Science and Technology Education for Citizenship: The Potential Role of the Press

Science Education

Volumn 87, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 241-256

  Dimopoulos, Kostas ^a   Koulaidis, Vasilis ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE AEGEAN   (Greece)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037284429     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.10054     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. AAAS. (1993). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69, 453-475.
3. Aikenhead, G. S. (1990). Scientific/technological literacy, critical reasoning and classroom practice. In S. P. Norris, & L. M. Phillips (Eds.), Foundations of literacy policy in Canada (pp. 127-145). Calgary, AB, Canada: Detselig Enterprises.
4. Bader, R. (1990). How science news sections influence newspaper science coverage: A case study. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 88-96.
5. Bauer, H. H. (1994). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
6. Bauer, M., Durant, J., Ragnarsodottir, A., & Rudolphsdottir, A. (1995). Science and technology in the British press, 1946-1990. London: The Science Museum.
7. Bauer, M., (1995). Resistance to new technology and its effects on nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology. In M. Bauer (Ed.), Resistance to new technology (pp. 1-41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8. Bauer, M., Petkova, K., Boyadjieva, P., & Gornev, G. (2000). Modernization and Images of Science: Comparing Britain and Bulgaria 1946-1994. Paper presented in the 4S/EASST Conference "WORLDS in TRANSITION: Techno science, Citizenship and Culture in the 21st Century." Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Vienna.
9. Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 72, 185-201.
10. Buchman, M. (1995). The impact of resistance to biotechnology in Switzerland: A sociological view of a recent referendum. In M. Bauer (Ed.), Resistance to new technology (pp. 207-226). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11. Bybee, R. (1997). Toward an understanding of scientific literacy. In W. Graber, & C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacy (pp. 37-68). Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education (IPN).
12. Calhoun, C. (1992). Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Clayton, A., Hanckock-Beaulieu, M., & Meadows, J. (1993). Change and continuity in the reporting of science and technology: A study of the Times and The Guardian. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 225-234.
14. Cloitre, M., & Shinn, T. (1985). Expository practice: Social, cognitive and epistemological linkages. In M. Cloitre, & T. Shinn (Eds.), Expository science: Forms and functions of popularization (pp. 31-60). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing.
15. Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (1996). Science teachers' social conscience and the role of controversial issues in the teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 319-333.
16. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young peoples' images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
17. Eisniedel, E. (1992). Framing science and technology in the Canadian press. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 89-101.
18. Elliott, W., & Rosenberg, W. L. (1987). Media exposure and beliefs about science and technology. Communication Research, 14, 164-188.
19. Eurobarometer. (1993). Europeans, science and technology: Public understanding and attitudes. Brussels: European Coordination Office and Report International.
20. Evans, W. A., Krippendorf, M., Yoon, J. H., Posluszny, P., & Thomas, S. (1990). Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses. Social Science Quarterly, 71, 105-117.
21. Ezrahi, Y. (1990). The descent of Icarus: Science and the transformation of contemporary democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Fayard, P. (1991). The development of science reporting in European daily press. In K. Zerges, & W. Becker (Eds.), Science and the media - A European comparison. Berlin: Sigma.
23. Fensham, P. (1997). School science and its problems with scientific literacy. In R. Levinson, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Science today (pp. 119-136). London: Routledge.
24. Friedman, S. M., Villamil, K., Suriano, R. A., & Egolf, B. P. (1996). Alar and apples: Newspapers, risk and media responsibility. Public Understanding of Science, 5, 1-20.
25. Gamson, W., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37.
26. Gatlung, J., & Ruge, M. (1981). Structuring and selecting news. In S. Cohen, & J. Young (Eds.), The manufacture of news: Deviance, social problems and the mass media. London: Constable.
27. Gurevitch, M., & Levy, M. (1985). Mass communication review yearbook (Vol. 5, p. 185). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
28. Hansen, A., Cottle, S., Negrine, R., & Newbold, C. (1998). Mass communication research methods. London: Macmillan.
29. Hansen, A., & Dickinson, R. (1992). Science coverage in the British mass media: Media output and source input. Communications, 17, 365-366.
30. Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arena model. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 53-78.
31. Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407-416.
32. Hutton, N. (1996). Interactions between the formal UK school science curriculum and the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 5, 41-53.
33. Jenkins, E. (1992). School science education: Towards a reconstruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24,229-246.
34. Jenkins, E. (1997). Towards a functional public understanding of science. In R. Levinson, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Science today (pp. 137-150). London: Routledge.
35. Kepplinger, H. M. (1989). Kunstliche Horizonte. Folgen, Darstellung und Akzeptanz von Technik in der Bundesrepublik. Frankfurt, Germany: Campus.
36. Kepplinger, H. M. (1995). Individual and institutional impacts upon press coverage of sciences: The case of nuclear power and genetic engineering in Germany. In M. Bauer (Ed.), Resistance to new technology (pp. 357-378). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37. Kolstoe, S. D. (2000). Consensus projects: Teaching science for citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 645-664.
38. Kolstoe, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310.
39. Korpan, C. A., Bisanz, L. G., Bisanz, J., Lynch, M., & Boehme, C. (1997). What did you learn outside school today? Using structured interviews to document home and community activities related to science and technology. Science Education, 81, 651-662.
40. Kortland, K., & Lijnse, P. (1996). Decision-making on the waste issue: The classroom trial of a problem-posing teaching/learning process. In K. Calhoun, R. Panwar, & S. Shrum (Eds.), International organization for science and technology education, 8th symposium proceedings (Vol. 1, pp. 113-117). Edmonton, Canada: Continuing Professional Education.
41. Koulaidis, V., & Ogborn, J. (1994). Construction principles of science curricula: A proposal for integration. In V. Koulaidis (Ed.), Representations of the natural world (pp. 311-349). Athens, Greece: Gutenberg.
42. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
43. Levinson, R., & Turner, S. (2001). The teaching of social and ethical issues in the school curriculum, arising from developments in biomedical research: A research study of teachers. Final Report to The Wellome Trust by The Science and Technology Group. Institute of Education, University of London.
44. Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education. Nafferton: Studies in Education.
45. Lijnse, P. L., Eijkelhof, M. C., Klaasen, W. J. M., & Scholte, R. L. J. (1990). Pupils' and mass media ideas about radioactivity. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 67-78.
46. Long, M. (1995). Scientific explanation in US newspaper science stories. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 119-130.
47. Long, M., Steinke, J., Kalter, J., Schwaab, A., Savagian, A., Jaffer, N., Shim, J., & Wenzel, W. (1991). Explanation in newspaper science section news articles, Paper presented in the Conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication convention, Boston, MA.
48. Longino, H. (1983). Beyond bad science: Skeptical reflections on the value-freedom of scientific inquiry. Science, Technology and Human Values, 8, 7-17.
49. Mazur, A. (1981). Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies. Journal of Communication, 31, 106-115.
50. McGinnis, J. R., & Simmons, P. (1999). Teachers' perspectives of teaching science-technology-society in local cultures: A socio-cultural analysis. Science Education, 83, 179-211.
51. McLeod, J., Glynn, C., & Griffin, R. J. (1987). Communication and energy conservation. Journal of Environment Education, 18, 28-37.
52. Metcalfe, J., & Gascoigne, T. (1995). Science journalism in Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 411-428.
53. Millar, R. (1997). Science Education for democracy: What can the school curriculum achieve? In R. Levinson, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Science today (pp. 87-101). London: Routledge.
54. Miller, J. D. (2000). The public understanding of science and technology in the United States: A report to the National Science Foundation. Science and Technology Indicators. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
55. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College.
56. Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How press covers science and technology. New York: W. H. Freeman.
57. Newton, P. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
58. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 947-967.
59. Osborne, J., & Collins, S., (2000). Pupils' and parents' views of the school science curriculum. Study Funded by The Wellcome Trust. London: King's College.
60. Pellenchia, M. G. (1997). Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science, 6, 49-68.
61. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
62. Phillips L. M., & Norris, S. P. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the reader's world meets the world on paper. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 317-327.
63. Pifer, L. K. (1996). The development of young American adults' attitudes about the risks associated with nuclear power. Public Understanding of Science, 5, 135-155.
64. Ratcliffe, M. (1996). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues, within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 167-182.
65. Ratcliffe, M. (1999). Evaluation of abilities in interpreting media reports of scientific research. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1085-1099.
66. Stamm, K. R., Clark, F., & Eblacas, P. R. (2000). Mass communication and public understanding of environmental problems: The case of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 219-237.
67. Stempel, G. H. (1952). Sample size for classifying subject matter in dailies. Journalism Quarterly, 29, 333-334.
68. Thompson, J. B. (1995). The media and modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
69. Waarlo, A. J. (1997). Biology students forming and justifying of opinions on predictive genetic testing: Towards a practicable and effective teaching strategy. Paper presented at the First International Conference of the European Science Education Research Association, Rome.
70. Wang, H., & Schmidt, W. H. (2001). History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science in Science Education: Results from the third international mathematics and science study. Science and Education, 10, 51-70.
71. Zimmerman, C., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., Klein, J. S., & Klein, P. (2001). Science at the supermarket: A comparison of what appears in the popular press, experts' advice to readers, and what students want to know. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 37-58.