Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Challenges and Opportunities for Embracing Complex Socio-scientific Issues As Important in Learning Science: The Murray-Darling River Basin As an Example

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Navigating the Changing Landscape of Formal and Informal Science Learning Opportunities

Abstract

Socio-scientific issues present a great challenge to science educators that are charged with equipping students—as future adult citizens—with the knowledge, skills and attitudes to understand and respond to them. These issues, such as climate change and over-exploitation of resources, are increasingly prominent in our lives. Complex socio-scientific issues are often defined by an interrelated set of smaller issues, they can have vast social impacts and their scientific basis is often uncertain or contested. The increasing global conflict around water, in particular in rivers that flow across territorial or national boundaries, is a notable example of one of these issues.

In Australia, the management of the Murray-Darling River Basin, which underpins a large part of the nation’s agricultural economy, became the focus of intense public debate in all forms of the media between 2010 and 2012. At the same time, a new national curriculum for school science was being developed. In this chapter, we use the Murray-Darling controversy as a context to investigate how this science curriculum might facilitate teaching and learning of socio-scientific issues (SSIs) by considering this SSI. We adopt the analytical tools of frame theory and boundary work to assess:

  1. (i)

    the role of science in the controversy surrounding this SSI;

  2. (ii)

    the strengths in the science curriculum to make a contribution to understanding the science involved; and

  3. (iii)

    the lessons that can be drawn from the Murray-Darling controversy about how the science curriculum might better equip teachers and students to tackle such complex SSIs.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
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

References

  • AAAS. (2006). Annual report. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • ACARA. (2014a). The Australian curriculum: Learning areas: Science. Retrieved from http://acara.edu.au/curriculum_1/learning_areas/science.html

  • ACARA. (2014b). The Australian curriculum: Learning areas: Humanities and social sciences: Geography. Retrieved from http://acara.edu.au/curriculum_1/learning_areas/humanitiesandsocialscience/geography.html

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Logical reasoning in science and technology. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 12, 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arup, T. (2012, January 19). Scientists reject plan to save Murray-Darling. The Sydney Morning Herald. Online.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, B. (1971). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control (pp. 47–69). London, UK: Collier-Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonneuil, C., Joly, P.-B., & Marris, C. (2008). Disentrenching experiment: The construction of GM crop field trials as a social problem. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33, 201–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists: The role of analogy, imagery and mental stimulation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. (2009, March 5). We cannot live by scepticism alone. Nature, 458, 30–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COMEST. (2005). The precautionary principle. Paris, France: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosier, P., Davis, R., Flannery, T., Harding, R., Hughes, L., Karoly, D., … Williams, J. (2012). Statement on the 2011 draft Murray-Darling Basin plan. Sydney, Australia: Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crase, L., Dollery, B., & Wallis, J. (2005). Community consultation in public policy: The case of the Murray-Darling Basin of Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 221–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crase, L., O’Keefe, S., & Dollery, B. (2013). Talk is cheap, or is it? The cost of consulting about uncertain reallocation of water in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Ecological Economics, 88, 206–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CSIRO. (2011). The Murray-Darling Basin science. Retrieved from www.csiro.au/science/MDBscience

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Science, 15(4), 451–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (1985). Science for all: A reflective essay. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4), 415–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (2013). The science curriculum: The decline of expertise and the rise of bureaucratise. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 152–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J., & Rennie, L. J. (2013). Towards and authentically assessed science curriculum. In D. Corrigan, R. Gunstone, & A. Jones (Eds.), Valuing assessment in science education: Pedagogy, curriculum, policy (pp. 69–100). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations: Horses for courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Stocklmayer, S. (Eds.). (2013). Communication and engagement with science and technology: Issues and dilemmas: A reader in science communication. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, J., & Lock, S. J. (2008). The evolution of ‘public understanding of science’: Public engagement as a tool of science policy in the UK. Sociology Compass, 2(4), 1252–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88, 693–708.

    Article  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., Bencze, L., Elshof, L., Pedretti, E., & Nyhof-Young, J. (Eds.). (2002). Changing science education through action research: Some experiences from the field. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17, 195–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Modelling teachers’ views on the nature of modelling and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirch, S. (2012). Understanding scientific uncertainty as a teaching and learning goal. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second handbook of research in science education (pp. 851–864). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, 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), 877–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layton, D. (1991). Science education and praxis: The relationship of school science to practical action. Studies in Science Education, 19, 43–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for school science. Driffield, UK: Studies in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, R. (2004). Teaching bioethics in science: Crossing a bridge too far? Canadian Journal of Science, Technology and Mathematics Education, 4, 353–369.

    Article  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 

  • Lock, S. J. (2011). Deficits and dialogues: Science communication and the public in the understanding of science in the UK. In D. J. Bennett & R. C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful science communication: Telling it like it is (pp. 17–30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • MDBA. (2010). Guide to the proposed basin plan: Overview. Canberra, Australia: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • MDBA. (2011a). Plain English summary of the proposed basin plan—Including explanatory notes. Canberra, Australia: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • MDBA. (2011b). Socioeconomic analysis and the draft plan: Part A—Overview and analysis. Canberra, Australia: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • MDBA. (2012). Proposed basin plan consultation report. Canberra, Australia: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minister for Education. (2008, October 12). Media release. Delivering Australia’ first national curriculum.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academics.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2001). Grand challenges in environmental sciences. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin, D. (1979). Controversy: Politics of technical decisions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. (1995). Living with scientific expertise: Towards a theory of intellectual communalism for guiding science teaching. Science Education, 79(2), 201–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2007). PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Vol.1. Analysis. Paris, France: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogawa, M. (2013). Towards a ‘design approach’ to science education. In J. K. Gilbertt & S. Stocklmayer (Eds.), Communication and engagement with science and technology: Issues and dilemmas: A reader in science communication (pp. 3–18). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patchen, T., & Smithenry, D. W. (2013). Framing science in a new context: What students take away from a student-directed inquiry curriculum. Science Education, 97(6), 801–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poff, N. L., Allan, J. D., Palmer, M. A., Hart, D. D., Richter, B. D., Arthington, A. H., et al. (2003). River flows and water wars: Emerging science for environmental decision making. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(6), 298–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1994). Frame reflection: Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/scientific literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 125–177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J. (2003). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SMH. (2011a, November 28). Murray-Darling plan ‘ignores’ NSW farmers. Sydney Morning Herald. Online.

    Google Scholar 

  • SMH. (2011b, November 28). Murray-Darling water plan mired in controversy. Sydney Morning Herald. Online.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (1994). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York, NY: Teachers College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, C. A. (2014). Planning for the Murray-Darling Basin: Lessons from transboundary basins around the world. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 28, 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, S., Hillman, K., & Wernert, N. (2012). Monitoring Australian year 8 students outcomes internationally. Camberwell, Australia: ACER.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, S. (2011). Dealings with the media. In D. J. Bennett & R. C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful science communication: Telling it like it is (pp. 151–166). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wroe, D. (2011, December 5). Murray-Darling proposal slammed by irrigators. Sydney Morning Herald. Online.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 201–216). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Peter J. Fensham

  2. Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, Sheffleld, UK

    Jasper Montana

Authors
  1. Peter J. Fensham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jasper Montana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter J. Fensham .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

    Deborah Corrigan

  2. University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

    Cathy Buntting

  3. University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

    Alister Jones

  4. Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

    John Loughran

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Fensham, P.J., Montana, J. (2018). The Challenges and Opportunities for Embracing Complex Socio-scientific Issues As Important in Learning Science: The Murray-Darling River Basin As an Example. In: Corrigan, D., Buntting, C., Jones, A., Loughran, J. (eds) Navigating the Changing Landscape of Formal and Informal Science Learning Opportunities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89761-5_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89761-5_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89760-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89761-5

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation