Journals / International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik) / 2009 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 1

Using the deficit model, public debate model and co-production of knowledge models to Interpret points of view of students concerning citizens' participation in socioscientific issues

Pages
49–73
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Findings indicate that the group of three students ascribed to citizens deficits of knowledge and comprehension, and authorized a limited participation of citizens in public debates.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the first part of this article I propose a conceptual framework – based on the deficit, public debate and co-production of knowledge models articulated by (Callon, 1999) – with which to examine students’ appropriation of de socioscientific issues (SSI).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The second part of this article presents the way a group of three post-secondary/preuniversity students described the attitudes, interests and capacity for understanding of citizens concerned by the controversy surrounding the use of cellular telephones, and how they viewed the conditions under which citizens could contribute to public debates.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings indicate that the group of three students ascribed to citizens deficits of knowledge and comprehension, and authorized a limited participation of citizens in public debates.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In the first part of this article I propose a conceptual framework – based on the deficit, public debate and co-production of knowledge models articulated by (Callon, 1999) – with which to examine students’ appropriation of de socioscientific issues (SSI). The second part of this article presents the way a group of three post-secondary/preuniversity students described the attitudes, interests and capacity for understanding of citizens concerned by the controversy surrounding the use of cellular telephones, and how they viewed the conditions under which citizens could contribute to public debates. This study was conducted on the basis of an ethnographic approach. Participant observation was performed by the researcher for three hours during each of fifteen weeks. Findings indicate that the group of three students ascribed to citizens deficits of knowledge and comprehension, and authorized a limited participation of citizens in public debates. Implications for science teaching are discussed. It is argued that the use of the conceptual framework set out in this article in a science classroom would, on the one hand, enable teachers to “problematize” SSI in a way accounting for citizen participation in sociotechnical debates and, on the other hand, provide students with a basis for developing an understanding of SSI management that breaks with an interpretation centring on the deficit model as applied to relationships between citizens and scientists.

🔖

Cite This Article

POULIOT, C. (2022). Using the deficit model, public debate model and co-production of knowledge models to Interpret points of view of students concerning citizens' participation in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik), Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 1, 49–73. https://ajindex.com/articles/540878

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Handbook of research on science education. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Aikenhead, G. S. (2007). Humanistic perspectives in the science curriculum. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 881-910). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life. New York: Teachers College Press.
  2. Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the context of science. Science Education, 69(4), 453-475.
  3. Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socioscientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67-90.
  4. Brown, B. A. (2004). Discursive identity: Assimilation into the culture of science and its implications for minority students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 810- 834. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
  5. Bucchi, M. (1998). Science and the media: Alternative routes in scientific communication. London: Routeledge. Bucchi, M., & Neresini, F. (2008). Science and public participation. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technologies studies (pp. 449-472).
  6. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  7. Callon, M. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science, Technology & Society, 4(1), 81-94.
  8. Callon, M., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2008). The growing engagement of emergent concerned groups in political and economic life: Lessons from the French association of neuromuscular disease patients. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(2), 230-261.
  9. Casper, B. M. (1980). Public policy decision making and science literacy. In D. Wolfe (Ed.), Public policy decision making and scientific literacy: Information needs for science and technology (Report No. NSF-80-21-A6). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Chilvers, J. (2008). Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33(2), 155-185.
  10. Cook, G., Robbins, P. T., & Pieri, E. (2006). Words of mass destruction: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reaction. Public Understanding of Science, 15(1), 5-29. Cros