With the re-emergence of values education in the school curriculum in the last decade, science is viewed as one of the key teaching domains in which students can explore underlying beliefs and values and develop reasoning and critical thinking skills to make informed decisions on socio-scientific issues. This paper considers these issues and highlights the importance of integrating Christian values in science education in the field of biotechnology.
An investigation of the use of ethical frameworks in the teaching of bioethics is outlined. The research supports the proposition that the use of such frameworks assists students in the ethical reasoning process in dealing with socio-scientific issues.
AcarOmerTurkmenLutfullah, and RoychoudhuryAnita (2010). ‘Student Difficulties in Socio-scientific Argumentation and Decision-making Research Findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines.’International Journal of Science Education32:9, 1191–1206.
2.
AikenheadG.S. (1986). The content of STS education. STS Research Network Missive, 2, 13–18.
3.
AlbeV. (2008). ‘Students’ position and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socio-scientific issue.’Science & Education, 17, 805–827.
4.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
Australian National Curriculum (2010). The Australian Curriculum—Overview. Retrieved May 20, 2011 from the Australian Curriculum website: http://www.australiancurriculun.edu.au
6.
BingleW.H. & GaskellP.J. (1994). ‘Scientific literacy for decision making and the social construction of scientific knowledge.’Science Education, 78, 185–201.
7.
BoerwinkelD.J. & WaarloA.J. (2009). Rethinking Science Curricula in the Genomics Era. Urecht, Netherlands: Urecht University, The Netherlands CD-Beta Press.
8.
CameronA. (2011). Joined-up Life—A Christian account of how ethics works. Leicester: Inter Varsity Press.
9.
Curriculum Council of Western Australia (1998). Values in the Curriculum Framework. Retrieved April 17, 2011 from the Curriculum Council website: http://www.curriculum.wa.edu.au.
10.
DriverR.LeachJ.MillarR., & ScottP. (1996). Young people's images of science. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
11.
DriverR.NewtonP., & OsborneJ. (2000). ‘Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms.’Science Education, 84, 287–312.
12.
EkborgM. (2008). ‘Opinion building on a socio-scientific issue: The case of genetically modified plants.’Journal of Biological Education, 42 (2), 60–65.
13.
HillB.V. (1994). ‘An education of value: Towards a value framework for the school curriculum.’ In Report of the review of the Queensland school curriculum 1994: Shaping the future. Vol. 3, 233–276. Brisbane: Queensland Government.
14.
HillM. (2002). The How and Why of Love—An Introduction to Evangelical Ethics. Kingsford: Matthias Media.
15.
Holy Bible. (1994). New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
16.
Jimenez-AleixandreM.P.RodriguezA.B., & DuschlR.A. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science:’ Argument in high school genetics. Science Education84, 757–792.
17.
JohnsonR.B. & OnwuegbuzieA.J. (2004). ‘Mixed Methods Research: a research paradigm whose time has come.’Educational Researcher33, 14–26.
18.
KolstoS.D. (2001). ‘Science literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the Science dimension of controversial socio-scientific issues.’Science Education85, 291–310.
19.
KolstoS.D.BungumB.ArnesenE.IsnesA.KristensenT.MestadI.QualeA.TonningA.S.V.UlvikM. (2006). ‘Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socio-scientific issues.’Science Education90, 632–655.
20.
KortlandK. (1996). ‘An STS scenario study about students' decision making on the waste issue.’Science Education, 80, 673–689.
21.
KuhnD. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
LeeM. (2007). ‘Developing decision making skills for socio-scientific issues.’Journal of Biological Education, 41 (4), 170–177.
23.
MessnerN. (2010). Christian Ethics. London: SCM Press.
24.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
25.
National Statement on Science for Australian Schools (1993). Status and Quality of Teaching and Learning Science in Australian schools. Retrieved on May 11, 2011 from the website: http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/schools_education
26.
OsborneJ.F.ErduranS., & SimonS. (2004). ‘Enhancing the quality of argument in school science.’Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (10), 994–1020.
27.
PatronisT.PotariD., & SpiliotopoulouV. (1999). ‘Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socioscientific issue: Implications for teaching.’International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745–754.
28.
PetersonJ.C. (2001). Genetic Turning Points—The Ethics of Human Genetic Intervention. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William Eerdmans Publishing Company.
29.
RaeS.B. & CoxP.M. (1999). Bioethics—A Christian Approach in a Pluralistic Age. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William Eerdmans Publishing Company.
30.
ReissM. (2008). ‘The use of ethical frameworks by students following a new science course for 16–18 year-olds.’Science and Education, 17, 889–902.
31.
SadlerT.D.ChambersF.W., & ZeidlerD.L. (2004). ‘Student conceptualisations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue.’International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387–409.
32.
SadlerT.D. (2004a) ‘Informal Reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: A critical review of research.’Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
33.
SadlerT.D. & ZeidlerD. (2005). ‘The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues.’Science Education89, 71–83.
SiebertE.D. & McIntoshW.J. (Eds.) (2001). College pathways to the science education standards. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
36.
SimmonneauxL. (2001). ‘Role-play or debate to promote students' argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis.’International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903–927.
37.
WuY-T., & TsaiC-C. (2007). ‘High school students’ informal reasoning on socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses.’International Journal of Science Education, 29 (11), 1163–1187.
38.
YapS. F. (2010). ‘Integrating faith and the science curriculum.’The Christian Teachers Journal18.3, 18–21.
39.
YinR.K.Fourth Ed. (2009). Case Study Research—Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
ZeidlerD.L. (1984). ‘Moral issues and social policy in science education: Closing the literacy gap.’Science Education, 68, 411–419.
41.
ZeidlerD.L. & KeeferM. (2003). ‘The role of moral reasoning and the status of socio-scientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations.’ In ZeidlerD.L. (Ed.). The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socio-scientific issues in science education (pp. 7–38). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
42.
ZeidlerD.L.WalkerK.A.AckettW.A.SimmonsM.L. (2002). ‘Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socio-scientific dilemmas.’Science Education, 86, 343–367.
43.
ZoharA., & NemetF. (2002). ‘Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics.’Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.
