Tough acts to follow: The challenges to science teachers presented by biotechnological progress

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 717-733

  Bryce, Tom ^a   Gray, Donald ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3142671535     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0950069032000138833     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. BARTLETT, D. and PAYNE, S. (1997). Grounded theory-its basis, rationale and procedures. In G. McKenzie et al. (eds.) Understanding Social Research: Perspectives on Methodology and Practice (London: Falmer Press), chapter 13.
2. BRYCE, T. G. K. (1996). Towards the achievement of scientific capability. Scottish Educational Review, 28, 90-99.
3. COLUCCI, L., CAMINO, E. and PERAZONNE, A. (2000). Role playing in science: a tool for a nonviolent approach to environmental conflicts. Paper presented at the Third Conference of European Researchers in Didactics of Biology, ERIDOB 2000, University of Santiago de Compostela.
4. COOPER, P. and MCINTYRE, D. (1996). Effective Teaching and Learning: Teachers' and Students' Perspectives (Buckingham: Open University Press).
5. DUSCHL, R. A. and OSBORNE, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
6. EGGLESTON, J. (1996). Teaching Design and Technology, second edition (Buckingham: Open University Press).
7. FUNTOWICZ, S. and RAVETZ, J. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 739-755.
8. GEDDIS, A. (1991). Improving the quality of science classroom discourse on controversial issues. Science Education, 75(2), 169-183.
9. GILLIGAN, C. (1993). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
10. GRAY, D. S. and BRYCE, T. G. K. (2003). Challenging New Science: The Biotechnology Summer School, an Evaluation. Phase 1 Final Report (Glasgow: University of Strathclyde).
11. HCSTC (2002). Science Education from 14 to 19. Third Report of Session 2001-02, Volume 1 (London: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee).
12. HODSON, D. (1998). Teaching and Learning Science: Towards a Personalised Approach (Buckingham: Open University Press).
13. JENKINS, E. W. (2001). Research in science education in Europe: retrospect and prospect. In H. Behrendt et al. (eds.) Research in Science Education-Past, Present and Future (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers) (papers presented at the ESERA Conference, Kiel, 1999).
14. 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.
15. LEVINSON, R. and TURNER, S. (2001). Valuable Lessons. Engaging with the Social Context of Science in Schools. Recommendations and Summary of Research Findings (London: The Wellcome Trust).
16. LEVINSON, R., KOULOURIS, P. and TURNER, S. (2000). Constraints and challenges in teaching about the ethical dilemmas arising from developments in biomedical science. Paper presented at the BERA conference, Cardiff, 7 September.
17. MILLAR, R. and OSBORNE, J. (eds.) (1998). Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future (London: King's College).
18. MCCANN, W. S. (1997). Teaching about societal issues in science classrooms. ERIC Digest. Available online: URL: www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed432443.html (accessed 17 March 2004).
19. NEWTON, P., DRIVER, R. and OSBORNE, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
20. OSBORNE, J. (2002). Science without literacy: a ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203-208.
21. PATRONIS, T., POTARI, D. and SPILIOTOPOULOU, V. (1999). Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754.
22. RATCLIFFE, M. (1999). Evaluation of abilities in interpreting media reports of scientific research. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1085-1099.
23. REISS, M. (2000). Understanding Science Lessons (Buckingham: Open University Press).
24. RYDER, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1-44.
25. SATIS (1990, 1992). Science and Technology in Society 16-19 (London: Association for Science Education).
26. SCCC (1996a). Science Education in Scottish Schools: Looking to the Future (Dundee: Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum).
27. SCCC (1996b). Technology Education in Scottish Schools: a Statement of Position from SCCC (Dundee: Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum).
28. SILVERMAN, M. P. (1992). Raising questions: philosophical significance of controversy in science. Science and Education, 1(2), 163-179.
29. SIMONNEAUX, L. (2001). Role-play to debate to promote students' argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903-927.
30. SIRAJ-BLATCHFORD, J. (1996). Learning Technology, Science and Social Justice: An Integrated Approach for 3-13 Year Olds (Nottingham: Education Now Publishing Cooperative).
31. STRAND, R. (2000). Naivety in the molecular life science. Futures, 32, 451-470.
32. TYTLER, R., DUGGAN, S. and GOTT, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 815-832.
33. ZOHAR, A. and NEMET, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.