In this article I use feminist critique of science as a point of departure to discuss different understandings of how sex/gender impacts on pupils' approaches to science education. I construct a theoretical framework that shows three different approaches to increase gender equity in science education. Each approach is grounded in a distinct understanding of how sex/gender impacts pupils' engagement in science education. The analytical frame that is developed thereby represents descriptions of three alternative ways to address gender inequity in science education. The framework shows how different understandings of how sex/gender impact on pupils' engagement in science education require distinct initiatives to increase gender equity. The framework can be used in the planning and analysis of how gender initiatives work to address gender inequity in science education.
I den norske stortingsmeldingen «Fag – Fordypning – Forståelse. En fornyelse av Kunnskapsløftet» er «bærekraftig utvikling» ett av tre tverrfaglige temaer som skal gi retning til fornyelse av skolefagene. Sammenlignet med resten av Skandinavia har bærekraftig utvikling så langt hatt en mindre forpliktende stilling i norsk skole. Bakgrunnen for dette er sammensatt, og skyldes forhold både i og utenfor skolen. Spørsmålet som diskuteres her, er hvordan den nye satsningen på utdanning for bærekraftig utvikling kan gi temaet en mer aktiv rolle i framtidens norske skole enn det vi har sett til nå. I den sammenheng ser vi spesielt på spenninger implisitt i begrepet bærekraftig utvikling, forholdet mellom dybdelæring og tverrfaglighet, samt betydningen av handlinger og erfaringer som fremmer en bærekraftig utvikling. Konklusjonen er at det er tvilsomt om fokusering på «big ideas» og kjerneelementer i fagene (stortingsmeldingens anbefalinger) i seg selv vil lede til den tverrfaglige, systemiske forståelsen og kompetansen som er nødvendig for å leve bærekraftige liv i framtidens samfunn. Som alternativ tilnærming foreslår vi å ta utgangspunkt i tidens store spørsmål: det vi lurer på i dag.Nøkkelord: utdanning for bærekraftig utvikling, dybdelæring, tverrfaglighet, læreplaner, Norge Sustainable development, interdisciplinarity and deep learning: from big ideas to big questionsAbstractThe Norwegian White Paper “Fag – Fordypning – Forståelse. En fornyelse av Kunnskapsløftet” [Subjects – Immersion – Understanding. A Renewal of the Knowledge Promotion] states that sustainable development is to be one of three interdisciplinary themes that should guide and inform the renewal of subjects in Norwegian K12 education. Compared to the rest of Scandinavia, education for sustainable development, ESD, has so far been relatively weakly implemented in the Norwegian school system. This is due to complex relations both in and outside of schools. The question discussed in this paper is whether the new initiative for sustainability promises a more effective implementation in the Norwegian “school of the future” than we have seen so far. We elucidate tensions implicit in the concept of sustainable development, the relationship between deep learning and interdisciplinarity, and the significance of actions and experiences that foster sustainable development. Our conclusion is that it is doubtful whether focusing on “big ideas” and core elements in the school subjects (as recommended in the White Paper), in itself will lead to the cross-disciplinary, systemic outlook and competency needed to lead sustainable lives in the future. As an alternative approach, we recommend starting with the big questions of our time: issues we wonder about today.Keywords: education for sustainability, deep learning, interdisciplinarity, national curricula, Norway
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.