Introduction to the Special Issue on Courting Controversy: Socioscientific Issues and School Science and Technology

Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education - Tập 13 - Trang 303-312 - 2013
Virginie Albe1, Erminia Pedretti2
1Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan, Cachan, France
2Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, OISE, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Tóm tắt

This Special Issue of the Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education is aimed at extending the dialogue on socioscientific issues (SSIs) research, with an emphasis on the use of controversy in educational contexts. The emergence of research on SSIs can be understood in terms of: calls for renewal in science curriculum that set the stage for teaching scientific concepts and processes within a rich social, political, and ethical context; the development of a scientific and technical culture; a new alliance between science education and citizenship education; and increased interest in the use of argumentation in science education. Debates at the international level about deep changes in the modes of knowledge production; relationships across science, technology, society, and environment (STSE); and educational forms, contents, and aims have prompted the inclusion of issues and controversial topics in education. In our editorial we offer our thoughts on SSIs in school science and technology—in English (written by Erminia and Virginie) and in French (written by Virginie). Though the pieces were written independently emphasizing different aspects of SSIs, they also contain many overlapping ideas. We finish the editorial with a summary of the seven contributions to the Special Issue and hope that you enjoy the opportunity to engage with the arguments contained in the articles.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Bader, B. (2003). Interprétation d’une controverse scientifique: Stratégies argumentatives d’adolescentes et d’adolescents québécois. Revue canadienne de l’enseignement des sciences, des mathématiques et des technologies, 3, 231–250.

Bell, W. (1996). What do we mean by futures studies? In R. Slaughter (Ed.), New thinking for a new millennium (pp. 3–25). Hawthorn, Australia: DDM Media Group.

Bernard, M.-C. (2013). Intégration de questions socialement vives (QS) en cours de biologie par des enseignants et enseignantes du collégial et du lycée. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 386–399.

Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2013). Introducing high school biology students to argumentation about socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 356–372.

Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.

Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Alexandre, M.-P. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions. New York, NY: Springer.

Gallagher, J. J. (1971). A broader base for science teaching. Science Education, 55(3), 329–338.

Hare, W. (1973). Controversial issues and the teacher. The High School Journal, 57(2), 51–60.

Hingant, B., Chevrier, J., & Albe, V. (2013). Développement d’une séquence pédagogique sur les nanotechnologies documentée par une analyse de controverses. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 332–355.

Hodson, D. (2013). Don’t be nervous, don’t be flustered, don’t be scared. Be prepared. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 313–331.

Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341–368.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P., & Pereiro-Muñoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171–1190.

Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314–342.

Larochelle, M., & Desautels, J. (2001). Les enjeux des désaccords entre scientifiques: un aperçu de la construction discursive d’étudiants et étudiantes. Revue canadienne de l’enseignement des sciences, des mathématiques et des technologies, 1, 39–60.

Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94.

Leach, J., & Lewis, J. (2002). The role of students’ epistemological knowledge in the process of conceptual change in science. In M. Lim´on & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change. Issues in theory and practice. Dortrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1267–1287.

Lloyd, D., & Wallace, J. (2004). Imaging the future of science education: The case for making futures studies explicit in student learning. Studies in Science Education, 40(1), 139–177.

Mbazogue-Owono, L. (2013). Prévention du sida et aspects culturels du point de vue d’enseignantes et enseignants de sciences. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 400–414.

Molinatti, G. (2005, October). Préfiguration d’un protocole de débat lycéen sur des questions socio-scientifiques relatives au développement des neurosciences. Eléments d’analyse. Communication aux 4èmes journées de l’ARDIST, Lyon, France.

Nelkin, D. (1995). Science controversies: The dynamics of public disputes in the U.S. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Peterse., & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 444–456). London, England: Sage.

Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Delusions about evidence: On why scientific evidence should not be the main concern in socioscientific decision making. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 373–385.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.

Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. Journal of School Science and Mathematics, 99, 174–181.

Pedretti, E., & Bellomo, K. (2013). A time for change: Advocating for STSE education through professional learning communities. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 415–437.

Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95(4), 601–626.

Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182.

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, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualisations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387–410.

Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.

Schweizer, D. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2001, March). An investigation of student engagement in a global warming debate. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, St Louis, MO.

Simonneaux, L. (2003). Argumentation dans les débats en classe sur une technoscience controversée. Aster, 37, 189–214.

Stenhouse, L. (1970). Controversial value issues in the classroom. In W. G. Carr (Ed.), Values and the curriculum: Report of the Fourth International Curriculum Conference (pp. 103–115). Washington, DC: National Education Association Publications.

Yang, F.-Y. (2004). Exploring high school students’ use of theory and evidence in an everyday context: The role of scientific thinking in environmental science decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1345–1364.

Yang, F.-Y., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students’ preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 221–244.

Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M., & Howe, E. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.

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.

Thông tin
: []
Thông tin xuất bản

Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Tập 13

303-312

Thông tin tác giả