Learning About the Role and Function of Science in Public Debate as an Essential Component of Scientific Literacy

  • Ingo Eilks
  • Jan Alexis Nielsen
  • Avi Hofstein
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 1)


Science and technology are essential components for every modern society. They offer the base from which to promote economic growth and welfare. Developments and decisions concerning science and technology are also essential for protecting the environment for coming generations and thus enabling a sustainable development into our future (Burmeister et al. 2012). Therefore, society is continuously driven to make decisions about science and technology – in particular about their application and use with a view to their consequences on local, as well as regional, national, and global levels. In a democratic society, every citizen is thought to contribute to respective debates and decisions, even if the citizen is not an expert in science or technology. That is why science education should provide a respective basic knowledge and understanding for all students, but it should also offer a framework to learn about the use of science in societal debate (Bauer 2009; Hofstein et al. 2011; Millar and Osborne 1998; Sjöström 2013; Ryder 2001).


Science Education Scientific Information Information Transfer Intermediary Mechanism Societal Discussion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90.Google Scholar
  2. Bauer, M. W. (2009). The evolution of public understanding of science – discourse and comparative evidence. Science Technology Society, 14, 221–240.Google Scholar
  3. Belkin, N. J. (1984). Cognitive models and information transfer. Social Science Information Studies, 4, 111–129.Google Scholar
  4. Blair, J. A. (2006). Pragma-dialectics and pragma-dialectics. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Burmeister, M., & Eilks, I. (2012). An example of learning about plastics and their evaluation as a contribution to education for sustainable development in secondary school chemistry teaching. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 13, 93–102.Google Scholar
  6. Burmeister, M., Rauch, F., & Eilks, I. (2012). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and secondary chemistry education. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 13, 59–68.Google Scholar
  7. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Toward an understanding of scientific literacy. In W. Gräber & C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacy – an international symposium. Kiel: IPN.Google Scholar
  8. Eastwood, J. L., Schlegel, W. M., & Cook, K. L. (2011). Effects of an interdisciplinary program on students’ reasoning with socioscientific issues and perceptions of their learning experience. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Eilks, I. (2002). Teaching ‘Biodiesel’: A sociocritical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching, and students’ first views on it. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 3, 67–75.Google Scholar
  10. Eilks, I., Belova, N., Von Döhlen, M., Burmeister, M., & Stuckey, M. (2012). Kommunizieren und Bewerten lernen für den Alltag am Beispiel der Energydrinks. Der Mathematische und Naturwissenchaftliche Unterricht, 65, 480–486.Google Scholar
  11. Elmose, S., & Roth, W. M. (2005). Allgemeinbildung: Readiness for living in a risk society. Journal Current Studies, 37, 11–34.Google Scholar
  12. Feierabend, T., & Eilks, I. (2010). Raising students’ perception of the relevance of science teaching and promoting communication and evaluation capabilities using authentic and controversial socio-scientific issues in the framework of climate change. Science Education International, 21, 176–196.Google Scholar
  13. Fensham, P. J. (2009). Real world contexts in PISA science: Implications for context-based science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 884–896.Google Scholar
  14. Fleck, L. (1935). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. English translation 1979: Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  15. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of context in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 957–976.Google Scholar
  16. Goodwin, J. (2001). One question, two answers. In H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson, & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Argumentation and its implications. Windsor: Ontario Society for the Study of Argument.Google Scholar
  17. Hofstein, A., & Kesner, M. (2006). Industrial chemistry and school chemistry: Making chemistry studies more relevant. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1017–1039.Google Scholar
  18. Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education: A pedagogical justification and the state of the art in Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1459–1483.Google Scholar
  19. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1347–1362.Google Scholar
  20. Jacobs, S. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation, 14, 261–286.Google Scholar
  21. Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1992). Relevance and digressions in argumentative discussion: A pragmatic approach. Argumentation, 6, 161–176.Google Scholar
  22. Kesner, M., Hofstein, A., & Ben-Zvi, R. (1997). Student and teacher perceptions of industrial chemistry case studies. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 725–738.Google Scholar
  23. Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1689–1716.Google Scholar
  24. Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting scientific literacy using a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching: Concept, examples, experiences. International Journal Environment Science Education, 4, 231–245.Google Scholar
  25. Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2010). The development of a chemistry lesson plan on shower gels and musk fragrances following a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach – a project of participatory action research. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 11, 129–141.Google Scholar
  26. Marks, R., Bertram, S., & Eilks, I. (2008). Learning chemistry and beyond with a lesson plan on “potato crisps”, which follows a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry lessons – a case study. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 9, 267–276.Google Scholar
  27. Marks, R., Otten, J., & Eilks, I. (2010). Writing news spots about chemistry – a way to promote students’ competencies in communication and evaluation. School Science Review, 92(339), 99–108.Google Scholar
  28. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.Google Scholar
  29. Nielsen, J. A. (2010). Functional roles of science in socio-scientific discussions. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.), Contemporary science education – implications from science education research about orientations, strategies and assessment. Aachen: Shaker.Google Scholar
  30. Nielsen, J. A. (2011). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43, 371–393.Google Scholar
  31. Nielsen, J. A. (2012a). Arguing from Nature: The role of ‘nature’ in students’ argumentations on a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 723–744.Google Scholar
  32. Nielsen, J. A. (2012b). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96, 428–456.Google Scholar
  33. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Roth, W. M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88, 263–291.Google Scholar
  35. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–44.Google Scholar
  36. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.Google Scholar
  37. Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463–1488.Google Scholar
  39. Sadler, T. D., Klostermann, M. L., & Topcu, M. S. (2011). Learning science content and socio-scientific reasoning through classroom explorations of climate change. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Sjöström, J. (2013). Towards bildung-oriented chemistry education. Science and Education, 22, 1873–1890.Google Scholar
  41. Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (Eds.). (1994). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  42. Stuckey, M., Lippel, M., & Eilks, I. (2012). Sweet chemistry: Learning about natural and artificial sweetening substances and advertising in chemistry lessons. Chemistry in Action, 36–43.Google Scholar
  43. Stuckey, M., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of ‘relevance’ in science education and its implications for the chemistry curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 34, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Aalsvoort, J. (2004). Activity theory as a tool to address the problem of chemistry’s lack of relevance in secondary school chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1635–1651.Google Scholar
  45. Yager, R. E., & Lutz, M. V. (1995). STS to enhance total curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 28–35.Google Scholar
  46. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BremenBremenGermany
  2. 2.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations