The nature of science is concerned with science as a way of thinking, but this doesn’t exist in isolation, so the New Zealand curriculum document includes three other substrands of the nature of science to embed it within. The ‘Participating and contributing’ strand of the curriculum is one of these three other substrands. In school, science is all too often presented as a series of facts. This strand can totally debunk this myth.
Participating and contributing achievement aim
Levels 3–4 achievement objectives
Levels 5–6 achievement objectives
This substrand of the nature of science is about students using their science understanding to participate and contribute to their own lives and to society.
Only some students will become professional scientists, but all students need to be able to use an understanding of science to solve problems faced in everyday life and to confront and make decisions about issues that involve science. We live in a scientific and technological society in which, increasingly, many personal and societal decisions involve scientific understanding.
Will eating organic vegetables make me live longer? Will smoking kill me really? What about vaping instead? Should I bother recycling? Is 5G technology safe to use? Making decisions on issues like these requires students to have an understanding of the nature of science. They need to understand:
- what scientific knowledge is relevant
- how reliable the knowledge is
- how the knowledge was generated
- the limits of the knowledge
- how much confidence we can have in that knowledge.
This understanding will help them distinguish good science from bad science and to tell apart scientific and pseudo-scientific claims. Our students need to be able to evaluate and respond to ‘scientific evidence’ in media reports and in advertising in order to make informed personal decisions. They need to become critical consumers of science.
The Connected article Fake facts looks at misinformation, malinformation and disinformation and how they are used in online media. It also delves into the human brain and how it deals with information and fake news.
Participating and contributing in societal decisions
Should I be concerned about stem cell research, captive breeding in zoos, use of human embryos in research or about practices in commercial fishing? Should I call my city council about the pollution from the garage next door burning tyres? Is climate change really as big a threat as scientists tell us?
Socio-scientific issues such as these impact us all. Our students need to know enough about the nature of science to be able to make sense of socio-scientific issues like these. We want them to be able to make their own decisions about such issues.
We also want them to be sufficiently informed that they can voice their opinions and participate in the decision-making process of a democratic society. The public evaluation of science requires as many citizens to take part as possible. This will only be possible if the general public understand what science is and how it is produced – the nature of science.
Including socio-scientific issues in science programmes
Socio-scientific issues are complex and will need scaffolding to be effective in the classroom. In any issue, the students need to sort out what parts of the issue require a scientific lens and what parts require other lenses. For example, thinking of stem cell research, students will need to identify and separate the scientific, legal, social, emotional and family issues. Being able to identify the credible scientific evidence allows further decision-making to occur. Students can make judgements about the data, construct a logical argument, present a case, remain open-minded and perhaps reach a class consensus.
Addressing socio-scientific issues in the classroom has been shown to increase students’ understanding of science content, science processes and the nature of science. Because many of these issues highlight borderline science that is controversial and still being debated, students can appreciate more fully the tentative nature of scientific knowledge, the non-linear process of science and the crises, controversy and conflicting conclusions that can be part of the work of scientists.
It will also show how science is socially and culturally embedded by highlighting the complex relations between science, technology and society and the social, economic, political, moral and environmental implications of scientific and technological knowledge.
Examples of ‘Participating and contributing'
There are many resources on the Science Learning Hub that can be used to deepen this participating and communicating strand, develop students’ ability to bring a scientific perspective to their own decisions and foster a developing understanding of socio-scientific issues. Our citizen science section features both online and hands-on opportunities for students to contribute to scientific projects.
Many teaching and learning activities, videos and articles have a strong focus on issues of concern to students in areas where they can make a personal choice.
See examples on the Hub
Other resources can be used to highlight the social, ethical, economic and environmental implications of the application of scientific knowledge in society.
See examples on the Hub
Many of the research stories can be used to investigate the influence of scientific advancements on our lives, society and environment.
The Ethics thinking toolkit on the Hub can also be used to help explore any socio-scientific issue using ethical frameworks. The Futures thinking toolkit is designed to help explore how our society and environment may be shaped in the future.
See examples on the Hub
Understanding Science is an educational website for teaching and learning about the nature and process of science. It has an interactive flowchart that represents the process of scientific inquiry, with links to relevant teaching and learning resources.
British science writer, doctor and psychiatrist Ben Goldacre unpicks dodgy scientific claims made in reports and advertising in popular media and is devoted to criticism of scientific inaccuracy, health scares, pseudoscience and quackery, see his Bad Science website.