Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Science for Citizenship Model: Assessing the Effects of Benefits, Risks, and Trust for Predicting Students’ Interest in and Understanding of Science-Related Content

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study showcases the Science for Citizenship Model (SCM) as a new instructional methodology for presenting, to secondary students, science-related technology content related to the use of science in society not taught in the science curriculum, and a new approach for assessing the intercorrelations among three independent variables (benefits, risks, and trust) to predict the dependent variable of triggered interest in learning science. Utilizing a 50-minute instructional presentation on nanotechnology for citizenship, data were collected from 301 Taiwanese high school students. Structural equation modeling (SEM) and paired-samples t-tests were used to analyze the fitness of data to SCM and the extent to which a 50-minute class presentation of nanotechnology for citizenship affected students’ awareness of benefits, risks, trust, and triggered interest in learning science. Results of SCM on pre-tests and post-tests revealed acceptable model fit to data and demonstrated that the strongest predictor of students’ triggered interest in nanotechnology was their trust in science. Paired-samples t-test results on students’ understanding of nanotechnology and their self-evaluated awareness of the benefits and risks of nanotechology, trust in scientists, and interest in learning science revealed low significant differences between pre-test and post-test. These results provide evidence that a short 50-minute presentation on an emerging science not normally addressed within traditional science curriculum had a significant yet limited impact on students’ learning of nanotechnology in the classroom. Finally, we suggest why the results of this study may be important to science education instruction and research for understanding how the integration into classroom science education of short presentations of cutting-edge science and emerging technologies in support of the science for citizenship enterprise might be accomplished through future investigations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: evidence based practice. New York and London: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, S. (2007). Exhibit design in science museums: dealing with a constructivist dilemma. In J. H. Falk & S. Foutz (Eds.), In principle, in practice: museums as learning institutions (pp. 43–57). Manhan: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J. L. (2013). Conventional linear regression. In IBM® SPSS® Amos™ 22 User’s Guide (pp. 67–79). ftp://public.dhe.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/documentation/amos/22.0/en/Manuals/IBM_SPSS_Amos_User_Guide.pdf

  • Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: a conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922–948.

  • Bak, H.-J. (2001). Education and public attitudes toward science: implications for the “deficit model” of education and support for science and technology. Social Science Quarterly, 82(4), 779–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79–95.

  • Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Correlates of intellectual risk taking in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 210–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bencze, L., & Carter, L. (2011). Globalizing students acting for the common good. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 648–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bencze, L., Carter, L., Chiu, M.-H., Duit, R., Martin, S., Siry, C., et al. (2013). Globalization and science education. Cosmos. 8(2). doi:10.1142/S021960771250005X.

  • Benedikter, R., Giordano, J., & Fitzgerald, K. (2010). The future of the self-image of the human being in the age of transhumanism, neurotechnology and global transition. Futures, 42(10), 1102–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatnagar, R., Kim, J., & Many, J. E. (2014). Candidate surveys on program evaluation: examining instrument reliability, validity and program effectiveness. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(8), 683–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R., McCrae, B., & Laurie, R. (2009). PISA 2006: an assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bystrzejewska-Piotrowska, G., Golimowski, J., & Urban, P. L. (2009). Nanoparticles: their potential toxicity, waste and environmental management. Waste Management, 29(9), 2587–2595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. S. (2006). Science, expertise, and the democratization of the decision-making process. Society and Natural Resources, 19, 661–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, L. (2008). Globalization and science education: the implications of science in the new economy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 617–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caygill, R. (2007). PISA 2006 student attitudes to and engagement with science: How ready are out 15-year-olds for tomorrow’s world? Wellington: Ministry of Education.

  • Chen, J., & Cowie, B. (2013). Developing ‘butterfly warriors’: a case study of science for citizenship. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2153–2177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. (2009). Risk and school science education. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 205–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence.

  • Darby-Hobbs, L. (2013). Responding to a relevance imperative in school science and mathematics: humanising the curriculum through story. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 77–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: the self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, A., Lein Kjolberg, K., & Wickson, F. (2011). Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 826–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston: Harcourt.

  • Doong, S. L. (2008). Taiwan’s new citizenship curriculum: changes and challenges. In D. L. Grossman, W. O. Lee, & K. J. Kennedy (Eds.), Citizenship curriculum in asia and the pacific (Vol. 22, pp. 43–60, Vol. CERC Studies in Comparative Educaton). Hong Kong: Springer.

  • Ekli, E., & Sahin, N. (2010). Science teachers and teacher candidates’ basic knowledge, opinions and risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2667–2670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2009). Challenging futures of science in society. Emerging trends and cutting-edge issues. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/document_library/pdf_06/the-masis-report_en.pdf. Accessed date: 30 June, 2015.

  • Frewer, L. (2003). Societal issues and public attitudes toward genetically modified foods. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 14, 319–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funabashi, Y., & Kitazawa, K. (2012). Fukushima in review: a complex disaster, a disastrous response. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 68(2), 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, G., Jones, G., Taylor, A., Forrester, J., & Robertson, L. (2009). Students’ risk perceptions of nanotechnology applications: implications for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 32(14), 1951–1969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harackiewicz, J. M., Rozek, C. S., Hulleman, C. S., & Hyde, J. S. (2012). Helping parents to motivate adolescents in mathematics and science: an experimental test of a utility-value intervention. Psychological Science, 23(8), 899–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hildering, P., Consoli, L., & van den Born, R. (2013). Denying Darwin: views on science in the rejection of evolution by Dutch protestants. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 988–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hingant, B., & Albe, V. (2010). Nanosciences and nanotechnologies learning and teaching in secondary education: a review of literature. Studies in Science Education, 46(2), 121–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtz, J. K., & Downing, K. F. (2008). Valuing science and science learning as scientific capital. In G. Strohschen (Ed.), Handbook of blended shore education: adult program development and delivery (pp. 89–102). New York: Springer.

  • Hulme, M. (2010). Claiming and adjudicating on Mt Kilimanjaro’s shrinking glaciers: Guy Callendar, Al Gore and Extended Peer Communities. Science as Culture, 19(3), 303–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jack, B. M., & Lin, H.-S. (2014). Igniting and sustaining interest among students who have grown cold toward science. Science Education, 98(5), 792–814.

  • Jack, B. M., Lin, H.-S., & Yore, L. D. (2014). The synergistic effect of affective factors on student learning outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(8), 1084–1101.

  • Jack, B. M., Liu, C.-J., Chiu, H.-L., & Tsai, C.-Y. (2012). Measuring the confidence of 8th grade Taiwanese students’ knowledge of acids and bases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(4), 889–905.

  • Jenkins, E. W. (2006). School science and citizenship: whose science and whose citizenship? The Curriculum Journal, 17(3), 197–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeon, K.-N., Moon, S. M., & French, B. (2011). Differential effects of divergent thinking, domain knowledge, and interest on creative performance in art and math. Creativity Research Journal, 23(1), 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jickling, B., & Wals, A. E. J. (2008). Globalization and environmental education: looking beyond sustainable development. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. G., Blonder, R., Gardner, G. E., Albe, V., Falvo, M., & Chevrier, J. (2013). Nanotechnology and nanoscale science: educational challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 35(9), 1490–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolsto, S. D. (2001). “To trust or not to trust, …” -pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The nature of normal science. In The structure of scientific revolutions (pp. 23–34). Chicago: The University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, A., & Dhawan, A. (2013). Nano-safety, standardization and certification. Manual on critical issues in nanotechnology R&D management: an Asia-Pacific perspective. New Delhi, India: Asian and Pacific Centre for Transfer of Technology (APCTT) of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP).

  • Laherto, A. (2010). An analysis of the educational significance of nanoscience and nanotechnology in scientific and technological literacy. Science Education International, 21(3), 160–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laherto, A. (2011). Incorporating nanoscale science and technology into secondary school curriculum: views of nano-trained science teachers. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 7(2), 126–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H.-S., Lawrenz, F., Lin, S.-F., & Hong, Z.-R. (2012a). Relationships among affective factors and preferred engagement in science-related activities. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 941–954.

  • Lin, S.-F., Lin, H.-S., & Wu, Y.-y. (2012b). Validation and exploration of instruments for assessing public knowledge of and attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(4), 548–559.

  • Lin, H.-S., Hong, Z.-R., & Chen, Y.-C. (2013). Exploring the development of college students’ situational interest in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 35(13), 2152–2173.

  • Lin, S.-F., Lin, H.-S., Lee, L., & Yore, L. D. (2015). Are science comics a good medium for science communication? The case for public learning of nanotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 5(3), 276–294.

  • Mueller, M., Tippins, D., & Bryan, L. (2012). The future of citizen science. Democracy and Education, 20(1), 1–12.

  • Mun, K., Lee, H., Kim, S.-W., Choi, K., Choi, S.-Y., & Krajcik, J. S. (2015). Cross-cultural comparison of perceptions on the global scientific literacy with Australian, Chinese, and Korean middle school students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 437–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2007). PISA 2006. Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. (Vol. 1). Paris, France: Author.

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013). PISA 2015 draft science framework. Paris: Author.

  • Palmer, D. (2004). Research report. International Journal of Science Education, 26(7), 895–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, A., & Bowman, D. (2012). Engaging whom and for what ends? Australian stakeholders’ constructions of public engagement in relation to nanotechnologies. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 12, 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Planinsic, G., & Kovac, J. (2008). Nano goes to school: a teaching model of the atomic force microscope. Physics Education, 43(1), 37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, K. J. (2004). Newton’s laws beyond the classroom walls. Science Education, 88(2), 182–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah:Erlbaum.

  • Ryan, C. (2010). Current challenges in basic science education. Paris: United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization.

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 197–222). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiner, C., & Sjoberg, S. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE (department of teacher education and school development, trans.). Oslo: University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjoberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project. An overview and key findings. Oslo: University of Oslo.

  • Stevens, S. Y., Sutherland, L. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2009). The big ideas of nanoscale science & technology. Arlington: NSTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, H.-N., Lee, P.-C., Tsai, M.-H., & Chien, K.-M. (2007). Current situation and industrialization of Taiwan nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9(6), 965–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toumey, C. (2006). National discourses on democratizing nanotechnology. Quaderni, 81–101.

  • Toumey, C., & Baird, D. (2006). Building nanoliteracy in the university and beyond. Nature Biotechnology, 24, 721–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trumper, R. (2006). Factors affecting junior high school students’ interest in physics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, A. M. (1972). Science and trans-science. Minerva, 10(2), 209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, A. M. (1985). Science and its limits: the regulator’s dilemma. In NAE (Ed.), Hazards: Technology and fairness (pp. 9–23). Washington, D.C: National Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D. (2011). Foundations of scientific, mathematical, and technological literacies—common themes and theoretical frameworks. In L. Yore, E. Flier-Keller, D. Blades, T. Pelton, & D. Zandvliet (Eds.), Pacific CRYSTAL centre for science, mathematics, and technology literacy: Lessons learned (pp. 23–44). Dordrecht: Sense.

  • Zeyer, A., Çetin-Dindar, A., Md Zain, A. N., Juriševič, M., Devetak, I., & Odermatt, F. (2013). Systemizing: A cross-cultural constant for motivation to learn science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(9), 1047–1067.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Marvin G. Connatser for his incisive and expert editing of this manuscript. This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan under grant NSC100-2511-S-110-004-MY3.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for General Education, National Sun Yat-sen University, 70 Lien Hai Road, Kaohsiung 804, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Brady Michael Jack, Ling Lee & Huann-shyang Lin

  2. Institute of Education, National Sun Yat-sen University, 70 Lien Hai Road, Kaohsiung 804, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Kuay-Keng Yang

Authors
  1. Brady Michael Jack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ling Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kuay-Keng Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Huann-shyang Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huann-shyang Lin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jack, B.M., Lee, L., Yang, KK. et al. A Science for Citizenship Model: Assessing the Effects of Benefits, Risks, and Trust for Predicting Students’ Interest in and Understanding of Science-Related Content. Res Sci Educ 47, 965–988 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9535-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9535-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation