While much of the work in the public understanding of science has focused on the public's appreciation of science and their familiarity with key scientific concepts, understanding the processes involved in learning science has largely been ignored. This article documents a study of how particular members of the public learn about radiation and radioactivity, and proposes a model to describe their learning—the Informal Conceptual Change Model [ICCM]. ICCM is a multidimensional framework that incorporates three theoretical dimensions—the cognitive, conative, and affective. The paper documents each of these dimensions, and then illustrates the model by drawing upon data collected in a case study. The emphasis of the analysis is on understanding how the members of the public living in an area with high levels of background radiation learn about the science of this potential health threat. The summarizing comments examine the need for a greater awareness of the complexities of informal learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
M. O'Riordan and C. O'Riordan, “The Matter of Radon,” paper presented at the Nuclear Inter Jura, Bath, UK, 1991.
2.
and P. Solvic, B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein, “Informing the public about the risks due to ionizing radiation,”Health Physics41, no. 4 (1981): 589-598.
3.
and J. Miller, “Scientific literacy in the United States,” in Communicating Science to the Public, ed. D. Evered and M. O'Connor (London: Wiley, 1987): 19-37.
4.
and A. Irwin and B. Wynne, eds., Misunderstanding Science: The Public Reconstruction Of Science And Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
5.
and M. Michael, “Ignoring science: Discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science” in Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction Of Science And Technology, ed. A. Irwin and B. Wynne, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996): 107-126.
6.
See, for example, J. Durant and G. Thomas, “Why should we promote the public understanding of science,”Scientific Literacy Papers (Oxford University, 1987): 1-15.
7.
Miller , “Scientific literacy in the United States.”
8.
and S. Withey, “Public opinion about science and the scientist,”Public Opinion Quarterly23 (1959): 382-388.
9.
and the seminal work of B. Rogoff and J. Lave, Everyday Cognition, Its Development In Social Context (London/Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1987).
10.
An analysis is provided by J. Wellington, “Newspaper science, school science: friends or enemies,”International Journal of Science Education13 (1991): 363-372.
11.
and A. Hofstein and S. Rosenfield, “Bridging the Gap Between Formal and Informal Science Learning”Studies in Science Education28 (1996): 87-112.
12.
L. Schauble and K. Bartlett, “Constructing a science gallery for children and families: The role of research in an innovative design process,”Science Education81 (1997): 781-793.
13.
M. Chen , “Television and Informal Science Education: assessing the past, present, and future of research,” in Informal Science Learning: What The Research Says About Television, Science Museums And Community Projects, ed. V. Crane, H. Nicholson, M. Chen, and S. Bitgood (Dedham, MA: Research Communication Ltd., 1994): 15-61.
14.
A. Lucas , P. McManus, and G. Thomas, “Investigating learning from informal sources: listening to conversations and observing play in science museums,”European Journal of Science Education8 (1986): 341-381.
15.
O' Riordan and Riordan, “The Matter of Radon” (cit. n. 1).
16.
US Environmental Protection Agency , A Citizen's Guide To Radon (Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 1992).
17.
L. Roberts , “Why do we fear radiation?”Science and Public Affairs14 (1996): 19-25.
18.
National Radiological Protection Board , Radon In Dwellings In England 1997: A Review (Chilton: NRPB, 1997).
19.
S. Alsop, “Modeling informal learning in the public understanding of science: the case of radon gas,” (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Surrey, 1998).
20.
G. Posner , K. Strike, P. Hewson, and W. Gertzog, “Conceptual change and science teaching,”European Journal of Science Education4 (1982): 231-240.
21.
and N. Thorley and R. Stofflett, “Representation of the Conceptual Change Model in Science Teacher Education,”Science Education80 (1996): 317-339.
22.
K. Strike and G. Posner, “A revisionist theory of conceptual change,” In Philosophy Of Science, Cognitive Science, And Educational Theory And Practice, ed. R. Duschl and R. J. Hamilton (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1992): 147-175.
23.
D. Treagust , “A multidimensional interpretative framework for understanding conceptual change learning,” paper presented at the American Education Research Association, New York, April 8-12, 1996.
24.
Strike and Posner, “A revisionist theory of conceptual change.”
25.
C. Chinn and W. Brewer, “The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: a theoretical framework and implications for science education,”Review of Educational Research63 (1993): 1-49.
26.
P. Pintrich , R. Marx, and R. Boyle, “Beyond cold conceptual change: the role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change,”Review of Educational Research63 (1993): 167-199.
27.
B. Glaser and A. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (New York: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967).
28.
J. Powney and M. Watts, Interviewing in Educational Research (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987).
29.
and M. Watts and S. Alsop, “A study in the affective domain: student-teachers' learning about radiation and radioactivity,”The Curriculum Journal8 (1997): 351-365.
30.
A rationalist critique of the CCM is clearly summarized by Pintrich, Marx, and Boyle, “Beyond cold conceptual change: the role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change.”
31.
and M. Tyson, G. Venville, J. Harrison, and D. Treagust, “A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom,”Science Education81 (1997): 387-404.
32.
Posner, Strike, Hewson , and Gertzog, “Conceptual change and science teaching.”
33.
Definitions of conceptual status are from P. Hewson and R. Thorley, “The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom,”International Journal of Science Education11 (1989): 541-553.
34.
Conceptual ecology, an ecological metaphor, is derived from S. Toulmin, Human Understanding: An Inquiry Into The Aims Of Science (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972).
35.
See, for example, Hewson and Thorley, “The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom.”
36.
and G. Kelly, A Theory Of Personality, The Psychology Of Personal Constructs (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1955).
37.
and Alsop and Watts, “Sources from a Somerset Village: A model for informal learning about radiation and radioactivity.”
38.
H. Eijkelhof , “Physics learning in personal and social contexts,” in Papers from the 7th IOSTE Symposium: Science and Technology Education in a Democratic Society, ed. K. Boers, K. Kortland, and V. Trommel (Enshede, National Institute for Curriculum Development, 1994): 560-576.
39.
and M. Watts and S. Alsop, “A study in the affective domain: student-teachers' learning about radiation and radioactivity,”The Curriculum Journal8 (1997): 351-365.
40.
A. Kruglanski , Lay Epistemics And Human Knowledge: Cognitive And Motivational Bases (New York: Plenum, 1989).
41.
J. Solomon , “Higher level understanding of the nature of science,”School Science Review16 (1995): 15-22.
42.
Watts and Alsop, “A study in the affective domain: student-teachers' learning about radiation and radioactivity.”
43.
J. Dewey , “My Pedagogic Creed” (1897) in John Dewey: Selected Educational Writings, ed. F.W. Garforth, (London: Heinemann, 1966): 1-19.
44.
D. Layton , “Science education and praxis: the relationship of school science to practical action,”Studies in Science Education19 (1991): 43-79.
45.
and Wynne, “Knowledges in Context.”
46.
Wynne , “Knowledges in Context.”
47.
Based on a concept of “fate control” articulated by M. Budd Rowe, “Science education: a framework for decision-makers,”Daedalus112 (1983): 123-142.
48.
and four case studies are documented in Watts and Alsop, “A study in the affective domain: student-teachers' learning about radiation and radioactivity.”
49.
The differentiated model of radioactivity has been documented, for example see, H.M.C. Eijkelhof, Radiation and Risk in Physics Education (Utrecht: Uitgeverij CB. Press, 1990).
50.
P. Hewson and M. Hewson, “The status of students' conceptions,” In Research In Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues And Empirical Studies, eds. R. Druit, F. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer (Keil, Germany: IPN, 1991): 176-187.
51.
The germ model of radioactivity has been documented by Eijkelhof, Radiation and Risk in Physics Education.
52.
The condition fruitful has been defined as academically useful; this distinguishes it from the conative condition proposed. See, N. Thorley and R. Stofflett, “Representation of the Conceptual Change Model in Science Teacher Education,”Science Education80 (1996): 317-339.
53.
Alsop , “Modeling informal learning in the public understanding of science: the case of radon gas.”
54.
Wynne , “Knowledges in Context.”
55.
For example, J. Miller, “Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review,”Daedalus112 (1983): 29-48.
56.
A. Furnham , “Lay understandings of science: young people and adults' ideas of scientific concepts,”Studies in Science Education20 (1992): 29-64.
57.
J. Durant , Editorial. Public Understanding of Science6 (1997): 1-3.
58.
and Irwin and Wynne, Misunderstanding science.
59.
E. Von Glaserfield , Construction Of Knowledge (Salinas, CA: Intersystems Publications, 1989).
60.
Durant, Editorial.
61.
A. Irwin , Citizen Science: A Study Of People, Expertise And Sustainable Development, (London: Routledge, 1995).
62.
A. Hofstein and S. Rosenfield, “Bridging the Gap Between Formal and Informal Science Learning,”Studies in Science Education28 (1996): 87-112.
