• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Science, citizens and schools: Opportunities and challenges

Posted on: Friday, 7 March 2003, 06:00 CST

Science, citizens and schools: Opportunities and challenges

Source: Scripps Howard

Science and the citizen. For educators and the public. R.T. Cross and P.J. Fensham (Eds.) Arena Publications, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia, 2000. ISBN 0646-40877-1.

This book comprises an edited collection of 17 papers published as a special issue of the journal Melbourne Studies in Education. The editors state that the book is, `an offering in the cause of promoting a more democratic society through citizens' appreciation of and ability to interact with science in our society.' (p.vi)

One of the strengths of the book is the diversity of authors. There are contributions from researchers with interests in the ways in which science and society interact, the impact of public science communication activities, and the role of formal science education in promoting `science for citizenship'. Other contributions are written by professional scientists, science 'translators' working in museums or broadcast media, and school teachers. Indeed the editors state that an aim of this book is,

`to bring together a range of views about the various problems confronting the enhancement of the public understanding of science, and the implications for school science.' (p.v)

Naturally, the nationalities of contributors reflect the Australian origins of the book. However, whilst just over half of those contributing are based in Australia, authors from the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, the Ukraine and the Netherlands are also included.

This range of backgrounds is reflected in the varied nature of the contributions. There are reports of empirical research studies into the impact of science communication activities, and scholarly analyses of a range of issues including the moral responsibility of the scientist, and the relationship between technology education and citizenship. Other contributions provide personal reflections following experiences in science communication activities. The editors have structured the book by grouping contributions into three themes, each framed by an editorial introduction: interactions between science and the citizen, issues for the schooling of science, and attempts to incorporate `science for citizenship' in school science.

CITIZENS INTERACTING WITH SCIENCE

These contributions examine situations in which science impacts on the citizen, either through the citizen's choice (e.g. engagement in a consensus conference, a visit to a travelling museum exhibit), or by necessity (e.g. an individual dealing with myalgic encephalopathy (ME) or chronic fatigue syndrome). Some of these contexts provide unproblematic opportunities for successful engagement. Astronomer Fred Watson reflects on the reasons why astronomy (`the charismatic science') has such instant appeal with large sections of the public. These include the accessibility and beauty of the night sky, and the mystery and excitement surrounding phenomena such as colliding galaxies, black holes and solar flares. Watson suggests that despite the fact that astronomy `has no core application other then the furtherance of knowledge' it has little difficulty maintaining public interest and support. Watson's account exemplifies an oft-neglected reason for learning science: science is a major achievement of human culture that has the capacity to fascinate and intrigue us.

Identifying some opportunities, but also problems, Aidan Davison and Renato Schibeci provide an interesting account of Australia's first `consensus conference'. Such conferences include a small panel of members of the public who examine the science underlying an issue of public concern and consider possible policy initiatives and their broader implications. This `lay panel' is able to request information from a range of experts in science and public policy. The Australian consensus conference focused on gene technology in the food chain, and aimed to provide 'a method of assisting citizens to participate in an informed way in the debate and forming public policy about complex and challenging issues' (p.52). On the positive side Davison and Schibeci show that members of the lay panel developed a sophisticated understanding of the science of genetically modified foods, and were able to question the experts very effectively. Furthermore,

`[the consensus conference] provides an opportunity for experts and policy-makers to understand that community concerns often dismissed as being founded on ignorance, fear of change and narrow self-interest are in fact, often highly reasoned and articulate.' (p.59)

Such an outcome can help to counter the 'deficit' model often associated with those concerned about the `public understanding of science': science communication as a unidirectional flow of information from active knowledge producer to passive knowledge receiver. Rather this outcome of the consensus conference supports a more 'interactive' model of what scientists and `the public' should know of each other's knowledge, concerns and aspirations (Layton et al., 1993). However, Davison and Schibeci recognise the tensions surrounding the desire for 'consensus' and the extent to which conferences of this kind actually enable citizens to influence the policymaking process. The paper includes comments from participants in an on-line electronic discussion forum following the conference. These indicate that consensus between the various participants was not reached. Furthermore, the only apparent commitment given by the Australian government on receiving the report was `to place a copy in the library'. This paper highlights the need for consideration of the precise aims of consensus conferences, and how the achievement of these aims might be evaluated. As Irwin (2001) suggests, in the context of developments in the biosciences more generally, consideration of these issues is important if such conferences are to be recognised by scientists, policy makers and the 'lay' public as supporting the engagement of citizens with science.

John Forge identifies another constraint on the engagement of citizens with science: the extent to which scientists believe that they have a `moral responsibility' to consider the outcomes of their work. Forge gives a thoughtful treatment of issues such as the meaning of responsibility, to whom scientists might be responsible and the distinction between moral and social responsibility. However, his account leaves open how such issues unravel within specific science settings. It would be interesting to know the reactions of a sample of professional scientists to the points made by Forge, related to the specific contexts of their work.

ISSUES FOR THE SCHOOLING OF SCIENCE

The second section of the book is concerned with the role school science education might have in developing people's abilities to engage with science as citizens. For example, Eugene Cordero describes findings from a study of school and university students' understanding of the relationships between ozone depletion, ultra- violet radiation and skin cancer. This is a subject of considerable relevance in Australia given the appearance of an `ozone hole' over Antarctica each spring. Cordero identifies misconceptions shown by many students, e.g., that the ozone hole is located over Australia, and suggests that these need to be tackled within school science. Nevertheless, Cordero does acknowledge that communicating the science effectively in schools will not lead necessarily to appropriate sun-protection behaviour. Indeed, Cordero's paper provides an example of misinformation about science resulting in desired behaviour. It appears that underlying the increase in the number of people adopting appropriate sun protection strategies in Australia is the misconception that the major cause of Australia's high incidence of skin cancer is recent ozone depletion (rather than excessive exposure to the sun, irrespective of the effects of ozone depletion, over an extended period of time).

Some of the contributions in this section read as passionate manifestos for school science to address the needs of the citizen, with little detail of how this might be done and limited consideration of the challenges faced in achieving such an aim. The more successful contributions provide a cautionary and considered approach towards the potential role of school science education in promoting `science for citizenship'. For example, Jeff Thomas provides a well-balanced and thoughtful analysis of the potential role of controversial science-based issues in the classroom. Using the contexts of `mad cow disease' (BSE) and genetically modified (GM) foods he first considers the media coverage and policy issues surrounding these issues, and then the role of school science. Thomas recognises the potential contribution of dealing with controversial science-based issues in the classroom, such as promoting skills of argumentation and exemplifying the varying reliability of scientific knowledge, particularly when science is applied to complex contexts outside of the laboratory. However, he also identifies some significant concerns. One outcome of public exposure to the uncertainties surrounding the BSE/GM food scares in the UK appears to have been a general scepticism and mistrust about what science can contribute in many subsequent debates,

Any such disillusionment stemming from immersion in public controversies might have intriguing implications if it were replicated in the classroom... if healthy scepticism became transformed into intellectual cynicism and disbelief amongst students, most teachers of science would see (surely with justification) the resultant marginalisation or rejection of science and scientific expertise as unhelpful. (p.142)

A further issue, not specifically addressed here, is the need to identify the desired endpoint, and learning outcomes, of the classroom treatment of controversial science-based issues. Should teachers aim for consensus, or is the aim for each student to establish a justified personal position? Also, for teachers and students well aware of the high status of test results in schools, to what extent can/should such learning outcomes be assessed?

Thomas also suggests that those who assume that classroom debates about GM food will be characterised by consideration of the underpinning science are likely to be disappointed. Such debates are also likely to involve issues of trust in scientific institutions and scepticism about the motives of politicians and commercial organisations, a finding supported by a recent classroom study of 16- year old students debating the link between leukaemia and power transmission lines (Kolstoe, 2001). This point is taken further by Ralph Levinson and colleagues who consider how the broader school curriculum beyond science might be used as a resource to support the treatment of controversial science-based issues. Commenting on a survey of how schools address developments in biomedical research across the curriculum (e.g., prenatal screening, HIV/AIDS, animal experiments) they point out that,

`Humanities teachers tend to deal with topical social issues, regardless of science content, because they see this as a way of making theoretical concepts, such as power, more relevant to the world outside of the classroom.' (p.115)

By contrast, many science teachers expressed concerns about what they saw as a tension between the treatment of `scientific facts' and the treatment of 'values' in the classroom. Discussions about values can be seen by teachers, and students (at least when in science classrooms) as `just talk', inappropriate within a science lesson. In a study not considered here, Donnelly (1999) describes a comparative study involving interviews with teachers of history and science, two subjects with a common emphasis on evidence and its interpretation. He reports similar disquiet amongst science teachers, with history teachers more likely to emphasise the importance of dealing with uncertainty in the classroom. Donnelly goes on to suggest that these distinctive positions are rooted in the different epistemic structures of these two disciplines: a position leading to some significant challenges for changes in this area.

DEVELOPING CURRICULA TO SUPPORT SCIENCE FOR CITIZENSHIP

The final section of the book describes several curriculum development projects that attempt to enact the broad principals associated with `science for citizenship', taking account of what Roderick Fawns in his introduction to this section terms `particulars of practice'. Two contributions focus on curriculum developments for students up to age 16. Barry Plant compares the existing National Curriculum for science in Victoria, Australia with an alternative curriculum that focuses on `the development of scientific and technological literacy', suitable for middle school students. Roger Cross and colleagues Veniamen Zatsepin and Ivan Gavrilenko describe curriculum reforms resulting from considerably more immediate, and local, circumstances: changes to the science curriculum in the Ukraine in the years following the disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in 1986. These curriculum reforms emphasised radiation security and the biological effect of irradiation. Their fascinating account illustrates the challenges of realising substantial countrywide change even in response to such pressing needs as those in the Ukraine.

The final two contributions to the book describe curriculum developments for older students. Harrie Eijkelhof and Mieke Kapteijn outline the Algemene Natuurwetenschappen (ANW) course; a compulsory course for all students aged 15-18 years in the Netherlands. The ANW course aims to teach the `main scientific ideas within a historic, philosophic and socioeconomic context' (p.190). The implementation of this course has been supported by an extensive teacher training programme. In a striking postscript the authors describe the considerable political and social upheaval caused by the introduction of this course, alongside other compulsory courses, resulting in revisions to the implementation of the ANW course. By contrast Robin Millar describes the rationale behind decisions taken during the development of an optional course for 16-18 year old students in England: `Science for Public Understanding' (SPU). In the SPU course the teaching of carefully specified `ideas about science' is interwoven with `science explanations' within a series of `teaching topics' such as `genetic diseases', `air quality' and `sources and effects of radiation'. There has been a great deal of deliberation amongst educators over the need for courses of this kind. The initiatives outlined in these two papers are important in that they provide much needed `working models' for the future development of such courses.

SCIENCE, CITIZENS AND SCHOOLS

Despite many policy statements advocating what might be called `science for citizenship' we have much to learn about the detail of what is involved in achieving such an aim. For example, within the context of schooling, what precisely might be taught within a course focused on science for citizenship, and why? What impact will the treatment of controversial science-based issues in the classroom have on teachers and students? How might professional development activities be designed to support teachers in developing new expertise? How will we know when science teaching for citizenship has been effective? How will an emphasis on citizenship articulate with other aims of science education, e.g., education for cultural purposes, or preparation for more specialised science courses possibly leading to professional science training? There is a need to move beyond broad policy statements, to consider how school science education might change from where it is now, to a science education reflecting 'citizenship' goals. This book provides a useful analysis of many of these issues. In particular, the most effective contributions demonstrate a healthy scepticism about what is feasible, both within and outside of schools, and recognise the challenges involved as well as considering how these might be overcome.

REFERENCES

DONNELLY, J. (1999) Interpreting differences: the educational aims of teachers of science and history, and their implications, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 17-41.

IRWIN, A. (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences, Public Understanding of Science, 10, 1- 18.

KOLSTO, S.D. (2001) `To trust or not to trust, ...- pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue, International Journal of Science Education, 23, 877901.

LAYTON, D., JENKINS, EM, MACGILL, S. AND DAVEY, A. (1993) Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education. Driffield, UK: Studies in Education Ltd.

JIM RYDER

University of Leeds, UK

Contact address:

Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education

School of Education

University of Leeds

Leeds

LS2 9JT UK

Copyright University of Leeds, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education 2002

----

The best of science, space, and technology from RedNova

More News in this Category