Advertisement

Interface Between Science and Faith Values in Movies with a Focus on the Use of Socio-scientific Issues (SSI) in an Australian Christian College

  • Siew Fong YapEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 48)

Abstract

With the re-emergence of values education and the need for critical information literacy as core skills in the school curriculum, science is viewed as one of the key teaching domains, and in particular, socio-scientific education is increasingly perceived as instrumental in authentically connecting students’ worlds to scientific worldviews, engaging them in the activity of science, developing nature of science understanding, fostering evidence-based reasoning, facilitating scientific literacy, fostering a sense of ethical caring, and promoting character in thinking about the social and natural world. In recognizing these trends as vital to strengthening learners’ twenty-first century skills, the Australian Curriculum added “Science as a Human Endeavour” strand. Science as a Human Endeavour refers to the nature and development of science and in society the use and influence of science. This study is unique in that it presents one of the few studies that demonstrates how socioscientific issues in movies can be used as tools for stimulating evidence-based reasoning and ethical thinking about societal issues and encouraging the reflection on values, including faith values promoted through the use or misuse of science and technology. Movies also provide an engaging yet powerful medium where students can explore science concepts and consider some of the pressing issues and ideas of our time. The widespread use of popular entertainment media could help to foster critical thinking and appraisal of media content by addressing the misconceptions and distinguishing “good” and” bad” science.

Keywords

Socio-scientific issues Values education Science as a Human Endeavour Ethical reasoning Argumentation Movies 

References

  1. ACARA. (2010). The shape of the Australian curriculum. Version2.0. Sydney: ACARA. http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2019.
  2. ACARA. (2016). The Australian curriculum: Learning areas: Science. Retrieved from http://acara.edu.au/curriculum_1/learning_areas/science.html. Accessed 12 Jan 2019.
  3. Allchin, D. (1998). Values in sciences and science education. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  5. Atweh, B., & Singh, P. (2011). The Australian curriculum: Continuing the national conversation. Australian Journal of Education, 55(3), 189–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aubusson, P. (2011). An Australian science curriculum: Competition, advances and retreats. Australian Journal of Education, 55(3), 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Batterham, R. (2000). The chance to change: Final report by the Chief Scientist. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Industry, Science and Resources.Google Scholar
  8. Callahan, B. E., & Dopico, E. (2016). Science teaching in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11, 411–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carson, D. A. (2008). Christ and culture revisited. Nottingham: Apollos.Google Scholar
  10. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K – 12 science contexts. Research in Science Education, 80(3), 336–371.Google Scholar
  11. Chan, E. (2018). Are the religious suspicious of science? Investigating religiosity, religious contexts, and orientations towards science. Public Understanding of Science, 27(8), 967–984.  https://doi.org/10.1177/096366251/8781231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooling, T. (2007). The challenge of passionate religious commitment for school education in a world of religious diversity: Reflections on evangelical Christianity and Humanism. Journal of Education and Christian Belief, 11(1), 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawson, V. (2003). Effect of a forensic DNA testing module on adolescents’ ethical decision making abilities. Aust Sci Teach J, 49(4), 12–17.Google Scholar
  14. Eggert, S., & Bogeholz, S. (2009). Students’ use of decision making strategies with regard to socio-scientific issues: An application of the Rasch partial credit model. Science Education, 94, 230–258.Google Scholar
  15. Fensham, P. J. (2016). The future curriculum for school science: What can be learnt from the past? Research in Science Education, 46, 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goble, R. (2010). Developing a mindful practice around moving images in the K – 12 Classroom. Knowledge Quest, 38(4), 28–33.Google Scholar
  17. Goodrum, D., & Rennie, L. J. (2007). Australian school science education national action plan 2008–2012. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  18. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M. W., & Rennie, L. J. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  19. Groome, T. H. (1998). Sharing faith the way of shared praxis: A comprehensive approach to religious education and pastoral ministry. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. (1993). Citizenship and national identity. Praxis International, 12(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  21. Halstead, J. H. (1996). Values and values education in schools. In J. M. Halstead & M. J. Taylor (Eds.), Values in education and education in values. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hattie, J. (2016, October). Shifting away from distractions to improve Australia’s schools: Time for a Reboot. Australian Council for Educational Leaders Monograph, 54, 1–22.Google Scholar
  23. Ho, S., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(2), 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kolsto, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focussed socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689–1716.Google Scholar
  25. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Research in education: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.Google Scholar
  26. National Curriculum Board. (2009a). Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Science. Melbourne: Author.Google Scholar
  27. National Curriculum Board. (2009b). National science curriculum: Framing paper. Melbourne: Author.Google Scholar
  28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Assessing scientific reading and mathematical literacy. A framework for PISA 2006. http://www.occd.org/dataoecd/65/35/37464175.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2016.
  29. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). PISA 2009: Assessment framework – Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  30. Orthnia, L. A. (2015). Science fiction. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of science education 2 (pp. 899–902).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Osborne, J., Borko, H., Fishman, E., Zaccarelli, F. G., Berson, E., Busch, K. C., Reigh, E., & Tseng, A. (2019). Impacts of a practice-based professional development program on elementary teacher’s facilitation of and student engagement with scientific argumentation. American Education Research Journal.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218812059.
  33. Pope, T., Dawson, V., & Koul, R. (2017). Effect of religious belief on informal reasoning about biotechnology issues. Teaching Science – The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 63(2), 27–34.Google Scholar
  34. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Reid, G., & Norris, S. P. (2016). Scientific media education in the classroom and beyond: A research agenda for the next decade. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(1), 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reiss, M. (2008). The use of ethical frameworks by students following a new science course for 16 – 18 year-olds. Sci Educ, 17, 889–902.Google Scholar
  37. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.Google Scholar
  38. Rooney, P. (2013). National curriculum, post secularism and pedagogy: Opportunities for Christian education. Journal of Christian Education, 55(2), 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Siegel, M. A. (2006). High school students’ decision making about sustainability. Environmental Education, 19(2), 166–189.Google Scholar
  41. Smith, T. (2008). Teaching ethics and mature Christian thinking in Christian schools. Journal of Christian Education, 51(1), 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  43. Yap, S.F. (2013). Developing, Implementing and evaluating the use of ethical frameworks in teaching bioethics in a Year 10 biotechnology program. An unpublished thesis.Google Scholar
  44. Yap, S. F. (2016). Science at the movies – Remediating the misconceptions. Perth: SF Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Yap, S. F. (2018). Science at the movies – Remediating the misconceptions and developing ethical reasoning. In A teacher’s guide to science and religion in the classroom. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character and care. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Alexandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201–216). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions. In C. Linder, L. Ostam, & P. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 176–192). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Curtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations