Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Es un hecho insólito el que en este número contemos con un artículo original del profesor Glen Aikenhead, uno de los
lobos solitarios más distinguidos del tema CTS, junto con Peter Fensham, Jean Solomon y Robert E. Yager. Ya en el número
anterior de esta revista presentamos una traducción del capítulo que escribió en 2003 en un libro editado por Roger
Cross, capítulo titulado ‘‘STS Education: a rose by any other name’’. Pero ahora presentamos este artículo original en el
que nos relata los resultados de la investigación reciente acerca de las investigaciones sobre la educación CTS, en
términos principalmente de su relevancia, del aprendizaje estudiantil y de las orientaciones de los profesores hacia un
currículum de este tipo.
¡Que disfruten de éste y de los otros artículos de este número!
et al., 2003), ‘‘citizen science’’ (Cross et al., 2000; with school science, particularly for young women
Irwin, 1995; Jenkins, 1999), ‘‘functional scientific and students marginalized on the basis of their cul-
literacy’’ (Ryder, 2001), ‘‘public awareness of sci- ture (Gardner, 1998; Hurd, 1991; Seymour & Hewitt,
ence’’ (Solomon, 2003b), variations on ‘‘science-tech- 1997). Low enrolments have reached crisis propor-
nology-society-environment’’ (Dori & Tal, 2000; tions in many countries (Frederick, 1991; Osborne &
Hart, 1989), and ‘‘cross-cultural’’ school science Collins, 2000). Evidence suggests that an STS pers-
(Aikenhead, 2000; Cajete, 1999). These STS types of pective in a science curriculum can improve the
science programs are often seen as vehicles for recruitment of students (Campbell et al., 1994; Hol-
achieving such goals as ‘‘science for all’’ and ‘‘scien- ton, 2003; Solomon, 1994).
tific literacy,’’ and for improving the participation of A second and related major educational failure
marginalized students in school science. of the traditional science curriculum concerns the
Although the traditional vision of school science dishonest and mythical images about science and
has been the status quo for many years, an STS type scientists that the curriculum conveys (Aikenhead,
of vision of school science has experienced a renais- 1973; Gaskell, 1992; Knain, 2001; Millar, 1989). As
sance since World War II (Jenkins, 2004; Solomon, a consequence, some strong science students lose
2003). As a result, a considerable amount of research interest in taking further science classes, some stu-
has accumulated over the past 40 years that now dents become interested in science for the wrong
provides solid evidence for understanding the edu- reasons, and many students become citizens (some
cational needs of most students. This article synthe- in key positions in government and industry) who
sizes major findings of this research. I place the make decisions predicated on myths about the natu-
research findings in a practical context of the political re and social aspects of the scientific enterprise.
realities faced by teachers and educators. A third documented major failure dates back to
Research should inform our rational choices the 1970s research into student learning: most students
when we develop curriculum and instruction. Evi- tend not to learn science content meaningfully, that is, they
dence-based decisions require us to consider what do not integrate it into their everyday thinking (An-
would likely be successful and useful for students in derson & Helms, 2001; Hart, 2002; Osborne et al.,
a typical classroom (i.e. educationally sound propo- 2003). Many research programs in science education
sitions). Politics, however, can force us to compromi- have attempted in different ways to solve this lack of
se our choices when we confront non-rational reali- meaningful learning (Millar et al., 2000). However,
ties such as historical precedence, pressure from even for students preparing for science-related ca-
universities, directives from professional interest reers, very few of them integrate the science curricu-
groups, and science teachers whose professional lum content into their thinking in science-rich work-
identities are at odds with an STS approach to school places, no matter how successful they are at passing
science. There is always a tension between educatio- science courses (Cobern, 1993; Duggan & Gott,
nal soundness and political reality. This article explores 2002; Lawrenz & Gray, 1995). Thus, a corpus of re-
this tension so we might better understand the choi- search suggests that learning canonical science con-
ces we make and the compromises we think we must tent meaningfully is simply not achievable for the
live with. great majority of students in the context of traditional
school science (Aikenhead, 2003; Shapiro, 2004).
Major Failures of the Traditional Science But there is a political reality for many of these
Curriculum students. Even though they do not achieve a mea-
An STS approach to science education arises from a ningful understanding of science content, they need
particular vision of school science (described above) to acquire science credentials to enter post secondary
but is motivated by three major evidence-based fai- educational institutions. Their educational/political
lures of the traditional approach to teaching science: dilemma is easily solved when they learn how to pass
crises in student enrolment, myths conveyed to stu- science courses without achieving the meaningful
dents, and a ubiquitous failure of school science content understanding assumed by teachers and curriculum
to have meaning for most students, especially outside developers. This occurs when students (and some
of school. Each issue is examined in turn. teachers) play ‘‘Fatima’s rules,’’ school games such as
The first failure concerns the chronic decline in rote memorization and ingratiation (Aikenhead,
student enrolment due to students’ disenchantment 2000; Larson, 1995).
Julio de 2005 385
DE ANIVERSARIO
For the small minority of students who have a Reiss, 2000). The issue of relevance is at the heart of
worldview in harmony with a scientific worldview, most STS science curriculum and instruction.
a meaningful understanding of canonical science is
their goal. They are the elite who seldom play Fati- Relevance
ma’s rules. STS science education, however, focuses Educational relevance always confronts political ex-
on the needs of all students (science for all; Fensham, pediency in science classrooms. Educational rele-
1985). Research into those needs is summarized vance and political expediency can be addressed
here, organized into the following topics: learning to simultaneously by asking, ‘‘Who decides what is rele-
use science in other (non-school) contexts, relevance, vant?’’ (Fensham, 2000), rather than asking, ‘‘Rele-
student learning, and teacher orientations. vant to whom?’’ or ‘‘Relevant to what?’’ The answer
to the question ‘‘Who decides?’’ has received suffi-
Learning to Use Science in Other Contexts cient research attention to guide science curriculum
Although the goal of meaningful learning is largely policy makers towards an educationally sound alter-
unattainable, it seems to be achieved to some degree native to traditional school science. I synthesize this
in out-of-school contexts in which people are person- research by using seven categories of relevant sci-
ally involved in a science/technology-related every- ence (based on Fensham, 2000).
day issue (Davidson & Schibeci, 2000; Dori & Tal, Wish-they-knew science is typically embraced by
2000; Layton et al., 1993; Wynne, 1991). Thirty-one academic scientists, education officials, and many
different case studies of this type of research were science educators when asked: What knowledge is
reviewed by Ryder (2001) who firmly concluded: of most worth? (Fensham, 1992; Walberg, 1991). The
When people need to communicate with experts and/or take usual answer, canonical science content, prepares
action, they usually learn the science content required. students for success in university programs. But ex-
Even though people seem to learn science con- actly how relevant is this wish-they-knew content for
tent as required, this learning is not often the cano- success in first year university courses taken by sci-
nical content transmitted from a traditional science ence-proficient students? Research evidence sug-
curriculum. Research has produced one clear and gests it is not as relevant as one might assume, and
consistent finding: most often, canonical science content is on occasion, not relevant at all (Aikenhead, 2003).
not directly useable in science-related everyday situations, For example, students who had studied STS chemis-
for various reasons (Furnham, 1992; Hennessy, try in high school (ChemCom) achieved the same
1993; Layton, 1991; Solomon, 1984; Wynne, 1991). marks as students who graduated from traditional
This research result can be explained by the discov- chemistry courses (including advanced-place-
ery that canonical science content must be trans- ment chemistry) when enrolled in a first-year univer-
formed (i.e. deconstructed and then reconstructed sity chemistry course designed for non-science ma-
according to the idiosyncratic demands of the con- jors (Mason, 1996). One conclusion is evident:
text) into knowledge very different in character from although the educational arguments favoring wish-
the canonical science in the typical science curricu- they-knew science are particularly weak, political
lum. This happens as one moves from canonical realities favoring it are overwhelmingly strong (Fen-
science content for explaining or describing, to prac- sham, 1993, 1998; Gaskell, 2003).
tical content for taking action -- ‘‘transformed sci- Need-to-know science is defined by the lay public
ence’’ or ‘‘citizen science’’ (Fourez, 1997; Irwin, 1995; who has faced a real-life decision related to science
Jenkins, 2002; Layton, 1991). When the science cur- and technology (Layton et al., 1993; Ryder, 2001;
riculum does not engage students in the difficult Wynne, 1991). What science did they need to know?
process of transforming abstract canonical content One reason that people tend not to use canonical
into content for taking action, canonical science re- science content in their everyday world (in addition
mains unusable outside of school for most students to it not being directly useable, as described above)
(Layton, et al., 1993). And when students attempt to is quite simple: canonical science content is the
master unusable knowledge, most end up playing wrong type of content to use in most socio-scientific
Fatima’s rules. settings. Need-to-know science (e.g. citizen science
A recurring evidence-based criticism of tradi- and knowledge about science and scientists; i.e. STS
tional school science has been its lack of relevance content) turns out to have greater practical value than
for the everyday world (Osborne & Collins, 2000; canonical science content.
386 Educación Química 16[3]
DE ANIVERSARIO
Functional science is deemed relevant primarily by encounters when dealing with these experts. In
people with occupations or careers in science-based Law’s (2002) study, her Chinese experts placed high
industries and professions. Industry personnel sur- value on a citizen’s capability to undertake self-di-
veyed by Coles (1997) placed ‘‘understanding sci- rected learning, but placed low value on a citizen
ence ideas’’ at the lowest priority for judging a recruit knowing particular content from the traditional sci-
to a science-based workplace. By conducting ethno- ence curriculum, a result reminiscent of research
graphic research on the job with science graduates, related to functional science. Have-cause-to-know
Duggan and Gott (2002) in the UK, Law (2002) in science is a feature of the Science Education for
China, and Lottero-Perdue and Brickhouse (2002) Public Understanding Project, SEPUP , in the US
in the US discovered that the canonical science con- (Thier & Nagle, 1996). In the Netherlands, Eijkelhof
tent used by science graduates in the workplace was (1990) used the Delphi research technique to gain
so context specific it had to be learned on the job, a consensus among societal experts to establish the
and that high school and university science content content for an STS physics module, ‘‘Ionizing Radia-
was rarely drawn upon. On the other hand, Duggan tion;’’ while in the UK, Osborne and colleagues
and Gott’s (2002) data suggested that procedural (2003) used the same technique to establish a con-
understanding (i.e. the thinking directly related to sensus in the UK on what ‘‘ideas about science’’ (STS
doing science-like tasks) was essential across most content) should be taught in school science.
science-related careers. More specifically Duggan For personal-curiosity science, students themselves
and Gott discovered one domain of concepts, ‘‘con- decide on the topics of interest for school science,
cepts of evidence,’’ that was applied by workers in and relevance takes on a personal though perhaps
all science-related occupations. An STS perspective idiosyncratic meaning because students’ cultural
is pertinent here because workers are concerned self-identities are expressed (Brickhouse, 2001; Car-
with the correct understanding of concepts of evi- lone, 2004; Häussler & Hoffmann, 2000; Reiss,
dence and about the value judgments used when 2000). Two unavoidable conclusions surfaced in this
dealing with social implications, for instance: Is the research: traditional science education played a mea-
scientific evidence good enough to warrant the in- ger to insignificant role in most of the students’
dustrial or social action proposed? In this context, it personal lives; and school science will only engage
would be useful for workers and the lay public to students in meaningful learning to the extent to
understand the ways in which scientific evidence is which the curriculum has personal value and en-
technically and socially constructed (Bingle & riches or strengthens students’ cultural self-identities.
Gaskell, 1994). Sjøberg (2000) surveyed over nine thousand 13-year-
By its very nature, enticed-to-know science excels old students in 21 countries to learn about their past
at its motivational value. This is science content experiences related to science, their curiosity towards
encountered in the mass media and the internet, certain science topics, and their self-identity as a future
characterized by its quest to entice a reader or viewer scientist. Sjøberg (2005) recently initiated an exten-
to pay closer attention. Millar (2000) in the UK and sive international study of personal-curiosity science,
Dimopoulos and Koulaidis (2003) in Greece de- the Relevance of Science Education (ROSE) project.
scribed how their longitudinal analyses of their re- A more holistic yet abstract concept of relevance
spective national newspapers identified the science for school science was advanced by Weinstein’s
and technology knowledge that would be most useful (1998) research; a concept he called science-as-culture.
in making sense of these articles and the stories they He identified a network of communities (webs of
presented. Moral issues and public risk are often scientific practice) in students’ everyday lives (e.g.
associated with enticed-to-know science because the health systems, political systems, and environmental
media normally attends to those aspects of events. groups). Each community network interacts with
The more important everyday events in which citi- science professionals, resulting in a cultural common-
zens encounter science and technology involve risk sense notion of science. As a category of relevance,
and environmental threats (Irwin, 1995). science-as-culture serves in part as a super ordinate
Have-cause-to-know science is science content sug- category to the need-to-know, functional, enticed-to-
gested by experts who interact with the general know, have-cause-to-know, and personal-curiosity
public on real-life matters pertaining to science and science categories. Science-as-culture can also be
technology, and who know the problems the public found in some project-based learning in which local,
Julio de 2005 387
DE ANIVERSARIO
occasion, students in STS science courses appeared how to apply their intuitive knowledge to a particular
to fair significantly better on achievement tests of ca- event.
nonical science than their counterparts in traditional Students’ ability to interpret the news media is
courses (e.g. Carlone, 2004; Häussler & Hoffmann, another expectation of most STS curricula. Ratcliffe
2000; Mbajiorgu & Ali, 2003; Solomon et al., 1992; (1999), for instance, investigated the evaluation re-
Yager & Tamir, 1983). ports (critiquing science articles in the New Scientist)
written by three groups: school students (11 to 14
Assessment Studies year-olds), college science students (17 year-olds),
There are now a wide variety of research instruments and science baccalaureate graduates (22 to 35 year-
and techniques (both quantitative and qualitative) olds). Although the skills increased with formal train-
with which to assess students’ acquisition of STS ing, years of experience, and self-selection into sci-
content taught in science courses (Aikenhead, 2003; ence, as one would expect, Ratcliffe discovered that
Manassero-Mas et al., 2001; Manassero-Mas & Váz- the skills of evidence evaluation (a component of
quez-Alonso, 1998; Vázquez-Alonso & Manassero- ‘‘functional science;’’ i.e. concepts of evidence) were
Mas, 1999). By using these instruments and techni- evident across all three populations, and she sug-
ques, assessment studies have been able to document gested that these abilities could be developed further
the following claims: through explicit teaching methods.
The impact of history of science materials was
• Students in STS science classes (compared with investigated by Solomon et al. (1992) in an 18-month
traditional classes) can significantly improve their action research project. Interestingly, students’ fac-
understanding of social issues both external and ile, media-icon, image of scientists were not replaced
internal to science, and of the interactions among by realistic images developed through learning the
science, technology, and society; but this achieve- STS content, but instead, realistic images were added
ment depends on what content is emphasized and to these preconceptions in students minds (i.e. con-
evaluated by the teacher. The teacher makes the cept proliferation rather than concept replacement).
difference. From a student’s point of view, learning means they
• Students in STS science classes (compared with now have a choice between two images, and the
traditional classes) can significantly improve their choice depends on the context. This result has major
attitudes towards science, towards science classes, implications for the importance of context in the
and towards learning, as a result of learning STS assessment of student learning.
content.
• Students in STS science classes (compared with Decision Making
traditional classes) can make modest but signifi- The wise use of knowledge in making decisions
cant gains in thinking skills such as applying ca- enables people to assume social responsibilities ex-
nonical science content to everyday events, criti- pected of attentive citizens or key decision makers
cal and creative thinking, and decision making, as employed in public service or business and industry.
long as these skills are explicitly practiced and Thus, decision making is often at the center of an STS
evaluated in the classroom. science curriculum, and it serves as a classroom
• Students can benefit from studying science from vehicle to transport students into their everyday world
an STS perspective provided that: the STS content of: need-to-know science, functional science, enticed-
is integrated with canonical science content in a to-know science, have-cause-to-know science, per-
purposeful, educationally sound way; appropriate sonal-curiosity science, and culture-as-science. Gen-
classroom materials are available; and a teacher’s erally the classroom objective is to create a sound
orientation towards school science is in reason- simulation of an everyday event (e.g. Kolstø, 2001b;
able synchrony with an STS perspective. Kortland, 2001; Ratcliffe, 1997), although this ap-
• Some students can enhance their socially respon- proach has been criticized for not being authentic
sible actions when taught by certain teachers. enough (Roth & Désautels, 2004). Decision making
necessarily encompasses a wide scope of other types
In addition, researchers found that even though STS of knowledge: always values and personal knowl-
content made intuitive sense to many students, the edge, and often technology, ethics, civics, politics,
students still required guidance from their teacher on the law, economics, public policy, etc. (Jiménez-
Julio de 2005 389
DE ANIVERSARIO
Aleizandre & Pereiro-Muñoz, 2002; Kolstø, 2001a). as negative as those concerning students achieving a
In research into conflicting testimonies of scientific meaningful understanding of canonical science.
experts on science-related controversial issues, for Teachers construct their own meaning of any
instance, even the scientific technical information curriculum as they negotiate an orientation towards
itself was found to carry political-ideological baggage it and decide what to implement, if anything, in their
(i.e. values). classroom. Over the years, researchers have studied
Besides students making moderate gains in their teachers’ rejection, acceptance, and idiosyncratic
decision-making skills, perhaps the most pervasive modulation of an intended STS science curriculum.
result from the research into student decision making Several general conclusions about teachers’ orienta-
is the priority students gave to values over scientific tions can be drawn from this literature. First, a small
evidence. This result may be due to the fact that proportion of science teachers are always supportive
values are more important in our culture when mak- of an STS science curriculum. Thus, there will always
ing a decision on most socio-scientific issues, even be a few science teachers who teach from an STS
for science teachers and scientists themselves. Bell point of view (humanistic science teachers), and who
and Lederman (2003), for instance, investigated how gladly volunteer for any research study, R&D pro-
21 university research scientists made socio-scientific ject, or action research that promises to enhance their
decisions (e.g. fetal tissue implantations, global STS orientation. Similarly there will be a nucleus of
warming, and smoking and cancer). Using question- teachers committed to pre-professional training and
naires and telephone interviews, the researchers con- screening students for university entrance (tradition
cluded that all participants considered the scientific enthusiasts). These teachers resist and some actively
evidence, but they ‘‘based their decisions primarily undermine any STS innovation in school science.
on personal values, morals/ethics, and social con- There exists a third group of science teachers who
cerns’’ (p. 352). Should students be any different? can be persuaded to move in either direction for a
In Brazil, dos Santos (2004) conducted research variety of different reasons (middle-of-the-road tea-
into the effect of student discussions on socio-scien- chers). All three types of teachers are found in studies
tific issues in classrooms using the STS textbooks reported in the research literature.
Chemistry and Society (Química & Sociedade, módulo 1
& 2; dos Santo et al., 2003). These discussions were Challenges to Curriculum Change
shown to improve the classroom interaction between Normally science teachers are attracted to, and so-
the teacher and his students. cialized into, specific scientific disciplines in univer-
In summary, the research literature is unambi- sity programs where teachers are certified to be loyal
guous concerning the positive outcomes in student gatekeepers and spokespersons for science; and in
learning in STS science classrooms. These stu- return they enjoy high professional status and a
dents learn traditional science content as well as, or self-identity associated with the scientific commu-
better than, students in traditional courses. At the nity. As substantiated by years of research, a teacher’s
same time, students in STS courses make significant values, assumptions, beliefs, ideologies, professional
gains on some STS content and modest gains on com- self-identity, status, and loyalties must be in har-
plex STS objectives such as thoughtful decision mak- mony, more or less, with an STS approach to science
ing. Therefore, we can conclude that STS approaches education before a teacher will teach an STS curricu-
to school science are educationally sound. lum. Changing any one of these influences on a
Researchers who observed experimental STS teacher’s orientation is very difficult for most midd-
classrooms consistently remarked on the students’ le-of-the-road teachers, and is usually impossible for
heightened interest in school science, an outcome tradition enthusiasts (e.g.; Kortland, 2001; Osborne
that some predicted would have a positive effect on their et al., 2003; Sáez & Carretero, 2002). Taken together this
teacher’s orientation to STS approaches to teaching cluster of salient influences has been referred to by
science and technology (e.g. Osborne et al., 2003). some researchers as ‘‘the culture of school science.’’
When asked by researchers if teaching from an
Teacher Orientations STS perspective is a good idea (terms such as ‘‘so-
Political reality, in the form of science teachers’ cially relevant’’ are actually used), most science
orientations toward STS school science, has under- teachers (about 90%) overwhelmingly endorse it. Yet
gone extensive research. These findings are almost when asked to implement such a curriculum, teach-
390 Educación Química 16[3]
DE ANIVERSARIO
ers provide many reasons for not doing so. These Success at Implementation
reasons are listed here but in no particular order of Successful implementation of STS science teaching
importance because their presence and priority has occurred under favorable circumstances. Suc-
change from study to study: lack of teaching materi- cess seemed to be associated with teaching grades
als (although when they are provided, other reasons 7 to 10 rather than higher grades, perhaps because
surface); unfamiliarity with student-centered, trans- teachers were not confronted as much with the litany
actional, teaching and assessment methods (e.g. of obstacles to implementation listed above. Action
group work or divergent-thinking); greater than nor- research studies have been consistently successful
mal emphasis on oral and written language, and the (e.g. Keiny, 1993), perhaps because of their relatively
complexity caused by combining everyday and sci- high proportion of human resources for the partici-
entific genres; lack of confidence with integrated pating teachers and the relatively high proportion of
content; fear of losing control over the class (e.g. eager participants (humanistic science teachers).
open-ended activities and unpredictable outcomes -- Research has identified the following favorable
teachable moments); uncertainty about a teacher’s circumstances: involvement of teachers in policy and
role in the classroom (e.g. facilitator) in spite of curriculum development; involvement of teachers in
attending in-service workshops; a reliance on a sin- producing classroom materials; establishment of
gle national textbook that contains little or no STS supportive networks of teachers that included teach-
content; an unease with handling controversial is- ers experienced with STS science teaching who take
sues, or even group discussions of a social or ethical leadership roles; a predisposition towards exploring
nature; uncertainties over assessing students on ‘‘sub- new avenues of pedagogy and student assessment; a
jective’’ content; inadequate background knowledge willingness to deal with degrees of uncertainty in the
and experiences (i.e. pre-service teacher education classroom; a substantial in-service program offered
programs); no opportunity to work with an experi- over a long period of time, coordinated with pre-
enced competent teacher or with scientists in indus- service methods courses and student teaching where
try; lack of school budget to support the innovation; possible; teacher reflection via diaries or journals
lack of administrative or colleagues’ support; lack of and via discussion; a recognition of the rewards from
parental or community support; no clear idea what becoming socially responsible in their community,
the STS innovation means conceptually or opera- from enhancing their curriculum development and
tionally; predictions that students will not appreciate writing skills, and from improving their vision of
or enjoy philosophical, historical and policy issues in science teaching; a responsive and caring project
a science class (e.g. ‘‘students want to light Bunsen staff to provide the top-down guidance for achieving
burners and get the right answer’’); a preoccupation a balance with grass-roots initiatives; contact with
with preparing students for high-stake examinations working scientists who convey intellectual, moral,
and success at university; pressure from university and political support; an openness to evidence-based
science departments to raise standards and cover decisions founded on formative assessment and
more content in greater depth; an unease over the classroom experiences; and a focus on individual,
reduced time devoted to canonical science content autonomous, professional development into becom-
and to covering the traditional curriculum; pressure ing, for example, a continuous learner rather than a
to comply with state content standards defined by source of all knowledge (Aikenhead, 2003).
the current US reform movement; identifying one- By way of an example, one in-depth research
self with scientists (e.g. lecturer expert) rather study offered insight into features of middle-of-the-
than with educators; the fact that non-elite and low road teachers who composed and taught STS science
achievingstudents enroll in STS science courses; lessons in spite of a lack of curriculum materials.
greater need for cultural sensitivity with some STS Bartholomew and colleagues (2004) in the UK fol-
topics such as social justice in the use of science and lowed and supported 11 volunteer teachers who
technology; and beginning teachers’ survival mode were interested in implementing the UK national
discourages them from taking seriously STS ideas science curriculum’s ‘‘ideas about science,’’ specific
developed in their teacher education courses (Aiken- ideas empirically derived from a large Delphi study
head, 2003). One is faced with an inescapable conclu- (mentioned earlier in this article; Osborne et al.,
sion: there are daunting challenges to educators wishing to 2003). The researchers were interested in ‘‘what it
change the traditional science curriculum into an STS one. means to integrate teaching about the nature of sci-
Julio de 2005 391
DE ANIVERSARIO
ence, its practices and its processes, with the body of searchers concluded that these pre-service teachers
canonical content knowledge in a way which rein- mimicked the pure content orientation of their re-
forces and adds to the teaching of both’’ (p. 11, cent university science classes. David (2003) and
original emphasis). The researchers identified five Schwartz and Lederman (2002) discovered a differ-
‘‘dimensions of practice.’’ Each dimension con- ent reason to explain the reluctance of pre-service
sisted of two extreme orientations that characterize teachers to include STS content in their lessons:
the less successful and more successful teachers (re- novice teachers naturally lack confidence in teach-
spectively): ing canonical science content, and until a reason-
able confidence can be attained, other instructional
1. Teachers’ knowledge and understanding of STS outcomes are relegated to a low priority.
content: Background knowledge of STS content seems to
from ‘‘anxious about their understanding’’ to exert an influence in some pre-service settings, but
‘‘confident that they have a sufficient under- not in all; especially when apprentices are placed in
standing.’’ an unsupportive school setting. It turns out that
2. Teachers’ conceptions of their own role: school politics have a far greater effect on a student
from ‘‘dispenser of knowledge’’ to ‘‘facilitator of teacher’s professional identity than our education-
learning.’’ ally sound university methods classes. Educational
3. Teachers’ use of discourse: soundness bows to political reality.
from ‘‘closed and authoritative’’ to ‘‘open and
dialogic.’’ School Politics
4. Teachers’ conception of learning goals: The challenge of implementing change within a
from ‘‘limited to knowledge gains’’ to ‘‘includes single classroom is one issue. How a teacher’s col-
the development of reasoning skills.’’ leagues, administration, and parents react to the
5. The nature of classroom activities: change is quite another issue. Recent in-depth re-
from ‘‘student activities are contrived and inaut- search into school politics is both insightful and
hentic’’ to ‘‘activities are authentic and owned by discouraging (e.g. Carlone, 2003). Science education
students.’’ always occurs within the context of a school’s culture.
One way in which research has articulated an under-
These dimensions are not mutually independent. They standing of that culture is through an analysis of
do help, however, to locate teachers’ orientations to ‘‘actor-networks,’’ teacher loyalties, and cultural self-
an STS perspective, more so than vague feelings of identities with respect to the status quo (Carlone,
comfort or discomfort usually reported in the re- 2003; Gaskell, 2003; Gaskell & Hepburn, 1998). A
search literature. large-scale implementation of an STS science cur-
Success at changing a science curriculum is pos- riculum requires an actor-network larger than one or
sible for some teachers under supportive circum- two teachers (Hughes, 2000). Political reality dictates
stances, with most but not all students (i.e. not those that an expanded actor-network would need to be
who would benefit from the privilege of an elitist formed in concert with socially powerful groups to
orientation to school science). The importance of the support change at the school culture level. Science
role of students in curriculum change was a finding teachers must renegotiate the culture of their school
to emerge from this research literature as well. science (Aikenhead, 2000).
Carlone, H.B. (2004). The cultural production of and classroom interactions: A case study. A paper
science in reform-based physics: Girls’ access, presented at the European Science Education
participation and resistance. Journal of Research in Research Association (ESERA) 2003 conferen-
Science Teaching, 41, 392-414. ce, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
Cobern, W.W. (1993). College students’ conceptua- dos Santos, W.P.L., et al. (2003). QUÍMICA & SOCIE-
lizations of nature: An interpretive world view DADE (modulo 1 & 2). Säo Paulo, Brazil: Editora
analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, Nova Geração.
935-951 Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996).
Cobern, W.W., & Aikenhead, G.S. (1998). Cultural Young people’s images of science. Buckingham:
aspects of learning science. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Open University Press.
Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science edu- Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science
cation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer education do we really need? International Jour-
Academic Publishers, pp. 39-52. nal of Science Education, 24, 661-679.
Coles, M. (1997). What does industry want from Eijkelhof, H.M.C. (1990). Radiation and risk in physics
science education? In K. Calhoun, R. Panwar & education. Utrecht, The Netherlands: University
S. Shrum (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th symposium of of Utrecht CDâ Press.
IOSTE. Vol. 1. Edmonton, Canada: Faculty of Eijkelhof, H.M.C., & Kapteijn, M. (2000). A new
Education, University of Alberta, pp. 292-300. course on public understanding of science for
Costa, V.B. (1995). When science is ‘‘another world’’: senior general secondary education in the Net-
Relationships between worlds of family, friends, herlands. In R.T. Cross & P.J. Fensham (Eds.),
school, and science. Science Education, 79, 313- Science and the citizen for educators and the public.
333. Melbourne: Arena Publications, pp. 189-199.
Cross, R.T., Zatsepin, V., & Gavrilenko, I. (2000). Eijkelhof, H.M.C., & Lijnse, P. (1988). The role of
Preparing future citizens for post ‘Chernobyl’ research and development to improve STS edu-
Ukraine: A national calamity brings about re- cation: Experiences from the PLON project. In-
form of science education. In R.T. Cross & P.J. ternational Journal of Science Education, 10, 464-
Fensham (Eds.), Science and the citizen for educators 474.
and the public. Melbourne: Arena Publications, Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., & Marion, S. (1996). Crea-
pp. 179-187. ting the conditions for scientific literacy: A re-
David, M.R. (2003). Biographical influences on teaching examination. American Educational Research Jour-
STSE: A case study. Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis. Sas- nal, 33, 261-295.
katoon, Canada: University of Saskatchewan. Elmore, R.F. (2003, March). Large-scale improvement
Davidson, A., & Schibeci, R. (2000). The consensus of teaching and learning: What we know, what we
conference as a mechanism for community res- need to know. A paper presented at the annual
ponsive technology policy. In R.T. Cross & P.J. meeting of the National Association for Re-
Fensham (Eds.), Science and the citizen for educators search in Science Teaching, Philadelphia.
and the public. Melbourne: Arena Publications, Fensham, P.J. (1985). Science for all: A reflective
pp. 47-59. essay. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17, 415-435.
Dimopoulos, K., & Koulaidis, V. (2003). Science and Fensham, P.J. (1992). Science and technology. In
technology education for citizenship: The po- P.W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curri-
tential role of the press. Science Education, 87, culum. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.,
241-256. pp. 789-829.
Dori, Y.J., & Tal, R.T. (2000). Formal and informal Fensham, P.J. (1993). Academic influence on school
collaborative projects: Engaging in industry with science curricula. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
environmental awareness. Science Education, 84, 25, 53-64.
95-113. Fensham, P.J. (1998). The politics of legitimating and
Dori, Y.J., & Tal, R.T. (2000). Formal and informal marginalizing companion meanings: Three
collaborative projects: Engaging in industry with Australian case stories. In D.A. Roberts & L.
environmental awareness. Science Education, 84, Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science cu-
95-113. rriculum. New York: Teachers College Press,
dos Santos, W.P.L. (2003, August). Socioscientific issues pp. 178-192.
394 Educación Química 16[3]
DE ANIVERSARIO
Fensham, P.J. (2000). Issues for schooling in science. comparison with students’ interests, and impact
In R.T. Cross & P.J. Fensham (Eds.), Science and on students’ achievement and self-concept.
the citizen for educators and the public. Melbourne: Science Education, 84, 689-705.
Arena Publications, pp. 73-77. Hennessy, S. (1993). Situated cognition and cognitive
Fourez, G. (1997). Scientific and technological lite- apprenticeship: Implications for classroom lear-
racy as social practice. Social Studies of Science, 27, ning. Studies in Science Education, 22, 1-41.
903-936. Holton, G. (2003). The Project Physics Course, then and
Frederick, W.A. (1991). Science and technology edu- now. Science & Education, 12, 779-786.
cation: An engineer’s perspective. In S.K. Ma- Hughes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific
jumdar, L.M. Rosenfeld, P.A. Rubba, E.W. Mi- material in science-technology-society science
ller & R.F. Schmalz (Eds.), Science education in the curricula: Some implications for gender inclusi-
United States: Issues, crises and priorities. Easton, vity and curriculum reform. Journal of Research in
PA: The Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Science Teaching, 37, 426-440.
pp. 386-393. Hurd, P. (1991). Closing the educational gaps be-
Furnham, A. (1992). Lay understanding of science: tween science, technology, and society. Theory
Young people and adults’ ideas of scientific con- into Practice, 30, 1991, 251-259.
cepts. Studies in Science Education, 20, 29-64. Irwin, A.R. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people,
Gardner, P.L. (1998). Students’ interest in science expertise and sustainable development. New York:
and technology: Gender, age and other factors. Routledge.
In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K.A. Renninger & J. Irwin. A.R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching
Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning. Proceedings of the nature of science in context. Science Education,
the Seeon conference on interest and gender. Kiel, 84, 5-26.
Germany: IPN, University of Kiel, pp. 41-57. Jegede, O. (1996). Towards a culturally sensitive
Gaskell, J.P. (1982). Science, technology and society: relevant science and technology education.
Issues for science teachers. Studies in Science Edu- (Mini-Symposium). In K. Calhoun, R. Panwar &
cation, 9, 33-46. S. Shrum (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th symposium of
Gaskell, P.J. (1992). Authentic science and school IOSTE. Vol. 2. Edmonton, Canada: Faculty of
science. International Journal of Science Education, Education, University of Alberta, pp. 141-185.
14, 265-272. Jenkins, E. (1999). School science, citizenship and the
Gaskell, P.J. (1994). Assessing STS literacy: What is public understanding of science. International
rational? In K. Boersma, K. Kortland, & J. van Journal of Science Education, 21, 703-710.
Trommel (Eds.), 7th IOSTE symposium proceedings: Jenkins, E. (2002). Linking school science education
Papers. Part 1. Endrecht: IOSTE Conference with action. In W-M. Roth & J. Désautels (Eds.),
Committee, pp. 309-320. Science education as/for sociopolitical action. New
Gaskell, J.P. (2003). Perspectives and possibilities in York: Peter Lang, pp. 17-34.
the politics of science curriculum. In R. Cross Jenkins, E. (2004). Science education: Research,
(Ed.), A vision for science education: Responding to the practice and policy. In E. Scanlon, P. Murphy,
work of Peter Fensham. New York: RoutledgeFal- J. Thomas & E. Whitelegg (Eds.), Reconsidering
mer, pp. 139-152. science learning. New York: RoutledgeFalmer,
Gaskell, P.J., & Hepburn, G. (1998). The course as pp. 235-249.
token: A construction of/by networks. Research Jiménez-Aleizandre, M-P., & Pereiro-Muñoz, C.
in Science Education, 28, 65-76. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge
Hart, C. (2002). Framing curriculum discursively: consumers? Argumentation and decision ma-
Theoretical perspectives on the experience of king about environmental management. Interna-
VCE physics. International Journal of Science Edu- tional Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171-1190.
cation, 24, 1055-1077. Jiménez-Aleizandre, M-P., & Sanmarti-Puig, N.
Hart, E.P. (1989). Toward renewal of science educa- (1995). The development of a new science curri-
tion: A case study of curriculum policy develop- culum for secondary school in Spain: Opportu-
ment. Science Education, 73, 607-634. nities for change. International Journal of Science
Häussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2000). A curricular Education, 17, 425-439.
frame for physics education: Development, Keiny, S. (1993). School-based curriculum develop-
Julio de 2005 395
DE ANIVERSARIO
ment as a process of teachers’ professional deve- Learning on the job: The acquisition of scientific
lopment. Educational Action Research, 1, 65-93. competence. Science Education, 86, 756-782.
Keogh, M., & Malcolm, D. (in press). The science Manassero-Mas, M.A., Vázquez-Alonso, Á., & Ace-
teacher as curriculum developer: Do you think vedo-Díaz, J.A. (2001). Avaluació dels Temes de
it will rain today? In B. Gray, P. Naidoo & M. Ciencia, Tecnologia i Societat. Les Illes Balears,
Savage (Eds.), School science in Africa: Teaching to Spain: Conselleria d’Educació i Cultura del Go-
learn, learning to teach. Cape Town, South Africa: vern de les Illes Balears.
AFCLIST-Juta. Manassero-Mas, M.A., & Vázquez-Alonso, Á.
Klopfer, L.E., & Cooley, W.W. (1963). ‘‘The History (1998). Opinions sobre ciència, tecnologia i societat.
of Science Cases’’ for high school in the deve- Les Illes Balears, Spain: Conselleria d’Educació
lopment of student understanding of science and i Cultura i Esports.
scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1, Mason, D. (1996, March/April). Life after ChemCom:
33-47. Do they succeed in university level chemistry courses?
Knain, E. (2001). Ideologies in school science text- A paper presented at the annual meeting of the
books. International Journal of Science Education, National Association for Research in Science
23, 319-329. Teaching, St. Louis, Missouri.
Kolstø, S.D. (2001a). Science education for citizenship: Mbajiorgu, N.M., & Ali, A. (2003). Relationship be-
Thoughtful decision-making about science-related so- tween STS approach, scientific literacy, and achie-
cial issues. Unpublished doctoral thesis: Oslo, vement in biology. Science Education, 87, 31-39.
Norway: Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Millar, R. (1989). Bending the evidence: The rela-
Sciences, University of Oslo. tionship between theory and experiment in
Kolstø, S.D. (2001b). ‘To trust or not to trust,…’ science education. In R. Millar (Ed.), Doing scien-
--pupils’ ways of judging information encounte- ce: Images of science in science education. London:
red in a socio-scientific issues. International Jour- Falmer Press, pp. 38-61.
nal of Science Education, 23, 877-901. Millar, R. (2000). Science for public understanding:
Kortland, J. (2001). A problem posing approach to tea- Developing a new course for 16-18 year old
ching decision making about the waste issue. Utrecht: students. In R.T. Cross & P.J. Fensham (Eds.),
Cdâ Press. Science and the citizen for educators and the public.
Larson, J.O. (1995, April). Fatima’s rules and other Melbourne: Arena Publications, pp. 201-214.
elements of an unintended chemistry curriculum. Paper Millar, R., Leach, J., & Osborne J. (Eds.) (2000).
presented to the American Educational Research Improving science education: The contribution of re-
Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco. search. Birmingham, UK: Open University
Law, N. (2002). Scientific literacy: Charting the te- Press.
rrains of a multifaceted enterprise. Canadian Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2000). Pupils’ and parents’
Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Edu- views of the school science curriculum. London:
cation, 2, 151-176. Kings College London.
Lawrenz, F., & Gray, B. (1995). Investigation of Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., &
worldview theory in a South African context. Duschl, R. (2003). What ‘ideas-about-science’
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 555-568. should be taught in school science? A Delphi
Layton, D. (1991). Science education and praxis: study of the expert community. Journal of Re-
The relationship of school science to practical search in Science Teaching, 40, 692-720.
action. Studies in Science Education, 19, 43-79. Osborne, J., Duschl, R., & Fairbrother, B. (2003,
Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., & Davey, A. March). Breaking the mould? Teaching science for
(1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public public understanding -- lessons from the classroom. A
understanding of science and some implications for paper presented at the annual meeting of the
science education. Driffield, East Yorkshire, UK: National Association for Research in Science
Studies in Education. Teaching, Philadelphia.
Leblanc, R. (1989). Department of education summer Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about
science institute. Halifax, Canada: Ministry of socio-scientific issues within the science curricu-
Education, PO Box 578. lum. International Journal of Science Education, 19,
Lottero-Perdue, P.S., & Brickhouse, N.W. (2002). 167-182.
396 Educación Química 16[3]
DE ANIVERSARIO
Ratcliffe, M. (1999). Evaluation of abilities in interpre- lomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education:
ting media reports of scientific research. Interna- International perspectives on reform. New York:
tional Journal of Science Education, 21, 1085-1099. Teachers College Press, pp. 3-10.
Reiss, M.J. (2000). Understanding science lessons: Five Solomon, J. (1997). New science education research
years of science teaching. Milton Keynes: Open for the new Europe? Studies in Science Education,
University Press . 29, 93-124.
Roth, W-M., & Désautels, J. (Eds.) (2002). Science Solomon, J. (2003). The UK and the movement for
education as/for sociopolitical action. New York: science, technology, and society (STS) educa-
Peter Lang. tion. In R. Cross (Ed.), A vision for science educa-
Roth, W-M., & Désautels, J. (2004). Educating for tion: Responding to the work of Peter Fensham. New
citizenship: Reappraising the role of science edu- York: RoutledgeFalmer, pp. 76-90.
cation. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G.S. (Eds.) (1994). STS
and Technology Education, 4, 149-168. education: International perspectives on reform. New
Roth, W-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education York: Teachers College Press.
as/for participation in the community. Science Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992).
Education, 88, 263-291. Teaching about the nature of science through his-
Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding tory: Action research in the classroom. Journal of
for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Research in Science Teaching, 29, 409-421.
Education, 36, 1-42. Solomon, J., & Thomas, J. (1999). Science education
Sáez, M.J., & Carretero, A.J. (2002). The challenge of for the public understanding of science. Studies
innovation: The new subject ‘natural sciences’ in in Science Education, 33, 61-90.
Spain. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34, 343-363. Thier, H.D., & Nagle, B.W. (1996). Development
Schwartz, R.S., & Lederman, N.G. (2002). ‘‘It’s the and assessment of an issue-oriented middle
nature of the beast’’: The influence of knowledge school science course. In K. Calhoun, R. Pan-
and intentions on learning and teaching nature war & S. Shrum (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th sympo-
of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, sium of IOSTE. Vol. 3. Edmonton, Canada:
39, 205-236. Faculty of Education, University of Alberta,
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N.M. (1997). Talking about pp. 265-271.
leaving the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Vázquez-Alonso, Á., & Manassero-Mas, M.A. (1999).
Shapiro, B.L. (2004). Studying lifeworlds of science Response and scoring models for the ‘Views on
learning: A longitudinal study of changing ideas, Science-Technology-Society’ instrument. Inter-
contests, and personal orientations in science national Journal of Science Education, 21, 231-247.
learning. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics Walberg, H.J. (1991). Improving school science in
and Technology Education, 4, 127-147. advanced and developing countries. Review of
Sjøberg, S. (2000). Interesting all children in ‘science Educational Research, 61, 25-69.
for all’. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne Weinstein, M. (1998). Playing the paramecium:
(Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution Science education from the stance of the cultural
of research. Birmingham, UK: Open University studies of science. Educational Policy, 12, 484-506.
Press, pp. 165-186. Welch, W.W. (1973). Review of the research and
Sjøberg, S. (2002). Science and technology education evaluation program of Harvard Project Physics.
in Europe: current challenges and possible solu- Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 10, 365-378.
tions. Connect (UNESCO), 27(3-4), 1-5. Wynne, B. (1991). Knowledge in context. Science,
Sjøberg, S. (2005). Relevance of science education. Technology & Human Values, 16, 111-121.
http://www.ils.uio.no/forsking/rose/. Yager, R.E. (Ed.) (1996). Science/technology/society as reform
Solomon, J. (1984). Prompts, cues and discrimina- in science education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
tion: The utilization of two separate knowledge Yager, R.E., & Tamir, P. (1993). STS approach: Re-
systems. European Journal of Science Education, 6, asons, intentions, accomplishments, and outco-
277-284. mes. Science Education, 77, 637-658.
Solomon, J. (1994). Conflict between mainstream Ziman, J. (1980). Teaching and learning about science and
science and STS in science education. In J. So- society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.