RESEARCH PAPER
Contextualizing the EU’s “Responsible Research and Innovation” Policy in Science Education: A Conceptual Comparison with the Nature of Science Concept and Practical Examples
 
More details
Hide details
1
University of Helsinki, FINLAND
2
IPN-Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education / Deutsches Museum, GERMANY
3
Helsinki Upper Secondary School of Natural Sciences, FINLAND
4
Weizmann Institute of Science, ISRAEL
5
Bogazici University, TURKEY
6
University of Groningen, THE NETHERLANDS
Online publish date: 2018-03-25
Publish date: 2018-03-25
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(6):2287–2300
KEYWORDS:
ABSTRACT:
The European Union (EU) encourages science education to be oriented towards the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), i.e. socially and ethically sensitive and inclusive processes of science and technology. Connecting RRI to prevailing concepts in science education, such as the Nature of Science (NoS), may facilitate the incorporation of RRI in curricula and classrooms. We carried out a conceptual comparison between the EU’s RRI policy and a recent reconceptualization of NoS, known as the expanded Family Resemblance Approach. We discuss how the socio-institutional nature of science in that approach closely connects to the RRI and can provide a means for RRI teaching. To illustrate these opportunities, we present practical classroom approaches developed in the EU-funded project IRRESISTIBLE, and survey results on teachers’ perspectives on RRI. The aim of this work is to understand better the potential implications of RRI to research and practice in science education.
 
REFERENCES (36):
1. Akaygun, S., & Adadan, E. (2017, May). Teaching Nanotechnology as an Extracurricular Activity: Views of Teachers. Paper presented at the International Conference in Education of Mathematics, Science and Technology (ICEMST), Aydin, Turkey.
2. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating Knowledge of the Nature of (Whole) Science. Science Education, 95(3), 518-542. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20....
3. Apotheker, J., Blonder, R., Akaygun, S., Reis, P., Kampschulte, L., & Laherto, A. (2017). Responsible Research and Innovation in secondary school science classrooms: experiences from the project Irresistible. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 89(2), 211-219. https://doi.org/10.1515/pac-20....
4. Bardone, E., Burget, M., Saage, K., & Taaler, M. (2017). Making Sense of Responsible Research and Innovation in Science Education through Inquiry-based Learning. Examples from the Field. Science Education International, 28(4), 293-304.
5. Blonder, R., Rap, S., Zemler, E., &. Rosenfeld, S., (2017). Assessing attitudes about responsible research and innovation (RRI): the development and use of a questionnaire. Sisyphus Journal of Education, 5(3), 122-156.
6. Blonder, R., Zemler, E., & Rosenfeld, S. (2016). The story of lead: a context for learning about responsible research and innovation (RRI) in the chemistry classroom. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 1145-1155. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00....
7. Burguet, M., Bardone, E., & Pedaste, M. (2017). Definitions and conceptual dimensions of responsible research and innovation: A literature review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948....
8. de Vocht, M., & Laherto, A. (2017). Profiling teachers based on their professional attitudes towards teaching responsible research and innovation. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(3), 271-284.
9. de Vocht, M., Laherto, A., & Parchmann, I. (2017). Exploring teachers’ concerns about bringing Responsible Research and Innovation to European science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(4), pp. 326-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/104656....
10. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554-567. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10....
11. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014). Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education: Scientific Knowledge, Practices and Other Family Categories. Dordrecht: Springer.
12. European Commission (2007). Science Education Now: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. Report to the European Commission of the High Level Group on Science Education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
13. European Commission (2012). Responsible research and innovation – Europe’s ability to respond to societal challenges. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
14. European Commission (2015). Science Education for Responsible Citizenship. Report to the European Commission of the expert group on science education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
15. European Commission (2015b). Indicators for promoting and monitoring Responsible Research and Innovation. Report from the Expert Group on Policy Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
16. Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: a manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. Washington, DC: National Inst. of Education (DHEW).
17. Heras, M., & Ruiz-Mallén, I. (2017) Responsible research and innovation indicators for science education assessment: how to measure the impact? International Journal of Science Education, 39(18), 2482-2507. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
18. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20, 591-607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191....
19. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94....
20. Kampschulte, L., & Parchmann, I. (2015). The student-curated exhibition - A new approach to getting in touch with science. LUMAT, 3(4), 462-482.
21. Kárpáti, A., & Király, A. (2016, June). Creating a socially sensitive learning environment for science education: The SSIBL framework. In: Teixeira, A. M., Szűcs, A., & Lázár, I. (Eds.), Re-imagining learning scenarios. Paper presented at the EDEN 2016 Annual Conference, Budapest (pp. 599-608).
22. Kearney, C. (2016). Efforts to Increase Students’ Interest in Pursuing Mathematics, Science and Technology Studies and Careers. National Measures taken by 30 Countries – 2015 Report. Brussels: European Schoolnet.
23. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 831-879.
24. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on Teaching and Learning of Nature of Science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II (pp. 600-620). New York, NY: Routledge.
25. Liu, Y., & Huang, C. (2005). Concerns of teachers about technology integration in the USA. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(1), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/026197....
26. McComas, W., & Olson, J. (1998). The Nature of Science in Science Education. Science and Education, 7(6), 511-523. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008....
27. Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39, 751-760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol....
28. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/Science literacy. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Research on science education, Vol. II (pp. 545–558). New York: Routledge.
30. Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the ‘Nature of Science’ as a Curriculum Component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202....
31. Ruggiu, D. (2015). Anchoring European governance: Two versions of responsible research and innovation and EU fundamental rights as ‘normative anchor points’. Nanoethics, 9, 217-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569....
32. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165....
33. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resp....
34. Sutcliffe, H. (2011). A report on responsible research and innovation. MATTER / European Commission. Retrieved on 06.07.2017 from https://ec.europa.eu/research/....
35. von Schomberg, R. (2013). A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/978111....
36. Wenning, C. (2006). Assessing nature-of-science literacy as one component of scientific literacy. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 3(4), 3-14.
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215