Marc Higgins

Drawing inspiration from Ellsworth's (2005) work on thinking with pedagogically non-prescriptive objects and the pedagogies they permit and prohibit, we turn our attention to similar educational "texts" increasingly used in STEM (i.e., science, technology, engineering, mathematics) education-board games. We tinker with board games as they refuse and resist the ways that STEM education often privileges cognitive destinations rather than relational learning journeys that enfold the whole learning self, the content, as well as the materiality of learning. We ask, how might games simultaneous act as locations of, and as, pedagogy that inflect experiences of student learning? To answer this question, we explore the pedagogical intents expressed by game designers themselves by their design diaries, blogs and interviews while thinking with Ellsworth's concept of pedagogical pivot. In exploring game designers' statements, we map out some of the potentialities that this pedagogical medium might offer STEM teaching and learning.

Post-qualitative research methodologies require us to work within, against, and beyond our methodological inheritance to respond to the world’s ongoing becoming. It is our responsibility; yet do we have the ability to respond to that which is beyond and yet-to- come? This article begins by asking this question of the process it engages in: concluding. Following an exploration entangled practices of textual closure, (fore)closure, and the clôture of metaphysics, the article expands outward through the relation between closure and responsibility. Specifically, the lived concept of response-ability as an engaged practice of (re)opening the lines of closure (beyond knowledge already known) to respond to and enact responsibility for that which is not-yet and/or to-come. Drawing from Kuokkanen, Spivak, and Barad, response-ability is explored respectively as necessary homework, as (not) hearing the call of the other, and as account-ability toward co- constitutive relationality. The article concludes with further lines of questioning as to what it might mean to responsibly inherit (post-)qualitative methodological pasts and futurities.

The purpose of this article is to explore what Michel Foucault refers to as “the” critical attitude and its relationship to science education, drawing from Foucault’s (The politics of truth. Semiotext(e), New York, 1997) insight that the critical attitude is but a critical attitude. This article is a rejoinder to Anna Danielsonn, Maria Berge, and Malena Lidar’s paper, “Knowledge and power in the technology classroom: a framework for studying teachers and students in action”. Where Danielsonn and colleagues think with Foucaultian power/knowledge to examine and (re)consider teacher-student didactic relations in science and technology education, this article critically examines the power/knowledge relationship between science educators and science education to critically explore the modes of criticality produced and produceable. Particularly, I explore possibilities for and of critique that stem from and respond to what Bruno Latour (Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1993) refers to as the crisis and critique of critique.

While there have been multiple breaks, shifts and developments within the theories that shape photovoice (i.e. praxis and feminist standpoint theory), they are rarely accounted for in the ways in which photovoice is (re)constituted. In this paper, I ask and engage with the questions: what might it mean to reconceptualise photovoice through a substitution of these similar yet different iterations of these theories? What is produceable in turn? By placing these (mis)readings of theory in conversation with concepts key to photovoice, empowerment and voice, I provide not what photovoice should be but rather possible possibilities for what it could be.

Photovoice, the most prevalent participatory visual research methodology utilised within social science research, has begun making its way into Indigenous contexts in light of its critical and pedagogical poten- tial. However, this potential is not always actualised as the assumptions that undergird photovoice are often the same ones that (re)produce inequalities. Working from the notion that methodologies are the space in between theory, methods, and ethics, this manuscript works with/in the cultural interface between the West- ern theories that shape photovoice (i.e., standpoint theory, praxis) and Indigenous analogues (i.e., Nakata’s [2007a, 2007b] Indigenous standpoint theory, Grande’s [2004, 2008] Red pedagogy) in order to differen- tially (re)braid photovoice. Following a thumbnail description of these four bodies of scholarship, a concept key to photovoice (i.e., voice) is differentially configured with, in, and for the cultural interface to provide research considerations for various stages of participatory visual research projects (i.e., fieldwork, analysis, dissemination).

Within Canadian science classrooms, Indigenous ways-of-knowing and ways-of-being continue to be underrepresented and undervalued. For Indigenous students, this often results in negative experiences and disparate achievement rates when compared to their non-Indigenous classmates. Recent decolonizing science education literature suggests critical examination of Eurocentric systems and modes of thought that uphold and reproduce (neo)colonialism within classrooms alongside the integration of Indigenous perspectives into curriculum. Extending Belczewski's (2009) conception of decolonizing science education and educator, I illuminate the partial and complex failure in translation that occurs between decolonizing theories (i.e., border crossing and reflexivity for decolonial purposes) and associated pedagogical practices of decolonizing science education.Dans les cours de sciences des écoles canadiennes, les modes de connaissances et les identités autochtones continuent d’être sous-représentées et sous-évaluées. Pour les étudiants autochtones, cela se traduit souvent par des expériences négatives et des résultats disparates comparativement à leurs pairs non autochtones. La littérature récente dans le domaine de la décolonisation de l’enseignement des sciences propose de faire une analyse critique des systèmes et des modes de pensée eurocentriques qui soutiennent et reproduisent une culture (néo)coloniale dans les classes, malgré l’intégration de perspectives autochtones dans les curriculums. Partant de la décolonisation de l’enseignement des sciences proposée par Belczewski (2009), j’explique l’échec partiel et complexe qui se produit lorsqu’il s’agit de traduire les théories de décolonisation (par exemple le passage de frontières et la réflexivité appliquées à la décolonisation) en différentes pratiques pédagogiques pour décoloniser effectivement l’enseignement des sciences.

Still largely based on EuroCanadian knowledge and Western teachings, Education in Nunavut remains a negative experience for many Nunavut youth as the result of culturally inappropriate schooling and worldview mismatch.  Mismatch occurs as the schooling experiences of Nunavut youth, both Inuit and non-Inuit, do not align with the character, values, and traditions of Nunavut.  Divergence is especially pronounced within science education.  This paper explores Nunavut students’ perceptions of the nature of science and school science education in order to explore the possibilities and problematics involved in shifting towards a cross-cultural science curriculum that is reflective of Nunavut.

Science education's responsibility towards Indigenous ways-of-living-with-nature (IWLN) and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is often and inadvertently over-coded by the (neo-)colonial logics that it sets out to refuse and resist; responsibility and the ability to respond are often not one and the same. Within this chapter, I revisit a significant personal pedagogical encounter in which this distinction made itself felt and known. Thinking with the work of Sami scholar Rauna Kuokkanen, this narrative provides a platform to explore practices of epistemic ignorance its (co-)constitutive relation to knowlege, as well as " the homework of response-ability " required to (re)open the norms of responsiveness towards the possibility of heeding the call of Indigenous science from within the structure of science education.

Within science education, questions of “what counts” as science continue to be debated. Largely at stake is the inclusion or exclusion of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and Indigenous ways-of-living-with- nature (IWLN) alongside Western modern science (WMS), as well as the norms through which they are included, excluded, and juxtaposed. However, given science’s education inheritance of the Nature/Culture binary, knowing nature and respecting cultural diversity are often framed as competing, conflicting, and mutually exclusive goals. Using and troubling Cobern and Loving’s call for a (re)consideration of how epistemology aligns with ontology, this chapter engages with the question of: What types of ethical practices emerge within the context of multicultural science education when we account for, and are responsive to, ontology and its relation to epistemology? To respond, I turn to Barad’s quantum physics- philosophy to open a space of accountability for and to ontological situatedness, enactment, and production within science education. I then revisit the multicultural science education debate to ask ontological questions of the ways in which TEK and IWLN are included/excluded. Lastly, I explore possible possibilities for a science education that is ethically shaped by ontological plurality, and open to the ways in which matter has always mattered for Indigenous peoples.

Within science education, the oft-included mandate of scientific literacy continues to problematically (re)produce humanism’s Eurocentric legacies through the implicit message that its ontology,  Cartesianism, is the only ontology. Working within and against this mandate for decolonizing purposes, this chapter asks: How might scientific literacy be enacted otherwise if it is configured with/in other-than-Cartesian ontologies while still privileging knowing nature (i.e. space, time, and matter) through empirical observation? Drawing from and putting into conversation alternatives to scientific literacy, Karen Barad’s agential literacy and Gregory Cajete’s ecologies of relationships, a pedagogy of relationally storying nature is developed and discussed herein. The relational stories produced by youth participants are then read through and with these alternatives literacies to discuss consequences and possibilities for decolonizing science education.

Review of Marisol de la Cadena and Mario Blaser, eds. A World of Many Worlds. Duke University Press, 2018. 232 pp. ISBN: 9781478002956. https://www.dukeupress.edu/a-world-of-many-worlds

Link to article: https://journals.kent.ac.uk/index.php/transmotion/article/view/902/1776

Often within science education, Indigenous science is either excluded or included in ways that differ from or defer its intended meanings, as well as its pedagogical potentiality for all students. The central question that guides this dissertation is How is Indigenous science to-come with/in the context of science education? This dissertation draws from decolonizing, post-colonial, post- structural, and post-humanist theory-practices to address ‘to-come’ in three ways: a) Indigenous science on its own terms as not-yet and still-to-come with/in science education; b) Indigenous science as a relationship whose indeterminate arrival invites re(con)figuring of the lived constructs, concepts, and categories of science education; and c) practices (including pedagogy) that might allow for and nurture the possibility of Indigenous science to-come in its second iteration.

To explore this triple(d) understanding of ‘to-come’, each chapter within the dissertation acts as an excursion through a path of science education. Journeying involves strategically straying off the beaten path or tactically taking the pathway in unintended ways to lose sight of the prescriptive and often problematic ways in which the path is regularly travelled. Further, each journey is iterative, travelling through, against, and/or beyond a particular path, wherein the learning is enfolded and carried forward into the next trip.

Equipped with a plethora of deconstructive tools, science education is (re)opened through (re)considering its: a) oppositional, dialectic nature; b) critical modes as protective, rather than productive, of the status quo (i.e., through mirrored correspondence); c) ontological taken-for-grantedness (e.g., through its a priori and singular positioning); and, d) responsibility, as well as ability to respond. In response, I offer a call and analytical frames for: a) dialogue; b) critique as prismatic and diffractive; c) ontological plurality and co-constitutiveness; as well as, d) response- ability, respectively. Insights produced and scholarly contributions from wandering include: a) an exploration of curricular alternatives to scientific literacy, notably Karen Barad’s agential literacy and Gregory Cajete’s ecologies of relationships; b) re(con)figuring visual pedagogies to engage in decolonizing science education. This theory-practice bridging pursues design of a pedagogy of relationally storying nature well positioned to account for and be accountable to Indigenous science to-come.