9.00 lastorina

22 OCTOBER

TUESDAY

SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:

THE WAY FORWARD

Firenze, October 21-22, 2013

22 OCTOBER

TUESDAY

ENHANCING STUDENTS’ PARTICIPATION IN THE

SCIENTIFIC DEBATE

ALBA L’ASTORINA, ADRIANA VALENTE,

TOMMASO CASTELLANI

Science Communication and Education

NRC Research Unit, Rome-Milano, Italy


THE WAY FORWARD

Firenze, October 21-22, 2013

Science Communication

and Education

Research Unit,

NRC – Italy


THE WAY FORWARD

COMeSE

coordinator

Science Communication and Education, a research area at CNR

Enhanding students’

participation in the scientific

debate

Promoting and observing

the link between science and society:

Planning studying and testing initiatives of

communication among different actors:

students, teachers, researchers, communicators

using participation metodologies

Monitoring key aspects through social

research activities (surveys …)

Results are then used to re-think new ways

and methods of communication/ interaction

between science and society

Il dibattito scientifico in classe: prove di democrazia Comunicazione della scienza ed educazione del CNR



debate


THE WAY FORWARD


Main research activities in science – policy - society

Surveys on attitudes towards science and on

communication practices of scientists

Qualitative and participatory methodologies

(interviews and Policy Delphi) on the relationship

between science and policy making

Promoting initiatives (Ethics & Polemics, Junior

Science café testing methodology including

participatory tools (Metaplan, OST) for citizens and

students involvement in the scientific debate

Textual and contextual analysis in order to

identify values and research findings (analysis of

manuals in fields like migration evolution,

environmental education and others)

Participatory methodologies in society (as

participatory budgeting)

Promote actions for discussing such topics with

scientists (Ricercare e Comunicare, Milano

workshops)

[email protected] [email protected]



debate


THE WAY FORWARD


Science /scientists are more often at

the centre of the public debate as a

controversy question (OGM, Global

Chang, risk assessment, etc.);

Italian citizens ask for a more direct

and active involvement of researchers in

science communication; young people

and schools look for a more direct

contact with researchers

it has become important for citizens

and young people to participate in the

debate on qualitiy of life, the future of

or planet and his inhabitants

also researchers seem to privilege the

schools

[email protected] Il dibattito scientifico in classe: prove di democrazia Comunicazione della scienza ed educazione del CNR



debate


THE WAY FORWARD

WHY FOCUSSING ON THE DEBATE WITH THE EXPERTS?

Other

Old people

Manager and Business

Adults

Politicians

Children

Journalists

Teachers

Students

With which of the following categories of people

and organizations do you think it more useful to

increase the activities of communication?

NRC Italian survey

findings

Science Commnication and Education Research Unit [email protected]

[email protected] Il dibattito scientifico in classe: prove di democrazia Comunicazione della scienza ed educazione del CNR [email protected]



debate


THE WAY FORWARD

Do scientists put enough effort

into informing the public about

new development in science and

technology?

Science and Tecnology Special Eurobarometer 2010

NRC Italian survey findings

WHY FOCUSSING ON THE DEBATE WITH EXPERTS?


Promoting the public debate among experts and students: Why?

• bring into schools the articulation of the

scientific debate, including the

«unavoidable uncertainty» (Trench, 2008)

of science, basis of the scientific method

• encourage a process of study,

participation and exchange of opinions

between young people and experts that

can test new models of communication;

• promote cooperation between the

world of research - school (REC)

• comparison among Italian and

international experts (not only scientists)

• check the perception of science by

young people (surveys, etc.).



debate


THE WAY FORWARD

Ethics and Polemics and Junior Science Café

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche


Each Project initiative is divided into

two main phases:

1) ORGANIZING THE DEBATE: Preparing

debate with experts starting from

documentation and work within

student groups;

2) REFLEXING ON THE RESULTS: survey

on perception of science and its

values (with two questionnaires

before and after each initiative).



debate


THE WAY FORWARD

Promoting the public debate among experts and students: How?



1. choice of a topic

2. choice of documentation able to

make students confront with the

topic

3. work in group: 2/3 lessons in

which the topic is presented with

discussion with teacher and within

the groups; students prepare

some questions or some comment

for the experts

4. organization of the debate on the

topic with all schools involved

5. feed-back and other material can

follow

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche



debate


THE WAY FORWARD

Promoting the public debate among experts and students: STEPS


•it is considered the science in process (Latour),

post-normal, uncertain, complex science

(Funtowicz) with controverse aspects often

involving other competencies;

•such complexity of modern science is often

underestimated in science education /books

•discussing such topics makes traditional

approach in science communication inadequate

to represent the richness and articulation of

the relationship science-society;



debate


THE WAY FORWARD


Promoting the public debate among experts and students: TOPIC


Why focussing on documentation?

Information does not mean knowledge however

no understanding without a correct information;

There is a massive use of Internet by young

people (Avveduto, Cerbara, Valente 2102)

Textbooks do not treat in progress science in a

problematic way

NRC methodologies make an extensive use of ICT

and of didactic material that meets strict criteria:

reliability and diversity of sources, pluralism of

opinions and points of view of all actors involved,

both nationally and internationally (Libutti and

Valente, 2006); in line with criteria Fishkin

(2004) considers as the starting point of any

deliberative process.



debate


THE WAY FORWARD


Promoting public debate among experts and students: DOCUMENTATION The information society


Why focussing on documentation?

the goal is to develop skills able to attract young

people to issues of science, and to show that

inquiring and asking questions is as or more

important than learning how to give answers;

In particular, the focus is on the importance of

bringing students closer to a true culture of

information, helping them to become

“information literate”, that is able to know when

information is needed and to identify, locate and

effectively use information for lifelong learning

and problem solving (American Library

Association)

the goal is also to develop scientific competencies

for citizenship



debate


THE WAY FORWARD


Promoting public debate among experts and students: DOCUMENTATION


The groups, under the guidance of teachers

as tutors, take vision of the scientific

documentation, add other materials, self-

study and discuss at home and in class in

order to prepare some questions or

comment for the debate with experts.

Use of participatory methodologies bring out

the tacit knowledge (Polany 1967) of

students and facilitate shared proposals

within groups.

Participatory methodologies also redefine

role of the teacher who, besides acting as a

facilitator, reflects on his/her practice, acts

as a “reflexive practitioner” (Lisle, 2000).



debate


THE WAY FORWARD


Promoting public debate among experts and students: WORK IN GROUP


This process builds a “collective

wisdom” (Ziman 1967) and also

mobilizes different types of

competencies and skills not typically

required at school, nor valued, such

as:

- the role of facilitator within the

group

- the communication skills

- the ability to express ideas,

- the social skills (OECD, 2005). Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche



debate


THE WAY FORWARD


Promoting public debate among experts and students: WORK IN GROUP


Public debate with the experts on

different controversial topics

involved different schools in Italy Meeting experts means recognizing

expertise and experiencing science as a

cultural process

coordinator; experts from

different background and

positions; both national and

international; journalists,

stakeholders

-Cooperation by all actors

involved in public debate on

science contributes reduce the

gap between science -society and

to follow the “participatory turn”

Jasanoff (2003) involving teachers

and students in a process of

cooperative learning that makes

them feel and be active in the

scientific debate (Midoro, 1994).



debate


THE WAY FORWARD

Promoting public debate with students: MEETING THE EXPERTS



OPEN SPACE

TECHNOLOGY

activates the

deliberative capacity

allowing to create (in the

short term) an agenda

from the topics discussed

(tested both with

students and teachers

with different roles and

questions)

il dibattit scientifico in

classe: prove di democrazia



debate


THE WAY FORWARD

The use of PARTICIPATIVE METHODOLOGIES

METAPLAN

Used to warm up, to

motivate, to bring out and

activate the tacit

knowledge;

It made possible to

alternate individuale

reflection to collective

discussion.



CRITERIA FOR CHOICE

Selected as one of the two

Italian best practice,

“example of cooperation

between Research and

Education (REC)

In order to produce

documents for policy

makers."

il dibattit scientifico in

classe: prove di democrazia



debate


THE WAY FORWARD

The PAS Project: example of

collaboration between

Education and Research (REC)

FormIT – Take part into Research!

MOTIVATION

Interdisciplinary

approach aimed at

critical thinking applied

to controversial issues.

Participative

methodologies. Social

research on perception of science and its values.


The Junior Science Café

suggested in the guidelines for

schools


THE SCIENCE CAFE’ some peculiarities:

The idea of our junior science cafés is that a

group of students organises a science cafe

In a public place, not for students only!

• Brief presentation of experts on a theme

• Readings and videos

• Debate and questions from the audience Objectives:

• Tell the pupils where and how scientific knowledge is produced

• Teach to search for reliable scientific information

• Make use of personal knowledge of students

• Promote a perception of science as part of culture

Belmonte, Castellani 2012



debate


THE WAY FORWARD

The Project Junior Science Café : some peculiarities


• Caution towards a too rapid scientific progress in favor of a

greater weighting of results and risk factors predictable;

• Consensus the precautionary principle;

• Human values are as important as the scientific evidence in

public policy choices;

• Optimistic about the development of new scientific applications

in the environmental field;

• Students trust the scientific community making the

decision on the use of research applications, however

consider not marginal the role of citizens and society as a whole

Some results from the surveys: values and opinions on science



debate


THE WAY FORWARD


REFLEXING ON THE RESULTS

• Teachers of different upper secondary schools (lyceum, technical

schools, professional schools) and of lower secondary schools,

appreciated the NRC methodologiy because it requires a limited

amount of time (5-8 lessons time + conferences),

• it is easy to manage and provides opportunities for different teachers

to work together in different subjects. In effect not only Science or

English teachers are involved, but also Italian language or Technical

teachers take part in the activities.

• The project allows the teachers to enrich the normal school lessons and

to involve students in a real debate, concerning the every day

relevance of scientific issues.

Conclusions: Curriculum relevance and school benefits



debate


THE WAY FORWARD


Ethics and Polemics and Junior Science Café: school benefits

Conclusions: students and experts’ benefits/ critical points



debate


THE WAY FORWARD

• direct participation (tacit understanding, collective wisdom) increases interest

rather than certainties

• communication not only transmission of content but also sharing theories,

knowledge and approaches

• direct contact with experts enables new and more appropriate mode of

communication; also experts benefit from this mode of dialogue, not linear and

one way but open to discussion

HOWEVER

• such projects are extracurricular experiences, with limit of time and content and

cannot substitute the daily teaching in the class

• school does not always encourage nor reward collective work

• organizative problems at school: lack and inadequacy of deliberative places at

school (both for students and teachers)

• students were preponderantly interested in concrete aspects and in the

possibility of understanding how individual behaviours can contribute to solving

global problems, but also asked if there were chances to change.

Ethics and Polemics and Junior Science Café: school benefits

Some opinion on participation at school



debate Firenze, October 21-22, 2013


THE WAY FORWARD

And if I make my choice what chance

do I have to be listened by the policy

makers?

participation is difficult,

it requires time,

listening, small groups,

respect!

If I decide to make separate

collection of waste then what

chance do I have tnat my choice

becomes a collective one??


Belmonte C., Castellani T. 2012. The ‘Caffè Scienza Junior’ project: Students protagonists of their scientific training. In: Koulouris P. (Ed.), SciCafé 2012 Conference and Events: Europe’s Science

Cafés Thinking Forward. Book of Proceedings. Epinioa, Athens

Brenneman K., Louro I.F. 2008. Science journals in the preschool classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal 36: 113-119

De Haan G.,

Driver R., Newton P., Osborne J. 2000. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education 84: 287-312.

Duschl R. 1990. Restructuring Science Education. The importance of theories and their development. Teachers College Press, Columbia University New York –London economy and society

directorate. EUR 22700. Brussels.

Duschl, R. and Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education. Studies in Science Education, 38: 39‐72.

Del Grosso E., L’Astorina A., Valente A. 2009. Introducing Open Space Technology in schools to educate towards citizenship in science and society. In Valente A. (Ed.). Science perception and

participation. Biblink editori, Roma, pp. 57-68.

European Commission, DG Science and Society 2004. Europe Needs More Scientists. Report by the High Level Group on Increasing Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe.

Fishkin J.S. 2004. Il sondaggio deliberativo, come e perché funziona. In: Bosetti G., Maffettone F. (Eds.). Democrazia deliberativa: cos’è? Luiss University Press, Roma. pp. 25-76.

Flick L., Lederman N.G. 2004. Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Springer, New York.

Funtowicz S., Ravetz J. 1999. Post-Normal Science – an insight now maturing. Futures.

Gurria A. 2009. Remarks delivered at the launch of the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Mexico, 16 June 2009.

Howes E.V., Lim M., Campos J. 2009. Journeys Into Inquiry-Based Elementary Science: Literacy Practices, Questioning, and Empirical Study, DOI 10.1002/sce.20297. Published online 21 July

2008 in Wiley InterScience

Jasanoff S. 2003. Technologies of humility: Citizens participation in governing science. Minerva 41(3): 223–244.

Jimenez-Aleixandre M.P., Erduran S. 2008. Argumentation in Science Education. Springer, The Netherlands

Kachan M., Guilbert S., Bisanz G. 2006. Do teachers ask students to read news in secondary science? Evidence from the Canadian context. Science Education 90(3): 496-521.

Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and leaning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77 (3), 319-337.

Latour B. 1998. La scienza in azione. Edizioni di Comunità, Torino.

Lisle A.M. 2000. All hail reflexivity. Annual Review of Critical Psychology 2: 109-129.

Mayer M., Valente A. 2009. Expressing oneself in order to participate: tacit knowledge, learning and the Metaplan. In: Valente A. (Ed.). Science perception and participation. Biblink, Roma. pp. 43-

56.

Midoro V. 1994. Per una definizione di apprendimento cooperativo. TD. Tecnologie Didattiche n. 4. Menabò, Ortona.

Millar R., Osborne J. 1998. Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future London. King’s College London.

Moje E., Collazo T., Carrillo R., Marx R. 2001. “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?” Language, literacy and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38(4): 469-498.

Murcia K. 2009. Re-thinking the Development of Scientific Literacy Through a Rope Metaphor. Research in Science Education 39 (2): 215-229.

OECD 2005. The definition and Selection of key Competencies (DeSeCo). Executive summary.

OECD 2009. Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/51/43023606.pdf

Osborne J. 2005. The role of Argument in Science Education. In: Boersma, Goedhart, De Jong, Eijkelhogs (Eds.). Research and the Quality of Science Education. Springer, The Netherlands.

Pacini G., Bagnoli F., Belmonte C., Castellani T. 2012. Science is ready, serve it! Dissemination of Science through Science Cafè. In: Bucchi M., Trench B. (Eds.). Quality, Honesty and Beauty in

Science and Technology Communication, PCST 2012 book of papers. Observa Science in Society.

Polanyi M. 1967. The Tacit Dimension. Anchor Books, New York.

Valente A. 2001. Trasmissione d’élite o accesso alle conoscenze? Franco Angeli

Valente A. 2009. Immagini di scienza e pratiche di partecipazione. Biblink, Roma.

Ziman J.M. 1967. Public Knowledge: An Essay Concerning the Social Dimension of Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

[email protected]



debate


THE WAY FORWARD

BIBLIOGRAPHY

THANKS FOR ATTENTION!

ALBA L’ASTORINA

[email protected]

Science Communication and Education

CNR Research Unit

Milano, 18 - 24 aprile 2009

22 Octobr

mercoledì