ROSE: The Relevance Of Science Education
A comparative and cooperative international study of the contents and contexts of science education
Svein Sjøberg, ILS, University of Oslo, NORWAY
e-mail: svein.sjoberg@ils.uio.no,
Home page http://folk.uio.no/sveinsj/
This document is based on the application to The Research Council of
Norway.
The project has been funded for a period of three years,
starting in September 2001.
The following is an updated version (Nov 26th 2001) of the
project description.
.
CONTENTS
International and cross-cultural comparisons
Previous research: The SAS project
The ROSE instrument, an indication
Research questions – an indication
ROSE – international partners and letters of
support
The
Relevance of Science education, ROSE is an international comparative project meant
to shed light on factors of importance to the learning of science and
technology (S&T). It is also meant to sustain and develop the respect for
and interest in S&T and S&T-related issues.
ROSE
involves a wide range of countries from all continents. Key international
research institutions and individuals will work jointly on the development of
theoretical perspectives, research instruments, data collection and analysis.
The target population are pupils towards the end of secondary school (age
15/16), in many countries the age where compulsory education is finished and
when important choices are made.
ROSE is
supported by The Research Council of Norway and The University of
Oslo. It is expected that industrialized countries will cover their own
expenses, while funding will be negotiated for developing countries and
countries with less available resources. Participation in the project may also
enhance the possibility of releasing local funding for the participants.
We hope
that researchers in individual countries will engage students (at Masters or
PhD level) in the project, thereby enabling them to get involved in
collaborative research of a critical and comparative nature.
A broad
public understanding of S&T is crucial for national economical development
and to the life, independence and autonomy of each individual. Scientific and
technological literacy is also of great importance for citizenship and
democratic participation in a world dominated by S&T-related issues and
challenges. Falling recruitment and interests in S&T studies and careers
are observed in many countries, mainly the rich ones.
The lack
of relevance of the
S&T curriculum is probably one of the greatest barriers for good learning
as well as for interest in the subject. The ROSE project has the ambition to
provide theoretical insight into factors that relate to the relevance of the
contents as well as the contexts of S&T curricula. The final outcome of the
project will be perspectives and empirical findings that can provide a base for
informed discussions on how to improve curricula and enhance the interest in
S&T in a way that
Ø
respects
cultural diversity and gender equity
Ø
promotes
personal and social relevance
Ø
empowers
the learner for democratic participation and citizenship
ROSE is a further development of the project
SAS (Science And Scientists) A more detailed description of ROSE as well as a
report from SAS are found at http://folk.uio.no/sveinsj/
These documents are also available in print on
request.
ROSE
started in September 2001. A full time researcher, cand. scient Camilla
Schreiner, is engaged and will work on the project towards her PhD, based at
the University of Oslo.
An
international working seminar was held in Oslo 11th – 14th
October 2001. The aim of this working seminar was to discuss and develop the
research instruments as well as the logistics of data collection. Twelve
researchers participated, representing different cultures and all continents.
Data collection will start in 2002. When the
instruments and the logistics are finalized, researchers from all countries
will be invited to participate in this joint study. (Researchers and research
institution from some 30 countries have already in writing committed themselves
to participation.)
The research is based on cooperation. The
intention is also that participants shall learn from each other. The data that
are produced, will of course in due time be made available for all
participating researchers.
In most
countries, education in science and (to a varying degree) technology[1]
are key element of schooling. High quality S&T education is seen as
important as the training for citizenship as well for preparation for work in a
world dominated by globalisation, new technologies and knowledge-based
industries. Hence, "Science for all", "Scientific and
technological literacy" "Public Understanding of Science" have
become slogans in the public and educational debate.
Educational
research, opinion polls, public surveys as well as educational statistics for
choices and recruitment, however, indicate that S&T in many countries are
facing serious problems. Lack of interest in S&T and a possibly meagre
understanding of the contents and methods of S&T as well as their role in
society and as parts of the culture are among the problems.
Many
initiatives are launched nationally as well as internationally to meet the
challenges. Very often, these projects try to counteract the observed trends
and meet the emerging problems. Some of these programmes, like the Portuguese Ciencia
Viva, are heavily funded, and some of them have achieved good results. The
Swedish NOT-project is one such example. Both these projects intend to take
part in the proposed project, see later documentation.
The European
Union (EU) has put the issue of S&T education as a top priority. It was a
main theme when the EU ministers of science, technology and research met in
Uppsala in March 2001[2]. An action plan to promote the interest in
S&T is under preparation and research into the underlying causes for the
present situation is likely to be given high attention in the forthcoming 6th
framework for research in the EU (2002-2006).
Industrial
organisations (like CEFIC for the chemical industry in Europe) as well as heavy
professional scientific interests (like CERN and ESA) also engage actively in
the promotion of science literacy and the improvement of interests in
S&T. Research councils like the
Research Council of Norway also allocate funds to support the improvement of
interests in S&T, with the underlying objective to increase the recruitment
and to improve the public image.
Too often,
however, initiatives are launched without a well-developed analysis of the
problems, and without an underlying philosophy than can support, give direction
and profile to the initiatives. Action often dominates over reflection and
careful analysis.
The overall
purpose of the proposed ROSE project is to develop a better theoretical
understanding of the current challenges as well as to collect and analyse
empirical evidence that shed light on the issues – in order to stimulate an
informed discussion and possibly to suggest policy measures and feasible
changes and improvements. The project therefore has theoretical as well as
practical and 'useful' concerns.
International
comparisons make it possible to see one's own national priorities and choices
with new eyes. They may lead to a better understanding of one's own national
peculiarities, and they may open up for an awareness of alternatives. One may
also be better prepared to construct curricula and learning experiences that
meet the needs of the learners.
There are
already many international comparative studies relating to SMT subjects (Science,
Mathematics and Technology) and other areas of the curriculum. There is a broad
spectrum of possible approaches to such issues.
At the one
of the spectrum are philosophically and politically oriented discussions about
curricula. These discussions often raise fundamental questions about the nature
of science, the nature and purpose of science education etc. These discussions
often address issues like the asserted universality and culture-independence of
science, the political, economical and cultural domination of western cultures
over other cultures etc. Several critical perspectives can be found, among
these a cultural critique, feminists' critiques and a political or ideological
critique relating to the purpose of education in science. (Reviewed in Sjøberg
1999 and 2000a). These debates are of a fundamental nature, but are often of
'pure' philosophical nature and with little reference to empirical evidence
from the potential learners of S&T in schools.
On the
other end of the spectrum are large-scale empirical investigations of students'
scholastic achievements. These studies are often professional from a
psychometric point of view and are strong on the empirical side, but have other
concerns and research agendas than those indicated above. Some of these studies
are run by large international associations set up for that purpose, the most
renowned being IEA (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement). From the early 70-s, IEA has administered three large-scale
international studies, FISS, SISS and recently, TIMSS. These studies are
elaborate and rigorous in their research design, sampling requirements,
statistical and other procedures etc. The international part as well as the
national testing requires large resources of human and financial nature. Hence,
participation is largely limited to countries with well-developed economies. Of
the 47 countries in TIMSS, South Africa was the only African
participant.
Information
from the IEA-studies (and many of the same nature) is of great value for the
countries that take part, but they also have obvious limitations. The focus is
on scholastic achievement and pupils' performance, as already indicated in the
acronym IEA. The partners are often governments, ministries of education or
research groups acting on their behalf. The IEA studies are by design not meant
to be critical towards structure and contents of the science curricula, and
they do only to a limited degree address affective factors, experiences and
interests of the learners. By definition, they use a set of common, universal
criteria for the measurement of quality and achievement.
International
comparisons of pupils' S&T achievement may further increase the pressure to
comply with perceived 'international' standards that are in fact developed only
in certain countries. The many comparative studies of Public Understanding
of S&T may have the same effect. Indirectly, such studies spell out
what is 'officially' is seen to constitute valuable knowledge. Although a
pressure to harmonise curricula and public knowledge are not the explicit
intentions of such initiatives, they may have such effects. Indirectly, they
provide norms and ideals for other countries.
The above
description indicates two extreme approaches to comparative studies. These
extremes have different research agendas, purposes and perspectives: On the one
hand the IEA-type and survey-type of studies, motivated by an 'official' (and
legitimate!) concern about national quality in an international perspectives, and
factors that can explain the observed differences. On the other hand: the
cross-cultural, ideological and political critique of science education and
curricular priorities. Here the concern is about the role, function and
relevance of schooling and the possible biases of curricula and teaching. This
concern is equally important, but is often not the immediate concern of
ministries of education. Most published research in this category is of a
philosophical and ideological nature. The empirical underpinning of arguments
is often weak.
The purpose of the ROSE-study is to bridge that gap between the two sorts of comparative studies indicated above. The project group consists of people with experience and scholarship in the psychometric as well as in the critical sociological and philosophical tradition. The ROSE-study intends to provide theoretical perspectives on S&T education in diverse cultural settings – and to provide empirical evidence for discussion about emerging issues and alternatives.
The ROSE
project has a theoretical as well as an empirical component. Some theoretical
perspectives will of course underpin the development of the questionnaire;
other theoretical considerations will be enabled by the data that is gathered.
The ambition of the theoretical component is to shed light on issues relating
to science education in multi-faceted culture. Here is an indication of some
underlying theoretical issues:
Is science
universal, objective and culture-free? If not, how deep and in what ways is
science impregnated by or imbedded in the cultural context? (In terms of
language and culture, religious beliefs, gender, social class, economical
system etc.)
Similar
questions may be raised about the nature and character and of technology.
The above
indications of questions have several dimensions, and draw on many academic
disciplines. They are of great concern for philosophers and sociologists of
science, for educators and politician -- and of course for teachers and
learners of science. And what are the possible consequences of these
fundamental questions for the teaching of S&T in schools?
Analytically speaking, one may envisage a spectrum between two extreme
solutions to such questions:
1.
One
solution is to treat current S&T as unproblematic and taken for granted,
and to teach according to what is perceived to be common, universal standards.
This solution is (to some extent) not very different to the prevailing
situation in many countries: Science curricula and textbooks from different
countries have striking similarities. Contents, structure, examples,
illustrations etc. give the impressions that science as well as its
applications is universal and independent of culture or social context. Some
see this similarity of science curricula as evidence of the universality and
culture-independence of science; others interpret this observation as an unjust
export of the culture and priorities of certain societies at the expense of
others. Critics consider the homogeneity of the S&T curriculum as evidence
that an unjust world-view is being imposed on other countries.
2.
The other
extreme solution is a rejection of a common international standard in favour of
defining local (or even personal) goals and contents, based on indigenous
knowledge systems. Although only few such examples of curricula are actually
developed and implemented, this position is often (in a somewhat weaker form)
argued by some science educators.
The two
positions are meant to be analytical extremes on a spectrum of possibilities,
and several middle positions are possible. One may, to a varying degree, take
into account local knowledge and beliefs – but still defend a more or less
objectivist and realist stance regarding the nature of scientific knowledge.
The ROSE project
brings together people who hold different theoretical positions on these
issues, see the listing at the end of this paper and the list of references.
The project can certainly not expect to reach consensus on such issues. One
may, however, be able to spell out more clearly the arguments for different
positions. One may also be able to reach a consensus on what kind of empirical
data one would need to further the discussions and to argue for different
educational consequences.
In spite of
different theoretical positions on the nature of science per se, the
ROSE group will have a set of common commitments regarding education in
S&T, and hence the kind of data that can shed light on important issues.
These core commitments can briefly be described like this (details have to be
worked out by the project!)
Preliminary
plans for the ROSE project were sent to a selected group of key science
educators before the submission of the application for funding. We received
letters of interest and support from leading persons and institutions in
science education (see the list at the end of the document).
The
application was sent to international referees, and has now received support
(only one out of four applications receive funding.) We got, however, less than
we had applied for. The grant was for a full-time researcher for three years.
This job has been advertised, and cand. scient. Camilla Schreiner has been
employed. She will work towards a PhD based on the project. (We hope candidates
from other countries will join her.)
We have
also received financial support from The University of Oslo, and a ROSE working
seminar was held in Oslo October 11th to 14th 2001. The
twelve participants were science educators from all continents. The
deliberations covered the improvement of research instruments, clarification of
objectives and research questions, logistics etc.
Principles
for data collection will be developed during the initial phases of the
project. The target population are pupils towards the end of lower
secondary school, in most countries the end of compulsory education. At this
age (15/16), most pupils have developed some ideas about their plans and
priorities, and they will have views on science-related issues as well as
schooling. This age is in many countries also the time when important choices
are made and when curricular alternatives are available.
The project
will clarify guidelines for sampling of respondents and the administration
of the questionnaire. Some guidelines for the translation and possible adaptation
of the ROSE instrument have also to be made. The SAS-study has given experience
with such issues. A report is available from the author (Sjøberg 2000b).
The data
collection is likely to take place at different times in different
countries, and this phase of the project will be open for a much wider
international participation. Researchers or institutions that want to
participate can collect national data based on the guidelines that are
developed by the project. Most countries will find local funding for this, but
we will try to establish funding also for the participation of researchers or
research groups from developing countries. AFCLIST (African Forum for
Children's' Literacy in Science and Technology) and FEMSA (Female Education in
Mathematics and Science in Africa) represent several African countries. Both
programmes have expressed an interest in participation from member countries,
the same has UNESCO's main office in Paris as well as the regional office for
Asia / Pacific and the Commonwealth secretariat in London. Hence, it is likely
that many countries want to participate in this part of the project.
Data
entry will be made
in each country, following guidelines provided by the ROSE project, and based
on codebooks that are made available in either Excel or SPSS-format. (This is
the procedure was developed in the SAS-study.)
Data
collected in each country will be forwarded to the project for cleaning and
proofing and then merged into a composite file. This work will take place over
a long period of time, depending on the data collection in each country.
When clean
data files are available, analysis may be done on a national level as well as
for the whole study for international comparisons. The outcome will be national
studies and a series of international repost, covering the various dimensions
of the study. The PhD-students working on the project will base their thesis
work on this analysis, and it is likely that students from other countries will
join during the development of the project. We will look for resources to
enable students in developing countries to take part in this work as part of
degree work.
When
results start to become available, papers will be presented on conferences, and
articles will be presented through mass media for more public debate on the
emerging issues. Towards the end of the project, there will be discussions
about the meaning of the results and the possible educational consequences.
These discussions are likely to take somewhat different directions in different
countries, depending both on the actual findings as well as the particular
national contexts.
The ROSE
project is in many ways a continuation and further development of the SAS-
project: "Science And Scientists". The SAS-study involved 30
researchers from 21 countries. Some 9 300 children at the age of 13 answered a
questionnaire that was jointly developed be this author in cooperation with
Jane Mulemwa from Uganda and Jayshree Mehta from India. They will also be
involved in the ROSE project and participated in the above-mentioned seminar in
Oslo. .
Papers
based on the SAS-study have been presented on several international conferences
and meetings (ESERA, IOSTE, annual meeting of Japan Society for the Promotion
of Science, Nordic symposia etc). In addition to the many papers in conference
proceedings, it is presented as a chapter in the recent book in memory of
Rosalind Driver, the influential English science educator who passed away
nearly three years ago (Millar, Leach and Osborne 2000).
Two
cand.scient thesis have been written on the SAS-study in Norway. One was based
on the Norwegian data (Myrland 1997), the other comparing Norway with
developing countries, with gender issues as focus (Sinnes 1998). Astrid Sinnes
has received a PhD grant to continue her studies on the relevance of science
curricula related to gender and cultural differences. Another student (Frode
Henanger) is basing his work towards cand.scient. on the SAS data. Further
results were presented at the ESERA conference in Thessaloniki in August 2001
and will be presented at IOSTE in Brazil in 2002. In addition, several national
and international studies have been published on the SAS-project. These are
listed in the SAS-report (Sjøberg 2000b).
The SAS
study has received considerable attention in Norway on national radio,
television, newspapers and journals. The SAS-study was also used by the
Research Council of Norway as an example of interesting research in press
releases and initiatives at the opening of "Forskningsdagene 1999" (A
week devoted to the promotion of research.)
In spite of
the success and many interesting results, the SAS-study has several weaknesses.
Many of these stem from the fact that the study was intended to be only a modest
exploratory study, not planned to be large-scale. Hence, it became one-man's
work on top of other activities, and without funding. The SAS-study was,
however, connected to the project "Science, Technology and
Citizenship" that was funded by the Research Council of Norway. The SAS
study also benefited from NORAD (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation)
support to the FEMSA project and the GASAT association. This enabled meetings
to take place and it enabled strong participation from developing countries by
covering actual costs for data collection.
Among the
results that emerge from the SAS-study are these:
·
Children in
developing countries articulate a much more positive view towards science and
technology than children in the richer countries do. Some children in the rich
countries (mainly boys) portray the scientist as a cruel and crazy person,
while most children in developing countries seem to consider scientists as
idols, helpers and heroes.
·
Children in
developing countries express a strong interest in learning most topics in
S&T, the interest among children in richer countries being much lower.
·
The low
interest for learning science and technology expressed by Japanese children is
remarkable. In particular, Japanese children demonstrate an extreme dislike for
learning about technology.
·
Gender
differences in learning different topics of science vary among countries, but
seem to be higher in the Nordic countries (and in Japan) than in other regions.
·
The study
also provides examples to illustrate how different contexts and applications
appeal differently to girls and boys. Hence, a shift in pedagogical approach
may greatly shift the interest that different groups of children take in the
underlying science contents. This may be a key approach to produce more
gender-inclusive science teaching.
This is an item meant to elicit what
children think "real scientists" are like. Two opposite human traits
are put up on each side of a 5-point Likert scale, and the response is given by
indicating a position on this scale. One may distinguish between different
kinds of scientist, for instance people in physics or engineering and in
biology or medicine, since previous research has indicated that the perceptions
of different "types" of scientists may be quite different.
This item is close to the one used
by this author in previous research, and it was included in the Norwegian
version of the SISS-test (Second International Science Study). Results are
reported in Sjøberg 1986. Some results are presented in English in Sjøberg and
Imsen 1987. An English translation of the questionnaire was published (Sjøberg
1990) and later used for a PhD in Korea and Singapore with strikingly different
results (Kim 1994).
Out of school experiences: What
I have done.
This is an item with an inventory of
many activities that may have bearing on the teaching and learning of science.
This item has also been used in previous research in a slightly different form.
(Lie and Sjøberg 1984, Whyte, Kelly and Smail 1987). The item was also included
in the Norwegian version of SISS and is reported in Sjøberg 1986 and Sjøberg
and Imsen 1987. Care must be taken to sample a large variety of activities, and
with a cultural diversity.
Things to learn about.
This item is a similar list to the
one above, and is used in some of the above-mentioned studies. It is an
inventory of possible topics for inclusion in the science curriculum. Similar
scientific contents may here be put into different contexts. The rationale
behind this is to explore whether different contexts or different perspectives
appeal differently to different groups of pupils or different cultures. The
pupil's responses are simply to tick a Yes to each topic they like.
The rationale behind this item is
that pupils have different hopes and priorities for their future, and that this
may be an important element in their approach towards learning. Different
preferences may also indicate that different curricular emphasises may appeal
to different groups of pupils. (Like stressing the "other-oriented"
or "person-oriented" aspects of science and technology versus
stressing the "ego-centred" or "instrumental" aspects, or
possibly the "intellectual" aspect of the subject.)
The item consists of a list of
aspects that might be important for the choice of a future job (if such a
choice exists!). The pupil is invited to judge the personal relevance of each
of these factors. Previous research has indicated interesting differences
between girls and boys on such factors. (E.g. Sjøberg and Imsen 1987). Boys (in
Norway) 'outscored' girls on factors oriented towards their own advantages,
like getting high salaries and careers, while girls seemed more interested in
personal relevance, helping others and to work with people. There may also be
interesting cultural differences. A follow-up on this item may be to let the
children describe what plans they have for education and careers. We can
then see whether the personal value-orientation determines what 'kinds' of
pupils who have plans to enter (different sorts of) S&T careers.
"Science" may mean
different things for different pupils, and the word may trigger different
emotions, or give different associations. This item can be a list of such
possible word associations, and the pupil is invited to indicate the ones that
they find suitable. This item is meant to elicit some attitudes to science and
some perceptions about what science may or may not contribute to.
The "Draw-a-Scientist" task has been
used in research for a long time in different formulations and with slight
modifications. (Mead and Metraux 1957, Krajkovich and Smith 1982, Chambers
1983, Kahle 1987, Kjærnsli 1989, Matthews 1996) The purpose of this item is to
elicit the image of scientists held by the learner. It may be argued that this
item simply begs the stereotype to be presented; the respondents may
concentrate on what distinguishes a "stereotype" of a researcher form
other "normal" people. In the research, different approaches are used
to counteract this. (Like drawing two scientists, or by sorting cards with
drawings etc.) In the version used in SAS, we asked the respondents to draw a
scientist at work, and to add something in writing on what they
do and issues they work on. This may be a story or just a list of key words.
This item may be seen as an extension of
the previous one. Pupils are invited to put themselves in the position of being
a scientist, being free to work and to do research on what they find important
and interesting. Here, they may express their own interests, concerns and
priorities. Previous research has indicated interesting differences between the
priorities of girls and boys in Norway (Kjærnsli 1989). The SAS-study also
indicates dramatic differences between children in rich and poorer countries.
Comments
It should
be noted that the ideas expressed here are only meant to be preliminary. They
have to be modified in the light of the discussions that take part in the early
phases of the project. The meeting in Oslo in October 2001 was a step in this
process.
Although
the large-scale studies like IEA/TIMSS have other purposes than the proposed
ROSE study, it is important to see links where possible. One may also build on
the skills and competencies developed through involvement in these survey-type
studies, like item and test construction, sampling, data entry, statistical
procedures etc. The research group at the applicant's institution is
responsible for all these studies in Norway, and the applicant, SS, was
national coordinator for Norway in the SISS study. Since TIMSS as well as the
current OECD PISA project also collects data on background variables and some
attitudinal factors, one should also take care to develop 'bridges' where
possible to enable comparisons.
Some
research questions are evident from the descriptions of items given above. The
data will enable detailed analysis of the types of experiences and interests
that different groups of pupils have. These fields of experience and interests
may be grouped and analysed in various ways, and implications for the teaching
and learning of science may stimulate critical discussions about issues like
the perceived relevance of S&T curricula. Comparisons may be made within
countries and between groups in each country (social or by gender).
·
Issues
to be explored are related to the degree of match or mismatch with pupils'
experiences and interests: Whose experiences are we building on? Whose
interests? The observed profile of experiences and interests may be compared
with the actual curricula and textbooks for an analysis of possible biases.
·
An
underlying question is: What does 'relevance' mean in the context of S&T
education in the light of the data on e.g. pupils' interests? How can this
subjective expressed personal relevance be balanced towards other aspects of
'relevance'?
·
What
kind of persons do children think that scientists are? Is this image of
scientists and technologists problematic, is it false, real, stereotypical
etc.? Does it possibly lead to rejection of S&T? What is the possible
gender dimension of this issue?
·
What
kind of differences can be noted between children in countries with different
cultures and different levels of economical development? How do we interpret
the possible differences in attitudes and priorities?
·
How do
the expressed values, plans and research priorities depend on country, culture
and gender? Is an image of hard work and difficult access a barrier towards
choosing (some) S&T subjects? What is the connection between stated
priorities (values) for future work and the expressed wish to go into
science-related areas? What are the possible consequences for the S&T
curricula?
·
Does
it make sense to talk about a gender-inclusive S&T curriculum?
·
How do
changes in context (examples, illustrations, applications, social use, personal
relevance, aesthetic value) influence pupils' interests in S&T topics? Can
a shift in approach raise the interest among pupils who otherwise reject
S&T?
The above
examples are only meant as unsystematic illustrations to exemplify the types of
questions that one may raise within the theoretical and empirical framework of
the ROSE project.
A preliminary
version of the project document was circulated to key international research
institutions and individual researchers in science education. The covering
letter was an invitation to show a preliminary interest in the project in a way
that could be considered to be an 'official' statement. The response has been
overwhelming, and the responses are reproduced on the following pages in this
Appendix. Here is a short overview of some of the positive responses.
Letters of support is received from the following persons and institutions
Edgar
Jenkins is
professor of science education policy at Centre for Studies in Science and
Mathematics Education at Leeds University, probably the best known centre for
science education research in Europe. He has also been editor of the leading
international journals in the field. His own research interests are of great
relevance for the project, see e.g. Jenkins 1994, 1996. His enthusiastic
support for the ROSE project is a promising for its development and quality.
Robin Millar is professor in physics education at York
University. He has published research directly related to the ROSE perspective.
See Millar 1989 and Driver, Leach, Millar and Scott, 1996. He is also president
of ESERA (European Science Education Research Association)
Glen S.
Aikenhead,
professor at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada has a leading role in the
development of theory and practice in science education, in particular with
reference to cultural diversity and the introduction of STS-issues. See e.g. Aikenhead 1996 1997, Cobern and Aikenhead 1998 and Solomon
and Aikenhead 1994.
Reinders
Duit is professor
of science education at Institut für die Pedagogik der Naturwissenshaften an
der Universitet Kiel, the largest of its kind in Europe. His writings are well
known, see e.g. Duit and Pfundt 1998 and Treagust, Duit, & Fraser 1995. The letter of intention shows that
IPN as an institution has decided to participate in ROSE. Dr Kurt Riquarts,
chair of IOSTE, International Organizaton for Science and Technology Education,
and also at IPN, will also work on the project.
Masakata
Ogawa is probably
the best known Japanese science education professor world-wide. He has written
extensible on issues relating to the cultural contexts of science education,
mainly comparing Japanese with western approaches and philosophies, see e.g.
Ogawa 1995. He has just finished the project Effects of Traditional
Cosmologies on Science Education (Ogawa 1995 and 1997). He has recently
received a grant for a new project: International Joint Research on Culture,
Language and Gender Sensitive Science Teacher Education Program (the applicant,
Svein Sjøberg is invited member of the international research group).
Leonie
J. Rennie is
professor at Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University of
Technology. She has a leading position internationally, in particular regarding
gender –related issues, see e.g. Rennie 1998 and Rennie et al 1996.
Deborah
Corrigan is at the
other key Australian institution in this field, Centre for Science at Monash
University. She holds many positions in international professional
associations, like being board member of IOSTE, International Organisation for
Science and Technology Education.
Nelio
Bizzo, School of
Education, Sao Paulo University, Brazil, is a leading science educator in Latin
America. He is responsible for the next international conference of IOSTE:
International Organisation for Science and Technology Education. (in 2001)
Poul V
Thomsen is director
of Dansk Center for Naturvitenskapenes Didaktikk at the University of Aarhus.
He is also deeply involved with most science education initiatives in Denmark.
Helge
Strømdahl is the
director of educational research and development at the Royal Institute of
Technogy (KTH) in Stockholm. He has also been responsible for S&T subjects
in the Swedish school system at Skolverket. He wants to contribute to the
project on behalf of the Swedish NOT-project.
Stefan
Bergman at the
Iceland University of education is key person in science education in Iceland.
He also contributed to the SAS project. He indicates that the Research Centre
at the University is interested in Iceland's participation.
Jophus
Anamuah-Mensah is Principal
at the University College of Education of Winneba in Ghana. He is regarded as
one of Africa's leading science educators. He recently opened the SACOST
center, where he is director. This centre will develop relevant science
education material based on African contexts. He also contributed to SAS.
Jane
Mulemwa at Makerere
University in Uganda has a similar role in her country. She is also a key
person in the FEMSA and AFCLIST programmes (see below). She also participated
in the development of the SAS questionnaire and collected the data from Uganda.
Vasilis
Koulaidis is
Executive Director of the National Education Research Center in Greece and
professor of science education at the University of Patras in Greece. He is the
leading science educator in his region.
Olugbemiro
Jegede is professor
of science education and Director at the Centre for Research in Distance &
Adult Learning, The Open University of Hong Kong. He is African of background,
educated in the USA and has worked in Australia and other continents. His
writings on cross-cultural perspectives of science education is well known, see
e.g. Aikenhead and Jegede 1999. He also participated in the SAS study.
Sugra
Chunawala is
researcher at Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, Tata Institute of
Fundamental Research, Bombay, an internationally well reputed centre for
science education research and development. Her institution has decided that
the institution as such will be involved in the study. She was also involved in
the SAS study and published reports on the Indian results. (Chunawala 1998)
Jayshree
Mehta is director
of the SATWAC foundation, an organization that supports women in development.
She is involved in a host of international programmes to improve the situation
for girls and women in S&T. She has also been chair of IOSTE and GASAT
association and is working closely with UN initiatives on gender and science.
Hak-Soo
Kim is Professor of
Science Communication, Dept. of Mass Communications, Sogang University, Korea.
He plays an important role in the promotion f scientific literacy in his
country.
Suan
Yoong and Aminah
Ayob at University of Science Malaysia have committed their university to
take part in the study. Dr Yoong is board member of IOSTE.
Harrie
Eijkelhof is
professor at the Centre for Science and Mathematics education, University of Utrecht
in the Netherlands. His works on ethical and social aspects of science
education is internationally well known and respected. (see e.g Eijkelhof 1990)
Dale
Baker, professor in
science education at Arizona State University has done research on gender
issues in science education (se e.g Baker and Leary 1995) and is also involved
in other international projects on science, culture and gender. Baker is Editor
of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Other US
science educators: dr. Gail Jones at The university of North Carolina
and professor Ann K Nauman at Southeastern Louisiana University have
also committed themselves to participate, in part based on their successful
participation in the SAS study.
Vivien
M. Talisayon is
Director at the Institute for Science and Mathematics Education Development,
University of the Philippines. She and her centre are widely known, also
outside the region, in which she plays an important role.
Sergey
Bogdanov is
vice-rector for science and Stanislav Nisimov is head of the physics
department at the Karelian State Pedagogical University in Petrzavodsk, Russia.
They will involve Russia in the study.
In addition to these more or
less personal responses, the following international organisations and
programmes have committed themselves to support and participation.
UNESCO
Mr Orlando
Hall Rose, Chief of section Science and Technology Education in the UNESCO
main office in Paris has in writing given strong support for the project. He
suggests several modes of UNESCO involvement and cooperation in its
development.
UNESCOs
Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific
plays a
leading role in the development of education in the region. Lucille Gregorio
is UNESCO-PROAP's specialist in science and technology education responsible
for promoting science education in the Asia Pacific region. She wants her
institution to take part in the ROSE study and to promote involvement from
countries in her region.
Ciencia Viva
is a major
national governmental project to stimulate the interest in S&T in Portugal.
The director, Rosalia Vargas has committed her project to
participate in the ROSE project to establish a better base for curricular
discussions. (This applicant, SS, is member of the international advisory team
of Ciencia Viva.)
AFCLIST:
(African Forum for Children's'
Literacy in Science And Technology), dir Prem Naidoo University of
Durban-Westwille, South Africa AFCLIST is a pan-African project that supports
S&T education initiatives based on African realities. AFCLIST has
programmes in more than 20 African countries. Some AFCLIST associates have in
writing expressed their interest to participate. Much will depend on the
funding. (This applicant, SS, is a Board member of AFCLIST.)
FEMSA
(Female
Education in Mathematics and Science Education) is a large initiative to
promote the access and participation of girls in SMT subjects in Africa. FEMSA
involves 11 countries. The regional coordinator Joe O'Connor, Nairobi is
interested in FEMSA countries taking part in the ROSE study. (This applicant,
SS, is a member of FEMSA's consultative Group since its inception.)
The Commonwealth Secretariat, London
has committed itself to participation in the study by Dr. Ved
Goel, head of the section for Science Technology and Maths. Education
Aikenhead, G. (1996). Border
Crossings into the Subculture of Science Studies in Science Education, 27
(1996) 1-52.
Aikenhead, G. (1997) Towards a First Nations
Cross-Cultural Science and Technology Curriculum Science Education
Aikenhead, G. and Jegede, O.J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education:
A cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 36(3), pp.269-287.
Baker D and Leary R (1995) Letting Girls Speak Out
about Science Journal of Research in Science Teaching vol 32 pp 3-27
Chambers, D.W. (1983):
Stereotypic Images of the Scientist: The Draw-A-Scientist Test. Science
Education. 67(2): 255-265.
Chunawala, S. (1998) "Students' Ideas about Science and
Scientists" Technical Report no. 38, Homi Bhabha Centre for Science
Education, Tata Institute for Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India.
Duit, Reinders and Pfundt,
Helga (1998). Bibliography of Students' Alternative Frameworks and Science
Education Printed version and database, Kiel, IPN
Eijkelhof, H.
M. C. (1990). Radiation and Risk in Physics Education.
Utrecht: Centre for Science and Mathematics Education.
Driver, Leach,
Millar and Scott (1996). Young people’s images of Science Buckingham,
Open University Press
Jenkins, Edgar (1994). Public Understanding of Science
and Science Education for Action Journal of Curriclum Studies vol 26 p 601‑611
Jenkins, Edgar (1996). The ‘Nature of Science’ as a
curriculum component Journal of
Curriclum Studies vol 28 no 2 p 137‑150
Kahle, J.B.
(1987):"Images of science: The physicist and the "cowboy", in
Fraser, B.J. og Giddings, G.J. (1987): Gender Issues In Science Education.
Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia 6001
Kim, Hyo Young (1994):
Female University students' dysfunctional choices of study fields in Korean
universities. PhD thesis, Monash University, Australia
Kjærnsli, M. (1989): Elevers
forestillinger om forskning og forskere (Pupils' ideas about science and
scientists) Master Thesis in science education, University of Oslo
Krajkovich, J G and Smith, J K
(1982): The development of the image of science and scientists scale Journal
of Research in Science Teaching 19 39-44
Lie, S and Sjøberg, S (1984): "Myke"
jenter i "harde" fag? (Transl: Soft girls in hard science?) Oslo,
Universitetsforlaget
Mead, M and Metraux R (1957):
Image of scientist among high School Students Science 126 (3270) 384-390
Millar, Robin (Ed.) (1989). Doing Science. Images of Science in
Science Education London, The Falmer Press
Millar, Leach and Osborne
(2000) Improving science Education:
the Contribution of Research Buckingham:
Open University Press
Ogawa, M (Ed) (1997). Effects of Traditional Cosmologies on
Science Education. Report
of an International Scientific Research program, funded by Japan, Ibaraki
University, Mito, Japan
Ogawa, M. (1995). Science
education in a multi-science perspective Science Education vol 79,
583-593
Rennie, L. Parker, L. and
Fraser, B. (ed) (1996). Gender, Science and Mathematics - shortening the
Shadow Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers
Rennie, L.J. (1998). Gender equity: Toward clarification and a research
direction for science teacher education. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching. 35, 951-961.
Sinnes, A. (1998). Why are Girls Underrepresented in Science
Education? A cross Cultural Comparison of Obstacles affecting Girls in Uganda
and Norway Master Thesis in science education, Oslo University
Sjøberg,
S (1986): Naturfag og norsk skole. Elever og lærere sier sin mening. (Science and Norwegian schools. Pupils and
teachers express their opinion.) Oslo, Universitetsforlaget
Sjøberg, S (1990):
"Gender and science education" What Research says to the science and
mathematics teacher no 6, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia,
Sjøberg, S and Imsen, G.
(1987): "Gender and Science Education" in Fensham (red.): Development
and Dilemmas in Science Education, London, The Falmer Press.
Sjøberg,
Svein (1999) Naturvitenskap som allmenndannelse: En kritisk fagdidaktikk,
2. Utg. Oslo, AdNotam Gyldendal
Sjøberg,
Svein (2000a) Naturvetenskap som allmänbildning: En kritisk ämnesdidaktikk,
Lund, Studentlitteratur
Sjøberg, Svein
(2000b). Science
And Scientists: The SAS-study. Cross-cultural evidence and perspectives on
pupils' interests, experiences and perceptions Background, Development and
Selected Results.
ILS, Oslo University
Solomon, J. and Aikenhead, G.
(1994). STS Education ‑ international perspectives on reform New
York, Teachers College Press
Treagust, D., Duit, R., & Fraser, B. Eds. (1995). Teaching
and learning in science and mathematics New York. Teacher College Press
Whyte, J. Kelly, A. and Smail,
B. (1987) Girls into Science and technology: Final report in Science for Girls,
Open University Press, Milton Keynes
[1]
In the following, no clear distinction is made between science and
technology. The school subject is usually labelled 'science', but the names
vary between countries and between levels in the schools. In Norway the subject
is called 'science and the environment' (Natur- og miljøfag), in Denmark and
Sweden 'science and technology' (Denmark: 'Natur og teknik', Sweden:
'Naturorientering och teknik'). In some countries technology is a separate
subject, in other countries it is integrated with science. In the project,
these distinctions will be important, but in the following text, the
terminology will deliberately be rather vague and no clear distinction will be
used!
[2] The present author was invited to
write and present the background paper. The paper is available at http://folk.uio.no/sveinsj/STE_paper_Sjoberg_Uppsala.htm