Abstract
In the European Union, educational policy-making bodies are encouraging projects of inquiry-based learning to stimulate interest of young people in science and broaden the science and technological skills base. In this chapter, I discuss how a project that incorporates socio-political questions as the object of its inquiry can critically address issues of consumerism and unequal distribution that affect contemporary neoliberal economies. Components of this model of inquiry draw on substantive scientific knowledge incorporating Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), Critical Citizenship Education, Socio-Scientific Issues, as well as Inquiry; hence, the acronym, SSIBL (Socio-Scientific Inquiry Based Learning). Social values at the heart of this project are science inquiry as for and with people, recognising that we live in a diverse world where technological change should be underpinned by social justice and political responsibility. We describe how authentic activities, those that stem from students’ concerns, can be derived from these values to lead to non-trivial action which takes into account social, political and cultural constraints and uncertainties. Inquiries reflect issues that have personal, social and global relevance. A sensitive assessment strategy is developed, which incorporates knowledge about the issue, skills of organising, values that reflect the underlying principles of compassionate justice and dispositions of inclusivity and criticality.
Based on: Levinson, R. & The PARRISE consortium (2014). Initial SSIBL framework, D1.2 PARRISE, co-funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme, Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Utrecht, The Netherlands/University College London – Institute of Education, United Kingdom.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
STEPWISE’ is the acronym for Science & Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing for Individuals, Societies & Environments. It is a theoretical and practical framework that organizes teaching/learning goals in ways that encourage and enable students to self-direct research-informed and negotiated actions to address personal, social and environmental problems linked to fields of science and technology. To learn more about this framework, refer to Chap. 2 in this book (and: www.stepwise.ca).
References
Apple, M. (2004). Creating differences: Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the politics of educational reform. Educational Policy, 18(1), 12–44.
Arendt, H. (1998). The human condition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baird, J., Isaacs, T., Johnson, S., Stobart, G., Yu, G., Sprague, T., & Daugherty, R. (2011). Policy effects of PISA. Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Educational Assessment.
Ball, S. J. (2013). The education debate (2nd ed.). Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Bencze, L., & Alsop, S. (Eds.). (2014). Activist science & technology education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Bencze, L., & Carter, L. (2011). Globalizing students acting for the common good. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 648–669.
Dawson, C. (2000). Selling snake oil: Must science educators continue to promise what they can’t deliver? Melbourne Studies in Education, 41(2), 121–132.
Dearden, R. F. (1981). Controversial issues in the curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 13(1), 37–54.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering?: Working through the myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297–325.
Enslin, P., & White, P. (2003). Democratic citizenship. In N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith, & P. Standish (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education (pp. 110–125). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Gamarnikow, E., & Green, A. (2000). Citizenship, education and social capital. In D. Lawton, J. Cairns, & R. Gardner (Eds.), Education for citizenship (pp. 93–113). London/New York: Continuum.
Giddens, A. (2008). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The persistence of presentism. Teachers College Record, 111(11), 2505–2534.
Hess, D. (2009). Controversy in the classroom. New York: Routledge.
Hipkins, R., Bolstad, R., Boyd, S., & McDowall, S. (2014). Key competencies for the future. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Hodson, D. (2014). Becoming part of the solution: Learning about activism, learning through activism, learning from activism. In L. Bencze & S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist science and technology education (pp. 67–98). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Hoeg, D., & Bencze, L. (2014). Counter cultural hegemony: Student teachers’ experiences implementing STSE activities. In L. Bencze & S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist science and technology education (pp. 575–596). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Humbel, L., Jolliet, F., & Varcher, P. (2012). 3 key competencies in ESD for learners and teachers: Make a deconstruction, operate a reconstruction and ask critical questions. A case study in college classrooms about some SAQ (Socially acute questions) concerning ‘le fait religieux’ (unpublished paper).
Hume, A., & Coll, C. (2010). Authentic student inquiry: The mismatch between the intended curriculum and the student-experienced curriculum. Research in Science and Technological Education, 28(1), 43–62.
Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223–244.
Johnson, L., & Morris, P. (2010). Towards a framework for critical citizenship education. The Curriculum Journal, 21(1), 77–96.
Kolstø, S. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.
Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Driffield, UK: Studies in Education Ltd..
Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201–1224.
Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69–119.
Levinson, R., & Turner, S. (2001). Valuable lessons. London: The Wellcome Trust.
Mand, C., Duncan, R. E., Gillam, L., Collins, V., & Delatycki, M. V. (2009). Genetic selection for deafness: The views of hearing children of deaf adults. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(12), 722–728.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington DC: The National Research Council.
Nistor, N., Stanciu, D., Vanea, C., Sasu, V. M., & Dragota, M. (2014). Situated learning in young Romanian Roma successful learning biographies. European Education Research Journal, 13(3), 311–324.
Novas, C. (2006). The political economy of hope: Patients’ organisations, science and biovalue. BioSocieties, 1(3), 289–305.
Owen, R., MacNaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2009). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39, 751–760.
Pierce, C. (2015). Learning about a fish from an ANT: Actor network theory and science education in the postgenomic era. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(1), 83–107.
Quigley, C. (2014). Expanding our view of authentic learning: Bridging in and out-of-school experiences. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(1), 115–122.
Ravetz, J. (2005). The no-nonsense guide to science. Oxford, UK: New Internationalist/Verso.
Reis, G. (2015). Social dimensions of scientific knowledge: The ‘$5 bottle of hope’. School Science Review, 96(356), 27–30.
Rice, S., & Burbules, N. (1992). Communicative virtues and educational relations. Philosophy of Education, 1992, 34–44.
Rocard, M. (2007). Science education now: a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
Roth, W.-M., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York/London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2002). Scientific literacy as collective praxis. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 33–56.
Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–44.
Sadler, T. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42.
Selwyn, N., Gorard, S., & Williams, S. (2001). Digital divide or digital opportunity?: The role of technology in overcoming social exclusion in U.S. education. Educational Policy, 15(2), 258–277.
Shiva, V. (2000). Stolen harvest. London: Zed Books.
Simon, R. (1992). Teaching against the grain: Texts for a pedagogy of possibility. New York: Bergin & Garvey.
Simonneaux, L. (2014). Questions socialement vives and socioscientific issues: New trends of research to meet the training needs of post-modern society. In C. Bruguiere, A. Tiberghien, & P. Clement (Eds.), 9th ESERA conference selected contributions. Topics and trends in current science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Thomasian, J. (2011). Building a science, technology, engineering and math education agenda: An update of state actions. Washington, DC: National Governors Association.
Vasagar, J. (2012, June 12). Michael Gove’s curriculum attacked by expert who advised him. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jun/12/michael-gove-curriculum-attacked-adviser
Von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible innovation. In R. Owen, M. Heintz, & J. Bessant (Eds.), Responsible innovation. London: Wiley.
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone. London: Penguin books.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Levinson, R., The PARRISE Consortium. (2017). Socio-scientific Inquiry-Based Learning: Taking off from STEPWISE. In: Bencze, L. (eds) Science and Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing for Individuals, Societies and Environments. Cultural Studies of Science Education, vol 14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55505-8_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55505-8_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55503-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55505-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)