The 1980s saw the rise of the public understanding of science, as a movement and as a research field. The decade also saw the goal of K-12 science instruction reoriented toward the promotion of scientific literacy for all students. This paper explores the subsequent relationship of these two movements. It examines debates over K-12 science curricular reform, with particular focus on “civic scientific literacy,” the introduction of science, technology, and society (STS) issues into classrooms, and the gradual retreat from STS-oriented reforms. It discusses how those debates may have been influenced by findings from the public understanding of science, and argues that educational debates themselves provide an important resource for probing larger issues of public understanding.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AAS (1989) Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology . Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
2.
Aikenhead, G. (2002) “The Educo-Politics of Curriculum Development: A Response to Peter Fensham's `Time to Change Drivers for Scientific Literacy,'” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and TechnologyEducation2(1): 49—58.
3.
Aikenhead, G. (2003) “STS Education. A Rose by Any Other Name ,” in R. Cross (ed.) A Vision for Science Education: Responding to the Work of Peter Fensham , pp. 59—75. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
4.
Bell, R.L. and Lederman, N.G. (2003) “Understanding of the NOS and Decision Making on Science and Technology-Based Issues,” Science Education87(3): 352—77.
5.
Borsook, P. (2000) Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High Tech. New York: Public Affairs.
6.
Bybee, R.W. (1997) Achieving Scientific Literacy: From Purposes to Practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann .
7.
Cross, R., ed. (2003) A Vision for Science Education: Responding to the Work of Peter Fensham. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
8.
Daedalus (1983) Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences112(2): “Scientific Literacy .”
9.
Davis, I. (2004) “Science and Citizenship Education,” International Journal of Science Education26(14): 1751—63.
10.
Department for Education and Employment [UK] ( 2000) Science: the National Curriculum for England. Key Stages 1—4. URL: http://www.nc.uk.net/webday/harmonise (accessed July 2005).
11.
Désautels, J. (2002) “L'Alphabétisation technoscientifique et la démocraatisation de la démocratie,” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and TechnologyEducation2(1): 189—96.
12.
Donnelly, J. (2001) “Contested Terrain or Unified Project? `The Nature of Science' in the National Curriculum for England and Wales,” International Journal of Science Education23(2): 181—95.
13.
Donnelly, J. (2005) “Reforming Science in the School Curriculum: A Critical Analysis,” Oxford Review of Education31(2): 293—309.
14.
Durant, J. (1992) “Editorial,” Public Understanding of Science1: 1—5.
15.
Einsiedel, E.F. (2004) “Editorial,” Public Understanding of Science13: 5—6.
16.
Fensham, P.J. (1997) “School Science and its Problems with Scientific Literacy,” in R. Levinson and J. Thomas (eds) Science Today: Problem or Crisis?, pp. 119—36. London: Routledge.
17.
Fensham, P.J. (2002) “Time to Change Drivers for Scientific Literacy,” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and TechnologyEducation2(1): 9—24.
18.
Friedman, T.L. (2005) The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
19.
Gaskell, J. (2003) “Perspectives and Possibilities in the Politics of Science Curriculum,” in R. Cross (ed.) A Vision for Science Education: Responding to the Work of Peter Fensham, pp. 139—52. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
20.
Gaskell, P.J. (1992) “Authentic Science and School Science,” International Journal of Science Education14: 265—72.
Gross, P.R., ed. (2005) The State of State Science Standards: A Report by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation . Washington, DC: Thomas F. Fordham Foundation and Institute. URL: http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/Science%20Standards.FinalFinal.pdf (accessed July 2005).
23.
Gross, P.R. and Levitt, N. (1994) Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
24.
Hipkins, R., Barker, M. and Bolstad, R. (2005) “Teaching the `Nature of Science': Modest Adaptations or Radical Reconceptions?,” International Journal of Science Education27(2): 243—54.
25.
Holdsworth, D. (2002) “Science, Politics, and Science Policy in Canada: Steps Towards a Renewed Critical Inquiry,” Journal of Canadian Studies / Revue d'études canadiennes37(3): 14—32.
26.
Hurd, P.D. (1998) “Scientific Literacy: New Minds for a Changing World,” Science Education82: 407—16.
27.
Hutton, N. (1996) “Interaction between the Formal UK School Science Curriculum and the Public Understanding of Science,” Public Understanding of Science5(1): 41—53.
28.
Irwin, A. (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London and New York: Routledge .
29.
Irwin, A. and Wynne, B., eds (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
30.
Jager, R.E. (2000) “A Vision for What Science Education Should Be Like for the First 25 Years of a New Millennium,” School Science and Mathematics100(6): 327—41.
31.
Jenkins, E. (1997) “Towards a Functional Public Understanding of Science,” in R. Levinson and J. Thomas (eds) Science Today: Problem or Crisis?, pp. 137—50. London: Routledge.
32.
Joshua, S. (2002) “Pour une réponse multiforme à un problème délicat,” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and TechnologyEducation2(1): 176—82.
33.
Kumar, D. and Berlin, D. (1998) “A Study of STS Themes in State Science Curriculum Frameworks in the United States,” Journal of Science Education and Technology7(2): 191—7.
34.
Larochelle, M. (2002) “Les paradoxes de Peter,” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and TechnologyEducation2(1): 183—8.
35.
Lawrence, C., Yager, R., Sowell, S., Hancock, E., Yalaki, Y. and Jablon, P. (2001) “The Philosophy, Theory and Practice of Science-Technology-Society Orientations,” paper presented in the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Costa Mesa, CA, 18—21 January. URL: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/context_storage_01/0000000b/80/25/c4/79.pdf (accessed July 2006).
36.
Lehr, J.L. (forthcoming) “ Democracy, Scientific Literacy and Values in Science Education in the United States,” in D. Corrigan, J. Dillon and R. Gunstone (eds) The Re-emergence of Values in the Science Curriculum , 15 pp. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
37.
Lewenstein, B.V., ed. (1992) When Science Meets the Public: Proceedings of a Workshop Organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science Committee on Public Understanding of Science and Technology February 17, 1991Washington D.C.Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
38.
Lewenstein, B.V. (2002) “Editorial: A Decade of Public Understanding ,” Public Understanding of Science11: 1—4.
39.
Locke, S. (1999) “Golem Science and the Public Understanding of Science: From Deficit to Dilemma,” Public Understanding of Science8(2): 75—92.
40.
Lupton, D. (1999) Risk. London: Routledge.
41.
Millar, R. (1996) “Toward a Science Curriculum for Public Understanding ,” School Science Review77: 7—18.
42.
Millar, R. (1997) “Science Education for Democracy: What Can the School Curriculum Achieve?,” in R. Levinson and J. Thomas (eds) Science Today: Problem or Crisis?, pp. 87—101. London : Routledge.
43.
Millar, R. and Osborne, J. , eds (1998) Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future. The Report of a Seminar Series Funded by the Nuffield Foundation . London: King's College London, School of Education.
44.
Miller, J.D. (2004) “Public Understanding of, and Attitudes Toward, Scientific Research: What We Know and What We Need to Know,” Public Understanding of Science13(3): 273—94.
45.
Miller, S. (2001) “Critiques and Contentions: Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads,” Public Understanding of Science10: 115—20.
46.
National Academy of Science (1996) National Science Education Standards: Observe, Change, Learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
47.
National Commission on Excellence in Education ( 1983) A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. A Report to the Nation …Washington, DC: National Commission on Excellence in Education. URL: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/ (accessed July 2006).
48.
National Science Board (2006a) America's Pressing Challenge—Building a Stronger Foundation. A Companion to Science and Engineering Indicators—2006. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. URL: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0602/nsb0602.pdf (accessed July 2006).
49.
National Science Board (2006b) “ Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding,” in Science and Engineering Indicators—2006, 2 vols, Chapter 7, pp. 356—401. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. URL: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/pdfstart.htm (accessed July 2006).
Osborne, J., Jonathan, S., Simon, S. and Collins, S. (2003) “Attitudes Toward Science: A Review of the Literature and its Implications,” International Journal of Science Education25(9): 1049—79.
52.
Phillips, D.C. (1995) “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism,” Educational Researcher24: 5—12.
53.
Pisa (2006) “Programme for International Student Assessment.” URL: www.pisa.oecd.org/ (accessed July 2006).
54.
Ratcliffe, M. (2001) “Science, Technology and Society in School Science Education,” School Science Review82: 83—92.
55.
Rennie, L.J. and Stocklmayer, S.M. (2003) “The Communication of Science and Technology: Past, Present and Future Agendas,” International Journal of Science Education25(6): 759—73.
56.
Roberts, D.A. (1983) Scientific Literacy: Towards Balance in Setting Goals for School Science Programs. A Discussion Paper for theScience Council of Canada. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada.
57.
Roth, W.-M. (2002) “Taking Science Education beyond Schooling,” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and TechnologyEducation2(1): 9—48.
58.
Roth, W.-M. and Barton, A.C. (2004) Rethinking Scientific Literacy. New York and London : RoutledgeFalmer.
59.
Roth, W.-M., McGinn, M.K. and Bowen, M. (1996) “Applications of Science and Technology Studies: Effecting Change in Science Education,” Science, Technology, and Human Values21: 454—84.
60.
Royal Society (1985) The Public Understanding of Science: Report of a Royal Society ad hoc Group Endorsed by the Council of theRoyal Society. London: Royal Society.
61.
Rudolph, J.L. (2005) “Inquiry, Instrumentalism and the Public Understanding of Science,” Science Education89(5): 803—21.
62.
Sadler, T.D. (2004) “Moral and Ethical Dimensions of Socioscientific Decision-Making as Integral Components of Scientific Literacy,” paper presented to the Annual Meeting of Hoosier Association of Science Teachers, Indianapolis, 18—20 February. URL: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/context_storage_01/0000000b/80/2309/d8.pdf (accessed July 2006).
63.
Sadler, T.D. and Zeidler, D.L. (2004) “The Morality of Socioscientific Issues: Construal and Resolution of Genetic Engineering Dilemmas,” Science Education88(1): 4—27.
64.
Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N.G. and Crawford, B.A. (2004) “Developing Views of Nature of Science in an Authentic Context: An Explicit Approach to Bridging the Gap between NOS and Scientific Inquiry,” Science Education88(4): 610—15.
65.
Science Council of Canada (1984) Science for Every Student: Educating Canadians for Tomorrow's World. Report 36. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada .
66.
Shamos, M.H. (1993) “STS: A Time for Caution,” in R.E. Yager (ed.) The Science, Technology, Society Movement, pp. 65—72. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
67.
Shamos, M.H. (1995) The Myth of Scientific Literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
68.
Shen, B.S.P. (1975) “Science Literacy and the Public Understanding of Science,” in S.B. Day (ed.) Communication of Scientific Information, pp. 44—52. New York: S. Karger.
69.
Solomon, J. (1993) Teaching Science, Technology, and Society. Buckingham: Open University Press.
70.
Solomon, J. (1996) “School Science and the Future of Scientific Culture,” Public Understanding of Science5(4): 157—65.
71.
Solomon, J. (1999) “Meta-scientific Criticisms, Curricular Innovation and the Propagation of Scientific Culture,” Journal of Curriculum Studies31(1): 1—15.
72.
Solomon, J. (2002) “Changes to Science Education: Where Next?,” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and TechnologyEducation2(1): 25—30.
73.
Solomon, J. (2003) “The UK and the Movement for Science, Technology, and Society (STS) Education,” in R. Cross (ed.) A Vision for Science Education: Responding to the Work of Peter Fensham, pp. 76—90. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
74.
Solomon, J. and Aikenhead, G., eds (1994) STS Education: International Perspectives on Reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
75.
Solomon, J. and Thomas, J. (1999) “Science Education for the Public Understanding of Science,” Studies in Science Education33: 61—90.
76.
Sturgis, P. and Allum, N. (2004) “Science in Society: Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes,” Public Understanding of Science13(1): 55—74.
77.
Thomas, G. and Durant, J. (1987) “Why Should We Promote the Public Understanding of Science?,” Scientific Literacy Papers1: 1—14.
78.
Timms (2006) “ Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study.” URL: http://nces.ed.gov/timms/ (accessed July 2006).
79.
Touraine, A. (1995) “The Crisis of `Progress,'” in M. Bauer (ed.) Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology, and Biotechnology , pp. 45—56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80.
Turner, S. and Sullenger, K. (1999) “Kuhn in the Classroom, Lakatos in the Lab: Science Educators Confront the Nature-of-Science Debate,” Science, Technology, and Human Values24(1): 5—30.
81.
Tytler, R., Duggan, S. and Gott, R. (2001) “Public Participation in an Environmental Dispute: Implications for Science Education,” Public Understanding of Science10(4): 343—64.
82.
Wolpert, L. (2002) The Unnatural Nature of Science. London: Faber and Faber.
83.
Wynne, B. (1992) “Misunderstood Understanding: Social Identities and the Public Uptake of Science,” Public Understanding of Science1: 281—304.
84.
Yearley, S. (2000) “Making Systematic Sense of Public Discontents with Expert Knowledge: Two Analytical Approaches and a Case Study,” Public Understanding of Science9(2): 105—22.
85.
Zammito, J.H. (2004) A Nice Derangement of Epistemes: Post-Positivism in the Study of Science from Quine to Latour. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
86.
Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Simmons, M.L. and Howes, E.V. (2005) “Beyond STS: A Research-Based Framework for Socioscientific Issues Education,” Science Education89(3): 357—77.
87.
Ziman, J. (1994) “The Rationale of STS Education is in the Approach,” in J. Solomon and G. Aikenhead (eds) STS Education: International Perspectives on Reform, pp. 21—31. New York : Teachers College Press.
