Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Socio-scientific Inquiry-Based Learning: Taking off from STEPWISE

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Science and Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing for Individuals, Societies and Environments

Part of the book series: Cultural Studies of Science Education ((CSSE,volume 14))

Abstract

In the European Union, educational policy-making bodies are encouraging projects of inquiry-based learning to stimulate interest of young people in science and broaden the science and technological skills base. In this chapter, I discuss how a project that incorporates socio-political questions as the object of its inquiry can critically address issues of consumerism and unequal distribution that affect contemporary neoliberal economies. Components of this model of inquiry draw on substantive scientific knowledge incorporating Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), Critical Citizenship Education, Socio-Scientific Issues, as well as Inquiry; hence, the acronym, SSIBL (Socio-Scientific Inquiry Based Learning). Social values at the heart of this project are science inquiry as for and with people, recognising that we live in a diverse world where technological change should be underpinned by social justice and political responsibility. We describe how authentic activities, those that stem from students’ concerns, can be derived from these values to lead to non-trivial action which takes into account social, political and cultural constraints and uncertainties. Inquiries reflect issues that have personal, social and global relevance. A sensitive assessment strategy is developed, which incorporates knowledge about the issue, skills of organising, values that reflect the underlying principles of compassionate justice and dispositions of inclusivity and criticality.

Based on: Levinson, R. & The PARRISE consortium (2014). Initial SSIBL framework, D1.2 PARRISE, co-funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme, Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Utrecht, The Netherlands/University College London – Institute of Education, United Kingdom.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    STEPWISE’ is the acronym for Science & Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing for Individuals, Societies & Environments. It is a theoretical and practical framework that organizes teaching/learning goals in ways that encourage and enable students to self-direct research-informed and negotiated actions to address personal, social and environmental problems linked to fields of science and technology. To learn more about this framework, refer to Chap. 2 in this book (and: www.stepwise.ca).

References

  • Apple, M. (2004). Creating differences: Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the politics of educational reform. Educational Policy, 18(1), 12–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arendt, H. (1998). The human condition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J., Isaacs, T., Johnson, S., Stobart, G., Yu, G., Sprague, T., & Daugherty, R. (2011). Policy effects of PISA. Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Educational Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (2013). The education debate (2nd ed.). Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bencze, L., & Alsop, S. (Eds.). (2014). Activist science & technology education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    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 

  • Dawson, C. (2000). Selling snake oil: Must science educators continue to promise what they can’t deliver? Melbourne Studies in Education, 41(2), 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dearden, R. F. (1981). Controversial issues in the curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 13(1), 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering?: Working through the myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enslin, P., & White, P. (2003). Democratic citizenship. In N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith, & P. Standish (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education (pp. 110–125). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamarnikow, E., & Green, A. (2000). Citizenship, education and social capital. In D. Lawton, J. Cairns, & R. Gardner (Eds.), Education for citizenship (pp. 93–113). London/New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (2008). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The persistence of presentism. Teachers College Record, 111(11), 2505–2534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D. (2009). Controversy in the classroom. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hipkins, R., Bolstad, R., Boyd, S., & McDowall, S. (2014). Key competencies for the future. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2014). Becoming part of the solution: Learning about activism, learning through activism, learning from activism. In L. Bencze & S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist science and technology education (pp. 67–98). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeg, D., & Bencze, L. (2014). Counter cultural hegemony: Student teachers’ experiences implementing STSE activities. In L. Bencze & S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist science and technology education (pp. 575–596). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Humbel, L., Jolliet, F., & Varcher, P. (2012). 3 key competencies in ESD for learners and teachers: Make a deconstruction, operate a reconstruction and ask critical questions. A case study in college classrooms about some SAQ (Socially acute questions) concerning ‘le fait religieux’ (unpublished paper).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, A., & Coll, C. (2010). Authentic student inquiry: The mismatch between the intended curriculum and the student-experienced curriculum. Research in Science and Technological Education, 28(1), 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L., & Morris, P. (2010). Towards a framework for critical citizenship education. The Curriculum Journal, 21(1), 77–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Driffield, UK: Studies in Education Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201–1224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, R., & Turner, S. (2001). Valuable lessons. London: The Wellcome Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mand, C., Duncan, R. E., Gillam, L., Collins, V., & Delatycki, M. V. (2009). Genetic selection for deafness: The views of hearing children of deaf adults. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(12), 722–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington DC: The National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nistor, N., Stanciu, D., Vanea, C., Sasu, V. M., & Dragota, M. (2014). Situated learning in young Romanian Roma successful learning biographies. European Education Research Journal, 13(3), 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novas, C. (2006). The political economy of hope: Patients’ organisations, science and biovalue. BioSocieties, 1(3), 289–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, R., MacNaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2009). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39, 751–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, C. (2015). Learning about a fish from an ANT: Actor network theory and science education in the postgenomic era. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(1), 83–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quigley, C. (2014). Expanding our view of authentic learning: Bridging in and out-of-school experiences. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(1), 115–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz, J. (2005). The no-nonsense guide to science. Oxford, UK: New Internationalist/Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis, G. (2015). Social dimensions of scientific knowledge: The ‘$5 bottle of hope’. School Science Review, 96(356), 27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, S., & Burbules, N. (1992). Communicative virtues and educational relations. Philosophy of Education, 1992, 34–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocard, M. (2007). Science education now: a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York/London: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2002). Scientific literacy as collective praxis. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 33–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N., Gorard, S., & Williams, S. (2001). Digital divide or digital opportunity?: The role of technology in overcoming social exclusion in U.S. education. Educational Policy, 15(2), 258–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. (2000). Stolen harvest. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, R. (1992). Teaching against the grain: Texts for a pedagogy of possibility. New York: Bergin & Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonneaux, L. (2014). Questions socialement vives and socioscientific issues: New trends of research to meet the training needs of post-modern society. In C. Bruguiere, A. Tiberghien, & P. Clement (Eds.), 9th ESERA conference selected contributions. Topics and trends in current science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomasian, J. (2011). Building a science, technology, engineering and math education agenda: An update of state actions. Washington, DC: National Governors Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasagar, J. (2012, June 12). Michael Gove’s curriculum attacked by expert who advised him. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jun/12/michael-gove-curriculum-attacked-adviser

  • Von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible innovation. In R. Owen, M. Heintz, & J. Bessant (Eds.), Responsible innovation. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone. London: Penguin books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University College London, Institute of Education, London, UK

    Ralph Levinson

Authors
  1. Ralph Levinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

The PARRISE Consortium

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralph Levinson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Larry Bencze

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Levinson, R., The PARRISE Consortium. (2017). Socio-scientific Inquiry-Based Learning: Taking off from STEPWISE. In: Bencze, L. (eds) Science and Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing for Individuals, Societies and Environments. Cultural Studies of Science Education, vol 14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55505-8_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55505-8_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55503-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55505-8

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation