The debate about the public understanding of science has taken place at a time when science education in UK schools has undergone significant change. This paper examines some of the features pertinent to the two areas. The aims of school science education are shown to be generally consistent with those cited for increasing the public understanding of science. A comparison is made between the science occurring in the public domain of newspapers with that included in the formal curriculum. A large degree of complementarity is noted leading to the conclusion that schoolchildren's exposure to newspaper science can be beneficial to their formal education. The rationale of journalists in writing about science is considered and the issue of relevance is shown to be consistent with the perceived needs of schoolchildren.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Chapman, B. , 1991, The overselling of science education in the eighties. School Science Review, 72(260), 47-63.
2.
Welcoming address to delegates at the meeting of the International Federation of Associations for the Advancement of Science and Technology (IFAAST), by the President, Sir Walter Bodmer. The meeting, entitled `Popularising Science Around the World', was held at the British Association Annual Festival of Science at Loughborough University of Technology in September 1994.
3.
Evans, G. A. , and Durant, J. R., 1989, Understanding of science in Britain and the USA. British Social Attitudes: Special International Report, edited by R. R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon and L. Brooks (Aldershot: Gower), p. 105.
4.
Durant, J. , Evans, G., and Thomas, G., 1992, Public understanding of science in Britain: the role of medicine in the popular representation of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 161.
5.
These definitions are given in the glossary of Teaching Science at Key Stages 1 and 2, 1993 (London: National Curriculum Council), p. 78. They are also included in the equivalent document for Key Stages 3 and 4. The documents aim to identify good practice in implementing the National Curriculum in science and to prepare guidance for teachers.
6.
Realising our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology presented to Parliament by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1993 (London: HMSO), p. 65.
7.
Department of Education and Science/Welsh Office , 1985, Science 5-16: A Statement of Policy (London: HMSO), pp. 2-3.
8.
National Curriculum Council , 1989, Science: Non-Statutory Guidance (London: NCC), p. A5.
9.
Milner, B. , 1986, The ASE Science Teacher's Handbook, edited by J. Nellist and B. Nicholl (London: Hutchinson), p. 7.
10.
Department of Education and Science/Welsh Office , 1989, Science in the National Curriculum (London: HMSO).
11.
Department of Education and Science/Welsh Office , 1989, Science in the National Curriculum (1991) (London: HMSO).
12.
Jones, G. , Connell, I., and Meadows, J., 1978, The Presentation of Science by the Media (Primary Communications Research Centre, University of Leicester).
13.
Wellington, J. , 1991, Newspaper science, school science: friends or enemies?International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 363-372.
14.
Eijkelhof, H. , and Millar, R., 1988, Reading about Chernobyl. School Science Review, 70(251), 35-41.
15.
Hansen, A. , 1994, Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 111-134.
16.
Wellington, J. , 1991, Newspaper science, school science: friends or enemies?International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 367.
17.
Bodmer, W. , and Wilkins, J., 1992, Research to improve public understanding programmes. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 8.
18.
Wellington, J. , 1993, Using newspapers in science education. School Science Review, 74(268), 49.
19.
Independent, 1994, Minister of Science acts as the `sounding board' for new citizens' charter initiative for museums. 23 November, p.7.
20.
Independent, 1994, The key to our skeletons. 22 November, p.31.
21.
Department for Education , 1995, Science in the National Curriculum (London: HMSO). At the time the newspaper survey was carried out I had a copy of what was termed `a second draft'. The final version is identical in all respects relevant to this study. It should be noted, however, that the introduction date for children in their final stage of study is 1996, a year later than the 1995 start for all other children.
22.
Hansen, A. , 1994, Journalistic practices and science reporting in the British press. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 116.
23.
Durant, J. , Evans, G., and Thomas, G., 1992, Public understanding of science in Britain: the role of medicine in the popular representation of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 166.
24.
Shapin, S. , 1992, Why the public ought to understand science-in-the-making. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 28.
25.
The Times, 1994, First gasp. 21 November, p.16.
26.
Independent, 1994, Tests on animals often worthless. 21 November, p.6.
27.
Department for Education , 1995, Science in the National Curriculum (London: HMSO), p. 24.
28.
The Times, 1994, Inject some truth into vaccine debate. 22 November, p.19.
29.
The Times, 1994, How do you patent a molecule? 21 November, p.16.
30.
The Times, 1994, Europe sets out to solve a space riddle. 21 November, p.16.
31.
Guardian, 1994, Zinc sinks for carbon dioxide. 25 November, p.22.
32.
Daily Express, 1994, Genius to decode cancer genes. 22 November, p.39.
33.
Jenkins, E. W. , 1994, Public understanding of science and science education for action. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(6), 601-611.
34.
Department of Education and Science/Welsh Office , 1985, Science 5-16: A Statement of Policy (London: HMSO), p. 4.
35.
For a recent discussion of this assumption see Evans, G., and Durant, J., 1995, The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 57-74.
