Abstract
What does it mean to think in scientifically responsible ways? What does it mean to think globally and act locally if words and deeds are to be viewed in a global context? Do normative expectations of morality hinder or facilitate the development of character? Is the exercise of prudence and virtue commensurable with a global perspective of science education? This chapter explores the issues surrounding these and related questions as they impact policy and practice in science education. The conundrum of what it means to think responsibly in a pluralistic society is both an academically interesting challenge and a task that greatly impacts the quality of our physical, organic, and social world. Here, we need to consider the notion of western dominant science, indigenous science, and scientific worldviews. We will analyze and evaluate the boundaries that we place between these concepts in order to reveal the common threads that flow through them. By viewing our ever-fluctuating context through a lens grounded in the inspection of common social tapestries (structures), we will begin to understand what it means to think responsibly as human beings in the modern world and in turn formulate a foundation for responsible scientific thinking. This framework has the potential to guide and inspire policymakers and science educators toward creating a dynamic environment conducive to formation of character.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
AAAS. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.
AAAS. (1990). The liberal art of science. Washington, DC: AAAS.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socioscientific issues in pre-college science classrooms. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 1–52.
Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Towards decolonizing the Pan-Canadian science framework. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6, 387–399.
Aikenhead, G., & Ogawa, M. (2007). Indigenous knowledge and science revisited. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2(3), 539–591.
Albright, J., Towndrow, P. A., Kwek, D., & Tan, A.-L. (2008). Identity and agency in science education: Reflections from the far side of the world. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 145–156.
Angrosino, M. V. (2004). The culture of the sacred: Exploring the anthropology of religion. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.
Arendt, A. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Aristotle. (1975). Nichomachean ethics (M. Ostwald, Trans.). Indianapolis: The Liberal Arts Press.
Beland, K. (2003). Eleven principles sourcebook: How to achieve quality character education in K-12 schools. Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.
Berger, R. (2003). An ethic of excellence: Building a culture of craftsmanship with students. Portsmouth: Heineman.
Berkowitz, M. W. (1997). The complete moral person: Anatomy and formation. In J. M. DuBois (Ed.), Moral issues in psychology: Personalist contributions to selected problems (pp. 11–41). New York: University Press of America.
Berkowitz, M. W. (2011). What works in values education. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 153–158.
Berkowitz, M. W. (2012). Moral and character education. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: Vol. 2. Individual differences, cultural variations, and contextual factors in educational psychology (pp. 247–264). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2005). What works in character education: A research-driven guide for educators. Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.
Berkowitz, M. W. (2002). The science of character education. In W. Damon (Ed.), Bringing in a new era in character education (pp. 43–63). Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.
Berkowitz, M. W., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character education: The role of peer discussion. In D. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 117–138). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Brayboy, B. M. J., & Castagno, A. E. (2008). How might native science inform “informal science learning”? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 731–750.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington: DC Heath.
Durkheim, E. (1893/1997). The division of labor in society (L. A. Coser, Trans.). New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, E. (1897/1979). Suicide: A study in sociology (J. A. Spaulding & G. Simpson, Trans.). New York: Free Press.
El-Hani, C., & Bandeira, F. (2008). Valuing indigenous knowledge: to call it “science” will not help. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(3), 751–779.
Gauch, H. G., Jr. (2009). Science, worldview, and education. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), Science, worldviews and education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Gillies, D. (1998). Philosophy of science in the twentieth century: Four central themes. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Green, T. F. (1988). The economy of virtue and the primacy of prudence. American Journal of Education, 96, 127–142.
Green, T. F. (1999). Voices: The educational formation of conscience. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Kelly, G. J. (2011). Scientific literacy, discourse, and epistemic practices. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, D. A. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 61–73). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Kincheloe, J., & Tobin, K. (2009). The much exaggerated death of positivism. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(3), 513–528.
Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.
Lickona, T., & Davidson, M. (2005). Smart and good high schools: Integrating excellence and ethics for success in school, work, and beyond. Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.
Margalit, A. (2002). The ethics of memory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Matthews, C., & Smith, W. (1994). Native American related materials in elementary science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 363–380.
Nisbet, R. (1966). The sociological tradition. New York: Basic Books.
NSTA. (1999). Position statement: Informal science education. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/informal.aspx
Roberts, R. (1988). Will power and the virtues. The Philosophical Review, 93, 227–247.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391.
Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.
Tönnies, F. (1963). Community & society: (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft). New York: Harper & Row.
Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2007). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7–38). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character and care. In S. Erduran & M. Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201–216). Dordrecht: Springer.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, D. L. (2011). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions of socioscientific reasoning. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, & P. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 176–192). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
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.
Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S. M., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in science classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 277–306). Dordrecht: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zeidler, D.L., Berkowitz, M.W., Bennett, K. (2014). Thinking (Scientifically) Responsibly: The Cultivation of Character in a Global Science Education Community. In: Mueller, M., Tippins, D., Stewart, A. (eds) Assessing Schools for Generation R (Responsibility). Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 41. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2748-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2748-9_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2747-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2748-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)