Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 1089–1114 | Cite as

Citizenship Education and Socioscientific Issues: Implicit Concept of Citizenship in the Curriculum, Views of French Middle School Teachers

  • Catherine Barrue
  • Virginie Albe
Article

Abstract

The educative goal of citizenship education through science education converges to the declared purpose of the SSI research movement. Socioscientific issues formulated in science education research covering topics as biotechnology, environmental issues, sustainable development, energy choices, have been introduced in French Middle Schools. But citizenship is often not clarified and can be multiple. After having clarified who is the citizen targeted by SSI research movement, the concept of citizen in the French curriculum needs to be clarify. What do these citizens have in common with the citizen that a sociology literature review let see oscillating between obedience and critical thinking has also been investigated. The paper also looks at the teachers’ views and their contribution to citizenship education through socioscientific topics described in the national curriculum. From the analysis, different teachers’ views of citizenship education have been highlighted: a normative citizenship education in connection with civility and rules and an emancipatory citizenship education to develop pupils’ skills such as searching and evaluating information, argumentation and critical thinking in order to enable pupils to build their own argued opinion and to participate to public debates. This last emancipatory view of citizenship education is congruent with the aim of social empowerment within the SSI research movement.

Keywords

Science Education Citizenship Education Middle School Teacher Democratic Participation Socioscientific Issue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  2. Albe, V. (2007). Des controverses scientifiques socialement vives en éducation aux sciences; Etat des recherches et Perspectives. Mémoire de synthèse pour l’Habilitation à diriger des Recherches. Université Lyon 2.Google Scholar
  3. Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussion on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albe, V., & Gombert, M.-J. (2012). Students’ communication, argumentation and knowledge in a citizens’ conference on global warming. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(3), 683–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bader, B. (2003). Interprétation d’une controverse scientifique: stratégies argumentatives d’adolescentes et d’adolescents québécois. Revue canadienne de l’enseignement des sciences, des mathématiques et des technologies, 3, 231–250.Google Scholar
  6. Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D. T., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry and inscriptions: Supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 59–82.Google Scholar
  7. Blondiaux, Y., & Sintomer, L. (2002). L’impératif delibératif. Politix, 57(15), 17–35.Google Scholar
  8. Bonneuil, C. (2004). Les transformations des rapports entre sciences et société en France depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale: un essai de synthèse. Article présenté au Colloque Sciences Médias et Société, Lyon ENS-LSH, 15–16 juin 2004.Google Scholar
  9. Bouchard, G., & Taylor, C. 2008. Fonder l’avenir. Le temps de la reconciliation. Rapport.Google Scholar
  10. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain: essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  11. Colucci-Gray, L. (2007). An investigation on role-play about controversial socio-environmental issues, and how this can educate for a nonviolent approach to the resolution of conflicts. PhD’s thesis, Centre for Science Education, Open University, UK. http://www.iris-sostenibilita.net/iris/docs/pubblicazioni/Colucci-Gray_PhDThesis.pdf.
  12. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s image of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ferry, L., & Renault, A. (2007). Philosophie politique. Paris: Ed. PUF.Google Scholar
  14. Gombert, M. J. (2008). Contribution à une éducation scientifique au travers d’un débat favorisant des échanges non affaiblissants entre élèves sur la question socioscientifique du réchauffement climatique: conception collaborative d’une séquence d’enseignement interdisciplinaire, communication entre élèves et relations aux savoirs. Mémoire de Master. Université Montpellier 2. Université de Lyon 1.Google Scholar
  15. Grace, M. (2009). Developping high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 551–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Habermas, J. (1988). L’espace public. Archéologie de la publicité comme dimension constitutive de la société bourgeoise, Paris, Payot, réed.Google Scholar
  17. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hodson, D. (2010). Science education as a call to action’. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10, 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holden, C., & Clough, N. (1998). The child carried on the back does not know the length of the road. In C. Holden & N. Clough (Eds.), Children as citizens: Education for participation (pp. 13–29). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P. (2006). Les personnes peuvent-elles agir sur la réalité ? La théorie critique et la marée noire du Prestige. In Legardez Alain & Simonneaux Laurence (dir.). L’école à l’épreuve de l’actualité. Issy-les-Moulineaux: ESF.Google Scholar
  22. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P., & Pereiro-Muñoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kolstø, S. D. (2000). Consensus projects: Teaching science for citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 645–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). To trust or not to trust,…-pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 877–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kymlicka, W. (1995). La citoyenneté multiculturelle: une théorie libérale du droit des minorités, Éditions du Boréal (Canada), La Découverte et Syros (France). Trad. de Multicultural citizenship: a liberal theory of minority rights.Google Scholar
  26. Klosterman, M., & Sadler, T.D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017–1043.Google Scholar
  27. Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: an uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marshall, T. H. (1965). Class, citizenship and social development. New York: Anchor Book.Google Scholar
  29. Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pirotte, G. (2007). La notion de société civile. Paris: Ed. La Découverte.Google Scholar
  31. Roth, W. M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schnapper, D. (2000). Qu’est ce que la citoyenneté?. Paris: Gallimard éditions.Google Scholar
  35. Simonneaux, L. (2003). Argumentation dans les débats en classe sur une technoscience controversée. Aster, 37, 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sperling, E., & Bencze, J. L. (2010). More Than Particle Theory: Citizenship through school science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10(3), 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Taylor, C. (1994). La politique de reconnaissance. Dans Charles r. Multiculturalisme. Différence et démocratie. Paris: Aubier.Google Scholar
  38. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socio-scientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 74–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.STEF, ENS Cachan, Universud ParisCachanFrance

Personalised recommendations