Why we should prioritize learning about science

Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 293-311

  Hodson, Derek ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011438619     PISSN: 14926156     EISSN: 19424051     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14926150609556703     Document Type: Article

References (112)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socioscientific issues in pre-college science classrooms. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 41-61). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.
3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Lederman, N.G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417-436.
4. 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. Calgary, AB: Detselig.
5. Aikenhead, G.S. (2005). Research into STS science education. Educacion Quimica, 16(30), 384-397.
6. Allchin, D. (2003). Scientific myth-conceptions. Science Education, 87(3), 329-351.
7. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans (A Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology). Washington, DC: Author.
8. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Anderson, C.W. (1999). Inscriptions and science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 973-974.
10. Arons, A.B. (1983). Achieving wider scientific literacy. Daedalus, 112(2), 91-122.
11. Asimov, I. (1983). Popularizing science. Nature, 306(5939), 119.
12. Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching pupils “ideas-about-science”: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88, 655-682.
13. Bell, R.L. (2003). Exploring the role of NOS understandings in decision-making. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 63-79). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
14. 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, 352-377.
15. Bowers, C.A. (1996). The cultural dimensions of ecological literacy. Journal of Environmental Education, 27(2), 5-11.
16. Bowers, C.A. (1999). Changing the dominant cultural perspective in education. In G.A. Smith & D.R. Williams (Eds.), Ecological education in action: On weaving education, culture and the environment (pp. 161-178). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. CHECK.
17. Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 715-729.
18. Canada, Council of Ministers of Education. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes. Toronto: Author.
19. Chen, D., & Novik, R. (1984). Scientific and technological education in an information society. Science Education, 68(4), 421-426.
20. Chin, C., & Chia, L.-G. (2004). Problem-based learning: Using students’ questions to drive knowledge production. Science Education, 88(5), 7070-727.
21. Chinn, C.A., & Brewer, W.F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623-654.
22. Clay, J. (1996). Scientific literacy: Whose science? Whose literacy? In D. Baker, J. Clay, & C. Fox (Eds.), Challenging ways of knowing: In English, mathematics and science (pp. 184-193). Lewes, UK: Falmer Press.
23. Davies, I. (2004). Science and citizenship education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1751-1763.
24. DeBoer, G.E. (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.
25. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(2), 287-312.
26. Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? Hnternational Journal of Science Education, 24(1), 661-679.
27. Duschl, R.A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
28. Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., & Marion, S.F. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A re-examination. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 261-295.
29. Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systematic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335-347.
30. Fourez, G. (1997). Scientific and technological literacy as social practice. Social Studies of Science, 27, 903-936.
31. Fuller, S. (1988). Social epistemology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
32. Galbraith, P.L., Carss, M.C., Grice, R.D., Endean, L., & Warry, M. (1997). Towards scientific literacy for the third millennium: A view from Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 447-467.
33. Gamamikow, E., & Green, A. (2000). Citizenship, education and social capital. In D. Lawton, J. Cairns, & R. Gardner (Eds.), Education for citizenship. London: Continuum. '
34. Geddis, A.N. (1991). Improving the quality of classroom discourse on controversial issues.Science Education, 75, 169-183.
35. Government of Canada. (1991). Prosperity through competitiveness. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
36. Gräber, W., & Bolte, C. (Eds.). (1997). Scientific literacy: An international symposium. Kiel, Germany: Institut fur die Pädagogik der Naturwiseenschaften (IPN) an der Universität Kiel.
37. Hodson, D. (1992). In search of a meaningful relationship: An exploration of some issues relating to integration in science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 541-562.
38. Hodson, D. (1994). Seeking directions for change: The personalisation and politicisation of science education. Curriculum Studies, 2(1), 71-98.
39. Hodson, D. (1998). Science fiction: The continuing misrepresentation of science in the school curriculum. Curriculum Studies, 6(2), 191-216.
40. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645-670.
41. Hurd, P.D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16(1), 13-16.
42. Hurd, P.D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82(5), 407-416.
43. Jenkins, E. (1990). Scientific literacy and school science education. School Science Review, 77(256), 43-51.
44. Jenkins, E.W. (1994). Scientific literacy. In T. Husen & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopaedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 9; pp. 5345-5350). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
45. Jenkins, E.W. (1996). Scientific literacy: A functional construct. In D. Baker, J. Clay, & C. Fox (Eds.), Challenging ways of knowing: In English, mathematics and science (pp. 43-51). Lewes, United Kingdom: Falmer Press.
46. Kolsto, S.D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310.
47. Knorr-Cetina, K.D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
48. Krugly-Smolska, E.T. (1990). Scientific literacy in developed and developing countries. International Journal of Science Education, 12(5), 473-480.
49. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50. Laugksch, R.C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94.
51. LeCorbeiller, P. (1959). Education in science: Prerequisite for national survival. Daedalus, 88(1), 170-174.
52. 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, 331-359.
53. Lederman, N. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, J6(8), 916-929.
54. Lederman, N.G., Schwartz, R.S., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Bell, R.L. (2001). Pre-service teachers’ understanding and teaching of nature of science: An intervention study. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(2), 135-160.
55. Lee, H.-S., & Songer, N.B. (2003). Making science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923-948.
56. Levinson, R. (2001). Should controversial issues in science be taught through the humanities? School Science Review, 52(300), 97-102.
57. Levinson, R. (2004). Teaching bioethics in science: Crossing a bridge too far? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(3), 353-369.
58. Longbottom, J.E., & Butler, P.H. (1999). Why teach science? Setting rational goals for science education. Science Education, 83(4), 473-492.
59. Longino, H. (1994). The fate of knowledge in social theories of science. In F.T. Schmitt (Ed.), Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
60. 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 Academic.
61. McComas, W.F., Clough, M.P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 3-39). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
62. McCurdy, R.C. (1958). Towards a population literate in science. Science Teacher, 25, 366-368.
63. Millar, R. (1996). Towards a science curriculum for public understanding. School Science Review, 77(280), 7-18.
64. Miller, J.D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 273-294.
65. Milne, C.E. (1998). Philosophically correct science stories? Examining the implications of heroic stories for school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 175-187.
66. Milne, C.E., & Taylor, P.C. (1998). Between myth and a hard place. In W.W. Cobem (Ed.), Socio-cultural perspective on science education (pp. 25-48). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
67. Munby, H. (1980). Analyzing teaching for intellectual independence. In H. Munby, G. Orpwood, & T. Russell (Eds.), Seeing curriculum in a new light: Essays from science education. Toronto: OISE Press.
68. Norris, S.P. (1997). Intellectual independence for nonscientists and other content-transcendent goals of science education. Science Education, 81, 239-258.
69. 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.
70. Norris, S.P., & Phillips, L.M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.
71. Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1998). Eliciting, interpreting and developing teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Science and Education, 7, 579-594.
72. Ogawa, M. (1989). Beyond the tacit framework of “science” and “science education” among science educators. In E. Whitelegg, J. Thomas, & S. Tresman (Eds.), Challenges and opportunities for science education (pp. 247-250). London: Paul Chapman.
73. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1998). Instrument design: A framework for assessing scientific literacy (Report of project managers meeting). Arnhem, The Netherlands: Programme for International Student Assessment.
74. O’Sullivan, E. (1999). Transformative learning: Educational vision for the 2lst century. London: Zed.
75. Osborne, J.E. (2001). Promoting argument in the science classroom: A rhetorical perspective. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 7(3), 271-290.
76. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 994-1020.
77. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. School Science Review, 82(301), 63-70.
78. 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(3), 317-327.
79. Roberts, D.A. (1982). Developing the concept of “curriculum emphases” in science education. Science Education, 66(2), 243-260.
80. Rockefeller Brothers Fund. (1958). The pursuit of excellence: Education and the future of America. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
81. Roth, W.-M., & Barton, A.C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: Routledge-Falmer.
82. Roth, W.-M., & Desautels, J. (2002). Science education as/for sociopolitical action. New York: Peter Lang.
83. Roth, W.-M., & Desautels, J. (2004). Educating for citizenship: Reappraising the role of science education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(2), 149-168.
84. Royal Society. (1985). The public understanding of science. London: Author.
85. Rudolph, J.L. (2005). Inquiry, instrumentalism, and the public understanding of science. Science Education, 89(5), 803-821.
86. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1-44.
87. Ryder, J. (2002). School science education for citizenship: Strategies for teaching about the epistemology of science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(6), 637-658.
88. Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005a). The significance of content for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 59(1), 71-93.
89. Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005b). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138.
90. Sagan, C. (1989). Why scientists should popularize science. American Journal of Physics, 57(4), 295.
91. Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
92. Shortland, M. (1988). Advocating science: Literacy and public understanding. Impact of Science on Society, 38(4), 305-316.
93. Simmons, M.L., & Zeidler, D. (2003). Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific issues. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 81-94). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
94. Snow, C.P. (1962). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
95. Solomon, J. (2001). Teaching for scientific literacy: What could it mean? School Science Review, 82(300), 93-96.
96. Solomon, J., & Thomas, J. (1999). Science education for the public understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 33, 61-90.
97. Southerland, S.A., Gess-Newsome, J., & Johnston, A. (2003). Portraying science in the classroom: The manifestation of scientists’ beliefs in classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 669-691.
98. Stuewer, R.E. (1998). History and Physics. Science and Education, 7, 13-30.
99. Sutman, F.X. (1996). Science literacy: A functional definition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 459-460.
100. Thomas, G., & Durant, J. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science? In M. Shortland (Ed.), Scientific literacy papers (pp. 1-14). Oxford: Oxford University Department for External Studies.
101. Tippens, D.J., Nichols, S.E., & Bryan, L.A. (2000). International science educators’ perceptions of scientific literacy. In S.K. Abell (Ed.), Science teacher education: An international perspective. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
102. Tytler, R., Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 815-832.
103. United Kingdom, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1998). Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools. London: Author.
104. United Kingdom, Select Committee on Science and Technology, House of Lords. (2000). Science and society (3rd report, session 1999-2000). London: HMSO.
105. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1993). International forum on scientific and technological literacy for all (Final report). Paris: Author.
106. United States, National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
107. United States, National Science Board. (1998). Science and engineering indicators-1998. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
108. Weaver, W. (1966). Why is it so important that science be understood? Impact of Science on Society. 16(1), 41-50.
109. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
110. Wiener, N. (1950). The human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
111. Zeidler, D.L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483-496.
112. Zeidler, D., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientiflc issues. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97-116). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.