Advertisement

A Case Study of the Impact of Introducing Socio-scientific Issues into a Reproduction Unit in a Catholic Girls’ School

  • Vaille M. DawsonEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 39)

Abstract

Internationally, an accepted aim of science education is to enable all students to develop a deeper understanding of the world around them, and to use their understanding of science to contribute to public debate and make informed and balanced decisions about scientific issues that impact their lives (see for example, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2000; Millar & Osborne, 1998). In Australia, significant emphasis has been placed on the importance of scientific literacy in science education (Rennie, Goodrum, & Hackling, 2001; Tytler, 2007). All Australian State and Territory curriculum documents state that science education should aim to develop students’ scientific understandings, problem solving, and critical thinking skills related to science topics of importance in society. A high level of scientific literacy can help young people to question the claims of the scientific community and other stakeholders, weigh up evidence about science issues, and use critical thinking skills and their understanding of science to make informed and balanced decisions. More recently, the newly formed Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) has released guidelines for a national curriculum in science. The guidelines state that the Australian science curriculum must prepare students ‘who, as citizens in a global world need to make personal decisions on the basis of a scientific view of the world’ (National Curriculum Board, 2009, p. 4).

Keywords

Science Teacher Oral Presentation Catholic School Teaching Goal 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. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2000). Designs for science literacy. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). 2006 census tables [Data set]. Retrieved from Australian Bureau of Statistics website http://www.abs.gov.au
  3. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2010). My School. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from http://www.myschool.edu.au
  4. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cooper, J. E. (1991). Telling our own stories: The reading and writing of journals or diaries. In C. Witherell & N. Noddings (Eds.), Stories lives tell: Narrative and dialogue in education (pp. 96–112). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  6. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating qualitative and quantitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  7. Dawson, V. M. (1996). A constructivist approach to teaching transplantation technology in ­science. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42(4), 15–20.Google Scholar
  8. Dawson, V. M. (2010). Outcomes of bioethics education in secondary school science: Two Australian case studies. In A. Jones, A. McKim, & M. Reiss (Eds.), Ethics in the classroom (pp. 69–86). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Dawson, V. M., & Taylor, P. C. (1998). Establishing open and critical discourses in the science classroom: Reflecting on initial difficulties. Research in Science Education, 28(3), 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Crespigny, L. J. & Savulesca, J. (2004). Abortion: Time to clarify Australia’s confusing laws. The Medical Journal of Australia. Retrieved March 18, 2010, from http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_04_160804/dec10242_fm.html
  11. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) (2000). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Dixon, R. (2005). The Catholic community in Australia. Retrieved March 31, 2010, from http://www.catholicaustralia.com.au/page.php?pg=austchurch-history
  13. Dori, Y. J., Tal, R., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies-Can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 87, 767–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erikson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1464–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Holly, M. (1992). Keeping a personal – Professional journal. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: School of Education, King’s College.Google Scholar
  20. Moreton, C. M. (2007). World’s first test-tube baby Louise Brown has a child of her own. Retrieved March 9, 2010, from http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/worlds-first-testtube-baby-louise-brown-has-a-child-of-her-own-432080.html
  21. National Curriculum Board. (2009). Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Science. Carlton: National Curriculum Board.Google Scholar
  22. National Health and Medical Research Council. (2007). Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  23. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 174–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Picoult, J. (2004). My sister’s keeper. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  27. Potts, A. (2009). Public and private schooling in Australia: Historical and contemporary ­considerations. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://www.history.ac.uk/resources/e-seminars/potts-paper
  28. Rennie, L., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in Australian schools: Results of a national study. Research in Science Education, 31, 455–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stake, R. E. (2000). Qualitative case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research Press. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://www.acer.edu.au
  33. Venville, G., & Dawson, V. (2010). The impact of an argumentation intervention on grade 10 students’ conceptual understanding of genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.Google Scholar
  34. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V.  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science and Mathematics Education CentreCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations