2. 22
OCTOBER
TUESDAY
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
Firenze, October 21-22, 2013
ENHANCING STUDENTS’ PARTICIPATION IN THE
SCIENTIFIC DEBATE
ALBA L’ASTORINA, ADRIANA VALENTE,
TOMMASO CASTELLANI
Science Communication and Education
NRC Research Unit, Rome-Milano, Italy
4. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
Science Communication and Education, a research area at CNR
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
Comunicazione della in classe: educazione del CNR
Il dibattito scientificoscienza ed prove di democrazia
5. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
Science Communication and Education, a research area at CNR
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)
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
6. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
WHY FOCUSSING ON THE DEBATE WITH THE EXPERTS?
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
With which of the following categories of people
and organizations do you think it more useful to
increase the activities of communication?
Comunicazione della in classe: prove di democrazia
Il dibattito scientificoscienza edEducation Research Unit
Science Commnication and educazione del CNR
Other
Old people
Manager and Business
Adults
NRC Italian survey
findings
Politicians
Children
Journalists
Teachers
Students
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
7. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
WHY FOCUSSING ON THE DEBATE WITH EXPERTS?
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
Comunicazione della in classe: prove di democrazia
Il dibattito scientificoscienza edEducation Research Unit
Science Commnication and educazione del CNR
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
8. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
Ethics and Polemics and Junior Science Café
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.).
Science Commnication and Education Research Unit
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
9. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
Ethics and Polemics and Junior Science Café
Promoting the public debate among experts and students: How?
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).
Science Commnication and Education Research Unit
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
10. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
Ethics and Polemics and Junior Science Café
Promoting the public debate among experts and students: STEPS
1.
2.
choice of a topic
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
11. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
Ethics and Polemics and Junior Science Café
Promoting the public debate among experts and students: TOPIC
•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;
Science Commnication and Education Research Unit
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
12. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
Ethics and Polemics and Junior Science Café
Promoting public debate among experts and students: DOCUMENTATION
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
The information society
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.
Science Commnication and Education Research Unit
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
13. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
Ethics and Polemics and Junior Science Café
Promoting public debate among experts and students: DOCUMENTATION
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
Science Commnication and Education Research Unit
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
14. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
Ethics and Polemics and Junior Science Café
Promoting public debate among experts and students: WORK IN GROUP
The groups, under the guidance of teachers
as tutors, take vision of the scientific
documentation, add other materials, selfstudy 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).
Science Commnication and Education Research Unit
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
15. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
Ethics and Polemics and Junior Science Café
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
Science Commnication and Education Research Unit
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
16. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
Ethics and Polemics and Junior Science Café
Promoting public debate with students: MEETING THE EXPERTS
Public debate with the experts on
different controversial topics
involved different schools in Italy
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).
Meeting experts means recognizing
expertise and experiencing science as a
cultural process
Science Commnication and Education Research Unit
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
17. Enhanding
il dibattit
scientifico in
students’
participation in
classe: prove di
the scientific
democrazia
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
Ethics and Polemics and Junior Science Café
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.
Science Commnication and Education Research Unit
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)
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
18. Enhanding
il dibattit
scientifico in
students’
participation in
classe: prove di
the scientific
democrazia
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
Ethics and Polemics and Junior Science Café
The PAS Project: example of
collaboration between
Education and Research (REC)
FormIT – Take part into Research!
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."
Science Commnication and Education Research Unit
The Junior Science Café
suggested in the guidelines for
schools
MOTIVATION
Interdisciplinary
approach aimed at
critical thinking applied
to controversial issues.
Participative
methodologies. Social
research on perception
of science and its values.
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
19. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
The Project Junior Science Café : some peculiarities
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
Science Commnication and Education Research Unit
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
20. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
REFLEXING ON THE RESULTS
Some results from the surveys: values and opinions on science
• 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
Science Commnication and Education Research Unit
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
21. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
Ethics and Polemics and Junior Science Café: school benefits
Conclusions: Curriculum relevance and school benefits
• 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.
Science Commnication and Education Research Unit
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
22. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
Ethics and Polemics and Junior Science Café: school benefits
Conclusions: students and experts’ benefits/ critical points
•
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.
23. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
Firenze, October 21-22, 2013
Some opinion on participation at school
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??
And if I make my choice what chance
do I have to be listened by the policy
makers?
Science Commnication and Education Research Unit
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
24. Enhanding
students’
participation in
the scientific
debate
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND GUIDANCE IN SCHOOLS:
THE WAY FORWARD
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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. 4356.
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.
lastorina.a@irea.cnr.it
