Abstract
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).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
Bauer, M. W. (2009). The evolution of public understanding of science – discourse and comparative evidence. Science Technology Society, 14, 221–240.
Belkin, N. J. (1984). Cognitive models and information transfer. Social Science Information Studies, 4, 111–129.
Blair, J. A. (2006). Pragma-dialectics and pragma-dialectics. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
Burmeister, M., Rauch, F., & Eilks, I. (2012). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and secondary chemistry education. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 13, 59–68.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Toward an understanding of scientific literacy. In W. Gräber & C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacy – an international symposium. Kiel: IPN.
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.
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.
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.
Elmose, S., & Roth, W. M. (2005). Allgemeinbildung: Readiness for living in a risk society. Journal Current Studies, 37, 11–34.
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.
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.
Fleck, L. (1935). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. English translation 1979: Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of context in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 957–976.
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.
Hofstein, A., & Kesner, M. (2006). Industrial chemistry and school chemistry: Making chemistry studies more relevant. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1017–1039.
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.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1347–1362.
Jacobs, S. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation, 14, 261–286.
Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1992). Relevance and digressions in argumentative discussion: A pragmatic approach. Argumentation, 6, 161–176.
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.
Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1689–1716.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.
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.
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.
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.
Nielsen, J. A. (2012b). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96, 428–456.
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.
Roth, W. M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88, 263–291.
Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–44.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463–1488.
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.
Sjöström, J. (2013). Towards bildung-oriented chemistry education. Science and Education, 22, 1873–1890.
Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (Eds.). (1994). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
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.
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.
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.
Yager, R. E., & Lutz, M. V. (1995). STS to enhance total curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 28–35.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Eilks, I., Nielsen, J.A., Hofstein, A. (2014). Learning About the Role and Function of Science in Public Debate as an Essential Component of Scientific Literacy. In: Bruguière, C., Tiberghien, A., Clément, P. (eds) Topics and Trends in Current Science Education. Contributions from Science Education Research, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7281-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7281-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7280-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7281-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)