Products Educ8n

Learning Outcomes: Products of Science & Technology (or ‘STEM’)

Educational research suggests that science education is largely focused on teaching & learning of ‘products‘ of professional science – such as laws & theories, with some emphases on functioning of technologies (or inventions, innovations) that may relate to science products. Although learning such ‘products’ is essential for making personal & social (including political) decisions, there has been so much knowledge generated that students (particularly disadvantaged ones) can be overwhelmed – and, consequently, it seems essential that greater balances in learning outcomes are promoted, such as those suggested by Hodson (2003) and in Ontario curricula. This page provides some considerations for decisions about essential products to teach. Pedagogically, as with all learning outcomes, we recommend uses of our 3-phase, constructivism-informed, schema.

Products to be Learned

Given that fields of science (and technology/engineering, often involving mathematics) have generated ‘massive’ amounts of knowledge over their histories, including variations across different cultures (e.g., ‘Indigenous vs. ‘Western’), it can be helpful to have conceptions of broad categories of ‘products.’ As illustrated at right/below, we can imagine products as ‘Signs’ (e.g., chemical equations) and/or as new phenomena of the ‘World’ (e.g., drugs).

Note: Ontological Gaps (mis-translations) occur because of natural differences in composition between World & Sign; whereas, Ideological Gaps are inentional mis-translations.

World –> Sign: ‘Science’ Products

As indicated by the above model, science & technology/engineering processes are reciprocal – each influencing the other – and, so, have similarities. Nevertheless, it seems helpful to think of them as being somewhat different – with ‘science’ mainly focused on generating products like laws & theories, as explained in the video at right/below. For example, a solid (e.g., ice) can change ‘state’ to a liquid (e.g., liquid water) and then a gas (e.g., invisible water vapour in the air), perhaps explained by the ‘particle theory‘ – which can explain the above changes of state, like ice -> liquid water, because particles can separate from each other as they they gain heat energy.

Sign –> World: ‘Engineering’ Products

Again, as indicated in the above model, ‘science’ & ‘technology’/’engineering’ co-affect each other, suggesting they can have similar products. However, very broadly, some evidence suggests that engineers mainly aim to generate phenomena of the ‘World’ that hadn’t existed. As noted in the video at right/below, generating new products & services often is not straightforward, however, often requiring much ‘trial-and-error.’ This can create compromises. Many engineering products, such as cell phones, are appreciated by many people – although there may be some harms linked to them. But, such technologies often are worth learning about, including in terms of science knowledge used to develop them – like the particle theory explaining hot air balloons.

Science Education Subjects

Political jurisdictions have typically grouped myriad ‘products’ of science & technology into larger ‘subjects’ and unit ‘topics,’ like those shown at right/below for grades 6-9 in the Ontario science curriculum (where I work). Doing so can send semiotic messages about priorities for Products Education over that for other leaning domains (e.g., STSE relationships). Such siloing also can limit students’ awareness & uses of concepts, skills, attitudes, etc. inherent to other subjects e.g., physics & biology) and topics (e.g., chemical reactions & climate change). This problem can be exacerbated by shifting teaching/learning through a series of unrelated topics – which can be confusing to students because of lack of continuity. A solution to such problems like those above has been to promote theme-based curriculum arrangements – which allow for much subject/topic integration.

Links to STEPWISE Framework Elements: