The+role+of+science+concept+knowledge

//Dear Team, I will probably err on the side of brevity, with perhaps 2 or 3 powerpoint slides. I thought to have a handout with a list of references or empirical & theoretical papers relating to this theme.// Jim Donnelly has presented science educators interested in SSIs with an important challenge as follows:
 * The role of science concept knowledge (Clare)**

He cautions about the reform of ‘humanizing’ the science curriculum by including topics such as SSIs. He argues that in re-positioning itself in terms of the humanistic, liberal tradition of education, science may lose its distinctive contribution to learning as a unique body of knowledge. In his view “an imaginative, effectively taught and coherent account of substantive scientific understanding of the material world must stand at the core of the science curriculum” (2004, p. 781). But he also argues that the foundational purpose of science is “to promote a //critical// understanding of scientific knowledge proper and //its place in the world//” (2007, p. 33, my italics). Donnelly’s view stands in contrast to Aikenhead’s (2006) call to researchers to apply humanistic perspectives to renegotiate the culture of school science, his position originating from an understanding of science as culture and learning science as border crossing into its culture. I believe that we must engage strongly with Donnelly’s challenge because this is likely to be the point of interest for most traditional science teachers, who will see their task as primarily focussed on the body of science concept knowledge and the processes of science.

The role of concept knowledge in decision making on SSIs, however, is far from clear. Only a few studies have examined this specifically in situ (//I have a reference list of these studies//) and little theoretical background has been developed. This challenge raises the following questions, which may be of interest for discussion today: Can the teaching of concept knowledge be a sufficient rationale for the discussion of SSIs in classrooms? Does this rationale limit or enhance the scope of the discussion of SSIs? Could it narrow the focus and undermine engagement with science-society dimensions? What is the role of science concept knowledge in discussion/decision making about SSIs? How might we maintain the exploration of science concept knowledge while including the multidisciplinary aspects of SSIs? Can science and/or values be the decisive arbiter on people's decisions regarding a socio-scientific issue? Layton (1993) has argued from extensive public understanding of science studies that science is a ‘peripheral player’ in people’s decision making on problems & issues in their lives. Does/should this influence our approach to SSIs in school science?

Many thanks for this Clare. Locating Donnelly, Aikenhead and Layton are pretty much the main influences here, and you're right to use them. I don't think Donnelly would have a problem with SSIs; in fact I feel he might agree with those who say that effectively we're dealing with a different kind of science to that taught in schools and it might be better to think deeply about the SSI and then we might find that academic substantive science is quite peripheral to what this is all about. I think Layton put it quite nicely when he said something like why does atomic structure and the periodic table have such prominence in the science curriculum whereas how to deal with pollution in producing washing soda doesn't. I think this was very much a question of who owns the curriculum and who is it for. Perhaps the problem is that addressing the problem of ownership supersedes attempts to teach SSI. Speak soon.
 * Ralph's points **