Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on

Science Education

Volumn 95, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 601-626

  Pedretti, Erminia ^a   Nazir, Joanne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958149372     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20435     Document Type: Article

References (197)

1. Abd el Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057-1095.
2. Aikenhead, G. S. (1991). Logical reasoning in science and technology. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Wiley.
3. Aikenhead, G. S. (1994). What is STS teaching? In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 47-59). New York: Teachers College Press.
4. Aikenhead, G. S. (1997). Toward a first nations cross-cultural science and technology curriculum. Science Education, 81(2), 217-238.
5. Aikenhead, G. S. (Ed.). (2000). Rekindling traditions: Cross-cultural science and technology units project. La Ronge, Saskatchewan, Canada: Northern Lights School Division, Teacher Resource Development.
6. Aikenhead, G. (2001). Integrating Western and Aboriginal sciences: Cross-cultural science teaching. Research in Science Education, 31(3), 337-355.
7. Aikenhead, G. S. (2003). STS education: A rose by any other name. In R. Cross (Ed.), A vision for science education: Responding to the work of Peter J. Fensham (pp. 59-75). New York: Routledge Press.
8. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
9. Aikenhead, G. S., & Fleming, R. W. (1975). Science: A way of knowing. Saskatoon, Canada: Curriculum Studies, University of Saskatchewan.
10. Allchin, D. (1999). Values in science: an educational perspective. Science & Education, 8, 1-12.
11. Allchin, D. (2004). Pseudohistory and pseudoscience. Science & Education, 13, 179-195.
12. Alsop, S. (Ed.). (2005). Beyond Cartesian dualism: Encountering affect in teaching and learning of science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
13. Alsop, S., & Pedretti, E. (2001). Science, technology and society. In S. Alsop & K. Hicks (Eds.), Teaching science: A handbook for primary and secondary school teachers (pp. 193-205). London: Kogan.
14. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
15. Anbusson, P., Fogwill, S., Barr, R., & Perkovic, L. (1997). What happens when students do simulation-role-play in science? Research in Science Education, 27(4), 565-579.
16. Apple, M. (2000). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. New York: Routledge Press.
17. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., & Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 719-756.
18. Barrett, S., & Pedretti, E. (2006). Conflicting orientations to science-technology-society-environment education. School Science and Mathematics, 106(5), 21-31.
19. Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2008). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
20. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377.
21. 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.
22. Bellomo, K. (2005). Exploring the nature of science: reinterpreting the Burgess Shale fossils. In S. Alsop, L. Bencze, & E. Pedretti (Eds.), Analyzing exemplary science teaching: Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of possibilities for practice (pp. 46-52). London: Open University Press.
23. Bencze, J. L. (2008). Private profit, science, and science education: critical problems and possibilities for action. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 8(4), 297-312.
24. Bencze, J. L. (2010a). Promoting student-led science and technology projects in elementary teacher education: Entry into core pedagogical practices through technological design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(1), 43-62.
25. Bencze, J. L. (2010b). Exposing and deposing hyper-economized school science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(2), 293-303.
26. Bennet, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91(3), 347-370.
27. Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78(2), 185-201.
28. Blumenfeld, P. C., Mergendoller, J. R., & Swarthout, D. W. (1987). Task as heuristic for understanding student learning and motivation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(2), 135-148.
29. Brown-Acquaye, H. A. (2001). Each is necessary and none is redundant: The need for science in developing countries. Science Education, 85(1), 68-70.
30. Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715-729.
31. Calabrese-Barton, A. (1998). Teaching science with homeless children: Pedagogy, representation and identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 379-394.
32. Calabrese-Barton, A. (2001). Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of praxis through critical ethnography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 899-917.
33. Calabrese-Barton, A. (2003a). Teaching science for social justice. New York: Teachers College Press.
34. Calabrese-Barton, A. (2003b). Kobe's story: Doing science as contested terrain. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(4), 533-552.
35. Carter, L. (2008). Sociocultural influences on science education: Innovation for contemporary times. Science Education, 92(1), 165-181.
36. Cassirer, E. (1951). Philosophy of the Enlightenment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37. Chazan, B. (1985). Contemporary approaches to moral education: Analyzing alternative theories. New York: Teachers' College Press.
38. Cheek, D. (2000). Marginalization of technology within the STS movement in American K-12 education. In D. D. Kumar & D. E. Chubin (Eds.), Science, technology and society a sourcebook in research and practice (pp. 167-192). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
39. Cheek, D. W. (1992). Thinking constructively about science, technology and society education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
40. Cho, J. (2002). The development of an alternative in-service programme for Korean science teachers with an emphasis on science-technology-society. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1021-1035.
41. Cobern, W. W. (Ed.). (1998). Socio-cultural perspectives on science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
42. Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2001). Defining "science" in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85(1), 50-67.
43. Costa, V. (1995). When science is "another world". Relationships between worlds of family, friends, school and science. Science Education, 79(3), 313-333.
44. Costa, V. (1999). How teacher and students study "all that matters" in high school chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 1005-1023.
45. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes, K-12: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum. Retrieved June 16, 2010, from
46. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47. Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (1992). Teaching science for social responsibility. Sydney, Australia: St. Louis Press.
48. 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 Education, 33(3), 319-333.
49. Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (2002). Teaching controversial science for social responsibility: The case of food production. In W. M. Roth & J. Desautels (Eds.), Science education for sociopolitical action (pp. 99-123). New York: Peter Lang.
50. Curry, P. (2006). Ecological ethics: An introduction. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
51. Cutcliffe, S. H. (1989). The emergence of STS as an academic field. In P. Durbin (Ed.), Research in philosophy and technology (Vol. 9, pp. 287-301). Greenwich, CO: JAI Press.
52. Davies, T., & Gilbert, J. (2003). Modelling: Promoting creativity while forging links between science education and design and technology education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3(1), 67-82.
53. Dawson, V. (2001). Tackling controversial issues in science. Perth, Australia: Murdoch University.
54. DeBoer, G. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
55. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
56. Dillon, J. (2002). Perspectives on environmental education-related research in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1111-1117.
57. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
58. Durbin, P. T. (1991). Defining STS: Can we reach consensus? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 11, 187-190.
59. Duschl, R. A. (2004). Relating history of science to learning and teaching science: Using and abusing. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and the nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning and teacher education (pp. 319-330). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
60. Duveen, J., & Solomon, J. (1994). The great evolution trial: Use of role play in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 575-582.
61. Eijkelhof, H. M. C., & Kortland, K. (1988). Broadening the aims of physics education. In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 282-305). New York: Falmer Press.
62. Eijkelhof, H. M. C., Kortland, K., & Lijnse, P. L. (1996). STS through physics and environmental education in the Netherlands. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/society as reform in science education (pp. 249-260). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
63. Fensham, P. J. (1988a). Approaches to the teaching of STS in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 346-356.
64. Fensham, P. J. (Ed.) (1988b). Developments and dilemmas in science education. New York: Falmer Press.
65. Fensham, P. J. (1988c). Familiar but different: Some dilemmas and new directions in science education. In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Developments and dilemmas in science education (pp. 1-26). New York: Falmer Press.
66. Fensham, P. J., & Corrigan, D. (1994). The implementation of an STS chemistry course in Australia: A research perspective. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 194-204). New York: Teachers College Press.
67. Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socioscientific issues, Part I: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 677-688.
68. Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socioscientific issues, Part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689-698.
69. Ford, D. C., & Varney, H. L. (1989). How students see scientists: Mostly male, mostly White and mostly benevolent. Science and Children, 26(8), 8-16.
70. Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science and real-world problem-solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855-879.
71. Fuglsang, L. (2001). Three perspectives in STS in the policy context. In S. H. Cutcliffe & C. Mitcham (Eds.), Visions of STS: Counterpoints in science, technology, and science studies (pp. 35-50). Albany: State University of New York Press.
72. Gallagher, J. J. (1971). A broader base for science teaching. Science Education, 55(3), 329-338.
73. Gardner, P. L. (1999). The representation of science-technology relationships in Canadian physics textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 329-347.
74. Geddis, A. N. (1991). Improving the quality of science classroom discourse on controversial issues. Science Education, 75(2), 169-183.
75. Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women's conceptions of self and morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 481-517.
76. Gil-Peréz, D., Vilches, A., Fernández, I., Cachapuz, A., Praia, J., Valdes, P., & Salinas, J. (2005). Technology as "applied science": A serious misconception that reinforces distorted and impoverished views of science. Science & Education, 14, 309-320.
77. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
78. Gough, A. (2002). Mutualism: A different agenda for environmental and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1201-1215.
79. Gruenewald, D. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3-12.
80. Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests (J. Shapiro, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
81. Hart, P. (2002). Environment in the science curriculum: The politics of change in the Pan-Canadian science curriculum development. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1239-1254.
82. Hart, P., Jickling, B., & Kool, R. (1999). Starting points: Questions of quality in environmental education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 4, 104-124.
83. Hackett, E. J. (2000). Trends and opportunities in science and technology studies: A view from the National Science Foundation. In D. D. Kumar & D. E. Chubin (Eds.), Science, technology, and society: A sourcebook on research and practice (pp. 277-291). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
84. Hodson, D. (1993). In search of a rationale for multicultural science education. Science Education, 77(6), 685-711.
85. Hodson, D. (1998a). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
86. Hodson, D. (1998b). Science fiction: The continuing misrepresentation of science in the school curriculum. Curriculum Studies, 6(2), 191-216.
87. Hodson, D. (1999). Going beyond cultural pluralism: Science education for socio-political action. Science Education, 83(6), 775-796.
88. Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.
89. Hughes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific material in science-technology-society science curricula: Some implication for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 426-440.
90. Hunt, J. A. (1988). SATIS approaches to STS. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 409-420.
91. Hurd, P. D. (1975). Science, technology and society: New goals for interdisciplinary science teaching. The Science Teacher, 42(2), 27-30.
92. Hurd, P. D. (1986). Perspectives for the reform of science education. Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 353-358.
93. Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5-26.
94. Jacobson, B., & Wickman, P. O. (2008). The roles of aesthetic experiences in elementary school science. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 45-65.
95. Jegede, O. J., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1999). Transcending cultural borders: Implications for science teaching. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(1), 45-66.
96. Jenkins, E. (1989). Why the history of science? In M. Shortland & A. Warwick (Eds.), Teaching the history of science (pp. 19-29). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
97. Jenkins, E. (1994). Public understanding of science and science education for action. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(6), 601-611.
98. Jenkins, E. (1999). School science, citizenship and the public understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 703-710.
99. Jenkins, E. (2000). "Science for all": Time for a paradigm shift? In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 207-226). Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
100. Jickling, B. (2003). Environmental education and environmental advocacy: revisited. Journal of Environmental Education, 34(2), 20-27.
101. Kettle, K. (2005). Science with a human touch: Historical vignettes in the teaching and learning of science. In S. Alsop, L. Bencze, & E. Pedretti (Eds.), Analyzing exemplary science teaching: Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of possibilities for practice (pp. 38-45). London: Open University Press.
102. Kipnis, N. (2001). Scientific controversies in teaching science: The case of Volta. Science & Education, 10, 33-49.
103. Klopfer, L. E., & Cooley, W. W. (1963). "The History of Science Cases" for high school in the development of student understanding of science and scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 33-47.
104. Kohlberg, L. (Ed.). (1983). The psychology of moral development. San Francisco: Harper Row.
105. Kolsto, S. D. (2008). Science education for democratic citizenship through the use of the history of science. Science & Education, 17, 977-997.
106. Kumar, D. D., & Chubin, D. E. (Eds.). (2000). Science, technology, and society: A sourcebook on research and practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
107. Lawson, A. E. (2002). What does Galileo's discovery of Jupiter's moons tell us about the process of scientific discovery? Science & Education, 11, 1-24.
108. Layton, D. (1988). Revaluing the T in STS. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 367-378.
109. Layton, D. (1993). Technology's challenge to science education: Cathedral, quarry or company store? Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
110. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
111. 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.
112. Lynch, J. (1986). Multicultural education: Principles and practice. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
113. Matthews, R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
114. Mbajiorgu, N. M., & Ali, A. (2003). Relationship between STS approach, scientific literacy, and achievement in biology. Science Education, 87(1), 31-39.
115. McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 53-70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
116. McConnell, M. C. (1982). Teaching about science, technology and society at the secondary school level in the United States: An education dilemma for the 1980s. Studies in Science Education, 9(1), 1-32.
117. McKinley, E. (1996). Towards an indigenous science curriculum. Research in Science Education, 26(2), 155-167.
118. Millar, R. (1996). Towards a science curriculum for public understanding. School Science Review, 77(280), 7-18.
119. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000. Science education for the future. London: Nuffield Foundation.
120. Miller, J. P. (2007). The holistic curriculum (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
121. Ministry of Education (1992). Tomorrow, 98. Report of the Committee on Science, Mathematics and Technology. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Education.
122. Nagasu, N., & Kumano, Y. (1996). STS initiatives in Japan: Poised for a forward leap. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/society as reform in science education (pp. 261-270). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
123. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
124. National Science Teachers Association (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s (NSTA Position Statement). Washington, DC: Author.
125. Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people: A caring alternative to character education. New York: Teachers College Press.
126. Ogawa, M. (1995). Science education in a multiscience perspective. Science Education, 79(5), 583-593.
127. Ontario Ministry of Education (2007). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 1-8. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
128. Ontario Ministry of Education (2008a). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 9-10. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
129. Ontario Ministry of Education (2008b). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 11-12. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
130. Osborne, J., Eduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science, 41(10), 994-1020.
131. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
132. Pedretti, E. (1997). Septic tank crisis: A case study of action research in science, technology and society education in an elementary school. International Journal of Science Education, 19(10), 1211-1230.
133. Pedretti, E. (2003). Teaching science, technology, society and environment (STSE) education: Preservice teachers' philosophical and pedagogical landscapes. In D. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socio-scientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 219-240). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
134. Pedretti, E. (2005). STSE education: Principles and practices. In S. Alsop, L. Bencze, & E. Pedretti (Eds.), Analyzing exemplary science teaching: Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of possibilities for practice (pp. 116-126). London: Open University Press.
135. Pedretti, E., Bencze, L., Hewitt, J., Romkey, L., & Jivraj, A. (2008). Promoting issues-based STSE perspectives in science teacher education: Problems of identity and ideology. Science & Education 17, 941-960.
136. Piel, E. J. (1981). Interaction of science, technology, and society in secondary school. In C. Harms & R. E. Yager (Eds.), What research says to the science teacher (Vol. 3, pp. 94-112). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
137. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167-199.
138. Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182.
139. Reiss, M. (1993). Science education for a pluralist society. Buckingham, PA: Open University Press.
140. Reiss, M. (2006). Teacher education and the new biology. Teaching Education, 17(2), 121-131.
141. Reiss, M. (2007). What should be the aim(s) of school science education? In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in science education (pp. 13-28). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.
142. Reiss, M. (2008). The use of ethical frameworks by students following a new science course for 16-18 year olds. Science & Education, 17, 889-902.
143. Reiss, M. J. (1999). Teaching ethics in science. Studies in Science Education, 34(1), 115-140.
144. Rip, A. (1978). The social context of science, technology, and society courses in the universities. In E. Boeker & M. Gibbons (Eds.), Science, society and education (pp. 135-152). Amsterdam: Vrie Universiteit.
145. Roberts, D. A. (1983). Scientific literacy. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Science Council of Canada.
146. Roberts, D. A., & Ostman, L. (Eds.). (1998). Problems of meaning in science curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
147. Roth, M., & Désautels, J. (Eds.). (2002). Science education as/for sociopolitical action. New York: Peter Lang.
148. Roth, M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88(2), 263-291.
149. Roth, W. M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768-790.
150. Roth, W. M., & Calabrese-Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
151. Roth, W. M., McGinn, M., & Bowen, G. (1996). Applications of science and technology studies: Effecting change in science education. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21(4), 454-484.
152. Rubba, P. A., & Wiesenmayer, R. L. (1985). A goal structure for precollege STS education: A proposal based upon recent literature in environmental education. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 5, 573-580.
153. Rudduck, J. (1986). A strategy for handling controversial issues in the secondary school. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Controversial issues in the curriculum (pp. 6-18). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
154. Russell, C., Bell, A., & Fawcett, L. (2000). Navigating the waters of Canadian environmental education. In T. Goldstein & D. Selby (Eds.), Weaving connections, educating for peace, social and environmental justice (pp. 196-217). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Sumach Press.
155. Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
156. Sadler, P. M., Coyle, H. P., & Swartz, M. (2000). Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: Key elements in developing effective design challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 299-327.
157. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio-scientific issues. Journal of Moral Education, 33(3), 339-358.
158. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-191.
159. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: the effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488.
160. Sauvé, L. (1996). Environmental education and sustainable development: A further appraisal. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 1, 7-34.
161. Sauvé, L. (2005). Currents in environmental education: Mapping a complex and evolving pedagogical field. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 11-37.
162. Savery, J. R. & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135-148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
163. Selin, H. (1992). Science across cultures: An annotated bibliography of books on nonwestern science, technology and medicine. New York: Garland Press.
164. Seroglou, F., & Koumaras, P.C. (2001). The contribution of history of physics in physics education. Science & Education, 10, 153-172.
165. Sharkawy, A. (2006). An inquiry into the use of stories about scientists from diverse sociocultural backgrounds in broadening grade one students images of science and scientists. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
166. Siegel, H. (2002). Multiculturalism, universalism, and science education: In search of common ground. Science Education, 86(6), 803-820.
167. Smith, G. A. (2007). Place-based education: Breaking through the constraining regularities of public school. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 189-207.
168. Snively, G., & Corsiglia, J. (2001). Discovering indigenous science: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85(1), 6-34.
169. Solomon, J. (1983). Science in a social context (SISCON)-in-schools. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
170. Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupils' understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 14(1), 63-82.
171. Solomon, J. (1988). The dilemma of science, technology and society education. In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 266-281). New York: Falmer Press.
172. Solomon, J. (1993). Teaching science, technology and society. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
173. Solomon, J. (1996). STS in Britain: Science in a social context. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/society as reform in science education (pp. 241-248). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
174. Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. S. (Eds.). (1994). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
175. Spier, R. E. (Ed.). (2002). Science and technology ethics. London: Routledge.
176. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
177. Sutherland, D. (2005). Resiliency and collateral learning in science in some students of Cree ancestry. Science Education, 89(4), 595-613.
178. Tippins, D., Mueller, M., & van Eijck, M. (Eds.). (2010). Cultural studies and environmentalism: The confluence of ecojustice, place-based (science) education, and indigenous knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
179. Tsai, C. C. (2000). The effects of STS-oriented instruction on female tenth graders' cognitive structure outcomes and the role of student scientific epistemological beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 22(10), 1099-1115.
180. Venville, G., Rennie, L., & Wallace, J. (2003). Student understanding and application of science concepts in the context of an integrated curriculum setting. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(4), 449-475.
181. Wandersee, J. H. (1990). On the value and use of the history of science in teaching today's science: Constructing historical vignettes. In D. E. Hergel (Ed.), More history and philosophy of science in science teaching (pp. 277-283). Tallahassee: Florida State University.
182. Wellington, J. (1993). Using newspapers in science education. School Science Review, 74(268), 47-50.
183. Wellington, J. (2001). What is science education for? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(1), 23-28.
184. Yager, R. E. (1996a). History of science/technology/society as reform in the United States. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/society as reform in science education (pp. 3-15). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
185. Yager, R. E. (Ed.) (1996b). Science/technology/society as reform in science education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
186. Yager, R. E., & Tamir, P. (1993). STS approach: Reasons, intentions, accomplishments and outcomes. Science Education, 77(6), 637-658.
187. Yoon, S. (2005). Motivating the unmotivated: relevance and empowerment through a town hall debate. In S. Alsop, L. Bencze, & E. Pedretti (Eds.), Analyzing exemplary science teaching: Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of possibilities for practice (pp. 53-62). London: Open University Press.
188. Zeidler, D. L. & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning in socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7-38). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
189. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, T., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101.
190. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Berson, M. J., & Fogelman, A. L. (2002). Bad science and its social implications. The Educational Forum, 66(2), 134-146.
191. 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.
192. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367.
193. Ziman, J. (1980). Teaching and learning about science and society. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
194. Ziman, J. (1994). The rationale for STS is in the approach. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 21-31). New York: Teachers College Press.
195. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.
196. Zoller, U. (1987). Problem-solving and decision-making in science-technology-environment-society (STES) education. In K. Riqarts (Ed.), Science and technology education and the quality of life (Vol. 2, pp. 562-69). Kiel, Germany: IPN.
197. Zoller, U. (1991). Teaching/learning styles, performance, and students' teaching evaluation in S/T/E/S-focused science teacher education: A quasi-quantitative probe of a case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(7), 593-607.