How to Allocate the Chemistry Curriculum Between Science and Society

Teaching Chemistry - A Studybook: A Practical Guide and Textbook for Student Teachers, Teacher Trainees and Teachers

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 1-36

  Eilks, Ingo ^a   Rauch, Franz ^b   Ralle, Bernd ^c   Hofstein, Avi ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KLAGENFURT   (Austria)

^c TU DORTMUND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^d WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

Author keywords

Focal Event; Lesson Plan; National Science Education Standard; Science Education; Socioscientific Issue

Indexed keywords

EID: 85178597002     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-6209-140-5_1     Document Type: Chapter

References (73)

1. Coll, R., & Taylor, N. (2009). Special Issue on Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 197-349. The special issue offers different contributions of how to understand the idea of scientific literacy for all and how to operationalize respective science teaching.
2. Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science. Rotterdam: Sense. An account of presenting the science curriculum by using a nature of science approach is presented acknowledging scientists as a socially, economically and politically important community of people with its own language, methods, traditions, norms and values.
3. Pilot, A., & Bulte, A. M. W. (2006). Special Issue: Context-based chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 953-1112. An overview about context-based chemistry teaching is given and illustrated by different examples form a variety of countries.
4. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life. Columbia: Teachers College Press. The book offers a review humanistic and societal driven science education illustrated by examples from research and practice.
5. Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Heidelberg: Springer. The book sums up the different facets of socio-scientific issues based science education and offers guidance how to implement it into the classroom.
6. Eilks, I., & Rauch, F. (2012). Special Issue: Education for Sustainable Development and Green Chemistry in chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(2), 53-153. Theoretical and practical papers examine the state of the art in ESD driven chemistry education.
7. D. Warren: The Nature of Science at www.rsc.org/images/Nature%20of%20 Chemistry_tcml8-188306.pdf. This online resource offers many resources and ideas to implement the Nature of Science (NoS) into the chemistry curriculum.
8. 2lst Century Science: www.nuffieldfoundation.org/twenty-first-century-science. A current curriculum development project from the UK is presented. Materials are offered for context-based and scientific literacy oriented science education.
9. PARSEL: Popularity and Relevance of Science Education for Scientific Literacy: www.parsel.uni-kiel.de/cms/. Different modules of societal and everyday-life driven lesson plans are presented in different languages.
10. PROFILES: Professional Reflection-oriented Focus on Inquiry-Learning and Education through Science Literacy: www.profiles.eu. As being a spin-off of PARSEL more and newer lesson plans are presented.
11. UNESCO: World Decade of Education for Sustainable Development: www.unesco.org/en/esd/decade-of-esd/. Political papers and guidelines are given how to implement ESD driven education into practical teaching.
12. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
13. Atkin, M. J., & Black, P. J. (2003). Inside science education reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
14. Benett, J., & Lubben, F. (2006). Context-based chemistry: The Salters-approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 999-1015.
15. Black, P. J., & Atkin, J. M. (1996). Changing the subject: Innovations in science, mathematics and technology education. London: Routledge.
16. Breiting, S., Mayer, M., & Mogensen, F. (2005). Quality criteria for ESD-schools. Vienna: ENSI.
17. Bruner, J. (1962). The process of education. Harvard: Harvard University.
18. Burmeister, M., & Eilks, I. (2012). Evaluating plastics to promote Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 93-102.
19. Burmeister, M., Rauch, F., & Eilks, I. (2012). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and secondary school chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 59-68.
20. De Boer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. Columbia: Teachers College Press.
21. De Jong, O. (2006). Making chemistry meaningful: conditions for successful context-based teaching. Educación Química, 17, 215-226.
22. Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
23. Eilks, I. (2002). Teaching ‘Biodiesel’: A sociocritical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching, and students’ first views on it. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 3, 67-75.
24. Eilks, I. (2012). Teachers’ ways through the particulate nature of matter in lower secondary chemistry teaching: A continued change of different models vs. a coherent conceptual structure? In G. Tsaparlis & H. Sevian (eds.), Concepts of matter in science education. Dordrecht: Springer (forthcoming).
25. Eilks, I., Nielsen, J. A., & Hofstein, A. (2012). Learning about the role of science in public debate as an essential component of scientific literacy. In C. Bruguière, P. Clément, & A. Tiberghien (eds.), Book of selected presentations, ESERA Conference Lyon 2011 (forthcoming).
26. Elmose, S., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Allgemeinbildung: Readiness for living in a risk society. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 11-34.
27. Feierabend, T., & Eilks, I. (2011). Teaching the societal dimension of chemistry using a socio-critical and problem-oriented lesson plan on bioethanol usage. Journal of Chemical Education, 88, 1250-1256.
28. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of context in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 957-976.
29. Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5-26.
30. Harms, N. C., & Yager, R. E. (1981). What research says to the science teacher. Washington: NSTA.
31. Hart, C. (2002). Framing curriculum discursively: Theoretical perspectives on the experience of VCE physics. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1055-1077.
32. Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam: Sense.
33. Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). 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, 9, 1459-1483.
34. Hofstein, A., & Kesner, M. (2006). Industrial chemistry and school chemistry: Making chemistry studies more relevant. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1017-1039.
35. Holbrook, J. (1998). Operationalising scientific and technological literacy - A new approach to science teaching. Science Education International, 9, 13-18.
36. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1347-1362.
37. Holman, J. (1986). Science and technology in society. General guide for teachers. Hatfield Herts: ASE.
38. Holman, J. (1987). Resources or courses? Contrasting approaches to the introduction of industry and technology to the secondary curriculum. School Science Review, 68, 432-437.
39. Johnstone, A. H. (1981). Chemical education research-facts, findings and consequences. Chemistry in Britain, 17, 130-135.
40. Johnstone, A. H. (2006). Chemical education in Glasgow in perspective. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 49-63.
41. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Models and modeling in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert, O. de Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (eds.), Chemical education: Towards researchbased practice (pp. 47-68). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
42. Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (ed.), Instructional design theories: An overview of their current status (pp. 386-434). Hillsdale: Lawremce Erlbaum.
43. KMK (2004). Bildungsstandards im Fach Chemie für den Mittleren Bildungsabschluss. München: Luchterhand.
44. Kyburz-Graber, R., Nagel, U., & Odermatt, F. (eds.) (2010). Handeln statt hoffen. Materialien zur Bildung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung für die Sekundarstufe 1. Zug: Klett.
45. 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, 131-145.
46. 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, 267-276.
47. Mc Comas, W. F. (2004). The nature of science in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
48. Merrill, R. J., & Ridgway. D. W. (1969). The CHEMStudy curriculum improvement project. San Fransisco: W. H. Freeman.
49. Millar, R. (2006). Twenty-first century science: insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1499-1521.
50. 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, 1439-1444.
51. Newton, D. P. (1988). Relevance and science education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20(2), 7-12.
52. National Curriculum (2004). National Curriculum handbook for secondary teachers in England. London: QCDA.
53. NRC (National Research Council) (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academy Press.
54. OECD (2006). OECD programme for international studies assessment (PISA) on line. www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/17/39703267.pdf.
55. Parchmann, I., Gräsel, C., Baer, A., Nentwig, P., Demuth, R., & Ralle, B. (2006). Chemie im Kontext -A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1041-1062.
56. Pilot, A., & Bulte, A. M. W. (2006). The use of “contexts” as a challenge for the chemistry curriculum: Its successes and the need for further development and understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1087-1112.
57. Rauch, F. (2002). The potential of Education for Sustainable Development for reform in schools. Environmental Education Research, 8, 43-52.
58. Rauch, F. (2004). Education for sustainability: A regulative idea and trigger for innovation. In W. Scott & S. Gough (eds.), Key issues in sustainable development and learning: A critical review (pp. 149-151). London: Roudlege Falmer.
59. Reid, N. (2000). The presentation of chemistry logically or application-led. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1, 381-392.
60. Roberts, D. A. (1982). Developing the concept of “curriculum emphasis” in science education. Science Education, 66, 243-260.
61. Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans: The project 2061. New York: Oxford University.
62. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
63. Sadler, T.D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Heidelberg: Springer.
64. 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, 909-921.
65. Schwartz, A. T. (2006). Contextualized chemistry education: The American experience. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 977-998.
66. Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (eds.) (1994). STS education: international perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
67. UNESCO. (2006). Framework for the UNDESD international implementaton scheme. Paris: UNESCO.
68. Van Berkel, B. (2005). The structure of current school chemistry. Utrecht: cdβ.
69. Van Berkel, B., De Vos, W., Verdonk, A. H., & Pilot, A. (2000). Normal science education and its dangers: The case of school chemistry. Science & Education, 9, 123-159.
70. Van den Akker, J. (1998). The science curriculum: Between ideals and outcomes. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 421-447). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
71. Van Driel, J. H., Bulte, A. M. W., & Verloop, N. (2007). The relationship between teachers’ general beliefs about teaching and learning and their domain specific curricular beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17, 156-1717.
72. Wandersee, J. H., & Baudoin Griffard, P. (2002). The history of chemistry: Potential and actual contributions to chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Just, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Van Driel (eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based oractice (pp. 29-46). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
73. Ware, S., & Tinnesand, M. (2005). Chemistry in the Community (ChemCom): Chemistry for future citizens. In P. Nentwig, & D. Waddington (eds.), Making it relevant: Context-based learning of science (pp. 91-120). Münster: Waxmann.