Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preparing Citizens for a Complex World: The Grand Challenge of Teaching Socio-scientific Issues in Science Education

  • Chapter
Science | Environment | Health

Abstract

The dawn of the twenty-first century encouraged a number of scientific and technological organisations to identify what they saw as ‘Grand Challenges and Opportunities’. Issues of environment and health featured very prominently in these quite short lists, as can be seen from a sample of these challenges in Table 1. Indeed, the first two lists of challenges in Table 1 were identified as for the environment and for health, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cynefin is a Welsh word meaning the place of our multiple affiliations.

References

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1991). Logical reasoning in science and technology. Toronto: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaton, A. E., Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., Smith, T. A., & Kelly, D. L. (1996). Science achievement in the middle school years. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Center, Boston College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P. (1997). Testing Friend or Foe?: The theory and practice of assessment and testing. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R., & Renshaw, P. (2000). Collective argumentation: A sociocultural approach to reframing classroom teaching and learning. In H. Cowie & G. Van der Aalsvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge (pp. 52–66). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryce, T., & Gray, D. (2004). Tough acts to follow: the challenges to science teachers presented by biotechnological progress. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 717–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulkeley, H. (1997). Global risk, local values?: ‘risk society’ and the greenhouse issue in Newcastle, Australia. Local Environment, 2, 261–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. (2009). Risk and school science education. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 205–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, R., & Price, R. (1996). Science teachers’ social conscience and the role of controversial issues in the teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 319–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, V. (2001). Addressing controversial issues in secondary school science. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 47(4), 38–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 661–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Education Queensland, Department of Education & Training (2004). New basics project. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics/html/richtasks/richtasks.html

  • Farmer, B. (1994). From science teacher to technology facilitator: A case study of Katherine. Research in Science Education, 24(1), 68–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2004). Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science: Implications for teaching, learning and teacher education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, P. L. (1994). The relationships between technology and science: Some historical and philosophical reflections, Part I. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4(2), 123–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, P. L. (1995). The relationships between technology and science: Some historical and philosophical reflections, Part II. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(12), 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwaetzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harremoës, P., Gee, D., MacGarvin, M., Stirling, A., Keys, J., Wynne, B., & Vaz, S. G. (Eds.). (2002). The precautionary principle in the 20th century. London: Earthscan Publications Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hipkins, R., Stockwell, W., Bolstad, R., & Baker, R. (2002). Common sense, trust and science: How patterns of beliefs and attitudes to science pose challenges for effective communication. Auckland, NZ: New Zealand Ministry of Research, Science & Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, E. (2000). Science for all’: time for a paradigm shift? In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 207–226). Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, P. M. (2008). Reflective judgementally modified: Welcome to the website. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://www.umich.edu/∼refjudg/index.html

  • Kolstø, S. (2000). Consensus projects: teaching science for citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 645–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socioscientific issue. Science Education, 28, 1689–1716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz, C. F., & Snowden, D. J. (2003). The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Systems Journal, 42, 462–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understandings of science and some implications for science education (1st ed.). Driffield: Studies in Education Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. (2002, September). Getting critical about science literacies. Paper presented at Language & Science Literacy Conference. University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1201–1224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, R., & Turner, S. (2001). The teaching of social and ethical issues in the school curriculum, arising from developments in biomedical research: A research study of teachers. London: Institute of Education, University of London and Wellcome Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same classes: Students’ experiences in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 591–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (eds.) (1998). Beyond 2000. Science education for the future. London: King’s College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H. (2005). The increase of complexity and its reduction: Emergent interfaces between the natural sciences, humanities and social sciences, Theory. Culture and Society, 22(50), 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papacostas, A. (2005). Eurobarometer report 64.2, science and technology, social values and services of general interest. Brussels: Directorate of general communication, European Community.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petts, J., Wheeley, S., Homan, J., & Niemeyer, S. (2003). Risk literacy and the public: MMR, air pollution and mobile phones. Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham Centre for Environmental Research and Training.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socioscientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees, M. (2003). Our last 100 years: Will the human race survive the 21st century? London: Arrow Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L. J. (2007). Learning science outside school. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), International handbook of research on science education (pp. 125–171). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), International handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T., & Zeidler, 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: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T., & Zeidler, D. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 46(8), 909–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, A. (2002). “It just goes against the grain”: Public understanding of genetically modified food in the UK, Public Understanding of Science, 11, 273–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C.P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. (The Rede Lectures, 1959). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (Eds.). (1995). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulloch, J., & Lupton, D. (2002). Consuming risk, consuming science: The case of genetically modified foods. Journal of Consumer Culture, 2, 363–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in Australia’s future. Camberwell: ACER.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2005). The precautionary principle: World commission on the ethics of scientific knowledge and technology. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • UYSEG (University of York Science Education Group) and Nuffield Foundation. (2007). Twenty first century science pilot: Evaluation report. Retrieved 21 November, 2008, from www.21stcenturyscience.org.

  • Wynne, B. (1993). Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigenetically modified. In T. Jackson (Ed.), Clean production strategies: Developing preventive environmental management in the industrial economy. London: Lewis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on genetically modified Os. Science as Culture, 10, 445–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yung, B. H. W. (2001). Examiner, policeman or student companion: Teachers’ perception of their role in an assessment reform. Educational Review, 53, 251–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University and Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Australia

    Peter J. Fensham

Authors
  1. Peter J. Fensham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter J. Fensham .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Insitute of Education, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Albert Zeyer  & Regula Kyburz-Graber  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fensham, P.J. (2012). Preparing Citizens for a Complex World: The Grand Challenge of Teaching Socio-scientific Issues in Science Education. In: Zeyer, A., Kyburz-Graber, R. (eds) Science | Environment | Health. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3949-1_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation