27: 1-52.

American Association for the Advancement of Saence. (1986). Projea 2061: Saence for All Americans (Washington, D.C.: U S ) .

American Association for the Advancement of Stience. (1989). Saence for AU Americans: A Pmiect 2061 Reoort on Liteacv G d in Science. Mathematics and Technolog (Washington, D.C.: M S ) . Amcrican Association for the Advamunent of Suence. (1993). Benchmarks for Saentific Litexam Project 2061 (New York: Oxford University Press).

Aspin, D.N. (1987). Cnticai openness, bdding btidge~ and the paradox of rnul~cultuml education. Pape presmted at the University of Auddiind, New Zealand.

Atwater, M.M. (1993). M u l t i d d science education: assumptions and alternative views. Science Tacher3 6O(3) : 32-37.

Atwater, M.M. (1995). The m u l t i d d saence dassroom. Science Teachu; 62(2): 20-23.

Atwater, M.M. (1996). Social constnictmism: infusion into the multicultd science education research agenda. Journal of Reseatch in Saence Teaching, 33(8): 821-837.

Amter, MM. & Riley, J.P. (1993). Mdticultural science education: perspectives, de6nitions and reseaxch agenda. Science Education. 77(6): 661-668.

Banks, JA. (1986). M u I t i d d educatïon and its critics Britain and the United States. In S. Mo& G.K Venna, K. M&ck & C. Mogdii (Eds.), Mdtidtuxal Educahn: The Interrnina& Debate (East Sussex, UK: The Falmer Press), 221-232.

Banks, JA. (19971). Mdtidtural edueation: characteristics and goals. In JA. Banks & CA. McGee Banks p.), Multicultutral Education - Issues and Perspectives (Boston: AUyn and Bacon), 3-31.

Banks, Jd. (1997b). Apptoaches to mul t icu ld Cumculum reform In J.A. Banks & Cd. McGee (Boston: Allyn and Bacon), 229-

250.

Barba, RH. (1998). Science in the Multicultural Classroom: A Guide to Tac Second Edition @oston: A U . and Bacon).

Bauet, H.H. (1992). Scientifïc Litera and the My& of the Scienti6c Method (Chicago: University of nünois Press).

Benae, L. (1999). Ontario's Curicufum for science & technology, grades 1-8: why not let kids colour outside the lines? Our Schools/Out Selvs, 9(9: 18-28.

Benae, L. & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by chmghg practice: towud more authentic science and saence d c u l u m development. Journal of Research in Science Teadmg, 36(5): 521- 539.

Berryman, J. (1988). Ontario's heritage languages program: advantages and disadvantages of these models of organization. Multidturalism/Mdtid&me, 11 (3): 18-21.

Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomv of Educational Obiectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1: Coeni*tive Domain p e w York: David MdGy Co., Inc.).

C m , P.k (1996). Anti-Ra&t Education, Institutional Culture and the Search for Educational Transformation: A Case Study of the Toronto Board of Education's Secondary PaneL Unpublished EdD. Thesis, OISE, Unbersieg of Toronto.

Chambetlain, P.J. (1986). Science education in multicultutal Britain. SchooI Science Review3 68(243): 343-348.

Cobb, P. (1994). Constnictmism in mathematics and science education. Eduational Researchet; 230: 4.

Cobem, W.W. (1993). Contumial constnictivism: the impact of culture on the 1eaming and teaching of science. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The Practice of Constmctivsm in Science Education @Idale, NJ: Lawrence Edbaum).

Cobem, W.W. (1996). Worldview theorg and conceptuai diange in science education. Stiencc Education, 80(5): 573-610.

Coelho, E., Costiaiuk, B. & Newton, C. (1995). Antiracism Education: Ge- Started - A Practid Guide for Educators poronto: OntaSo Secondary School Teachers' Federation).

Costa, V.B. (1995). When science is ccauother world": rektionships berneen worlds of famüy, friends, school and science. Science Education, 79(3): 313-333.

Cound of Ministers of Education, Canada. [CMEC] (1997). Cornmon Framework of Scimce Learnin~ Outcornes. K to 12 poronto: CMEC Secretariat).

Gaft, M. (1984). Education for diversity. In M. C d (Ed.), Education & Cultural PI& (East Sussex-, UK: The Falmer Press), 5-26.

Dewey, j. (1925). erience and Nature (New Yotk: Dover Publications) [1958 prLit].

Dewey, J. (1938). & 'oq Wew York: Touchstone) [1997 pht].

Dewey, J. (1943). The S b 1 and Scxie & The Chiid and the Ctmidum (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) [1990 print].

Driver, R. (1983). The P u d as Scienhst? (Milton Keynes: Open University Press).

Driver, R, Asoko, H., Leach, J., M o h e r , E., & Seo& P. (1994). Cons~ucting saentific knowledge in the dassroom. Educational Reseder, 230: 5-12.

Econornic Couacil of Canada. (1992). A Lot tn Learn - Ed ucation and Trainin9 in Ca&: 4 Summq (Ottawa: Canada Communication Group Pubkhing).

Eisen- M., Finkel., E., & Muion, S. (1991). Creathg the conditions for scientific lituncy: a te- examination. Amdcan Educational Research 10- 33 (2): 26 1 -295.

Fensham, P. (1988). FamilLu but differenc some dilemmas and new directions in science education. In P. Fensharn (Ed.), Develo~ment and D i l e m s in Scimce Eduutioq (East Sussex: The Falmer Press), 1-26.

Fieras, A. & Elliot, JL (1992). Multidtunlism in Canada - The Challeme of Dkersitv (Scarborough: Nelson Canada).

Gab el, L.L. (1976). Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Galbraith, P L , Cam, MC., Grice, RD., Endean, L. & W q , M. (1997). Towards saentifk literacy for the thtd denium: a view fiom Ausnalia. International T o d of Science Education, 19: 447- 467.

Gallard, A.J. (1993). Leaming suence in multidtural environments. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The Praetice of Consmctivism in Scimce Education Wdaie , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).

Geeian, D.R.. (1997). Epktemological anarchy and the mvly forms of constnictbism. %& Education, 6: 15-28.

Gkoux, H. (1992). Routledge).

Good, R (1993). The many forms of consauctivism @ditorhi). Journal of Research in Science Teachko; 30: 1015.

Good, R (1995). Comments on multicultuml saence education. Saence Education, 79(3): 333-336.

Gough, R.L. & Gaths, A.K. (1994). Science for Life The Tea chinp - of Science in Canadian Piimatp and Elementarp Sdiools (Ibronto: Harcourt & Bruce Company, Canada).

Govc~tneat of Canada. (1991a). Consultation P er: Issues for Discussion Lemhg e Well (Ottawa: Mînister of Supply and Services Canada). -C

Govemment of Canada. (199lb). Consultation Pa~er: Issues for Discussion, P m s ~ ~ t v Throwh Competitmeness (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Serpices Canada).

Greene, K. (1998, April7). 'Good words' place focus on First Nations. The Toronto Star, FI, F2.

Hd, J. (1998, April4). Mind and rnattec Ontatio's new elementarg school cwiculum d mold the teaching of science and technology for the foreseeable &tue. The Toronto St% El, 334.

HemistUn, W. & Munay, C. (1994). The Bell Curve: Inteiiigence and Class Structure in American (New York: The Free Press).

Hewson, P.W+ & Thorley, N.R. (1989). The conditions of conceptuai change in the dassroom. International Toumal of Science Education, 11: 541 -543.

Ho, T. (1999, Mar& 17). Professor touts Indians' suentific knowledge. The Toronto Star, D4.

Hodson, D. (1986). A checkiist of questions for science d c u l u m evaluation. S b 1 Saence Review, 68(243): 328-334.

Hodson, D. (1988). Toward a philosophidy more valid science cuddum. Samce Education, 72(1): 19-40.

Hodson, D. (1992a). In seasch of a meanligful relationship: an exploration of some issues relating to integrauon in saence and science education. Intemational l o u r d of Saence Education, 14(5): 541-562.

Hodsoo, D. (1992b). Towards a h e w o r k for muitidtural science education. Curridum, 13(1): 15-28.

Hodson, D. (1993). In search of a rationale for multicultural science education. Sumce Education, 77(6): 685-71 1.

Hodson, D. (1994). Response to Williams' comment Saence Education, 78(5): 521-525.

Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratorg work as saentific methock three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum SmdiesJ 28(2):125-135.

Hodson, D. (1999). Critical multiculturalisrn in science & technoiogy education. In S. May (Ed), Critical M u l t i c u l d . .

m: Rethinkui~ M d t i d tural and Antiracist Educatioq ondon: Routledge),

Hoclson, D. & Hodson, J. (1998) From constnrctivism to social constnicscrism: a Vygoorkian perspective on teaching and learning science. School Science Review, 79(289): 33-41.

Hodson, D. & Reid, J. (1988). Science for all: motives, membgs and implications. School Science ReviewS 69: 653-661.

Houser, N.O. (1996). Multidtural education for the dominant culture: toward the development of a mdtidtural sense of selt Urban Education, 31(2):125-148.

Hulmes, E. (1989). Education and C u l d Diversi- (&ondon: Longman).

Hud, P.D. (1969). New Directions in Tea Chiop Secondam School S k c e (Chicago: Rand and McNally Co.).

Jegede, O.J. (1995). Collateral leamhg md the eco-cultural paradigm in science and mathematics education in Afaca, Shtdies in Saence Education, 25: 97-137.

Jegede, O.J. (1997). School science and the development of scientific culture: a review of contempomy science education in Ahifa. International oumal of Science Education, 19(1): 1-20.

Jenlàns, E. (1990). Scientitic Literacy and school saence education. School Sumce Revim, 7 1 (25 6):43-5 1.

Jones, G. (1996). Family science: a celebration of diversity. Science and Children, 34(2): 26-30.

Katz, J. (1982). Multicutural education: games educators play. Multiracial Education, 1 O(2): 1 1-1 8.

Kehoe, J. (1982). Multidtura1 Canada: Considera tions for Schools. Teachers and Curriculum. (Vancouver: Uaiversiv of British Columbia, Facultg of Education). [reprint fiom D.C. Wilson

Public Issues in a Canadian Context ( Cmiculum Series 47), (îoronto: OISE Press, 1 W)].

Kincheloe, JL. & Steinberg, S.R. (1997). Chan&np Multiculturalism (Buckingham: Open Unbersi~ Press).

Knudnon, P. & Sund& D. (1992). Wisdom of the Eldem (I'oronto: Stoddart).

Koertge, N. (1996). Towud an inteption of content and method Li the scimce Cumculum. Science and Education, 5(4): 39146.

Krathwohî, D.R., Bloom, B S & Masia, B.B. (1964). The Tvronomv of Educational Obiectives: (New Yodc David

M&y Co., Inc).

KNgly-Smolska, E.T. (1989). Cuiture and Science Education. Unpublished PhD. Thesis, University of Toronto.

K d q T.S. (1970). The Structure of Saentific RevoIutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Lee, E. (1985). Letters to Mar& A Teacher's Guide to Anti-Racist Education (I'oxonto: Goss- Cultural Communications Centre).

h n , M. (1992). Scimce education refomi: building on the research base. Science Teacbias 29(8): 821-840.

Loving. C.C. (1995). Comment on 'Wulticulturalism, universahm and science education". Science Education, 79(3): 341348.

Luft, J. (1998). Mdticulniral science education: an ovexview. Journal of Science Teacher Edud011,9 (2): 103-122.

Lynch, J. (1981). TeadiiriP in a Mulacultutal School &ondon: Ward Lock Educational).

Lynch, J. (1984). Cwticulum and assessrnent In M. Crafi (Ed), Education & C u l d Pluralism (East Sussex, UK: The F h e r Press), 41-56.

Lynch, J. (1986). Multicultural Eduuition - Principles and Pracbce (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).

Maddock, M.N. (1981). Science education: an anthropological viewpoint Studies in Scimce Education, 8: 1-26.

MW J. (1991). Teadiing saence multiculturaUy in d-white primarg schools. In A. Peacock Pd), Science ia P* Schools: The Mdtidtural Dimension (Landon: Routledge), 38-50.

Mase!mann, VL. & Ciimmins, J. (1985). Education: Cultural and Linmiistic Pluralism in Canada (report commissioned by The Multiculturaiism Dkeaorate, Deparmient of the S e c r e t q of State of Canada), (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Semices Canada).

McAndrew, M. (1987). Ethnicity, multiculturalisrn and multidtural education in Canada. In R Ghosh & D. Ray (Eds.), Diversitv and U in Education: A Com~aratme Analvsis ondon: George Allen & Unwin), 143-154.

McCarthy, C. (1993). Multidtural approaches to r a d inequality in the United States. In LA. Castenell & W.F. Pinar (Eh.), Understandine Curriculum as R a d Texc Reoresenaitions of Identitp and Diffaence in Education (Albany: Stnte University of New York Press), 225-246.

M c C d y , C. (1995). Muiticultural policg discourses on r a d ineqdty in American education. In R Ng, P. Staton & j. Scane (Eds.), i r n . and Critical Apxoaciies 40 Educatioq (Toronto: OISE Press), 21-44.

McCarthy, C. (1998). The Uses of CulNre (New Yotk: Routledge).

McLuhan, M. (1964). Unders Me&: The Extensions of Man (New York: McGraw-Hill).

McKinley, E., McPherson Waki, P., & Beli, B. (1992). Language, culture and science education. Intemationai Journal of Science Education, 14(5): 579-595.

Mehicet, R (1986). Hom one school dipision mdtidtutalized. Mdticul&m/ Mdtidhualism, 9(2): 5-8.

M e r , J.D. (1983). ScientZc literacy - a conceptual and empitid review. DaedulusS 112(2): 92-93.

Ministry of Education of Ontario. (1987). The Develoornent of a Policv on Race and Ethnocultural Equitp p o n t o : Ministy of Education of Ontario).

Ministcy of Edudon of Ontario. (1988). Science is H enkm Here: A Policv Statement for Science in the Primnrp and Junior Divisions poronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario).

Ministty of Education, Ontario. (1992). ChaneiriP Pers~ectives: A Resource Guide for Anhcist poronto: Queen's PrLiter for Ontario).

Ministry of Education and Training, Ontario. P T 0 1 (1993a). Antirackm and EthnoculturaI Eouitv in School Boards. Guidelines for Poli Devdo~ment and Im~Iementatioa (Toronto: Queen's Pinter for Ontario).

Mïnistrg of Education and Training, Ontario. [METOI (1993b). The Common Curriculum: Grades 1-9 poronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario). - Minisbcg of Education and TrainLig, Ontario. PT01 (1995). The Common Clvricuîum: Policieg gnd Outcornes. Grades 1-9 voronto: Queai's Printer for Ontario).

Ministry of Education and TraLiing, Ontario. PT01 (1998). The Chtario C m i d u m Grades 1-8: Samce and Teehnolog~! (Toronto: Quem's PSnter for Oneario).

Ministry of Education and Traiaing, Ontario. WTO] (1999). The Ontario Cruridum. Grades 9 ~ 1 0 : e poronto: Queen's P ~ t e r for Ontario).

Mitchell, M.M. & Sakbury, RE. (1996). *Q

Research. Policies. and Promam~ (Westpoq Connecticut Greeenwood Press).

uitv Polim iq Mo& KR & Masemann, VL. (1990). Implementhg Race and Ethnoculhual Eq . On& School Boa& (ïoronto: Onmio Ministry of Education).

Mogdil, S., Vefma, G.K, Mallick, K. & Mo& C. (1986). Multiculhiral education: the interminable debate. In S. Mo@, GX. Venna, K. Malllck & C. Mogdd (M.), M u l t i c u i d Eduation: The Interminable Debate (East Sussex, UK: The Falmer Press), 1-1 8.

M u h d , C. (1982). M u l t k d education in Britah from assimilation to c u l d pl&m* In J. Tiemey Pd.), Race! W t i o a and Schoohg (London, UK: Holt, Rinehart & Wioston).

Mundangephipfu, KM. (1986). The Distinction of Maeico-traditional from Scientific Beliefs in the Tachino of Science in AGca. Unpublished PhD. Thesis, University of Toronto.

National Assessrnent of Educationai Progzess. (1988). The Stimce Re oa C d Elements of Risk jmd Recoverg. Trends. and Achievement Based on the 1986 National Assessment -(Washington, D.C.: Educational T d g Semice), Report No: 174-01.

National Science Teachers Association WorInng Paper. (1982). Saence education= accomplishments and needs (Columbus, Ohio) In S. Nodie Oja & L Smuylan (1989)

No& M. & Smith, R (1995). 'Talking your way out of i4" cCriggink'' and "conjukg": w h t science teachers do when practials go wrong. International Tourna1 of Science Education, 17: 791-820.

O'Loughlti, M. (1992). Retbinkuig science educntion: beyond P i a g e h constructivism toward a souocultual mode1 of teadhg and learning, Journal of Resevch in Saaice Tea ching, 29(8): 791- 820.

Orpwood, G. & Garden, ILA. (1998). T][MMS Monoma h No.4: Assessi- Mathematics and Scient& Literacy (Vaocouver: Pacific Educational Press, Univemitg of Britis h Columbia).

Pedretti, E.G. (1 994). Action Research in Science-Techn~10p-%cie Eduçgtion: The Road Less Travelled. Unpublished PhD. thesis, University of Toronto.

Pedretti, E.G. & Hodson, D. (1995). From rhetoric to action: irnplementlig SIS education tbrough action reseazch. Journal of Research in Science Teachiag, 32: 463-485.

Parekh, B. (1986). The concept of mdti-cuitwd education. In S. Mogdil, G.K Venna, K M d c k & C. Mogdil Fds.), (East Sussex, st The Falmer Press), 19-32.

Pornaoy, D. (1994). Science education and cui~I ta l diversity: mapping the field. Studies in Saence JZducation, 24: 49-73.

Pomer, G.J., StBke, KA., Hewson, P.W., & Geraog, WA. (1982). Accommodation of a suentinc conception toward a tbeorg of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2): 21 1-227.

Prakosh, M.S. & Waks, LJ. (1985). Four conceptions of excellence. Tacher's Co 87:79-1 O 1.

Rakow, S.J., & Bermuda, A.B. (1993). Science is "aencia": meeting the needs of the Hispanic American students. Science Education, 77(6):669-6 83.

Rarncharan, S. (1989). The role of education in a multi-rad Canada. In O.P. Dwivedi et al. (Eds.), Canada 2000: Race Relations and Public Policv (Guelph, ON: University of Guelph), 191-199.

RUss, M.J. (1993). Science Education for a Plumlist Soae (Buckingham, UK: Open University Press).

Remi-Rash& G. (1995). M d t i c u I d education, anti-racist education, and critical pedagogy: reffections on everyday practice. In R Ng, P. Staton & J. Sane @ds.), Anti-Racism. Feminism. and Critical Ap~roaches to Education (Toronto: OISE Press), 3-19.

Roberts, DA. (1983). Scientific Literacv: Towards B a h c e in Setîim Goals for School Science Propms. voronto: Guidance Centre, UniverSiv of Toronto/Science Council of Gnada/SuppIy and Services Canada). (A discussion paper presented A p 4 1983 for the Science Council of Canada.)

Roberts, DA. (1988). What counts as science education? In P. Fensham (Ed) Development and Di1-s in Science! Education (East Susseg: The Fakner Press), 27-54.

Royal Commission on Leiunkg. (1994). For the Love of Leuniilp: R e ~ o r t of the Rovd Commission on Learninp- A Short Version (i'oronto: Queen's Printer for O n d o ) .

Samuda, R.. (1986). The Canadian brand of multidturalism: social and educational impiïcations. In S. Mo& GX. Vernia, K. Mallick & C. Mogdil (Eds.), Mdticulhiral Education: The Intemiinable Debate (East Sussex, UK: The F b e r Press), 101-1 10.

Science Council of Canada, (1984). Reooa 36 - Science for EVM Studmt: E d u c a b Canadian's for Tomorrow's World (Ottawa: Canadian Govemment Publis hing Centre).

Scottish Consultative Council on the CUmculum. (1996). Science Education in Scottish Sdiools: Lookiy to the Future (Broughty Feny. SCCC).

Sefa Dei, GJ. (1994). Reflections on an anti-racist pedagogue. In L. Erwin & D. Madwnan (Eds.), Socio lo~ of Education in Canada: Critical Pers ectives on Theor5 Research & Practice (ïoronto: Copp Ciark Longman Ltd), 290-310.

Sefa Dei, G.J. (1996). Anti-Racism Education - Theo and Practi- ( H a M k Femwood PublishLig).

Seydegaa, M., Caccia, L, Cude, R., McLaren, K. & Ponce, S. (1994). The Global Chsroom: Appraisal and Perspectmes on Education for International Understand& (Cana (Ottawa: South House Exchange, for Council of Minisrers of Education, Canada).

Shamos, M.H. (1995). The Myth of Scient& Literacv (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgus University Press).

Shaw, B. (1982). The incoherence of multicultural educabon. British Tourna1 of Educationll Studies, 250-259.

Shen, B.S.P. (1975). Samce literacg: the public needs. The Sciences, 24: 42-46.

Sleeter, C. (1990). Staff development for desegregated schoobg- Phi Delta Ksppag. 72(1): 33-40.

Srna. P. (1998, March 31). School samce ovéIthaul uaveiled. The Toronto Star, Al, Al 8.

Stanley, WB., & Brickhouse, N-W. (1994). MdticuItutaism, universalism and samce education. Science Educatioa, 78(4): 387-398.

Stanley, WB. & Brickhouse, N.W. (1995a). Response to Good Science Educatiori, 79(3): 337-339.

Stardey, W.B. & Brickhouse, N-W. (199Sb). Sumce educatîon without foundations: a response to Loving. Science Educntîon, 79(3): 349-354.

Tator, C. (1987/88, Winter'). Towards ami-ncist education. C u e n ~ 4(4): &Il.

Thomas, G. & Durant, J. (1987). Why should me promote the public undemuid4 of science? In M. Shoaknd @d), Scientific Literacv Pa~ers ondon: Oxford Departmat for Extemal Studies), 2-14.

Tippins, D.J. & Dam N.F. (1993). Culninlly relevant altemative assessrnent In S.J. Cvey @i), Science for Ali Cultures: A Collection of Artides firom NSTA's Tournals (Arüngton, VA: National Science Teachers Association), 44-47.

Tobin, K. (1993). Consmtctivis~~~ a pandigru for the practice of suence education. In K. Tobin (Ed), The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education (Wlsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).

Tobin, K & Tippins, D. (1993). Constnictiviçm as a referent for teachlig and leamiag. In K. Tobin (EL), The Practice of Constructivism in Science Educabon p d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbam) .

Tomlinson, S. (1986). Ethnicity and educational achievement In S. MogdiI, G.K. Verma, K Mallick & C. Mogdil (Eds.), Multiculturd Education: The Intemiinable Debate (East Sussex, UK: The Faimer Press), 181-194.

The Toronto Star (1998a, A p d 3). Science Cwaculurn important milestone PditoriaIj, A22

The Toronto Star (1998b, November 7). Tirneline of Tory moves on education, A16.

The Toronto Star (1998c, December 21). New d c u l u m needs more titne [Editonal], A24.

The Toronto Star (1999, May 4). Some doors dosed in aty of diversity wtow, Al 8.

Troyna, B. (1987). Beyond muitidturalism: towards the enactment of antiracist education in policy, provision and pedagogy. Oxford Review of Educa tion, 13 307-320.

T r o p , B. & C h g t o n , B. (1987). Antisexist/antitacist education - a false ditemrna: a reply to Walkling and Brannigan. JJ 16:60-65.

Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic Prina les of C ~ c u l u m and Instxuction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Wdcott, R (1993). W e Canadian Mdtidniralism: Towards an Anti-Racist A--&. Unpublished MA. Thesis, Unhersiry of Toronto.

Williams, H. (1994). A critigue of Hodson's "In sevch of a rationale for mdtidltueal saence education". Saence Education, 78(5): 515-5 19.

Wilson, B. (1981). The cultural contexts of science and mathematics education: prepantion for a bibliographic guide. Studies in Saence Education, 8: 27-44.