Pedretti Nazir 2011

ISSUES AND TRENDS
Maria Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre and Jonathan Osborne, Section Coeditors
Currents in STSE Education:

Mapping a Complex Field, 40
Years On
ERMINIA PEDRETTI, JOANNE NAZIR

Department of Curriculum, Teaching & Learning, OISE, University of Toronto,
Toronto, ON, M5S 1V6, Canada
Received 21 July 2010; revised 2 November 2010; accepted 22 November 2010
DOI 10.1002/sce.20435
Published online 25 January 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
ABSTRACT: It has been 40 years since science, technology, society, and environment
(STSE) education first appeared in science education research and practice. Although sup-
ported among many educators worldwide, there is much confusion surrounding the STSE
slogan. Widely differing discourses on STSE education and diverse ways of practicing,
have led to an array of distinct pedagogical approaches, programs, and methods. We are
left wondering how we might orient ourselves amid such a diversity of propositions. What
does STSE look like in practice? What ideological orientations underpin its practice? In
this paper, we review the research literature and educational practices in STSE education
to (1) map out a typology of STSE education in the form of currents and (2) provide a
heuristic that educators can use for critical analysis of discourses and practices in the field.
We identify, explore, and critique six currents in STSE education: application/design, his-
torical, logical reasoning, value-centered, sociocultural, and socio-ecojustice currents. We
suggest that these currents may serve as a didactic tool for others, a framework that will
assist educators in informing their own theoretical understandings, choices, and practices
in the context of STSE education. C 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 95:601 626, 2011
Correspondence to: Erminia Pedretti; e-mail: erminia.pedretti@utoronto.ca

Contract grant sponsor: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
Contract grant number: 22325.

C 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
602 PEDRETTI AND NAZIR
INTRODUCTION
It has been four decades since science, technology, society, and environment (STSE1 )
was first introduced into science education lexicon. One of the earliest mentions of STSE
appears in an article written by Jim Gallagher (1971) in Science Education. At the time
he wrote, For future citizens in a democratic society, understanding the interrelationships
of science, technology and society may be as important as understanding the concepts and
processes of science (p. 337). Using this base, he argued strongly for a broader model
for science teaching that included understanding the conceptual and process dimensions
of science, as well their relationship to technology and society. Over the years, social and
political realities such as increasing attention toward science and social responsibility, a
desire to humanize science, calls for relevancy, decreasing enrolment in physical science,
and the environmental movement (Aikenhead, 2003; Fensham 1988c) provided a fertile
ground from which STSE education emerged. At a macrolevel, STSE education examines
the interface between science and the social world (Fensham, 1988a, 1988b; Hodson, 1998a,
2009; Pedretti, 2003). For many, STSE represents a shift from the status quo (Aikenhead,
2003; Durbin, 1991; Pedretti 2005; Ziman, 1994), a post-positivist vision for science
education that emphasizes a science for all philosophy. It places science squarely within
social, technological, cultural, ethical, and political contexts.
Although highly supported among many educators worldwide (Fensham, 1988a;
Solomon & Aikenhead, 1994; Ziman, 1980; Zoller, 1991), an emphasis on STSE edu-
cation presents challengesboth ideological and practical in nature. Many have written
about the challenges educators face (see, e.g., Aikenhead, 2006; Hughes, 2000; McConnell,
1982; Pedretti, 2005; Pedretti, Bencze, Hewitt, Romkey, & Jivraj, 2008; Reiss, 1999; Roth,
McGinn, & Bowen, 1996; Rudduck, 1986; Tsai, 2000), which include lack of time and
resources, assessment issues, the coupling of science and ethics, and the politicization of
science. Fewer, however, have written about the ideological bents and assumptions that
underpin different formulations of STSE education (e.g., see Aikenhead, 2003; Barrett
& Pedretti, 2006; Kumar & Chubin, 2000; Pedretti, 2005; Solomon & Aikenhead, 1994;
Ziman, 1980). What is clear to us is that there is no single, widely accepted view of STSE
education. By its very nature, it defies definition; this is its strength and its weakness. As
Ziman (1994, p. 21) writes,
I hope that you will not feel cheated by this confession of perplexity. . . . The movement
for STS education springs from so many different sources, and flows in so many different
channels that it does not have a shape that can be grasped mentally and described as a
whole. That is not necessarily a defect. The same would apply to other great movements
of our times, such as those for peace and for the environment. Such movements are kept
alive by countless personal and collective commitments that cannot be captured in a few
thousand words of didactic prose.
Admittedly, we share a similar sentiment. There is much confusion and perplexity sur-
rounding the STSE slogan (Fuglsang, 2001; Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, & Howe, 2005).
Widely differing discourses on STSE education and diverse ways of practicing have led to
an array of distinct pedagogical approaches, programs, and methods. We are left wonder-
ing how we might orient ourselves amid such a diversity of propositions. Other questions
naturally follow: What does STSE look like in practice? What is its purpose? What form(s)
does it take? What ideological orientations underpin its practice? Drawing on 20-plus years
1
Originally, this movement began as STS education and then later evolved to include the environment
(STSE). In this paper, we use STSE throughout, understanding that its roots are STS.
Science Education
CURRENTS IN STSE EDUCATION 603
of teaching science, working in teacher education, collaborating with teachers in the field in
a professional development capacity, and engaging in STSE education research, we revisit
the STSE movement in an attempt to map out the field, and in so doing, offer a number of
STSE currents for the consideration of educators.
The metaphor of currents seems appropriate. We conceive of STSE education as a vast
ocean of ideas, principles, and practices that overlap and intermingle one into the other.
There are no mutually exclusive currents, but rather discernible currents or collections of
ideas that come together to form potential routes available to teachers and academics as they
navigate the STSE waters. These currents are not fixed, but are constantly changing and
shifting. Some currents dissolve, while other more substantive ideas might merge to form
new currents. We would be remiss if we did not acknowledge the work of Lucie Sauve.
In 2005, Sauve published an article mapping environmental education currents. Her work
inspired us to engage in a similar exercise in the field of STSE education. Borrowing and
adapting Sauves words to our context (2005, p. 11), we hope to bring to light and celebrate
the richness of the [STSE] field, thereby paying homage to the pedagogical creativity of
its architects over the course of the last [forty] years, as well as to their contribution in
reflecting on the meaning, problems and possibilities of the interrelationships among
science, technology, society, and environment.
In summary, the purposes of our paper are twofold, to (1) map out a typology of STSE
education in the form of currents and (2) provide a heuristic that educators can use for critical
analysis of discourses and practices in the field. We identify and explore six currents in STSE
education: application/design, historical, logical reasoning, value-centered, sociocultural,
and socio-ecojustice currents.
STSE EDUCATION: A BRIEF HISTORY

STSE education is an umbrella term that supports a vast array of different types of
theorizing about the connections between science, technology, society, and environment.
In this section, we provide a brief overview of the history of STSE education (for a more
detailed analyses, please see Aikenhead, 2003) in an attempt to chart its intellectual and
ideological evolution, and highlight key STSE publications and programs.
Connections between science, technology, society, and the environment remain a major
theme in science reform documents and educational practice worldwide. Documents such
as the United States Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1993), the National Science Education Standards (National
Research Council, 1996), Science for all Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990), Beyond
2000 in the United Kingdom (Millar & Osborne, 1998), The Status and Quality of Teaching
and Learning of Science in Australian Schools (Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001),
and Tomorrow, 98 (Ministry of Education, Israel, 1992) demonstrate a consistent call for
science education to be more than simply the acquisition of scientific concepts. In 1997
the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education published a document entitled Common
Framework of Science Learning Outcomes: Pan-Canadian Protocol for Collaboration on
School Curriculum. This national document, disseminated to all provinces as a guide for
provincial curriculum design and development, provided a vision for scientific literacy
in Canada that included STSE, skills, knowledge, and attitudes. More importantly, the
document emphasized that the STSE perspective must be a major driving force in science
education, to make student learning relevant and meaningful (p. 258). Thirteen years
after this recommendation was published, Ontarios most recent science curriculum reform
documents (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2007, 2008a, 2008b) reflect the prioritization
of STSE outcomes.
Science Education
Early proposals for renewal in science education set the stage for teaching scientific con-
cepts and processes within a rich socioscientific context. Soon after Jim Gallaghers (1971)
influential piece that outlined four areas germane to science education (i.e., concepts, pro-
cesses, technology, and society), a number of significant publications emerged: Paul Hurds
(1975) article entitled, Science, Technology, and Society: New Goals for Interdisciplinary
Science Teaching; Joe Piels (1981) work, The Interaction of Science, Technology and So-
ciety (S/T/S); and John Zimans (1980) book, Teaching and Learning about Science and
Society. In 1982, the IOSTE Symposium fortuitously brought together reform-minded sci-
ence educators from Australia, Canada, Italy, The Netherlands, and The United Kingdom
who in various ways were developing (or had developed) new science curricula influenced
by various proposals to change the status quo in science education (Aikenhead, 2003, p. 3).
In 1989, Cutcliffe described STS[E] as an emerging field, particularly in higher education.
In the 1990s, key STSE publications included Thinking Constructively about Sci-
ence, Technology, and Society (Cheek, 1992); Teaching Science, Technology and Society
(Solomon, 1993); Solomon and Aikenheads book, STS Education, International Per-
spectives on Reform (1994); Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education
(Yager, 1996a, 1996b); and Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research
and Practice (Kumar & Chubin, 2000). These significant texts mark an ongoing commit-
ment to STSE education and a collective desire for fundamental change in school science.
At the same time, STSE programs, curricula, and themes began to emerge internationally
at the elementary, secondary, and tertiary levels of education. Examples include Science
in a Social Context (SISCON) (Solomon, 1983; 1996), Science and Technology in Society
(SATIS) (Hunt, 1988) in the United Kingdom, and the PLON physics project in the Nether-
lands (Eijkelhof & Kortland, 1988; Eijkelhof, Kortland, & Lijnse, 1996). In Canada, one
of the earliest STSE projects to emerge was Science: A Way of Knowing (Aikenhead &
Fleming, 1975). Other international work in STSE education includes research conducted
in Japan (Nagasu & Kuman, 1996); Taiwan (Tsai, 2000); Korea (Cho, 2002); Israel (Zoller,
1987); Australia (Fensham & Corrigan, 1994), and Nigeria (Mbajiorgu & Ali, 2003). In
2007, Bennett, Lubben, and Hogarth comprehensively reviewed the international research
evidence on the effects of STS approaches to teaching school science. They concluded
that STS[E] approaches result in improvement of attitudes to science while maintaining
understanding of scientific ideas.
Recently, other movements have evolved, for example, Socioscientific Issues (SSI)
(Zeidler et al., 2005) and Future Studies (Lloyd & Wallace, 2004)all of which it can
be argued share similar principles, visions, and pedagogies as STSE education (although
proponents of these movements may argue differently). Zeidler et al. (2005, p. 358), for
example, write that the SSI domain focuses on empowering students to consider how
science-based issues reflect, in part, moral principles and elements of virtue that encom-
pass their own lives, as well as the physical and social world around them, and that SSI
differs from STSE because of its emphasis on psychological and epistemological growth
of the child, and the development of character or virtue. Futures Studies is yet another field
(Bell, 1996; Lloyd & Wallace, 2004), which explicitly encourages students to systematically
explore alternative futures, with the goal to maintain or improve the welfare of humankind
and the life sustaining capacities of the Earth itself (Lloyd & Wallace, 2004, p. 161).
Although it can be argued that these are different movements, we take the position that
they all recognize the importance of broadly conceptualizing scientific literacy to include
informed decision making; the ability to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information;
nature of science (NOS) perspectives; the coupling of science, ethics, and moral reasoning;
and agency. In our view, these are the very tenets of STSE education, and as Aikenheads
(2003) title suggests, STS Education: A Rose by Any Other Name. . . .
Science Education
Upon reading the research what is clear is that the STS[E] slogan came from different
sources for different people influenced by different circumstances and embraced for dif-
ferent purposes (Aikenhead, 2003, p. 5). It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide
detailed analyses of all work conducted under the auspices of STSE education. Rather, our
intention is to highlight the STSE movement over the years, in our attempt to understand its
diverse iterations. Our paper provides a framework from which educators can examine, cri-
tique, and implement STSE. In the face of competing views and close scrutiny concerning
what science education should be about (see, e.g., Hodson, 1998a; Millar, 1996; Welling-
ton, 2001), the surge of interest in NOS perspectives (Hodson, 1998b; Lederman, 1992),
and rallying calls for stewardship, citizen science, and science and social responsibility,
it seems timely to revisit STSE after almost 40 years of debate, curriculum development,
implementation, and research.
MAPPING STSE EDUCATION

In beginning to map out STSE currents, we acknowledged that others (albeit very few)
have provided various classifications or typologies of STSE education. Aikenhead (1994,
2003), for example, has written extensively about the spectrum of meanings found in
STS[E] courses and programs. His classification includes eight categories that reflect the
relative importance given to STS[E], based on content structure, student evaluation, and
concrete examples of STS[E] science: it delineates the diversity in STS[E] science in terms
of the degree and manner in which STS[E] content is integrated with traditional science
content. . . the scheme deals with the integrative structure of STS[E] science education
(Aikenhead, 1994, p. 53). This scheme does not attempt to prescribe any particular set of
goals or goal priorities, nor does it address teaching methods (Aikenhead, 1994). In other
words, Aikenheads work describes how STSE might be integrated into science curriculum,
whereas our work examines the why and what of STSE education. Similarly, Ziman (1994)
provides a rationale for STS[E] education based on a multiplicity of approaches. Zimans
(1994, p. 23) work is more philosophical and theoretical in nature, a checklist, a catalogue
raisonne, a rough conceptual framework, within which we can locate the rich variety of
experience and opinions. . . . We sought to develop a framework from which educators
could examine aims of science education, dominant approaches, and examples of strategies
or pedagogy.
In writing this paper, we essentially moved between inductive and deductive modes of
analysis (Patton, 2002). We combined a data-driven inductive approach (i.e., our reading
of STSE published research) and a deductive a priori template of codes to our data. This
hybrid approach allowed ideas to emerge directly from our reading of the research while
using some predetermined codes, thus allowing the final framework of currents to evolve
in a naturalistic way. The data for this paper consisted of significant scholarly publications
about STSE over the last 40 years. Many relevant publications had already been collected
over the years by the authors. This set was augmented by searches of popular scholarly
databases, to ensure that we had a comprehensive pool of literature, representative of the
STSE field. We considered significant publications to be peer-reviewed works, written by
well-established scholars in science education, published by reputable journals and bodies,
over the past four decades.
We began inductively, by developing a tentative list of currents based on our experiences,
working knowledge, and STSE research and teaching. From the outset, it became apparent
that in mapping the currents, clear criteriathat would differentiate the currentswere
essential. The literature about science education suggested criteria that could suit our
purposes. For each criterion, we developed a set of descriptors that would act as codes in
Science Education
analyzing the data. An initial list of descriptors/codes was settled upon through ongoing
reading of relevant literature and discussion between the authors over the first few months
in developing the paper. The final criteria chosen were focus, aims of science education,
dominant approaches, and strategies. The focus describes in general terms, the essence
or characterization of the current, whereas the aims of science education align the current
to a particular set of goals, implicitly or explicitly addressed, that are related to scientific
literacy. The aims of science education came from our reading of scholars such as DeBoer
(1991), Hodson (2009), Habermas (1971), Hurd (1975, 1986), Jenkins (1999, 2000), Millar
(1996), Roberts (1983), Roberts and Ostman (1998), Roth and Calabrese-Barton (2004),
and Wellington (2001). The dominant approaches provide a set of descriptors that convey
particular educational emphases. We began by borrowing Sauves (2005) descriptors of
dominant approaches. These were further refined and elaborated through our reading of
work by scholars such as Miller (2007) and Dewey (1938). The examples of strategies
illustrate pedagogical models of each current and offer some insight into practice.
Once the four criteria were chosen and descriptors/codes for each developed, they were
applied deductively to analyze major pieces of scholarly literature and map the currents.
During the mapping exercise, we remained alert to information emerging from our readings
of the literature that our initial codes did not capture and modified our descriptors/codes
to incorporate these aspects. Analysis continued until both code and category saturation
(Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was achieved, that is, until no new currents were emerging and
each current was fully elaborated. Constant comparative analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1990)
between our previous ideas and evolving ideas, and between existing literature and our
own work, was utilized to increase the validity of this process. At the end of the mapping
process, we had created a draft version of the table, STSE Currents (Table 1). This table was
sent out for peer review (in an informal way), to academics and practitioners. The feedback
obtained was incorporated in refining the final list of currents. Table 1 is a summary of our
STSE mapping exercise.
SIX STSE CURRENTS

The Application/Design Current
This current highlights the link between science and technology. It focuses students on
solving utilitarian problems through designing new technology or modifying existing tech-
nology. There is a definite emphasis on the transmission of disciplinary knowledge and the
development of technical and inquiry skills. Consequently, the dominant approaches tend
to combine efforts to encourage higher order cognitive skills with pragmatic, experiential,
creative work in applying learned scientific knowledge. A fair amount of scholarly literature
exists that supports the use of technological design projects in science education (see, e.g.,
Cajas, 2001; Cheek, 2000; Fortus, Krajcik, Dershimer, Marx, & Mamlok-Naaman, 2005;
Layton, 1993; Roth, 2001; Venville, Rennie, & Wallace, 2003). Although the technological
design project is generally extolled as a useful pedagogical strategy for the science teacher,
both Layton (1988) and Solomon (1993) explicitly identify it as useful when teaching
within an STSE framework.
There seem to be three main types of the application/design-based exercises commonly
used by teachers in an STSE context. All three variations are generally presented to students
in a problem-based format (Savery & Duffy, 1996). In the first type, students are asked
to design an artifact to demonstrate their mastery of one or more scientific principles. For
example, Solomon (1993) describes an activity where students design and build a model of
a water wheel using simple materials. Students are then posed the problem of modifying the
Science Education
TABLE 1
STSE Currents
Aims of Science Dominant Examples of
Current Focus Education Approaches Strategies
Application/design Solving problems through designing new Utilitarian Cognitive Problem-based learning
Science Education
technology or modifying existing Practical Experiential Designing and building
technology with an emphasis on inquiry Problem solving Pragmatic artifacts
and skills Transmission of disciplinary Creative
knowledge and technical skills
Historical Understanding the historical and Cultural and intellectual Creative Historical case studies
sociocultural embeddedness of achievement Reflexive Role play
scientific ideas and scientists work Intrinsic value (interesting, exciting, Affective Drama
necessary) Simulations
Logical reasoning Understanding issues Citizenship Reflexive Use of socioscientific
Decision making about socioscientific Civic responsibility Cognitive issues
issues through consideration of Decision making (personal and Risk/benefit analysis
empirical evidence societal) Stakeholder analysis
Transaction of ideas Use of argumentation
models
Decision-making models
Debates
Value centered Understanding issues Citizenship Affective Case studies
Decision making about socioscientific Civic responsibility Moral Socioscientific issue
issues through consideration of ethics Decision making (personal and Logical analysis
and moral reasoning societal) Critical Use of moral philosophical
Transaction of ideas frameworks
Values clarification
CURRENTS IN STSE EDUCATION
Moral decision making

(Continued)
607
608
TABLE 1
Continued
Aims of Science Dominant Examples of
Current Focus Education Approaches Strategies
Sociocultural Understanding science and technology as Cultural and intellectual Holistic Case studies
existing within a broader sociocultural achievement Reflexive Use of socioscientific
PEDRETTI AND NAZIR
context Transaction of ideas Experiential issues

Affective Inclusion of alternative
knowledge systems,
e.g., traditional and
spiritual
Storytelling
Integrated curricula
Socio-ecojustice Critiquing/solving social and ecological Citizenship Creative Use of socioscientific
problems through human agency or Civic responsibility Affective issues
action Problem solving Reflexive Case studies
Transformation/agency/ Critical Community projects
emancipation Experiential Debates
Place based Developing action plans
Use of local and global
contexts
Science Education
design to create the fastest spinning water wheel. They are expected to use their knowledge
of Newtonian mechanics, to complete the task. In activities of the second type, students are
again asked to design an artifact to carry out a specified task, but are given limitations of
the amount of materials they can use, and more elaborate specifications for the design. For
example, in designing the water wheel, in addition to mechanical efficiency, specifications
may include that the created artifact makes efficient use of material, is durable, aesthetically
attractive, and environmentally friendly. In the third type, students may be asked to design or
modify a piece of technology in response to a particular social or environmental problem.
For example, students may be asked to modify or design an ergonomic pair of shears
for an elderly arthritic person. To make the exercise more authentic, details of a specific
social context may be provided. A case study may be given of a person who once was
an active gardener but is now prevented from pursuing their interest by a debilitating case
of rheumatoid arthritis. Students are posed the challenge of developing a technological
solution to help this person.
The main advantage of the application/design current is that teachers are generally
familiar with the types of activities required. All three variations, if properly designed, can be
a source of great enjoyment and motivation for students. They can stimulate the kinesthetic
learner, provide a creative outlet, verify students understanding of scientific concepts, and
bridge the gap between abstract world of science and the concrete world students live
in (Barab, Hay, Barnett, & Keating, 2000; Bencze, 2010a; Blumenfeld, Mergendoller, &
Swarthout, 1987; Davies & Gilbert, 2003; Sadler, Coyle, & Swartz, 2000). Clearly, there
are advantages and disadvantages to the different variations. The first type is the most
straightforward, providing a clear link between scientific concepts and their application.
Types 2 and 3 have the potential to allow students to go beyond conceptual understanding, to
understand some of the complexity surrounding technological design, to consider economic
factors and aesthetic factors driving design, and to consider environmental impacts of
material use. Setting the problem within a social context can lead students to appreciate
how technology can impact society and environments.
Despite these potential advantages, the application/design current can be criticized.
Regardless of the type, all design activities have one thing in common, they reinforce the
notion that technology is a necessary part of society and that there is a techno-fix to many
of societies problems. Some philosophers (e.g., Curry, 2006; Sauve, 1996; Spier, 2002)
find this tacit assumption deeply disturbing, a position that needs to be questioned. While
they acknowledge that it is important that students appreciate the importance of technology
in modern societies, they question whether we really want to encourage students to become
solely reliant on technological solutions to all problems.
Following this train of thought, another criticism of this current concerns its role in rein-
forcing the notion that science and its products are objective and value free (Hodson, 1998b;
McComas, 1998). The nature of design tasks focuses primarily on the creation of artifacts,
so that students may not necessarily garner adequate opportunities to deeply consider the
political and economic factors that drive technological design, or the controversial impacts
of technology on society and the environment. Indeed in classroom practice, basic design
(type 1) seems most common (Gardner, 1999). Where type 2 is used, the design specifi-
cations most often highlight mechanical and economic efficiency as important criteria for
designing the artifact. As such, another criticism of this current is that classroom activities
tend to oversimplify the process of technological design and may confound the processes
of science and technology (Gil-Perez et al., 2005).
Layton (1988) addresses these potential shortcomings explicitly. For Layton, teaching
about the T in [STS]E involves much more than equating technology to technological
design skills or applied science. According to Layton, technology is much more than
Science Education
the routine, tedious and menial application of the seminal products of pure science
(p. 369). Rather a more egalitarian relationship between science and technology exists where
science has also been the beneficiary of golden eggs from technology. Furthermore, far
from being simplistic, technology is a complex field involving values, community norms,
and sociocultural factors. Teaching the T should involve consideration of the complex
relationships between science and technology, the uniqueness of technological knowledge,
and the inherent association of technological activity with the field of moral education
(p. 37). In summary, the challenge for educators who choose to use the application/design
current is to design sufficiently comprehensive activities that foster both the development
of technological design skills and critical thinking about the in-depth relationships between
technology, science, societies, and environments.
The Historical Current

This current highlights science as a uniquely human endeavor. More specifically it focuses
on extending students understanding of the historical and sociocultural embeddedness of
scientific ideas and scientists work. The broader aim of science education here seems to be
the promotion of science as a worthwhile subject for its intrinsic value, that is, an exciting,
interesting, and necessary pursuit. As such, the dominant approaches tend to be affective,
creative, and reflexive. Strategies are designed to evoke students emotions and creativity,
in a bid to motivate an intrinsic appreciation for the scientific enterprise. A large body of
scholarly work endorses the use of historical matter in science education (see, e.g., Abd el
Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Duschl, 2004; Irwin, 2000; Klopfer & Cooley, 1963; Lawson,
2002; Matthews, 1994). Although much of this work focuses on how historical matter can
be used to teach more authentic views of NOS, the conclusions are not antithetical to an
STSE approach. Indeed, emphasizing that science is a human endeavor seems to be an
overlapping purpose of both NOS and STSE education. Pedretti (2005), Solomon (1993),
and Ziman (1994) are among the scholars that link the history of science to an STSE
orientation. In fact, Ziman (1994, p. 26) refers to the history of science as an indispensable
dimension of STSE education:
STS[E] education must encompass this dimension. It must show that science and technology
grow and change in association with the societies in which they are embedded. It must show
the increasingly influential role of science and technology in society and the increasing
demands of society on science and technology. This historical approach, by showing how
things got the way they are, is one of the most compelling ways of explaining this present
state and also laying out the ground for a discussion of how it might change.
Similarly, Hackett (2000, p. 280) suggests that a historical emphasis was catalyzed by
a change in analytic framework from internal studies of the sequence of scientific theories
or discoveries through external studies that took account of biography, social context, and
other influences. . . Embedded in the historical current is a tendency toward the inclusion
of philosophy of science and NOS perspectives that allows for the exploration of complex
epistemological questions (Hackett, 2000; Jenkins, 1989; Pedretti, 2003). For example, how
is knowledge generated? How does science work? How do scientists operate as a social
group, and how does society itself both direct and react to scientific endeavors?
There are a variety of possibilities for incorporating historical material into the STSE
classroom. We describe three of these possibilities. The first utilizes incidents from the lives
of scientists, to show scientists as fallible people, enmeshed in the sociocultural context
in which they lived and worked. For example, students may be asked to research the life
of a specific scientist and produce a dramatic presentation portraying the character of the
Science Education
scientist (Kettle, 2005). Kipnis (2001) suggests that rather than looking at scientists lives
in general, the in-depth examination of critical incidents from the scientists life might be
most instructive. For example, a dramatic recreation or simulation of the trial of Galileo can
highlight the political struggles scientists sometimes face. The second possibility focuses
not so much on individual scientists but on interrogating the scientific method, showing
it as a variable process in which human creativity and bias can play a significant role (in
other words, inclusion of NOS perspectives). Bellomo (2005) describes how a case study
of the different interpretations of the Burgess Shale by two different groups of scientists
can be used in a high school setting to deepen student understandings of the complexity
of how science works. This serves as an illustration of one teachers attempt to investigate
murky epistemological questions, related to science, its purpose, and practice. As Ziman
(1994, p. 28) suggests, such examples are not directed toward the development of a purely
intellectual conception of science where thinking somehow takes place outside a real
world of thinkers, actors, and talkers. The third possibility is the examination of historical
case studies of socioscientific incidents, reflecting on their development, resolution, and
long-term outcomes or legacies (Wellington, 1993). Examples of historical issues-based
cases can include: the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Chernobyl nuclear incident, and the H1N1
pandemic.
One of the main criticisms facing school science is that it portrays science as dehumanized
and decontextualized (Hodson, 1998b; McComas, 1998). This artifact of school science
has been widely posited as a reason for the continuing disinterest of students in science
(e.g., Aikenhead, 2006; Roth & Calabrese-Barton, 2004). The historical current seems to
hold the potential to address both these problems. STSE-type historical activities explicitly
target the affective domain. They require that students reenact or imagine the context
within which science has been done. They emphasize that scientists are people with human
weaknesses, strengths, ambitions, and feelings. They seek to capture students interest in
science by showing science as an interesting, exciting field worthy of study for its own
sake. Furthermore, activities can be designed to recognize the contribution of men and
women of diverse groups to the scientific enterprise, thereby moving beyond the Western,
White, male focus that is present in traditional science classes (Alsop & Pedretti, 2001;
Ford & Varney, 1989). As with the application/design current, these types of activities can
be fun and motivating. In addition, they can provide a unique outlet for artistic creativity in
the science classroom (Anbusson, Fogwill, Barr, & Perkovic, 1997; Duveen & Solomon,
1994; Seroglou & Koumaras, 2001; Sharkawy, 2006; Wandersee, 1990). Historical studies
may even have more abstract benefits. Kolsto (2008) suggests that studying the history
of science may encourage democratic citizenship, since the development of science and
technology parallels the development of modern democratic societies. The assumption here
is that studying one inherently leads to an understanding of the other.
Despite its promise, the use of historical matter in science classrooms can be precarious.
A main criticism is that in practice classroom activities tend to highlight stories of success
or hero stories rather than stories of the failures of science. Zeidler, Sadler, Berson, and
Fogelman (2002) provide an insightful analysis of this problem and demonstrate how case
studies of what they call bad science may be more instructive in providing students
with a balanced view of the nature of science rather than stereotypical hero stories.
Allchin (2004) describes an even more worrisome pitfall of the historical current. He
suggests that activities may be unwittingly based on questionable historical accounts or
pseudohistory. Activities based on such material may reinforce stereotypes and compound
the mythical aspects of science. It therefore seems that a challenge for teachers who choose
to utilize this current is in accessing accurate and high-quality historical resources for use in
classrooms.
Science Education
The Logical Reasoning Current

Early on, advocates of STSE education realized that interactions between science, tech-
nology, society, and environments are the source of many controversial socioscientific
issues. It was further recognized that these issues could be valuable resources for STSE
education (see, e.g., Aikenhead, 1994; Cross & Price, 1992; Geddis, 1991; Solomon, 1993)
and that issues-based education requires student competence in several complex cognitive
tasks including understanding multiple perspectives, critical thinking, and decision making.
As such, much work about STSE has lingered around how best to harness socioscientific
issues in the science classroom. Logical reasoning represents one stream of thought on how
this might be done.
The logical reasoning current is based on the fundamental principle that any sociosci-
entific issue, no matter how complex, can be effectively handled through consideration of
the science behind the issue and logical reasoning in a positivist mode about its conse-
quences. The focus is to enhance student understanding and/or decision making about SSIs
by encouraging them to think the way scientists do. It is important to note that there
are several substreams within this current, so that while some groups consider enhancing
student understanding of the complexity of issues a suitable endpoint, others insist that
in addition to promoting understanding students must be encouraged to make decisions
about issues. The aim of science education in this current reflects a citizenship and civic
responsibility emphasis through the transaction of ideas. As such, the dominant approaches
are cognitive and reflexive.
Over the years, different groups have produced models of how logical reasoning may be
enacted in the STSE-oriented classrooms (i.e., risk/benefit analysis, stakeholder analysis,
and use of argumentation and decision-making models). Only a few representative examples
are given here. In 1991, Aikenhead proposed that logical reasoning of socioscientific issues
could be used as an organizer for science curricula. To illustrate this idea, he described
how the issue of drinking and driving could be used to organize traditional science topics
into an integrated STSE unit. For example, he suggested that the physiological effects of
alcohol could be used to teach about body systems and the Breathalyzer test to introduce
basic chemistry and ideas about electricity. According to this model, comprehensively
understanding the science behind an issue and practice in the rules of logic would lead
to students making more informed decisions about the use and abuse of alcohol. This
idea that rational, scientific understanding about an issue is inherently tied to positive
decision making about the issue seems to be one of the basic tenets of the logical reasoning
current.
Other groups working within the logical reasoning current have focused their work on
developing student competence in one or more of the complex cognitive tasks required in
negotiating issues (e.g., Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Osborne, Eduran, & Simon,
2004; Ratcliffe, 1997; Zohar & Nemet 2002). Driver et al. (2000) describe how Toulmins
argumentation model can be adapted to develop higher order reasoning skills in science
students. This model, derived from the field of argumentation theory, specifies a series of
steps for rationally reasoning from data to a conclusion or knowledge claim. Similarly,
Ratcliffe (1997) has proposed a decision-making structure, suitable for school science,
based on normative decision-making models. This structure provides a series of steps for
students to choose a course of action, by generating suitable criteria, analyzing information
and rationally evaluating options. More recent work within the logical reasoning current
has focused on developing comprehensive pedagogical models that combine the insights
gained from such work. For example, Dawson (2001) provides teachers with a linear,
seemingly simple format for teaching about a controversial issue. The steps of the model
Science Education
include strategies for enhancing student understanding of multiple perspectives, decision

making, and argumentation.
Logical reasoning represents one of the strongest currents in the STSE continuum. The
use of logical thinking as a basis for gathering knowledge and decision making is an accepted
norm in modern societies. As indicated above, a large body of scholarly work explores
the logical reasoning approach to STSE and provides models of how it may be enacted
in classrooms. In addition, logical reasoning seems a natural complement to scientific
thinking since both stem from Enlightenment philosophy (Cassirer, 1951). However this
current is not without its critics. First, an increasing number of philosophers have begun to
question the epistemological limitations of equating logical thinking with rationality and
the wisdom of continuing to privilege its use in society (e.g., Gilligan, 1977; Noddings,
2002). In particular, these scholars contend that nonlogical factors such as feelings, values,
spirituality, cultural norms, and politics are at least as important as logic in peoples rational
consideration about important issues and should be addressed in issues-based education.
Literature within the logical reasoning current is noticeably silent about how nonlogical
factors should be addressed when teaching about SSIs. One promising exception to this
generalization is found in the work of Bingle and Gaskell (1994), which explored the narrow
focus of science-based decision making and suggested that a solution to this problem may
lie in utilizing a social constructivist epistemological view of science to explore SSIs.
A second criticism arises from the tacit assumption that greater understanding about the
science behind issues will enhance peoples decision-making skills. This assumption is not
necessarily borne out by research. Studies show that other factors play far more significant
roles in student thinking about SSIs than scientific understanding (e.g., Fleming, 1986a,
1986b; Yager & Tamir, 1993). The logical reasoning current provides limited options for
dealing with these other factors. The third criticism derives from those who are concerned
about the need to attend to the emotional, aesthetic, and cultural needs of students (e.g.,
Alsop, 2005; Calabrese-Barton, 1998; Jacobson & Wickman, 2008; Pintrich, Marx, &
Boyle, 1993; Solomon, 1987). Rather than promoting a humanistic view of science, poorly
constructed activities of the logical reasoning type may unwittingly endorse a cold, linear,
mechanistic view of science, devalue feelings and morals, undermine alternative forms
of knowledge, and alienate particular groups of students. In a sense, the value-centered,
sociocultural, and socio-ecojustice currents have evolved in response to the criticisms of
this current.
The Value-Centered Current

There is a significant body of literature supporting a value-centered approach to STSE
education. A number of research reports reveal that values are an intrinsic part of peoples
consideration of SSIs (e.g., Bell & Lederman, 2003; Sadler & Donelly, 2006; Zeidler,
Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002). Also, a number of scholars have argued that science
is itself value laden, a characteristic that science education should strive to reflect if it is
to represent the true nature of science (Allchin, 1999; Pedretti, 2005; Reiss, 2007; Sadler
2004; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003). In addition, some have further posited that other existing
currents in STSE education do not adequately address ethical aspects during the teaching
of SSIs. According to Zeidler et al. (2005, p. 357),
While STS[E] education typically stresses the impact of decisions in science and technology
on society, it does not mandate explicit attention to the ethical issues contained within
choices about means and ends, nor does it consider the moral or character development of
students.
Science Education
The value-centered current seeks to address this gap by highlighting science as a value-
laden enterprise. The focus is on enhancing student understanding and/or decision making
about SSIs through an explicit consideration of ethics and moral reasoning. The overall aim
of science education here seems to be the promotion of citizenship and civic responsibility
through the transaction of ideas. Activities within this current tend to target students
moral and emotional identities to stimulate cognitive and moral development. As such, the
dominant approaches are affective, moral, logical, and critical.
Values education is an established field with its own underpinning history, philosophy,
and pedagogy (Chazan, 1985). Established approaches to values education include character
education, values clarification, and cognitive moral development. Working within an STSE
orientation, several groups have attempted to adapt these well-established approaches to
values education to create value-centered science programs. As one can well imagine,
quite distinct educational models can result depending on the approach program developers
adopt. Only, two examples of the many possible value-centered models of science education
are described here.
The first model, the SaltersNuffield Advanced Biology (SNAB) program (Reiss, 2008)
is based on a values clarification approach (Reiss, 1993, 2006). Values clarification assumes
that all values and value systems are equally valid and that values are personal choices.
Students are encouraged to critically analyze various value positions about an issue and
ultimately develop a personal value position. In the SNAB program, teaching units are
framed around various value-laden SSIs or case studies. Students are provided with the
basic tenets of four classical ethical frameworks: virtue ethics, autonomy, utilitarianism,
and deontology. They are also provided with opportunities to examine the issues using
the four different frameworks. After active debate and discussion, students are expected to
choose and defend a personal value position on each issue.
A second model of value-centered science education is based on the work of Dana
Zeidler and his colleagues (Sadler & Donelly, 2006; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003; Zeidler, Sadler,
Applebaum, & Callahan, 2009). This model called the socioscientific issues (SSI) model
takes a cognitive moral development approach to values education. There are two basic
assumptions of this approach: that justice is a basic universal principle from which values
can be derived and that moral development consists of expanding student understanding of
the nature of justice. The second assumption is based on Kohlbergs stage theory (Kohlberg,
1983), which posits that moral development occurs in six stages. Each stage reflects a
distinctive notion of what it means to be fair and just and how one arrives at that notion.
At the lowest stage, a person is obedient to rules because of a fear of punishment, whereas
at the highest stage, acting rightly is an autonomous choice, based on a reasoned appeal
to the universal ethical principle of justice. Individuals can be taught to progress through
these stages through deliberation of moral dilemmas-hypothetical situations that highlight
conflicting claims about right and wrong. The SSI model proposes the use of carefully
selected moral problems, in the domain of science as fodder for moral deliberation and
consequently moral development in classrooms. Work on the SSI model is ongoing as its
proponents continue to test and refine it. Some research exists that verify the merits of the
SSI model. Sadler, Barab, and Scott (2007) found the approach beneficial to students in
the following ways: recognizing the complexity of issues, examining issues from multiple
perspectives, and encouraging skepticism.
An advantage of the value-centered current is that it attempts to critique the notion
of the value free nature of science in a way the other STSE currents do not. It seeks to
humanize science by bringing to the fore the intrinsically human dimensions of values
and feelings within the sciencetechnologysociety dynamic. Despite much commendable
work within this current, an ongoing criticism of any value-centered model revolves around
Science Education
the fundamental lack of consensus about universal values (Beauchamp & Childress, 2008)
and the nature of values education. Consequently, any value-centered model will have its
share of critics who simply do not agree with the underpinning philosophical assumptions
that the model advocates. For example, feminists could disagree with the work of Zeidler and
his colleagues by arguing that the SSI model privileges a male-focused justice orientation
to ethics rather than a more feminine care orientation. Similarly, Reiss values clarification
approach could be criticized as being too liberal, since allowing personal choice of value
position presents a conflict with the notion of achieving overall values consensus. For
the teacher who chooses to work within this current, there are no easy choices. Perhaps
more than for any other, current choices are dependent on a careful consideration of the
sociocultural context within which one is situated.
The Sociocultural Current

Ziman (1994) discusses the need for a sociological approach to science education.
According to him, there is an explicit need to teach about science and technology as social
institutionsinternally organized entities externally linked to and embedded in society
at large, where science and technology are not self-contained activities but embroiled in
politics, economics, and culture. For Ziman (1994, p. 28), This whole dimension is missing
from conventional science education, where the sciences are presented as if they had no
social context, no social influence and were of no social concern. A major stumbling block
for this approach, which Ziman himself recognized, is that social structures are complex.
People find the analysis of social structures difficult so that treating science sociologically
tends to add layers of abstraction onto an already difficult subject.
In todays STSE spectrum, the sociological approach seems to have spilled into two
closely related but discernible currents. The first focuses on the sociocultural aspects of
science and science education. It is the subject of the subject of the rest of this section.
The other takes on the sociopolitical aspects of science and science education and will be
discussed in the next section as the socio-ecojustice current.
Perhaps one of the most disturbing criticisms of traditional science education is that it
continues to alienate a large section of students especially minorities and people of non-
Western cultures (Aikenhead, 1997; Carter, 2008; Cobern, 1998; Costa, 1995; Hodson,
1993). It seems to do so by teaching science in ways that privilege Western, middle-class
viewpoints while simultaneously undermining alternative worldviews. Aikenhead (1997)
details this situation by contrasting the cultural values underpinning Western school science
with those of Aboriginal communities. He describes school science as mechanistic, mate-
rialistic, reductionist, masculine, competitive, exploitative, and violent and the Aboriginal
worldview as intimate, subjective, gentle, intuitive, inclusive, communal, and peaceful. Us-
ing this perspective, Aikenhead goes on to explain why non-Westerners have great difficulty
negotiating traditional science curricula. According to him, for the non-Westerner, learning
science is akin to bridging a significant cultural gap, a process that requires major cultural
accommodations. Recently, Carter (2008) has illuminated another aspect of this problem.
She has argued that science is a subject of power and that science education is often used
as a tool of hegemony to demonize alternative, non-Western knowledge systems. In part,
the sociocultural current is the STSE response to these indictments.
The sociocultural current emphasizes the idea that science is only one way of knowing.
It focuses on enhancing student understanding of science and technology as existing within
a broader sociocultural context, sometimes interacting with, but at other times, existing
collaterally with other forms of knowledge. The overall goal of science education here
is to build appreciation for science as an important cultural and intellectual achievement,
Science Education
embedded in complex and diverse societies. Science is seen as a significant resource

that all people can utilize and contribute to, but at the same time is not necessarily a
superior form of knowledge. As such, the dominant pedagogical approaches are holistic,
reflexive, experiential, and affective. Activities are designed to expose students to various
perspectives about physical phenomena derived from different knowledge systems. Much of
the scholarly work supporting this current originates from scholars working in multicultural
and non-Western contexts (e.g., Aikenhead, 2001; McKinley, 1996; Ogawa, 1995; Snively
& Corsiglia, 2001; Sutherland, 2005; Tippins, Mueller, & van Eijck, 2010).
Various models of sociocultural STSE education exist. Two of these models are described
here. The first is common in Western classrooms with multicultural populations. It can best
be described as an infusion model. Here, Western scientific concepts continue to form
the bulk of what is taught, but this information is supplemented by ideas derived from
other knowledge systems (Lynch, 1986; Selin, 1992). For example, in teaching about stars,
a science unit on astronomy may include both Western scientific theories about stellar
evolution and myths and legends reflecting the cultural significance of stars to various
peoples. It may even provide craft activities, artwork, and literary work about stars. With this
type of model, a myriad of variations are possible. The onus is on the teacher to choose which
aspects are most suitable for her students. The second model is useful in classrooms where
the majority of students hold non-Western worldviews. It goes beyond infusing alternative
knowledge into the traditional science curriculum, to tailoring science programs to meet the
culture and context of various groups (Brown-Acquaye, 2001). A good example of this is
rekindling traditionsa school science program developed by Aikenhead (2000) with the
Aboriginal community in Saskatchewan, Canada. Within this program, learning science is
treated as culture acquisition. Using relevant themes determined through consultation with
tribal Elders, each science unit begins with an exploration of local knowledge about the
topic. Later Western science and technology are introduced. Differences between Aboriginal
worldviews and Western worldviews are explicitly pointed out, and students are encouraged
to make personal belief choices. The driving idea behind this model is that Western science
is a repository, which non-Western students can raid and use for practical aims such as
finding jobs while at the same time retaining their own personal beliefs about how the
world works.
An advantage of the sociocultural approach to STSE education lies in its potential to make
science more accessible to a greater population of students (Costa, 1999; Hodson, 1993;
Jegede & Aikenhead, 1999). If properly enacted, it can do much to address the inequitable
treatment of alternative knowledge systems and arrest the continuing erosion of non-Western
cultures. As Brown-Acquaye (2001) points out while Western science and technology may
be a key to raising standards of living worldwide, traditional knowledge systems valuable to
maintaining peoples social and emotional identities need to be respected. Despite this type
of sentiment, the combination of science with other forms of knowledge as suggested by
the sociocultural current remains problematic. For some, science and alternative knowledge
remain philosophically antithetical to each other and cannot be combined to form a coherent
program of science education (Cobern & Loving, 2001; Siegel, 2002). Another concern
is that all too often during enactment, sociocultural approaches tend to be superficial,
presenting students with a hodgepodge of activities that do not go far enough in creating
an effective dialogue about the differences among the forms of knowledge or in teaching
students how to negotiate these while still maintaining their sociocultural identities. A major
challenge, for teachers who choose to work within this current, is the creation of balanced
activities that allow students to explore the different forms of knowledge comprehensively,
sensitively, and equitably.
Science Education
The Socio-Ecojustice Current

Hodson (1999, p. 789) asserts that the ultimate purpose of science education should be
to produce activists: people who will fight for what is right, good and just; people who will
work to refashion society along more socially just lines; people who will work vigorously
in the best interests of the biosphere.
This sentiment lies at the heart of the socio-ecojustice current, where the focus is not simply
on understanding the impacts of science and technology on society and environments, but
on critiquing and solving these problems through human agency and action. As early as
1978, this more politicized theme could be heard:
It is necessary, in STS[E] courses, to recognize (social) forces, otherwise you could be

reduced to a puppet . . . to exert any real influence, which is necessary to realize your social
responsibility, is to transform (insight from these courses) into action. (Rip, 1978, p. 141)
Advocates of this current believe that traditional science education and other STSE
currents do not go far enough in educating students about the political and economic factors
influencing science and science education, nor does it provide them with the tools necessary
to actively transform society (e.g., Bencze, 2008; Calabrese-Barton, 2003a; Jenkins 1994;
Roth & Calabrese-Barton, 2004; Roth & Desautels, 2002; Tippins et al., 2010). Also,
although as early as 1985, scholars such as Rubba and Wiesenmayer (1985) were calling
for an STS[E] curriculum that was based on environmental education literature, the recent
surge of interest in environmental education (see, e.g., Dillon, 2002; Gough, 2002: Hart,
2002; Jickling, 2003; Russell, Bell, & Fawcett, 2000; Sauve, 2005) has added volume to
this current since many of the philosophical and educational ideas underpinning ecojustice
mirror those of social justice. Like Hodson (1999), supporters of the socio-ecojustice current
seem to believe that the aim of science education should be the promotion of a certain type
of citizenship and civic responsibility of which transformation, agency, and emancipation
are key features. Accordingly, the dominant pedagogical approaches are creative, affective,
reflexive, critical, place based, and experiential.
Classroom activities are designed to appeal to students sense of justice and motivate
them to critically think about and solve STSE problems. As with other currents, there seem
to be different ways in which the socio-ecojustice current is being enacted in classrooms.
We describe two of the more common approaches. The first approach combines place-
based education with an STSE orientation (e.g., Calabrese-Barton, 2001; Pedretti, 1997;
Roth & Lee, 2004; Yoon, 2005). Place-based education (Gruenewald, 2003; Smith, 2007)
is based on the idea that learning is most effective when learning material is derived from
the immediate context of the learner. Proponents of place-based education strive to make
the boundaries between schools and their environs more permeable by directing at least part
of students school experiences to local phenomena ranging from culture and politics to
environmental concerns and the economy (Smith, 2007, p. 190). Sometimes STSE issues
may exist or opportunely arise within schools and communities. Teachers who work within
this approach seek out these situations and capitalize on them as pedagogical opportunities.
Pedretti (1997) provides a good description of this type of approach in practice. Pedretti
describes the case of a teacher who uses the serendipitous incident of a septic tank crisis
at the school to expose her students to the complexity of solving a socioenvironmental
problem within their immediate community. The situation allowed students to carry out
their own inquiries into the science and technology, political, environmental, and economic
Science Education
factors underlying the issue of sewage management in a small community. Students were
required to develop an action plan outlining a solution to the problem. Throughout their
work, students were encouraged to consider the principles of justice, equity, reciprocity, and
social responsibility in solving the problem-fundamental principles of the socio-ecojustice
current.
The second approach within this current involves activities where students apply demo-
cratic principles to tackle more general social and environmental problems that originate
from science and technology. For example, within a science unit about energy, students
may engage in active inquiry, debate, and discussion about the problem of global warming,
culminating in them taking some form of action to address the problem. It is important to
note that for activities within the socio-ecojustice current, there are no formulaic prescrip-
tions for correct actions (Hart, Jickling, & Kool, 1999). Activities are meant to empower
students to make democratic choices. Also, specific actions may take many forms including
developing action plans, changing their own habits, educating others, lobbying for change,
raising funds, planting trees, and litter cleanups.
A strength of the socio-ecojustice current is its potential to motivate students to learn
science by demonstrating the relevance of the subject to the welfare of the broader society.
Activities engage students cognitively and creatively (Cross & Price, 2002) and can provide
access and inclusion for students who may otherwise feel marginalized in science classes. In
her work with poverty-stricken inner city youth, Calabrese-Barton (1998, 2003b) describes
how this approach to science education can empower and transform lives. Yet despite its
apparent appeal, this current in STSE education faces considerable challenges. The notion
of actively promoting socio-ecojustice is heavily biased, privileging a Western democratic
rights-based philosophy. Research shows that science teachers are often uncomfortable
with such an explicit agenda (Cross & Price, 1996; Hughes, 2000; Pedretti et al., 2008),
worrying about ethical implications, their own competence, and the long-term consequences
involved in overtly teaching in such a manner. Indeed, some teachers seem to agree with
Roth and Calabrese-Barton (2004) who characterize teaching within the socio-ecojustice
current as dangerous teaching. In addition, many are wary of the ideological paradox that
seems to exist within this current, which on the one hand emphasizes emancipation and
empowerment, but on the other insists that this can only be achieved within a very specific
philosophical framework. A major challenge facing teachers who choose to work within
this current seems to be in negotiating this tension and designing activities that navigate
the fine line between indoctrination and empowerment.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
At a macro level, STSE education situates science in rich and complex tapestrydrawing
from politics, history, ethics and philosophy. It presents an opportunity to learn, view, and
analyze science in a broader context, while recognizing the diversity of needs of students
and classrooms. As Gallagher (1971, p. 330) wrote,
for the coming generation of learners, who will live in a world deeply affected by science, a
knowledge of the processes and concepts of science and their interrelations with technology
and society will be prerequisites to knowing and functioning in the culture in which they
will be living.
STSE, in its many forms and currents, brings relevancy, interest, and real-world connections
to the science classroom.
Science Education
During the past year, we engaged in many hours of reading, discussing, and theorizing
around STSE education as we tried to make sense of its intellectual (Aikenhead, 2003),
ideological (Ziman, 1994), and pedagogical development. Our efforts to identify and char-
acterize currents in STSE education, have led to the construction of a typology that reflects
different theoretical and practical orientations. The reasons for these differences are un-
doubtedly complex but may have arisen in part, from external pressure of politics and
educational theory influencing curriculum. Differences may have also arisen because of
the multitude of different contexts in which science educators and researchers work and
within which STSE education continues to develop. For example, from those working
within a setting where multicultural issues are critical, the sociocultural current seems to
have arisen, whereas from educators working in technologically advanced contexts the
application/design current has developed.
The effect of politics on schooling is an idea that has been gaining burgeoning support
from the academic community. According to Apple (2000, p. 42), . . . it is naive to think of
the school curriculum as neutral knowledge. Rather what counts as legitimate knowledge is
a result of complex power relations and struggle among identifiable class, race, gender and
religious groups. Work on the effect of external political pressures on science curricula is
limited, but not entirely nonexistent (see, e.g., Bencze, 2010b). Speaking specifically about
STSE, Solomon (1988, p. 266) notes,
The growth of STS[E] in the school curriculum was no tidy and well planned affair. It
arose from a variety of causes, most of which were unimpeachable in purpose. And yet the
subject is often contentious both in its nature and its method. It also highlights contradictions
within science education itself. To some extent all educational theory is bound to entertain
controversy: indeed it may well be healthy for it to do so.
A possible shortcoming of the work we have presented here is that while we have focused
on the effects of educational theory and context on practice, we may not have adequately
explored the effect of political factors, in the sense Apple (2000) means, on the development
of STSE currents. Still, it is our belief that our basic ideas are sound and an elucidation of
the effect of politics on the STSE movement will only serve to enrich understanding of the
currents as we have presented them.
As stated earlier, it is our hope that our currents will serve as a didactic tool for others,
a heuristic that will assist educators in understanding the complex field of STSE. From a
professional development perspective, we suggest that this STSE mapping may serve both
beginning and experienced educators and researchers. For neophytes, it can act as a starting
point to begin conceptualizing STSE. For the more experienced, it may serve as a platform
from which more profound exploration and critical analyses of STSE may ensue. For all,
it is hoped that this typology will assist in informing their own theoretical understandings,
choices, and practices in the context of STSE education.
Finally, we reiterate that this categorization does not claim to be exhaustive or all
encompassing, nor can it hope to fully capture the richness of the STSE movement; A
category is no more than a particular (and limited) attempt to apprehend a reality (or some
aspect of it) among others (Sauve, 2005, p. 32). Furthermore, these currents must not be
reified (Sauve, 2005), nor should they be considered as some kind of hierarchy. Instead,
each current has its own strengths and limitations. Some have a longer history than others,
whereas others reflect more recent concerns. Some currents can also coexist, overlap, and
be utilized in harmony. It is up to teachers to ultimately choose the messages and methods
that are appropriate to their educational context, the curriculum unit or topic, and to their
particular worldviews.
Science Education
Indeed, taking stock of STSE may inform the development of new orientations, prac-
tices and interpretations, or result in the melding of currents. Whatever the future directions,
it is important that we continue to rigorously discuss, contrast, and challenge the many di-
verse dimensions located under the STSE banner. We welcome these discussions and look
forward to continued conversations about the interrelationships across science, technology,
society, and the environment.
A special thank you is extended to John Wallace and Michael Tan for their insightful comments on
an earlier version of our paper.
REFERENCES
Abd el Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students views of
nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057 1095.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1991). Logical reasoning in science and technology. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Wiley.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1994). What is STS teaching? In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: Interna-
tional perspectives on reform (pp. 47 59). New York: Teachers College Press.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1997). Toward a first nations cross-cultural science and technology curriculum. Science
Education, 81(2), 217 238.
Aikenhead, G. S. (Ed.). (2000). Rekindling traditions: Cross-cultural science and technology units project.
La Ronge, Saskatchewan, Canada: Northern Lights School Division, Teacher Resource Development.
Aikenhead, G. (2001). Integrating Western and Aboriginal sciences: Cross-cultural science teaching. Research in
Science Education, 31(3), 337 355.
Aikenhead, G. S. (2003). STS education: A rose by any other name. In R. Cross (Ed.), A vision for science
education: Responding to the work of Peter J. Fensham (pp. 59 75). New York: Routledge Press.
Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Aikenhead, G. S., & Fleming, R. W. (1975). Science: A way of knowing. Saskatoon, Canada: Curriculum Studies,
University of Saskatchewan.
Allchin, D. (1999). Values in science: an educational perspective. Science & Education, 8, 1 12.
Allchin, D. (2004). Pseudohistory and pseudoscience. Science & Education, 13, 179 195.
Alsop, S. (Ed.). (2005). Beyond Cartesian dualism: Encountering affect in teaching and learning of science.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Alsop, S., & Pedretti, E. (2001). Science, technology and society. In S. Alsop & K. Hicks (Eds.), Teaching science:
A handbook for primary and secondary school teachers (pp. 193 205). London: Kogan.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Anbusson, P., Fogwill, S., Barr, R., & Perkovic, L. (1997). What happens when students do simulation-role-play
in science? Research in Science Education, 27(4), 565 579.
Apple, M. (2000). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. New York: Routledge Press.
Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., & Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building understanding
through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 719 756.
Barrett, S., & Pedretti, E. (2006). Conflicting orientations to science technology society environment educa-
tion. School Science and Mathematics, 106(5), 21 31.
Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2008). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science
and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352 377.
Bell, W. (1996). What do we mean by futures studies? In R. Slaughter (Ed.), New thinking for a new millennium
(pp. 3 25). Hawthorn, Australia: DDM Media Group.
Bellomo, K. (2005). Exploring the nature of science: reinterpreting the Burgess Shale fossils. In S. Alsop,
L. Bencze, & E. Pedretti (Eds.), Analyzing exemplary science teaching: Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of
possibilities for practice (pp. 46 52). London: Open University Press.
Bencze, J. L. (2008). Private profit, science, and science education: critical problems and possibilities for action.
Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 8(4), 297 312.
Bencze, J. L. (2010a). Promoting student-led science and technology projects in elementary teacher education:
Entry into core pedagogical practices through technological design. International Journal of Technology and
Design Education, 20(1), 43 62.
Science Education
Bencze, J. L. (2010b). Exposing and deposing hyper-economized school science. Cultural Studies of Science
Education, 5(2), 293 303.
Bennet, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the
effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91(3), 347 370.
Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision making and the social construction of
scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78(2), 185 201.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Mergendoller, J. R., & Swarthout, D. W. (1987). Task as heuristic for understanding student
learning and motivation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(2), 135 148.
Brown-Acquaye, H. A. (2001). Each is necessary and none is redundant: The need for science in developing
countries. Science Education, 85(1), 68 70.
Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for scientific literacy. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 38(7), 715 729.
Calabrese-Barton, A. (1998). Teaching science with homeless children: Pedagogy, representation and identity.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 379 394.
Calabrese-Barton, A. (2001). Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of praxis through critical
ethnography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 899 917.
Calabrese-Barton, A. (2003a). Teaching science for social justice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Calabrese-Barton, A. (2003b). Kobes story: Doing science as contested terrain. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 16(4), 533 552.
Carter, L. (2008). Sociocultural influences on science education: Innovation for contemporary times. Science
Education, 92(1), 165 181.
Cassirer, E. (1951). Philosophy of the Enlightenment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chazan, B. (1985). Contemporary approaches to moral education: Analyzing alternative theories. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Cheek, D. (2000). Marginalization of technology within the STS movement in American K-12 education. In
D. D. Kumar & D. E. Chubin (Eds.), Science, technology and society a sourcebook in research and practice
(pp. 167 192). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Cheek, D. W. (1992). Thinking constructively about science, technology and society education. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Cho, J. (2002). The development of an alternative in-service programme for Korean science teachers with an
emphasis on science-technology-society. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1021 1035.
Cobern, W. W. (Ed.). (1998). Socio-cultural perspectives on science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2001). Defining science in a multicultural world: Implications for science
education. Science Education, 85(1), 50 67.
Costa, V. (1995). When science is another world. Relationships between worlds of family, friends, school and
science. Science Education, 79(3), 313 333.
Costa, V. (1999). How teacher and students study all that matters in high school chemistry. International Journal
of Science Education, 19(9), 1005 1023.
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes,
K-12: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum. Retrieved June 16, 2010, from
http://204.225.6.243/science/framework/
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (1992). Teaching science for social responsibility. Sydney, Australia: St. Louis Press.
Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (1996). Science teachers social conscience and the role of controversial issues in the
teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Education, 33(3), 319 333.
Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (2002). Teaching controversial science for social responsibility: The case of food
production. In W. M. Roth & J. Desautels (Eds.), Science education for sociopolitical action (pp. 99 123).
New York: Peter Lang.
Curry, P. (2006). Ecological ethics: An introduction. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Cutcliffe, S. H. (1989). The emergence of STS as an academic field. In P. Durbin (Ed.), Research in philosophy
and technology (Vol. 9, pp. 287 301). Greenwich, CO: JAI Press.
Davies, T., & Gilbert, J. (2003). Modelling: Promoting creativity while forging links between science education
and design and technology education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education,
3(1), 67 82.
Dawson, V. (2001). Tackling controversial issues in science. Perth, Australia: Murdoch University.
DeBoer, G. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Science Education
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
Dillon, J. (2002). Perspectives on environmental education-related research in science education. International
Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1111 1117.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms.
Durbin, P. T. (1991). Defining STS: Can we reach consensus? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 11,
187 190.
Duschl, R. A. (2004). Relating history of science to learning and teaching science: Using and abusing. In L. B.
Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and the nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning
and teacher education (pp. 319 330). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Duveen, J., & Solomon, J. (1994). The great evolution trial: Use of role play in the classroom. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 31(5), 575 582.
Eijkelhof, H. M. C., & Kortland, K. (1988). Broadening the aims of physics education. In P. J. Fensham (Ed.),
Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 282 305). New York: Falmer Press.
Eijkelhof, H. M. C., Kortland, K., & Lijnse, P. L. (1996). STS through physics and environmental education in the
Netherlands. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/society as reform in science education (pp. 249 260).
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Fensham, P. J. (1988a). Approaches to the teaching of STS in science education. International Journal of Science
Education, 10(4), 346 356.
Fensham, P. J. (Ed.) (1988b). Developments and dilemmas in science education. New York: Falmer Press.
Fensham, P. J. (1988c). Familiar but different: Some dilemmas and new directions in science education. In P. J.
Fensham (Ed.), Developments and dilemmas in science education (pp. 1 26). New York: Falmer Press.
Fensham P. J., & Corrigan, D. (1994). The implementation of an STS chemistry course in Australia: A research
perspective. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform
(pp. 194 204). New York: Teachers College Press.
Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socioscientific issues, Part I: Social cognition. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 23(8), 677 688.
Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socioscientific issues, Part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689 698.
Ford, D. C., & Varney, H. L. (1989). How students see scientists: Mostly male, mostly White and mostly benevolent.
Science and Children, 26(8), 8 16.
Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science and
real-world problem-solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855 879.
Fuglsang, L. (2001). Three perspectives in STS in the policy context. In S. H. Cutcliffe & C. Mitcham (Eds.),
Visions of STS: Counterpoints in science, technology, and science studies (pp. 35 50). Albany: State University
of New York Press.
Gallagher, J. J. (1971). A broader base for science teaching. Science Education, 55(3), 329 338.
Gardner, P. L. (1999). The representation of science-technology relationships in Canadian physics textbooks.
International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 329 347.
Geddis, A. N. (1991). Improving the quality of science classroom discourse on controversial issues. Science
Education, 75(2), 169 183.
Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Womens conceptions of self and morality. Harvard Educational Review,
47, 481 517.
Gil-Perez, D., Vilches, A., Fernandez I., Cachapuz, A., Praia, J., Valdes, P., & Salinas, J. (2005). Technology
as applied science: A serious misconception that reinforces distorted and impoverished views of science.
Science & Education, 14, 309 320.
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in
Australian schools. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Gough, A. (2002). Mutualism: A different agenda for environmental and science education. International Journal
of Science Education, 24(11), 1201 1215.
Gruenewald, D. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4),
3 12.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests (J. Shapiro, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Hart, P. (2002). Environment in the science curriculum: The politics of change in the Pan-Canadian science
curriculum development. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1239 1254.
Hart, P., Jickling, B., & Kool, R. (1999). Starting points: Questions of quality in environmental education. Canadian
Journal of Environmental Education, 4, 104 124.
Hackett, E. J. (2000). Trends and opportunities in science and technology studies: A view from the National
Science Foundation. In D. D. Kumar & D. E. Chubin (Eds.), Science, technology, and society: A sourcebook
on research and practice (pp. 277 291). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Science Education
Hodson, D. (1993). In search of a rationale for multicultural science education. Science Education, 77(6), 685
711.
Hodson, D. (1998a). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Philadelphia: Open Uni-
versity Press.
Hodson, D. (1998b). Science fiction: The continuing misrepresentation of science in the school curriculum.
Curriculum Studies, 6(2), 191 216.
Hodson, D. (1999). Going beyond cultural pluralism: Science education for socio-political action. Science Edu-
cation, 83(6), 775 796.
Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and
values. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.
Hughes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific material in science technology society science curricula:
Some implication for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
37(5), 426 440.
Hunt, J. A. (1988). SATIS approaches to STS. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 409 420.
Hurd, P. D. (1975). Science, technology and society: New goals for interdisciplinary science teaching. The Science
Teacher, 42(2), 27 30.
Hurd, P. D. (1986). Perspectives for the reform of science education. Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 353 358.
Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1),
5 26.
Jacobson, B., & Wickman, P. O. (2008). The roles of aesthetic experiences in elementary school science. Research
in Science Education, 38(1), 45 65.
Jegede, O. J., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1999). Transcending cultural borders: Implications for science teaching.
Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(1), 45 66.
Jenkins, E. (1989). Why the history of science? In M. Shortland & A. Warwick (Eds.), Teaching the history of
science (pp. 19 29). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Jenkins, E. (1994). Public understanding of science and science education for action. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 26(6), 601 611.
Jenkins, E. (1999). School science, citizenship and the public understanding of science. International Journal of
Jenkins, E. (2000). Science for all: Time for a paradigm shift? In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.),
Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 207 226). Buckingham, England: Open
University Press.
Jickling, B. (2003). Environmental education and environmental advocacy: revisited. Journal of Environmental
Education, 34(2), 20 27.
Kettle, K. (2005). Science with a human touch: Historical vignettes in the teaching and learning of science. In
S. Alsop, L. Bencze, & E. Pedretti (Eds.), Analyzing exemplary science teaching: Theoretical lenses and a
spectrum of possibilities for practice (pp. 38 45). London: Open University Press.
Kipnis, N. (2001). Scientific controversies in teaching science: The case of Volta. Science & Education, 10,
33 49.
Klopfer, L. E., & Cooley, W. W. (1963). The History of Science Cases for high school in the development of
student understanding of science and scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 33 47.
Kohlberg, L. (Ed.). (1983). The psychology of moral development. San Francisco: Harper Row.
Kolsto, S. D. (2008). Science education for democratic citizenship through the use of the history of science.
Kumar, D. D., & Chubin, D. E. (Eds.). (2000). Science, technology, and society: A sourcebook on research and
practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Lawson, A. E. (2002). What does Galileos discovery of Jupiters moons tell us about the process of scientific
discovery? Science & Education, 11, 1 24.
Layton, D. (1988). Revaluing the T in STS. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 367 378.
Layton, D. (1993). Technologys challenge to science education: Cathedral, quarry or company store? Buckingham,
England: Open University Press.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students and teachers conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331 359.
Lloyd, D., & Wallace, J. (2004). Imaging the future of science education: The case for making futures studies
explicit in student learning. Studies in Science Education, 40(1), 139 177.
Lynch, J. (1986). Multicultural education: Principles and practice. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Matthews, R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Mbajiorgu, N. M., & Ali, A. (2003). Relationship between STS approach, scientific literacy, and achievement in
biology. Science Education, 87(1), 31 39.
Science Education
McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas
(Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 53 70). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer.
McConnell, M. C. (1982). Teaching about science, technology and society at the secondary school level in the
United States: An education dilemma for the 1980s. Studies in Science Education, 9(1), 1 32.
McKinley, E. (1996). Towards an indigenous science curriculum. Research in Science Education, 26(2), 155
167.
Millar, R. (1996). Towards a science curriculum for public understanding. School Science Review, 77(280), 7 18.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000. Science education for the future. London: Nuffield Foundation.
Miller, J. P. (2007). The holistic curriculum (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Ministry of Education (1992). Tomorrow, 98. Report of the Committee on Science, Mathematics and Technology.
Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Education.
Nagasu, N., & Kumano, Y. (1996). STS initiatives in Japan: Poised for a forward leap. In R. E. Yager (Ed.),
Science/technology/society as reform in science education (pp. 261 270). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
National Science Teachers Association (1982). Science technology society: Science education for the 1980s
(NSTA Position Statement). Washington, DC: Author.
Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people: A caring alternative to character education. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Ogawa, M. (1995). Science education in a multiscience perspective. Science Education, 79(5), 583 593.
Ontario Ministry of Education (2007). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 1 8. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Queens
Printer for Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Education (2008a). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 9 10. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Queens
Printer for Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Education (2008b). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 11 12. Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
Queens Printer for Ontario.
Osborne, J., Eduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of
Research in Science, 41(10), 994 1020.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pedretti, E. (1997). Septic tank crisis: A case study of action research in science, technology and society education
in an elementary school. International Journal of Science Education, 19(10), 1211 1230.
Pedretti, E. (2003). Teaching science, technology, society and environment (STSE) education: Preservice teachers
philosophical and pedagogical landscapes. In D. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socio-scientific
issues and discourse in science education (pp. 219 240). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Pedretti, E. (2005). STSE education: Principles and practices. In S. Alsop, L. Bencze, & E. Pedretti (Eds.),
Analyzing exemplary science teaching: Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of possibilities for practice (pp. 116
126). London: Open University Press.
Pedretti, E., Bencze, L., Hewitt, J., Romkey, L, & Jivraj, A. (2008). Promoting issues-based STSE perspectives in
science teacher education: Problems of identity and ideology. Science & Education. 17, 941 960.
Piel, E. J. (1981). Interaction of science, technology, and society in secondary school. In C. Harms & R. E. Yager
(Eds.), What research says to the science teacher (Vol. 3, pp. 94 112). Washington, DC: National Science
Teachers Association.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational
beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research,
63(2), 167 199.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. Interna-
tional Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167 182.
Reiss, M. (1993). Science education for a pluralist society. Buckingham, PA: Open University Press.
Reiss, M. (2006). Teacher education and the new biology. Teaching Education, 17(2), 121 131.
Reiss, M. (2007). What should be the aim(s) of school science education? In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, &
R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-emergence of values in science education (pp. 13 28). Rotterdam, The Netherlands:
SensePublishers.
Reiss, M. (2008). The use of ethical frameworks by students following a new science course for 16 18 year olds.
Reiss, M. J. (1999). Teaching ethics in science. Studies in Science Education, 34(1), 115 140.
Rip, A. (1978). The social context of science, technology, and society courses in the universities. In E. Boeker &
M. Gibbons (Eds.), Science, society and education (pp. 135 152). Amsterdam: Vrie Universiteit.
Roberts, D. A. (1983). Scientific literacy. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Science Council of Canada.
Science Education
Roberts, D. A., & Ostman, L. (Eds.). (1998). Problems of meaning in science curriculum. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Roth, M., & Desautels, J. (Eds.). (2002). Science education as/for sociopolitical action. New York: Peter Lang.
Roth, M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88(2),
263 291.
Roth, W. M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
38(7), 768 790.
Roth, W. M., & Calabrese-Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Roth, W. M., McGinn, M., & Bowen, G. (1996). Applications of science and technology studies: Effecting change
in science education. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21(4), 454 484.
Rubba, P. A., & Wiesenmayer, R. L. (1985). A goal structure for precollege STS education: A proposal based
upon recent literature in environmental education. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 5, 573 580.
Rudduck, J. (1986). A strategy for handling controversial issues in the secondary school. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.),
Controversial issues in the curriculum (pp. 6 18). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Russell, C., Bell, A., & Fawcett, L. (2000). Navigating the waters of Canadian environmental education. In T.
Goldstein & D. Selby (Eds.), Weaving connections, educating for peace, social and environmental justice
(pp. 196 217). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Sumach Press.
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sadler, P. M., Coyle, H. P., & Swartz, M. (2000). Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: Key
elements in developing effective design challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 299 327.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio-scientific issues. Journal of
Moral Education, 33(3), 339 358.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research
in Science Education, 37(4), 371 191.
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: the effects of content knowledge and
morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463 1488.
Sauve, L. (1996). Environmental education and sustainable development: A further appraisal. Canadian Journal
of Environmental Education, 1, 7 34.
Sauve, L. (2005). Currents in environmental education: Mapping a complex and evolving pedagogical field.
Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 11 37.
Savery, J. R. & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist
framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design
(pp. 135 148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Selin, H. (1992). Science across cultures: An annotated bibliography of books on nonwestern science, technology
and medicine. New York: Garland Press.
Seroglou, F., & Koumaras, P.C. (2001). The contribution of history of physics in physics education. Science &
Education, 10, 153 172.
Sharkawy, A. (2006). An inquiry into the use of stories about scientists from diverse sociocultural backgrounds
in broadening grade one students images of science and scientists. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Siegel, H. (2002). Multiculturalism, universalism, and science education: In search of common ground. Science
Education, 86(6), 803 820.
Smith, G. A. (2007). Place-based education: Breaking through the constraining regularities of public school.
Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 189 207.
Snively, G., & Corsiglia, J. (2001). Discovering indigenous science: Implications for science education. Science
Education, 85(1), 6 34.
Solomon, J. (1983). Science in a social context (SISCON)-in-schools. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupils understanding of science. Studies in Science
Education, 14(1), 63 82.
Solomon, J. (1988). The dilemma of science, technology and society education. In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Develop-
ment and dilemmas in science education (pp. 266 281). New York: Falmer Press.
Solomon, J. (1993). Teaching science, technology and society. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Solomon, J. (1996). STS in Britain: Science in a social context. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/society
as reform in science education (pp. 241 248). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. S. (Eds.). (1994). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Spier, R. E. (Ed.). (2002). Science and technology ethics. London: Routledge.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Science Education
Sutherland, D. (2005). Resiliency and collateral learning in science in some students of Cree ancestry. Science
Education, 89(4), 595 613.
Tippins, D., Mueller, M., & van Eijck, M. (Eds.). (2010). Cultural studies and environmentalism: The confluence of
ecojustice, place-based (science) education, and indigenous knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer
Netherlands.
Tsai, C. C. (2000). The effects of STS-oriented instruction on female tenth graders cognitive structure outcomes
and the role of student scientific epistemological beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 22(10),
1099 1115.
Venville, G., Rennie, L., & Wallace, J. (2003). Student understanding and application of science concepts in the
context of an integrated curriculum setting. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(4),
449 475.
Wandersee, J. H. (1990). On the value and use of the history of science in teaching todays science: Constructing
historical vignettes. In D. E. Hergel (Ed.), More history and philosophy of science in science teaching (pp. 277
283). Tallahassee: Florida State University.
Wellington, J. (1993). Using newspapers in science education. School Science Review, 74(268), 47 50.
Wellington, J. (2001). What is science education for? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology
Education, 1(1), 23 28.
Yager, R. E. (1996a). History of science/technology/society as reform in the United States. In R. E. Yager (Ed.),
Science/technology/society as reform in science education (pp. 3 15). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Yager, R. E. (Ed.) (1996b). Science/technology/society as reform in science education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Yager, R. E., & Tamir, P. (1993). STS approach: Reasons, intentions, accomplishments and outcomes. Science
Education, 77(6), 637 658.
Yoon, S. (2005). Motivating the unmotivated: relevance and empowerment through a town hall debate. In S. Alsop,
L. Bencze, & E. Pedretti (Eds.), Analyzing exemplary science teaching: Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of
possibilities for practice (pp. 53 62). London: Open University Press.
Zeidler, D. L, & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science
education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning in socioscientific issues and discourse in science
education (pp. 7 38). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, T., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through
socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74 101.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Berson, M. J., & Fogelman, A. L. (2002). Bad science and its social implications.
The Educational Forum, 66(2), 134 146.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M., & Howe, E. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for
socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357 377.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in nature of
science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343 367.
Ziman, J. (1980). Teaching and learning about science and society. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Ziman, J. (1994). The rationale for STS is in the approach. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education:
International perspectives on reform (pp. 21 31). New York: Teachers College Press.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in
human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35 62.
Zoller, U. (1987). Problem-solving and decision-making in science-technology-environment-society (STES) ed-
ucation. In K. Riqarts (Ed.), Science and technology education and the quality of life (Vol. 2, pp. 562 69).
Kiel, Germany: IPN.
Zoller, U. (1991). Teaching/learning styles, performance, and students teaching evaluation in S/T/E/S-focused
science teacher education: A quasi-quantitative probe of a case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
28(7), 593 607.
Science Education

Pedretti Nazir 2011

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Pedretti Nazir 2011

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ISSUES AND TRENDS

Maria Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre and Jonathan Osborne, Section Coeditors

Currents in STSE Education:

ERMINIA PEDRETTI, JOANNE NAZIR

Received 21 July 2010; revised 2 November 2010; accepted 22 November 2010

Correspondence to: Erminia Pedretti; e-mail: erminia.pedretti@utoronto.ca

STSE EDUCATION: A BRIEF HISTORY

MAPPING STSE EDUCATION

SIX STSE CURRENTS

Moral decision making

context Transaction of ideas Experiential issues

The Historical Current

The Logical Reasoning Current

include strategies for enhancing student understanding of multiple perspectives, decision

The Value-Centered Current

The Sociocultural Current

embedded in complex and diverse societies. Science is seen as a significant resource

The Socio-Ecojustice Current

It is necessary, in STS[E] courses, to recognize (social) forces, otherwise you could be

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi