Abstract
Heather Zimmerman and Jennifer Weible’s (Cult Stud Sci Educ, 2016) use of place-based pedagogy in high school science education honors their participants’ lived experiences and the rural communities from which they come. They raise an unresolved tension in their findings: Why did the youth in their study, who clearly learned a lot about the local watershed, not feel empowered or knowledgeable enough to propose collective, action-oriented strategies to address the poor quality of the water? We use this tension as a focus point of our response, drawing on one author’s (Huffling’s) biography and David Gruenewald’s (Educ Res 32:3–12, 2003. doi:10.3102/0013189X032004003) critical pedagogy of place to re-imagine the curriculum that Zimmerman and Weible describe. We provide strategies that align with Gruenewald’s (2003) constructs of decolonization and reinhabitation that could promote youths’ collective empowerment.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 33-43 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Cultural Studies of Science Education |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Mar 1 2017 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 4 Quality Education
Scopus Subject Areas
- Cultural Studies
Keywords
- Critical pedagogy of place
- Environmental education
- Place-based curriculum
- Rural education
- Science education
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Re-inhabiting place in contemporary rural communities: Moving toward a critical pedagogy of place'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver