Reflection-on-/in-/for-actions: Deconstructing hegemonic pedagogical culture in science education

Abstract

This paper explores the hegemonic pedagogical-cultures-based narratives that I experienced in my science teaching and learning journey. Furthermore, in this paper, I also envisage different methods for deconstructing the overwhelming influence of hegemony in the science classroom. I focus on two research questions: (1) In what ways could I explore the deep-seated, hegemonic-science, pedagogical culture in my science teaching and learning? (2) How could I envisage the possible ways for deconstructing hegemony in science education? In this autoethnographic inquiry, I used the ‘knowledge-constitutive interests’ theory as a referent in data text generation and meaning-making. This theoretical lens helped unfold the deep-rooted, hegemony-like singular and absolute scientific knowledge consumption practice. While engaging in reflection-on-/in-/for-actions, I realized the need for curious, contextual and cultural selves and communication as a dance rather than a war for reforming and transforming these deep-seated, hegemonic, pedagogical cultures and identities. Moreover, I also attempt to practise the transdisciplinary STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics) approach for connecting classroom science learning with learners’ lives. I believe that it could support reforming/transforming my sit-and-get science teaching. Therefore, I also offer to be involved in a transdisciplinary pedagogy (like STEAM), research and academic writing for transformative curricular praxis and inclusive science learning.

1. Introduction

In my Master of Philosophy (MPhil) in science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) educational journey, I realized that I could portray my lived experiences to excavate the sociocultural and political dimensions (Grundy, 1987) to improve and transform my professional practice. Doing so could demystify the strengths and weaknesses I experienced in my learning journey. Therefore, I emphasize addressing the following research questions: 1) In what ways could I explore the deep-seated, hegemonic-science, pedagogical culture in my science teaching and learning? 2) How could I envisage the possible ways for deconstructing hegemony in science education? Researchers could gain a deeper understanding and improve their behaviour and actions by profoundly engaging in self-reflection (Dahal and Luitel, 2023). Furthermore, Aryal (2023) argues that one could capture the learners’ experiences by incorporating different art forms (such as autobiographical reflection, visual arts and poetry). In this regard, I also focus on autoethnographic reflection by incorporating van Manen's (1991) retrospective reflection (reflection-on-action), contemporaneous reflection (reflection-in-action), and anticipatory reflection (reflection-for-action) to explore my diverse identities (i.e., who was, who is, and who ought to be) for knowing and deconstructing the deep-seated hegemonic/transformative pedagogical cultures embedded in my science teaching and learning.

To describe the ascendancy of one social class over another, the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891–1987) used the term ‘hegemony’. In general, hegemony indicates domination. Such domination has remained in economic, social, political and ideological spheres, and it can make other classes view the world in terms appropriate to its superiority (Arora, 2010). In other words, it denotes the acceptance of dominant cultures without critical reflection. Krieger et al. (2001) argue that hegemony can be achieved in a negative sense when no credible alternative has emerged to challenge the prevailing order. In this study, hegemony represents the dominant, deep-seated, unhelpful ideology in the science teaching–learning process that is largely invisible to its followers (such as teacher-educators, learners and curriculum developers). It seems to be normal and natural, and there is a need to change it through critically reflective processes (Habermas, 1987). Because people's interests guide their ways of thinking and acting, hegemony harms others (Gramsci, 1971). Hegemony is a dynamic process that may occur in larger masses or smaller chunks (i.e., it is not necessarily total) and attempts to neutralize opposition. Furthermore, each member of society has difficulty moving beyond social reality. Thus, hegemony also constitutes a lived experience that includes a sense of reality for most people in the community, continually appearing as renewed, recreated, defended and modified forms rather than just passively existing as a form of dominance (Williams, 1977).

Yusuf et al. (2017) excavated the hegemonic culture in practice in secondary-school science classrooms via an arts-based, critical, (auto)ethnographic inquiry. The research shows different aspects of cultural hegemony (i.e., teacher domination, curricular content, competitive assessment, traditional teaching methods and perfectionism) that negatively influenced the chemistry learning experience. The research also envisages multiple ways such as applying critical pedagogy, creating ‘green chemistry’ by using recycled materials for deconstructing the hegemonic culture, and fostering meaningful, stimulating and socially responsible science learning. However, the research is silent about how we could prepare the prospective science teacher to know and resist these invisible, diverse aspects of cultural hegemony in their higher level science-teacher educational journey. Likewise, Taylor (2008b) also argues that hegemonic cultural, social, political and economic imperatives also shape the professional identity of science teachers. Researchers are required to critically investigate their cultural situatedness from the unique standpoint of a cultural insider and border crosser for a decolonized moment in science education. In doing so, we could create a multiparadigmatic research design space and apply a hybrid research methodology, such as (auto)ethnographic inquiry. However, exploring the hegemonic pedagogical cultures in science education via autoethnographic inquiry is new in a Nepali context.

In my MPhil learning journey, I also examined different domination-based teaching cultures, such as disciplinary egocentrism and product-based teaching, while critically reflecting on my personal experiences. We could demystify the presence of hegemonic structure and practice to others through critical reflective practice and engage the learners in a true dialogue to create a humanized education (Brookfield, 2017; Shih, 2018). In this regard, this study will contribute to identifying the deep-seated, invisible, dominant ideological spheres for false consciousness, deconstructing hegemony in science pedagogical practices by critically examining my science teaching and learning-related narratives, and addressing the research gap.

As a STEAM learner and science-teacher educator, I realized the need for transformative learning in science-teacher education. Transformative learning entails a profound structural shift in the learner's core premises of thoughts, feelings and behaviours (Goodman, 2002). It strengthens the individual self and collective souls to resist oppression and domination, challenges the academy's continual reproduction and re-colonial efforts, and supports learners to deal with an extensive influence of empirical structures of knowledge production. The self is a complex, integrated being with multiple layers of meaning. Spiritual education supports connecting the self to the world and the self to others by teaching sacredness, respect and compassion. All knowledge is contingent (Sefa Dei, 2002), so we must be conscious of our social and political contexts while teaching (Grundy, 1987) to incorporate inclusive pedagogical culture in science education. Each individual has different learning abilities, so all learners cannot learn and succeed on the same day and in the same way. Learners can develop their multidimensional abilities through cross-disciplinary collaboration, dialogue and a cooperative learning environment. We need to study empirical trends, understand educational culture and interpretation, and critically reflect on present practice for addressing the multiple voices of learners in order to transform learners into holistic thinkers and actors.

In this study, I viewed my narratives through the lens of Habermas’s (1972) knowledge-constitutive-interests theory. In meaning-making, I applied dialogues, metaphors and ideological critiques to portray critical reflexive narratives about my science teaching and learning. Additionally, I offer to shift from informing to reforming/transforming science teaching and learning cultures by engaging learners in transdisciplinary knowledge-construction processes like the STEAM approach. Such processes assist in countering the deep-seated, hegemonic pedagogical cultures embedded in science-teacher education.

2. Theoretical referent

Habermas’s (1972) knowledge-constitutive-interest theory emphasizes transforming our technical, interest-dominated, knowledge-constructing process to practical and emancipatory interests. Based upon this theoretical foundation, Grundy (1987) discussed the curriculum as praxis. Emancipatory interest-oriented curriculum practice is compatible with practical interest (process) and largely incompatible with technical-interest(product)-based curriculum practice. Here, the product approach is concerned with predetermining specific pieces of work for students in a limited period (i.e., what, how often, and for how long), and the process approach demands meaningful and worthwhile experiences for the students. Therefore, the transformation of consciousness is required to shift towards emancipatory interest-oriented curricular practice. For instance, science teachers who take a process approach in science learning could emphasize personal experiences for meaningful learning rather than ensuring predetermined specific outcomes that are insufficient for self-transformation. They also must critically view their practice and take action.

Habermas identifies autonomy and responsibility as the two pillars of emancipation. In the state of emancipation, each individual attempts to be independent from all outside them. It is possible through the action of ego turning in upon itself (i.e., self-reflection). As human beings, our freedom is interlinked with the freedom of the other. Thus, Habermas's emancipation is also connected with the notion of social justice and equality (Grundy, 1987). The emancipatory interest-based curriculum emphasizes creating the ideal speech situation in which the teaching–learning process is free from any constraints such as time, specific content or coercion, and represents undistorted selves; that is, there is a complete reciprocity-based teaching–learning environment (Taylor and Campbell-Williams, 1993). Thus, this interest-guided curriculum, focused on critical perspectives such as self-reflection and critical inquiry-based activities that underpin being aware of false consciousness, counters the ‘hegemonic culture’ (Gramsci, 1971). It liberates teachers and learners from dominant ideas and values by developing authentic insight. In other words, we could shift towards emancipation by developing critical consciousness (Grundy, 1987). Therefore, I propose applying this theoretical stance to explore the deep-seated, hegemonic and transformative pedagogical cultures in my science teaching and learning journey through critical reflection-in-/on-/for-actions. It could also support envisaging the possible ways to deconstruct the hegemonic culture and foster transformative science-learning cultures.

3. Methodology

Autoethnography is a research methodology and a way of life (Bochner, 2020) that not only encourages a focus on self-understanding of an exclusively academic life but also portrays a vivid existence in a chaotic and uncertain world. It enables researchers to include their values and meanings and envisage alternative ways. They can portray what they feel and can mean, display how they might endure it, and move forward to address problems by dedicating themselves to narrative ethics and social justice (Bochner and Ellis, 2022). In human sciences, we could present subjectivity, emotion and vulnerable writing (Adams et al., 2022). We could explore cultural and social phenomena through personal narratives. In that process, engaging in collaboration, dialogue and transformation with others can assist us in overcoming solipsistic problems such as only the autoethnographer's self and experiences being real (Panta and Luitel, 2022). When examining our personal and professional experiences, the autoethnographer's ethical position is valuable. We could acknowledge the procedural and situational ethics for maintaining the ethics of self and others (Dahal and Luitel, 2022).

In this study, I consciously apply the transformative notions of autoethnography to excavate the hegemonic pedagogical cultures embedded in my science teaching and learning and to demystify the ways for moving forward in the future. Moreover, this method can be significant for healing the wounds (Lamichhane and Luitel, 2023) caused by acceptance of the invisible dominant ideology (Yusuf et al., 2017). In my personal experiences, there is a nexus between the ‘self’ and the ‘other’ for (de)constructing the hegemonic pedagogical culture in science education. Researchers could deal with the subjectivity of the self by portraying their critical reflexive narratives through autoethnographic inquiry. Critical reflexivity discusses the power and hegemony in our practice (Leavy, 2017) and supports knowing (dis)empowering forces and valuing good practices.

I also attempt to value the subjective realities and ethics of the self and others (Dahal and Luitel, 2022). Moreover, I acknowledge the transformative intent of Habermas's knowledge-constitutive-interest theory for viewing the research questions through this lens. I discuss some narratives and meaning-making processes to excavate hegemonic-science, pedagogical cultures and identities by engaging in reflection-on-/in-/for-actions. Initially, I incorporate van Manen's (1991) retrospective way of reflection to critically reflect on my science learning, teaching and administrative experiences as a student, secondary-level science teacher and head teacher, respectively, to excavate the deep-seated hegemony in my past science teaching, learning and administrative journey. I also apply this method to articulate some narratives of diverse modes of my science teaching and learning. I also discuss some representative critical incidents that I experienced at the beginning of my formal science-learning journey to the master's degree level.

4. The cultural self in science learning

In the late 1990s, I studied in grade four at Shree Saraswoti Primary School. That academic year, we had to learn a new subject, ‘Mero Batabaran’, in which most of the content was from different science branches. One day, the science teacher said, ‘Substances need oxygen to burn.’ I thought that firewood and kerosene were sufficient for burning because I used firewood for cooking and kerosene for lighting in my everyday life. I could not find the role of oxygen in my kitchen. The teacher could not reflect critically on our lived experiences, values, beliefs and cultures. That might be a possible reason why I felt uncomfortable assimilating the newer ideas presented by the teacher. However, I memorized that idea without it making sense. Metaphorically, I would like to represent that particular science-teaching culture as knowledge delivery. While critically reflecting on this incident, I realized that the content was related to our everyday lives. However, the teacher did not pay attention to connecting with the students’ life experiences for meaningful learning. Therefore, I realized the need for connection with my cultural ‘self’.

Likewise, I was curious about several scientific facts in my childhood, such as how photosynthesis occurs, how the Earth revolves around the Sun, why we do not fall if the Earth moves, and how the Earth is spherical. There were many questions in my mind but I could not express my queries to the teacher. I memorized abstract scientific ideas without them making sense. How could I apply those facts to my life? My main concern was how I could achieve excellent results in exams. The science teaching–learning process primarily focused on obtaining good marks or cut-off points (product) rather than developing students’ life skills (process) by understanding the learners’ ‘cultural selves’. My school-level science-learning journey promoted subject-centric memorizing (Aryal, 2023) rather than acknowledging self-done reflection (Grundy, 1987). Materialistic, achievement-oriented (Gramsci, 1971) science-teaching cultures consider students to be knowledge consumers or recipients rather than knowledge generators (Aryal, 2023), and the teacher as a knowledge transmitter. Engaging the learners in means(process)-based learning rather than end(product)-based learning could contribute to building a productive and just society (Rijal, 2022). However, I did not experience this kind of teaching–learning practice during my school-level to master's-level science-learning journey. Thus, I envisaged the nature of science as an abstract and rigorous subject. In my (in)formal communication with my colleagues, they also noted science as a difficult subject that focuses on memorizing factual, conceptual and procedural knowledge and skills (i.e., canonical science classroom), the role of the science teacher as a knowledge distributor, and the role of students as passive receivers or listeners (Koirala, 2023).

5. The curious and contextualized self in science teaching

I started my science-teaching journey at Shree Baljyoti Higher Secondary School, a community school in a remote district of Jarang. As a student of science education, I learned different approaches to science-teaching pedagogy. For instance, I realized that we could contextualize science teaching–learning by connecting to the learners’ life experiences. However, in my science-teaching practice at a remote school, I faced many obstacles, including the need for adequate textbooks even in the middle of the academic year, physical infrastructure and human resources. The class had around 135 students with cultural and linguistic diversity. In such a context, I tried to apply student-centred methods such as demonstrations, project work and discussion, which contributed to spreading positivity among the students and society to some extent. However, I could not create an interactive and inclusive learning milieu. Every day, before wrapping up my classes, I asked them, ‘Do you have any queries?’ Although I could not acknowledge the students’ curious ‘self’ during science teaching–learning, and the learners’ interests dominated my interest, they collectively replied, ‘We have no confusion. We are clear, Madam!’ I felt that we could understand and transform the deep-rooted dominant, taken-for-granted assumptions, values, cultures and practices through critical reflective practice (Thapaliya, 2023).

6. Communication as war rather than a dance

In my professional journey, I have had several good, bitter and bittersweet experiences and moments. Reflecting on some critical incidents in my administrative journey makes me thoughtful. Now, I want to briefly reflect on the school environment where I worked as a head teacher. There was a great dispute between the teachers. They were divided into two groups based on their political ideology and formed two administrative offices. The two groups of teachers were in the same school, so there was a pathetic learning environment. The teachers and administrators strove to win administrative power rather than to create an empathetic learning milieu. To represent this relationship between teachers and administrators, I use a metaphor of ‘communication as war’ (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). As a novice teacher, I tried to determine why such a situation occurred in the school. I interacted with other teachers and knew that the primary-level permanent teacher was selected as the head teacher after other senior (i.e., secondary and lower secondary) level teachers were passed over. In this context, half of the teachers advocated, ‘The head teacher appointment process is just.’ Meanwhile, the other teachers said, ‘It is against the legal provision of educational policies that focus on a meritocratic system.’ To address this pathetic situation, the District Education Office appointed me as the head teacher of that school. My priority was to minimize the distance between the teachers and the administrators.

Now, I would like to articulate a critical incident to demystify my administrative journey. One day in the winter of 2014, I could not find the staff attendance register on my table. I called a staff meeting to resolve the situation. However, some teachers were absent from the meeting. I discussed this with the former head teacher to understand the reason. He said, ‘Many teachers did not record their attendance in the official register; they formed groups and failed our administration. We will get revenge. I took that register home. How will they receive their salary without legal attendance? If they receive it, we will knock at the door of the court for the corruption case.’ I humbly requested him to forget the past's negative loop and support creating a progressive loop of present and future. I emphasized that the attendance record was an official property required for regular administrative work like teachers’ regularity and leave. Keeping the register at home was illegal. I asked him to return it, which would help everyone address his concerns and doubts. However, he was not ready to return it. There was no active School Management Committee (SMC) to make an official decision and take legal action on that issue. I felt disheartened. Many teachers might have learned about my psychological dilemma. They said, ‘It is difficult to work in such controversy. Do not feel helpless. We are ready to support you.’ They suggested creating a temporary register for managing the immediate situation. Ultimately, I created a new register and facilitated a solution.

There was a weak bond between teacher-teachers and teacher-administrators. I called several staff meetings to reduce that distance and improve the toxic environment of the school. Further, we had to form a new SMC for handling sensitive school issues by acting as a mediator. However, some teachers frequently rejected my agendas. When a science teacher became the head teacher during my school learning period, that hampered our science classes. As a result, many students’ interest and engagement in the science classes also decreased. I experienced the same in my administrative journey. I spent more time in administrative meetings, debates and managerial duties, which directly affected my science classes. Therefore, in that transitional phase, I was less able to unify the school family, form the SMC, address the chronic problems of the school, and continue my science classes smoothly. I felt paralyzed. I saw the school environment as a silkworm inside its cocoon, which indicates the inactive phase and relations among the school family as a breaking glass that illustrates the difficulty in rejoining easily. I felt like I was sitting on burning coal in my initial months. That timing was tricky for me. Before being the head teacher, I envisaged creating an empathetic relationship between teachers, students and society, enhancing the quality of education by creating an appropriate learning milieu, and so on. In that problematic situation, I failed to implement my plans.

After a long journey with many struggles, I deconstructed the disempowering learning milieu to some extent by collaborating with one of the unsatisfied groups. We realized what our problems were and emerged ready to support each other by forgetting our egos. In this context, I envisaged an excellent school by designing a school improvement plan and an academic calendar, and passing several value-laden decisions from the SMC. Further, I primarily focused on creating a synergy between teachers, students and society to implement my plan. However, in my initial journey, I could not develop an appropriate learning environment like ‘communication as dance’ (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980), in which teachers and students collaborated to better themselves as individuals and society as a whole. At that time, I thought that all my actions were reasonable. I was doing this to improve my teachers, learners and community. In other words, I could not critically reflect on my dogmatic beliefs, values and actions. To address that situation, I viewed the issues from different vantage points: Why did teachers display enemy-like behaviour with each other? How could I act as a mediator in improving the pathetic situation of the school?

The following section is a discussion on some narratives to explore the hegemonic/transformative cultures grounded to my present science teaching and learning by incorporating van Manen's (1991) contemporary way of reflection.

7. Transdisciplinary, inclusive science-learning milieu

In my present STEAM educational learning, I have studied various transformative science teaching–learning pedagogies (such as STEAM pedagogy, storytelling and project/inquiry-based learning). I have found that the role of art is crucial in science education. It provides a dialogic space where learners can autonomously and actively participate in teaching–learning. The facilitator assists us in solving our confusion and misunderstanding. This learning culture catalyzes me to connect my past and present lived experiences. Teaching–learning aims to transform the learners’ disciplinary thinking and move towards transformative learning. Therefore, I also attempt to engage in research to explore and address the science teaching–learning-related problems in my professional practice. For instance, I emphasize portraying my critical reflexive narratives via autoethnographic inquiry that offers a critical and reflexive approach for resisting the dominant paradigms and practices in educational practice by critically articulating lived experiences (Adams and Herrmann, 2023).

Before my STEAM educational learning journey, I hardly ever reflected critically on my past and present teaching–learning experiences. Recently, I realized that I had to ask myself: ‘Am I ready to actively engage my students in transformative learning?’ (Taylor, 2008a). The STEAM educational journey has allowed me to identify my weaknesses and help change my philosophy of life and professional beliefs. For me, a transformative activist stance (Stetsenko, 2017) is my philosophy of life for being and becoming a change agent, and ‘ego turns in upon itself for autonomous and responsible actions’ (Grundy, 1987) is my professional belief for deconstructing my taken-for-granted beliefs, values and actions. The central focus of STEAM education is to transform the learners’ traditional perspective and make them more socially responsible, holistic thinkers. Thus, a transdisciplinary collaborative environment has been created in which we share our feelings, opinions and experiences without hesitation. The collaboration is based on contribution, so we can actively engage in learning and respect the voices of others. The classroom is a more inclusive one, where the facilitator encourages the learners to express their understanding and problems, and supports them through their confusion. There is a dialogic space between the facilitators and the learners. Hence, I deeply interact, reflect and develop ideas for each topic. For instance, transdisciplinary research articles are included in the Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment for multidisciplinary learners. We must take the fundamental concept of the articles and explore the connection with other disciplines, such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics, through interaction with transdisciplinary learners.

I am impressed by such a learning praxis. I experience an epistemic and ontological inclusion for meaningful learning. I had never collected these kinds of experiences, which support extending my thoughts and energize me to be involved in transformative skills development processes, in my past learning journey. These processes include critical and creative thinking and intercultural and ethical understanding (Rijal, 2022) for enriching transformative learning in science education. My transdisciplinary STEAM colleagues also reflect that their STEAM educational journey to the MPhil level is more transformative than their past learning. Many of them are engaged in an autoethnographic or ethnographic inquiry to critically view their own and others’ personal experiences and cultures. They attempt to incorporate the STEAM approach in transforming their professional practices. ‘Becoming a STEAM-based science educator: Intersecting science teacher identity and existing pedagogical practice in Nepal’ (Parajuli, 2023) and ‘Journey from separate subject centric pedagogy to STEAM sensitized mathematics education: An autoethnographic inquiry’ (Rijal, 2022) are two examples of STEAM-based transformative research conducted by my transdisciplinary colleagues, challenging their disempowering identities and practices.

8. Improving/transforming the sit-and-get teaching culture

This section involves the emergent social context in my science learning. Learning about one's own comfort zones helps with innovative thinking, leading to a radically new vision and innovation in science education. Cross-disciplinary collaboration in science education generates disorienting dilemmas that can lead to transformative science learning (Pennington et al., 2013). My teaching–learning needed to be improved to generate disorienting dilemmas in the learners’ minds. Some intelligent students were actively engaged in my classroom; however, most students remained silent. I focused on the singular, absolute, scientific knowledge-consumption process of rote memorization and recall. As a teacher, my role was to transmit knowledge to the learner's seemingly empty mind. In this regard, Taylor (2014) argued that such teaching has been less popular in science education in recent years. Therefore, to prepare good citizens, we need to design and implement a socially responsible science curriculum and pedagogy.

As a novice science-teacher educator, I taught specific chemistry content, such as definitions, postulates, principles, formulae and equations, by applying a teacher-centric pedagogy. Metaphorically, cultural reproduction, like a sit-and-get teaching culture, was dominant in my initial teaching journey. I needed to be better able to connect chemistry concepts to other disciplines, such as mathematics, engineering and technology, and contextualize them by understanding the learners’ frames of reference (Mezirow, 1996). I also taught different science learning theories, approaches and teaching pedagogies. Although these emphasized the knowledge-construction process, they were inadequate for changing the learners’ taken-for-granted assumptions and deep-seated dogmatic beliefs, cultures and actions. In other words, I attempted to change the learners’ epistemology rather than ontology.

I face different challenges in my professional field. Among them, research is a crucial part. To develop my research skills, I sought a MPhil degree in STEAM education. My STEAM educational journey greatly supports the development of my research skills. I learned that we science-teacher educators need to critically reflect on our practice to know the (dis)empowering parts. By unfolding teaching experiences, Dahal (2023) realizes that STEAM education became a turning point in shifting his teacher-centred instructional method and nurturing the transversal skills (like thinking, intra-/interpersonal, multiliteracy, and citizenship) for holistic learning. However, I am less able to create full reciprocity-based science learning in which all learners will be free from many constraints (such as time or content) or coercion (bullying), and represent their undistorted selves (Taylor and Campbell-Williams, 1993). In this regard, Yusuf et al. (2017) also argued that we need to reveal and conceptualize our identity. In doing so, I must be involved in transformative research work that could assist me in understanding and overcoming the problems in my professional field. My present educational journey largely supports the development of my research skills. Likewise, it increases my confidence in designing research work and guiding my students in their master's degree research projects. Although my practice is insufficient for enriching transformative learning in science education, I attempt to engage my learners in the discussion and scaffold them in their difficulties. It could change my science-teaching culture in the near future.

My transdisciplinary STEAM colleagues also focus on designing and implementing STEAM projects, reporting the (dis)empowering aspects of those projects, and conducting transformative, notion-based research. They also disseminate and celebrate their new knowledge through national and international conferences, webinars and collaborative forums. Therefore, from my lived experiences during my STEAM educational journey, I learned that we need to be critical and collaborative to explore deep-seated educational problems. First, we need to critically reflect on our professional practice to identify issues. Whenever we change our dominant teaching practice and act as an agency, we transform others such as learners, co-workers and institutions.

The following section is a discussion focused on reflection-for-action for transforming my future science-teaching journey.

9. Reforming/transforming my pedagogical cultures and identities

While critically reflecting on my life experiences, I realized that I grew up in an enriched cultural setting, having various transformative practices. However, as a learner, science teacher, head teacher and science-teacher educator, I realized that my science teaching and learning needed to be more conscious of connecting the academic world with enriching cultural life experiences. In the context of mathematics education, Aryal (2023) proposes a critical transformative model (reforming/transforming) for resisting conventional linear pedagogical practices (informing). I also realized this transformative model in science education. Science, educational policies and programmes greatly emphasize input (i.e., “what”) without a proper discourse on the possible ways (i.e., “how”) for attending to the expected outcomes. Consequently, the government faces various challenges, obstacles and problems while implementing reform programmes for improving science education. Therefore, the policies and programmes for science education in Nepal remain mere paper declarations (Paudel and Rajbhandary, 2022).

From my MPhil learning journey, I learned that transformative learning is necessary for science education for authentic, inclusive and meaningful learning. Transformative learning could help to develop twenty-first-century skills such as collaboration, critical thinking, communication and creativity. We could incorporate different transformative approaches, such as the transdisciplinary STEAM and the design thinking (DT) approaches, while designing and implementing a science curriculum for integrated STEM learning and conducting transformative research work and teaching–learning activities. Students can solve difficult problems or try to find a better solution to problems by following these non-linear five steps of DT: empathize (understand the problem from a different dimension), define (list out the probable solution), ideate (refine the solution through reflection), prototype (redefine the problem), and test (find the better solution) (Culén and Gasparini, 2018). In this regard, DT is a guiding structure and in-road for teachers towards designing and implementing more STEAM-based curricula (Henriksen, 2017), active learning and innovative thinking (Baričević and Luić, 2023).

The STEAM approach can foster critical reflective practice in science education for authentic, inclusive and meaningful learning (Thapaliya, 2023). It is more relevant in science academia to develop higher order thinking. Therefore, I will conduct transdisciplinary STEAM pedagogy-related transformative action research in my doctoral journey to foster critical scientific literacy in prospective science teachers. Moreover, I also encourage my master's degree students to incorporate transformative notions in their research projects. I believe that such a reforming/transforming, notions-based STEAM pedagogical praxis could transform informed-dominated science teaching cultures and identities. The government should also pay more attention to reframing the curriculum, developing the science teacher's professional skills, and managing other physical and financial resources for practical implementation (Paudel and Rajbhandari, 2022). This probably supports being or becoming a lifelong learner.

10. Discussion

In this autoethnographic study, I have portrayed some critical incidents based on my critical reflexive narratives of science teaching and learning to recognize the invisible dominant ideology knowingly and unknowingly embedded in my science-pedagogical practice. I made critical reflection-on-/in-/for-actions to reveal my evolution from informing (hegemonic) to reforming/transforming (to some extent) pedagogical cultures and identities. I did this by reviewing my lived experiences from different vantage points: as a science learner, teacher, administrator, researcher and science-teacher educator. Then, I explored the need for curious, contextual and cultural selves and communication as a dance rather than a war for deconstructing hegemonic pedagogical cultures. Moreover, I also attempted to practise the transdisciplinary STEAM approach for transformative curricular praxis and inclusive science learning that could connect classroom science learning with learners’ lives and reform/transform hegemonic pedagogical cultures like sit-and-get science teaching.

In the context of high-school-level science learning, Koirala (2023) noted that science teachers mostly adopted lecture and discussion methods (occasionally), which could not motivate the students to be involved in the free knowledge-construction process. Metaphorically, their roles were those of passive listeners. The academic quality and success of the school, teachers and students are reflected in the rankings and grades achieved by the students in national examinations. Accordingly, results-oriented beliefs, values and practices are dominant, rather than participatory and culturally based science-classroom practice. Likewise, Cassiani (2021) emphasized expanding the hegemonic and counter-hegemonic discourse in science education for knowing and defending the struggles situated in the curriculum through critical analysis. The research shows the sociohistorical coloniality of knowledge in the science curriculum and calls for a deeper understanding of phenomena (such as the transnationalization of curricula) and the effects of coloniality in incorporating decolonial pedagogy that can enrich the decolonialized perspective in science education. Moreover, Rezende and Ostermann (2019) identified the antagonist perspective (unhelpful dualism) between the traditional conception and critical conception of science-teacher education. Traditional conceptions largely focus on the universalism of Western modern science (knowledge itself) and technical rationality. On the other hand, critical conceptions in science education acknowledge generic and contextual educational competencies (knowledge to do something). This post-critical-view-based curricular discourse tends to blur this opposing perspective by incorporating social justice and democratic equality. Creating a contradiction such as prescription and control-based practice may dismiss all differences and uniqueness in education and render education meaningless. They discussed the STEM approach but was silent on the art-based, transdisciplinary STEAM approach. Art could support interconnecting the compartmentalized knowledge, skills and ideology in science-educational practice. Accordingly, the present study primarily focuses on reforming/transforming the informing (like STEM)-dominated science practices.

These hegemonic and counter-hegemonic, discourse-based research studies in science education acknowledge incorporating transformative pedagogy (such as decolonial pedagogy, and more participatory and culturally based science classrooms) to enrich transformative aspects (such as decolonialized, multicultural, social justice, and democratic equality) in science learning. Habermas (1972) also emphasizes transforming the technical, interest-dominated, knowledge-constructing process to practical and emancipatory interests through the action of ego turning upon itself to foster critical consciousness in learning (Grundy, 1987). In this regard, the present study has also attempted to deeply engage in critical reflection-on-/in-/for-actions and envisage reforming/transforming pedagogy (like STEAM) for deconstructing the deep-rooted, hegemonic-science pedagogical cultures and identities.

11. Conclusion

Before the STEAM educational learning journey, I experienced a science-learning journey primarily focused on obtaining good marks (product) rather than on developing students’ life skills (process). The science teacher generally created pin-drop silence during the class and focused on rote memorization. Science-teacher educators commonly apply the deductive reasoning and lecturer methods in their science-classroom practice and journey. I experienced the disciplinary knowledge-, skills- and ideology-dominated science teaching-learning cultures in my higher level science education. As a result, I considered science to be abstract and rigorous. Science learning neglected the learners’ enriched sociocultural world and focused on the knowledge-delivery process.

As a science teacher, head teacher and teacher-educator, I also focused on singular, absolute, scientific knowledge-consumption processes such as rote memorization and recall rather than connecting science learning with emergent sociocultural contexts. My role was transmitting factual and conceptual knowledge to the learners seemingly as empty vessels. In this regard, my past science teaching and learning before the STEAM educational journey was largely detached from my enriched contextual self, cultural self and curious self. Furthermore, I also experienced communication as war rather than dance in my administrative journey. Metaphorically, a sit-and-get learning culture was dominant in my initial teaching journey. Therefore, I want to represent my past science learning/teaching identities as a disciplinary knowledge consumer/transmitter and learning cultures as sit-and-get cultural reproduction.

However, in my STEAM learning journey for my MPhil, teacher-educators acted as facilitators/evocators rather than instructors. They created a dialogic space for transdisciplinary student–teacher collaborations based on contributions respecting the voices of others. They engaged in transdisciplinary, STEAM-based, evocative research articles, projects and other activities and invigorated the learners to critically reflect on their professional practice and reconceptualize their professional identities. In this regard, I experienced inclusive (i.e., knowledge, pedagogy and participation) and more engaged learning. I contributed to changing the epistemology of my science-teaching profession. I realized that my past hegemonic science teaching-learning cultures and identities were inadequate for generating disorienting dilemmas in the learners’ minds and changing their dogmatic onto-epistemic roots. One could shift towards the emancipatory interest-oriented curricular practice by perceiving one's practice and acting in ‘the world’ (Grundy, 1987). I currently engage my prospective science teachers in transformative STEAM projects, designing and implementing activities. After critical reflection-on-action and in-action, I felt that I could enrich the transdisciplinary (like STEAM) pedagogical praxis and conduct research to reform/transform my informed-dominated science teaching culture and professional identities, and to deconstruct hegemonic pedagogical culture in science education.

This autoethnographic study presents my representative and interconnected identity that has evolved from my personal experience as a science learner, science teacher and science-education administrator, and then as a researcher and science-teacher educator. This evolution might demystify how invisible hegemonic practice is deeply rooted in our daily science classrooms, and how we could transform our hegemonic identity by critically reflecting on our practice. However, the study could focus more on praxis-driven science education by practically reducing the gap between theory and practice. Therefore, further transformative action research is needed to deconstruct hegemony and prepare prospective science teachers as agentic beings. This research endeavour might support individuals and contribute to social transformation.