Scientific literacy for decisionmaking and the social construction of scientific knowledge

Abstract

Citizens are often required to make decisions about socioscientific issues in a climate characterized by conflict within both the scientific community and the larger society. Central to the process of decisionmaking is a critical examination of the relevant scientific knowledge involved. Individuals capable of performing this task can be considered scientifically literate in a decisionmaking sense. In this article we explore two ways of critically examining scientific knowledge in the context of a current socioscientific dispute: NASA's Galileo Mission to Jupiter. The two approaches we outline, termed the positivist and social constructivist positions, are examined in terms of their inherent views concerning the nature of scientific knowledge, in particular their use of constitutive and contextual values when evaluating knowledge claims. Because the social constructivist position acknowledges the importance of contextual values, it provides citizens with accessible standards for evaluating scientific knowledge claims. The positivist position, on the other hand, relies on constitutive values which we show are normally inaccessible to ordinary citizens. The positivist position, however, is most closely associated with the predominant social issues approach to science‐technology‐society (STS) education. Implications little consensus about which statements are fact (i.e., will remain stable when challenged) and which opinion, (i.e., will be modified when challenged). All knowledge is potentially unreliable when one is dealing with a socioscientific dispute. The adoption of a social constructivist view of scientific knowledge and its inherent way of evaluating knowledge claims clearly has implications for future approaches to STS education. Although one approach might be to offer a course in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science, this would not be useful without reference to the way in which such knowledge can help students to understand the context of a conflict within the society of scientists and the larger society. As Rosenthal (1989) argues, a synthesis is needed in which social issues are seen as a vehicle for studying the social studies of science and the social issues are seen as a way of making sense of social aspects of science. However, this way of teaching STS may be difficult to implement. In British Columbia, for example, science teachers have resisted efforts to include the social context of science within a traditional university‐oriented physics course (Gaskell, 1992) and to teach a grade 11 social issues oriented sicence and technology course (Gaskell, 1989). This may be because the current social issues approach is most compatible with traditional science content as it is now taught: it simply shows the relevance of textbook knowledge (ready‐made science) to contemporary probles. The shift to the approach suggested above will require a more drastic reorganization of the curriculum, one that may be resisted by the current stakeholders in science education (Duschl, 1988; Gaskell, ...

Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education

“…when socioscience is the icing on the cake, not an essential basic ingredient, part of a good-quality product but not fundamental to teaching science, dominant discourses of science as an abstract body of knowledge are not destabilized and implicit gender hierarchical binaries are readily reinforced. (Hughes, 2000, p. 347) Similarly, Bingle and Gaskell (1994) have further noted that much of STS education, as practiced, is most closely aligned with Latour's (1987) notion of "ready-made science" that carries with it the connotation of positivist knowledge claims at the expense of constitutive values that stress "science-in-the-making" and suggests a social constructivist view of contextual values for evaluating scientific knowledge claims. These authors stress that where SSI arise, it is legitimate for individual citizens to acknowledge and evaluate contextual factors deemed meaningful with respect to the scientific claims under consideration: "A social constructivist view of science .…”

Reframing and Articulating Socio-scientific Classroom Discourses on Genetic Testing from an STS Perspective

“…More recent approaches tend to neglect technology as a practice influenced by society and influencing society. Although 'science in the making' is considered a crucial element of STS education (Bingle and Gaskell 1994), 'technology in the making' is seldom mentioned in educational contexts. A recent publication on socio-scientific issues in the classroom contains only one specific discussion on a particular technology, in this case reproductive technology (Dawson 2011).…”

Knowledge about the Greenhouse Effect and the Effects of the Ozone Layer among Norwegian Pupils Finishing Compulsory Education in 1989, 1993, and 2005—What Now?

“…Controversy is great for ratings and circulation, but obviously constrains effective climate change reporting and public education. (Wilson, 1999) Not only information, but also misconceptions about these environmental issues may be caused and maintained by the mass media (Bingle, & Gaskell, 1994;Boyes, et al, 1995;Boyes, et al, 1992, Henriksen, et al, 2001Kahlid, 2001Kahlid, , 2003Lijnse, Eijkelhof, Klaassen, & Scholte, 1990;Wilson, 1999). Children and students may gain ideas, perhaps erroneous from these [popular] media.…”