Advertisement

General and Environmental Health as the Context for Science Education

  • Alla Keselman
  • Savreen Hundal
  • Catherine Arnott Smith

Abstract

The “science for all” approach to science education is grounded in the view that scientific knowledge is useful in daily living and necessary for informed citizenship. At the same time, educators often feel that convincing students of the practical relevance of science education is a challenge. We propose that health, including environmental health, constitutes a scientific domain that allows easy connection to real-life issues and that making this connection is beneficial for both health and science education. The challenge lies in finding a place for health in an already crowded science curriculum and identifying effective strategies for teaching science in the health context. In the USA, health topics receive little coverage in the science classroom. Health education exists as a separate subject, or class, which provides basic facts but does not focus on complex biological mechanisms that underlie them. We suggest that while basic health facts are important and while biological knowledge alone is insufficient for behavioral change, students would benefit from deeper (than what is currently taught) understanding of biology and environmental factors that impact health. This chapter presents evidence that lack of scientific knowledge impacts individuals’ ability to reason and evaluate health information outside the school context. It also reviews educational interventions that improve students’ ability to reason about personal and socioscientific health issues by emphasizing deep conceptual understanding and informal reasoning and argumentation skills. We conclude that science education emphasizing reasoning and argumentation about general and environmental health, situated in the context of realistic situations and socioscientific dilemmas, is likely to promote scientific literacy, which can then contribute to informed citizenship and healthy personal choices.

References

  1. Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, D. W., Gazmararian, J. A., Williams, M. V., Scott, T., Parker, R. M., Green, D., Ren, J., & Peel, J. (2002). Functional health literacy and the risk of hospital admission among Medicare managed care enrollees. American Journal of Public Health, 92(8), 1278–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Committee for the Reorganization of Secondary Education. (1920). Reorganization of science in secondary schools. Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States.Google Scholar
  5. Cutler, D. M., & Lleras-Muney, M. (2006). Education and health: Evaluating theories and evidence. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 12352.Google Scholar
  6. DeBoer, G. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feinstein, N. (2010). Salvaging science literacy. Science education, 95(1), 168–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fensham, P. J. (1988). Familiar but different: Some dilemmas and new directions in science education. In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Developments and dilemmas in science education (pp. 1–26). New York: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fensham, P. J. (2009). Real world contexts in PISA science: Implications for context-based science education. Journal of research in science teaching, 46(8), 884–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gazmararian, J. A., Williams, M. V., Peel, J., & Baker, D. W. (2003). Health literacy and knowledge of chronic disease. Patient Education Counseling, 51(3), 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hurd, P. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16(52), 13–16.Google Scholar
  13. Joffe, S., Cook, E. F., Cleary, P. D., Clark, J. W., & Weeks, J. C. (2001). Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: A cross-sectional survey. Lancet, 358(9295), 1772–1777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kalichman, S. C., Benotsch, E., Suarez, T., Catz, S., Miller, J., & Rompa, D. (2000). Health literacy and health-related knowledge among persons living with HIV/AIDS. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 18, 325–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keselman, A., Kaufman, D. R., & Patel, V. L. (2004). “You Can Exercise Your Way Out of HIV” and other stories: The role of biological knowledge in adolescents’ evaluation of myths. Journal of Science Education, 88(4), 548–573.Google Scholar
  16. Keselman, A., Kaufman, D. R., Kramer, S., & Patel, V. L. (2007). Fostering conceptual change and critical reasoning about HIV and AIDS. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 844–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keselman, A., Slaughter, L., Smith, C. A., Kim, H., Divita, G., Browne, A., Tsai, C., & Zeng-Treitler, Q. (2007). Towards consumer-friendly PHRs: Patients’ experience with reviewing their health records. Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium, October, 399–403. Bethesda, MD: American Medical Informatics Association.Google Scholar
  18. Keselman, A., Browne, A. C., & Kaufman, D. R. (2008). Consumer health information seeking as hypothesis testing. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15(4), 484–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keselman, A., & Smith, C. A. (in press). A classification of errors in lay comprehension of medical documents. Journal of Biomedical Informatics.Google Scholar
  20. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larson, A. A., Britt, M. A., & Kurby, C. (2009). Improving students’ evaluation of informal arguments. Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 339–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implication for science education. Driffield, East Yorkshire, UK: Studies in Education.Google Scholar
  24. McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Tech­nology and Design Education, 7, 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Metz, K. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 219–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mull, D. S. (1991). Traditional perceptions of marasmus in Pakistan. Social Science and Medicine, 32(2), 175–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  28. Nielsen-Bohlman, L., Panzer, A., & Kindig, D. A. (Eds.). (2004). Health literacy: A prescription to end confusion. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Perkins, D. N. (1985). Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(5), 562–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramsey, J. (1989). A curriculum framework for community-based STS issue instruction. Education and Urban Society: Issues-Based Education, 22(1), 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rockefeller Brothers Fund (1958). The pursuit of excellence: Education and the future of America. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  32. Rubenstein, G. (2008). Start with big concepts; Follow with the Facts. A new assessment measures not what kids know but how well they learn. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/assessment-preparation-future-learning(Retrieved April 04, 2012)
  33. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schillinger, D., Grumbach, K., Piette, J., Wang, F., Osmond, D., Daher, C., Palacios, J., Sullivan, G. D., & Bindman, A. B. (2002). Association of health literacy with diabetes outcomes. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(4), 475–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shen, B. (1975). Science Literacy and the Public Understanding of Science. In S. B. Day (Ed.), Communication of scientific information (pp. 44–52). New York: S. Karger and A.G. Basel.Google Scholar
  39. Sivaramakrishnan, M., & Patel, V. L. (1993). Reasoning about childhood nutritional deficiencies by mothers in rural India: a cognitive analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 37(7), 937–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith, C., Hetzel, S., Dalrymple, P. W., & Keselman, A. (2011). Clinical text and coherence: Towards an operationalization of consumer understanding.Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4): e104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Specialized Information Services, National Library of Medicine. (2009). Assessing the potential for introducing environmental health education technology in middle schools science classrooms and beyond. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
  42. Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research is Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.Google Scholar
  43. Vosniadou, S. (1992). Knowledge acquisition and conceptual change. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41(4), 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vosniadou, S. (2007). The cognitive-situative divide and the problem of conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Voss, J. F., Blais, J., Means, M. L., & Greene, T. R. (1986). Informal reasoning and subject matter knowledge in the solving of economics problems by naive and novice individuals. Cognition and Instruction, 3(4), 269–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wolf, M. S., Gazmararian, J. A., & Baker, D. W., (2005). Health literacy and functional health status among older adults. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165(17), 1946–1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alla Keselman
    • 1
  • Savreen Hundal
    • 1
  • Catherine Arnott Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Specialized Information ServicesNational Library of Medicine, National Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations