what sort of science education do we really need?

21
This article was downloaded by: ["University at Buffalo Libraries"] On: 11 October 2014, At: 04:49 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK International Journal of Science Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20 What sort of science education do we really need? Sandra Duggan & Richard Gott Published online: 10 Feb 2010. To cite this article: Sandra Duggan & Richard Gott (2002) What sort of science education do we really need?, International Journal of Science Education, 24:7, 661-679, DOI: 10.1080/09500690110110133 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110133 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access

Upload: richard

Post on 19-Feb-2017

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: What sort of science education do we really need?

This article was downloaded by: ["University at Buffalo Libraries"]On: 11 October 2014, At: 04:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal ofScience EducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

What sort of scienceeducation do we reallyneed?Sandra Duggan & Richard GottPublished online: 10 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Sandra Duggan & Richard Gott (2002) What sort of scienceeducation do we really need?, International Journal of Science Education, 24:7,661-679, DOI: 10.1080/09500690110110133

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110133

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access

Page 2: What sort of science education do we really need?

and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 3: What sort of science education do we really need?

RESEARCH REPORT

What sort of science education do we really need?

Sandra Duggan and Richard Gott, School of Education, University ofDurham, Leazes Road, Durham DH1 1TA, UK;e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]

The research aims to explore the role of science for employees in science-based industries and formembers of the public interacting with science in their everyday lives. Case studies were carried outin a small sample of industries, in community action groups and in personal decision making. Themethodology, informed by a tentative model of science, included scrutiny of available relevant docu-mentation and semi-structured interviews. The findings suggest that procedural understanding wasessential in the higher levels of industry and in interacting effectively with everyday issues, whileconceptual understanding was so specific that it was acquired in a need-to-know way. The implicationsfor science education hinge on a substantial reduction in the conceptual content and the explicit teachingof the nature of evidence (procedural understanding). The authors suggest building on primary pupils’enthusiasm for investigative work at UK Key Stage 3 (11–14 years) and developing an issues-basedcurriculum at Key Stage 4 (14–16 years).

Introduction

That there are problems with the content of the science curriculum, at least in theUK, is widely recognized and epitomized by a recent survey of pupils’ perceptions(Osborne and Collins 2000) which highlighted, amongst other things, the frag-mented and disjointed picture of science that many pupils receive. The pupils’responses, the authors write, suggest that

the school science curriculum is failing to construct a coherent picture of the subject,its methods and its practices, leaving pupils with fragmented pieces of knowledge.(p. 30)

There is also general agreement that the science curriculum is overloaded. These,together with the perceptions of pupils that science is ‘difficult’ and that it lacksrelevance to everyday life, are some of the factors thought to account for thedemotivation of students towards science as they move through compulsory edu-cation and to contribute to the fact that most opt out of studying science at higherlevels.

In addition there is ongoing concern about the scientific literacy of the generalpopulation arising from surveys of the public understanding of science. The rela-tionship between the science curriculum and the preparation it provides inenabling pupils to apply their understanding of science to topical science-basedissues is in question (see e.g. Fensham 1998).

The recent report Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future (Millar andOsborne 1998) again highlights the weaknesses of the National Curriculum in what

International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950–0693 print/ISSN 1464–5289 online # 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/09500690110110133

INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 2002, VOL. 24, NO. 7, 661–679

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 4: What sort of science education do we really need?

Russell (1991) calls a ‘damning indictment of the present science curriculum’(p. 12). Amongst other factors, the report points to the over-emphasis on content,its lack of relevance to pupils’ interests, the way that scientific knowledge is pre-sented as disconnected from technical know-how and the lack of attention to con-temporary scientific issues.

None of these concerns about science education is of course new. What is newis the rapid onset of the information society and its implications for the wayknowledge can be generated. Using the Internet, there is now the opportunity topursue any topical issue in which science is involved and almost instantly accessnot only the views and opinions expressed in the media, but also any availableinformation, data or evidence at source. It follows that the ability to sift through allthis information evaluating not only the information itself but also its source isbecoming increasingly important. A study by Clark and Slotta (2000) showed thatmost 15-year-old students in the USA failed to consider the authority status of thesource information.

Gibbons et al. (1995) suggest that the way that knowledge is acquired is alsochanging. In the past the growth of knowledge has been largely ‘vertical’ in that,once the fundamentals were established, new knowledge has been added in agradual, increasingly specialized way. The same authors suggest that there is anincreasing move towards ‘horizontal’ knowledge generation, in which knowledge isacquired in a transdisciplinary way. Young and Glanfield (1998) support thiscontention writing in relation to employment that

under the impact of information technology, the skills needed in different occupa-tional sectors are converging as more and more jobs demand generic and abstractrather than sector-specific skills. (p. 7)

Similarly, Bayliss (1999) challenges the traditional model of educationacknowledging that ‘it is under unprecedented pressure from economic and socialchange’. She suggests that

many people in education are realising that the time for tinkering with the traditionalcurriculum is over. (p. 9)

She points to the need for greater creativity and imagination, which is echoed byinternational calls for the need to foster creativity and critical thinking in educationand the recent interest in aptitude tests rather than in exams which are seen toreward, to a large extent, rote recall. At the same time, the growth of consumerismand the move towards evidence-based policy and decision making in many aspectsof life mean that there is shift in the relationship between science and the public.As controversial science-related issues emerge and the uncertain nature of scienceis clearly exposed, the public are being confronted with science in ways that theywere not in the past.

All these changes indicate an urgent need for reform, which is widely acknowl-edged. The problem is that in science education there is little consensus aboutwhat the reforms should be. It has to be said that the debate to date has beenlargely amongst those ‘inside’ the education system or immersed at a high level inone or other of the professional scientific institutions. In acknowledging this fact,Fensham (1997) identifies the three main advocacy groups: academic scientists,school science teachers and academic science educators.

Our approach to the problem of the nature of reform is somewhat different in

662 S. DUGGAN AND R. GOTT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 5: What sort of science education do we really need?

that we suggest starting from ‘the other end’. By this we mean looking ahead intothe adult world of employment and everyday life and asking the question, ‘Whatsort of knowledge of science does the population really need?’ Do they indeed needany knowledge of science to function effectively in society? This is a functionalapproach to curriculum development, but we would suggest that to view educationonly from the perspective of education as a general training of the mind, contri-butes to disillusion amongst young people, the majority of whom believe that theireducation should prepare them for the future (Bayliss 1999). Finding out what sortof science is really needed will allow reforms to proceed in a more logical way andlead to a content that articulates with the requirements of today’s society and onethat prepares young people for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiencesof adult life. The research that follows is an initial exploratory attempt to find outabout the role of science in adult life. Such an approach need not be reductionist,but only by identifying a basic science curriculum which engages, and can be seento engage, with the realities of today’s world can we hope to interest the majority.Then we can begin to widen their horizons to a more liberal agenda.

Previous literature

The literature about science in employment includes a survey of over 1000employers in industry by The Council of Science and Technology (CSTI 1993).The results showed that some 30 per cent of the workforce uses science or math-ematics in some aspect of their work. Of those, a relatively small fraction of theworkforce (4%) are engaged in ‘pure science’ compared to the rest who areemployed in applied science and engineering. The report examined what it isthat industry requires of employees in all these occupations as identified bytheir employers. They identified three ‘skills’: a central core of skills concernedwith the doing of science, communication skills and management skills. The firstof these, which is of most relevance here, is defined in more detail as the ability to:

. generate own ideas, hypotheses and theoretical models and/or utilise thosepostulated by others;

. design investigations, experiments, trials, tests, simulations and operations;

. conduct investigations, experiments, trials, tests and operations;

. evaluate data and results from the processes and outcomes of investigations,experiments, trials, tests and operations.

The report also developed a framework to describe the domain which dividedoccupations into three categories: those in which the practice of science, tech-nology and maths is the main activity; those in which knowledge of the practiceis critical to the job; and those where such knowledge enhances occupational com-petence.

Another study by Coles (1997) involved interview rather than survey tech-niques. Coles interviewed scientists employed in the private and public sector acrossa wide range of scientific fields and at different professional levels. He came tobroadly similar conclusions as the CSTI (1993) which can be summarized as:

. an understanding of scientific evidence;

. an understanding of science ideas;

. personal and interpersonal skills.

WHAT SORT OF SCIENCE EDUCATION DO WE NEED? 663

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 6: What sort of science education do we really need?

Coles (1997) found that general capabilities were often expressed ahead of anyspecific scientific knowledge, understanding or skills. He defines general scientificcapabilities as being practical techniques (including safety, reliability, good obser-vation and accuracy), problem solving by experimentation, decision making byweighing evidence and scientific habits of mind (such as logical thinking, scepti-cism). Although the above research has gone a considerable way towards definingthe skills employers require, neither of these studies provides the level of detailrequired to inform curriculum reform.

Case studies of the public understanding of science have demonstrated ways inwhich the public interact with science and the effect of different perspectives andvalues. Layton et al. (1993) refer to instrumental science in which the public areinterested primarily in scientific information which they translate into action. In astudy of the effects of Sellafield, Wynne (1982) demonstrated how common senseand observation were used by farmers. Epstein (1995) and Goshorn (1996) instudying medical and environmental activist groups found that the public canacquire the necessary expertise to make detailed critiques of scientific research.

These cases studies provide fascinating insights into the interaction betweenthe public and science and have led to calls for the inclusion of topical science–based issues in the curriculum. However, they have not resulted in more specificrecommendations for curriculum reform.

To recap, earlier research examining the role of science in adult life in employ-ment and in dealing with science-based issues in everyday life suggest that generalscientific capabilities and the ability to interact with science may be as, or more,important than detailed knowledge of the concepts of science. The researchreported in this paper set out to confirm and extend these findings from a some-what different perspective based on a model of problem solving in science (whichis described below) in order to work towards specific recommendations for reform.

A model of problem solving in science

The model that informed the study was derived from earlier research into thecognitive processes involved in problem solving in the performance of practicaltasks in science education (Gott and Duggan 1995). Problem solving here refers tothe collection of data and the ability to use the data in making decisions or arrivingat solutions as distinct from the explanation of phenomena, mathematical or alge-braic problem solving. The model suggests that effective problem solving involvesan interaction of conceptual and procedural understanding. By conceptual under-standing, we mean a knowledge base of substantive concepts such as the laws ofmotion, solubility or respiration, which are underpinned by scientific facts. Byprocedural understanding we mean ‘the thinking behind the doing’ of scienceand include concepts such as deciding how many measurements to take, overwhat range, how to interpret the pattern in the resulting data or how to evaluatethe whole task. These concepts are in turn underpinned by ‘skills’. It should benoted that by skills we mean simple mechanical aspects of activities such as know-ing how to use equipment (e.g. a hydrometer) or knowing how to construct thescales on the axes of a graph. We believe procedural understanding to be a knowl-edge base in its own right equivalent to conceptual understanding. As such wehave attempted to list and define the ideas underpinning procedural understand-ing, not least so that they can be taught. We have called these ideas ‘concepts of

664 S. DUGGAN AND R. GOTT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 7: What sort of science education do we really need?

evidence’ since they are all concerned with the collection of valid and reliableevidence (Gott and Duggan 1995, Gott et al. 1999a).

Since procedural understanding, on our definition, is essential in problemsolving, then it is likely to be relevant in applied science in industry and in thepublic understanding of scientific ‘problems’ or issues. It was this belief that led tothe following research which sought to explore the role of science in adult life witha particular focus on the role of procedural understanding.

Aims

The overall aim of the research was to find out what sort of science people use intheir lives when they leave school. The study encompassed not only adults whohad chosen to continue to study science in higher education but also the majorityof adults who do not. Some of the latter enter science-based employment either onleaving school or at a later stage. All adults, however, will come into contact withscience in their everyday lives. These two areas, namely the role of science inscience-based employment and the role of science in everyday life, were thefocus of the study.

Science-based industries were chosen on the basis of being representative ofthe science specialties (physics, chemistry and biology). The everyday issues werechosen on the basis of topicality and those in which interviewees would be likely tohold a view. These two areas have in common the fact that they both have thepotential to involve empirical evidence in decision making. We aimed to look forcommonality in terms of the understanding required in the various aspects of adultlife that were sampled. While taking note of the conceptual knowledge required,our principle focus was to answer the question: ‘Is there a core set of concepts ofevidence which can be identified?’ At the same time, we were aware that someideas (both conceptual and procedural) will be unstated or tacit. These ideas mayor may not be essential elements.

The case studies

The research took place between 1997 and 2000.

Science-based employment

Invitations to participate in the study were sent to local industries where it seemedlikely that science would be a major component of their work and to a range ofindustries that spanned the three sciences. Some industries declined because of thetime commitment and, consequently, others were approached. The final samplewas as follows.

. Industry 1. A biotechnology company using advanced technology to developand manufacture medical diagnostic kits for measuring small quantities ofhormones or related molecules in blood or serum with a research divisionon site. The company occupies a niche market through developing lowvolume, high value products.

. Industry 2. A company that develops and manufactures large volumes ofnatural and synthetic colourants for foods, cosmetics and pharmaceutical

WHAT SORT OF SCIENCE EDUCATION DO WE NEED? 665

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 8: What sort of science education do we really need?

preparations. Research is limited to problem solving, testing new rawmaterials and improving output.

. Industry 3. A company that analyses samples from the environment includ-ing ‘clean’ water (i.e. tap water) and ‘dirty’ water (e.g. effluent).

. Industry 4. An engineering company manufacturing pumps for oil and gasproduction or for use in the petrochemical industry. The company employstest facilities for quality control.

In addition, and guided by the CSTI (1993) report described earlier, we deliber-ately chose an area of employment not traditionally regarded as ‘science’ or, interms of the CSTI framework, where science ‘enhances’ occupational competence,namely farming. A local arable farmer was approached and agreed to be inter-viewed.

Science in everyday life

In considering ways in which science interacts with everyday life, we consideredthree possible points at which the public are confronted by science.

(1) In the media, for example, in the press and on the television.(2) As a participant in community issues about science.(3) In deciding about personal issues involving science.

We decided to focus on the second and third points because with these the indi-vidual is likely to adopt an active role, whereas the public often responds to sciencein the media in a passive way, for example by ignoring the issue.

The community issues selected were pragmatic in that they were issues ofconcern to the local community at the time of the research. The first issue focusedon concerns about the effect of burning recycled liquid fuel (RLF) in a cement kilnnear a village. Details of this case study have been published elsewhere (Tytleret al. 2001a, b). The second centred on the siting of a mobile phone base stationnear a primary school.

We sought an issue in personal decision making in which science is relevantand where a decision has to be made on which action is then taken. We also wantedan issue of some consequence and not one where peripheral factors might meanthat the science could legitimately be marginalized, such as in buying a car or awashing machine where for example, the appearance or the dimensions mightoverride any scientific factors. Within these criteria we considered variouspossibilities such as choosing a method of birth control or being forced todecide between various treatments for life threatening illnesses. For pragmaticreasons, the issue of parents’ decision making about immunisation for theiryoung children was chosen as one which could be explored within the allottedtime period.

Methodology

Employment

The methodology was developed in the first industry sampled and then applied toeach subsequent industry with minor modifications. An initial attempt involving

666 S. DUGGAN AND R. GOTT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 9: What sort of science education do we really need?

the interviewing of a member of staff (a quality control manager) selected by seniormanagement as someone who could explain the work of the company and alsodescribe what was expected of employees, did not result in the depth of informa-tion required. Eraut (1990) pinpoints the problem. In relation to the knowledgethat underpins performance, he writes:

[O]rdinary interviewing is rarely successful in identifying such knowledge because theexpert performers are seldom explicitly aware of the knowledge they are using. (p. 27)

He continues:

It is only when interviewing is conducted in ways informed by a tentative perform-ance model and based on particular techniques that it is likely to yield the requiredresults.

In this study, a model of problem solving, described earlier, was used toinform the following approach:

(1) An initial interview with a senior employee with the purpose of under-standing the nature of the work of the company and requesting relevantdocumentation for step 2.

(2) Scrutiny of documentation such as internal training schedules, workrecords, product protocols and discussion by the multidisciplinaryresearch team aimed at establishing the knowledge and skill requirementof the company.

(3) Discussion with senior staff in the company to validate and explore theissues arising in steps 1 and 2 and to establish the structure of the organ-ization with the aim of determining which staff to interview. The pur-pose of the interviews was to gain an understanding of one or two aspectsof the work of the company rather than to grapple with all aspects of theiroperation.

(4) Interviews with staff at various levels to establish the accuracy of theknowledge and skill requirements identified in the earlier stages. Theinterviews were semi-structured and tape recorded. Two to four staffwere interviewed in each company.

Further details of the initial study can be found elsewhere (Gott et al. 1999b).

Public understanding

The methodology used in exploring the community action issues was similarin that relevant and accessible documentation was scrutinized and the keyparticipants approached and, if willing, interviewed. In relation to personaldecision making, the parents in a local nursery were asked to complete aquestionnaire. In it the parents were asked whether, at the time they had beeninvited to take their baby for immunisation, they had sought out more informationthan is provided routinely, either from health professionals or elsewhere. Threeparents who had done so were invited for interview, one of whom was unableto attend. As before, the interviews were semi-structured, tape-recorded andtranscribed.

WHAT SORT OF SCIENCE EDUCATION DO WE NEED? 667

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 10: What sort of science education do we really need?

A model for the analysis

In an earlier section, we noted that a model based on the notion of ‘concepts ofevidence’ was used to inform our research. That model, of course, deals with theunderlying ideas that we were looking for in the responses to our interview ques-tions, which in turn were structured with those ideas in mind. However, the thrustof this research is as much on how the participants made use of and evaluated theevidence in the debate as it is on the substance of the evidence itself. We thereforedeveloped a second model during the course of this research that depicts how databecome evidence through a process of repetition, scrutiny and debate. It showsthese ‘layers’ of evidence thereby acknowledging the fact that in evaluating evi-dence other societal factors such as credibility, practicality, cost, etc., can be asinfluential as the scientific data itself (figure 1). This model sits above the ‘con-cepts of evidence’ and acts as an analytical tool for examining the dynamic of theissue under discussion.

The centre of figure 1 refers to the ideas that underpin the making of a singlemeasurement and include those concerned with the measuring instrument itself,such as calibration, sensitivity and measurement error. The next layer is concernedwith measuring a single parameter (e.g. sampling, precision, accuracy) while thenext is concerned with the relationship between two or more sets of data andincludes ideas such as control, significant difference and correlation. We canregard data as evidence when they are subjected to some form of validation suchas comparisons with other data or triangulation. Finally, in evaluating evidence,broader societal views usually need to be considered such as the practicality ofimplementing the outcomes of the evidence, economic factors, credibility andacceptability (the outer layer). This wider view of evidence is likely to be par-ticularly relevant in considering topical science-based issues in everyday life.

668 S. DUGGAN AND R. GOTT

Relationshipsbetween datawhich may, or

may not, exhibita pattern

Measuring a datumcan involve more

than onemeasurement

A datum

A singlemeasurement

Data

Evidence

Wider societalissues

Comparison withother data.

Figure 1. Layers of evidence (Gott et al. 1999a).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 11: What sort of science education do we really need?

Permeating the model are the ideas of the validity and reliability of the data, andhence the weight that can be placed on them as evidence. There is clearly potentialfor complex interaction between one or more layers of the model in any realsituation. This model, further details of which can be found elsewhere (Gottet al. 1999a), informed the analysis of the data.

Findings

Science-based employment

It should be noted that the purpose of this exploratory research was to sample thework of each company rather than to compile a comprehensive report.Consequently, the scientific ideas that we found and report below should beregarded as exemplary rather than exhaustive.

Table 1 gives examples of the procedural understanding required in the sixindustries in the study. These examples are drawn from the documentation and theinterview data. The sample is small so that the results are only generalizable in sofar as these companies can be regarded as in any way typical of science-basedindustry. It is clear from the table that there are many concepts of evidence incommon across the range of industries sampled. Error and accuracy, for example,were mentioned by the majority. Repeatability and calibration also figure highly.The following is an example of an interviewee from Industry 1 describing appro-priate accuracy for a particular procedure:

It’s best to weigh out 200 mg rather than try weighing out 0.2 g on a one decimal placebalance. Because it could be 0.24 or 0.21. It’s more accurate.

Employers talked of some aspects of procedural understanding such as choosingthe most appropriate balance to weigh out a chemical exemplified by the abovequote as ‘common sense’ or ‘gut feeling’ and did not associate such decisions with

WHAT SORT OF SCIENCE EDUCATION DO WE NEED? 669

Table 1. Examples of concepts of evidence employed in sample ofscience-based industry.

Concepts of evidence

1. Biotechnology company Repeatability, error (instrument, human, inherent),appropriate accuracy, precision, fair test/controlledconditions, choice of instrument, sensitivity (the leastquantity that can be differentiated from zero withconfidence), specificity, calibration.

2. Colourant company Calibration, fair test/control, appropriate accuracy, scale,error, sampling.

3. Environmental analysis Calibration, sampling, reliability and validity of measuringcompany processes, choice of instrument, control (zero value),

calibration, accuracy, error.5. Pump company Problem-solving including identification of input/output

variables, sampling, measurement accuracy, percentageerror, repeatability, graphical presentation, probability.

6. Farming Dilutions, sampling and randomization, calibration, error(sampling error, measurement error, human error), risk andprobability, controls, scale.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 12: What sort of science education do we really need?

science. They also seemed surprised that new employees did not know how tomake these decisions. In view of the fact that students are rarely faced with achoice of equipment in school science, perhaps it is not so unexpected. The con-cepts of evidence that these industries had in common and which emerged fromthe data are concerned with the measurement of, and relationships between, dataand are located in the inner circles or layers of evidence in figure 1. Other conceptsof evidence appeared to be specific to particular industries. For example, thedefinition of sensitivity as the least quantity that can be differentiated from zerowith confidence may be specific to the biotechnology/biochemical/pharmaceuticalindustry.

In terms of our model for analysis, the findings suggest that industry, in themajority of our small sample at least, organizes itself so that those lower down thestructure are required to operate protocols which are designed to generate reliabledata. These protocols, which are often complex and represent one step in themanufacture of a product, include formal checks at critical stages, designed tostandardize procedures and minimize error. The understanding needed is there-fore limited primarily to the concepts of evidence associated with the two inner-most layers of evidence (figure 1). It was noticeable that when errors in proceduresdo occur, they are often due to a lack of understanding of the significance of onestage in a process and its effect on the reliability and validity of the final product.For example, employees may take ‘shortcuts’ without realizing the significance ofdoing so. These errors lead to faulty products or wastage which both, in turn, leadto reduced profit. This wider view requires an understanding of the whole process,all the layers of evidence and in particular an understanding of the iterative rela-tionship between the inner and the outer circles of figure 1.

The higher up the ladder, the more the employee is required to look furtherout in our diagram to include more holistic consideration of the data themselvesand of the significance of secondary data and to consider economic and otherfactors. Employees at higher levels tend to have the ‘bigger’ picture in mind, forexample, in problem solving or in making possible improvements to procedureswhich would make them more economical without jeopardizing product quality.For example, in Industry 2 issues such as the acceptability of food colourants indifferent countries and perceived health risks were pertinent, while in Industry 3the cost of particular analyses to the customer and acceptable levels of TVC (totalviable count) of bacteria were considered. Understanding these societal issueswhich are located in the outer layer of figure 1, is needed at the same time asunderstanding the scientific data themselves in the inner layers.

In the engineering industry (Industry 4), the company had adopted anapproach to their entire manufacturing process designed to reduce internal andexternal waste based on procedural understanding. In this approach (the so-called‘Six Sigma’ methodology), the manufacturing process is treated as an ‘investiga-tion’. The raw materials, the various sub-processes and each member of the work-force are treated as independent variables which effect the throughput and qualityof the pumps which in this case are the dependent variables. Through a processessentially of analysis of variance, the effects of each independent variable on thequality of the output is examined. The analysis requires a whole series of meas-urements to be made of the relevant variables. The independent variable(s) withthe most significant effect resulting in a significant shortfall in quality are identi-fied and targeted for improvement. For example, if the variation in the quality of

670 S. DUGGAN AND R. GOTT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 13: What sort of science education do we really need?

the castings coming into the plant is shown to be a major factor, statistically, in theoutput of acceptable pumps, then the goal would be to reduce this variation. Suchan approach is seen to centre on team work, individual responsibility and a trainingscheme which attempts to give all employees an understanding of the largerpicture. A senior member of the company commented:

All these skills are generic. Six Sigma is not the same as other previous initiativeswhereby it lasts 2 or 3 years and then disappears. Because it’s so generic and becauseit’s so fundamental. It’s problem solving tools. It’s going to last a long time. It needsto be taught in universities or started there so that people come to work with this inmind. I’m not saying teach Six Sigma but teach the tools.

This approach to improving quality which comes from the USA is now beingimplemented in a number of industries in the UK. The ideas in Six Sigma closelycorrespond to our concepts of evidence with an emphasis on the third (or middle)layer but, at the same time, the approach also pays close heed to the outer layer ofevidence (figure 1) in that the overall aim is to reduce waste and improve perform-ance. The Six Sigma approach is described as a cycle of ‘measure–analyse–improve–control’. We can equate this cycle with iteration between the outer andthe inner layers of evidence in our model.

The data from interviewing the arable farmer suggest that farming may alsoequate with the wider view of evidence. An understanding of concepts of evidenceconcerned with relationships between data was needed to manipulate crop produc-tion to maximize yield. In addition, there were cost/benefit considerations regard-ing field size and acceptability, and legal considerations with regard to chemicalapplications. Hence we suggest that the understanding needed by this arablefarmer spans the layers of evidence in our model and, as in many of the industriesabove, calls for continuous iteration between the data and societal considerations.

With regard to conceptual understanding in the first three industries, therewere some basic ideas in common such as pH and dilution, but most of the con-cepts were specific to a particular industry. At the lower levels of employment, theuse of the protocols meant that employees required minimal conceptual knowl-edge. At higher levels, the conceptual knowledge required was detailed, complexand highly specific such that it was gained on or within the job. In the environ-mental analysis industry, employees were trained to develop ‘local knowledge’about the areas in which the water was sampled because this knowledge deter-mined the most appropriate analytical techniques. Other concepts were transitoryin that, for example, in farming, new types of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides andfungicides and their action on individual crops are continually being developed sothat others become obsolete:

With pesticides what is up to date now is completely out of date two years later and in5 years is obsolete – another product has been discovered.

This kind of knowledge acquisition has to be ongoing.

Science in everyday life

Table 2 gives examples of concepts of evidence drawn from the data of the casestudies of science in everyday life. The three issues exemplify the fact that science-based issues in everyday life are often complex and multidimensional. The data in

WHAT SORT OF SCIENCE EDUCATION DO WE NEED? 671

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 14: What sort of science education do we really need?

all three cases were incomplete, so other factors contributed towards decisionmaking.

Societal concerns, the outer layer of evidence (figure 1), are often the startingpoint or the trigger factor for active public involvement. In this study, the con-cerns were about possible risk coupled with the suspicion that the relevant com-panies or, in the case of decision making about immunization, the health authority,might have a vested interest in presenting a case biased in their favour, that led tothe formation of the action groups and the parents’ search for additional informa-tion. The ‘precautionary principle’, which states that, if there is scientific doubtabout the safety of a product or practice, it should not be deployed until that doubthas been dispelled, also dominated all three issues. In the two action groups, therelevant companies were arguing the converse, that is, that because there is noevidence suggesting that the action is unsafe, it can be assumed to be safe. Anotherexample of wider societal issues in personal decision making was the notion ofimmunization for the good of the community at the expense of a few individuals.

Once the participants became involved in each issue, the concerns about riskcentred on the nature of the relationship between variables, for example, betweenemissions and toxicity, base stations and harmful health effects or the MMR(measles, mumps and rubella) vaccination and autism. Whether or not the rela-tionship was causal was a key argument used by protagonists on both sides (thethird layer in figure 1).

Table 2 shows that an understanding of the concept of risk and the associatedconcept of probability was significant in all three issues. In the cement kiln issue,one of the crucial factors in the argument against the case in favour of the burningof recycled liquid fuel hinged on the design of the testing of the emissions from thekiln. The action group was able to question the testing regime and pinpoint itsweaknesses. In both action groups, the concept of significant difference was cen-tral. For example, in the case of the siting of the mobile phone, the action groupsurveyed the incidence of illness in the school next to the base station comparedwith another school that had no base station in the vicinity. In finding out moreabout immunization, parents needed to understand the principles of the validity ofexperimental design in relation to sampling and in relation to the nature of theassociation between two variables. For example, is the relationship between theMMR vaccination and autism a chance or a causal relationship? All these conceptsof evidence concern data and the relationships between data which are located in

672 S. DUGGAN AND R. GOTT

Table 2. Examples of concepts of evidence employed in action groupsand in personal decision making.

Concepts of evidence

Action group 1: Risk of The significance of small differences, valid samplingemissions from a cement kiln procedures, accuracy, dealing with incomplete data sets,

validity of design and of measurement, risk andprobability.

Action group 2: Siting of a Measurement, significant difference, risk, validity.mobile phone base station

Personal decision-making Risk, incidence of disease, efficiency of vaccine inabout immunization preventing disease, validity of reports about risk.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 15: What sort of science education do we really need?

the inner circles of the model in figure 1. As in the employees at higher levels in thescience-based industries, it was the ability to keep all the layers of evidence in mindwhich was crucial.

In both action groups, there were members who had a particularly stronggrasp of scientific methodology. In the first, the convenor of the group was aresearch psychologist who was experienced in handling and understanding data:

In a way it’s a lot like what I do professionally . . . what we’re trying to do is detectwhat might be a small difference amongst data that’s very variable. And that’s theproblem that they have here – what comes out of a cement kiln is very very variableand the difference between when you’re burning waste and when you’re not burningwaste might be quite small but it still might be statistically significant.

His sound procedural understanding meant that he was confident in questioningthe ‘experts’. In the second action group, one of the leaders was a student who hadrecently completed a course on scientific evidence (in which the authors areinvolved). She felt that her training had taught her ‘how hard it is’ to collectvalid and reliable evidence so that she was able to recognize and question theassumption that the mobile phone company was making:

People don’t understand about scientific evidence. Just because the evidence isn’tthere, doesn’t mean there isn’t a risk.

In both issues, participants drew on evidence about similar issues from otherparts of the country and from other countries (the penultimate outer layer ofevidence in figure 1). The procedural understanding that these adults had acquiredenabled them to seek out relevant information, recognize where there were gaps inthe data and to question the experts in a confident and informed way.

In the immunization issue, both of the parents interviewed had studied scienceat higher levels and were confident in accessing and evaluating the relevant infor-mation. With the lack of hard evidence, their decision was based on a balance ofrisk:

I’m willing to accept that the risk is very very small which is why I went ahead andhad some of the vaccinations.

They also recognised the limits of their understanding:

I mean I wouldn’t necessarily understand all the sort of statistical analysis but broadlyI understand what they did and why they came to those conclusions.

Again it is the ability to span the layers of evidence and explore the data in relationto societal considerations which constituted effective evaluation and allowed theseparents to arrive at in informed decision.

What all these issues have in common is that the participants appeared to beable to move from the outer layer of evidence (figure 1) and penetrate the circle tothe inner layers, exploring the data while keeping the relationship of the layers inmind.

The conceptual knowledge required to understand these science-based issueswas gained from a wide variety of sources by the participants in the action groupswho admitted they had little prior knowledge – ‘we knew nothing to begin with –we learnt a lot’. They gleaned information from reading, talking to people andfrom the Internet which was used to contact other groups with similar concernsnationally and internationally:

WHAT SORT OF SCIENCE EDUCATION DO WE NEED? 673

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 16: What sort of science education do we really need?

[the internet] certainly makes the exchange of information much much easier. Most ofthe campaigning is done by e-mail.

The parents in the immunisation issue also used the Internet and in additiongained conceptual information from medical staff, other parents, libraries, journalsand societies.

Implications for science education

In relation to science-based employment, the results reported here confirm earlierresearch indicating that conceptual and procedural knowledge are both importantin the workplace. Our findings provide more detail about each of these ‘limbs’ ofscience and we shall consider the implications of the knowledge requirement ofeach of these in turn.

Procedural understanding

In the industries we studied, although some concepts of evidence (e.g. a definitionof sensitivity) appeared to be specific to particular industries, there were a numberof fundamental concepts such as an understanding of the choice of an appropriateinstrument, repeatability, error and accuracy that most industries in the samplerequired. Understanding these ideas and the wider concepts of validity and re-liability were highly valued.

1. Pupils need to know and understand the principle concepts of evidence and theoverarching concepts of validity and reliability. A secure knowledge of proceduralunderstanding appeared to be critical in our admittedly small sample of issuesabout science in everyday life. The ability to sift through evidence, recognizewhen it was ‘good’ evidence or recognize where there was no evidence were crucialin action groups and in informed personal decision making. Understanding con-cepts such as risk and uncertainty were also crucial. It was also apparent that it wasthose with a thorough training in science who were confident in interacting withevidence.

2. Pupils need to know how to use and apply concepts of evidence such that they cancritically evaluate scientific evidence. It is noticeable that it was those who pursuedscience at higher levels who appeared to exhibit sound procedural understandingboth in industry and in everyday life, so they were in a position to handle evidenceconfidently and effectively. We suggest that the situation could be so much betterif a basic understanding of evidence were taught in school at the pre-16 level, suchthat the majority of people would be equipped with at least a basic understandingof these concepts. It seems that the more able pupils with an aptitude for sciencedo indeed pick up procedural understanding in the course of their science educa-tion, but this is not the case for the majority. Previous research (Foulds et al.,1992) has shown that the majority of pupils leave school with a poor understandingof evidence suggesting that repeated exposure to practical work is insufficient andthat explicit teaching of procedural understanding is necessary.

674 S. DUGGAN AND R. GOTT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 17: What sort of science education do we really need?

Conceptual understanding

The results of our research in industry indicate that, beyond basic concepts, mostof the conceptual understanding required is specific to a particular industry suchthat it would not be feasible or sensible to incorporate all such knowledge into thecurriculum. In any case, some particular bits of expertise are transitory whileothers are relatively new or developing rapidly. Employees gain company-specificknowledge in the workplace and some is probably best learnt when seen ‘in action’,for example, in manufacturing or in developing a real product.

The results of our exploration of science in everyday life confirmed earlierresearch indicating that the public can access and acquire specific conceptualknowledge when motivated to do so in relation to a particular problem of immedi-ate and direct concern. Our findings also show that the public makes good use ofthe Internet which has made the accessibility of relevant, specific and up-to-dateconceptual knowledge immeasurably easier.

Much of science-based industry and science-based issues that concern thepublic concerns ‘new science’, so, for example, the concern is about new tech-nology or new processes which impinge on society. Hence industry’s desire to burnrecycled liquid fuel or the erection of mobile phone base stations are issues whichdid not exist 10 years ago at the time when most of the adults involved in the actiongroups were receiving their science education. In this respect, science curriculacannot expect to keep up to date with all aspects of science but can only aspire toteach pupils how to access and critically evaluate such knowledge. It followsthat:

3. Pupils need to know how to: access conceptual knowledge which is directly rele-vant to topical issues; apply and use such knowledge in ‘real’ issues.

Recommendations for curricular reform

From the findings of this research albeit from a small number of case studies, wecan make specific recommendations. The results from both industry and science ineveryday life suggest that there should be a greater emphasis on the explicit teach-ing of procedural understanding and a reduced emphasis on the teaching of con-ceptual content. How can this change of emphasis be reflected in curricularreform?

Firstly, we suggest that what is needed is a radical reduction in the taughtconceptual content and its associated assessment. As indicated in our introductorysection, such a recommendation is not new. The Institute of Biology (1998) pointsto the high priority that assessment places on the acquisition of knowledge whichmeans that:

Strategies that develop the skills of science such as encouraging learners to discussscientific ideas with their peers, to evaluate evidence and to develop practical compe-tence, as opposed to the knowledge and understanding of science, have been squeezedout. (p. 27)

There is a movement in the UK National Curriculum and its assessment arrange-ments which points to a greater emphasis on data evaluation, which in turn willencourage teachers to focus on these issues. If the conceptual content in the cur-riculum is reduced to a smaller number of basic ideas, then this will create room

WHAT SORT OF SCIENCE EDUCATION DO WE NEED? 675

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 18: What sort of science education do we really need?

for teaching of concepts such as the validity and reliability of evidence and uncer-tainty and risk. To anchor these in contemporary issues seems the most sensibleand accessible route for older pupils, although a difficult challenge for teachers.

Similar concerns are emerging in other countries. In Hong Kong, for example,recent proposals for curricular reform require senior secondary school pupils toundertake activities

to promote the development of rational decision making skills applicable to majorscience-related issues of personal and public concern. Students will be asked to collectevidence, to judge the reliability and validity of these data, to resolve ambiguities, tobalance the advantages and drawbacks of alternative solutions, and to project thelikely consequences of a particular choice. (Hong Kong Consultation Document2000: 10)

The Royal Society (1999) implicitly offers support for this view by suggesting thatthe gap between school science and pupils’ interests at Key Stage 4 should benarrowed:

The large majority of pupils . . . would also benefit from teachers being givenincreased flexibility to design courses which enabled pupils to study up-to-date appli-cations in more detail and to pursue their particular local and personal interests viaextended project-type investigations. (p. 3)

Pupils could, for example, consider data about an issue of interest such as data onthe effect of recreational drugs or the efficacy and risk of various birth controlmethods.1 Students would be expected to seek out evidence, access, apply and usethe relevant conceptual knowledge and critically evaluate the evidence. Someissues would demonstrate that the evidence is often insufficient and thereforeinconclusive. Such an approach would encourage pupils to understand the rele-vance and limitations of science in contemporary issues. In addition, optionswould be offered that would include the traditional conceptually based scientificdisciplines (physics, chemistry and biology) appropriate for the minority of pupilswho wish to study these subjects at higher levels.

At Key Stage 3 (11–14 years), the enthusiasm of primary pupils for practicalinvestigative work could be built on by means of a problem-based science cur-riculum. By carrying out investigations formulated as problems, pupils can beencouraged to collect data and analyse and interpret their own evidence.Teaching materials with these objectives are available.2 Investigative work couldbe combined with aspects of design and technology so that the link between tech-nology and science is demonstrated. The focus would be on providing pupils withplenty of opportunity to develop a sound basic procedural understanding.Teaching of conceptual knowledge would be confined to consolidating the basicconcepts taught in primary school and to providing pupils with sufficient concep-tual knowledge to make sense of the investigations.

Our proposal for reform of the Key Stage 4 (14–16 years) curriculum is insome respects similar to the recommendations of the Beyond 2000 report (Millarand Osborne 1998) in that it favours a course on scientific literacy for all pupils.However, we see the content of such a course rather differently in that Millar andOsborne suggest that much of the content of the course would hinge on ‘explana-tory stories’ which appear to have a large component of conceptual understanding.The authors propose that ‘Ideas-about-Science’ also be taught in order to under-stand the explanatory stories. These ideas include understanding reliability and

676 S. DUGGAN AND R. GOTT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 19: What sort of science education do we really need?

validity of data, statistical and probabilistic relationships. Our issues-based cur-riculum would have an arguably clearer focus through its emphasis on teachingprocedural understanding through the context of topical issues. Whether it would‘work’ more effectively is a matter of both value judgement and empirical research.Of course, this may be no more than a matter of a different interpretation of theBeyond 2000 document. Where such differences of interpretation are possible,however, the danger is that the curriculum and the associated assessment systemtend towards the status quo. Russell (1999) supports some of these arguments andpresents others in his response to the report.

Further, in the Beyond 2000 vision of the future science curriculum, scientificliteracy could be seen as enabling a passive understanding of topical science-basedissues. We suggest rather that it should be seen as empowering future citizens toparticipate actively in science-based issues. Although this is perhaps again only amatter of emphasis, it is likely to affect the way such understanding is taught. Theproposed new GCE AS Science for Public Understanding (AQA 1999) appears topromote a similar content as the Beyond 2000 report, but here there is a welcomereference to the notion of active participation. Courses such as these may well bethe starting point for serious reform but what is needed is for such changes topenetrate the mainstream science syllabi in order to affect real change.

The reader might recall the Science-Technology-Society curriculum in theUSA in the 1980s (NSTA 1982). The proponents regarded scientific literacy as themost important goal of a general science education in enabling students to makedecisions about science-related issues and to participate in social action. It wascriticized for its incorporation of technology and sociology and there were fearsthat basic science would not be taught. Our proposals are not dissimilar, but wewould argue, however, that they are grounded in the body of research which nowexists on procedural understanding. Far from not teaching the basics of science, webelieve that procedural understanding lies at the heart of scientific literacy and isthe sort of science education that adults really need.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contribution of Russell Tytler of Deakin University,Melbourne, Australia, and Phil Johnson of University of Durham, UK, to parts ofthe research reported in this paper. We also acknowledge the management andstaff of Analytical and Environmental Services, Immunodiagnostic Systems Ltd,Ingersoll-Dresser Pumps (UK) Ltd and Pointing Ltd for providing the oppor-tunity to carry out the research in their respective companies. In addition, we areindebted to the farmer, the participants in the community action groups and theparents for the time they set aside to be interviewed for the case studies. Finally,thanks to Keith Skamp (visiting Fellow at the University of Durham fromSouthern Cross University, New South Wales, Australia) for his comments on adraft of the paper.

Notes

1. For example, one approach to the birth control issue is to ask pupils to consider thefollowing table in relation to the headline ‘New style contraceptive pill twice as danger-ous for women’.

WHAT SORT OF SCIENCE EDUCATION DO WE NEED? 677

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 20: What sort of science education do we really need?

Number of episodes of venousthrombosis per 100,000 women/ year

New pill 30Old pill 15

The question is, ‘What more do we need to know to be sure that we agree with thereporter in his/her interpretation of the data?’ Issues such as sampling and sample size,the significance of a control group and the presentation of the data soon arise. Forexample, we might want to know the incidence of venous thrombosis for women whouse no contraceptives (the control group) or for women who use other types of con-traceptive. Realizing that the risk in women who are pregnant is 60 per 100,000 per yearalso puts the risk of both contraceptive pills in perspective.

2. For example, Goldsworthy et al. 1999; Gott et al. 1997, 1998, 1999c.

References

AQA (1999) GCE AS: Science for Public Understanding. Draft submission to QCA, 14 May.Bayliss, V. (1999) Opening Minds. Education for the 21st Century (London, RSA).Clark, D. B. and Slotta, J. D. (2000) Evaluating media-enhancement and source authority

on the internet: the Knowledge Integration Environment. International Journal ofScience Education, 22 (8), 859–871.

Coles, M. (1997) Science education – vocational and general approaches. School ScienceReview, 79 (286), 27–32.

CSTI (Council of Science and Technology Institutes) (1993) Mapping the Science,Technology and Mathematics Domain (London: The Council of Science andTechnology Institutes).

Epstein, S. (1995) The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging ofcredibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology and Human Values,20 (4), 408–437.

Eraut, M. in Black, H. and Wolf, A. (eds) (1990) Knowledge and Competence: Current Is-sues in Training and Education (London: Careers and Occupational InformationCentre).

Fensham, P. (1997) School science and its problems with scientific literacy. In R. Levinsonand J. Thomas (eds), Science Today Problem or Crisis? (London: Routledge), 119–136.

Fensham, P. J. (1998) Student responses to the TIMMS test. Research in Science Education,28 (4), 481–89.

Foulds, K., Gott, R. and Feasey, R. (1992) Investigative Work in Science. Final Report(University of Durham, UK).

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1995)The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research inContemporary Societies (London: Sage Publications).

Goldsworthy, A., Watson, R. and Wood-Robinson, V. (1999) AKSIS: Investigations Book1 Getting to Grips with Graphs (Hatfield: ASE).

Goshorn, K. (1996) Social rationality, risk, and the right to know: information leveragingwith the Toxic Release Inventory. Public Understanding of Science, 5, 297–320.

Gott, R. and Duggan S. (1995) Investigative Work in the Science Curriculum (OpenUniversity Press).

Gott, R., Foulds, K. and Johnson, P. (1997) Science Investigations Book 1 (CollinsEducational).

Gott, R., Foulds, K. and Jones, M. (1998) Science Investigations Book 2 (CollinsEducational).

Gott, R., Duggan, S. and Roberts, R. (1999a) Understanding Scientific Evidence. Online.Avilable: http://www.dur.ac.uk/¹ded0www/evidence_main1.htm.

Gott, R., Duggan, S. and Johnson, P. (1999b) What do practising and applied scientists doand what are the implications for science education? Research in Science andTechnological Education, 17 (1), 97–107.

678 S. DUGGAN AND R. GOTT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 21: What sort of science education do we really need?

Gott, R., Foulds, K. and Roberts, R. (1999c) Science Investigations Book 3 (CollinsEducational).

Hong Kong Consultation Document (2000) Learning to learn: the way forward in cur-riculum development. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of The People’sRepublic of China Curriculum Development Council, November.

The Institute of Biology (1998) Biologists look forward to a more scientifically literateworld. National Curriculum Review. School Science Review, 80 (291), 25–28.

Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S. and Davey, A. (1993) Inarticulate Science?Perspectives on the Public Understanding of Science and Some Implications for ScienceEducation (Driffield: Studies in Education).

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

NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) (1982) Science–technology–society: scienceeducation for the 1980s (Washington DC: NSTA).

Osborne, J. and Collins, S. (2000) Pupils’ and Parents’ Views of the School ScienceCurriculum (London: King’s College London).

Russell, A. (1999) Curriculum 2000 and beyond: a response. School Science Review,81 (295), 12–14.

The Royal Society (1999) Science and the Revision of the National Curriculum, Statement,January.

Tytler, R., Duggan, S. and Gott, R. (2001a) Dimensions of evidence, the public under-standing of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education,23 (8), 815–832.

Tytler, R., Duggan, S. and Gott, R. (2001b) Public participation in an environmentaldispute: implications for science education. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 343–364.

Wynne, B. (1982) Rationality and Ritual. The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decisions inBritain (Bucks., UK: British Society for the History of Science).

Young, M. and Glanfield, K. (1998) Science in post-compulsory education: towards aframework for a curriculum of the future. Studies in Science Education, 32, 1–20.

WHAT SORT OF SCIENCE EDUCATION DO WE NEED? 679

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

4:49

11

Oct

ober

201

4