Promoting Attainment of Responsible Research and Innovation in Science Education
This educational methodology promotes democratic citizenship through the integration of social issues and related scientific knowledge. Our aim is to empower and facilitate science teachers and teacher educators, by in-service and pre-service professional development courses, based on reshaped best practices available among the partners.
These shared selected best practices will be reflected on from an RRI perspective and improved by an international ‘community of learners’ who incorporate RRI in their teaching and learning processes. The project will establish a multidisciplinary team and facilitate networking activities among teachers, teacher educators and educational researchers of 18 institutions in 11 countries. In addition, the project will build on recently developed IBSE insights and foster implementation of IBSE in educational practice.
3584 Cs Utrecht
Higher or Secondary Education Establishments
€ 442 417
Heleen Verhage (Ms.)
Sort by EU Contribution
UNIVERSITE MONTPELLIER 2 SCIENCES ET TECHNIQUES
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON
€ 206 381
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON
€ 201 957
WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE
€ 166 170
€ 135 713
€ 1 115
€ 96 766
ICETA INSTITUTO DE CIENCIAS, TECNOLOGIAS E AGROAMBIENTE DA UNIVERSIDADE DO PORTO
€ 85 617
TECHNOLOGIKO PANEPISTIMIO KYPROU
€ 135 378
€ 128 938
ECOLE NATIONALE SUPERIEURE DE FORMATION DE L'ENSEIGNEMENT AGRICOLE
€ 116 252
UNIVERSITE DE MONTPELLIER
€ 100 559
STICHTING UNIVERSITEIT VOOR HUMANISTIEK
€ 36 610
STICHTING KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT
€ 90 191
UNIVERSIDAD DE JAEN
€ 123 672
Sihtasutus Tallinna Tehnika- ja Teaduskeskus
€ 81 681
€ 93 646
EOTVOS LORAND TUDOMANYEGYETEM
€ 81 208
€ 173 854
Grant agreement ID: 612438
1 January 2014
31 December 2017
€ 2 899 978,80
€ 2 498 125
Final Report Summary - PARRISE (Promoting Attainment of Responsible Research and Innovation in Science Education)
The PARRISE project – Promoting Attainment of Responsible Research and Innovation in Science Education – shared and improved good practices of professional development of science teachers for primary and secondary education across Europe. These good practices integrate inquiry-based science education, learning based on socio-scientific issues and citizenship education. This integrated approach is called Socio-Scientific Inquiry-Based Learning (SSIBL). The SSIBL approach introduces the challenges of Responsible Research and Innovation in STEM education (in the exact sciences: mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, technology and engineering).
The overarching aim of the PARRISE project has been to collect and share existing good practices of teacher professional development across Europe. In addition, the project developed learning tools, materials and professional development courses for science teachers based on the SSIBL approach. PARRISE builds on recently developed IBSE insights and fosters implementation of SSIBL in educational practice.
Combining three approaches
The SSIBL approach draws together three approaches, common in schools but often independently pursued – Inquiry Based Science Education (IBSE), Socio-Scientific Issues (SSI) and Citizenship Education (CE) – within the umbrella of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). This latter aims at bringing together various stakeholders (consumers, interest groups, scientists, policy-makers, business) to produce realistic, balanced, just and ethically-based outcomes to the innovation process covering the entire R&D process from its inception to distribution of social goods. SSIBL operationalised this aim within school education broadly, and science education more specifically.
Raising questions on controversial issues
SSIBL is about learning through asking authentic questions about controversial issues arising from the impacts of science and technology in society. These questions are open-ended, involve participation by concerned parties, and are aimed at solutions, which help to enact change. The SSIBL approach has three aims: (1) Encouraging young people to participate in research and innovation issues which are influenced by science and technology; (2) Promoting interest in science, mathematics and technology so young people become scientific researchers; (3) Supporting young people in acting as knowledgeable social agents through inquiry informing responsible research and innovation.
Throughout the project, 18 partners have exchanged, tested and improved their good practices of teacher professional development. In two rounds, each lasting an academic year, a total number of 1,812 teachers (1,351 pre-service and 461 in-service) have participated in partners’ TPDs. In the pilot stages, preceding round 1, over 200 teachers participated. The SSIBL approach has been published in the form of a teacher guide in 11 languages. The approach and ready-to-use descriptions of teacher professional development from all partner countries can be found on the project website (www.parrise.eu). Classroom materials are provided as well.
Project Context and Objectives:
Education through an inquiry approach in science and technology issues prepares young citizens to participate in socio-scientific debate, and thus contributes to citizens’ agency. For this purpose, students need to have an understanding of the process and products of science and technology and to appreciate them as a human endeavour through partaking in their own inquiries, incorporating informed decision-making, considering and balancing relevant facts, interests, values, costs and benefits.
As concluded in the Rocard report (2007) and ProCoNet midterm report (2011), many IBSE modules have been developed across Europe, but various barriers exist that hinder in-service and pre-service teachers from working with IBSE in the classroom. In the last decades, the importance of Citizenship Education and Socio-Scientific Issues-based learning have become widely recognized.
1. Rocard report (2007). Science education now: a renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe, European Communities, 2007
2. ProCoNet - Interim Report (2011): The implementation of IBL in classrooms. Available: http://proconet.ph-freiburg.de/
By introducing the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) approach into science education, teachers can assist young citizens in democratically participating in building science policy, thus enabling a more scientifically literate society. In PARRISE, SSIBL (Socio- Scientific Inquiry Based Learning), brought together three pillar concepts, all connected under the concept of RRI: Inquiry-based Science Education (IBSE), Socio-scientific Issues (SSI), and Citizenship Education (CE) in the formal and informal education of young people. See figure 1, Educational embedding of RRI.
[figure 1 placeholder]
Figure 1. Educational embedding of RRI: facilitating and empowering science teachers
The integration of social aspects in science education (SSI), however, poses pedagogical challenges, hence a need for teacher professional development (TPD) in SSIBL. In order to reach transnational implementation, TPD programmes should meet the needs of teachers and teacher educators, adapting SSIBL to the style of individual teachers and to the culture in each participating country. In this project, this has been ensured by combining the development of an educational framework operationalizing RRI in terms of IBSE, SSI and CE, with the input from experiences with teacher professional development (TPD) courses for different educational levels. Figure 2, shows the relation between these concepts in the SSIBL approach. The SSIBL approach is explained more extensively in chapter 2.
[figure 2 placeholder]
Figure 2. Representation of the SSIBL approach (embedded within the overall context of RRI)
The PARRISE project objectives were to:
1. Provide an overall educational framework for socio-scientific inquiry-based learning (SSIBL) in formal and informal learning environments;
2. Identify examples of best practice which reflect the SSIBL model;
3. Build transnational communities consisting of science teachers, science teacher educators, science communicators, and curriculum and citizenship education experts to implement good practices of SSIBL;
4. Develop the SSIBL competencies among European primary and secondary science teachers and teacher educators;
5. Disseminate resources and best practice through PARRISE website, digital and print-based publications online and face to face courses authored by national and international networks;
6. Evaluate the educators’ success using the improved SSIBL materials with pre-service and in-service teachers.
For reaching these objectives, a consortium of 18 partners from 11 countries was set-up. Led by Utrecht University, The Netherlands, a project management structure was put in place. All partners took part in work package 1, aimed at developing the pedagogical (SSIBL) approach. In work packages 2, 3 and 4, partners tested the approach in primary, lower and upper secondary education. Work packages 5, 6 and 7 provided event organisation, dissemination and management.
The PARRISE project has produced the following results:
1. An extensively tested and evaluated pedagogical approach for teacher professional development in primary and secondary education (the SSIBL approach),
2. Good practices of teacher professional development, in all partner countries, exemplifying the SSIBL pedagogical approach,
3. Participation of over 2.000 teachers (pre-service and in-service) in the teacher professional development courses,
4. Examples of SSIBL classroom materials.
2.1. Pedagogical approach
In modern societies controversies often arise between scientific and technological research and development on one hand and public accountability on the other. The processes of production – encompassing socio-political values, economic considerations and technoscientific challenges – are complex and uncertain, and social demands are always changing. SSIBL addresses the contemporary problem of Science & Society through the underpinning motif of science for and with people. However, in talking about people and the public we need to recognise that there are many diverse stakeholders and perspectives.
Stakeholders include all those who are impacted by science and technology – including young people now at school – who will also have the greatest influence over developments in the coming years. SSIBL is an approach where young people as active citizens inquire into socio-scientific issues which interest them, taking action where necessary. SSIBL draws together three pedagogical approaches, common in schools but often independently pursued – Inquiry Based Science Education (IBSE), Socio-Scientific Issues (SSI) and Citizenship Education (CE). Teaching SSIBL has three main stages: authentic questions, enaction and actions. Teaching starts with raising meaningful and authentic questions about ‘socio-scientific issues’. For exploring these questions, social and scientific inquiry is used (enaction). Finally, students are stimulated to take action: form opinions and formulate solutions (action).
These three main stages and the underlying pedagogical approaches are represented in the SSIBL-model (see figure 2). In the following section, these stages and approaches will be discussed in more detail.
2.1.1. Stage 1: Raising authentic questions
Is cycling to school healthy for us? What are the problems with nanotechnologies? Are the products in our cell phones ethically sourced? How can we make our school more fuel efficient? These are examples of authentic questions. Authentic questions include the following features. They:
- Proceed from questions which interest and engage students (personal authenticity) and through which they express a wish, and choose, to find collective answers (social authenticity);
- Involve real-world, complex, ‘wicked problems’;
- Are sometimes controversial in nature when there is no overall agreement about solutions or even ways to frame the question;
- Are gender inclusive and gender-sensitive;
- Are questions or issues that emerge from young people spontaneously or, more likely, with sensitive support from teachers;
- Presuppose change in that questions are asked about matters or issues which can be improved, e.g. made more socially and ethically desirable.
These features have implications. A mutually agreed purpose may go beyond the bounds of the school walls for participants, particularly where in finding the answers to questions, students might work with scientists, policy-makers, or other people with expertise. SSIBL might involve interaction either in informal education contexts and/or working with agencies outside the school. How such questions are raised is central to effective pedagogy in SSIBL. It is important to notice at this stage that all the conditions for authentic questions are unlikely to be satisfied. Students can, however, be taught to generate authentic questions themselves.
Authentic questions often involve socio-scientific issues (SSIs). SSIs use scientific knowledge to address a social issue. For example, with energy use, young people need to understand the relationship between fuels and energy to appreciate that conservation of fuels is the real cost in economic and social terms. A biological understanding of the importance of oxygen diffusion to the cells that prompts concern about the personal and social harms through smoking, and what might be done about it, exemplifies the relationship between science and social issues. For eco-friendly clothing, the particular chemical and physical properties of titanium-dioxide (catalytic, nano-size) make understanding about its global distribution and social justice in production so urgent (see section, 2.3 Examples of classroom materials).
Sometimes, SSIs can be in the form of a dilemma or controversy but this need not always be the case. For example, all the participants might recognise a non-controversial problem and work together to find the best way to solve it. However, in other cases there may be real differences between participants. Controversies are deemed to occur when different parties have opposing arguments but where the arguments are bolstered by good reasons. People might agree that climate change is an urgent issue but disagree about the best way to tackle the problem.
Socio-scientific issues: types of controversy
In SSIs there can be different types of controversy. For example, all stakeholders might agree that action should be taken to clean a local watercourse but they might disagree about the factors responsible for the pollution because the evidence is complex. Stakeholders might also disagree if action should be taken at all because the cost of cleaning up the watercourse might affect the livelihoods of people who work in an industry that contributes to the problem. Such differences of interest are evident in the positions taken by many farmers over cattle tuberculosis in the UK as opposed to those of environmentalists. The UK National Union of Farmers, for example, explain that wild badgers carry the tubercular bacterium and transmit it to cattle, hence the badgers must be controlled through culling. Many conservationists argue that farmers need better husbandry and that badgers are such an important part of the countryside that they must be protected. But there are also uncertainties in the science. Some scientists argue that culling badgers is an effective means of controlling cattle tuberculosis; others that not only is culling ineffective but that in some cases it spreads transmission. There is no single solution to the problem. Core values and preferences also play a role in decision-making. So, socio-scientific issues are about establishing scenarios which provide a background for raising research questions. In terms of socio-scientific issues, the examples in chapter 3 involve:
Aspects of disagreement or controversy (Given there are different ways to reduce heat loss in the school, what is the best way? Should novel ways of reducing pollution be used when the social costs of production are so high?).
Reasoning. Usually discussions of SSIs are likely to involve both informal and formal reasoning. When students talk about their perspectives on an issue from their everyday experiences they are often using informal reasoning. Drawing on scientific knowledge through consistent logic to justify an opinion is an example of formal reasoning. Both types of reasoning are valid depending on the context and students should be encouraged to distinguish between the two forms of reasoning. Research shows that there is some evidence that engaging in SSIs can support learning of science content although the learning is sharper if students are interested in the issue, and it therefore has some authenticity.
Uncertainty and risk. Many SSIs involve an appreciation of uncertainty and risk. Students should be encouraged to distinguish between different types of uncertainty. Taking measurements with a thermometer, for example in checking the temperature in different areas of the school (chapter 3), involve a degree of uncertainty depending on the precision of the measuring instrument. Predicting social impacts, such as whether young people will give up smoking even knowing the biological hazards, or whether people would wear clothing which purifies the air, are examples of social uncertainty. Risk is related to the chances of a hazard occurring. Older students should be able to distinguish between relative and absolute risk, and also understand that factors other than probability effect estimation of risk.
Sometimes, students come along with issues or questions they are keen to address. But it is more likely the teacher will help to stimulate interest in a particular theme using pictures, video clips, cuttings from newspaper reports, social media, which connect to students’ lives and concerns.
2.1.2. Stage 2: Enaction
To move from question to solutions to actions, research and development for and with people needs to be participative and inclusive, involving inquiry-based learning and an understanding of the links between science and society. These include three perspectives:
1. Personal (What does it mean to me?);
2. Social (What does it mean to my family, friends, community?);
3. Global (What does it mean more broadly?).
These enactions, constituted through the SSIBL pedagogic framework will be explained below using the pedagogical approach of inquiry-based science education.
Inquiry-based science education (IBSE) Inquiry-based science education (or inquiry-based learning) is at the stage of ‘enaction’. Students need skills and knowledge to provide the necessary evidence to find solutions to an authentic question. These skills are multi-faceted because they involve collaboration with others, finding out the viewpoints of stakeholders as well as doing experiments.
Doing experiments might involve coming up with ideas and testing them, collecting and evaluating data, an awareness of uncertainty in the data collected and its interpretation, and possibly asking new questions as a result of reflecting on the data. Having collected evidence, students need to explain how the evidence helps them to answer their questions.
Teachers might want to scaffold student learning, particularly when they are new to inquiry learning. At first the teachers could set a particular question for students to explore. For example, using the example of energy loss in schools from section 2.3 the teachers could ask students to find out the sites of the school’s greatest energy losses in winter so that they can make a case for action for better insulation.
One of the distinctive features of IBSE within SSIBL is that the inquiries are open and not predetermined and can involve a range of approaches including experiments, surveys and debates.
Approaching SSIBL through IBSE
Once students have explored a scenario for an issue they need a good research question for their inquiry. Finding a good research question is not an easy task and will need support from the teacher. First the question has to be researchable and have the following characteristics:
- The question fits the theme or scenario;
- The question is open and the answer not known;
- There is only one question (e.g. what are the main reasons year 9 students in our school give for smoking?) (Note that groups of students in an inquiry can pursue different research questions, as long as each group is only following one question);
- The question is clear and focused;
- The question is feasible: it is answerable and can be addressed in a fixed time;
- Data can be collected to answer the question.
2.1.3. Stage 3: Action
The solutions to authentic questions must involve a form of action. By action we mean outcomes which address the original question and result in some kind of change, or in gaining relevant knowledge, or understanding reasons why change might not be desirable.
Actions can be of different kinds such as:
- Making an artefact;
- Lobbying powerful institutions;
- Generating instructional materials;
- Promoting institutional change, e.g. school
- Holding a forum for a discussion;
- Staging drama to an audience to illustrate a
- Influential writing;
- Poster displays to promote further discussion.
Finding a solution may lead to other questions, hence the process is circular in nature rather than linear (see figure 2). Actions may themselves raise further questions so that the process should be seen as spiral and reflexive rather than linear.
SSIBL supports young people in acting as knowledgeable social agents through citizenship education (CE). SSIBL involves young people making value-laden decisions together, which they then can enact. In a democratic society, all stakeholders should be able to contribute and therefore SSIBL activities should encourage participation and dialogue throughout the activity from raising questions, through carrying out an inquiry, proposing solutions and taking action.
Features of CE in SSIBL
The core idea of CE in SSIBL is to participate critically in taking action. To participate in critical and constructive dialogue is to:
- Argue a point with personal commitment using evidence and reason;
- Listen carefully and considerately to what others have to say;
- Be open to change your views. If another participant advances a better argument judge it on its merits;
- Respect the views of others. All participants have a right to put their views forward and be listened to. Racist, sexist and homophobic statements, and any statement demeaning the identity and character of a participant, are neither respectful nor inclusive and have no place in constructive dialogue;
- Be critical of arguments if there are points you disagree with, if they are based on insufficient evidence or on shaky premises;
- Encourage passion and commitment. Participants who have a very passionate and deep commitment to a particular viewpoint can sometimes stifle dialogue. But under conditions of openness and transparency this can often be put to good effect because it helps other participants to reflect more fully on their own views.
2.2. Good practices of Teacher Professional Development (TPD)
Using the pedagogical framework described in 2.1 17 of 18 partners tested their teacher professional development (TPD) practices in two rounds, each lasting one academic/school year (2015-2016 and 2016-2017). In an iterative manner, the pedagogical framework was applied in practice, evaluated and then both, the framework and the TPDs were improved.
This process was repeated in the second round.
In these two rounds, partners were able to reach a total of 1.812 teacher educators and teachers (excluding over 200 teachers that had participated in the pilot phase, preceding round 1). See table 1 or table 3 for an extended version of this table.
[Placeholder table 1]
Table 1: Number of pre-service and in-service teachers participating in SSIBL teacher professional development between 2015 and 2017.
The TPD approaches for SSIBL vary according to country and partner institute. Some take place over one or two sessions within one institution while others involve a multi-agency approach and take place over a time span of a few months. Some take place in the context of the school whereas others involve activities outside of the school. All the approaches are based on opportunities for experiential learning and collaborative practise, implementation and reflection. Teachers have the opportunity to:
a. learn about the SSIBL approach through contextualised topics (the external domain) and through experiential and collaborative approaches through which teachers design, try out (enact) activities for themselves and with other colleagues. Note that some approaches introduce the SSIBL framework explicitly from the outset whereas others introduce it gradually;
b. implement SSIBL activities in schools (domain of practise)
c. reflect on practise in schools and its effect on knowledge, beliefs and confidence (personal domain)
d. identify outcomes and expand opportunities for further practise, design, collaboration and implementation (domain of consequence).
Below, two good practices of TPDs are described. Each example involves a description of the main topic/controversy focused on followed by the mode of organisation of the TPD sessions.
Using online and face-to-face approaches
The Cyprus University of Technology adopted a participatory design model for engaging in-service teachers with the PARRISE pedagogical framework, the RRI ideas, and their integration in teacher practices. A particular instance of participatory design was employed (Co-design). During the co-design approach in-service teachers worked together with researchers and science educators to adapt or develop science education modules that embodied RRI, addressing all three pillars of the SSIBL framework (inquiry-based learning, socio-scientific issue, active citizenship). The TPD had a hybrid form, as it alternated face-to-face meetings, with online video conferences. A crucial component of the co-design approach was also the requirement that teachers enact the SSIBL modules with their students, and based on the feedback and data received to evaluate and revise the module.
The goal of the TPD was to introduce and familiarise teachers to the PARRISE approach and support teachers in co-designing and implementing their own SSIBL modules. During the face-to-face meetings teachers participated as learners, designers, innovators, and reflective practitioners. During the experiential face-to-face meetings, the teachers participated in activities that aimed to highlight contemporary controversies, such as the ‘Antibiotics in livestock’ activity, in which the TPD teachers assumed the role of different stakeholders, and took part in a debate as a culminating activity; later they analysed the activity from their view point as teachers, to examine the socio-scientific controversy, and how it can be best approached in their teaching.
Teachers worked in disciplinary groups (biology, chemistry and elementary science) each led by teacher educator, who co-ordinated the online work (video conferences) and the collaborative design process. All meetings took place during the teachers’ own time. The full TPD runs over a period of 8 months (or during the full school year). It is composed of six face-to-face sessions (6 hours each) and five, bi-monthly web conferences (90 minutes each), for a total of 43.5 of contact session hours, excluding classroom implementations.
Teachers as co-researchers with students/input from scientists
Malmö University in Sweden organised a TPD on nanotechnology, the engineering of systems at the molecular, or nanoscale, level. The TPD approach consisted of four workshops. Each workshop was 4 hours and the course was run over a period of 4 months.
The participants teach in different science subjects in lower secondary school.
After introduction of in-service and pre-service teachers to the SSIBL framework they discussed ways in which it might be adapted to the science curriculum. They worked both with presented cases and developed and shared their own cases/projects, producing student SSIBL activity modules. In the second workshop the teachers heard a lecture about running socio-scientific activities in schools, shared dilemmas on nanotechnology and were encouraged to raise questions and how they deal with questions to which there are no certain or firm answers. Subsequently, during a project day the teachers presented what and how they have worked using SSIBL in their classes or in a teacher training course and reflected on their acquired skills. The teachers produced and shared exemplar lesson plans.
Detailed descriptions of the project’s good practices can be found on the project website www.parrise.eu.
2.3 Examples of classroom materials
Below activities for three different age groups are listed.
1. Cutting down a school’s energy losses
A class of primary children are learning about energy. They come to understand that energy is the ability to do work and make changes take place. They learn that energy can be recognized through processes involving light, motion, heat, electricity, sound. They also know that their bodies use energy to make things happen such as lifting weights, walking to school, keeping warm at low temperatures. Intuitively they grasp the idea that they need food to do these things but they are not quite sure how food plays a role in this. So they are taught that food can be seen as a fuel like petrol, or coal, or gas; stuff that makes vehicles go and keeps us warm at home. Through observations and experiments they see that nothing happens to fuels unless there are certain conditions: the presence of air and a source of heat.
Through discussions about their experiments and the relations of energy use to their own lives and to the planet more generally they come to understand that fuels need to be conserved. So, they decide to investigate how their school manages its energy use so that it remains warm during the winter and cool in summer time. Their inquiry takes place in four stages:
1. Developing a plan for resolving the question of fuel conservation in the school. Their overall question becomes: How can we avoid energy losses in the school? (‘Ask’)
2. They carry out a survey identifying sites which are cold and drafty in winter or hot and uncomfortable in summer. (‘Find out’)
3. They search for information, and try out small experiments, e.g. how temperature loss can be reduced from a cup of hot water using different types of material to cover the cup, for reducing energy flow in winter and increasing it in summer. (‘Find out’)
4. They design a pamphlet to suggest ways of making the school more energy efficient based on their evidence, including reducing use of lights and computer equipment, and discuss it with school management at the school ‘energy day’. (‘Act’)
This involves teaching about fuels and energy transfer, for example:
- Examples of energy transfer;
- Fuels are needed as a starting point in an energy transfer system;
- Fossil fuels need air and a source of heat,
- Heat flows from regions of high to low temperatures;
- Energy transfer can be managed thereby conserving fuels and cutting down costs.
Adapting for SSIBL
Where does heat loss take place at home/at school? How can we find out how much heat is lost? Does heat loss vary with time of day? What data will we need to collect? How can we best represent and interpret our data (thereby using mathematics knowledge and skills)? What instruments will we use, (e.g. thermal imaging cameras if available)? How will we present our data? How will we know our data is accurate and reliable? How can we translate our data into savings on fuel conservation and a better learning environment for students? Students could research ways how buildings similar to their school are insulated. How do we prioritise ways to cut down energy losses? What resources will we need? How can we use the evidence to persuade management and governors to provide those resources?
2. Why do young people smoke?
Teenage smoking is a problem, for example, in the UK, particularly among young women.
Students might learn about:
- The role of the bronchi and lungs and how their structure is adapted for function;
- Mechanics of breathing (the motion of the ribcage and inter-costal muscles);
- The importance of oxygen for cell metabolism and the need to remove carbon dioxide;
- Oxygen and carbon dioxide diffusion across lung membranes and down concentration gradients;
- How blood transports gases to and from cells.
As part of the lesson on passage of O2/CO2 students are shown a smoking model which demonstrates the effects of smoking. They could for example discuss how far this model represents what takes place at the surface of the lungs, the similarities and differences between the model cotton wool ‘lung’ and real lungs, the surface area of the lung, its spongy nature, how far tar stains the surface of the lungs, the role of the bronchial tubes during inhalation and exhalation.
Adapting for SSIBL
Students can research the impact of smoking on young people, the risk factors (the probability of contracting a serious lung disease combined with the seriousness of the impact) and whether e-cigarettes are a good alternative for young people who are addicted. Having seen the demonstration and understanding the biological effects the students can discuss how more knowledge would influence the smoking habits of their peers.
Students could devise an anonymised survey to find out how many of their peers smoke, why those who smoke do so and their views on ‘passive’ smoking. They could work in groups to devise and test questionnaires they can send to peers, e.g. through Survey Monkey. They could also gather data to find out the link between smoking and diseases later in life such as emphysema and lung cancer.
Based on their research students devise a poster which could be displayed in a prominent place in the school. The information they gather could also influence the way the risks of smoking are taught.
3. Eco-friendly clothing
This example is based on a project with a class of 17 year olds studying chemistry. The context for this activity was a newspaper article brought in by a student during teacher professional development at University College London. The article explains how air pollution can be reduced by wearing clothes which purify the air. Catalytic clothing technology brings several different areas of chemistry together. Denim jeans are cleaned in a washing powder containing nano-particles of titanium dioxide, TiO2, which has photo-catalytic properties. These particles of titanium dioxide act on liquid water and water vapour in the air in the presence of light (hence photo-catalysis), producing free radical molecules which are extremely reactive (free radicals had appeared in the students’ chemistry course when they learned about the decomposition of hydrocarbons) and can react with toxic NOx particles in the air, converting them to relatively harmless compounds. This is particularly advantageous because the nanosized particles are able to stick to the jeans and because of their small size produce a vast surface area, which helps to speed up the chemical breakdown of NOx pollutants even more. Moreover, titanium dioxide has many other physical and chemical properties which have a role in everyday life (for instance in toothpaste, confectionery, sunscreen, cosmetics, and baking).
So, titanium dioxide and its role in catalytic clothing not only provide a fascinating context for photo-catalysis, free radical reactions and nanochemistry, but investigations into how effective catalytic clothing could be in purifying the air, and the cost-effectiveness ratio. For example, how many people would have to wear catalytic clothing to reduce the NOx levels significantly? This could be researched by drawing on secondary data. And might there be side effects?
The campaign and investigation took a different turn when a student researching the manufacture of titanium dioxide found out it was mined in Sierra Leone as the mineral rutile. Looking through websites he discovered something that wasn’t mentioned in the main literature and was controversial: that the process of extracting rutile displaced many local people and itself degraded the environment of local people in Sierra Leone without giving them much benefit. (05) Furthermore, if the local environment in Sierra Leone was to be protected, and even improved through the mining, then the costs of rutile would go up enormously. This piece of information then prompted students to raise a new question about their investigation: Do the benefits from titanium dioxide outweigh the harm? If not, how can the technology of catalytic clothing be justified? The students worked on a controversy map to identify relationships between various stakeholders: mining company executives, miners, Sierra Leone government, fruit farmers displaced by the mines, chemical researchers, clothes designers, washing powder manufacturers, environmental campaigners, the rutile mineral, garments.
This question was then debated with the whole year group. The students felt the benefits of titanium dioxide were too important to lose but decided to alert local environmental groups to the conditions of production. Table 2 on the following page summarises these SSIBL activities.
3.1 Potential impact and use
i. Supporting teachers and teacher educators
The PARRISE project empowered teacher educators and teachers via major pre-service science teacher institutions as well as the national and regional centres running in-service science teacher training courses. In pilot TPD programmes in 2014 and 2015, partners reached over 200 teachers and teacher educators. In the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 academic/school year, 1.251 pre-service and 515 in-service teachers participated in a TPD.
[Placeholder table 2]
Table 2: Number of pre-service and in-service teachers participating in SSIBL teacher professional development between 2015 and 2017, split per round of Teacher Professional Development.
In pilot TPD programmes in 2014 and 2015, partners already reached over 200 teachers and teacher educators. In the 2015-2016 academic/school year, 647 pre-service and 238 in-service teachers participated in the TPDs, while during the 2016-2017 academic/school year, 704 pre-service and 277 in-service teachers participated in a PARRISE TPD.
The four partners who participated in WP2 Primary Education had a total of 38 stakeholders - cumulatively, 2014-2017, including science educators in the subjects of chemistry, biology, physics, primary school teachers, informal learning educators and science communication researchers - to discuss the PARRISE project and the SSIBL framework. In two rounds of TPD, a total of 541 pre-service and 59 in-service teachers took part.
The nine partners who participated in WP3 Lower Secondary Education have involved local lower secondary education science teachers, alongside educators and experts in science education; they have reached at least 527 stakeholders (cumulatively, 2014-2017, excluding CUT national conference in 2017). In the second round of TPD, a total of 548 pre-service and 177 in-service teachers took part.
The eight partners participating in WP4 Upper Secondary Education have involved and established local upper secondary education teachers' networks in which were involved 103 stakeholders (cumulatively, 2014-2017). In the second round of TPD, a total of 262 pre-service and 279 in-service teachers took part.
ii. Guiding the integration of RRI in IBSE
This project has delivered an educational framework for the synthesis of SSI, CE and IBSE under the umbrella on RRI. This framework has been developed and modified in an iterative process – i.e. thinking back and forward between theory and practice - in the course of the project. The resulting SSIBL framework enables teacher educators and teachers to develop additional SSIBL learning and teaching activities and adapt examples of good practice. As a result of this project, SSIBL teacher training modules have been and will be improved and exchanged transnationally. These modules are provided in a repository on the project website: www.parrise.eu/teacher_training_materials.
iii. European approach
The SSIBL framework and modules cover an array of socio-scientific issues, ranging from climate change to the impact of genetic testing, which are not limited to national boundaries. International exchange of teaching materials on these issues - as best practices - will help to identify local pedagogical opportunities and barriers which might be culturally specific, hence constructive strategies for adapting units for each country.
Many of these teaching materials have been tested and implemented in the period 2015-2017.
The publishing of the PARRISE Good Practices online database can support the wider dissemination of the PARRISE ideas, and will make them accessible to teachers, teacher educators, and researchers around the world for, at least, the next five years.
iv. Cooperation in national or international research activities
The project draws on established FP7 IBSE projects and practice from around Europe. In the course of the EU-project PROFILES, teacher communities arose in which IBSE modules were mutually developed by science teachers and used to implement their science curricula.
PARRISE has built on these communities and introduced the concepts of SSI and RRI for the refinement of the developed IBSE modules according to the SSIBL approach. In a similar way, PARRISE has built on the results of ESTABLISH, ASPIRE, SAILS, CoReflect and SciComPed, all of which are represented in the partners of PARRISE. The results of this integration have been disseminated to policy makers, science education scholars and practitioners.
Moreover, the PARRISE management team has been in touch with other on-going EU projects focusing on RRI, like RRI-tools and ENGAGE. The coordinators have participated in meetings and workshops aimed at mutual learning and representatives of the projects IRRESTIBLE and Ark of Inquiry were represented in the plenary sessions of the PARRISE final conference.
3.2 Dissemination activities
Raising awareness of the importance of integrating RRI aspects in science curricula
Dissemination was an ongoing goal which was pursued by local awareness raising actions, such as inviting teachers to participate in TPDs, presenting the PARRISE project to educational policy makers and curriculum developers, teachers and teacher educators. The PARRISE conference in Dublin in August 2017 contributed to this goal more broadly by reaching new audiences, including teachers, teacher educators, and pedagogy researchers.
[figure 3 placeholder]
Figure 3. The banner of the PARRISE final conference
The PARRISE website (www.parrise.eu) was updated throughout the project, with the highlight being the online, public release of the TPD Good Practices Database, which showcases the TPD courses developed during the course of the project. The website has an adaptive design that allows it to scale as necessary to mobile devices, and includes new features, such as links to the PARRISE YouTube channel and links to other SWAFS projects, especially those addressing RRI ideas. Based on data collected on the website traffic, visitors to the site have come from European countries, but also from countries outside of Europe, from the USA, South America, Africa, Australia and Asia. These visits indicate the wider dissemination effort conducted by the members of the consortium and the potential interest in and wide appeal of the ideas of the PARRISE project worldwide. Figure 4 shows a screenshot of the PARRISE website.
[figure 4 placeholder]
Figure 4. The PARRISE home page
Public newsletters serve the purpose of disseminating information about the progress of the PARRISE project across partners and outside of the PARRISE consortium. The seven newsletters distributed during the project are available on the PARRISE website online. They have also been disseminated in the partner countries and to science education stakeholders internationally.
Local (national) dissemination
PARRISE partners undertook and reported a variety of dissemination activities such as: oral presentations at scientific events or to a wider public, organization of workshops and conferences, poster presentations, distribution of flyers, posts on websites, publications, production of brief videos as an introduction to the project, and press releases.
As shown in Figure 5, a total of 303 dissemination activities have been reported during the lifetime of the project; these activities happened at the local as well as at the European and international levels. It is worth mentioning that while for the first 18 months, partners reported 45 dissemination activities, and for the second period of 18 months, partners reported almost triple the number of dissemination activities (n=121), 133 dissemination activities were reported during the final year. This indicates that as the project work was advancing, the partners’ dissemination activities also increased significantly.
[figure 5 placeholder]
Figure 5. PARRISE dissemination activities for each of the reporting periods and for the whole project.
The PARRISE YouTube Channel features brief videos on the PARRISE project (Figure 6). It offers an innovative and interactive dissemination venue. At the end of the project, a total of 22 videos were included on the YouTube channel, which was linked from the project website. The YouTube videos cover a variety of SSIBL topics. Many of them focused on the SSIBL framework and pedagogical approach. For instance, the University of Southampton has an interview of a pre-service teacher’s experiences with the SSIBL pedagogy. Likewise, the University of Utrecht added videos about the use of SSIBL in the science classrooms. Other partners have contributed with videos with PARRISE teacher educator interviews, discussions with policy makers and discussions with researchers about contemporary socio-scientific controversies.
[figure 6 placeholder]
Figure 6. The PARRISE YouTube channel
Teacher Professional Development Good Practices Online Database
The PARRISE website contains an online Good Practices database that describes the TPDs of all PARRISE partners. Launched in Autumn of 2017, the database contains at least one description of a local TPD per partner. These descriptions include the outline and the goals of the TPD course, its objectives and an overview of the evaluation approach employed. In addition, each TPD module is accompanied with materials, such as lessons plans, handouts and presentations, that describe how the TPD approach was implemented.
[figure 7 placeholder]
Figure 7. Screenshot of the UCL-IoE TPD submission from the Good Practices Database on the PARRISE website.
Dissemination activities at national and international conferences
Throughout the project, partners presented PARRISE project ideas and results at conferences to the wider community of teachers, teacher educators, science education researchers, and policy makers. The project was represented at several European and well-known international conferences. In particular, the PARRISE project had a strong presence at the European Science Education Conference (ESERA), in Dublin 2017.
Events for key stakeholders
The PARRISE partners have been very active in presenting their PARRISE work to key stakeholders in their countries (e.g. parents, school principals, Ministry inspectors). Furthermore, partners of the consortium have forged strategic partnerships with major organizations or policy representatives in their countries. The following examples are indicative of these efforts:
In Austria, the University of Vienna organized a course on “Conflicts over use at rivers near Vienna” during the 2nd round of the PARRISE teacher professional development (TPD). During the event the participating pre-service teachers learned about the river conservation efforts and negotiations concerning conflicts in the use of rivers in Austria and elsewhere in the world, from an expert scientist.
In Cyprus, the 2nd round of the PARRISE Cyprus TPD program concluded with a national, public conference, in May 2017, entitled “Responsible Research and Innovation in inquiry-based science learning: The role of education for promoting students’ active citizenship”. The aim of the conference was to give the opportunity to the different science education stakeholders in Cyprus to learn about the PARRISE project and its philosophy, present the PARRISE Cyprus teacher network activities in 2016-2017, and engage stakeholders in a public discussion about science education in Cyprus. More than 100 stakeholders attended this 2nd national PARRISE conference at Cyprus. Participants included policy-makers, academics, school administrators, science education teachers, parents and students.
In Portugal, in September 2017, researchers from ICETA-UP [P8] participated in the European Researchers' Night, which was attended by more than 900 people (teachers, teacher trainers, parents, students, researchers). During the event the PARRISE partners organized a PARRISE-related exhibition titled “Assessment of alcoholic drinks and drugs consumption habits in the school community: using Daphnia magna as a model organism”.
List of Websites:
The URL for the PARRISE project website is www.parrise.eu.
Contact for the website: Frans van Dam, email@example.com
Grant agreement ID: 612438
1 January 2014
31 December 2017
€ 2 899 978,80
€ 2 498 125
Deliverables not available
Grant agreement ID: 612438
1 January 2014
31 December 2017
€ 2 899 978,80
€ 2 498 125
Grant agreement ID: 612438
1 January 2014
31 December 2017
€ 2 899 978,80
€ 2 498 125