Science Education: Educating the Citizens of the Future



Science education has a role in developing thinking skills and approaches to reasoning and evidence on the part of students who will be citizens of the future. These skills include tolerance for, and the ability to function within, environments characterised by complexity and ambiguity. Science education can also help to develop a more global vision of citizenship. Many of the challenges facing citizens have a scientific dimension, and efforts to address these challenges have a long history in science education. This chapter outlines issues and approaches and some preliminary results, and suggests some future directions for teaching and research.


  1. Altemeyer, B. (2006). The Authoritarians (PDF). Winnipeg: University of Manitoba. OCLC 191061772.Google Scholar
  2. Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1996). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 2, pp. 951–983). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40–47.Google Scholar
  4. Biggiero, L. (2001). Sources of complexity in human systems. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 5(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter, L. (2005). Globalisation and science education: Rethinking science education reforms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Case, R. (1991). The anatomy of curricular integration. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de l’Education, 16(2), 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corbett, D., & Wilson, B. (1995). Make a difference with, not for, students: A plea to researchers and reformers. Educational Researcher, 24(5), 12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies, I. (2004). Science and citizenship education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1751–1763. doi: 10.1080/0950069042000230785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feyerabend, P. K. (1999). In B. Terpstra (Ed.), Conquest of abundance: a tale of abstraction versus the richness of being. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Geelan, D. (2003). The death of theory in educational research. In Proceedings of the First Conference on Complexity Science and Educational Research (pp. 169–185).Google Scholar
  11. Geelan, D. (2009). Science education for global citizenship. Curriculum Leadership, 7(36).Google Scholar
  12. Geelan, D. (2010). Science, technology, and understanding. Citizenship Across the Curriculum, 147.Google Scholar
  13. Geelan, D. R., & Fan, X. (2014). Teachers using interactive simulations to scaffold inquiry instruction in physical science education. In Science teachers’ use of visual representations (pp. 249–270). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Gibson, William. (1984). Neuromancer. New York: Ace Books.Google Scholar
  15. Goldman, E., & Schroth, W. S. (2012). Perspective: Deconstructing integration: A framework for the rational application of integration as a guiding curricular strategy. Academic Medicine, 87(6), 729–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gowlett, C., Keddie, A., Mills, M., Renshaw, P., Christie, P., Geelan, D., et al. (2015). Using Butler to understand the multiplicity and variability of policy reception. Journal of Education Policy, 30(2), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haack, S. (2011). Defending science—within reason: Between scientism and cynicism. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  18. Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
  19. Hirschkorn, M., & Geelan, D. (2008). Bridging the research-practice gap: Research translation and/or research transformation. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  20. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jenkins, E. W. (1999). School science, citizenship and the public understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 703–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lim, C. P. (2008). Global citizenship education, school curriculum and games: Learning mathematics, english and science as a global citizen. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1073–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loucks-Horsley, D., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1988). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  26. McFarlane, D. A. (2013). Understanding the challenges of science education in the 21st century: New opportunities for scientific literacy. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 4(1), 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maeda, J. (2013). STEM + Art = STEAM. The STEAM Journal, 1(1), 34.Google Scholar
  28. Mannion, G., Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Ross, H. (2011). The global dimension in education and education for global citizenship: Genealogy and critique. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morris, R. C. (2003). A guide to curricular integration. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 39(4), 164–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pedretti, E. (2013). Teaching science, technology, society and environment (STSE) education. The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 219–239). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. London: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  32. Roberts, D. A. (1995). Building companion meanings into school science programs: Keeping the logic straight about curriculum emphases. Nordisk Pedagogik (Journal of Nordic Educational Research), 15(2), 108–124.Google Scholar
  33. Roth, W-M. (2014). STEM Curriculum through the Eyes of the Learner: The unseen and therefore unforeseen. Keynote presentation, STEM Conference 2014, July 12–15, 2004, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, D. G. (1999). Pedagon: Interdisciplinary essays in the human sciences, pedagogy, and culture. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  35. Solomon, J. (1993). Teaching science, technology and society. Developing science and technology series. Briston, PA: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  36. Sterling, B. (1996). Holy Fire. New York: Bantam Spectra.Google Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Griffith UniversitySouthport QueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations