Key aspects of scientific competence for citizenship: A Delphi study of the expert community in Spain

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 52, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 164-198

  Blanco López, Ángel ^a   España Ramos, Enrique ^a   González García, Francisco José ^a   Franco Mariscal, Antonio Joaquín ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÁLAGA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Citizenship; Delphi method; Science education; Scientific competence

Indexed keywords

PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS;

CITIZENSHIP; DELPHI METHOD; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; SCIENCE COMMUNICATORS; SCIENCE EDUCATION; SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCES; SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION; SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS;

PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS;

EID: 84921514755     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21188     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Acevedo, J., Vázquez, A., Martín, M., Oliva, J. M., Acevedo, P., Paixao, F., & Manassero, M. (2005). Naturaleza de la ciencia y educación científica para la participación ciudadana. Una revisión crítica. Revista Eureka sobre Ensen¨anza yDivulgación de las Ciencias, 2(2), 121-140.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS 1989). Project 2061: Science for All Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS. Available on-line: http://wwwproject2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/sfaatoc.htm.
3. Banet, E. (2010). Finalidades de la educación científica en educacio´ee;n secundaria: Aportaciones de la investigacio´ee;n educativa y opinión de los profesores. Ensen¨anza de las Ciencias, 28(2), 199-214.
4. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Segev, E. (2011). Exploring new web-based tools to identify public interest in science. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 130-143.
5. Barker,M. A., Hipkins, R.,&Bartholomew, R. (2004). Reframing the Essential Skills: Implications For and From the Science Curriculum. (Report to Ministry of Education) University ofWaikato.
6. BBVA Foundation. (2012a). BBVA Foundation international study on scientific culture: General attitudes to science. Available on-line: http://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/culturacientificanotadeprensalarga. EN.pdf.
7. BBVAFoundation. (2012b).BBVAFoundation international study on scientific culture: Understanding of science.Available on-line: http://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/Understandingsciencenotalarga.pdf.
8. Besley, J. C. (2013). The state of public opinion research on attitudes and understanding of science and technology. Bulletin of Science, 33, (1-2), 12-20.
9. Blanco, A., Espan¨a, E., & González, F. J. (2010). Un proyecto de investigación para el fomento de la competencia científica en la educación obligatoria. In Quesada A. & Abril, A. (eds.), Actas de los XXIV Encuentros de Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales, (pp.729-735). Jaén (Spain): Universidad de Jaén.
10. Borchelt, R.,&Hudson, K. (2008). Engaging the scientific community with the public-communication as a dialogue, not a lecture. Science Progress, Spring-Summer, 78-81. Available on-line: http://scienceprogress.org/2008/04/engaging-the-scientific-community-with-the-public/.
11. Bulger, S.M. (2004). Modified Delphi Investigation of Exercise Science in Physical Education Teacher Education. Doctoral Thesis. Morgantown: USA.
12. Burns, T.W., O'Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S.M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, (2), 183-202.
13. Bybee, R.W. (1997). Towards an understanding of scientific literacy. InW. Graeber & C. Bolte (Eds.). Scientific literacy.Aninternational symposium. Kiel: Germany.
14. Bybee, R., McCrae, B.,&Laurie, R. (2009). PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865-883.
15. Carter, L. (2005). Globalisation and science education: Rethinking science education reforms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 561-580.
16. Carter, L. (2008). Globalisation and science education: The implications of science in the neweconomy. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 45(5), 617-633.
17. COSCE. (2011). Informe ENCIENDE. Ense~nanza de las Ciencias en la Didáctica Escolar paraedades tempranas en Espa~na. Madrid (Spain): COSCE.
18. DeBoer,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), 699-702.
19. DeBoer,G. (2011). The globalization of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (6), 567-591.
20. Dey, I. (2005). Qualitative data analysis. A user-friendly guide for social scientific. London: Taylor & Francis.
21. European Commission. (2010). Special Eurobarometer 340: Science and technology.Available on-line: http://ec.europa.eu/public-opinion/archives/ebs/ebs-340-en.pdf.
22. European Union (EU). (2006). Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 18 December, on key competences for lifelong learning. Brussels. Available on-line: http://eurlex. europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX: 32006H0962&from=EN.
23. Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168-185.
24. Fensham, P. (1985). Science for all: Areflective essay. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4), 415-435.
25. Fensham, P. (2007). Competences, from within and without: new challenges and possibilities for scientific literacy. In: C. Linder, L. Ostman, & P. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Uppsala, Sweden: Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium held at Uppsala University. pp 113-119.
26. Fensham, P. (2009). Real world contexts in PISA Science: Implications for context-based science education. Journal or Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 884-896.
27. Fensham, P. (2011). Globalization of science education: Comment and a commentary. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 48(6), 698-709.
28. Fensham, P., & Harlen, W. (1999). School science and public understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 755-763.
29. Fourez, G. (1997). Alfabetización científica y tecnológica. Acerca de las finalidades de la ense~nanza de las ciencias. Buenos Aires: Colihue.
30. Gil, D., & Vilches, A. (2005). The contribution of science and technological education to citizens' culture. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics andTechnology Education, 5(2), 85-96.
31. Hsu, C.,&Sandford, B. (2007). The Delphi technique: Make sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, 12(10), 1-8.
32. Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: Newminds for a changing world. Science Education, 82(3), 407-416.
33. Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science. London: Routledge.
34. Jenkins, E. W. (1994). Public understanding of science and science education for action. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(6), 601-611.
35. Kauertz, A., Neumann, K., & Haertig, H. (2012). Competence in Science Education. In: F. Barry K. Tobin& C. McRobbie (Ed.), Second International Handbook of Science Education. New York: Springer. pp 711-721.
36. Landeta, J. (1999). Elmétodo Delphi: una técnica de previsión del futuro. Barcelona (Spain): Ariel.
37. Laugksch, R. (2000). Scientific literacy: Aconceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94.
38. Lavine, S.,& Calabrese Barton, A. (2012). Should great lakes city build a new power plant? how youth navigate socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 49(5), 541-567.
39. Liu, X. (2009). Beyond science literacy: Science and the public. International Journal of Enviromental &Science Education., 4(3), 310-311.
40. Luna, P., Infante, A.,&Martínez, F. J. (2005). Delphi like as predictive methodological base for research of information systems and information technology (IS/IT). Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 26, 89-112.
41. Mallya, A., Mensah, F. M., Contento, I. R., Koch, P. A., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2012). Extending science beyond the classroom door: Learning from students' experiences with the Choice, Control and Change (C3) curriculum. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 49(2), 244-269.
42. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London.
43. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. 2007 Real Decreto 1631/2006, 29 diciembre, por el que se establecen las ense~nanzas mínimas correspondientes a la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria (BOE de 5 de enero).
44. Moore, F. M.,&Mallya, A. (2006). Diversity and social justice in curriculum materials: Student agency and teacher learning. Ann Arbor, MI: Presentation presented at the CCMS Knowledge Sharing Institute.
45. Murray, J. W. Jr., & Hammons, J. O. (1995). Delphi: A versatile methodology for conducting qualitative research. Reviewof Higher Education, 18, 423-436.
46. National Council for Social Studies (NCSS). (1983). Guidelines for Teaching Science-Related Social Issues. Social Education, April 1983, 258-261.
47. National Council for Social Studies (NCSS). (Eds. Health, P. and others) (1990). Teaching about Science, Technology, and Society in Social Studies: Education for Citizenship in the 21st Century. Social Education, 54(4), April-May 1990, 189-193.
48. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA 1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980 s. (AnNSTAposition statement).Washington, D.C.
49. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Achieve, Inc. on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS. Available on-line: www. nextgenscience.org/.
50. OECD. (2002). Definition and Selection of Competences (DeSeCo): theoretical and conceptual foundations.Available on-line: http://www.deseco.admin.ch/bfs/deseco/en/index/02.html.
51. OECD. (2005). Definition and Selection ofKey Competencies-Executive Summary.Available on-line: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf.
52. OECD.(2006). Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy.AFramework forPISA 2006 http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/assessing-scientific-reading-and-mathematicalliteracy-9789264026407-en.
53. OECD. (2009). PISA 2009 Assessment Framework. Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science.Available on-line: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/40/44455820.pdf.
54. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching critical thinking? New directions in science education. School Science Review, 352, 53-62.
55. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What "ideas-about-science" should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720.
56. Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C. , & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315-347.
57. Pérez-Gómez, A. I. (2008). ¿ Competencias o pensamiento práctico? La construcción de los significados de representación y de acción. En J. Gimeno (Comp.). Educar por competencias, qué hay de nuevo? Madrid (Spain): Morata.
58. Perrenoud, P. (2012). Cuando la escuela pretende preparar para la vida Desarrollar competencias o ense~nar otros saberes? Barcelona (Spain): Graó.
59. Post, A., Rannikmae, M., & Holbrook, J. (2011). Stakeholder views on attributes of scientific literacy important for future citizens and employees-a Delphi study. Science Education International, 22(3), 202-217.
60. Reid, D. J.,&Hodson, D. (1989). Science for all. London: Casell.
61. Roberts, D. A. (2007) Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 729-779). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Roth, W. M., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking Scientific Literacy. New York: Routledge Falmer.
63. Solomon, J. (1998). The science curricula of Europe and the notion of scientific culture. In Roberts, Douglas A., Ed. Ostman, Leif, Ed. Problems of Meaning in Science Curriculum (pp. 166-177). New York: Teacher College Press.
64. Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (1994). STS education: International perspectives of reform. New York: Teacher College Press.
65. Stahl, N. N., & Stahl, R. J. (1991). We can agree after all! Achieving consensus for a critical thinking component of a gifted program using the DelphiTechnique. Roeper Review, 14(2), 79-89.
66. Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J., &Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4-15.
67. Stockmayer, S., & Bryant, C. (2012). Science and the public-what should people know. International Journal of Science Education., 2(1), 81-101.
68. Tiana, A. (2011). Análisis de las competencias básicas como nucleo curricular en la educación obligatoria espa~nola. Bordón, 63(1), 63-75.
69. Wooden, R. (2006). The principles of public engagement: at the nexus of science, public policy influence, and citizen education. Social Research: AnInternational Quarterly, 73(3), 1057-1063.