Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: ["Queen's University Libraries,Kingston"]On: 20 August 2014, At: 20:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal ofScience EducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
Consensus projects: teachingscience for citizenshipStein DankerT. KolstoePublished online: 20 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Stein DankerT. Kolstoe (2000) Consensus projects: teachingscience for citizenship, International Journal of Science Education, 22:6, 645-664,DOI: 10.1080/095006900289714
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095006900289714
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 2000, VOL. 22, NO. 6, 645- 664
RESEARCH REPORT
Consensus projects: teaching science for citizenship
Stein Dankert Kolstoe, Science Education, Department of Applied Education,University of Bergen, Norway; e-mail: [email protected]
In the first part of this article it is argued that knowledge of social aspects of science are of importanceand relevance for science education for citizenship. The focus is on the importance of debate, criticismand evaluation of knowledge claims, within the scientific community. Knowledge of the nature and thelimits of science are necessary as tools to interpret and debate statements with a science dimensionoccurring in debates over socio-scientific issues. The second part of this article presents a teachingmodel for engaging students in thoughtful decision-making on controversial socio-scientific issues. Themain features of the teaching model are the evaluation and criticism of knowledge and opinions and theestablishing of a consensual conclusion that includes a recommended action. Using the consensusproject model implies an introduction to important social aspects of science concerning evaluationand validation of knowledge claims.
Introduction
It has been argued that scientific literacy should include knowledge of the nature ofscience and of scientific knowledge and knowledge of science as a social enterprise.One line of argument has been that such content-transcending knowledge is im-portant for citizens engaged with socio-scientific issues and for thoughtful deci-sion-making in a democracy (Aikenhead 1985, Bingle and Gaskell 1994, Driveret al. 1996, Millar and Wynne 1988). But what social aspects of science are import-ant and relevant for citizenship?
Several authors have suggested the inclusion of case studies on contemporarycontroversies in the teaching of science for citizenship. Some have argued in termsof science education for action (Jenkins 1994, Osborne 1997, Zoller 1982), othersin terms of the teaching of the nature of science (Millar and Wynne 1988). ButCross and Price (1996) report that science teachers bemoaned the lack of resourcesfor teaching about controversial issues. One immediate challenge here could be topropose teaching models that include case studies on current issues.
I do so here by proposing a teaching model to provide students with experi-ences in thoughtful decision-making on controversial socio-scientific issues. Called‘the consensus project model’, it is designed for students at secondary school, butmight be adapted to suit other age levels. The consensus project model departsfrom the different frameworks for decision-making proposed by Ratcliffe (1996)and by Kortland (1996) as it puts more emphasis on criticism and the evaluation offacts and opinions. It also explores the chosen controversial issue in greater depth,as the whole class is to work on the same issue, with different groups of studentsstudying different aspects. Through a rather broad approach, the students gain
International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950-0693 print/ISSN 1464-5289 online # 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
experience of the translation and reworking of scientific knowledge necessary toarticulate it with practice (Layton 1991).
The teaching model
In order to increase public participation in socio-scientific issues in recent years inseveral countries ‘Consensus Conferences’ have been arranged. In these confer-ences a group of lay people interact with different experts before trying to work outa consensual statement on the issue at stake. The consensus project model pre-sented here combines experiences from the consensus conference model developedin Denmark with elements from project work in the tradition derived from Dewey(1909) and Kilpatrick (1936).
The main idea in the consensus project model is to have the students gatherknowledge, information and opinions on a controversial socio-scientific issue, andto evaluate what they have found. The students work in what are called ‘expertgroups’, each group working on one aspect of the main issue. One group, called the‘lay group’, will have a special position as this is supposed to clarify options andvalues, to listen to the results from the knowledge-finding groups, and to worktowards a consensual opinion on the issue. The lay group’s discussion towardconsensus takes place in the classroom, thus making it possible to ask clarifyingquestions of the expert groups and listen to the opinions of others. The teacherplays an active role by asking reflective questions to increase the students’ aware-ness of the role and of the limits of scientific knowledge and of value issues broughtinto the discussion. During the project conflicting expert statements might be met.These occasions are to be seen as fine opportunities for the teacher to initiate adiscussion on the differences between knowledge claims from frontier sciencesand established consensual scientific knowledge. Such discussions might also bebroadened to include different aspects of the nature and epistemology of scientificknowledge of relevance to the students’ findings and questions. The main goal is toinvolve the students in thoughtful evaluation of different knowledge claims with ascience dimension.
In training the students to deal with expert statements and the evaluation offacts and knowledge claims, consensus projects aim at empowering the students ascitizens. The teaching structure implies that decision-making ought to be thought-ful and both value- and knowledge-based. In addition, there is an epistemologicalperspective as the consensus project model also provides the students with a broadview of scientific knowledge ranging from disputed knowledge claims to estab-lished facts.
In Norway it has been made compulsory to carry out project work in theDewey-Kilpatrick tradition in the upper secondary school, and in all school sub-jects, once a year. Science teachers are somewhat confused by this as many of themare not used to this teaching model and they doubt whether it is suited for thelearning of science content.
Science for citizenship and science as a social process
Social processes in science are closely connected to ‘the scientific method’ in abroad sense of the term. In the science curriculum in most countries, much atten-tion is devoted to the learning of the scientific method (Jenkins 1996, Millar and
646 S. D. KOLSTOE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
Driver 1987). In the current curriculum in Norway this is singled out as one of themost important objectives for practical work in the natural sciences (Kind 1996).The science teacher, however, is here confronted with two unsolved problems.First, is there such a thing as a scientific method? In the last decades researcherswithin the philosophy of science have pointed out that there is a plurality ofmethods currently in use, indeed, the very concept of ‘method’ has very differentmeanings to various groups of scientists (Bauer 1994, Millar and Driver 1987).And second, if this is the case, how shall we be able to communicate the ideasbehind all these methods for knowledge production to the students?
These are big issues. Here I suggest differentiating between methods at the‘laboratory level’ and methods at the ‘social and institutional level’. The traditionaldiscussion of what constitutes the scientific method has centred on the laboratorylevel. At this level the focus is on knowledge and pitfalls the single researcher orresearch team have to be aware of and the procedures they have to follow, if theirstudy is to be regarded as scientific. In recent years more emphasis and awarenesshave been given to the social and institutional level. At this level the focus is on thecommunication between researchers working in the same area.
That scientific knowledge is established as such through a ‘critical and con-sensus-seeking discourse in a community of competent peers’ (Driver et al. 1996,Kolstø 1997, Ryan and Aikenhead 1992) is of special relevance to the discussion ofscience education for citizenship. A case in point is the peer review of articles priorto publication. This aspect of scientific inquiry has received little attention inschool curricula and in science teaching. Traditionally, to the extent that scientificmethod has been raised as a separate topic, this has often been equated withlaboratory work and with an initiation into the hypothetical-deductive methodas presented by Karl Popper. Beyond that, it seems that what is being paid mostattention is the acquisition of skills in the handling of apparatus: meticulous obser-vation; testing; measurement, and perhaps experimental control with independentvariables. All these belong to the laboratory level as defined above.
Hence, the human and social aspects of the production of scientific knowledgehave been underemphasized in science teaching. The aspect of scientific methodwhich could be labelled ‘critical and consensus-seeking discourse’ ought to begiven more attention in the schools, a view I support with four arguments.
First, this is an essential element of the production of scientific knowledge assuch (Bauer 1994, Norris 1995, Ryan and Aikenhead 1992, Ziman 1991). For thoseof us who do not regard scientific theories as ‘true’ in the absolute sense of theword, consensus among competent peers after a period of critical examination isone of the reasons why we have confidence in scientific predictions. An importantstrand in contemporary philosophy of science finds that both the empiricist andthe relativistic positions are problematic. Shapere (1984: Chapters 10 and 11)claims that the rationality of scientific evolution can be maintained and understoodif we look for ‘patterns of reasoning’ between the changing paradigms and theories.The rationality of science then lies in the ‘good reasons’ provided for the viewsheld at different times. This involves evaluation of the evidence and argumentsavailable. He also points out that doubts and criticism within science always are‘specific doubts’, not the philosophical principle that any claim about nature mightturn out to be wrong. He concludes that ‘to understand the nature of science [one]must examine the rationale of scientific development and innovation, and mustbase that examination on a study of cases from the history of science’ (ibid.: 191).
TEACHING SCIENCE FOR CITIZENSHIP 647
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
These ideas imply that contextual assessment of knowledge is at the heart of thenature of science. They also put the emphasis on a critical quest for the positionthat is based on the best reasons available (Gilje 1997). This approach shouldinduce us to incorporate contextual, critical assessment of knowledge and informa-tion in the school situation. The practical application of consensus-seeking criticalassessment of arguments related to the science-society nexus should communicateto the students a truer, more social and more human picture of what science isabout.
Second, the science curriculum in Norway, and in other Western countries,emphasizes the importance of developing a critical attitude by the students. In theNorwegian core curriculum, it is stated that ‘Scientific method develops both thecreative and critical senses, and is within everyone’s reach’ (RACA 1997: 14). Instark contrast to the objectives of the core curriculum, science teaching in schoolshas traditionally been, and still is, authoritarian. What should the students becritical about? The law of ideal gases? The conservation of energy? To be sure,many students indeed meet the assertion that ‘the total sum of energy is preserved’with deep scepticism, but such scepticism is not actively encouraged. On thecontrary, the teacher will do his/her best to convince them about the correctnessof this law, and it is difficult to do this only by letting them test this or other claimsexperimentally. The experimental world is complex, and includes friction andother ‘disturbing’ effects. Experimental demonstrations of scientific laws and the-ories therefore at best yield approximately correct (!) results. In addition, experi-mental proofs also build upon acceptance of definitions, the broader theoreticalframework and experimental equipment. Acceptance of scientific laws and theoriestherefore to a great extent builds on acceptance of science as authority (Sjoberg1996).
In order to develop the students’ faculty for critical assessment of knowledgeand sources of knowledge, room for critical discourse must be created in thescience classroom. Emphasis on the importance of experiment, evidence and eva-luation of validity might be one way of doing this. A disadvantage with thisapproach, however, is that most students probably know that an accepted answeralready exists when it comes to laws and theories described in science textbooks,making the critical assessment of evidence produced in the science classroomsomewhat unnatural. Consensus projects may here constitute an additional andfruitful possibility. In such projects the science teacher may let the studentsexperience what all researchers already know: that there is no simple dividebetween ‘proven’ and ‘false’ statements. Only some statements may be supportedby good reasons and for that reason we have confidence in them, while otherstatements do not stand up to criticism. Or as Bingle and Gaskell (1994: 197)have argued: statements are facts if they ‘remain stable when challenged’, andopinions when ‘modified when challenged’.
Third, there is also a certain danger that to many students the concept of‘scientific knowledge’ is more objective than it ought to be. They regard thiskind of knowledge as true in a rather absolute sense of the word (but still, perhaps,as devoid of interest). Armed with this epistemology, students are poorly preparedto meet the world ‘out there’ when the media print stories about scientists whohave conflicting viewpoints on various issues on the political agenda (see e.g.Bingle and Gaskell 1994).
648 S. D. KOLSTOE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
The fourth, and perhaps most important, point is that experience with criticalconsensus-seeking discourse is of value for everyday life outside the classroomwhen dealing with socio-scientific issues. Experience with the hypothetical-deduc-tive method or with experimental control may perhaps enhance respect for scien-tists, at least among the few students who understand the ideas behind thesemethods. To the average student, however, these experiences will hardly haveany value for life outside school or science.
What the students are often confronted with in life outside schools, are dif-ferent kinds of issues with a science dimension. Many of these issues have becomeissues because the science involved is disputed frontier science. Frontier science isoften characterized by lack of consensus among the researchers concerning import-ant aspects of a phenomenon, e.g. concerning risk and environmental effects. Thiswas the case for instance in the BSE issue, in the debate over lead in petrol, and inthe issue of power transmission lines and the fear of an associated health risk. If wewant the students to be prepared to deal fruitfully with such issues we have to givethem experience of interpreting and evaluating the knowledge claims involved insuch issues. It is of course also often the case that researcher’s statements andfindings are re-presented or misrepresented by journalists and others. All thisindicates a need for a science teaching where knowledge claims and statementsmade by different researchers, persons and institutions can be debated andexamined.
Through such debates the students might learn to appreciate consensualscience as more authoritative than disputed knowledge. Bingle and Gaskell(1994) have pointed out that it is more or less impossible for students, and forlay people in general, to examine the evidence underpinning most scientific knowl-edge claims. This is because ‘the public has no practical access to the standardsused by scientists to judge good and bad science’ (ibid.: 193). The concept of‘consensus’ might therefore be an appropriate tool for students to use for sortingout what knowledge claims to put trust in, and what knowledge claims to try toexamine further. The idea of ‘consensus’ and ‘science as a critical consensus-seek-ing discourse’ should therefore be emphasized in science teaching for citizenship.
Science for citizenship and knowledge of the nature of science
If we want students to examine knowledge claims and statements with a sciencedimension in a critical way, it is not enough just to debate and criticize suchstatements. Some general knowledge of the nature and limits of science is oftennecessary to be able to interpret different statements in adequate terms. Suchknowledge might then reduce misunderstandings and misinterpretations of state-ments made by scientists, and also make it easier sometimes to criticize expertstatements. The aim should be to make discussions and decisions more knowledge-based and thoughtful.
Several scholars have argued that science education for citizenship ought toinclude content-transcending goals or topics as knowledge of the nature of science,limits of science and values in science (Aikenhead 1985, Driver et al. 1996, Millarand Wynne 1988, Norris 1995). But to be useful as guidelines for teaching, thetopics taught have to be more precise than the ones mentioned (Kolstø 1999). Afew topics of importance are suggested below.
TEACHING SCIENCE FOR CITIZENSHIP 649
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
Concerning the ‘nature of science’, knowledge of science as including a ‘criticalconsensus-seeking discourse’ has been discussed above. This topic should bebroadened to include knowledge of the difference between ‘science-in-the-making’(frontier science) and ‘ready-made-science’ (‘textbook science’). Knowledge of thisdifference can serve as a tool for interpreting disagreement between scientists asnatural and necessary. In addition, it can raise students’ consciousness concerningthe necessity sometimes to make decisions, and to act, without conclusive knowl-edge. In consensus projects disputes of relevance to socio-scientific issues are to betaken into the science classroom. In many socio-scientific controversies science-in-the-making and expert disagreement are at stake. Carrying out a consensus projectprovides opportunities to teach these epistemological issues, and to discuss con-sequences for decision-making with the students.
Knowledge of the limits of science is important when evaluating the relevanceand applicability of scientific information presented in socio-scientific disputes.Doing a consensus project will here provide opportunities to teach and to discuss,for instance, the difference between normative and descriptive statements, and tofocus on scientific models as tentative approximations. Through these discussionsthe teacher should also try to raise the students’ consciousness of science as onlyone of several social domains relevant to decision-making on socio-scientific issues(Aikenhead 1985).
When interpreting expert statements and their discussions over scientificknowledge claims, knowledge of some of the values inherent in science is import-ant. One candidate here is the value-pair ‘suspension of belief’ and ‘suspension ofdisbelief’ identified by Holton (1978). The value suspension of belief becomesevident when scientists avoid giving clear-cut answers when evidence is notregarded as conclusive, or when consensus on the issue is not yet establishedwithin the scientific community. This value therefore often makes scientists’ pub-lic statements vague, and therefore sometimes frustrating for those trying to cometo a view on an issue. The point here is that vagueness does not necessarily stemfrom the scientist trying to hide the ‘truth’ because it, for instance, does not suit hisor her own vested interests or view on the issue. In contrast, the value suspensionof disbelief is valid in the laboratory denoting the tentative adherence to one’s ideain spite of contradictory evidence. Knowledge of these contrasting values can serveas tools to interpret scientific statements without introducing the concepts of biasand interests when not appropriate.
Another candidate is the evaluation of evidence in science. This topic shouldinclude knowledge of the value put on intersubjective and statistical evidenceby the scientific community (in contrast to anecdotal evidence), and the reasonfor this valuing. It should also include a discussion of the reason why demands forunderpinning evidence may vary. Geddis (1991) discusses the example of acid rainin Canada where the hypothesis is that the cause is the power plants on the US sideof the border. If the Americans took action and reduced the release of sulphur,they would pay all the costs and the Canadians would have the benefits. It istherefore understandable that the Americans’ demands for supporting evidencewill exceed those of the Canadians, whether we are talking of politicians orscientists. Knowledge of this epistemological ‘grey area’ can serve as a tool forunderstanding, and make it easier to respect, the views of antagonists when dealingwith socio-scientific controversies. As such situations frequently occur in socio-scientific controversies, especially when ‘alternative experts’ or ‘advocate experts’
650 S. D. KOLSTOE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
are involved, consensus projects can provide good arenas for discussing issues onevidence.
From a societal point of view it is important that decision-making is thought-ful (Aikenhead 1985). This means that decisions should be both knowledge-basedand value-based. For a decision to be denoted as thoughtful the decision-makingprocess should also include listening to the views of antagonists. It can be arguedthat this presupposes a respectful attitude concerning the knowledge basis, per-spectives, rationality and morality of antagonists (see e.g. Renn 1992: 494). If not,the evaluation of the knowledge and opinions provided by other people often willbe characterized by prejudgement. If undertaking a consensus project is to pro-mote science for citizenship the attitude dimension needs therefore to be included.The teacher’s ability to communicate attitudes will here be the crucial point.
In order to make thoughtful decisions the students probably have to acquiresome content knowledge. The importance of content knowledge for decision-mak-ing on socio-scientific issues is disputed. From a study of classroom discussion ofscience-based social issues, Solomon (1992: 431) reported that: ‘The researchshowed that only simple familiarity with the scientific terms used was a necessarycondition to enable a discussion which was valuable in terms of the constructionand exchange of moral and civic views.’ On the other hand, Lewis et al. (1997)found that some students had difficulties in sorting out the different issues whengiving their views on gene therapy. These students also failed to recognize thedifference between germ cells and somatic cells. In consensus projects contentknowledge on the chosen issues is gathered by the different expert groups. Atthe presentations of their findings they are expected to be able to explain theirfindings, and therefore to have worked thoroughly on their own understanding.Whether the scientific knowledge they present is important for the conclusionreached by the lay group or not cannot be known in advance. This is one of theexperiences students may gain from working their way through a consensus pro-ject. If the main issue for the project is well chosen, the achieved content knowl-edge is within the curriculum, making the effort meaningful anyhow.
Consensus projects
The main purpose of the consensus project model is to provide the students withexperiences, knowledge, skills and attitudes that empower them to deal withscience, expert statements and knowledge claims with a science dimensionemerging in socio-scientific issues. Controversial issues such as food irradiation,cloning, recycling and global warming, or more locally based issues, are suitable.These issues are controversial since there is a decision to be made, and as theremay be disagreement both concerning the relevance or validity of knowledgeclaims put forward and the relative importance of underlying values. The scienceinvolved is often disputed as it concerns frontier science, and sometimes there isdisagreement between the experts involved. The science that students meet ascitizens is often the disputed science involved in controversial issues. There istherefore a need for including this science and its social context in school science.
This teaching model places heavy demands on both the students and theteacher. It is therefore intended to be used at upper secondary, although it maybe possible to use simplified versions also at lower secondary.
TEACHING SCIENCE FOR CITIZENSHIP 651
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
The consensus project model is based on an epistemology which holds thatscientific knowledge is established by a consensus-seeking critical discourse amongcompetent peers. Through this discourse, knowledge claims from frontier scienceare sometimes turned into ‘textbook science’ by the formation of consensus (Bauer1994, Latour 1987). Criticism and evaluation of knowledge claims are thereforeintrinsic parts of science. It has been argued that individuals capable of examiningscientific knowledge critically can be considered scientifically literate in the deci-sion-making sense (Aikenhead 1985, Fleming 1989, NSTA 1982, AAAS 1989). Itis therefore both legitimate and desirable to criticize and evaluate scientific (andother) knowledge claims in the context of school science. Such criticism andevaluation are intrinsic parts of consensus projects.
Most project work in schools stresses the importance of formulating a prob-lem, and collecting and analysing data. In consensus projects the emphasis issomewhat different: these projects concentrate on the presentation and defenceof data and conclusions against possible opposition from the teacher and fromfellow classmates. The objective is to establish a consensus in the science classroomregarding a specific socio-scientific issue of interest in society. The consensusproject model seeks to combine the strength of traditional project work - theattachment to specific, often local issues - with a practical training in some vitaltasks that science is put to: results must be communicated; data, sources andconclusions must be critically evaluated; and a consensus must be sought and, ifpossible, established.
The idea of putting the main emphasis on presentation and the quest forconsensus is inspired by the consensus conference model developed by theDanish Technology Council (Grundahl 1995). During the 1990s this Councilhas arranged a number of so-called consensus conferences in Denmark. In othercountries various types of such conferences have also been held.
The consensus conferences are intended to be meeting places for experts fromvarious professions, on the one hand, and the laity on the other. The aim is toincrease the involvement of non-professionals in the assessment of science andtechnologies (Fixdal 1997) and thereby also give the politicians an informedview from the laity. A group of specially invited lay people (typically 14 to 16persons) listen to the viewpoints of various experts. All the contributions arerelated to one particular topic or problem which has been decided upon in advance.A consensus conference arranged in Norway in the autumn of 1996, for instance,was devoted to genetically modified food (Sandberg and Kraft 1996).
Which experts are invited to present their papers is decided on the basis of thequestions and problems the non-professionals want to have explained. Havinglistened to the various lectures, the lay group discuss among themselves, searchingfor a common conclusion on which they can all agree. They are free to contact anyexperts or other individuals to clear up questions and uncertainties. In this con-nection it is interesting to note that in these conferences the concept of an ‘expert’is defined very broadly: it is ‘a person with relevant knowledge exceeding generalknowledge’ (Grundahl 1995: 34). To the Norwegian conference, for instance, anenvironmental protection activist was invited (Sandberg and Kraft 1996).
As the final stage of the conference the lay group writes a report containing itsassessments and conclusions. This report is made available to the public and isoften sent to politicians, relevant institutions and various committees.
652 S. D. KOLSTOE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
Concerning the effects on parliamentary decision-making and public debateone could ask whose opinions have had an impact on the report from the confer-ences. The lay group in the conferences consists of only a few people. To whatextent can these people be seen as representing lay people in general? These areimportant questions to be aware of when discussing the role of consensus confer-ences in democracies. Nevertheless this does not constitute a problem for usingsome of the ideas behind consensus conferences in the kind of school projectpresented here. There is another problematic issue concerning the purpose ofconsensus conferences that is of greater relevance to the implementation of con-sensus projects in schools. In the Danish consensus conference model the intent is‘to create an enlightened dialogue between expert and lay panel - on the lay panel’spremises’ (Grundahl 1995; emphasis by me). The problem here is who is definingthe issue, and what are the unwritten norms concerning what counts as relevantinformation and arguments. Is the issue defined in a way that calls for only scien-tific information or are, for instance, social aspects included? In the Danish con-ference model this problem is handled by only stating a general theme, leaving it tothe lay panel to formulate the conference question. Even so, the organizers sendbackground information to the lay participants, information which is not of courseneutral concerning issue definition (Fixdal 1997). To reduce these problems, as faras consensus projects are concerned, the teacher should therefore communicate tothe students that several knowledge domains, not only science, might be relevantas sources for knowledge. A diversity of knowledge domains may be relevant bothwhen discussing what decision to make, and when focusing on problems concern-ing implementation. It is, for instance, not unusual that environmental problemsalso involve economic and social problems.
In a similar way as in consensus conferences, consensus projects in schools areintended to examine a topical problem from several vantage points. Uncertaintiesand unanswered questions will, ideally, be clarified through discussion and criticalquestions. Finally, the lay group writes a report. A crucial objective in consensusprojects is to give the students a chance to gain practical experience in the applica-tion of knowledge as a basis for the formation of opinion. Also, they experiencehow such knowledge is critically received and assessed by others. As a basis for theformation of opinion various groups of students each analyse one particular aspectof a given problem. Scientific knowledge is only one of several sources of informa-tion that may be regarded as relevant to the particular issue involved (Aikenhead1985).
The issue under consideration may be anything from the location of powerstations or rubbish dumps, food irradiation, ‘global warming’, the regulation of apopulation of animals, etc. In such issues not only scientific concepts but alsosocietal and value-related consequences must be taken into consideration.
The concept of consensus is a key to the understanding of both the idea behindthe consensus conferences and the proposed consensus project model. By consen-sus in this context is meant ‘general agreement or concord, unanimity’ (Jørgensen1995: 24). But why is consensus so desirable? Should we not accept disagreementon issues that involve value judgement? In this case, that is, science teaching inschools, the argument for consensus is first and foremost pedagogical. Consensuscan only be achieved when we try to understand each other and when we find outon what points exactly we do agree and where we disagree (if such is the case). Thedifferent members of the lay group must argue their case, hoping to influence the
TEACHING SCIENCE FOR CITIZENSHIP 653
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
final conclusion. This crucial learning debate period is lost if we allow the studentsto vote on the issue immediately, for or against.
In a consensus project, in contrast to much ordinary project work in theschools, the entire class will be working on one and the same issue, although indifferent groups. Taking this overarching issue as their starting point, the groupswill be focusing on different aspects of it. Also, the question of which aspects topick out for scrutiny ought to be decided upon by the entire class. A democraticdecision on what issue to engage in is important both for pedagogical reasons, toensure the issue is topical to the students, and for ideological reasons, to emphasizenegotiation and equity both when picking the issue and in the overall process. It isalso important that a wide range of aspects will be covered. The teacher will ensurethat the scientific aspects are also included.
An example of a consensus project
The following example may illustrate the content and the progress of a typicalconsensus project. First the class and the teacher collectively decide which prob-lem should be examined. In an overview article on the Danish consensus confer-ence model, Grundahl (1995) has singled out the following qualities ascharacteristic of topics that are suitable for consensus conferences: topical; nottoo abstract; conflictual; call for clarification of objectives and attitudes; dependon expert contribution for clarification; and necessary knowledge and expertise areavailable. This list may serve as a guide also for the selection of topics for con-sensus projects. An important difference, of course, is the role of the experts: it willrarely be possible to invite them to the classroom. Therefore, the students them-selves must pose as ‘experts’. They must find and study various sources of infor-mation in order to increase their competence on the particular aspect assigned tothem.
If the topic in question in the consensus project happens to be, say, biotech-nology, the following overarching problem may be selected: Should the free sale ofgenetically modified food be permitted? Relevant aspects to be examined could be:
. What is biotechnology? Make a short presentation of this field of research.
. What is gene technology, and how is it carried out?
. What are supposed to be the benefits from genetically modified food, andwho will benefit?
. Which kinds of health problems may genetically modified food conceivablycause?
. Which kinds of ecological problems may genetically modified food con-ceivably cause?
. Which kinds of genetically modified food are available today in our countryand abroad?
. What consequences may genetically modified food have for trade andindustry, and who will be affected by these consequences?
The daily press offers numerous other examples of possible problems to select foranalysis. ‘Deer hunting is best in Western Norway’ (my translation) was a headlinein my local newspaper Bergens Tidende on 28 January 1997. The article gaveinformation on how many deer had been shot that season, most of them inWestern Norway. Without giving any reasons the article also gives information
654 S. D. KOLSTOE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
on how many deer the hunters were allowed to shoot that year. What are theproblems we are confronted with when stocks of game are to be regulated, withregard to population dynamics, biodiversity, conflicting commercial interests,weapons technology, and so on? By making use of articles from newspapers andother media the problems we select may gain enhanced topicality. This may lead togreater involvement among the students.
Once the socio-scientific issue to be explored has been agreed upon, the expertgroups will start collecting material from various sources. Here it is important thatthe students gain an understanding of the material they are studying. If they aretold from the very beginning that the entire class and the teacher will be allowed toask relevant questions when they make their presentation, they would perhaps putmore effort into the endeavour than otherwise.
When the expert groups are gathering knowledge and information, the laygroup prepares questions which they believe must be answered before they canmake up their minds. Also, they compile a list of values and preferences related tothe overarching issue which may affect their choices. In the Danish consensusconference model, the lay group also makes a list of matters which they wantthe experts to thrash out. In a school situation this will not be as in real life asall students in the class will equally be non-professionals. Therefore, it is moreappropriate that the entire class decides which questions and problems should beexamined before the groups start working. Nevertheless, it is important that thelay group continues to clarify which questions they believe ought to receive moredetailed treatment, and which questions they will challenge the different expertgroup to answer.
Students who already have knowledge about the given topic well above theaverage level in the class should not, as a rule, sit in the lay group. If they do, thedivision of roles will be blurred, and the other members of the lay group will easilybe marginalized.
As a third step in consensus projects the various expert groups present thepieces of knowledge they have collected. The lay group may be seated in front ofthe class as a panel. After each presentation the lay group will ask clarifyingquestions to this particular expert group. In this round the other students andthe teacher may also join in. This phase ought to be devoted to such questions as:where the information has been found; why the expert group believes that it isreliable; to what degree it is relevant, and, of course, questions concerning under-standing of the scientific knowledge presented.
The first couple of times the teacher will probably have to play a rather activerole, asking most of the questions, but by emulating his/her example the studentswill, it is hoped, in the course of time, learn to ask and to appreciate the value ofsuch questions.
Many students find it threatening and discomforting to be confronted bycritical questions from the teacher and from fellow students. To meet this prob-lem, the teacher may let the students play a variety of roles. Some students maypose as scientists, biologists for instance, others as environmental activists, yetothers pretend to be local residents that are affected by the problem in question,and so on. One additional advantage with role playing is the increased possibility tounderstand other people’s point of view when you have to place yourself in theirsituation. This can make students realize the value of listening to other viewpoints,even those of antagonists, when searching for a solution or compromise.
TEACHING SCIENCE FOR CITIZENSHIP 655
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
During the expert groups’ presentations the lay group will sort out the variousoptions emerging from the ‘professional’ presentation of the problem. This clar-ification of both options and alternative ways of framing the problem is crucial inorder to prepare the ground for informed choices (Ratcliffe 1996). However, thesearch for options is not limited to a certain stage in the project but runs throughall of it. The students may discover new alternatives as they go along whenevernew information is put on the table.
After the presentations from the various ‘expert’ teams, the lay group tries toreach a conclusion. It is desirable that the discussion in the lay group is as unrest-rained as possible (Fixdal 1997). Even so, it should be conducted with the rest ofthe class present. In this way, the entire class may follow the process and all theother groups will be available for clarification of new questions that may arise. Thelay group can then use their classmates as a resource for instance on ‘why’ and‘what’ questions concerning knowledge, values and interests. It will also make itpossible for classmates to raise objections when a point of view is overlooked orperceived to be given unfair treatment. If it turns out to be impossible to establishconsensus, the members of the lay group are to identify both the issues where theyagree and those where they disagree. In addition, they are to comment on theirreasons for agreeing and disagreeing.
In order to make the project a real training in dealing with socio-scientificissues, the conclusions reached by the lay group should include a recommendedaction on the issue. This recommended action, and the reasons given, should bemade publicly available. This brings us to the last stage in consensus projectswhere all groups work individually on their final reports. The lay group willprepare a report with assessments and conclusions, while the other groups willhave a chance to include in their respective reports new elements based on thecriticism they received during their presentation. The style and the format of thefinal reports ought to be decided upon before the start of the project. There areseveral possibilities here: wall papers accessible to all students at the school; send-ing the result via Internet to another class working on the same or a similar project;sending letters from the readers to the newspapers; presenting the material on theschool’s world-wide web home page; or perhaps put together a printed report to besent to selected politicians.
In the Nordic countries from 1992 to 1996 an environmental project, called theMUVIN-project (Environmental Education in Scandinavia-project) took place,where local schools carried out project work in the Dewey-Kilpatrick tradition.These projects focused on conflicting interests in local controversial environmentalissues. In addition to being presented in the students’ own reports, several of theseprojects were also reported in local newspapers (Christensen and Kristensen 1999).Headlines like ‘Wants to dismantle Lofterød waste disposal’ (ibid.: 138), ‘Wantanswers from local politicians’ (ibid.: 147) and ‘We want a safe and environmentalsensitive way to school’ (ibid.: 173) indicate that the students’ opinions andevaluations also were discussed. These and other articles in newspapers showthat the students’ points of view sometimes became visible in public, and thuspotentially could have an impact on the local debate on the issues.
Analysing the functioning of Danish consensus conferences as participatorytechnology assessment for Danish decision-making, Joss (1998) concluded that‘several of the conferences have been shown to have had effects on parliamentarydecision-making and public debate’ (ibid.: 21). Reference to conference reports
656 S. D. KOLSTOE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
was both found both in parliamentary debates and in interviews with Members ofthe Danish Parliament. One should of course not anticipate the same impact fromstudents’ project reports. But on a local scale students’ project reports, and theirwork and discussions at home, might have an effect.
Summing up, the pedagogical rationale behind consensus projects is:
. The students are not to be told to have a critical attitude, but are given achance to act critically.
. The students are not to be told that scientific knowledge is relevant for theassessment of various action courses in everyday life and in a democraticsociety, but a situation is created in which they may actually experience this.
. The students are not only told about the limits of science, but they are beingacquainted with such through practical situations.
. The students are not only told about the importance of discussions and peerevaluation of knowledge claims within the scientific community, but arealso given a chance to tentatively reach such an evaluation.
The role of the teacher
In consensus projects the teacher has an active role as counsellor, consultant andfriendly but stimulating critic, in addition to her/his role as an organizer. Before aproject starts the teacher has to introduce the students to the purpose of consensusprojects. It should be emphasized that they need to try to look critically at theinformation gathered. It is also important that the students are well aware of thecritical and evaluative attitude with which their presentations are going to be met.
In the first phase, in which the main and the sub-issues for investigation arechosen, the teacher should ensure that the chosen issues have a science dimension.This is a presupposition if the students are to learn about science and scientificknowledge and its applicability in real issues by carrying out a consensus project.Of course, this is also necessary as the projects are supposed to be a part of theirscience education.
In the phase where the expert groups gather information and the lay groupprepares questions and clarifies values and criteria the teacher should be at thestudents’ disposal. She/he can answer questions concerning where and how tosearch for information. The teacher also can take a more active role and ask thedifferent groups encouraging questions concerning the trustworthiness, evidence,documentation, relevance and so on of the information gathered.
In the main phase of the project the expert groups present their findings. Theteacher’s role here is to ask questions of the presentees and of the class, to stimulatethem to think critically. Asking questions has the advantage that the teacher canbring important issues to the debate, and at the same time leave it to the studentsto make their own evaluations. The teacher’s questions have to be improvised asthey are responses to the students’ statements. It is therefore important that theteacher has a clear idea about the directions in which she/he wants to stimulate thestudents’ thinking. The questions should be closely connected to topics and prob-lems considered to be important for citizens dealing with socio-scientific issues.This puts high demands on the teachers, as it implies that the teachers have to beaware of a range of goals concerning science for citizenship and democratic parti-cipation (see e.g. Aikenhead 1985, Bingle and Gaskell 1994, Driver et al. 1996,
TEACHING SCIENCE FOR CITIZENSHIP 657
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
Driver and Newton 1997, Kolstø 1999). The following are some suggestions fortypes of questions to be asked:
(1) Questions concerning knowledge domain, values, attitudes and options* In what social domain do you think the final decision is likely to be
made?* Is this a knowledge claim or value position?* What values here are of greatest importance to you/them?* What can be your antagonists’ reasons and values?* What other options do you see, and what are their benefits and draw-
backs?(2) Questions concerning trust in information and explanations provided
* What are your sources, and what is the evidence and documentationfor this factual claim?
* Why do you trust these sources?* May the sources have interests that might have influenced their views?* Does there seem to be a consensus regarding this knowledge claim
within the scientific community?* Is the source (e.g. an expert) talking within her/his area of expertise?
(3) Questions concerning expert reports and scientific knowledge* Could you explain that concept/mechanism?* In your opinion, is the expert report on the subject biased in any way?* What are the preconditions for these predictions to become true?* What might happen if we do not take note of this knowledge/these
experts’ advice?
Such questions are meant to raise the students’ consciousness concerning valuesinvolved, scientific (and other) knowledge involved and limits of scientific knowl-edge. In addition, it is important that the teacher promotes an attitude of respecttowards antagonists’ points of view. The teacher should also encourage thestudents to ask similar questions of classmates and of themselves.
As the students might not be used to asking these kinds of questions, it can bedemanding for them suddenly to try to answer all of them. One possibility here isthat the teacher concentrates on a few perspectives the first time that a consensusproject is undertaken. Next time some more perspectives can be added. Anotherpossibility is initially to use more narrowly focused teaching models working ondecision-making and ethical aspects of science (see e.g. Fullick and Ratcliffe 1996).
The list of questions indicates a range of issues on which the teacher wants toraise the students’ consciousness. It can be anticipated that during the expertgroups’ presentations several of these issues will emerge or become topical. Atthese instances the teacher should try to make use of this and spend some timein introducing the topics to the students. To avoid interrupting the students thiscan be done immediately after the ongoing presentation. In keeping with thediscursive character of the presentation and the teaching model in general, theteacher should not just tell the students about his/her answers or knowledgeabout science. The teacher should introduce these issues through questions tothe students, and make them participate in the search for arguments and answers.
As there are several expert groups, and as the presentation phase should alsoinclude the introduction of some relevant topics, this phase will take several hours.If the lay group-directed consensus-seeking discourse is to follow immediately
658 S. D. KOLSTOE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
after the presentation another hour or two is needed. Ideally a whole day should beset aside for for this phase of the project. This can create an atmosphere of curi-osity and importance about the project, and also provide sufficient time for athorough treatment of the topics involved. In Norway it is common to selectone special week each year where all students in all classes are doing projectwork. Such organization might make the presentation phase easier to carry outin an integral way.
Consensus projects and science for action
Science teachers usually want their subject to be useful and enriching to thosestudents who will not be studying science or take technical vocational training laterin life. One argument for science being a school subject for all students has beenthat science is useful for practical purposes and for democratic participation. Forthis argument to be valid scientific knowledge has to be more or less directlyapplicable to complex real-life problems. Over the last two decades research find-ings have strongly indicated that this presumed applicability of theoretical scien-tific knowledge for practical purposes has not been fulfilled (see e.g. Irwin 1995,Layton et al. 1993, Wynne 1996). In a review article on this research Layton (1991)concludes that knowledge generated, validated and standardized by a scientificcommunity has to be deconstructed and reconstructed to articulate with practice.Referring to Layton’s article Jenkins (1994) states that this deconstruction andreconstruction of scientific knowledge includes:
[A]djusting the level of abstraction, ‘repackaging’ knowledge to bring together com-ponents of scientific knowledge that pedagogical and disciplinary considerations haveuncoupled, and ‘recontexualizing’ scientific knowledge to reassimilate the messyrealities that have been idealized in order to shape and address a problem with therigour deemed necessary to move towards a scientific solution.
This reworking of scientific knowledge is demanding, but necessary as socio-scientific issues are complex. It typically involves both science from differentsub-disciplines, knowledge from other social domains, and of course value judge-ments and social elements. This indicates that if we want ‘science education foraction’, it is not enough to focus on the students’ construction of scientific knowl-edge. School science then also has to focus on the reworking of theoretical scien-tific knowledge needed for practical action in specific situations.
The focal point in consensus projects is not a scientific topic. The point ofdeparture is a more or less controversial real-world socio-scientific issue. When thedifferent expert groups focus on different aspects of the chosen issue they willsometimes have to integrate knowledge from different scientific sub-disciplinesor other knowledge domains. When the expert groups are presenting their viewsand findings these will be evaluated in the light of the main problem at stake.When the lay group is discussing the controversial issue trying to reach consensuson a recommended solution or action, they are bringing together different pieces ofknowledge and opinions for comparison and evaluation. In this way carrying out aconsensus project involves the reworking of scientific knowledge in order to makeit articulate with practical decision-making and action. Doing a consensus projectcan be one way for science teaching to meet the challenge identified by Layton. Inconsensus projects the students gain experience of the reworking process assisted
TEACHING SCIENCE FOR CITIZENSHIP 659
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
by the teacher, and in collaboration with classmates. Consensus projects can serveas ‘paradigmatic examples’ for reworking processes the students will be involved inlater.
What nevertheless can be the Achilles’ heel of consensus projects is the qualityof the reworking process. Even if the teacher is supposed to work as an activecounsellor, consultant and friendly but stimulating critic during the project, thestudents still will have to do the main part of the work themselves. This might bothbe a strength and a weakness. A strength is that it may force them to think forthemselves, and this resembles the real-world situation outside the science class-room. A weakness is that the students’ resources are limited, and inputs from well-informed teachers might be needed.
The complex and interdisciplinary nature of real-world problems implies thatproject work on socio-scientific issues could benefit from co-operation with otherschool subjects. By co-operating with language, history, geography or religiousstudy, knowledge of the cultural, societal and ethical aspects can be emphasizedto a greater extent. This is both because it then will be easier to legitimize spendingvaluable teaching time on such aspects, and also because the teachers of otherschool subjects represent resources needed to broaden the perspective.Interdisciplinary co-operation can make the necessity of integrating scientificknowledge with other knowledge domains more obvious to the students, andthereby raise the quality of the reworking process.
Science education for action may not necessarily include the action itself.What is important is that the students are trained in articulating and in arguingtheir views, and in interpreting scientific information in adequate ways. Towardsthe end of a consensus project engaged students might want to carry out the actionitself, but if the issue at stake is controversial, even discussing the issue in a scienceclass can sometimes be politically sensitive, let alone carrying out the conclusion.One possibility, though, is to let the conclusions and evaluations be publicly avail-able, as discussed earlier. Such ‘actions’ will never be politically neutral, but it canbe argued that it is necessary to include such elements if we want to train thestudents in communicating their views publicly. In other cases the conclusionreached by the students can be an action or an activity that they may follow upon in their private lives (for instance by letting environmental considerations affecttheir personal purchases and life style), or it may be a course of action that theymay propagate publicly after school hours.
Discussion
When carrying out a consensus project several issues of importance for the dis-cussion of science for citizenship might arise. Among these are the question of theviews on the role of experts the students acquire through working on consensusprojects. In ‘the instrumental model’, experts are viewed as assisting politicians intechnology assessment and decision-making. In ‘the elitist model’, technologyassessment is placed in the hands of scientific expert bodies. Both these modelshave been criticized for pursuing ‘objective’ analysis as they focus on scientificassessment methods (Joss 1998). This implies excluding interest groups and thewider public from the assessment procedure. The consensus project model aims atparticipation via ‘the democratic model’ of technology assessment. The questionhere is whether the role of experts in consensus projects is determined by the
660 S. D. KOLSTOE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
students’ preconceptions or whether carrying out a consensus project will have animpact on the students’ attitude. This is a basic question as it concerns thestudents’ abilities to evaluate expert statements. The alternative is that expertopinion is taken as authoritative, leaving no room for the student evaluation. Ifthis becomes the case, the consensus project model has not met the expectationsand has to be developed further.
Another question of relevance is the teachers’ attitudes towards the perspec-tive on science education inherent in consensus projects. First, using the consensusproject model implies dealing with (at least to some degree) controversial issues inthe science classroom, issues where the students’ parents probably have differentviews. To many teachers this will represent a big challenge (Jenkins 1994).Aikenhead (1985) states that ‘If we develop students’ ability to reach decisionson social issues related to science and technology, we are taking them to the door ofpolitical action’ (ibid.; 471). Carrying out a consensus project may therefore causeopposition from some parents, and possibly also from local authorities. Ways ofdealing with this situation have to be explored and discussed on a general basiswithin science education.
A third potential problem is that the picture of modern science inherent in theconsensus project model may not be that held by most science teachers. Aikenhead(1994) has argued that the fundamental tenets of science curricula reflect thepublic image of nineteenth-century science. He states that this explains ‘whytoday’s curriculum includes pure abstractions that demonstrate the aestheticunity of the disciplines, and why practical knowledge and social concerns are allbut excluded’ (ibid.: 18). Implicit here is a view of science as pure and separatefrom any involvement with society. In contrast, modern science has been said to becharacterized by integration of science with social, military, commercial and otheractivities (Aikenhead 1994, Jenkins 1992). When carrying out a consensus projectthe students study science in its interaction with social issues. The picture ofscience as connected to interests and values can here be expected to emerge.The relevant scientific knowledge will also often be considered disputable andbe characterized by a lack of consensus within the scientific community. It cantherefore be anticipated that those science teachers who adhere to a nineteenth-century picture of science will have difficulties implementing consensus projects inthe way intended.
A final issue of concern is that in a consensus project we cannot take forgranted that the lay group will consider the scientific knowledge as the mostvalid and relevant source of information. This is a risk that we must be willingto run. The outcome of the debate in the classroom also hinges on the ability of theteacher to question and provoke debate on the anti-scientific information that ispresented. In the last resort this is also a question of our general trust in scientificinformation: do we regard it as valid and relevant when it comes to real-life issues?This question is not straightforward, and it would be useful to have the students’views on this question in a range of contexts. Insights into the students’ views arehere necessary for the discussion of science for citizenship in general. There havebeen several interesting qualitative studies on adults’ attitudes to science andscientific knowledge in social contexts, but there is a need for further researchconcerning the attitudes of both pupils and students.
The inclusion of social aspects of science and the evaluation of science in socialsettings should be seen not only as a way of making school science meaningful for
TEACHING SCIENCE FOR CITIZENSHIP 661
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
the students who are to leave science after schooling. It should be seen as especiallyimportant for those students who are to become scientific or technical expertsthemselves. This is because it can make them reflect on how science works incontextual social situations, and because it can make them appreciate and maybeeven demand a greater emphasis on an understanding of science-society inter-actions in their further studies.
References
AAAS (1989) Science for All Americans. Project 2061 (New York: Oxford University Press).AIKENHEAD, G. S. (1985) Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science
Education, 69, 453-475.AIKENHEAD, G. (1994) The social contract of science. In J. Solomon and G. Aikenhead (eds),
STS Education. International Perspectives on Reform (New York: Teachers CollegePress), pp. 11-20.
BAUER, H. H. (1994) Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method (Urbana,Illinois: University of Illinois Press).
BINGLE, W. H. and GASKELL, P. J. (1994) Scientific literacy for decisionmaking and thesocial construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 72, 185-201.
CHRISTENSEN, K. G. and KRISTENSEN, T. (1999). Fra naturfag til politikk. Mot et paradig-meskifte i miljøundervisningen? (From Science to Politics). (Tønsberg: StatensUtdanningskontor i Vestfold).
CROSS, R. T. and PRICE, R. F. (1996) Science teachers’ social conscience and the role ofcontroversial issues in the teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,33, 319-333.
DEWEY, J. (1909) How We Think (London/Boston: Heath).DRIVER, R., LEACH, J., MILLAR, R. and SCOTT, P. (1996) Young Peoples’ Images of Science
(Buckingham: Open University Press).DRIVER, R. and NEWTON, P. (1997) Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in
classrooms. Paper presented at the First International Conference of the EuropeanScience Education Research Association, September, Rome.
FIXDAL, J. (1997) Consensus Conferences as Extended Peer Groups. Paper presented at theconference Technology and Democracy - Comparative Perspectives, January, Oslo.
FLEMING, R. (1989) Literacy for a technological age. Science Education, 73, 391-404.FULLICK, P. and RATCLIFFE, M. (eds). (1996) Teaching Ethical Aspects of Science
(Southampton: The Bassett Press).GEDDIS, A. N. (1991) Improving the quality of science classroom discourse on controversial
issues. Science Education, 75, 169-183.GILJE, N. (1997) Anomalier i moderne vitenskapsfilosofi (Anomalies in Modern Philosophy of
Science) (Oslo: Pensumtjenesten).GRUNDAHL, J. (1995) The Danish consensus conference model. In S. Joss and J. Durant
(eds) Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe(London: Science Museum).
HOLTON, G. (1978) The Scientific Imagination: Case Studies (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press).
IRWIN, A. (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development(London: Routledge).
JENKINS, E. W. (1992) School science education: towards a reconstruction. Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 24, 229-246.
JENKINS, E. W. (1994) Public understanding of science and science education for action.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26, 601.
JENKINS E. W. (1996) The ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 28, 137-150.
JOSS, S. (1998) Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assess-ment. Science and Public Policy, 25, 2-22.
662 S. D. KOLSTOE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
JØRGENSEN, T. (1995) Consensus conferences in the health care sector. In S. Joss andJ. Durant (eds) Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences inEurope (London: Science Museum).
KILPATRICK, W. H. (1936) Foundations of Method: Informal Talks on Teaching (New York:Macmillan).
KIND, M. (1996) Science practical work in Norwegian schools: vision and recommendationsbased on research and experience. Lecture for doctoral thesis (Oslo).
KOLSTØ, S. D. (1997) Naturvitenskap og demokrati: Hva kan skolefaget bidra med? (Scienceand democracy: What could be the contribution of school science?). In E. Kallerudand S. Sjøberg (eds) Vitenskap, teknologi og allmenndannelse. Innlegg om vitenskap ogteknologi i skole, media og opinion. (Oslo: Norsk institutt for studier av forskning ogutdanning), 67-92.
KOLSTØ, S. D. (1999) Scientific Literacy for Citizenship: Tools for Dealing with the ScienceDimension of Controversial Socio-Scientific Issues. Submitted for publication.
KORTLAND, K. (1996) Decision-making on science-related social issues: the case of garbagein physical science - a problem-posing approach. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, and P.Scott (eds) Research in Science Education in Europe. Current Issues and Themes(London: Falmer Press), 115-124.
LATOUR, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society(Milton Keynes: Open University Press).
LAYTON, D. (1991) Science education and praxis: the relationship of school science topractical action. Studies in Science Education, 19, 43-79.
LAYTON, D., JENKINS, E., MACGILL, S. and DAVEY, A. (1993) Inarticulate Science?Perspectives on the Public Understanding of Science and Some Implications for ScienceEducation (Nafferton: Studies in Education Ltd).
LEWIS, J., DRIVER, R., LEACH, J. and WOOD-ROBINSON, C. (1997) Opinion on and Attitudestowards Genetic Engineering: Acceptable Limits (working paper 7) (Leeds: Centre forStudies in Science and Mathematics Education).
MILLAR, R. and DRIVER, R. (1987) Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education, 14, 33-62.
MILLAR, R. and WYNNE, B. (1988) Public understanding of science: from contents to pro-cesses. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 388-398.
NORRIS, S. P. (1995) Learning to live with scientific expertise: toward a theory of intellectualcommunalism for guiding science teaching. Science Education, 79, 201-217.
NSTA (1982) Science-Technology-Society: Science Education for the 1980’s (Washington,DC: National Science Teachers’ Association).
OSBORNE, J. (1997) Science education for the future - the road ahead? Paper presented at theFirst International Conference of the European Science Education ResearchAssociation, September, Rome.
RACA, THE ROYAL MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (1997) Core Curriculum forPrimary, Secondary and Adult Education in Norway (Oslo: National Centre forEducational Resources).
RATCLIFFE, M. (1996) Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues, within the sciencecurriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 167-182.
RENN, O. (1992) Risk communication: towards a rational discourse with the public. Journalof Hazardous Materials, 29 , 465-519.
RYAN, A. G. and AIKENHEAD, G. S. (1992) Students’ preconceptions about the epistemologyof science. Science Education, 76, 559-580.
SANDBERG, P. and KRAFT, N. (eds). (1996) Kvikklaks og teknoburger - Sluttrapport fralekfolkskonferansen om genmodifisert mat (Fast Salmon and Tecno-Beef - FinalReport from the Lay Conference on Genetically Modified Food) (Oslo: De nasjonaleforskningsetiske komite er).
SHAPERE, D. (1984) Reason and the Search for Knowledge: Investigations in the Philosophy ofScience (Dordrecht: Reidel).
SJOBERG, S. (1996, 18-22 Mars) Er naturvitenskapen unaturlig? En naturviters tro og tvil(Is science unnatural? A scientist’s beliefs and doubts). Paper presented at Detfemte nordiska forskarsymposiet om undervisning i naturvetenskap i skolan:Naturvetenskapen i skolan infoÈ r 2000-talet., Kristianstad.
TEACHING SCIENCE FOR CITIZENSHIP 663
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
SOLOMON, J. (1992) The classroom discussion of science-based social issues presented ontelevision: knowledge, attitudes and values. International Journal of Science Education,14, 431-444.
WYNNE, B. (1996) Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake ofscience. In A. Irwin and B. Wynne (eds) Misunderstanding Science? The PublicReconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press),19-46.
ZIMAN, J. M. (1991) Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
ZOLLER, U. (1982) Decision-making in future science and technology curricula. EuropeanJournal of Science Education, 4, 11-17.
664 TEACHING SCIENCE FOR CITIZENSHIP
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
"Que
en's
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
, Kin
gsto
n"]
at 2
0:48
20
Aug
ust 2
014
