Advertisement

A Win-Win Situation for Health and Science Education: Seeing Through the Lens of a New Framework Model of Health Literacy

  • Albert Zeyer

Abstract

Health is a “megatrend.” Nevertheless, the role of health and health education in science education has been less important than the role of environmental education. This is a reflection of a cultural-historical constellation in health and health promotion, as will be discussed in this chapter. The emergence of the concept of health literacy offers a promising approach for newly addressing this relationship. To this aim, a framework model for health literacy is presented. It shows explicitly that health literacy is inherently knowledge-based and thus points out a strong link between scientific literacy and health literacy. Indeed, a win-win situation exists between these two fields that is yet to be fully exploited. Several concrete examples demonstrate how the systematic analysis of health issues through the model may reveal the potential benefits of including health issues in science education. It will also be underlined that health literacy refers not only to the field of good health in its narrowest sense but also to the field of diseases and to medicine, which opens up a whole range of topics that are fascinating and relevant to students. A concrete example of a teaching unit will be presented along with a discussion of the need for institutional efforts to develop and spread such examples of best practice. To this end, two vignettes created by other authors have been included in this chapter.

References

  1. Antonovsky, A. (1997). Salutogenese. Zur Entmystifizierung der Gesundheit. Tübingen: dgvt Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G. S. (2000). Renegotiating the culture of school science. The contribution of research. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 245–264). Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, D. W. (2006). The meaning and the measure of healthy literacy. Journal of General Internal medicine, 21, 878–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baram-Tsabari, A., Sethi, R. J., Bry, L., & Yarden, A. (2006). Using questions sent to an ask-a-scientist site to identify children’s interests in science. Science Education, 90(6), 1050–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger, R. (2002). Einfluss kontextorientierten Physikunterrichts auf Interesse und Leistung in der Sekundarstufe II. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 8, 119–32.Google Scholar
  6. Bögeholz, S., Hößle, C., Langlet, J., Sander, E., & Schlüter, K. (2004). Bewerten – Urteilen – Entscheiden im biologischen Kontext: Modelle in der Biologiedidaktik. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 10, 89–115.Google Scholar
  7. Boghossian, P. (2006). Fear of knowledge: Against relativism and constructivism. Oxford: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolte, C. (2003a). Konturen wünschenswerter chemiebezogener Bildung im Meinungsbild einer ausgewählten Öffentlichkeit – Methode und Konzeption der curricularen Delphi-Studie Chemie sowie Ergebnisse aus dem ersten Untersuchungsabschnitt. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 9, 7–26.Google Scholar
  9. Bolte, C. (2003b). Chemiebezogene Bildung zwischen Wunsch und Wirklichkeit – Ausgewählte Ergebnisse aus dem zweiten Untersuchungsabschnitt der curricularen Delphi-Studie Chemie. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 9, 27–42.Google Scholar
  10. Christidou, V. (2006). Greek students’ science-related interests and experiences: Gender differences and correlations. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1181–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2001). Defining “science” in a multicultural world: implications for science education. Science Education, 85(1), 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colicchia, G., Müller, R., & Wiesner, H. (2001). Physik und Medizin: Augenärztliche Verfahren im Physikunterricht. In R. Brechel (Ed.), Zur Didaktik der Physik und Chemie. Probleme und Perspektiven (pp. 288–290). Alsbach/Bergstraße: Leuchtturm.Google Scholar
  13. Csermely, P., Rocard, M., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education NOW: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, Science, Economy and Society.Google Scholar
  14. Dragset, J., Nygaaed, H. A., Eide, G., Bondevik, M., Nortvedt, M. W., & Natvig, G. K. (2008). Sense of coherence as a resource in relation to health-related quality of life among mentally intact nursing home residents – a questionnaire study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in science: From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gadamer, H.-G. (1993). Über die Verborgenheit der Gesundheit. Aufsätze und Vorträge. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  17. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  18. Gräsel, C. (2000). Ökologische Kompetenz: Analyse und Förderung. München: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.Google Scholar
  19. Hafen, M. (2007). Mythologie der Gesundheit. Zur Integration von Salutogenese und Pathogenese. Heidelberg: Auer.Google Scholar
  20. Harrison, J. K. (2005). Science education and health education: Locating the connections. Studies in Science Education (University of Leeds), 41(1), 51–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [HCC-Lab, 2005] Health Care Communication Laboratory, Università della Svizzera Italiana. (2005). Denkanstösse für ein Rahmenkonzept zu Health Literacy. Lugano: Università della Svizzera Italiana.Google Scholar
  22. Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2), 180–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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), 844–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kickbusch, I. (2006). Die Gesundheitsgesellschaft. Megatrends der Gesundheit und deren Konsequenzen für Politik und Gesellschaft. Werbach-Gamburg: Verlag für Gesundheitsförderung.Google Scholar
  25. Kolstø, S. D., et al. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marglin, S. (2008). The dismal science. How thinking like an economist undermines community. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Miller, P. H., Slawinski Blessing, J., & Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender differences in high-school students’ views about science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 363–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Müller, W. (1999). Physik und Medizin – ein themenorientiertes Unterrichtskonzept für fachübergreifende physikalische Bildung. In Beiträge zur Didaktik und Methodik des Physikunterrichts. Festschrift für Hans-Joachim Wilke (110–137). Berlin: Volk und Wissen.Google Scholar
  29. Naidoo, J., & Wills, J. (2003). Lehrbuch der Gesundheitsförderung, umfassend und anschaulich mit vielen Beispielen und Projekten aus der Praxis der Gesundheitsförderung. Gamburg: Verlag für Gesundheitsförderung.Google Scholar
  30. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. A report to the Nuffield foundation. London: King’s College London.Google Scholar
  31. Phelan, P., Davidson, A. L., & Cao, H. T. (1991). Students multiple worlds – Negotiating the boundaries of family, peer, and school cultures. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 22, 224–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwartz-Bloom, R. D., & Halpin, M. J. (2003). Integrating pharmacology topics in high school biology and chemistry classes improves performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 922–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Searle, J. R. (2004). Mind – a brief introduction. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Todt, E., & Götz, C. (1998). Interesse von Jugendlichen an der Gentechnologie. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 4(1), 3–11.Google Scholar
  36. Vogt, H., Upmeier, Zu, Belzen, A., Schröer, T., & Hoek, I. (1999). Unterrichtliche Aspekte im Fach Biologie, durch die Unterricht aus Schülersicht als interessant erachtet wird. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 5(3), 75–85.Google Scholar
  37. Zeyer, A., & Welzel, M. (2005). Was Seife mit dem ersten Schrei des Neugeborenen zu tun hat. Praxis der Naturwissenschaften: Physik in der Schule, 7(54), 40–4.Google Scholar
  38. Zeyer, A. (2006). Medizin – Fundgrube für Integrierte Themen. In A. Zeyer & M. Wyss (Eds.), Interdisziplinarität im Unterricht auf der Sekundarstufe II (pp. 65–85). Zürich/Bern: Pestalozzianum/hep.Google Scholar
  39. Zeyer, A., & Welzel, M. (2006). Was Viskosität und Rheuma miteinander zu tun haben – Die Blutsenkung. Praxis der Naturwissenschaft: Physik in der Schule, 7(55), 39–44.Google Scholar
  40. Zeyer, A. (2009). Public reason and teaching science in a multicultural world: A comment on cobern and loving: A comment on cobern and loving: “An essay for educators…” in the light of John Rawls’ political philosophy. Science & Education, 18(8), 1095–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zeyer, A., & Roth, W.-M. (2009). A mirror of society: a discourse analytic study of 15- to 16-year-old Swiss students’ talk about environment and environmental protection. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(4), 961–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zeyer, A., & Odermatt, F. (2009). Gesundheitskompetenz (Health Literacy) – Bindeglied zwischen Gesundheitsbildung und naturwissenschaftlichem Unterricht. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 15, 265–285.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EducationUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations