Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning About the Role and Function of Science in Public Debate as an Essential Component of Scientific Literacy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Topics and Trends in Current Science Education

Part of the book series: Contributions from Science Education Research ((CFSE,volume 1))

Abstract

Science and technology are essential components for every modern society. They offer the base from which to promote economic growth and welfare. Developments and decisions concerning science and technology are also essential for protecting the environment for coming generations and thus enabling a sustainable development into our future (Burmeister et al. 2012). Therefore, society is continuously driven to make decisions about science and technology – in particular about their application and use with a view to their consequences on local, as well as regional, national, and global levels. In a democratic society, every citizen is thought to contribute to respective debates and decisions, even if the citizen is not an expert in science or technology. That is why science education should provide a respective basic knowledge and understanding for all students, but it should also offer a framework to learn about the use of science in societal debate (Bauer 2009; Hofstein et al. 2011; Millar and Osborne 1998; Sjöström 2013; Ryder 2001).

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

References

  • Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. W. (2009). The evolution of public understanding of science – discourse and comparative evidence. Science Technology Society, 14, 221–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belkin, N. J. (1984). Cognitive models and information transfer. Social Science Information Studies, 4, 111–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, J. A. (2006). Pragma-dialectics and pragma-dialectics. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burmeister, M., & Eilks, I. (2012). An example of learning about plastics and their evaluation as a contribution to education for sustainable development in secondary school chemistry teaching. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 13, 93–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burmeister, M., Rauch, F., & Eilks, I. (2012). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and secondary chemistry education. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 13, 59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (1997). Toward an understanding of scientific literacy. In W. Gräber & C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacy – an international symposium. Kiel: IPN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, J. L., Schlegel, W. M., & Cook, K. L. (2011). Effects of an interdisciplinary program on students’ reasoning with socioscientific issues and perceptions of their learning experience. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eilks, I. (2002). Teaching ‘Biodiesel’: A sociocritical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching, and students’ first views on it. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 3, 67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eilks, I., Belova, N., Von Döhlen, M., Burmeister, M., & Stuckey, M. (2012). Kommunizieren und Bewerten lernen für den Alltag am Beispiel der Energydrinks. Der Mathematische und Naturwissenchaftliche Unterricht, 65, 480–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmose, S., & Roth, W. M. (2005). Allgemeinbildung: Readiness for living in a risk society. Journal Current Studies, 37, 11–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feierabend, T., & Eilks, I. (2010). Raising students’ perception of the relevance of science teaching and promoting communication and evaluation capabilities using authentic and controversial socio-scientific issues in the framework of climate change. Science Education International, 21, 176–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (2009). Real world contexts in PISA science: Implications for context-based science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 884–896.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck, L. (1935). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. English translation 1979: Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of context in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 957–976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, J. (2001). One question, two answers. In H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson, & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Argumentation and its implications. Windsor: Ontario Society for the Study of Argument.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Kesner, M. (2006). Industrial chemistry and school chemistry: Making chemistry studies more relevant. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1017–1039.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education: A pedagogical justification and the state of the art in Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1459–1483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1347–1362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation, 14, 261–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1992). Relevance and digressions in argumentative discussion: A pragmatic approach. Argumentation, 6, 161–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesner, M., Hofstein, A., & Ben-Zvi, R. (1997). Student and teacher perceptions of industrial chemistry case studies. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 725–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1689–1716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting scientific literacy using a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching: Concept, examples, experiences. International Journal Environment Science Education, 4, 231–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2010). The development of a chemistry lesson plan on shower gels and musk fragrances following a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach – a project of participatory action research. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 11, 129–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, R., Bertram, S., & Eilks, I. (2008). Learning chemistry and beyond with a lesson plan on “potato crisps”, which follows a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry lessons – a case study. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 9, 267–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, R., Otten, J., & Eilks, I. (2010). Writing news spots about chemistry – a way to promote students’ competencies in communication and evaluation. School Science Review, 92(339), 99–108.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. A. (2010). Functional roles of science in socio-scientific discussions. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.), Contemporary science education – implications from science education research about orientations, strategies and assessment. Aachen: Shaker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. A. (2011). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43, 371–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. A. (2012a). Arguing from Nature: The role of ‘nature’ in students’ argumentations on a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 723–744.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. A. (2012b). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96, 428–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463–1488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Klostermann, M. L., & Topcu, M. S. (2011). Learning science content and socio-scientific reasoning through classroom explorations of climate change. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöström, J. (2013). Towards bildung-oriented chemistry education. Science and Education, 22, 1873–1890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (Eds.). (1994). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuckey, M., Lippel, M., & Eilks, I. (2012). Sweet chemistry: Learning about natural and artificial sweetening substances and advertising in chemistry lessons. Chemistry in Action, 36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuckey, M., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of ‘relevance’ in science education and its implications for the chemistry curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 34, 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Aalsvoort, J. (2004). Activity theory as a tool to address the problem of chemistry’s lack of relevance in secondary school chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1635–1651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yager, R. E., & Lutz, M. V. (1995). STS to enhance total curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany

    Ingo Eilks

  2. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Jan Alexis Nielsen

  3. Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

    Avi Hofstein

Authors
  1. Ingo Eilks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Alexis Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Avi Hofstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingo Eilks .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. EA 4148 S2HEP, University of Lyon 1, ENS-Lyon, University of Lyon, Villeurbanne Cedex, France

    Catherine Bruguière

  2. UMR ICAR, CNRS, UMR ICAR, CNRS, University of Lyon 2, ENS-Lyon, Lyon Cedex 07, France

    Andrée Tiberghien

  3. EA 4148 S2HEP, University of Lyon 1, ENS-Lyon, University of Lyon, Villeurbanne Cedex, France

    Pierre Clément

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eilks, I., Nielsen, J.A., Hofstein, A. (2014). Learning About the Role and Function of Science in Public Debate as an Essential Component of Scientific Literacy. In: Bruguière, C., Tiberghien, A., Clément, P. (eds) Topics and Trends in Current Science Education. Contributions from Science Education Research, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7281-6_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation