Skip to main content

Developing Students’ Futures Thinking in Science Education

Research in Science Education volume 42, pages 687–708 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Futures thinking involves a structured exploration into how society and its physical and cultural environment could be shaped in the future. In science education, an exploration of socio-scientific issues offers significant scope for including such futures thinking. Arguments for doing so include increasing student engagement, developing students’ values discourse, fostering students’ analytical and critical thinking skills, and empowering individuals and communities to envisage, value, and work towards alternative futures. This paper develops a conceptual framework to support teachers’ planning and students’ futures thinking in the context of socio-scientific issues. The key components of the framework include understanding the current situation, analysing relevant trends, identifying drivers, exploring possible and probable futures, and selecting preferable futures. Each component is explored at a personal, local, national, and global level. The framework was implemented and evaluated in three classrooms across Years 4–12 (8 to 16-year olds) and findings suggest it has the potential to support teachers in designing engaging science programmes in which futures thinking skills can be developed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  • Amara, R. (1981). The futures field: searching for definitions and boundaries. Futures, 15(2), 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 247–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, W. (1996). An overview of futures studies. In R. Slaughter (Ed.), The knowledge base of futures studies: Foundations (pp. 28–56). Hawthorn: DDM Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biotechnology Learning Hub. (2006). Robotic milking. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from http://www.biotechlearn.org.nz/focus_stories/robotic_milking.

  • Burton, L. (2005). The fascinating future: futures studies—past, present, and future. Futures Research Quarterly, 21(1), 69–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabinet Office. (n.d.). The future and how to think about it. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/future.pdf.

  • Capra, F. (2002). The hidden connections: Integrating the biological, cognitive, and social dimensions of life into a science of sustainability. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, M. (2004). Key competencies/skills and attitudes: A theoretical framework. Background paper prepared for the Ministry of Education. Hamilton: University of Waikato.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, L., & Smith, C. (1997). Educators’ views of the future. Proceedings of the XV World Futures Studies Federation conference. Brisbane: University of Queensland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, L., & Smith, C. (2003). Re-visioning science education from a science studies and future perspective. Journal of Future Studies, 7(4), 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, J. (1996). An overview of futures methods. In R. Slaughter (Ed.), The Knowledge Base of Futures Studies, Volume 2: Organisations, Practices, Products (Vol. 2). Hawthorn, Victoria: DDM Media Group.

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, L. (2003). The importance of developing critical thinking in issues education. New Zealand Biotechnology Association Journal, 56, 58–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, L. (2010). In the classroom: Approaches to bioethics for senior students. In A. Jones, A. McKim, & M. Reiss (Eds.), Ethics in the science and technology classroom. A new approach to teaching and learning (pp. 55–67). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, E. (1977). The study of the future. An introduction to the art and science of understanding and shaping tomorrow’s world. Bethesda: World Futures Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education Training and Employment. (2001). South Australian curriculum, standards and accountability framework. Adelaide: DETE.

    Google Scholar 

  • DERA. (2001). Strategic futures thinking: Meta-analysis of published material on drivers and trends. London: Performance and Innovation Unit, Cabinet Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dror, Y. (1996). Futures studies for contemplation and action. In R. Slaughter (Ed.), The knowledge base of futures studies, Volume 3: Directions and outlooks (pp. 85–86). Hawthorn: DDM Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eames, M., Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., & Hawkins, R. (2000). E-topia? Contextual scenarios for digital futures. Final report. (Brighton, UK: Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex) Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/publications/reports/etopia/etopia.pdf.

  • Ellyard, P. (1992, July). Education for the 21st Century. (Address to the New Zealand Principals Federation conference, Christchurch, New Zealand).

  • Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettenen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 323–347). Cambridge: Cambridge University.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (1988). Approaches to the teaching of STS in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 346–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. (2007, July). Policy issues for science education. (Discussion paper presented at the World Conference on Science and Technology Education. Perth, Australia).

  • Guindon, G. E., & Boisclair, D. (2003). Past, current and future trends in tobacco use. HNP Discussion Paper 6. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www1.worldbank.org/tobacco/pdf/Guindon-Past,%20current-%20whole.pdf.

  • Haas, J., Hendrickson, I., Johnson, J., LaRue, R., Miller, B., & Schukar, R. (1987). Teaching about the future: Tools, topics and issues. ERIC Document Reproductive Series No. ED 288 769. Denver: Centre for Teaching International Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (1994). Education for the future: A practical classroom guide. Godalming: World Wide Fund for Nature.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hipkins, R. (2009). Complex or complicated change? What might biology education learn from disciplinary biology? New Zealand Science Teacher, 122, 33–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2009). Technology in science-technology-society-environment (STSE) education: Introductory remarks. In A. T. Jones & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 267–273). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, S. H., Hickford, J., & Conner, L. (1998). Biodecisions. Lincoln: Crop and Food.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (2006). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 12(3–4), 471–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers though society. Cambridge: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, D., & Wallace, J. (2004). Imaging the future of science education: the case for making futures studies explicit in student learning. Studies in Science Education, 40, 139–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, S. (1998). Where will the world be in 2015? Analysis of trends and discontinuities. A paper prepared for CARE UK. London: Overseas Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKim, A., Buntting, C., Conner, L., Hipkins, R., Milne, L., Saunders, K., et al. (2006). Research and development of a biofutures approach for biotechnology education. Report commissioned by The Ministry of Research, Science & Technology. (Hamilton, New Zealand: Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research, University of Waikato).

  • Miettinen, R. (2001). Artifacts mediation in Dewey and in cultural-historical activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8, 297–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Research, Science & Technology [MoRST]. (2003). New Zealand Biotechnology Strategy. (Wellington, New Zealand: MoRST) Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www.morst.govt.nz/publications/a-z/n/nz-biotechnology-strategy/.

  • MoRST. (2005). Futurewatch: Biotechnologies to 2025. (Wellington, New Zealand: MoRST) Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www.morst.govt.nz/current-work/futurewatch/biotechnologies-to-2025/.

  • MoRST. (2006). Futurewatch: Stem cell research in New Zealand. (Wellington, New Zealand: MoRST) Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www.morst.govt.nz/publications/a-z/s/stem-cell-research/.

  • MoRST. (2009). Futurewatch: The economy, the environment and opportunities for New Zealand. (Wellington, New Zealand: MoRST) Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www.morst.govt.nz/current-work/futurewatch/The-economy-environment-and-opportunities-for-New-Zealand-a-futures-resource/.

  • Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2000). Pupils’ and parents’ views of the school science curriculum. School Science Review, 82(298), 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Ratcliffe, M., Collins, S., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2001). What should we teach about science? A Delphi study. Retrieved March 1, 2011, from http://www.tlrp.org/dspace/retrieve/793/DelphiReport.pdf.

  • Otrel-Cass, K., Unterbruner, L., Eames, C., Keown, P., Harlow, A., & Goddard, H. (2009, September). Young people’s hopes and fears for the future environment: A three country study—Austria, Germany and New Zealand. Paper presented to the European Education Research Association Conference. Vienna.

  • Paige, K., Lloyd, D., & Chartres, M. (2008). Moving towards transdisciplinarity: an ecological sustainable focus for science and mathematics pre-service education in the primary/middle years. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, M. (1990). Creating shared vision. Oak Park: DIALOG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedretti, E. (2005). STSE education: Principles and practices. In A. Alsop, L. Bencze, & E. Pedretti (Eds.), Analysing exemplary science teaching: Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of possibilities for practice (pp. 116–126). Maidenhead: Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawnsley, D. (2000). A futures perspective in the school curriculum. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 1(2), 39–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosegrant, M., Paisner, M., Meijer, S., & Witcover, J. (2002). Global food projections to 2020: Emerging trends and alternative futures. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (2005). Talking science: Language and learning in science classrooms. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., McGinn, M., Woszczyna, C., & Boutonne, S. (1999). Differential participation during science conversations: the interaction of focal artifacts, social configuration and physical arrangements. Journal of Learning Sciences, 8, 293–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rychen, D., & Salganik, L. (Eds.). (2003). Key competencies for a successful life and a well-functioning society. Cambridge: Hogrefe and Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, W. (2003). Infinite futures. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from www.infinitefutures.com/aboutif.shtml.

  • Scott, D., & Morrison, M. (2006). Key ideas in educational research. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, M. L., & Zeidler, D. L. (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. 81–96). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, R. (1995). Futures tools and techniques. Hawthorn: Futures Studies Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, R. (1996). Futures studies: from individual to social capacity. Futures, 26(8), 751–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2002). Teaching and learning for a sustainable future. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf.

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind. A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: a research-based framework of socioscientific issues in education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was part of a larger project (McKim et al. 2006) funded by New Zealand’s Ministry of Research, Science and Technology.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand

    Alister Jones, Cathy Buntting, Anne McKim & Kathy Saunders

  2. New Zealand Council of Educational Research, Wellington, New Zealand

    Rose Hipkins

  3. Faculty of Education, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Lindsey Conner

Authors
  1. Alister Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cathy Buntting
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rose Hipkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anne McKim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lindsey Conner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kathy Saunders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alister Jones.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, A., Buntting, C., Hipkins, R. et al. Developing Students’ Futures Thinking in Science Education. Res Sci Educ 42, 687–708 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9214-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9214-9

Keywords

  • Classroom research
  • Futures thinking
  • Primary
  • Secondary
  • Socio-scientific issues
  • Teacher professional learning