In 1996, at the end of his tenure as the MSTE Group’s first co-ordinator, Dr. John Olson wrote a synopsis titled “MSTE: an Evolving Collaboration” outlining the group’s origins and its successes in its formative years. He wrote:
In 1988 Queen’s University made a proposal to the Royal Bank of Canada to establish a Mathematics, Science and Technology Education Centre. At that time, there was concern that Canada needed to improve educational provision in the area of mathematics, science and technology through enhanced school programs and teacher education. The Faculty of Education offered to contribute to this process by developing greater interaction between teacher education and educators in the field. Those who prepare teachers could learn from the experience of outstanding in-service teachers just what could be done in school settings, and practicing teachers, in turn, might benefit from the guidance of reflective practitioners and educational researchers who could contribute international perspectives. With this in mind, the then Dean of Education, Paul Park, proposed that an endowment be established to enable people from the field of education to come to the Faculty of Education for extended periods of time. Accordingly, in 1990 the Mathematics, Science and Technology Education (MSTE) Group was established dedicated to improving teacher education programs, as well as influencing and learning from those in the field of education.
To meet this goal a number of opportunities for outstanding educators and educational researchers to interact with faculty, local teachers and teacher candidates were established. Based on the success of significant collaborations with international scholars leading up to the formation of the MSTE Group, one of the first initiatives was the establishment of a Royal Bank Visitorship that brought distinguished educators from many backgrounds and interests to the Faculty every year. The highlight of their time at Queen’s was the presentation of the Royal Bank Lecture, well attended by faculty, teacher candidates, and teachers, as well as members of the wider community. Often symposia, workshops or discussion groups were planned around the lecture to give educators a greater opportunity to interact with the visitor on the issues at hand.
This was the case with the first Royal Bank Visitor, Dr. Ursula Franklin, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto, who gave a public lecture on The Nature of Technology and Society. In the two day colloquium that followed, local teachers interacted with her and with faculty in thinking about ways in which mathematics, science and technology education could help students understand social problems that they would confront in the next decade. At the time, Dr. Olson wrote:
Her visit established one of the themes of the Group, which [was] to look at the ways in which mathematics, science and technology interact in helping students understand the role of these subjects in society, in the economy, and in everyday life. She helped us understand that we live in a culture tremendously influenced by science and technology.
Now, almost twenty-five years after the inaugural visitorship, Dr. Olson, and some of the other founding MSTE Group members in attendance have been asked to revisit Dr. Franklin’s address titled “The Real World of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education: Global Challenges and Local Action,” ( first published in the MSTE newsletter volume 2, Number 1 December 1991, and re-published here). Their voices speak to the complexity and importance of the issues Dr. Franklin and other early MSTE visitors raised—and the role of MSTE in the future.
Dr. Olson, Professor Emeritus, Science Education, focused on the potential of MSTE in the curriculum:
The following quote caught my attention: “ ….I advise especially those who are uneasy about a technology-dominated society to become competent enough to not “read technology” but read between the lines….” (Franklin, 1992, p 3) In the context of MSTE it points to the opportunity a group like MSTE has to find how the ability to “read technology” can be achieved in the curriculum and through pedagogy. This can be achieved through looking at the larger debates of society where politics and rhetoric come into play and where the contribution and limitations of scientific knowledge are also at play. That contest is in fact the domain of technology seen in its broadest context where science and other domains of enquiry contest in decision making.
Such a curriculum transcends that of the mainstream university course and is directed to ends beyond science itself. This is not an easy task. There are conserving forces at work in schools and universities that would have technology as a logos subordinated to science and science to mathematics. These trends inhibit the educational potential of these subjects.
Dr. Ann Marie Hill, Professor of Technological Education speaks of educational responsibility:
It was with such pleasure that I re-read Ursula Franklin’s 1992 paper based on her 1991 address at an invitational colloquium of the MSTE Group. However, it is also particularly perturbing to me. Dr. Franklin’s impressive and thoughtful address of 1991 could have been written today, 23 years later. The same reflections/concerns about the educational system, learning, and the human condition that she so eloquently expresses are even more critical today. Traditional conceptions of education, curriculum, and learning have gained momentum in educational systems, internationally, over the past 23 years – accountability, testing, and standardization have a far too great influence on what and how teachers teach, and hence, how students learn. If we look under the rug for some leftovers of some past progressive educational efforts, we may find glimpses of education whose mandate is for learners “to think and be thoughtful” (Franklin, 1992, p. 4).
For me, the most important aspect of Dr. Franklin’s 1991 address that it is the responsibility of educator’s to provide an educational environment for students “to think and be thoughtful”. This is no easy task in today’s educational environment. Dr. Franklin presses the points that “knowledge is not neutral, objective or value free” (Franklin, 1992, p. 1), that “dominant views on gender, race and ideology” (p. 1) have influenced present day knowledge – and continue to do so, and that “the teaching of science and technology will be truncated and incomplete if it does not contain discussions about why certain problems are of interest and fundable at particular points in time while other questions don’t seem to matter” (p. 1). These are powerful statements, statements that should guide the MSTE Group to not only consider and remember, but to guide the Group in its mandate to improve the teaching of mathematics, science, and technology.
Dr. William Egnatoff, Associate Professor (retired), Computers in Education, encourages us to consider the way we wish to live and how MST education can be of benefit:
All human activity has moral and political underpinnings and intentions. Our scientific and technological endeavours are motivated by notions about the world and us in it that are often not made explicit. That gets us in a lot of trouble. Franklin reminds us to look at our hidden assumptions and intentions. She provides us with well-designed and sharpened tools—mindset, metaphor analysis, questions--for such inquiry. If we want life on earth to be increasingly peaceful and sustainable, our educators should pick up Franklin’s razor to cut through the noise and distractions of our daily lives and corporate economic and political enterprises in order that we can redirect our means of MST education to that end. Finally, we should bring to such education the cultivation of the joy of creative thinking and action.
Dr. William Higginson, Associate Professor (retired), Mathematics Education looked not at Dr. Franklin’s presentation itself but rather what it signified for the emerging MSTE Group:
Dr. Franklin’s presentation and subsequent colloquium, completed a rather remarkable collection of influences and alliances which, taken together, gave a broad definition to the nature and early direction of the MSTE Group. Two intellectual underpinnings that took place in the years just prior to the formation of the MSTE Group are significant. One was the very significant work of Skip Hills and Brian McAndrews with the legendary American scholars, Philip Morrison and David Hawkins. Prolific and profound, these two individuals and their educator wives had cut a wide swath through American scientific, social, historical, philosophical and educational circles for almost half a century. The second leg was my work with the key thinkers at the Media Lab at MIT led by Negroponte, Papert and Wiesner where I held two visiting appointments in the 1980’s. These partnerships led to a number of visits, lectures and workshops and provided material for the creative genius of Dean Paul Park to turn into what became the MSTE Group, under the very capable administrative leadership of inaugural Co-Ordinator, John Olson. The visit of Dr. Franklin, stressing the importance of the social dimension of Science and Technology, can be looked at as a public addition to our high-profile roster of distinguished and wise advisors. We were, probably more than we were conscious of, setting the bar very high.
Dr. Franklin’s presentation can resonate with today’s readers as it did almost 25 years ago. The connection between mathematics, science and technology—and the society it informs and is shaped by — has not diminished, and indeed, is more important than ever before.