Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education-a pedagogical justification and the state-of-the-art in Israel, Germany, and the USA

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 9, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1459-1483

  Hofstein, Avi ^a   Eilks, Ingo ^b   Bybee, Rodger ^c  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

^c Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Colorado Springs   (United States)

Author keywords

context based learning; relevance; science curriculum; scientific literacy for all; socioscientific issue; teaching and learning science

Indexed keywords

EID: 82755161899     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-010-9273-9     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Chemical Society (ACS) (1988). Chemistry in the community. Dubuque, IA: Kendall & Hunt.
3. Anderson, J. O., Chui, M.-H. & Yore, L. D. (2010). Special issue "First cycle on PISA (2000-2006)-international perspectives on successes and challenges: Research and policy directions". International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 373-609.
4. Appleton, K. & Kindt, T. (1999). How do beginning elementary teachers cope with science: Development of pedagogical content knowledge in science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Boston, MA.
5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6. Blonder, R., Kipnis, M., Mamlok-Naaman, R. & Hofstein, A. (2008). Increasing science teachers' ownership through adaptation of the PARSEL modules: A "bottom-up" approach. Science Education International, 19(3), 285-301.
7. Burton, G., Holman, J., Pilling, G. & Waddington, D. (1994). Salters advanced chemistry. York, UK: Heinemann.
8. Bybee, R. W. (Ed.). (1985). Science-technology-society, NSTA yearbook. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
9. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Toward an understanding of scientific literacy. In W. Gräber & C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacy-an international symposium (pp. 37-68). Kiel, Germany: IPN.
10. Bybee, R. W. & DeBoer, G. (1993). Goals for the science curriculum. In D. Gable (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 357-387). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
11. Bybee, R., Fensham, P. J. & Laurie, R. (2009). Special issue: Scientific literacy and contexts in PISA science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 861-960.
12. Cohen, D., Ben-Zvi, R., Hofstein, A. & Rahamimoff, R. (2004). On brain, medicines and drugs: A model for the "Science for All" program. The American Biology Teacher, 66(1), 9-19.
13. De Boer, G. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.
14. De Vos, W., Bulte, A. M. W. & Pilot, A. (2002). Chemistry curricula for general education: Analysis and elements of a design. In J. K. Gilbert, R. Justi, O. de Jong & J. van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 101-124). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
15. Eilks, I. (2000). Promoting scientific and technological literacy: Teaching biodiesel. Science Education International, 11(1), 16-21.
16. Eilks, I. (2002). Teaching 'biodiesel': A sociocritical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching, and students' first views on it. Chemistry Education: Research Practice, 3(1), 67-75.
17. Eilks, I., Marks, R. & Feierabend, T. (2008). Science education research to prepare future citizens-chemistry learning in a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Promoting successful science learning-the worth of science education research (pp. 75-86). Aachen, Germany: Shaker.
18. Eilks, I., Parchmann, I., Gräsel, C. & Ralle, B. (2004). Changing teachers' attitudes and professional skills by involving teachers into projects of curriculum innovation in Germany. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Quality in practice oriented research in science education (pp. 29-40). Aachen, Germany: Shaker.
19. Eilks, I. & Ralle, B. (2002). Participatory action research in chemical education. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Research in chemical education-what does this mean? (pp. 87-98). Aachen, Germany: Shaker.
20. Elmose, S. & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Allgemeinbildung: Readiness for living in a risk society. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(1), 11-34.
21. Feierabend, T. & Eilks, I. (2010). Raising students' perception of the relevance of science teaching and promoting communication and evaluation capabilities using authentic and controversial socio-scientific issues in the framework of climate change. Science Education International, 21(3), 176-196.
22. Fensham, P. J. (1988). Familiar but different: Some dilemmas and new direction in science education. In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 1-26). London: Falmer.
23. Fensham, P. J. (1993). Academic influence on school sciences. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(1), 53-64.
24. Fensham, P. J. (2009). Real world contexts in PISA science: Implications for context-based science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 884-896.
25. Fischer, H. E., Klemm, K., Leutner, D., Sumfleth, E., Tiemann, R. & Wirth, J. (2005). Framework for empirical research on science teaching and learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(4), 309-349.
26. Freise, G. (1994). Für einen politischen Unterricht von der Natur. Marburg, Germany: Soznat.
27. Geddis, A. N. & Roberts, D. A. (1998). As science students become science teachers: A perspective on learning orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(4), 271-292.
28. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of context in chemical education. International Journal of Science. Education, 28(9), 957-976.
29. Glenn, J. (2000). Before it's too late: A report to the nation from the national commission on mathematics and science teaching for the 21st century. Washington, DC: NCMST.
30. Goodman, J. (1988). Constructing a practical philosophy of teaching: A study of pre-service teachers' professional perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 121-137.
31. Gräber, W. (2002). Chemistry education's contribution to scientific literacy-an example. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Research in chemical education-what does this mean? (pp. 119-128). Aachen, Germany: Shaker.
32. Gräber, W. & Bolte, C. (Eds.). (1997). Scientific literacy-an international symposium. Kiel, Germany: IPN.
33. Gräber, W. & Lindner, M. (2008). The impact of the PARSEL way to teach science in Germany on interest, scientific literacy, and German national standards. Science Education International, 19(4), 267-274.
34. Harrison, C., Hofstein, A., Eylon, B.-S. & Simon, S. (2008). Evidence-based professional development of science teachers in two countries. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5), 577-591.
35. Hofstein, A. & Dori, J. Y. (2000). The development implementation and initial research findings of 'Science and Technology for All' in Israel. Paper presented at the international symposium on connecting communities through research in science and technology education for all: An international perspective. New Orleans, LA: NARST.
36. Hofstein, A. & Kempa, R. F. (1985). Motivating aspects in science education: An attempt at an analysis. European Journal of Science Education, 7(3), 221-229.
37. Hofstein, A. & Kesner, M. (2006). Industrial chemistry and school chemistry: Making chemistry studies more relevant. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1017-1039.
38. Hofstein, A., Mamlok, R. & Carmeli, M. (1997). Science teachers as curriculum developers of science for all. Science Education International, 8(1), 26-29.
39. Hofstein, A. & Yager, R. E. (1982). Social issues as organizers for science education in the 80's. School Science and Mathematics, 82(7), 539-547.
40. Holbrook, J. (1998). Operationalising scientific and technological literacy-a new approach to science teaching. Science Education International, 9(2), 13-18.
41. Holbrook, J. (2005). Making chemistry teaching relevant. Chemical Education International, 6 (1). Retrieved August 01, 2009, from the World Wide Web at http://old. iupac. org/publications/cei/vol6/06_Holbrook. pdf.
42. Holbrook, J. (2008). Introduction to the special issue of science education international devoted to PARSEL. Science Education International, 19(3), 257-266.
43. Holbrook, J. & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347-1362.
44. Holbrook, J., Rannikmäe, M. & Kask, K. (2008). Teaching the PARSEL way: Students' reactions to selected PARSEL modules. Science Education International, 19(3), 303-313.
45. Holman, J. (1986). Science and technology in society. General guide for teachers. Hatfield, UK: The Association for Science Education.
46. Hughes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific material in science-technology-society science curricula: Some implications for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 426-440.
47. Humboldt, W. v. (1793/2000). Theorie der Bildung des Menschen. English translation in I. Westbury, S. Hopmann & K. Riquarts (Eds.). Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 57-62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48. Jenkins, E. W. (2005). Important but not for me: Students' attitudes towards secondary school science in England. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(1), 41-57.
49. Kagan, S. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169.
50. Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10.
51. Kempa, R. F. (1983). Developing new perspectives in chemical education. Proceedings of the 7th international conference in chemistry, education, and society. Montpellier, France (pp. 34-42).
52. Kesner, M., Hofstein, A. & Ben-Zvi, R. (1997). Student and teacher perceptions of industrial chemistry case studies. International Journal of Science Education, 19(6), 725-738.
53. Klafki, W. (1958/2000b). Didaktik Analysis as the core for preparation of instruction. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 85-108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
54. Klafki, W. (2000). The significance of classical theories of Bildung for a contemporary concept of Allgemeinbildung. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 85-108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
55. KMK (2004). Bildungsstandards im Fach Chemie für den Mittleren Bildungsabschluss. München, Germany: Luchterhand.
56. Luft, J., Ortegaz, I. & Wong-Kavas, S. (2009). NSTA's state of science education survey. Washington, DC: NSTA.
57. Marks, R., Bertram, S. & Eilks, I. (2008). Learning chemistry and beyond with a lesson plan on potato crisps, which follows a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry lessons-a case study. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 9(3), 267-276.
58. Marks, R. & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting scientific literacy using a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching: Concept, examples, experiences. International Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 4(3), 231-245.
59. Marks, R. & Eilks, I. (2010). The development of a chemistry lesson plan on shower gels and musk fragrances following a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach-a project of participatory action research. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 11(2), 129-141.
60. McCann-Sherman, W. (1999). Teaching about societal issues in science classrooms. SE 99-6. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education.
61. Millar, R. (2009). On scientific literacy and curriculum reform. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(3), 201-213.
62. Millar, R. & Osborne, J. F. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London.
63. Morell, P. D. & Lederman, N. G. (1998). Students' attitudes toward school and classroom science: Are they independent phenomena? School Science and Mathematics, 98(2), 76-83.
64. National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
65. National Research Council (NRC) (2005). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
66. Nentwig, P., Parchmann, I., Gräsel, C., Ralle, B. & Demuth, R. (2007). Chemie im Kontext-a new approach to teaching chemistry; its principles and first evaluation data. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(9), 1439-1444.
67. Norris, S. P. & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its original sense is central to scientific literacy. Science & Education, 87(2), 224-240.
68. OECD (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy. Paris, France: OECD.
69. Osborne, J. F. (2003). Attitude towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.
70. Osborne, J. F. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 173-184.
71. Osborne, J. & Collins, J. (2001). Pupils' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-467.
72. Osborne, J. & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation.
73. Osborne, J., Driver, R. & Simon, S. (1998). Attitudes to science: Issues and concerns. School Science Review, 79(288), 27-33.
74. Ostermeier, C. & Prenzel, M. (2005). What can we learn from different forms of evaluation? Experiences from a quality-development program in science and mathematics instruction. In J. Benett, J. Holman, R. Millar & D. Waddington (Eds.), Evaluation as a tool for improving science education (pp. 145-158). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
75. Pederson, J. E. & Totten, S. (2001). Beliefs of science teachers towards teaching of science/technological/societal issues: Are we addressing national standards. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 21(5), 376-393.
76. Pedretti, E. G., 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(8-9), 941-960.
77. Pilot, A. & Bulte, A. M. W. (2006). Special issue: Context based chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 953-1112.
78. Roberts, D. A. (1988). What counts as science education. In P. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemma in science education. Barcecome, Lews, East Sussex, UK: Falmer Press.
79. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
80. Roth, W.-M. & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science & Education, 88(2), 263-291.
81. Rutherford, F. J. & Ahlgren, A. (1991). Science for all Americans: The project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
82. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
83. Sadler, T. D. (2008). Socioscientific issues in science education: Labels, reasoning, and transfer. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 04, 2008.
84. Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909-921.
85. Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi, R. & Hofstein, A. (2005). The importance of involving high school teachers in the process of identifying and defining the operational meaning of chemical literacy. International Journal of Science Education., 27(3), 323-344.
86. Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi-R & Hofstein, A. (2006). Chemical literacy: What does it mean to scientists and school teachers? Journal of Chemical Education, 83(10), 1557-1561.
87. Sjøberg, S. & Schreiner, C. (2006). How do learners in different cultures relate to science and technology? Results and perspectives from the project ROSE (the Relevance of Science Education). APFSLT: Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 7(1).
88. Solomon, J. & Aikenhead, G. (Eds.). (1994). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
89. Tomorrow 98 (1992). The report on reform in science education. Jerusalem, Israel: The Ministry of Education.
90. Tsaparlis, G. & Papapihotis, G. (2002). Classroom activity # 47: Brushing up on chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 79, 1168A-1168B.
91. van Aalsvoort, J. (2004a). Logical positivism as a tool to analyse problem of chemistry's lack of relevance in secondary school chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(9), 1151-1168.
92. van Aalsvoort, J. (2004b). Activity theory as a tool to address the problem of chemistry's lack of relevance in secondary school chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1635-1651.
93. Veal, W. R. & Hill, C. (2004). Beliefs and knowledge in chemistry teacher development. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 329-351.
94. Westbury, I., Hopmann, S. & Riquarts, K. (Eds.). (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice. The German Didaktik tradition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
95. Yager, R. E. & Lutz, M. V. (1995). STS to enhance total curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 95(1), 28-35.
96. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L. & Howes, E. V. (2005). A research based framework for socio-scientific issues education. Science & Education, 89(3), 357-377.