This article was downloaded by: [University of West Florida]On: 11 October 2014, At: 04:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Studies in Science EducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsse20

Location, Location, Location:Positioning BiotechnologyEducation for the 21st CenturyBev France aa University of Auckland , New ZealandPublished online: 29 Mar 2008.

To cite this article: Bev France (2007) Location, Location, Location: PositioningBiotechnology Education for the 21st Century, Studies in Science Education, 43:1,88-122, DOI: 10.1080/03057260708560228

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057260708560228

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

88 Bev France

Location, Location, Location: Positioning Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century

BEV FRANCE University of Auckland, New Zealand

INTRODUCTION

The scientific literacy movement has provided the impetus for a re-examination of an appropriate science curriculum for the 21st Century. The science education community has displayed a measure of agreement around the view that teaching a reductionist, analytical world view of science, which had been the norm for the 20th century, is not relevant for the 21st (Ravetz, 1990; Jenkins, 1992; Millar & Osborne, 1998; Solomon & Thomas, 1999). In particular, 'modern' science, where teams of researchers from different disciplines work together on strategic research focussed science projects, was not illustrated in classroom science education programmes (DeHart Hurd, 1998: 409).

Biotechnology is an example of 'modern' science which provides teachers with a context to show how teams of scientists, technologists and social scientists work together. It also provides opportunities for students and teachers to explore and critically debate the dilemmas and ethical issues that arise during the process (Phoenix, 2000). Furthermore the social and political issues arising from the practice of biotechnology provide a rich context to link science with the lifeworld of the student.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century 89

The pertinence of biotechnology as a lightning rod for public debate about 'modern' science was very evident in New Zealand during the 2002 general election. Instead of taxes, health and policing, this election was largely fought on the issue of genetic engineering (GE)1 and the need to maintain a moratorium on field trials. This issue became important because the Green Party had captured the moral high ground and alleged that the release of genetically modified plants into the environment would diminish New Zealand's clean, green image. Biotechnology was the major topic of the day, and during the campaign there was a standoff between the science community and 'Green' sections of the public about the merits of genetic engineering (France & Gilbert, 2005).

Although the GE issue dominated the 2002 election it had been simmering for some time in the New Zealand government's consciousness. In 2001 the GE debate was given a formal position through a Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (RCGM) (Eichelbaum, Allan, Fleming & Randerson, 2001). As a result of this public concern during the election, the in-coming government decided to prioritize

the building of understanding about biotechnology and constructive engagement between people in the community and the biotechnology sector' (Ministry of Research Science & Technology, 2003: 7).

As part of this bridge-building exercise the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (MoRST) supported a research initiative to enhance biotechnology education at all levels, including the school sector (Jones, 2004). One component of this initiative involved the commissioning of a literature review:

to identify existing opportunities for enhancing biotechnology awareness and learning within New Zealand in order to compare these opportunities with international examples; to identify the key stakeholders in biotechnology education and identify their potential contributions to this proposed enhancement' (France & Bolstad, 2004: 2-3).

This paper is derived from that literature review. The Appendix gives further details of the search strategies employed.

The review identified a range of approaches to, and initiatives for, promoting biotechnology education, both internationally and within New Zealand. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

90 Bev France

reviewers concluded that the pedagogical issues involved in teaching biotechnology education were complex, and that the location of biotechnology education in school programmes merited significant and detailed examination. It argued that using biotechnology as a context for teaching 'modern' science required teachers to have an increased level of self-awareness: of the dimensions of the subject; of the social and political issues these contexts raise; and of the pedagogical practices that will enable students to use their developing scientific and technological literacy to appraise critically this 'modern' science/technology.

In the property market, it is said to be 'location, location, location' that determines the desirability and price of a house. This paper argues that positioning decisions are significant in determining the focus and substance of biotechnology education. For example the decision to position biotechnology education within the 'traditional' biotechnology camp will deflect the need for teachers to explore the contentious issues of genetic engineering. On the other hand, if a teacher decides to identify genetic engineering as an essential tool of modern biotechnology then this positioning requires the teacher to employ specific pedagogical practices so as to enable relevant issues to be explored. Another decision could be the location of biotechnology at a point along a science-technology continuum: this paper will demonstrate the subtleties of such a positioning. The analogy can be extended into an examination of the needs of prospective buyers: it is important to find out the needs of the recipients of that education by finding out what they know, and what they want to know.

The link between the buyer and seller is usually the real estate agent whose role is to satisfy the wishes of both parties, and come up with a solution that will satisfy everyone. If one considered teachers in this light, then their job would be to use their expertise to find a way of satisfying the needs of the buyer (students) and the educational purposes that the stakeholders considered important. Such a role is critical to the transaction, and requires the teacher not only to be aware of the needs of all participants (curriculum requirements, stakeholders' views and student audience), but to provide up-to-date knowledge of the market (biotechnology content) and to employ considerable skills of persuasion to bring both parties to a mutually agreed educational outcome (pedagogical expertise).

The first section of this paper will examine a range of definitions of biotechnology. This analysis will demonstrate that teachers' choices will

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century 91

determine their view of biotechnology, as positioned along a traditional-modern, axis, and provide examples of the tensions that these differing positions create. A further section will argue that in order for teachers to plan appropriate learning experiences they need to be aware of the way biotechnology education is perceived within the school curriculum. Biotechnology can be perceived as science or technology: the article will provide some biotechnological examples which demonstrate this chameleon character. The consequences of such positioning decisions are explored in a range of international curricula.

Other positioning decisions for teachers are then identified, through an analysis of the composition of the 'public' for the field. A review of the research literature shows that perceptions of biotechnology education range from an emphasis on vocational outcomes, to the provision of knowledge and skills that allow participants to not only to critique the biotechnological enterprise, but also engage the emotional responses that biotechnology can engender. These interpretations of the field, and the ability to respond to the demands they make, will further affect how biotechnology contexts are used.

Ultimately, the paper stresses the complexity of the role of the teacher in providing an appropriate educational outcome. Teachers believe that they need appropriate up-to-date content resources. Such resources are available but are not always fully utilised, because appropriate positioning decisions have not been made. To realise biotechnology as a context for teaching modern science requires more than content resources.

DEFINING AND POSITIONING BIOTECHNOLOGY

Definitions of biotechnology can range from those that are so general that they can include almost all forms of biological activity, to those that require the involvement of genetic engineering (GE). The following range of definitions will illustrate that this apparently innocuous choice will have a large influence on the makeup and delivery of teaching programmes.

Examples of inclusive definitions are:

[Biotechnology involves] a group of technologies that are based on applying biological processes to solve problems and make products (MoRST, 2003: 2).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

92 Bev France

and: Biotechnology is a series of enabling technologies, involving cells or sub­cellular components (e.g. enzymes) applied to industry and environmental management (Kennedy & Davies, 1994: 1).

These definitions do not signal a central role for genetic engineering in the process, and the selection of either would provide the teacher with the option of avoiding any mention of GE. In school curricula such an expression of biotechnological activity is identified as 'traditional' biotechnology: for example bread-making, brewing, the use of bacteria to make cultured dairy products as well as the utilization of bacteria in waste disposal (Olejnik & Farmer, 1989).

In many modern biotechnologies there is an assumption that 'modern' biotechnology utilises genetic engineering (GE) or genetic modification (GM) and this process is the keystone of the industry. Although there are many biotechnological processes that do not use genetically modified organisms, most 'modern' biotechnologies do have a close association with this technology. The following definition indicates that the use of GE could underpin all of these activities:

Biotechnology is any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make and modify products or processes for specific use (Eichelbaum et al., 2001: 420).

By contrast the definition below implies that GM underpins these activities:

Biotechnology is the technological use of living organisms to make or modify products, to improve plants or animals, to develop micro­organisms for specific uses or to provide goods and services (MoRST, 2005: 16, italics added).

People constitute another component of the biotechnological process. At this stage definitions have been proposed that acknowledge the role of people only implicitly. Yet such a definition of biotechnology is limited, since people are deeply involved both as producers and consumers. A definition of biotechnology that acknowledges their involvement is:

The application of scientific and engineering principles to the processing of material by biological agents and the processing of biological materials

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century 93

to improve the quality of life (New Zealand Biotechnology Association, 1995: 4)

Even though this definition alludes to people's involvement, it is focussed on bioprocessing. There is a tacit understanding that GM underpins these processes, but the wording does not acknowledge other biotechnological activities that use GM or GMOs: for example the use of GMOs in biological and human research as part of medical therapeutics and diagnostics. In addition, this definition does not acknowledge areas of biotechnological activity involving the sourcing of intellectual property of GMOs, and the use of GMOs in controlling pests and managing wastes. And there are modern biotechnologies that may not involve GM at all: for example cell culture in plants and animals (MoRST, 2005: 16).

The following definition allows scope for a teacher to explore traditional and/or modern biotechnology as well as acknowledging the participation of people in the process.

Biotechnology is a group of technologies that are based on applying biological processes to solve problems and make products to benefit people and improve the quality of life.

At some point in their planning teachers need to identify the type of biotechnology they are going to teach: 'traditional' biotechnology where GE and GMOs are not mentioned is the safe option, and contrasts with those in which there is an acknowledgement that GE is central to the process. More important to this discussion is the fact that the inclusion of people in the definition does commit teachers to coping with the pedagogical problems of managing discussions about the merits of biotechnology and its human consequences.

POSITIONING ALONG THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION CONTINUUM

In the early 1990s, many countries added 'technology' to the school curriculum. The focus for these curriculum changes was to develop science and technology curricula that would link 'academic science' and 'practical technology' to students' experiences, so that they could contribute informed opinions to debates (Jenkins, 1990; Lewis & Gagel, 1992). There was a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

94 Bev France

realisation that 'modern' science and technology topics were pertinent for 21st Century students and required people to recognise:

... symbiotic relationships between science and technology and between science, technology and human affairs (DeHart Hurd, 1998: 414).

As these curriculum redevelopments were occurring, writers sought to articulate the relationships between science and technology and how these relationships could be realised in classrooms (Gilbert, 1992). Gardner (1994, 1995) suggested that the relationship between science and technology could be seen from four viewpoints. That is:

• technology as applied science; • science and technology as independent communities; • technology giving rise to scientific understanding; • science and technology as equal and interacting communities.

These four relationships between science and technology are manifested in biotechnology education (France-Farmer, 1997).

Technology as applied science (TAS) The positioning of technology as applied science assumes that there is a linear relationship, where science generates technology. When this view is taken the story of technological development is projected through a science lens (Gardner, 1995). Gardner's (1994) description of biotechnological fruits falling from scientific trees is a common representation of the scientific applications of biotechnological knowledge: for example the utilisation of penicillin from Sir Alexander Fleming's discovery of the action of Penicillium moulds on bacteria. In fact the relationship was far from linear, and involved many people .

Even though such a linear relationship can be discredited in any science/technology history (Gardner, 1994, 1995) this simple 'technology-as applied-science' relationship is still exploited in science education, and the penicillin story taps into such a mythology. The reality of 'modern science' is that strategic research occurs in teams, with a focus on the functional aspects of science and technology as it relates to human welfare, economic development, social progress and the quality of life. This view of science is a more accurate picture of the enterprise than one where science applications arise from an isolated discovery (DeHart Hurd, 1998: 409). This TAS approach is representative of science programmes and curricula that do not take into account the complex contributions of the scientific and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century 95

technological communities. Such positioning does not allow a full development of the learner's scientific or technological literacy, or reflect the practices of 'modern' science and technology.

Science and technology as independent communities Viewing science and technology as separate communities at either end of a continuum can influence the approach to biotechnology education. There is some historical evidence that science and technological practices have evolved independently; for example the practice of using leeches to draw blood from patients 150 years after Harvey's research on the circulation of blood had been published (Drucker, 1961). However this separation does not reflect current science and technological practice. Indeed modern microsurgery uses leeches to maintain circulation in transplants (Riggs, Farmer & Olejnik, 1993). Separating technology and science education will misrepresent modern biotechnology practice to students.

Technology enabling scientific understanding This viewpoint considers instrumentation as an enabler for scientific progression: the microbial world was opened up as a result of Leeuwenhoek's work with lenses in the 17th Century. This relationship between science and technology is sometimes called technoscience or applied technology. DeHart Hurd (1998) comments that at the present time technology determines what is to be discovered. An example is micro-array that can measure the expression levels of up to ten of thousands of genes in a single experiment on a small glass slide (MoRST, 2005). This intimate relationship is very apparent in the work of bioengineers and bio-informatic specialists, who determine how this material is assessed and presented in an accessible form to researchers (Biotechnology Taskforce, 2003). An example of this intimate relationship is systems biology, where two biological disciplines (genomics and proteomics) converge with biological computing and engineering so that information can be integrated and accessed (MoRST, 2005).

This intimate relationship of science and technology is not overt in many curricula. The teaching of the history of science and technology could provide some insight of this close relationship, and an examination of modern biotechnology could illustrate how an enabling relationship is commonplace.

Science and technology as equal and interacting communities This viewpoint, where scientists demonstrate technological capability and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

96 Bev France

technologists are required to function as scientists, is probably the most accurate representation of 'modern' biotechnology, within which research is done by teams rather than by a single researcher (DeHart Hurd, 1998). An example would be bioprocessing technologies that extract fine chemicals from meat and fish waste and processes that enable the material to retain its biological activity in the form of enzymes (MoRST, 2005).

These four science—technology relationships illustrate that when biotechnology is provided as a context, its placement within a science-technology continuum is far from simple. Biotechnology needs to be represented as an activity that has the potential to illustrate some or all of these relationships: it is for the teacher to determine how this positioning will occur. Yet at present such positioning of biotechnology in international curricula is strictly limited. The following section will demonstrate this positioning effect on biotechnology education through a survey of curricula in England, Scotland, four American states, a Canadian province, parts of Australia and New Zealand (see Appendix for electronic database searches employed).

THE POSITIONING OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN INTERNATIONAL CURRICULA

An applied science (TAS) perspective on biotechnology is reflected in many of the international science curricula, where 'modern' biotechnological products and processes are only given attention at the senior level. A study of international curricula documents suggests that curriculum writers have made the assumption that GM examples cannot be studied until learners are exposed to conceptual understandings of genetics. Certainly this positioning of 'traditional' biotechnology within the junior levels of curricula means that many students do not have the opportunity to explore the dilemmas of 'modern' biotechnology. For example the English Science Curriculum at Key Stage 4 (14-15 year olds) gives some attention to 'modern' biotechnology, with students being required to understand the principles of cloning, selective breeding and genetic engineering (Souter, 2003: 61). Similarly in Scotland modern biotechnology is positioned within senior science education, and the examples given demonstrate an applied science perspective with provision for discussion about social and ethical issues (Bryce & Gray, 2004).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century 97

In Canada, the Ontario Science and Biology curricula (grades 11-12) has a senior demarcation and provides a TAS view:

explaining how a particular technological application of a scientific discovery is perceived by various interest groups in the community.

A TAS perspective is also visible in the Australian state science/biology curricula, where it is taught at a senior level. Dawson & Schibeci (2003b) lament this situation and call for the 'explicit inclusion of biotechnology processes and associated issues in the science curriculum that would provide opportunities for younger students to explore these issues' (10). These authors note that recent studies have shown that science teachers recognise the need to teach biotechnology, though their efforts are sporadic and isolated. A recent resource Biotechnology Online provides Australian biotechnological contexts, though yet again biotechnology is given an applied science focus. In this resource the senior/junior demarcation is not apparent and there is some potential for introducing 'modern' biotechnology at lower levels of schooling.

Although it is difficult to generalise about American science/technology educational curricula, an online search of each state's curricula was carried out to identify where biotechnology is mentioned 9. In most curricula, biotechnology appears within science curricula and employs a strong applied science perspective, involving the application of biological processes. In many American curricula the distinction between 'modern' and 'traditional' biotechnology is quite marked: the limitation of 'modern' biotechnology to the senior level follows international trends. Both of these characteristics are evident in the Californian Curriculum Science Framework for California Public Schools (California Department of Education, 2003). Students are required to 'know how genetic engineering (biotechnology) is used to produce novel biomedical and agricultural products' (19).

Sometimes the notion of application is critiqued. In North Carolina10 students are required to examine a an examination of a cost-benefit-risk relationship: biological applications are identified, and students are required to assess the application of DNA technology to medicine and agriculture.

When there is a focus on people's interactions with biotechnology the view is widened from a narrow concern with scientific applications. Thus in the North Dakota science curriculum there is a strong bioethics focus, and a requirement that students examine their own views of cloning, how genetic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

98 Bev France

profiles should be used and the ethics of organ transplants. In the middle school, students are asked to write an essay describing a futuristic society where human cloning is common. Bioethical issues are also given space in the Delaware curriculum12 ; students are required to develop an opinion about the use of DNA fingerprinting in such situations as criminal trials, cases of disputed parentage and legislation on genetic screening for diseases.

All of the curriculum examples just cited position biotechnology as applied science. However this positioning is not a universal in American curricula. A wider view of the relationship, acknowledging the role of technology, can be found when American science curricula writers attempt to address issues of scientific literacy. The call for all Americans to acquire a degree of scientific literacy by 2061 was made in the publication Science for all Americans (AAAS, 1989). This goal was defined as 'education in science mathematics and technology' (12) where an understanding of [bio]technological principles would be expected: for example, the nature of systems, the importance of feedback and control, the cost-benefit-risk relationship and inevitability of side effects.

This limited survey indicates that there are other curricula areas where 'modern' biotechnology could be taught without the limitations of an applied science view. In Kentucky (USA) Brown, Kemp and Hall (1998) carried out a survey to find out where teachers thought biotechnology should be positioned in their schools, and found that biotechnology was given a place in other disciplines. For example, agricultural teachers preferred to teach concepts related to agriculture, the environment, and pollution; science teachers were more comfortable with medicine/drugs, environment/pollution, diagnostics, foods, beverages and energy development. Technology teachers preferred to teach biotechnological content in the context of environment/pollution, energy development and manufacturing (11). The authors suggest that 'the traditional delivery mechanisms and disciplinary content structures did not appear to serve this emerging content area [biotechnology] appropriately' (11).

New Zealand curricula acknowledge the chameleon qualities of biotechnology: it is given space in science, (Ministry of Education, 1993) and biology curricula (Ministry of Education, 1994) as well as in environmental education guidelines (Ministry of Education, 1999). New Zealand science and biology curricula follow international trends by giving biotechnology an applied science focus, with 'modern' biotechnology confined to the senior school. However biotechnology education is also positioned within the technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century 99

curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1995). Here biotechnology is seen as an area where science and technology act as equal and interacting communities. However the results of the New Zealand Ministry of Education Research Project Curriculum Stocktake: National School Sampling Study (Ministry of Education, 2002) show that, even though this curriculum has provided spaces to explore the issues of 'modern' biotechnology at all levels of schooling, it has received scant attention in technology education. When 'modern' biotechnology was taught within the science and biology curricula, it was found in the senior school, where these subjects are optional. This meant that the opportunity for students to gain an understanding of a 'public science' issue would have been lost at the time when genetic engineering was front page news during the 2002 New Zealand election. It appears that teachers implementing these curriculum opportunities in New Zealand (mainly teachers of science, technology and environmental education) were not taking advantage of the many opportunities to use biotechnological contexts in their teaching.

STAKEHOLDER HOPES AND POSITIONING

Jean Fleming14 (a member of the New Zealand Royal Commission team), reflecting on the need for stakeholders to be identified when contributing to the New Zealand biotechnology education debate, quotes Kant: 'We do not see things as they are, but as we are'. Fleming was making the point that biotechnology educators not only need to know on whom their educational task is focussed, but also its purpose and, even more importantly, their own position in the debate (Fleming, 2003).

Even when the location of biotechnology education is determined by the statutory curriculum, the content of the educational process can be shaped and moulded by the teacher. Learning theorists of the 1960s exhorted us to find out what learners know (their position and needs) before attempting to teach them (Ausubel, 1968). Furthermore, when making decisions about biotechnology-focussed learning, the purpose of the exercise should be apparent for both the teacher and learner. What then is the position of the public about biotechnology? What are their hopes for biotechnology education?

Before answering this question it is important to establish the nature of the sphere of the 'public'. Niedhardt (1993) defines it as a socially empty field, with free entry, that is peopled with three classes of actors: speakers, mediators,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

100 Bev France

and audience. He describes it as a 'communication system', and calls the conceptual space where the actions of the participants are accessible and open to scrutiny the 'public domain'. In many situations the public are the audience in a dialogue, but their composition is not predictable and is considered to be heterogeneous and unstable, according to the issues under discussion (Wynne, 1992). Adding to the variability within sphere of the 'public', Layton, Davey & Jenkins (1986) have shown that distinct groups united by particular interests show very different levels of knowledge about particular issues.

The Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (Eichelbaum et al., 2001) demonstrated this public diversity as the commissioners reported on 116 formal submissions, 15 public meetings, a youth forum, 11 meetings on Maori marae (meeting house) and 11,000 written submissions. Even though there was evidence of a diversity of opinion concern was expressed that, because participants were self-selected, the views of the 'average Kiwi (New Zealander)' were not recorded. Therefore an independent survey was commissioned in 2001 to canvas the 'public's' views about and hopes for biotechnology, via the mechanism of focus groups.

These focus-group participants perceived biotechnology as a 'secret science' involving laboratory work that took place behind closed doors. It was considered to be frequently associated with genetic engineering and located within the modern biotechnology camp. These participants' perceptions of biotechnology were influenced by a series of underlying attitudes and values which included ethical and moral issues, spirituality, perceptions of nature, personal control, interpersonal connections, and national identity. Their perceptions interacted in complex ways when people made decisions about biotechnology. To add to the complexity, New Zealand's clean green image was seen as a national icon that existed in the past, or was a future utopia that could be reached, by using GM or by avoiding it (Coyle, Maslin, Fairweather & Hunt, 2003).

Although the participants were concerned about the risks associated with biotechnology, their requests for information about this technology demonstrated that their needs had a stronger affective than functional knowledge focus. For example the key areas in which the participants wanted more information included:

• specific details about a biotechnological product. For example: How was it made? What was it made of?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century 101

• the reasons for having this technology. Why were the researchers interested in it?

• its purpose. Who was going to benefit? • the funding sources: Who was paying for it to be researched and

developed? • issues of risk. What research had been done on the risks? Who had

done the research? Was the biotechnology monitored and regulated?

• who benefits from biotechnology?

This 'public' did not want to know about the scientific details, or comparisons of risk. They were more interested in the social aspects of the technology and its possible social, health, and environmental impacts on themselves and their country, both now and, more importantly in the future. They wanted to know the background to biotechnological developments rather than detailed scientific explanations (Hunt, Fairweather & Coyle, 2003: 121-122).

This 'public' wanted to have enough information to make up their mind as informed citizens and, when possible, make choices about using a biotechnology product. Their comments also provided clues about how such information could be transmitted to other members of the 'public'.

The personal experience of participants was frequently used as a way of understanding or making meaning of biotechnology and ultimately could influence its acceptability due to participants' experiences in the past (Hunt et al., 2003: 124).

In New Zealand there is another element in the complexity and heterogeneousness of the 'public': the Maori segment of the population. The Royal Commissioners (Eichelbaum et al., 2001) recognised their responsibility to provide consultation opportunities for Maori as tangata whenua (native people or 'people of the land') and they organised workshops, regional and natural hui (conferences) so that this group could present its views. The commissioners were very aware that many Maori felt strongly about genetic modfication and its potential effects on the concepts of mauri (life principle), whakapapa (genealogy) and kaitiakitanga (guardianship). However the report showed that not all Maori groups held the same opinion about GM, and their views ranged from those wanting a total ban to those with a pragmatic view, who argued that each application should be considered case by case, through an independent regulatory body that would determine benefits and risks

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

102 Bev France

(France, 2001).

These two groups of 'public' perceived biotechnology to be intimately involved with GM: this close relationship is very apparent with such Maori responses. A more recent articulation of Maori perspectives about science education with reference to biotechnology was made on their behalf by Watson (who is co-counsel in the Wai 26215 claim to the Waitangi Tribunal on flora and fauna and intellectual property rights). Part of the claim provided argued that the education system did not recognise their knowledge systems.

The introduction and continued support of an education system that minimised the importance of, failed to actively protect, and denied the exercise and transmission of matauranga Maori (Maori knowledge) (Watson, 2003: 19).

This viewpoint, although not universal amongst Maori, challenged educationalists to address the interface between science and matauranga Maori and to acknowledge these differences. Linda Tuhiwai Smith (Smith, 2003) also gave a Maori perspective of the dialogue about biotechnology at this conference and asked the education community to break down communication barriers. She saw lack of understanding of how science knowledge is developed as a barrier to dialogue. She commented that instead of people talking across knowledge systems, where the debate is oversimplified or radicalised, there needs to be facilitation so that people can recognise each others' views of knowledge, and can converse rather than talk at each other (Smith, 2003).

This analysis demonstrates that the public, as audience, want information about modern biotechnology where GM is an essential tool. It appears that the discussion about GM is occurring without these groups having a detailed understanding of the concepts of genetics, inheritance and GM processes. Groups want information about reasons and background to the biotechnology context under discussion. They needed to obtain information that explained the emotive reasoning and connections that underpin understandings. These data indicate that an affective component of an explanation must be included, and could take precedence over the cognitive component. A further important request, from the Maori community, was that other sources of knowledge and belief systems were recognised and that when there is dialogue all participants are made aware of these different knowledge systems.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century 103

In this analysis of the 'public' the biotechnology community could be considered as 'speakers' (Niedhardt (1993). This group, made up of research scientists, the commercial sector and the support infrastructure that provides goods and services (New Zealand Biosphere) considers vocational training to be very important. Their reasoning is that vocational training would help to compensate for competition for their graduates from other countries.

...the importance of training, recruiting and retaining a high calibre and dynamic workforce to underpin the growth that is required cannot be overstated (Biotechnology Taskforce, 2003: 5).

The biotechnology community often hopes that this vocational training will occur within the science curriculum:

Biotechnology, as a scientific discipline, has been in New Zealand for a century and a half, and as a nation, we have an international reputation for leadership in its application to agriculture, horticulture, forestry and marine life (Biotechnology Taskforce, 2003: 16).

This focus on vocational training does not appear to locate a definition of biotechnology within the traditional or modern biotechnology camps. But the applied science focus is very apparent where skills and knowledge are given a high priority. There will be high demands on science/biology educators if these needs are to be met. Less technically taxing for teachers but requiring equally sophisticated pedagogical skills is the hope that the school population will be able to develop critical literacy about biotechnology.

Members of the biotechnology community recognises the need to engage with the public about biotechnological issues. They believe there is a need to 'build understanding and positive engagement with the broader community and the biotechnology sector' (Biotechnology Taskforce, 2003: 13). However this group appears to envisage that such development would be developed by industry in an uncritical fashion: 'innovative educational programmes to communicate the cultural, economic benefits [of biotechnology]' (13).

Even if the 'critical' element is removed from this literacy, the route is far from being straightforward as Fleming (2003) noted. Her experience as a representative from the science community on the Royal Commission's investigation of New Zealander's views on GM (Eichelbaum et al., 2001) provided a legitimate conduit for people to voice their disquiet about science

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

104 Bev France

and scientists in this biotechnology debate. She commented that even when the anti-corporate, anti-globalisation arguments are removed from the debate, and even when the discussion moves from food to medicine, which is more acceptable to the public, there is still a lack of trust in science and scientists (Fleming, 2003).

She argues that establishing effective dialogue is not just about providing 'innovative educational programmes': there need to be opportunities for the biotechnology community to engage with interested communities. Fleming (2003) hopes that 'the public will get access to information and experts that they can trust: experts that won't make them feel ignorant and information that is unbiased and understandable' (39). However dialogue between the biotechnology community and other groups is far from simple. There has been a range of projects in New Zealand that are researching attempts at engagement, as for example Hands across the water, where scientists involved in GM communicated with people involved in community activities with links to GM (Cronin & Jackson, 2004).

An example of a project that allowed biotechnologists to answer questions about biotechnological issues of concern that had been posed in non-specialist magazines and newspapers was provided in a series of articles in the biotechnological community's journal (New Zealand Biotechnology Association Journal) (France, Gilbert & Maddox, 2001, 2002). Alongside and in response to this dialogue a theoretical model for communication between biotechnologists and others has been developed. This model proposes a structure that enables participants to identify their commonalities and differences, not only at a superficial level, but also in relation to their positions on the nature of science/technology, how they view knowledge and their affective positioning, as well as their more obvious understandings about the biotechnology in question (France & Gilbert, 2006).

POSITIONING AND PEDAGOGICAL CONSEQUENCES

Until now it has been argued that in deciding to use biotechnological contexts teachers need to be aware of: their view of biotechnology when choosing an appropriate definition; how this definition is positioned in their curriculum; and whether this position reflects the needs of their students and the wider community. Such positioning has pedagogical consequences for teachers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century 105

There are few research reports in the education literature that have identified the needs of teachers when teaching biotechnology. Michael, Grinyer and Turner (1997) monitored 16 Irish biology teachers who attended a 2-day workshop to extend their expertise and understanding of biotechnology. Most of the information from this study was gained from focus-group discussions. There was some attempt to triangulate data collection with participant observation throughout the workshops, as well as a pre and post-workshop questionnaire. Although the teachers recognised that biotechnology education had the potential to engage and enthuse students, and that it provided a potent context for socio-political debates, they felt uncertain about what and how they should teach this apparently ill-defined subject. It appears that these teachers had difficulties defining the boundaries of this subject, were uncertain about their ability to facilitate the socio-political debates that could arise. They also claimed that there was a lack of up-to-date resources.

In contrast, the present paper asserts that there are resources aplenty available. Instead teachers need to identify where biotechnology is positioned in national curricula, acknowledge the needs of their students for the 21st Century and decide what outcomes for biotechnology education they wish to pursue. Such positioning decisions will enable them to pursue appropriate biotechnology educational outcome to their students.

OUTCOMES FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION

Laugksch (2000) observes that a narrow definition of 'scientific' literacy is unsustainable and is determined by the context in which it operates. Outcomes from biotechnological education or biotechnological literacy can be realised in different ways. Symington & Tytler (2004) asked community leaders in Australia about their perception of the purposes of science education. For this analysis of biotechnology education their responses have been assimilated into three groups.

The first is an economic purpose based on a vocational focus for biotechnology education. The second is a cultural/democratic purpose that would provide the expertise for students to develop an understanding of biotechnology and to take part in biotechnological decisions that impact on society. The third, would have a personal and utilitarian function for students, but would enable all members of society to benefit from the skills and knowledge they have developed (Symington & Tytler, 2004: 1411).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

106 Bev France

An economic/vocational purpose for biotechnology education

Teachers will be looking for material and pedagogy that will enable students to take part in the biotechnology industry and to participate in the biotechnology community as 'speakers' or at least as an active 'audience' Although this route appears quite straightforward, teachers perceive difficulties in obtaining access to up-to-date relevant materials. This literature review revealed a wide range of up-to-date resources: however such resources requires 'high maintenance' in the form of professional development and a high degree of input by the biotechnology community.

The situation can be illustrated by an evaluated account of a teaching workshop for post-16 students, in which they experienced hands-on practical workshops using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Joliffe, 2003). Students from Bristol took part in a workshop, at a science centre , that provided practical work that would be difficult to replicate in schools. These workshops appeared to fulfil a vocational need for students to have access to high-tech expensive equipment not available in schools. The organisation of the workshop, described by Joliffe, occurred in the holidays, reducing the time pressure on students and teachers. The evaluation noted some teachers' positive comments:

hands-on PCR, so much better than trying to explain it in school. clear concise achievable practical with well-delivered and explained dialogue. 'kit that works!' (Joliffe, 2003: 52).

It appears that for vocational biotechnology education teachers require up to date knowledge, access to modern laboratory equipment and the opportunity to develop expertise.

The review by France & Bolstad (2004) identified a wealth of such biotechnological resources, including textbooks, laboratory practical protocols and web based resources. These resources were provided by experts in the educational community or from the biotechnology community. A major international provider of such materials for teachers is the National Centre for Biotechnology Education (NCBE), based at the University of Reading, UK. This educational group has produced information for teachers about practical laboratory activities as well as providing equipment sourcing materials, and micro-organisms, and setting up workshops for teachers to improve their knowledge and skills (NCBE, 1993). The NCBE continues to be the leading provider of practical biotechnology classroom materials for the UK and has

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century 107

developed a website that provides the latest laboratory practicals and classroom activities free online.

A similar situation can be found in Australia, with the production of an online school resource, Biotechnology Online (Biotechnology Australia, 2001)19. It provides teacher notes and student worksheets covering practical work, discussion topics and strategies, and online interactives that are specifically developed for the Australian situation.

Teachers in the European Union also appear to have access to educational materials from the European Initiative for Biotechnology Education (EIBE)20. It has a strong representation from the European biotechnology educational community, as well as members of the NCBE group based at Reading University. This group publishes a newsletter, provides a range of biotechnology units via the Internet or CD ROM that are a mix of theory and laboratory practical activities.

In New Zealand there is a wealth of texts and practical activities that have an applied science focus, mostly targeted on the senior section of the biology Curriculum (Jarvis & Hickford, 1995; Jarvis, Hickford & Turner, 1998; Smith, 1997). A more comprehensive web-based resource21 has collated this material and has attempted to go beyond senior biology: case studies of biotechnologists and their practices, unit plans for science and technology programmes are provided for all educational levels.

Although resources are plentiful, there is little evaluative research about their efficacy. An exception was the EIBE material that had been produced for German secondary schools: teachers were sent questionnaires to comment on the accessibility and relevance of the material (Schallies & Solterer, 1992). The results of this evaluation parallelled the disquiet about resources voiced by the Irish teachers: respondents wanted material that could be directly transferable to the classroom and closely related to curriculum requirements.

Relevant, pertinent and directly transferable resource materials appear to be needed. However, in order for teachers to obtain suitable resources they also need to make decisions about the purpose of the teaching episode, the curriculum requirements and the focus they are serving and the needs of the students for whom these resources are designed. Furthermore it is not clear if teachers and curriculum developers have recognised that they have positioned themselves as vocational providers for the biotechnology community. As a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

108 Bev France

result of this positioning these intended materials have an applied science focus and, because the material is specialised, this opportunity will be limited to senior students taking biology. The biotechnology community is itself a resource which provides teachers and students with opportunities to communicate and identify the expertise that they lack, as well as providing authenticity. It also exposes learners to the socio-cultural practices of the field (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

An initiative that illustrates 'real life' industrial or research situations includes a mentoring example involving a partnership between high schools and the local biotechnology community in Seattle WA, at a Biotechnology Expo where 192 students were linked with mentors from the industry and research institutes. These mentors worked alongside students to develop projects that were judged via a poster and an interview by a judging panel. A questionnaire found that the Expo had increased these students' interest in biotechnology as well as increasing their understanding. However this initiative was costly and time-intensive, both for the biotechnology community and the teachers (Chowning, 2002).

It seems that the provision of close links with the community does alleviate the problem of providing up-to-date expertise and specialised equipment that is not readily available in a school community. However such a relationship is expensive in time and personnel. An example of such an expensive liaison that did demonstrate the potential for deep learning through a practical problem-solving situation was carried out in Heidelberg. In this project grade 8 students (14-15 years) identified two questions from a health biology topic. These were:

Why is it that we are ill in winter more often than in summer? Will it be possible to strengthen our own immune system by eating a healthy diet?

Teachers found a local firm that specialised in the development and production of tests and apparatus for analysing the cellular components of the immune system. Students had their immune systems tested and then they embarked on diets that they defined as 'healthy', 'unhealthy' and 'normal'. The messiness of real-life research became apparent when students found no difference in the immunity between the groups. Instead they came to the conclusion that regularity of eating might have had an effect on immunity, as well realising that other variables may affect the results. Teachers reported that the project helped students to see that science is a process, not a product, and to gain some

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century 109

insight into the reality of research in a commercial situation (Schaillies & Lembens, 2002).

A cultural/democratic purpose for biotechnology education

This interpretation of biotechnological literacy recognises the need to develop a citizenry with the ability to critique the biotechnological products and processes that may affect their lives. Dreyfus (1995) argues that some biological knowledge is necessary for the development of sound and defensible positions on biotechnological issues. He comments that in order for dialogue to occur, value-laden attitudes need to be knowledge-laden too. Conway (2000) maintains that teaching and learning strategies which highlight the social and environmental context of biotechnological activities are necessary.

It appears that in the UK, even though a range of materials have been produced with the aim of helping teachers and students to examine biotechnological socio-political issues, a majority of science teachers considered it their role to present the 'facts' of their subject and not to deal with associated social or ethical issues (Levinson & Turner, 2001). This study analysed over 1000 questionnaires and interviews from 20 institutions, and revealed that teachers believed they lacked the skills, confidence, and time to initiate and manage classroom discussion about such topics. These teachers also felt constrained by the requirements of a formal examination prescription, and believed they could not spend time on these areas. The authors identified a promising model of cross-curricular collaboration with a 'collapsed school day', during which teachers worked together to allow students to take part in a thematic programme; for example a year group looking at religion and science where students explored the ethics of animal-to-human transplantation (18). The introduction of the Citizenship curriculum 2002 may provide the impetus to promote further co-ordination between science teachers and others working in this area: there are resources available to facilitate this approach (Levinson & Reiss, 2003).

Parallel research by Dawson (1996, 2000) in Australia has shown that, even though bioethics has been recognised as an important dimension of biotechnology education, its practice has been confined to small episodes in biology programmes. The exploration of the socio-political issues that are raised from the practice of biotechnology are more commonly found in liberal studies classes. Similarly Conner (1999/2000, 2003) has provided an ongoing commentary and analysis of the efficacy of bioethics teaching in New Zealand.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

110 Bev France

She opines that students need to develop critical thinking skills when working through biotechnological issues, and her recent research in this area provides some useful ideas for developing this component of biotechnology education (Conner & Gunstone, 2004).

This situation is again echoed in New Zealand, where a range of materials has been produced to help teachers with ethical issues. For example texts on the teaching of bioethics (Jarvis, Hickford & Conner, 1998; Macer, 2004). free online resources for students and teachers from the Eubios Ethics Institute23 and resources for teachers and students to engage in critical thinking about the genetic modification debate (Clark, 2003). However there is a lack of professional development supporting these resources, and Jorgensen and Ryan (2004) report a lack of that attention to values in science which would be needed to resolve conflicts in values perspectives. The issue could be seen as a lack of resources, but it appears that a lack of pedagogical expertise is more important. As one Irish teacher argues: 'I'm a scientist, I'm not trained to discuss social and ethical issues' (Michael et al., 1997: 11). Pedagogical expertise in developing argumentation strategies for the classroom could be a useful focus to address this issue. Toulmin's (1958) framework for argumentation has been employed by Osborne, Erduran, Simon & Monk (2001) and illustrates one such approach. Such discussions give students opportunities to consider relevant evidence, develop appropriate arguments and arrive at reasoned conclusions about issues that directly affect their lives (Newton, Driver & Osborne, 1999).

Simmonneaux (2001, 2002) has also researched argumentation as a strategy for developing the criteria and information to support a point of view. She compared the impact of role-play and a conventional discussion on students' ability to argue an issue involving animal transgenics. Her study suggested that the main obstacle in role-play was teachers' and students' unfamiliarity with role-play practice, and she commented that teachers need to be offered training in such areas. A recent study (Oulton, 2004) identified alternative reasons for teachers' discomfort in this field within science programmes. He noted that teachers find it difficult to develop a classroom discussion where students and teacher are expected to make up their minds about a situation. Instead he proposed a pedagogical model where the teacher leads a group discussion in which both teacher and pupils reflect on the quality of the argument rather than the strengths and weakness of the case.

In summary it appears that although there are resources available for teachers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century 111

planning courses to develop a level of biotechnological literacy and critique, they feel pedagogically unprepared to facilitate classroom programmes that allow students to examine the dilemmas of modern biotechnological practice.

A personal/utiliarian purpose for biotechnology education

Another issue which impacts on the quality of students' interpretation and evaluation of conflicting evidence about socio-scientific issues is their reliance on personal relevance. Students tend to select a particular viewpoint because it relates to their personal consequences (Sadler, Chambers & Zeidler, 2004). The necessity of providing space for students to recognise that their emotional response is an important component of learning has recently been given attention in the literature: for example in a special issue of the International Journal of Science Education (September 2003). Alsop & Watts (2003) use the research by Simpson., et al. (1995) to argue that science curricula focus on scientific attitudes (the rationality of inquiry, hypothesising, experimenting) rather than attitudes towards science (the emotions and feelings associated with studying school science and those associated with science itself) (1044). Teixeira dos Santos & Mortimer (2003) consider that feelings and emotions are at the heart of the attitudes students develop towards science. Affect is defined as any kind of emotional response. They employ Damasio's (1994) distinction between affective organic reactions (emotions) and the mental experience of them (feelings) (1102). It was apparent that the 'public' wanted to pay attention to the emotional consequences of biotechnology when they requested a stronger emphasis within an explanation on the reasons and benefits of such an activity (Hunt, Fairweather & Coyle, 2003).

The need for an affective focus has been recognised by the EIBE (European Initiative for Biotechnology Education), which is composed of teachers and educational researchers who are looking at learning issues in this area (Simmonneaux, 2000; Thomas, Hughes, Hart, Schollar, Kierle & Griffith, 2001). This group of researchers suggest that support materials will be ineffective unless developers are aware of the cognitive and emotional characteristics of teachers and their students.

A small research project that involved 10 fifth form students in Brittany could provide a clue to a lack of affinity of some members of the public to biotechnology. This study by Simmonneaux (2000) attempted to identify the difficulties students encounter as they attempt to understand some of the basic components of biotechnological processes. In previous years these students

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

112 Bev France

had studied a brief introduction to the topic 'how organisms help people'. The research focus was an identification of students' declarative knowledge (that is, what they could say they knew) and then an interpretation of how they came to this understanding. The study highlighted the fragmentary nature of student knowledge of viruses and bacteria. It was apparent that these students had

used knowledge that may have been associated with images or episodes in their lives to build up a body of knowledge that is little to do with science. (Simmonneaux, 2000: 634)

Any data that they came across were filtered and reinterpreted in the light of this alternative knowledge. Simmonneaux suggested that students needed to have an opportunity to examine their prior knowledge and to examine the stages in their own reasoning for taking up this position:

It therefore seems important to link knowledge not only to the relevant scientific field, but also to students' personal experiences (Simmonneaux, 2000: 639).

Although there has been research on students' understanding about biotechnology (Dawson & Schibeci, 2003 a, b), Simmonneaux's research is illuminating as it attempts to explain the reasons for the mismatch of ideas and associations. The significant finding is that the social dimensions of students' conceptions about biotechnological agents and processes need to be taken into account, as well as their cognitive aspects. She believes that this affective component is especially important in biotechnology education, where attitudes and emotions are aroused.

One, unevaluated, project that has attempted to address an affective component of biotechnology education was involved a commercial laboratory (Genetica) that supplied personnel to work with students who explored the use of DNA in paternity cases. This project was expensive in time and people with Genetica supplying the biotechnologists to work with students in the laboratory, university instructors providing information, and financial support coming from the National Science Foundation. Students were required to write a half-page summary of their own feelings about this activity, and they indicated in their reports how worthwhile they thought it was and how much the experience contributed to their understanding of DNA and its uses (Wray, Fox, Huether & Schurdak, 2001).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century 113

The route for teachers wishing to address the emotional needs of students is somewhat tenuous, and at present resources are not as apparent as those available when teachers prepare for a critical analysis of the field.

EDUCATIONAL POSITIONING FOR FOCUSED OUTCOMES.

Even though the voices of teachers in this literature review called out for more resources and professional development, it can be questioned whether these symptoms indicate the underlying cause of the educational problem. That problem is the failure to identify the purposes of biotechnology education. Hence questions of 'Who to?' and 'What for?' have not been asked.

'Who to?' may be out of the teacher's control, but it would be valuable for curriculum developers to consider the narrowness of the existing applied science focus that encases biotechnology education. If technology and environmental education are included in the curriculum there will be avenues for socio-cultural learning experiences. These range from social constructivism, where meaning is shared and developed (Resnick, 1987), to situated learning where the emphasis is on the reciprocative process of social and cultural construction of meaning, where the learner is changed from these interactions (Lave, 1993), to learning as part of the community, where these interactions form part of the process in which the learner is exposed to the community of practice (Hennessey, 1993; Lave & Wenger, 1991).

There are many decisions that lie within a teacher's locus. Biotechnology contexts can be positioned along a 'traditional'/'modern' continuum which provide opportunities for teachers to explore the makeup of 'modern' biotechnological practice, as well as identifying where they stand in the science-technology divide. Teachers' selection of appropriate pedagogies will depend not only on the learning theory that best accommodates the curricula focus. For example a science focus may more easily be underpinned by a constructivist learning theory, whereas if the programme has an environmental or technological focus, a socio-cultural theory of learning may be more appropriate.

When questions of purpose are decided then pedagogical issues must be attended to. If there is a focus on vocational training then the acquisition of up-to-date equipment and expertise will be at the forefront of any educational planning. If education for citizenship is the focus, then space will need to be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

114 Bev France

created for discussion about social issue. If the learner's emotional reaction to biotechnology is taken into consideration then attention must be given to pedagogical strategies that allow for such reflection. The earlier analogy unflatteringly positions a teacher's role alongside that of a real estate agent. However this comparison reinforces the importance of teachers' viewpoints and positioning in relation to biotechnology education. Early decisions by teachers will identify both biotechnological content and the focus for biotechnology education planning.

This paper concludes, optimistically, that the pedagogical problems identified above are relatively easy to resolve. There is ample information concerning what people want from biotechnology education. The causes of these pedagogical problems stem rather from lack of awareness of the importance of positioning than from lack of resources. It is hoped that greater awareness of this positioning issue will help provide teachers with the skills and impetus to continue to explore this potentially rewarding context within modern science.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This review is derived from France, B. & Bolstad, R. (2004) Enhancing biotechnology education in New Zealand schools. A literature review of approaches to raise awareness and enhance biotechnology education in schools. Rachel Bolstad (New Zealand Council for Educational Research) provided a strong scholarly input into this paper and I thank her. The New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER) and The University of Waikato supported and managed this project for the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (MoRST). The Centre for Science Education, Faculty of Education, University of Auckland provided me with the intellectual and physical space to complete the project. Emeritus Professor John K. Gilbert provided mentorship in the development of the project.

NOTES

This paper will employ the terms genetic engineering (GE), genetic modification (GM) interchangeably.

The election campaign was fought on GM issues. The following headlines reflect the election focus. Genetically modified engineering-will the GM issue really change people's votes this election

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century 115

3the way nuclear ship visits did in the 1980s? (NZ Herald, 5/7/2002). Greens go for broke over GM (NZ Herald, 25.5.2002). (France & Gilbert (2006): 8-9).

Genetic Modification was the term used by the Royal Commission of New Zealand on Genetic Modification (Eichelbaum et al., 2001: 5) when they defined this process as "the deletion, change of moving of genes within an organism, or the transfer of genes from one organism to another, or the modification of exiting genes, or the construction of new genes and their incorporation into any organism".

4The major players being: Howard Florey and Ernst Chain who developed the original drug; Gladys Hobby with Martin Henry and Karl Meyer who purified the Florey Chain prototype; Elizabeth McCoy who created a more productive UV mutant strain; Ethel Florey's clinical trials; Margaret Hutchinson's design of the process for commercial production as well as Dorothy Hodgkin's X-ray crystallography that enabled the later synthetic production of the drug (France-Farmer, 1997: 242).

5National Curriculum of England and Wales: www.nc.uk.net 6Website for the Scottish compulsory school curriculum : www.sqa.org.uk 7Ontario Science and Biology curricula (grades 11-12): www.edu.gov.on.ca 8Biotechnology Online: www.biotechnology.gov.au 9Website : www.dir.yahoo.com/Education. 10North Carolina curriculum documents: www.ncpublicschools.org 11North Dakota science curriculum: www.dpi.state.nd.us 12Delaware science curriculum www.state.de.us/standards/Science 13New Zealand curriculum information : National Curriculum, Ministry of Education

http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=index&indexid=1005&indexparentid= 1004S All of these curricula are being reviewed and the latest draft versions can be found on this website.

14This commission was carried out in 2000 and the resulting publication Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification was published in 2001. Website: www.gmcommission.govt.nz

15The degree to which the Treaty of Waitangi gives Maori ownership and control over the exploitation of native flora and fauna is disputed and is currently being heard in the Waitangi Tribunal at the WAI 262 claim. (Eichelbaum et al., 2001: 291).

16www.biospherenz.com/directory/index.asp 17Such centres are dispersed throughout England and are supported by the Wellcome

Trust and the DfES. 1 8National Centre for Biotechnology Education (NCBE): www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk

19Access to Biotechnology Online: www.biotechnology.gov.au 20European Initiative for Biotechnology Education (EIBE): www.eibe.org 21Biotechnology Learning Hub (www.biotechlearn.org.nz) has been developed for teachers and

students to access information and examples of teaching programmes with a biotechnology focus 22Citizen education was introduced as part of the National Curriculum of England and Wales for

secondary-aged pupils in 2002. 23Eubios Ethics Institute : www.bio.tsukuba.ac.jp/~betext.htm

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

116 Bev France

APPENDIX

Literature review approach The review draws from a range of literature sources, including research reports, journal articles, books, critical commentaries, and New Zealand and international educational policy and curriculum documents. A number of New Zealand and international electronic library databases were searched using a list of keywords shown in Table 1. The full abstracts of search 'hits' was examined, and books, reports, and articles that appeared relevant were retrieved. Electronic searches for specific authors or documents known to be relevant were also carried out. A significant amount of material was also located on the Internet, using both Google web searches, and following links from specific international biotechnology education websites (including those listed in Table 2). The Internet was a particularly useful source for information about biotechnology outreach programmes for schools, and the place of biotechnology in international curriculum statements.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century 117

Table 1: Electronic database searches for literature

Electronic databases searched

ERIC: U.S. education database Catalog: Library database British Library Te Puna: books held by NZ libraries Kinetica: books held by Australian libraries Education Research Theses: database of Australian theses ACER Library Catalogue AEI: Australian education index

Examples of keywords used

Biotechnology;Bioethics; Biotechnology and Ethics; Controversial Issues; AND teaching/learning; strategies/programme/ initiatives/resources teacher professional development; approaches/attitudes/classroom/teachers/ students/learners/awareness/understanding/ education/supporting/enhancing/ improving technological literacy AND Program* Or effect* Or evaluat* Or aware* Or outreach* Or evidence* Or outcome* Or direction* Or Science programs Or summer science programs/educational improvement or educational research

Table 2: Some web sources used to gather material for the review

National Centre for Biotechnology Education (http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk) Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/society/schools/Welcome.html) Scottish Science and Technology Network (SSTN) (http://www.sstn.co.uk) Access Excellence (http://www.accessexcellence.org/TC/BR/) The European Initiative for Biotechnology Education (http://www.eibe.info/) Biotechnology Australia (http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/biotechnologyOnline/index.htm)

REFERENCES

AAAS (1989). Science for all Americans. Project 2061. Washington, DC: AAAS Publication. ALSOP, S. & WATTS, M. (2003). Science education and affect. International Journal of Science

Education, 25(9), 1043-1047. AUSUBEL. D. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart

and Winston, Inc.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

118 Bev France

BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA. (2001). Biotechnology online. Canberra: Biotechnology Australia. www.biotechnolog.gov.au.

BIOTECHNOLOGY TASKFORCE (2003). Growing the biotechnology sector in New Zealand. A framework for action. Wellington: Biotechnology Taskforce, P.O. Box 2878, Wellington, New Zealand.

BROWN, D., KEMP, M. & HALL, J. (1998). On teaching biotechnology in Kentucky. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 35(4), 1-13.

BRYCE, T. & GRAY, D. (2004). Tough acts to follow: the challenges to science teachers presented by biotechnological progress. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6), 717-733.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. (2003). Science framework for California public schools. Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento CA: California Department of Education.

CHOWNING, J. (2002). The student biotechnology expo. A new model for a science fair. The American Biology Teacher, 64(5), 33-39.

CLARK, B. (2003). Entering the debate on Genetic Modification by developing a critical thinking response. Produced by the Royal Society of New Zealand. Wellington: Manor House Press Ltd. www.rsnz.org/education/learning resources/crithink.php

CONNER, L. (1999/2000). Teaching social and ethical issues in senior high school science. An investigation. Christchurch College of Education. Journal of Educational Research, 5, 23-44.

CONNER, L. (2003). The importance of developing critical thinking in issues education. New Zealand Biotechnology Association Journal, 56, 58-71.

CONNER, L. & GUNSTONE, R. (2004). Conscious knowledge of learning: accessing learning strategies in a final year high school biology class. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1427-1444.

CONWAY, R. (2000). Ethical judgements in genetic engineering: the implications for technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 239-254.

COYLE, F., MASLIN, C., FAIRWEATHER, J. & HUNT, L. (2003). Public understandings of biotechnology in New Zealand: nature, clean green image and spirituality. Research Report No. 265 October 2003. Christchurch: Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit (AERU), Lincoln University, New Zealand. www.lincoln.ac.nz/AERU/

CRONIN, K. & JACKSON, L. (2004). Hands across the water. A project for the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (MoRST) 'dialogue' programme. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

DAMASIO, A. (1994). Descartes' error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. (New York: Avon Books).

DAWSON, V. (1996). A constructivist approach to teaching transplantation technology in science. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 42(4), 15-20.

DAWSON, V. (2000). Factors influencing the successful teaching of bioethics in secondary school science. Paper presented at the 31st annual conference of Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA) Fremantle, Western Australia, June 28-30, 2000.

DAWSON, V. & SCHIBECI, R. (2003a). Western Australian school students' understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 57-69.

DAWSON, V. & SCHIBECI, R. (2003b). Western Australian high school students' attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 7-11.

DeHART HURD, P.(1998). Scientific literacy: what could it mean? Science Education, 82(3), 402-416.

DREYFUS, A. (1995). Biological knowledge as a prerequisite for the development of values and attitudes. Journal of Biological Education, 29(3), 215-219.

DRUCKER, P. (1961). The technological revolution: notes on the relationship of technology,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century 119

science and culture. Technology and Culture, 2(4), 342-351. EICHELBAUM, T., ALLAN, J., FLEMING, J. & RANDERSON, R. (2001). Report of the Royal

Commission on genetic modification. Report and recommendations. (Vol. 1). Wellington, N.Z.: Royal Commission on Genetic Modification.

FLEMING, J. (2003). Playing God or being human? In Proceedings of Conference: Being human: science, culture and fear. The Royal Society of New Zealand. Miscellaneous Series 63, 35-41.

FRANCE, B. (2001). Comment. Report on the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. New Zealand Biotechnology Association Newsletter, 49, 13-15.

FRANCE, B. & BOLSTAD, R. (2004). Enhancing biotechnology education in New Zealand schools. A literature review of approaches to raise awareness and enhance biotechnology education in schools. Wellington, N.Z.: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

FRANCE, B., GILBERT, J. & MADDOX, I. (2001). Public concerns about biotechnology: some questions that must be addressed. New Zealand Biotechnology Association Journal, 49, 35-42.

FRANCE, B., GILBERT, J. & MADDOX, I. (2002). Public concerns about biotechnology: do biotechnologists share them? New Zealand Biotechnology Association journal, 53, 14-7.

FRANCE, B. & GILBERT J.K. (2006). A model for communication about biotechnology. Biotechnology Learning Series, Volume 1. Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers in co operation with The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

FRANCE-FARMER, B. (1997). Biotechnology: applied science or technology? In B. Bell & R. Baker (Eds.). Developing the science curriculum in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp.242-255). Auckland: Addison Wesley Longman.

GARDNER, P. (1994). Representations of the relationship between science and technology in the curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 24, 1-28.

GARDNER, P. (1995). The relationship between technology and science: Some historical and philosophical reflections. Part II International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(1), 1-33.

GILBERT, J.K. (1992). The interface between science education and technology education. International Journal of Science Education, 14(5), 563-578.

HENNESSEY, S. (1993). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship; implications for classroom learning. Studies in Science Education, 22, 1-41.

HUNT, L., FAIRWEATHER, J. & COYLE, F. (2003). Public understandings of biotechnology in New Zealand: factors affecting acceptability rankings of five selected biotechnologies. Research report No. 266, December 2003. Christchurch: Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit (AERU), Lincoln University. www.lincoln.ac.nz/AERU/

JARVIS, S. & HICKFORD, J. (1995). Link Resources. Gene technology 1. Christchurch, N.Z.: Crop and Food Research, Lincoln University.

JARVIS, S., HICKFORD, J. & CONNER, L. (1998). Link resources. Bio-decisions. Christchurch, N.Z.: Crop and Food Research, Lincoln University.

JARVIS, S., HICKFORD, J. & TURNER, J. (1998). Link resources. Gene technology 2. Christchurch, N.Z.: Crop and Food Research, Lincoln University.

JENKIN OF RODING, LORD C. (2002). The role of science teachers in the drive for scientific literacy. School Science Review, 83(304), 21-25.

JENKINS, E.W. (1990). Scientific literacy and school science education. School Science Review, 71(256), 43-51.

JENKINS, E.W. (1992). School science education: towards a reconstruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(3), 229-246.

JONES, A. (Ed.). (2004). Biotechnology in the New Zealand Curriculum. Report to the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology. Hamilton: Centre for Science and Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

120 Bev France

Educational Research, Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

JOLIFFE, A. (2003). DNA for real: learning about PCR in science centre workshops. School Science Review, 84(308), 49-54.

JORGENSEN, L.M. & RYAN, S.A. (2004). Relativism, values and morals in the New Zealand Curriculum Framework. Science & Education, 13, 223-233.

KENNEDY, M. & DAVIES, R. (1994). The impact of biotechnology on New Zealand Industry 1984-1994, a decade of rapid change. Wellington, N.Z.: New Zealand Biotechnology Association, SIR Publishing.

LAUGKSCH, R.C. (2000). Scientific literacy: a conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71-94.

LAVE, J. (1993). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L.B. Resnick, J.M Levine & S.D. Teasley (Eds.) Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp.17-36). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

LAVE, J & WENGER, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LAWSON, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408.

LAYTON, D. (1973). Science for the people. London: Allen & Unwin. LAYTON, D., DAVEY, A. & JENKINS, E. (1986). Science for specific social purposes (SSSP):

perspectives on adult scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 13, 27-52. LEVINSON, R. & REISS, M. (Eds.) (2003). Key issues in bioethics. A guide for teachers. London:

RoutledgeFalmer. LEVINSON, R. & TURNER, S. (2001). Valuable lessons. Engaging with the social context of

science in schools. Recommendations and summary of research findings. London: Wellcome Trust. www.wellcome.ac.uk

LEWIS, T. & GAGEL, C. (1992). Technological literacy: a critical analysis. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(2), 117-138.

MACER, D. (Ed.). (2004). Bioethics for informed citizens across cultures. Christchurch, N.Z.: Eubios Ethics Institute. www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/betbk.htm for online version.

MICHAEL, M., GRINYER, A. & TURNER, J. (1997). Teaching biotechnology: identity in the context of ignorance and knowledgeability. Public Understanding of Science, 6, 1-17.

MILLAR, R. 6c OSBORNE, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: science education for the future. London: King's College London.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION. (1993). Science in the New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington, N.Z.: Learning Media.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION. (1994). Biology in the New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington, N.Z.: Learning Media.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION. (1995). Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum Wellington, N.Z.: Learning Media.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION. (1999). Guidelines for Environmental Education in New Zealand Schools. Wellington, N.Z.: Learning Media.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION. (2002). New Zealand Ministry of Education research project curriculum stocktake-National School Sampling Study. Teachers' experiences in curriculum implementation. General curriculum, mathematics science and technology. Available at: http://www.minu.govt.nz/web/document

MINISTRY OF RESEARCH SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. (2003). New Zealand biotechnology strategy. A foundation for development with care. Wellington, N.Z.: Ministry of Research, Science and Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Biotechnology Education for the 21st Century 121

MINISTRY OF RESEARCH SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (MoRST). (2005). Futurewatch. Biotechnologies to 2025. Wellington, N.Z.: Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (MoRST).

NATIONAL CENTRE FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION (NCBE). (1993). Practical biotechnology. A guide for schools and colleges. Reading, England: Department of Microbiology, University of Reading.

NEIDHARDT, F. (1993). The public as a communication system. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 339-350.

NEW ZEALAND BIOTECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION. (1995). The NZBA definition of biotechnology. New Zealand Biotechnology Association Newsletter, 28: 4.

NEWTON, P, DRIVER, R. & OSBORNE, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD) (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills (pp.59-75). Paris: OECD. In J.K. Gilbert (Ed.) (2004). The RoutledgeFaimer Reader in Science Education (pp.39-52). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

OLEJNIK, I. & FARMER, B. (1989). Biology and industry. Practical biotechnology for A-level. Glasgow: Blackie.

OSBORNE, J., ERDURAN, S., SIMON, S. & MONK, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82 (301), 63-70.

OULTON, C. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423.

PHOENIX, D.A. (2000). The science of the millennium. Journal of Biological Education, 34(3), 115-116.

RATTRAY TAYLOR, G. (1968). The biological time bomb. Panther Books: London. RAVETZ, J. R. (1990). The merger of knowledge with power. Essays in critical science. London:

Mansell RESNICK, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16, 13-20. RIGGS, A., FARMER, B. & OLEJNIK, I. (1993). Current trends in biology. Cheltenham: Stanley

Thornes. SADLER, T.D., CHAMBERS, F.W & ZEIDLER, D.L. (2004). Student conceptualisations of the

nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education 26(4), 387-423.

SCHAILLES, M. & LEMBENS, A. (2002). Student learning by research. Journal of Biological Education, 37(1), 13-17.

SCHALLIES, M. & SOLTERER, A. (1992). Working Group 2.4. Evaluation of dissemination and implementation of EIBE material-How are the students in the region between the Rhine and the Neckar coping with the new study resources in biotechnology? A study in the framework of the European Initiative for Biotechnology Education'. Personal communication..

SIMMONNEAUX, L. (2000). A study of pupils' conceptions and reasoning in connection with 'microbes' as a contribution to research in biotechnology education. International Journal in Science Education, 22(6), 619-644.

SIMMONNEAUX, L. (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.

SIMMONNEAUX, L. (2002). Analysis of classroom debating strategies in the field of biotechnology. Journal of Biological Education, 37(1), 9-12.

SIMPSON R, KOBALLA, T., OLIVER, J. & CRAWLEY, F. (1995). Research on the affective dimensions of science learning. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4

122 Bev France

teaching and learning (pp.211-250). (New York: Macmillan). SMITH, L. (2003). Who can speak? Is this a conversation, a debate? Who is listening? Abstract.

In Proceedings of Conference. Being human: science, culture and fear. The Royal Society of New Zealand, Miscellaneous Series, 63, 29.

SMITH, P. (Ed.). (1997). Enzymes in action. Lincoln University: Educational Solutions. SOLOMON, J. (1983). Science in a social context (SISCON) in schools. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. SOLOMON, J. (2001). Teaching for scientific literacy: what could it mean? School Science Review,

82(300), 93-96. SOLOMON, J. & THOMAS, J. (1999). Science education for the public understanding of science.

Studies in Science Education, 33, 61-90. SOUTER, N. (2003). DNA in the school curriculum-a poorly exploited asset? School Science

Review, 84(308), 57-63. SYMINGTON, D & TYTLER, R. (2004). Community leaders' views of the purposes of science in

the compulsory years of schooling. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1403-1418.

TEIXEIRA DOS SANTOS. F.M. & MORTIMER, E.F. (2003). How emotions shape the relationship between a chemistry teacher and her high school students. International Journal of Science Education, 25, (9), 1095-1110.

THOMAS, M., HUGHES, S., HART, P., SCHOLLAR, J., KEIRLE, K. & GRIFFITH, G. (2001). Group project work in biotechnology and its impact on key skills. Journal of Biological Education, 35(3), 133-140.

THOMAS, M., KIERLE, K. & GRIFFITH; HUGHES, S., HART, P. & SCHOLLAR, J. (2002). The biotechnology summer school: a novel teaching initiative. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 124-136.

WATSON, L. (2003). Science and mätaurangi Mäori in the Wai 262 claim. In Proceedings of Conference. Being human: science, culture and fear. The Royal Society of New Zealand Miscellaneous Series, 63, 17-22.

WRAY, F., FOX, M., HUETHER, C. & SCHURDAK, E. (2001). Biotechnology for non-biology majors. An activity using a commercial biotechnology laboratory. The American Biology Teacher, 63(5) 363-367.

WYNNE, B. (1992). Public understanding of science research: new horizons or hall of mirrors? Public Understanding of Science, 1, 37-43.

Contact details: School of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Faculty of Education The University of Auckland Private Bag 92601 Symonds Street Auckland New Zealand

b.france@auckland.ac.nz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

4:39

11

Oct

ober

201

4