Risk and school science education

Studies in Science Education

Volumn 45, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 205-223

  Christensen, Clare ^a  

^a GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Citizenship; Decision making; Risk; Science education; Socioscientific issues

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012472253     PISSN: 03057267     EISSN: 19408412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03057260903142293     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Alhakami, A., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14, 1085-1096.
4. Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students ‘ideas about science’: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88, 655-682.
5. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
6. Bennett, P., Coles, D., & McDonald, A. (1999). Risk communication as a decision process. In P. Bennett & K. Calman (Eds.), Risk communication and public health (pp. 207-221). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 3-12.
8. Bryce, T., & Gray, D. (2004). Tough acts to follow: The challenges to science teachers presented by biotechnological progress. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6), 717-733.
9. Brown, R., & Renshaw, P. (2000). Collective argumentation: A sociocultural approach to reframing classroom teaching and learning. In H. Cowie & G. Van der Aalsvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construc¬tion of knowledge (pp. 52-66). Oxford: Pergamon.
10. Bulkeley, H. (1997). Global risk, local values?: ‘risk society’ and the greenhouse issue in Newcastle, Australia. Local environment, 2(3), 261-274.
11. Christensen, C. (2007). Waiting for certainty: Young people, mobile phones and uncertain science. Retrieved May 25, 2009, from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/16588/
12. Cross, R.T. (1993). The risk of risks: A challenge and a dilemma for science and technologi¬cal education. Research in Science and Technological Education, 11(2), 171-183.
13. Cross, R., & Fensham, P. (Eds.). (2000). Science and the citizen: For educators and the public. Melbourne: Arena.
14. Cross, R., & Price, R. (1996). Science teachers’ social conscience and the role of controversial issues in the teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 319-333.
15. Dawson, V. (2001). Addressing controversial issues in secondary school science. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 47(4), 38-44.
16. Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2008). High-school students’ informal reasoning and argu¬mentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, iFirst Article, 1-25.
17. Denscombe, M. (2001). Uncertain identities and health-risking behaviour: The case of young people and smoking in late modernity. British Journal of Sociology, 52(1), 157-177.
18. Donnelly, J. (2004). Humanizing science education? Science Education, 88(5), 762-784.
19. Donnelly, J. (2007). Twenty-first century science pilot: Evaluation co-ordinator's final report. UYSEG (University of York Science Education Group) & Nuffield Foundation. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from www.21stcenturyscience.org
20. Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and blame: Essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge.
21. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science (1st ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
22. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumenta¬tion in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
23. Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 661-679.
24. Eijkelhof, H. (1986). Dealing with acceptable risk in science education: The case of ionizing radiation. In M.J. Fraser & A. Kornhauser (Eds.), Ethics and social responsibility in science education (pp. 189-200). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
25. Fensham, P. (2008, July). Complexity theory: A next step for SSI education and research. Paper presented at ASERA 2008 Conference, Brisbane, Australia.
26. Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in scientific issues, Part 1: Social cognition. Jour¬nal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 677-687.
27. Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, Part II: Non-social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 689-698.
28. Foucault, M. (2000). Power (Vol. 3). New York: The New Press.
29. France, B. (2007). Location, location, location: Positioning biotechnology education for the twenty-first century. Studies in Science Education, 43, 88-122.
30. Freudenburg, W. (1988). Perceived risk, real risk: Social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment. Science, 242, 44-49.
31. Funtowicz, S.O., & Ravetz, J.R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739-755.
32. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
33. Golding, S. (1992). A social and programmatic history of risk research. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 23-52). Westport, CT: Praeger.
34. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). DETYA report: The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. A research report prepared for the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Canberra, ACT: Department of Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.
35. Harremoes, P., Gee, M., MacGarvin, A., Stirling, J., Keys, B., Wynne, S., & Guedes V. (Eds.). (2002). The precautionary principle in the twentieth century. London: Earthscan.
36. Hipkins, R., Stockwell, W., Bolstad, R., & Baker, R. (2002). Common sense, trust and science: How patterns of beliefs and attitudes to science pose challenges for effective communication. New Zealand: Ministry of Research, Science & Technology.
37. Hunt, A., & Millar, R. (2000). AS science for public understanding. Oxford: Heinemann.
38. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341-368.
39. Howes, R. (1975). Radiation risks: A possible teaching topic. Physics Education, 10(6), 412-416.
40. Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Jackson, A.W., & Davis, G.A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the twenty-first century. Columbus, OH: National Middle Schools Association.
42. Jenkins, E. (2000). ‘Science for all’: Time for a paradigm shift? In L.R. Millar, & J. Osborne, (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 207-226). Buckingham: Open University Press.
43. Kolstø, S. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio- scientific issue. Science Education, 25(14), 1689-1716.
44. Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understandings of science and some implications for science education (1st ed.). Driffield, East Yorkshire: Studies in Education.
45. Lee, H., & Witz, K. (2008). Science teachers’ inspiration for teaching socio-scientific issues: Disconnection with reform efforts. International Journal of Science Education, (iFirst Article), 1-30.
46. Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio- scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201-1224.
47. Levinson, R., & Turner, S. (2001). The teaching of social and ethical issues in the school curriculum, arising from developments in biomedical research: A research study of teachers. London: Institute of Education, University of London and Wellcome Trust.
48. Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287.
49. Lupton, D., & Tulloch, J. (2002). ‘Risk is part of your life’: Risk epistemologies among a group of Australians. Sociology, 36(2), 317-334.
50. Millar, R. (1997). Science education for democracy: What can the school curriculum achieve? In P. Levinson, & Thomas, J. (Eds.), Science today: Problem or crisis? (pp. 87-101). London: Routledge.
51. Millar, R. (2006). Twenty-first century science: Insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach to school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1499-1521.
52. Millar, R. & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. Report of a Seminar Series. London: King’s College London, School of Education.
53. Organisation of Economic & Cultural Development. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Retrieved May 22, 2009, from http://www.pisa.oecd.org
54. Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty-first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 173-184.
55. Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423.
56. Petts, J., Wheeley, S., Homan, J., & Niemeyer, S. (2003). Risk literacy and the public: MMR, air pollution and mobile phones. University of Birmingham: Centre for Environmental Research and Training.
57. Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2003). Public perceptions of risk, science and governance. Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia.
58. Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decison-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182.
59. Ravetz, J. (1997). Simple scientific truths and uncertain policy realities: Implications for science education. Studies in Science Education, 30, 5-18.
60. Renn, O. (1992). Concepts of risk: A classification. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (1st ed., pp. 53-82). Westport, CT: Praeger.
61. Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.) International handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
62. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1-44.
63. Ryder, J. (2002). School science education for citizenship: Strategies for teaching about the epistemology of science. Journal of Research of Curriculum Studies, 34(6), 637-658.
64. Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
65. Sadler, T., Chambers, F., & Zeidler, D. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387-409.
66. Science Education for Public Understanding Program. (1987). Retrieved October 24, 2007, from http://www.lawrencehallofscience.org/sepup/
67. Shaw, A. (2002). ‘It just goes against the grain’: Public understanding of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK. Public Understanding of Science, 11(3), 273-291.
68. Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 117-152). Westport, CT: Praeger.
69. Slovic, P. (2000). Perception of risk from radiation. In P. Slovic (Ed.), The perception of risk (pp. 264-274). London: Earthscan.
70. Solomon, J. (1990). The discussion of social issues in the science classroom. Studies in Science Education, 18, 105-126.
71. Solomon, J. (2003). Risk: Why don’t they listen to us? Studies in Science Education, 39, 125-141.
72. Thomas, J. (1997). Informed ambivalence: Changing attitudes to the public understanding of science. In R. Levinson & J. Thomas, (Eds.), Science today: Problem or crisis? London: Routledge.
73. Trautmann, N., Carlsen, W., Krasny, M., & Cunningham, C. (2001). Assessing toxic risk. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
74. Tulloch, J., & Lupton, D. (2002). Consuming risk, consuming science: The case of GM foods. Journal of Consumer Culture, 2(3), 363-383.
75. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
76. UYSEG (University of York Science Education Group) and Nuffield Foundation. (2007). Twenty-first century science pilot: Evaluation report. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from www.21stcenturyscience.org
77. Wynne, B. (1993). Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. In T. Jackson (Ed.), Clean production strategies: Developing preventive environmental management in the industrial economy. London: Lewis.
78. Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10(4), 445-481.
79. Van Rooy, W. (1994). Teaching science using controversial issues: Some guidelines to enhance student learning and motivation. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 40(1), 24-27.
80. Zeidler, D.L., Walker, K.A., Ackett, W.A., & Simmons, M.L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343-367.