Abstract
Socio-scientific issues present a great challenge to science educators that are charged with equipping students—as future adult citizens—with the knowledge, skills and attitudes to understand and respond to them. These issues, such as climate change and over-exploitation of resources, are increasingly prominent in our lives. Complex socio-scientific issues are often defined by an interrelated set of smaller issues, they can have vast social impacts and their scientific basis is often uncertain or contested. The increasing global conflict around water, in particular in rivers that flow across territorial or national boundaries, is a notable example of one of these issues.
In Australia, the management of the Murray-Darling River Basin, which underpins a large part of the nation’s agricultural economy, became the focus of intense public debate in all forms of the media between 2010 and 2012. At the same time, a new national curriculum for school science was being developed. In this chapter, we use the Murray-Darling controversy as a context to investigate how this science curriculum might facilitate teaching and learning of socio-scientific issues (SSIs) by considering this SSI. We adopt the analytical tools of frame theory and boundary work to assess:
-
(i)
the role of science in the controversy surrounding this SSI;
-
(ii)
the strengths in the science curriculum to make a contribution to understanding the science involved; and
-
(iii)
the lessons that can be drawn from the Murray-Darling controversy about how the science curriculum might better equip teachers and students to tackle such complex SSIs.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
AAAS. (2006). Annual report. Washington, DC: Author.
ACARA. (2014a). The Australian curriculum: Learning areas: Science. Retrieved from http://acara.edu.au/curriculum_1/learning_areas/science.html
ACARA. (2014b). The Australian curriculum: Learning areas: Humanities and social sciences: Geography. Retrieved from http://acara.edu.au/curriculum_1/learning_areas/humanitiesandsocialscience/geography.html
Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Logical reasoning in science and technology. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 12, 149–159.
Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.
Arup, T. (2012, January 19). Scientists reject plan to save Murray-Darling. The Sydney Morning Herald. Online.
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377.
Bencze, L., & Carter, L. (2011). Globalising students acting for the common good. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 648–669.
Bernstein, B. (1971). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control (pp. 47–69). London, UK: Collier-Macmillan.
Bonneuil, C., Joly, P.-B., & Marris, C. (2008). Disentrenching experiment: The construction of GM crop field trials as a social problem. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33, 201–229.
Clement, J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists: The role of analogy, imagery and mental stimulation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Collins, H. (2009, March 5). We cannot live by scepticism alone. Nature, 458, 30–31.
COMEST. (2005). The precautionary principle. Paris, France: UNESCO.
Cosier, P., Davis, R., Flannery, T., Harding, R., Hughes, L., Karoly, D., … Williams, J. (2012). Statement on the 2011 draft Murray-Darling Basin plan. Sydney, Australia: Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.
Crase, L., Dollery, B., & Wallis, J. (2005). Community consultation in public policy: The case of the Murray-Darling Basin of Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 221–237.
Crase, L., O’Keefe, S., & Dollery, B. (2013). Talk is cheap, or is it? The cost of consulting about uncertain reallocation of water in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Ecological Economics, 88, 206–213.
CSIRO. (2011). The Murray-Darling Basin science. Retrieved from www.csiro.au/science/MDBscience
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Science, 15(4), 451–498.
Fensham, P. J. (1985). Science for all: A reflective essay. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4), 415–435.
Fensham, P. J. (2013). The science curriculum: The decline of expertise and the rise of bureaucratise. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 152–168.
Fensham, P. J., & Rennie, L. J. (2013). Towards and authentically assessed science curriculum. In D. Corrigan, R. Gunstone, & A. Jones (Eds.), Valuing assessment in science education: Pedagogy, curriculum, policy (pp. 69–100). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.
Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115–130.
Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations: Horses for courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83–97.
Gilbert, J. K., & Stocklmayer, S. (Eds.). (2013). Communication and engagement with science and technology: Issues and dilemmas: A reader in science communication. New York, NY: Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Gregory, J., & Lock, S. J. (2008). The evolution of ‘public understanding of science’: Public engagement as a tool of science policy in the UK. Sociology Compass, 2(4), 1252–1265.
Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88, 693–708.
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.
Hodson, D., Bencze, L., Elshof, L., Pedretti, E., & Nyhof-Young, J. (Eds.). (2002). Changing science education through action research: Some experiences from the field. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto.
Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Jasanoff, S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17, 195–230.
Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Modelling teachers’ views on the nature of modelling and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369–387.
Kirch, S. (2012). Understanding scientific uncertainty as a teaching and learning goal. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second handbook of research in science education (pp. 851–864). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
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(9), 877–902.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673–689.
Layton, D. (1991). Science education and praxis: The relationship of school science to practical action. Studies in Science Education, 19, 43–79.
Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for school science. Driffield, UK: Studies in Education.
Levinson, R. (2004). Teaching bioethics in science: Crossing a bridge too far? Canadian Journal of Science, Technology and Mathematics Education, 4, 353–369.
Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201–1224.
Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69–119.
Lock, S. J. (2011). Deficits and dialogues: Science communication and the public in the understanding of science in the UK. In D. J. Bennett & R. C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful science communication: Telling it like it is (pp. 17–30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
MDBA. (2010). Guide to the proposed basin plan: Overview. Canberra, Australia: Author.
MDBA. (2011a). Plain English summary of the proposed basin plan—Including explanatory notes. Canberra, Australia: Author.
MDBA. (2011b). Socioeconomic analysis and the draft plan: Part A—Overview and analysis. Canberra, Australia: Author.
MDBA. (2012). Proposed basin plan consultation report. Canberra, Australia: Author.
Minister for Education. (2008, October 12). Media release. Delivering Australia’ first national curriculum.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academics.
National Research Council. (2001). Grand challenges in environmental sciences. Washington, DC: Author.
Nelkin, D. (1979). Controversy: Politics of technical decisions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Norris, S. (1995). Living with scientific expertise: Towards a theory of intellectual communalism for guiding science teaching. Science Education, 79(2), 201–217.
OECD. (2007). PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Vol.1. Analysis. Paris, France: OECD.
Ogawa, M. (2013). Towards a ‘design approach’ to science education. In J. K. Gilbertt & S. Stocklmayer (Eds.), Communication and engagement with science and technology: Issues and dilemmas: A reader in science communication (pp. 3–18). New York, NY: Routledge.
Patchen, T., & Smithenry, D. W. (2013). Framing science in a new context: What students take away from a student-directed inquiry curriculum. Science Education, 97(6), 801–829.
Poff, N. L., Allan, J. D., Palmer, M. A., Hart, D. D., Richter, B. D., Arthington, A. H., et al. (2003). River flows and water wars: Emerging science for environmental decision making. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(6), 298–306.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision making about socio-scientific issues within the curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182.
Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1994). Frame reflection: Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.
Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/scientific literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 125–177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ryder, J. (2003). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–44.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA and socio-scientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909–921.
SMH. (2011a, November 28). Murray-Darling plan ‘ignores’ NSW farmers. Sydney Morning Herald. Online.
SMH. (2011b, November 28). Murray-Darling water plan mired in controversy. Sydney Morning Herald. Online.
Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (1994). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York, NY: Teachers College.
Sullivan, C. A. (2014). Planning for the Murray-Darling Basin: Lessons from transboundary basins around the world. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 28, 123–136.
Thomson, S., Hillman, K., & Wernert, N. (2012). Monitoring Australian year 8 students outcomes internationally. Camberwell, Australia: ACER.
White, S. (2011). Dealings with the media. In D. J. Bennett & R. C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful science communication: Telling it like it is (pp. 151–166). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Wroe, D. (2011, December 5). Murray-Darling proposal slammed by irrigators. Sydney Morning Herald. Online.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 201–216). New York, NY: Springer.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fensham, P.J., Montana, J. (2018). The Challenges and Opportunities for Embracing Complex Socio-scientific Issues As Important in Learning Science: The Murray-Darling River Basin As an Example. In: Corrigan, D., Buntting, C., Jones, A., Loughran, J. (eds) Navigating the Changing Landscape of Formal and Informal Science Learning Opportunities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89761-5_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89761-5_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89760-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89761-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)