Science education for the development of european citizenShip

Suggestions, proposals, data and results from a comenius 2.1. european project(Socrates contract number 226699-cp-1-it-comeniu S-c21)

Lauretta D’Angelo, Paola Rodari, and Federica Sgorbissa (eds)

trieste 2008

english editing by alessandra amanda de felice

printed by Grafiche filacorda - (ud) - italy

index

Part 1Introduction

The SEDEC Project (Science Education for the Development of European Citizenship) in context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7lauretta d’anGelo

Part 2Project rationale and theoretical background

The SEDEC Project: goals and structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Scientific education and European citizenship . The project rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19roberto ceriani

European citizenship and active citizenship . A still ongoing debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21lauretta d’anGelo

Science popularization and European citizenship in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Jacek piotr SzubiakowSki

Part 3SEDEC Survey - The perception of science and scientists in children, teenagers and teachers

Survey general overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

The scientist, between Superman and FrankensteinScience and scientists in the drawings of European pupils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33paola rodari

Is science for me? Science and scientists in the answers of European pupils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45daniele Gouthier and paola rodari

Trust and worriesScience and scientists in the answers of European teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61daniele Gouthier

Part 4SEDEC in classes - Training and research-action

A better understanding of the world for an effective civic engagementResults from the SEDEC teachers’ debates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73laura dumbrÄveanu

What is the scientist’s job? From drawings to citizenshipA French didactic experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78etienne bolmont

Debate as an educational method for science and citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Sara calcaGnini

Controversies in the history of science and their usefulness in science education . . . . . . . . 87etienne bolmont and Jacek piotr SzubiakowSki

SEDEC teachers’ experimentations and training in Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104Gaudalupe JÁcome and ana cristina madeira

Part 5SEDEC online - Database and e-learning

Moodle as a platform for teachers: sharing materials, ideas and communicatingThe SEDEC Database of resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117zdenka telnarovà

Philosophy and structure of an e-learning project The case of the SEDEC e-course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124Stefania Quattrocchi

Appendixes

The children’s questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131Author biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Part 1introduction

7

The SEDEC project is undoubtedly embedded in the European educational 21st century con-text and aims to make a contribution in meeting some of the major challenges set to the education and training systems.

As a matter of fact, in recent years, following the development of the Lisbon Strategy, EU mem-ber states and the European Commission have strengthened their political cooperation through the Education and Training 2010 work programme. According to this programme, in order to make Europe a “knowledge-based society”, both competitive and inclusive, its education and training systems must attain the following three general objectives:• improve the quality and effectiveness of education and training; • facilitate access to education and training; • open up EU education and training to the wider world.

One of the priorities identified in 2001, when a debate began on the actual future objectives of education systems, consisted in ‘increasing recruitment for scientific and technical studies’. This is a consequence of the widely acknowledged fact that the development of scientific and technological knowledge and literacy is a fundamental requirement in a competitive knowledge-based society. The knowledge triangle (education, research and innovation) is considered to be the basis for the future development of the European Union, as it plays a key role in boosting jobs and growth.

It is therefore essential that all future citizens acquire a basic understanding of mathematics, science and technology and that studies and careers in these fields attract more young people, both for their personal growth as citizens and for Europe to improve its standing in a competitive global economy. In order to achieve this goal, it is important to ensure that interest and involvement in Maths, Science and Technology (MST) is increased at all levels of the education system through the development of effective policies in this area.

As a matter of fact, the European Council in May 2003 adopted a set of five reference levels (benchmarks) setting out quantified targets to be achieved in certain areas to achieve quality and effectiveness of European education and training. One of these benchmarks focused directly on MST: “The total number of graduates in mathematics, science and technology in the European Union should increase by at least 15% by 2010, while at the same time the level of gender imbalance should decrease”.

the Sedec project (Science Education for the Development of European Citizenship) in context.lauretta d’anGelo

8

The five benchmarks for 2010 are the following:• the average rate of early school leavers should be no more than 10%; • the total number of graduates in maths, science and technology should increase by at least

15%, while the gender imbalance in these subjects should be reduced; • 85% of 22 year olds should complete upper secondary education; • the number of low-achieving 15 year olds in reading, mathematics and science should be halved;• the average participation of working adult population in lifelong learning should rise by at least

12.5%.

The working group in charge of supporting EU countries to reach the MST benchmark (Group D) identified five key recommendations for policy makers to consider in an attempt to increase recruitment in these subjects.

The five key recommendations issued by the Working Group in 2003 were as follows:• the teaching of mathematics, science and technology should be an entitlement for all children

from the early stages of education and should be mandatory at all levels;• more effective and attractive teaching methods should be introduced in mathematics, scientific

and technical disciplines at both primary and secondary levels, in particular by linking learning to real-life experience, professional life and society, and by combining classroom-based teaching with extra-curricular activities;

• the professional profile and expertise of MST teachers should be enhanced not only by providing them with opportunities and incentives for updating their knowledge, both in terms of content and methodologies in MST, through the provision of effective initial and in-service training and by improving teaching resources, but also through the provision of incentives and special measures to ensure their long-term commitment to the teaching profession;

• measures involving teaching methods, pedagogical tools and assessment measures for special needs groups, such as high and low achievers and pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds, should be addressed along with measures to tackle gender-specific attitudes to mathematics, sci-ence and technology;

• strong and effective partnerships between schools, universities, research institutions, businesses, parents and other players should be strongly supported and encouraged at all levels, both to im-prove the quality and attractiveness of the teaching profession and to effectively prepare young people for their professional future and for active citizenship.

Progress towards the benchmark (Report February 2008)According the 2008 Joint Council/Commission Report on the implementation of the Educa-

tion & Training 2010 work programme, “Delivering lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation” (February 2008) the definition of the five benchmarks has enabled Europe to register progress in a number of areas1. Yet although there has been great progress, attaining the benchmarks on early school leaving, completion of upper secondary education and lifelong learning will need more effective national initiatives. Indeed, the situation is getting worse for reading literacy among youngsters, the benchmark in the field of key competences, while the EU benchmark on mathemat-

9

part 1 - the Sedec project (Science education for the development of european citizenship) in context

ics, science and technology graduates was already reached in 2005. This progress is reported in Chart A. 1 below and refers to the 27 member states.

Chart A.1 Progress towards meeting the five benchmarks for 2010 (EU average)

With reference to the benchmark on Mathematics, Science and Technology graduates – to increase the number of graduates by 15% – the EU is performing above the level expected by 2010.(Chart A.2). All countries are increasing the number of graduates in Mathematics, Science and Technology as compared with 2000 and the majority are close or above the 2010 target. Four coun-tries (United Kingdom, France, Poland and Italy) – three of which involved in the SEDEC project – are driving the EU average both by attaining high level performances and by making progress.

However, gender imbalance among MST graduates is still great, especially in engineering and computing.

in this chart the starting point (in 2000) is set at zero and the 2010 benchmark at 100. the results achieved each year are measured against the 2010 benchmark (= 100). the diagonal line shows the progress required, i.e. an additional 1/10 (10%) of progress towards the benchmark has to be achieved each year to reach the benchmark. if a line stays below this diagonal line, progress is not sufficient; if it is above the diagonal line progress is stronger than what is needed to achieve the benchmark. if the line declines, the problem is getting worse.

in the case of lifelong learning, it should be kept in mind that there have been many breaks in the time series, which tend to overstate the progress made, especially in 2003. therefore the 2002-2003 line on lll participation is dotted. for low achievers in reading (data from the piSa survey) there are results for 18 eu countries for only two data points, 2000 and 2006. it is therefore not yet possible to assess to what extend the observed differences are indicative of longer-term trends.

140130120110100908070605040302010

-10-20-30-40-50-60-70-80

0

MST graduates 181

progress required

Lifelong learning participation

Early school levels

Upper secondary completion

Low achievers in reading

(below 0 = performance getting worse)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

2010

ben

chm

arks

= 1

00

years

10

Chart A.2. Country performance (2006) and progress (2000-2006) in all five benchmark areas

If we consider the countries involved in the SEDEC project (Czech Republic, France, Italy, Portu-gal, Romania and Poland) only Romania and the Czech Republic are still below the EU benchmark for MST, while Italy, France, Portugal and Poland are moving further ahead.

Nevertheless according to the report there are still important inequities in European educational systems. In fact:• 6 million young people, 1 in 7 of 18-24 years old, achieve only compulsory education or less;• 25-64 year-olds are 3 times more likely to participate in lifelong learning if they have completed

at least upper secondary education;• 1 in 7 of 4 year-olds are not enrolled in a school. Many of these are in high need categories, such

as children with immigrant parents or families with low socio-economic status;• Low performance in reading literacy, which was benchmarked to decline by 20% by 2010, has

actually increased by more than 10% between 2000 and 2006 and has reached 24.1%;• Gender inequalities remain. Boys do less well at reading and are more likely to have special edu-

cation needs. Girls do less well in mathematics and are underrepresented among mathematics, science and technology students and graduates.This attitude towards science and technology was confirmed also in the survey that the SEDEC

partnership ran during the project and that will be described later on in this publication. Progress in this respect – a higher gender equality – is important as well as it is associated with a higher level of

MST graduates

Performance

EL

PLSK

IT

CZ

CYTR

large countriesmedium countriessmall countries

LT

PT

EEAT

NLDE

IS

EU27 SE UK

DK FR IE

ESROHU

MTHR

BGLV

NOSI

BEFI

-10

50 100 1500

0

10

20

Prog

ress

FYRM

Catching up Moving further ahead

Losing momentumFalling further behind

(ave

rage

00-

06 o

f ann

ual g

row

th, %

)

(benchmark = 100)

11

part 1 - the Sedec project (Science education for the development of european citizenship) in context

democratic citizenship and even – in a more deeper perspective – with a greater respect for human rights. One of the major outcomes of the project has been the development of an in-service train-ing course for teachers which is inserted in the Comenius/Grundtvig catalogue and which will offer participants the opportunity to debate and reflect on all these issues.

Chart A.3 Reports the progress of the member states in all benchmarks . This chart indicates the performance progress by the countries involved in the SEDEC project . LEgEnD:

ABOVE EUBEnCHMARK

BELOW EUBEnCHMARK

InCREASIngPERFORMAnCE

MOVIng FURTHERAHEAD

CATCHIngUP

DECREASIngPERFORMAnCE

LOOSIngMOMEnTUM

FALLIng FURTHERBEHIng

Early school leavers Lifelong learning Upper secondary education MST Graduates

Low performer in reading

literacy

EU

BELgIUM

BULgARIA

CzECH REPUBLIC

DEnMARK

gERMAny

ESTOnIA

IRELAnD

gREECE

SPAIn

FRAnCE

ITALy

CyPRUS

LATVIA

LITHUAnIA

LUxEMBOURg

HUngARy

MALTA

nETHERLAnDS

AUSTRIA

12

Early school leavers Lifelong learning Upper secondary education MST Graduates

Low performer in reading

literacy

POLAnD

PORTUgAL

ROMAnIA

SLOVEnIA

SLOVAKIA

FInLAnD

SWEDEn

UnITED KIngDOM

CROATIA

TURKEy

ICELAnD

nORWAy

LEgEnD:

ABOVE EUBEnCHMARK

BELOW EUBEnCHMARK

InCREASIngPERFORMAnCE

MOVIng FURTHERAHEAD

CATCHIngUP

DECREASIngPERFORMAnCE

LOOSIngMOMEnTUM

FALLIng FURTHERBEHIng

The source of all charts and data used in this introduction is the 2008 Joint Report. It can be downloaded from http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc28_en.htm

Part 2Project rationale

and theoretical background

15

IntroductionDuring the last five years (2002-2007) the interest for math, science and technology studies increased

considerably in the European Union as already mentioned in the general introduction. Competencies deriving from education in math, science and technology are seen as key competencies and are considered to be - at least at a basic level - necessary for a real exercise of citizenship. Meanwhile also the awareness of the necessity and of the importance to empower European citizenship increased following to the enlargement of the European Union to 27 member countries and the potential of further opening of its boarders over the coming years. Is-sues of multi-culturalism and cultural and social awareness are getting crucial and crucial and it is clear that these aspects connecting to the living together should be addressed from early ages in all European countries, aiming not only to understand the culture of other peoples and interact with them but also at integration and achievement of common goals. Furthermore, recent events such as the rejection of the European Constitution and the negative result of the referendum about the Lisbona Treaty in Ireland has shown the necessity to start the process of rethinking the concept of European Citizenship and education and training systems have to play an important role in it.

Philosophy and aimsThe SEDEC project addresses the issues of science education and European citizenship in a complemen-

tary way, while identifying methodologies and tools in order to familiarise pupils with science and technology and offer more opportunities for innovative teaching and learning. It also addresses European citizenship through the development of awareness of common scientific heritage and the use of a range of resources, such as museums, science centres, cultural heritages, industry, research institutions.

The overall aim of the project is to contribute to education in science and to awareness of European citizenship through the professional development of teachers, which, in turn, would help raise young people’s interest and involvement in these issues. In particular, the project aims to:• contribute, in an innovative way, to the professional development of teachers by supporting the acquisition

of subject-knowledge and competence as well as methodologies for the delivery of science at school and for integrating issues of European citizenship within the curriculum;

• promote the role of the teacher as facilitator of learning to help pupils to develop knowledge and science

The SEDEC Project: goals and structure

16

skills through a range of experiences within and outside of classroom (example: educational visits to scien-tific sites across Europe);

• contribute to education in science through the use of a range of resources: museums, science centres, re-search institutions, industry, cultural heritage;

• fighting racism and xenophobia by developing awareness of self and of others within a common context, that of the European Union;

• develop awareness for the shared scientific cultural heritage.

A particularly innovative aspect in the project is the fact that it addresses science education and European citizenship in a complementary way – use one to address and reinforce the other and vice versa.

Furthermore it is particularly challenging in the use of professional expertise in different fields: science, science education, teacher training (initial and in-service), museum education, research.

Target groupsThe target groups were initially identified as primary and lower-secondary school teachers and museum

educators. But as long as the project went on and especially during the development of the training course, it became clear that the proposed activities can become source of inspiration also for any level and category of teaching/educating staff. According to the aims of the course the impact on teachers and educators will be the acquisition of skills and resources and the improved quality of their teaching practice through a common training experience based on comparing, debating, arguing and reflecting activities. Materials available on a public web-based database of teaching resources will offer them the opportunities to find examples of best practices to use or adapt to their teaching needs. The impact on pupils will consist in a general enrichment of learning, in the acquisition of skills and knowledge in science, in the raise of interest in science, cultural and multi-cultural awareness. To museum educators the impact will be the acquisition of new methodologies in teacher training and the development of new ideas for working with schools and also way in which they can link scientific heritage with issues of European citizenship.

From research to trainingThe pedagogical approach used in the developed educational and training initiatives (both pilot activities

and final) is built on principles deriving from research in the field: collaborative work with teachers taking into account their own school and classroom realities and needs; use of the educational project as teaching and learning method; familiarising with the teacher first as person and successively as an educator who has to facilitate pupils’ learning. The pedagogical approach in using museums or other resources is based on active participation; consideration of people’s already-acquired knowledge and personal experience in acquiring new knowledge; contextualisation of activities and experiments; trial and error; development of cognitive as well as affective processes, etc. One very important aspect taken into consideration in the course activities is the use of the inquiry method as tool for familiarising teachers and pupils with the scientific research method.

Of course the in-service training proposal starts from the results of the survey on the perception of science and of European citizenship and it uses in part some of the materials and data obtained. The survey is de-scribed in detail in Part 3.

17

PART 2 - The SEDEC Project: goals and structure

Project activities The first year (2005-2006) was devoted to the survey, which set the basis of the following project activi-

ties. It gave the partnership a large and impressive perspective of the perception of science and technology in the involved countries and it was the starting point for the planning of the course as it highlighted areas where it is necessary to intervene.

The second year (2006-2007) was devoted to the full-implementation of the activities and materials (web-site, first examples of teaching materials and so on) to open seminars for teachers and educators, as well as to detailed evaluation before the wider dissemination of products.

The third year (2007-2008) was the time for launching of the website as well as for the development and realisation of the training activities.

Outcomes The most impressive outcome of the project is for sure the survey on teachers’ and pupils’ perception

of science and of European citizenship that was carried out using quantitative and qualitative research methods (such as questionnaires, focus groups, etc.) in order to understand what is the perception of pupils at elementary and lower secondary level.

The sample was identified beginning from the schools collaborating with the project and a full report was produced out of the results of this study (in EN, translated into FR, IT, PL) and it has been published in paper and on the website.

The second significant outcome is the website that was designed and developed a website from the very beginning of the project. Initially it functioned as a promotion tool and for the dissemination of the objec-tives and activities of the project. Progressively it served for the dissemination of the educational materials and of the resources database. Finally, it was/is used also disseminate all information regarding the Euro-pean In-service training course. The main language of the website is English while specific materials and information are also in the other languages of the project. The website hosted also the e-learning test course.

What was meant initially as a database is actually mostly a resources repository. In spite of its limited dimension it contains a lot of interesting teaching/learning experiences that schools can use in order to ad-dress issues of science education and European citizenship. It contains also information about the results of the survey on perception of science, resources across Europe for educational visits with students (Scientific School Tourism) and materials useful for teaching, learning and teacher training. It proposes examples found within the partner countries but ongoing it can be enriched with more data. The aim is to offer a large source of information to teachers for use in the classroom or for discovery visits to sites, encouraging not only local visits, but also mobility at European level.

Educational materials were developed on the basis of the results of the survey and it aims at encourag-ing the use of a range of resources, such as museums, science centres, companies, cultural heritage sites, etc. The figures of scientists such as Copernicus or Leonardo da Vinci, objects, cultural sites or industry such as the ones mentioned above are included in the materials and will constitute stimuli for inquiry learning at schools and out-of-class visits as well as examples for the development of further work. The aim is to encour-age inquiry learning and first-hand experience of evidence of the history of science as well as of scientific phenomena for the development of knowledge, skills and abilities for building a lifelong familiarisation with science and technology.

18

Course for in-service training of teachersA European in-service training course was developed by the partnership project and it is now included

in the Comenius/Grundtvig catalogue. Its content covers issues connected to science education and European Citizenship on the basis of the use of a variety of resources (museums, science centres, companies, territory). The first edition of the course will be in 2009.

ConclusionsIt is very difficult to say if SEDEC was a successful project or not. It was a very challenging one since it

covered so many crucial thematic areas and wanted to contribute to meet social challenges that this would require more time, more money, more human resources. But also more networking and cooperation both at national level of the involved countries and at European (or perhaps also) international level.

If it is true according to the 2008 Joint report about the progress towards the Lisbona benchmarks that more and more young people access scientific and technological studies, it is also true (and the survey proved it too) that the social perception of the scientist/researcher in this fields is very poor and anyway scientists are not seen as being members of the society, of a community, but as something apart from it: you have to be “done “ in a certain way to become a scientist, Stereotypes and prejudices are still there. Gender inequalities are still there. These two factors can impact in a dangerous way on society:• only élites can access this profession because you need to be “self-supporting” for a long time before becom-

ing financially independent;• only not so “normal” people are suitable for this profession (either very “genial” or “superman-style”) since

they live in “segregated” world. It is necessary to reconduct them to their belonging community, that is to say the society;

• it is a profession for men.

The consequences of this last factor do not need to be explained. All “sex-segregated” professions have re-vealed to be problematic beginning from the teaching one.

We think we did most of what we had planned to do even if with a different distribution in time and resources. Of course we could have done it better.

For sure we have learnt a lot one from the others and experienced day by day that living and working together in the diversity is possible. This is the most important messages for our pupils and students.

19

Two concepts seemingly distant from each other, scientific education and European citizenship, have been the basis for the project SEDEC. This is a European project funded by the European Commission within the framework of the Socrates/Comenius programme, aiming at producing training material addressed to European teachers. Started in autumn 2005, the project ended in 20081.

What do science and citizenship have in common? How can scientific education and citizenship education reinforce each other? The history of science and the scientific method reveal that, in the process of shaping scientific knowledge, nobody is the repository of a priori truths - validating a re-search hypothesis requires subjecting it to complex verification procedures before it can be accepted by the scientific community as a “good provisional truth”.

This integrated process of hypothesis, experiment and verification, forces the scientific commu-nity members, despite frequent conflicts, to accept one another, since nobody really knows who will eventually be right or wrong. Even when the verification process proves someone to be right it is not always a final verdict and the work of those that have been proved wrong is not actually wasted, as it can be used to spur new research projects and build other “temporary truths”.

In a civil society of normal coexistence, the rules regulating relationships and citizenship differ from the ones of the scientific community - everyday life sees either enduring conflicts or conflicts settled for reasons other than experimental verification. Even though the rules for relations among citizens can hardly be reduced to those within the scientific community, one could argue that, should all citizens behave as researchers do within their working environment, the result would prob-ably be a smaller number of conflicts based on ideological prejudices and an easier dialogue between conflicting points of view.

Consequently, albeit regarding these two worlds as clearly distinct, it is possible to assert that a good scientific education provided at school may contribute to developing a sense of citizenship in students. A student used to applying the scientific method, formulating hypotheses for research, ver-ifying them with methodological rigour, making experiments, comparing his/her hypotheses with those of fellow researchers, etc., will be “obliged” to consider every statement, either by him/her or by other people, as a possible truth to be subjected to verification, to respect other students’ ideas, to change his/her mind when a better solution is found by someone else.

This student, thanks to the scientific education received, is implicitly trained for a citizenship relation based on mutual respect, on a cooperative research for truth, on the defence of the validity or otherwise of a statement by reason of comparison with facts, i.e. with the subject of the statement,

Scientific education and European citizenship.The project rationaleRoberto CERiani

20

rather than a prejudice related to its promoter. In other words, it will be easier to develop a sense of belonging to a civil community in a student accustomed to using the scientific method correctly, rather than in a student incapable of distinguishing the ideological level from a confrontation on facts.

Furthermore, one ought to consider that many choices that contemporary society is called upon to make, even in Europe, regarding issues that involve scientific and technological knowledge (e.g. energy, transport, environmental protection and health protection, etc.). Learning to discuss and to make decisions on these issues, in the framework of an in-depth and open dialogue among non-expert citizens, authorities, scientists and researchers is a heritage we deem to be fundamental for European citizens. It implies the ability to handle issues such as the cost/benefits relation, risk man-agement and communication, the evaluation of the scientific evidence for drug effectiveness, and the like.

The SEDEC project was therefore based on the hypothesis that a good scientific education is necessary for development and progress, and prepares students for a constructive citizenship relation with his/her fellows, taking scientific education as a catalyst for positive relations among people.

Notes and references1 Project partners are: ANSAS (ex IRRE) Lombardia, Italy (coordinator); Museo Nazionale della Scienza e della Tecnologia

Leonardo da Vinci, Milano, Italy; Sissa Medialab, Trieste, Italy; Centro de Formação Dr. Rui Grácio, Lagos, Portugal; I.U.F.M. de Lorraine, Maxéville, France; Olsztynskie Planetarium i Obserwatorium Astronomiczne, Olsztyn, Poland; University of Ostrava, Faculty of Science, Ostrava, Czech Republic; Institute for Educational Sciences, Bucharest, Roma-nia.

This article appeared before in Jcom 6(3), September 2007.

21

The concept of citizenship cannot be easily defined, especially when a strictly legal status ap-proach is to be avoided. Indeed, the concept of citizenship itself contains implications that go be-yond the field of rights and duties arising from belonging to a politically defined community. As stressed by Kymlicka e Norman,1 the word “citizen” implicitly contains behavioural factors (e.g. being a good citizen, acting as a good citizen, and so on), that typically connote the concept of citi-zenship as a way of acting. Nonetheless, as acting always takes place in a context that changes, by its very nature, when cultural, social and economic conditions change, the concept of citizenship too evolves both in time and space. Therefore, citizenship - as an act of belonging, as a process of active participation in the community (or communities), and as a set of knowledge, feelings, attitudes and behaviours of individuals - inevitably pushes us to identify its links with the acquisition/employment of skills that should make a citizen’s action real and effective.

The European Council proclaimed 2005 as the European Year for citizenship through educa-tion. What was the point of such an initiative? Its purpose was to stress that, in a life-long and life-wide learning perspective, education - considered as a formal, non-formal or informal learning proc-ess - plays a crucial role in the acquisition of the value of citizenship, in the quality of participation, in the democratic life of a community and in the promotion of its culture. Thus, for an active citi-zenship, learning means acting in synergy with a variety of contexts: a process that can be described as a critical guidance within which students (of any age, in any context) are offered opportunities structured at a cognitive, affective and pragmatic level to acquire and renew the skills needed for a self-directed participation, for social purposes, and to experience the negotiation of meanings.

This means that an active citizenship is actually built on the basic concept of civic, political and social education, which is generally present in all European curricula,2 but transcends them.

In the final report for the research “All-European Study on Education for Democratic Citizen-ship Policies”, promoted by the European Council,3 education for citizenship in a school/educa-tional context may be represented as a pyramid structured as in Figure 1.

The educational and training context consequently becomes a “locus” - one among the many possible in a society of knowledge - for an individual and collective identity and sense of belong-ing which, as stressed, is to be developed and promoted in many contexts, from the national, to the local or community ones, aside from the usual European and global level. At a European level,

European citizenship and active citizenship.A still ongoing debateLauretta D’AngELo

22

this interpretation approach achieves the most widespread support. Indeed, one of the most recent documents by the European Commission states that implementing citizenship implies empowering individuals, allowing them to feel at ease in a democratic culture and feeling that their contribu-tion can change the community they live in. In this perspective, it appears evident that the concept of citizenship cannot be restricted to a univocal relation in which the state provides a number of guarantees to its citizens, but it rather becomes a two-way process, in which citizens are prompted to exercise their rights and to take advantage from the opportunities they are given. The result is that active citizenship becomes a constant interchange between personal development and society. However, participation cannot be taken for granted: you need to be capable of doing it. Hence, the debate on active citizenship is joined - as previously stated - by the one on the skills needed for its effective and conscious exercise.4 Is it therefore possible to learn how to be active citizens? A study by the Directorate General for Education and Culture of the European Commission on citizenship education, carried out in thirty-three countries (including EU and EFTA members and candidate countries), reveals that in the process of active citizenship learning there are - as can be inferred from the pyramid above - cognitive, affective and behavioural components. The study confirms that un-derstanding key concepts and their underlying values is the first step towards participation. Cogni-tive learning is indispensable to lay the foundations to proceed on the path to active citizenship; the affective component influences attitudes, opinions and feelings, whereas the behavioural component is expressed through commitment and the participation in the community and in society.5 However,

InFoRMAL CURRICULUM

“Hidden” curriculum* Learning from the media(peer learning, emotional (emulation of charismatic experiences, spare time people, influenceexperiences) by myths, symbols, etc.)

non-FoRMAL CURRICULUM

Extra-curriculum, Ethnic aspects Decision-making processoutside activities (culture of the institution, (collective bodies, (projects, visits, informal leadership, council of the students,voluntary work, etc.) inter-ethnic relations, etc.) pressure and interest groups)

FoRMAL CURRICULUM

Subjects/education, Interdisciplinary issues Integrated programmes(civic education, (human rights, (social studies, individual history, economics politics, etc.) inter-cultural dialogue etc.) and society, etc.)

Figure 1. The pyramid of the education for citizenship. Council of Europe.*translator’s note: a literal translation was chosen here, since the definition of “implicit curriculum” has a broader meaning in Italian.

23

PART 2 - European citizenship and active citizenship. A still ongoing debate

it requires - as highlighted by Bruner - the development of cultural instruments – competence - that should help us live as active participants in an ever-changing world.6 So, what are those competence? According to the results of the previously mentioned Grundtvig II project on the European citi-zenship, the necessary skills for the exercise of citizenship are: knowing how to express oneself, the sense of belonging, knowing how to pay attention and be available to different codes, knowing how to negotiate meanings, being “open”, being aware of one’s own identity, knowing how to translate ideas into practice, feeling capable of acting and possessing a basic knowledge on the key concepts of citizenship and democracy.

Knowing how to express oneself is a fundamental skill. Without it, one is forced to silence and an active participation is impossible. The sense of belonging is also a preliminary aspect for an active citizenship. In general, one prefers to express oneself in known situations and contexts whose dy-namics are intelligible. The sense of belonging is not to be interpreted as a rooting factor; on the con-trary, it is dynamic, flexible and mobile, a skill that follows us in the contemporary society character-ised by continuous changes and even dramatic transformations. “In each context we are entering a scene already in action. And we have to figure out what the game is about and how is played, before we can take part in the action”, says Horsdal7. Knowing how to be careful and available to different codes enables us to participate and create the sense of belonging to different social communities. The more “belongings” you have, the more opportunities for “belonging” you develop. Knowing how to negotiate meanings – aside from being a fundamental element to any type of learning – is indis-pensable to manage conflicts and a precondition to an effective democratic dialogue. Being open is another precondition to learning and it is frequently linked to the acceptance of diversity. Identity, meant in a dynamic way, is an indispensable preliminary element to the development of the sense of affiliation and, at the same time, of independence and represents a bridge between the public and private spheres. Knowing how to translate ideas into practice, i.e. knowing how to move from dia-logue and negotiation to action is the crucial skill for an active citizenship. It is a skill which requires other cross-competence such as knowing how to plan, organise and implement an action. It requires self-confidence, determination and some basic civic and political knowledge, as stressed.

Evidently, in this perspective the role played by teachers, and educators in general, is decisive for the purpose of achieving an active European citizenship education. The training of teachers, both initially and while in service, enables the acquisition or improvement of new teaching methodologies that, implementing processes and favourable learning conditions, promote competence that are a ba-sis not only for citizenship education, but also for coexistence in various contexts. A teacher may use different instruments (collaborative ones, action learning, active teaching in general) in a perspective of “social” learning. What methodologies and active didactic activities typical of scientific teaching – such as debate and support on the grounds of hard facts, problem-solving, cooperating and decision-making according to a participative and shared model, acknowledging values and interests implied in the scientific research and their historical value – are all-encompassing and transferable to other learning contexts for an integrated development of competence for active citizenship? This perspec-tive has been the context for the SEDEC project (Science Education and European Citizenship) and for the structure of the in-service training course the international work group aimed at developing, to offer science teachers the opportunity to participate in the debate on the active citizenship in a European context.

24

Notes and references1 W. Kymlica and W. Norman, Return of the Citizen: A Survey of Recent Work on Citizenship Theory, Ethics 104

(1994) 352.2 Citizenship Education at school in Europe, Eurydice, The Information Network on Education in Europe. http://www.

eurydice.org3 European Commission, Learning for Active Citizenship: A significant challenge in building a Europe of Knowledge

(2005). Introduzione di Edith Cresson. http://europa.eu.int/eduction/archive/citizen/citiz_en.html4 M. Horsdal, Active Citizenship and the Non-Formal education –a Socrates-Grundtvig II project, Højskolernes Hus,

Copenhagen (2004).5 Directorate General for Education and Culture, Study on Citizenship Education, Final report (2007).6 J. Bruner, Act of meaning, Harvard University press (1990).7 M. Horsdal, Active Citizenship and the Non-Formal education –a Socrates-Grundtvig II project, Højskolernes Hus,

Copenhagen: (2004) 53.

This article appeared before in Jcom 6(3), September 2007.

25

Numerous definitions of citizenship can be drawn upon to summarize that it is a set of specific be-haviours and values in the realms of culture, economy and symbolic representation, as well as a package of civil, political and social rights and obligations determining the membership of individuals in organ-ized communities.1 Scientific research and education are crucial constituents of culture and essential for economic growth. Hence, they exert an essential influence on social organization and, consequently, on its members – citizens. From a historical point of view the notion of citizenship has entailed the affilia-tion with a certain national or state community. All the relevant values, rights and duties are inculcated in a way embedded in historical tradition and may appear as natural. Being a European, on the other hand, is not an innate feature and requires education. European education understood as the cultivation of certain universal values associated with democratic societies is aimed at the dissemination of a feeling of European integration among youth. European citizenship should not be a replacement of national citizenship, but ought to complement it. In other words, European citizenship should broaden the scope of citizens’ rights by granting them certain rights in other member states of the European Union.2

European citizenship in a Polish schoolEuropean education has been present in Polish schools since 1990, as an interdisciplinary educa-

tional paths, for instance “European Education” and “Polish Culture in the scope of the Mediterranean tradition”.3 In these courses teachers disseminate the ideals of a united Europe, shaping civil attitudes and illustrating the connections between Polish and European culture among students. More and more schools introduce classes in foreign languages, most often regarding natural sciences. This activity is naturally embedded in pro-European events applying both the universality of scientific knowledge and a European language as its medium. Individual curriculums4 are yet another educational element that allows for shaping active civil attitudes. One of the main aims of such programmes is to make students believe in the effectiveness of active participation in the creation of a European order based on interper-sonal cooperation and sustainable development.

Apart from school classes, the enhancement of intercultural education, which is the cornerstone for active European citizenship, is maintained by the European School Clubs actively working at all levels of education. Their leaders meet once a year to share their experiences. Another major factor in the development of a sense of European citizenship and the strengthening of European education

Science popularization and European citizenship in PolandJacek Piotr SzubiakowSki

26

is based on the direct cooperation between Polish and other European schools. Schools participate in international projects, some of which regard natural sciences, e.g. Primary School in Barcików – “Wa-ter flux in nature”, Gimnasium5 no. 11 in Olsztyn – “Mosaic of culture and science”, Gymnasium in Rybinik – “Water – a treasury of Europe”, Primary School in Barda – “Eureka – Europe or small and great inventors” and so on.

European citizenship and hard science educationThe outcome of the debate of physics teachers from the Warmia and Mazurian Lakes district which

has taken place in the Olsztyn Planetarium as part of the SEDEC project6 is clear – they acknowledge the endorsement of a sense of European citizenship among students. Most often they undertake the fol-lowing activities: during physics classes they trace back the history of this and other related disciplines (e.g. astronomy), point out the European roots of natural sciences in ancient times and the apparent influence of European scholars in the later development of these disciplines, stress the universality of natural laws and the benefits stemming from the introduction of integrated scientific units.

During physics and geography classes students are presented with the process of the evolution of philosophical ideas of the world structure from the early and non-scientific beliefs of ancient societies through the geocentric idea of Ptolemy, up to the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. Students learn the crucial role of the famous European sailors of the age of exploration in the creation of a modern vision of the world. Many Polish schools have participated in the measurement of the Earth’s circumference using the ancient technique of Eratosthenes while at the same time learning about modern techniques for measuring the shape of the Earth.

In geography students are presented with processes of transition from isolation to integration: coop-eration between societies, integration and disintegration processes in Europe (with a special emphasis on Poland’s role), the meaning of Euro regions and twin cities as an example of international cooperation on the regional and local levels.7

These topics serve the educational purpose of endorsing the understanding that real possibilities of overcoming barriers between people depend not only on governments but also rely on initiatives at the local and individual levels. It is essential to become aware of the need to take part in integrating activi-ties on the levels of Euro regions, voivodships, districts, communities and schools as well as to seek new forms of activities and cooperation platforms.

Teachers also describe international relations in the scientific community, the free exchange of ideas, and the cultural role of the development of natural sciences. Many possibilities in this field are offered by informal education activities for students interested in gaining further knowledge in the field of natural sciences.

The European potential in natural sciences education is underestimated, especially if one considers their universal character and swift application possibilities as a medium for integration. Much remains to be done, especially in through European projects such as SEDEC.

Pro European informal education activitiesWithin the Comenius 2.1 project the European Commission accepted 65 projects with Polish par-

27

PaRT 2 - Science popularization and European citizenship in Poland

ticipation in the years 2001 – 2005. This included 15 projects (23%) in natural sciences education and 10 projects (15%) in European citizenship.8

Polish secondary schools take active part in the European educational project EU-HOU - Hands-On Universe,9 which is coordinated by the Pierre and Marie Curie University. Alongside many Euro-pean counterparts, there are about 40 Polish schools. The project includes institutions from 8 European countries which help prepare classes with the application of modern astronomical research techniques. The programme disseminates a new method of teaching by applying remote telescopes and radio tel-escopes. Students aided by a coached teacher conduct real-time observations of astronomical objects by means of remote great telescopes located in various places on the globe and then individually process the results using the software prepared by the project. It is a perfect opportunity for learning scientific techniques, studying various astronomical objects together with accompanying physical phenomena and sharing experience with foreign colleagues. The main aim of the project is to promote an interest in natural and hard sciences, while the experience thus gained can help students in their prospective careers, which may progress in an integrating European environment.

Another form of activity of EU-HOU is conducting observations of large parts of the sky in the participating schools by means of specifically prepared small web cameras. This was started on the initia-tive of the late professor Bohdan Paczyński and is currently coordinated by the Centre for Theoretical Physics of the Polish Academy of Science10 and the Institute for Nuclear Studies of the Polish Academy of Science.11 These observations are conducted as a part of IASC (International Asteroid Search Cam-paign). In this field Polish schools have enjoyed some successes. The fist planetoid to be discovered was the K07G04A found by the students of ZSO n. 7 in Szczecin. The following one, K07G02H, was found by the students of Tadeusz Czacki High School in Warsaw and the subsequent one - K07G51K – by the students of X High School in Toruń. All the Polish discoveries were confirmed by the Minor Planet Center, which on behalf of the International Astronomical Union gathers the data on small ob-jects in the Solar System.

G. Gandolfi et al.12 has grasped the role of a planetarium as a medium of science popularization: “Science is the key ingredient in a planetarium, and our efforts are aimed at conveying the excitement of the processes of reasoning, discovering and experimenting”. This paradigm is actively supported by planetariums in Poland, among others the Olsztyn Planetarium. They have offered the teachers of natu-ral sciences, physics and geography the possibility of conducting classes under an artificial sky, which is a perfect educational device for the visual presentation of topics regarding the celestial sphere and related phenomena. The Olsztyn Planetarium and Astronomical Observatory13 widened its educational offer by adding lessons, presentations and workshops on interesting physical and astronomical phenomena. The nature of meetings is adjusted to the age and knowledge of participants. During the observation of physical phenomena we try to stimulate students’ imagination and interest by the individual discoveries of natural laws. We also hope that these engagements will influence the students in later choosing to undertake a scientific career. Other interesting forms of attracting students to science and technology were introduced by the Planetarium of W. Dziewulski in Toruń.14 This facility introduces students in a modern way with contemporary astronomy and research on the Solar System.

This aim is also facilitated by many contests for children and youth organized by planetariums. The most important is the Astronomical Olympiad organized by the Planetarium of Copernicus in Chorzów.15

28

We also promote the dissemination of knowledge of natural sciences among children, young people and adults. Weekly lectures given by scientists from Poland and recently also from abroad for the general public constitute an opportunity to learn the history of astronomy and the most recent achievements of European and other scientists that unravel the fascinating secrets of the universe we live in. All the par-ticipants may appreciate the positive role of science in the development of the contemporary society.

In 1993 the Polish Association of Science Teachers16 was founded on the initiative of teachers of bi-ology, chemistry, geography and physics. The aims of the association are: social activity for the develop-ment of natural science subjects, stimulating teachers’ occupational activities, dissemination of scientific knowledge and skills as well as the integration of the educational community. Yearly conventions of the Association provide the opportunity for presentation of the achievements and novel methodologi-cal solutions, exchanging experiences on teaching natural science subjects and meeting lecturers from Poland and abroad. The teachers who are the members of the Association cooperate within the projects “Science Across the World”, “Scientific and Technological Literacy”, “Teaching and Learning about Energy” and many others.

Notes and references1 E.F. Isin, P. K. Wood, Citizenship and Identity, Sage Publications, London, 1999. 2 The treaty of Amsterdam. Amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties Establishing the European Communities and

Certain Related Acts, Amsterdam, 2 October 19973 E. Dudek, E. Szedzianis, K. Tryl, Program Nauczania Przedmiotu Przyroda dla klas IV, V, VI Szkoły podstawowej, Wydawnict-

wo Edukacyjne Wiking, Wrocław, 1999. (title in English: Curriculum of the subject Nature for classes IV, V, VI of primary schools, Ed. Wiking)

4 Fizyka i Astronomia. Przewodnik dla nauczyciela, R. Grzybowski, Operon, Gdynia 2007, Fizyka w gimnazjum, S. Jakubowicz, S. Plebański, PWN, Warszawa, 1999. (title in English: Physics and astronomy: Teachers guide, Ed. Operon) (Physics in gym-nasium, Ed. PWN)

5 (translator’s note) Gimnasium is a secondary school in the Polish Educational System.6 http://sedec.osu.cz/ 7 E. Dudek, H. Staniów, J. Wójcik, Program Nauczania Przedmiotu Geografia dla klas I, II, III Gimnazjum, Wydawnictwo

Edukacyjne Wiking, Wrocław, 1999. (title in English: Curriculum of the subject Geography for classes I, II, III of gimnasiums, Ed. Wiking)

8 Editors: M. Wasilenko, S. Malinowska, Kompendium Europejskich Projektów Współpracy Comenius Akcji 2.1 oraz Sieci Tematycznych Comenius 3 realizowanych w latach 2001-2005, Warszawa 2006. (title in English: Guide for the European Projects of Cooperation Comenius 2.1 and thematical networks Comenius 3 realized in the years 2001-2005)

9 http://www.pl.euhou.net/ 10 http://www.cft.edu.pl/ 11 http://www.ipj.gov.pl/pl/main.htm 12 G. Gandolfi, G. Catanzaro, G. Giovanardi, S. Masi, G. Vomero, New Perspectives in Planetarium Lectures, the paper in Editors

I. Robson, L.L. Christensen, M. Kornmesser, Communicating Astronomy with the Public 2005, ESA, ESO, IAU, 2005.13 http://www.planetarium.olsztyn.pl/ 14 http://www.planetarium.torun.pl/15 H. Chrupała, M. T. Szczepański, 25 lat Olimpiad Astronomicznych, Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, Warszawa, 1986.

(title in English: 25 years of Astronomical Olympiads, Ed. WsiP)16 http://www.psnpp.org.pl/

This article appeared before in Jcom 6(3), September 2007.

Part 3SEDEC Survey - The perception

of science and scientists in children, teenagers and teachers

31

The first step of SEDEC was a research on the perception of science in the children and the teachers in the 6 European countries involved in the project: Czech Republic, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania.

The objectives of the SEDEC research were:• to build the didactic action on the knowledge of the emotions and images of the pupils;• to gather raw materials that can be later used to produce didactic instruments.

Obviously, this research, stemming from a research-action project framework, has never claimed to be exemplary from an academic point of view. The universe for the survey were pupils and teachers in the home territories of the partners, and therefore it is comparable neither to a statistically-significant sample for Europe, nor to one for each single country involved. The actions needed during the research were frequently made by teachers or non-professional researchers and the control of the methodology has not been exempt from flaws. Yet the purpose was not to obtain a certain quantitative view, it was rather to identify the variety, to trace the issues and the trends that should guide the actions of the project.

What view of science and of scientists do children and adolescents in the partner countries have? What the scientific themes they are interested in? What are their hopes or fears regarding science? What do they expect science to do for Europe? Do they perceive a European dimension for research and/or for the historical-scientific heritage? These were the questions that have guided the research, based and inspired by a rich literature of stud-ies that explore the same areas1.

Two age groups were chosen as targets: the 9 years old (henceforth referred to as group A) and the 14 years old (henceforth referred to as group B), considering that it is precisely in the time interval between the primary school and the lower secondary school that the orientation towards a scientific career may develop, that from a total creative opening in childhood trends and limitations start to emerge, and those were the subjects of the research. Besides this, it was decided that the survey should be addressed to teachers too (group C), to better understand their influence on the pupils, if any.

The following instruments have been used:1. the “Draw a scientist” test as an individual activity (groups A and B);2. an individual questionnaire for children and teens (groups A and B);3. a concept map on the word “Europe” (groups A and B) as a collective activity for a class;4. an individual questionnaire for teachers (group C).

Survey general overview

32

Actions no. 1, 2 and 3 took place on the same occasion, whereas the teachers answered the questionnaire, manually or online, independently and in a moment they chose by themselves…

This was the composition of the sample:• actions 1, 2 and 3: 4 classes x 6 countries (CZ, FR, IT, PO, PT, RO) x 20 pupils (approximately) x 2

school orders = approximately a total of 1,100;• questionnaire for the teachers: 50 teachers x 6 countries = approximately 300 questionnaires for the inter-

national comparison, ad libitum for the internal research.In following articles we will refer respectively to the analysis of the drawings (Rodari), of children’s ques-

tionnaires (Gouthier and Rodari), and of teachers’ questionnaires (Gouthier)2.

Notes and references1. We mention here only some of surveys and analysis strictly linked to our work: Sjoberg S., Science and scientists: The SAS-study Cross-cultural evidence and perspectives on pupils interests, experiences and

perception, Acta Didactica 1, University of Oslo, Revised and enlarged version, 2002, http://folk.uio.no/sveinsj/; Castelfranchi Y. For a paleontology of the scientific imaginary, Jcom 2 (3), 2003; Gouthier D., Castelfranchi Y., Manzoli F., Cannata I., L’evoluzione dell’immagine della scienza dall’infanzia all’adolescenza,

Report 2003, Octs - Observatory on Children, Teens and Science, SISSA, 2003; Jarvis T., Examining and Extending Young Children’s Views of Science and Scientists, in Parker L.H., Gender, Science and

Mathematics, 29-40, Kluwer Acadedmic Publishers, 1996; Gouthier D. Manzoli F. (eds), Il solito Albert e la piccola Dolly, Springer, Milano 2008; Jenkins E. W. Nelson N. W. Important but not for me: students’ attitudes towards secondary school science, in: England

Research in Science & Technological Education Vol. 23 N.1 May 2005; Osborne J., Collins S., Ratcliffe M. et al. What «Ideas-about-Science» Schould be Taught in School Science? A Delphi Study

for the Expert Community, Journal of Research in Science Teaching Vol.40 N.7 2005.2. A more detailed presentation of the survey will be published in English in autumn 2008 by Springer Publisher.

33

Drawing is a very powerful instrument in the analysis of children’s imagery. Drawings may re-veal a lot, as they are spontaneous, immediate and a receptacle for small pieces of children’s knowledge (concepts, notions, information) and “popular” culture (books, comic books, cartoons, films, TV pro-grammes).

Naturally, one should not believe that drawings are able to reveal everything children know. In fact drawing complies with a specific communication code, which has its own rules, symbols, icons and con-sequently it somehow frames (and limits) narration. In the same way as when a child draws a “house” and that drawing does not contain everything a child may think and know about a “house”, when a child draws a “scientist”, he/she is necessarily using a number of codes pertaining to the act of drawing, for example and very often, stereotypes.

On the other hand – especially as far as young children are concerned – most probably a lot of ideas can be materialised in a drawing, while they are still not yet translated into verbal language.

However, if what is portrayed in drawings can still be considered as highly representative of what a child thinks, this may not apply to adolescents or young people, who may have a richer idea of science but who may use stereotyped images when drawing (because of the media), as for example the icon of Ein-stein or of a “crazy scientist”. Moreover, 12-13 year-old teenagers normally cease to draw and no longer find drawing to be a satisfactory and familiar means for expression, so their drawings are less interesting.

Some of the adolescents refused to produce a drawing, only to fill in the questionnaire. Therefore, the number of drawings we have collected is slightly lower than the number of filled forms (1,102 instead of 1,158). Figure 1 shows the distribution of our sample across countries.

The scientist, between Superman and FrankensteinScience and scientists in the drawings of European pupilsPaola RODARI

149

255

152

218

156170

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

CZ FR IT PO PT RO

Number of drawings per country (total number 1,102)

Figure 1. Number of drawings per country (total number 1,102)

34

Structure for the activity and methods for the analysisPupils were given the task to draw “a person who works in science”. In fact, the word “scientist” has

a gender connotation in all the languages involved in SEDEC, whereas one of the issues to be analysed was the frequency of the association scientist=male – and how frequently children imagine researchers as women.

As regards the methods of analysis, the drawings were all inserted into a database implemented in the internet by the IT technicians from Sissa Medialab, through which the drawings could be tagged with an unlimited number of key words. The key words were used to describe the drawings, and to trace their themes, objects or classes of objects and recurring images.

After they had drawn “people making science”, children were asked to write a title for the drawing on the questionnaire. Not all of the children wrote something: more than one third left the space blank (373), so that only 785 self-descriptions of the drawings were gathered.

Women in scienceDo children and adolescents think that women can make science? Apparently yes, and curiously the

percentage of women scientists in the drawings (the average is approximately 25%) is not far from the real one, considering the European context.

Women scientists are definitely more present in the drawings by Romanian children (41%), drawn primarily by girls: 62 out of 70. Women are less present in Portugal (34%) but they are drawn also by boys (18%). France ranks third (21% of women scientists), followed by Poland, Italy and the Czech Repub-lic. However, in Poland 13 boys (13% of the pupils) depicted a woman scientist (out of 42 drawings of women scientists), whereas both in Italy and the Czech Republic not only the presence of women scientists is scarce, but they are depicted nearly exclusively by girls (fig. 3).

In general, women scientists are portrayed as good-looking, well-dressed women, and sometimes really sexy (fig. 2). Children seem not to consider making science exclusively as a male job (but this open-mind-edness decreases as they grow older) and they do not think that, to suc-ceed in this job, a woman has to relinquish her femininity.

24

54

29

42

53

70

4

15

4

1316

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

CZ FR IT PO PT RO

Women scientistDrawn by boys

Figure 2. “Scientist who is digging type”, Czech Republic

Drawings portraying women scientists (272 out of 1,102)

Figure 3. Drawings portraying women scientists (272 out of 1,102)

35

PART 3 - The scientist, between Superman and Frankenstein

Even the descriptions show that girls have a positive image of a woman researcher:“It’s a young, self-confident and promising genetic researcher (woman). She is actually working at new method how to treat diseases” (CZ)“The young lady, just after graduating, very clever, broad-minded; she’ll be a perfect scientist.” (PL)

A Romanian girl from a primary school (and she is not alone) sees a woman also as a manager:“This woman is the boss of the science department (lab).” (RO)

Two descriptions (from secondary schools, and not by chance) reveal the conscience of a possible in-equality between genders in the research field, but the authors take it as a negative thing. A Polish girl has written:“The lady scientist - there should be no woman discrimination in this profession.” (PL)

In the same class, a boy has stated:“The young woman (science should be made by young, open-minded people; the development of natural sci-ences, physics and chemistry is important).” (PL)

The triumph of chemistry and the stereotypical image of a scientistThe drawings in our sample clearly reveal a stereotypical representation of a scientist, convention-

ally shared – and this is not casual – by comics, cartoons and many books for young readers, and also presented in films and TV series: the scientist wears a white coat (359 occurrences, about 33% of the sample) and glasses (352 drawings), works in a laboratory (322 drawings, nearly 30%) and dabbles with test tubes or mainly with liquids (fig. 4). Hence, science appears primarily as an experimental activity (as confirmed by the analysis of the questionnaires) and the most drawn instruments are those of chemis-try, appearing in 392 drawings (about 36% of the sample). Even when children – many of them – only draw a scientist (with no surrounding envi-ronment), they are shown as wearing a white coat in nearly all cases and, very frequently, holding a test tube or a beaker.

Very often the term ‘chemistry’ appears in the description of a drawing that does not show any evident “traces” of the discipline: by adding the drawings containing chemical instruments to those with a title referring to chemistry, the total number is 489, nearly half of the sample.

One cannot say that children do not know that sciences other than chemistry exist, but prob-ably this knowledge is too generic, without any im-age or detail linked to it. When they have to denote

Figure 4. “The scientist trying to invent an element, thoughtful, surrounded by things he studies”. Poland

36

Astronomy ranks quite well: there are 59 drawings featuring stars and planets or telescopes; actu-ally, better than physics and maths. Yet this result is not casual: 34 drawings out of 59 come from Po-land – from a city (the town of Copernicus!) in which our partner carries out a consistent astronomy dissemination activity whose impact is clearly visible in the drawings.

There are only a few drawings we have considered as “realistic”, about twenty in total. Quite interestingly, one of these – which portrays a doctor – was drawn by a boy in secondary school who explicitly stated he had chosen this subject as he was familiar with it, and therefore he was able to depict it, whereas he would have had evident dif-ficulties in drawing a “geologist” or an “ecologist” (fig. 6). This means that limited experience and information – and consequently too few iconographic details – are linked to some disciplines, although they are certainly included in the cultural heritage of young people.

Genius and dissolute behaviour: the Einstein icon and crazy scientistsQuite a large group of drawings present an image of a scientist which is strongly reminiscent of Ein-

stein: besides wearing a white coat and glasses, an Einstein-looking scientist has his hair standing on end

science through a drawing, children do not have a vast repertoire to draw images from and use chemical instruments as symbols of scientific research.

Aside from chemistry – which has a massive representation, as shown – the rest of science plays only an secondary role: there is a group of drawings that somehow refer to the area of the study of living be-ings, as biology is explicitly mentioned or there are mainly scientists analysing plants and animals (114 drawings out of 1,102).

Another area is linked to health and it includes the drawings that depict doctors or scientists in search of new medicines (69 drawings), whereas other fields of research are represented by smaller numbers (fig. 5).

Figure 6. “I chose to draw a doctor because it is a domain I am familiar with, and I find it very interest-ing”. Romania

489

114

69

59

57

41

43

27

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Chemistry

Biology (animals and plants)

Medicine and pharmacy

Astronomy

Mathematics

Nature and environment

Physics

Technology

Sciences that are represented most in drawings

Figure 5. Sciences that are represented most in drawings

37

PART 3 - The scientist, between Superman and Frankenstein

like the great physicist and a hyper-attentive expression that ranges from genius to craziness.

This applies to 83 drawings, about 8% of the sample, to which 25 explicit portraits of Einstein should be added: in some cases they even feature Einstein’s name correctly spelled (fig. 7), whereas others have it more or less voluntarily mis-spelled; this accounts for over 10% of the sample.

Total number of drawings by country

Disorganised Dirty Einstein-lookingPercentage of

Einstein-looking scientists

The stereotype of the genius scientist

CZ 149 0 0 6 4% 6

FR 255 26 4 15 6% 45

IT 152 5 1 26 17% 32

PO 218 0 5 30 14% 35

PT 158 3 4 3 2% 10

RO 170 1 0 3 2% 4

TOTAL 1102 35 14 83 8% 132

Table 1. Drawings showing an Einstein-looking scientist, or with a genius-like appearance, disorganised and/or untidy

The distracted and disorganised genius is a very frequent topos in western culture and children draw on it quite passionately (table 1).

“The scientists are very busy and have no time for themselves”, wrote a Polish teenager; they are so busy working with their frantic creativity that they overlook their appearance and, in the rush of crea-tion they knock over things, they get dirty and do not care about themselves and the environment they live in.

A Polish secondary school is once again the source for the humorous drawing in figure 8, whose com-ment reads: “White coat as madman, bald by missing his wife”.

This stereotype is apparently an inspiration for secondary school students: 59 Einstein-looking drawings out of a total of 83 and 91 ster-eo-typical pictures of genius and dissolute scientists out of a total of 132.

A genius and disorganised scientist is not far away from a “crazy” one: a “crazy” scientist is a scientist whose thirst for knowledge goes be-yond the borders of reason. Not only does this make him a disorganised or absent-minded individual, but it also drives him completely outside the the bounds of “normal” humankind; very frequently, a crazy scien-tist is also a dangerous person, as he puts his scientific interest before his own safety and the one of other people or the entire humankind.

In some drawings, the term appears in the title (27), whereas in other cases it is the graphic representation that reminds of this icon. Con-

Figure 7. “Einstein - the man whoinvented a lot”. Poland

Figure 8. “White coat as madman, bald by missing his wife”. Poland.

38

sidering also the drawings somehow expressing the idea of the danger of science (as there are weapons or toxic and hazardous materials involved), it can be seen that a relevant part of the sample expresses a sort of mistrust towards scientific research and its consequences (64 drawings with “crazy” scientists and 121 including the ones that express “danger”, table 2).

Total number of drawings by

country

“Crazy” scientists

% of “crazy” scientists out of the total

amount

Drawings that express

danger

“Crazy” scientists + danger signs

% of drawings containing “crazy”

scientists and danger signs

CZ 149 12 8 6 18 12

FR 255 13 5 19 32 13

IT 152 23 15 9 32 21

PO 218 10 5 13 23 11

PT 158 6 4 3 9 6

RO 170 0 0 7 7 4

TOTAL 1102 64 6 57 121 11

Table 2. Crazy and dangerous scientists

The relation between Einstein, the dissolute spirit of a genius, and the danger lying in scientific research is not a forced deduction of ours. Several examples may be mentioned from literature (starting from Golem), even from cinema and comics, but this is confirmed also by the children’s word:“I drew Aistan working in his laboratory and something went wrong and his potion burst and he got dirty” (IT)“It´s a chemist in white coat who does experiments. He has to know a lot of things, he has to be careful because his mistake could have a terrible consequences” (CZ)“The overworked scientist with destroyed clothing and glasses. He’s absent-minded. His lab was destroyed.” (PL) secondary school

Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12 are in that respect paradigmatic.In the case of “crazy scientists” there is no significant difference as far as age groups are concerned.

Figure 9. “Here is Leonardo da Vinci. Flying machine”. France Figure 10. “Albert Einstein who makes the beast live”. France

39

PART 3 - The scientist, between Superman and Frankenstein

Different data correspond to the countries included in our limited sample: the highest number of “crazy” people is to be found in Italy (15% of the total number of drawings! And the drawings express-ing danger account for 20% of the total), whereas Romania apparently has a maximum trust in science, being exempt from crazy scientists, and having the minimum number of drawings referring to science as a dangerous things (table 2). The higher level of trust of Romania as regards both science and Europe is also confirmed in other phases of our research.

The scientist is sometimes reminiscent of the image of a wizard; and the “crazy” scientist and the sorcerer are closely related images: actually the image of the “sorcerer’s apprentice” is often used also in the media, to connote negatively behaviours linked to the freedom of the scientific research.

In our sample there are 12 drawings whose titles refer explicitly to the preparation of potions and 10 drawings in which the scientist has some features of a wizard (a hat, a gown, or it is explicitly stated that he is a wizard).

The dangers of scienceAlthough they are limited in numbers (less than 10% of the drawings), it is worthwhile to identify

what the children’s worries as regards science are.Toxic or explosive liquids, radio-activity and

weapons (fig. 13) are the issues that worry young Europeans the most: children and young people apparently have “typical” worries, i.e. related to the most questionable aspects of 20th-century technology, starting from the trauma caused by the Hiroshima bomb and repeated by the dread-ful accidents (in chemical or nuclear plants) that have marked the past few decades, situations and accidents whose presence is still huge within mass culture (films, TV series, comics, etc.). There are not (should we say “yet”?) traces of more modern

Figure 12. “The scientist - “crazy” and absent-minded, as each scientist should be”. Poland

Figure 11. “Einstein and the unhappy explosive rabbit”. Portugal

Figure 13. “My draw shows how people pollutes environment because of nuclear research”. Romania

40

worries, already conveyed by the mass media and felt – at least partially – by the public opinion, such as the application of biotechnologies or nanotechnologies.

More uncommon, as it is much less frequent in the mass media, is the concern about experiments on animals, which appears in the drawings by French, Italian, Polish and Portuguese pupils. A Polish pupil drew a Frankenstein-looking figure carrying out experiments on a dog. A Portuguese pupil imag-ined a scientist putting a bomb inside a rabbit’s body. Animals are generally quite a frequent subject (65 drawings; more than in the diverse groups of drawings referring to the different disciplines, except for chemistry), and this concern reveals how much children are fond of animals.

Science as a beneficial element Having previously considered the fear of science and scientists as they emerge from this research, this

paragraph will now deal with the themes positive expectations are related to and to what extent they are so. There are 50 drawings expressing (in the picture itself or in the description) a resolute appreciation for science as a carrier of progress and as a problem-solver.

The following are the statements by some children:“I think that scientists are illuminated people who develop society. They are essential” (IT)“I wanted to express that science is synonymous of perfection, experimentation and personal ideas” (IT)“It is a scientist who thinks of everybody’s happiness, and of the well-being of the Planet, and searches for the right solution for each specific situations” (RO)

Total number of drawings Scientist benefactors % of scientist benefactors

CZ 149 5 3%

FR 255 3 1%

IT 152 5 3%

PO 218 8 4%

PT 158 6 4%

RO 170 23 14%

TOTAL 1102 50 5%

Table 3. Percentage of scientists benefactors on the total of the drawings

As regards the fields in which this beneficial science operates, there are mainly two as the texts by the children prove: health (21 drawings) and the environment (21 drawings). These results are strongly confirmed by the questionnaires, where the majority of pupils express their priority about conserving nature, reducing pollution, etc.

Also in the drawings scientists love plants and nature, and they can find solutions to the problem of pollution: collecting rubbish, inventing a new way to produce paper “without killing plants” or a non-polluting fuel (pollution is definitely the most urgent problem for them).

Scientists can also find solutions to treat tumours, AIDS, the avian flu; but they can also make hair

41

PART 3 - The scientist, between Superman and Frankenstein

grow once again on your head and find the formula for immortality: “A scientist who thinks up a medi-cament for immortality” (CZ).

Quite interestingly, considering all research fields, there are only a few aspects in which there are substantial differences between the countries involved, and the trust towards science is one of these: the Romanian children have definitely more positive expectations as regards science, as the keyword “ben-efactor” occurs nearly three times over the average of the other countries (table 3, where we are counting the drawings where the positive role of scientists for the good of humanity is strongly expressed). This data is absolutely consistent with the absence of crazy scientists, as previously mentioned.

Conclusions: neither Frankenstein nor SupermanThe remarks contained in this article are an attempt to analyse the main impressions emerging from

our collection of drawings. Probably a more careful interpretation of the details may provide further in-formation on more specific issues; for that reason the drawings will remain available online for researchers and teachers, in order to allow further analysis.

Other considerations may stem from the comparison between the drawings and the context they come from. The general impression is that some classes have produced drawings that are richer in details and lively images, hence showing a better familiarity with science and scientific practice. In this sense, drawings apparently are a good indicator of the quality and of the typology of the scientific education re-ceived, although the implementation methods for the test may have affected the quality of the pictures.

It can be said that, even though stereotypes can be found in their pictures, all the children were able to draw a scientist, i.e. all of the children are aware of the existence of this universe, which is so important for the material and cultural life of humans. Science as a whole has a considerable presence in it and is connected to an imagery that, after all, is rich and varied.

We have not found important differences between the different European countries involved in the research, apart from a more positive image of science and scientists and greater expectations for a benefi-cial role of science for Europe in Romanian children and teenagers. As Romania has just entered in the EU, those positive expectations are probably linked to a general trust in a better future from now on.

The most important general conclusion of that part of the SEDEC survey is that a lot of work still remains to be done in order to provide children and teenagers with a richer (more realistic) image of sci-ence and scientists, in order to make them able to understand the impact of science and technology on contemporary society, and of course also to be able to choose or not a scientific career deliberately.

A frequent phenomenon is stereotypical image of a scientist; or rather, the set of images – which may even contrast with one another, though they still remain stereotypical or limitative – that do not represent the diversification in the disciplines or the scientific work, in the professional roles, interests and objects of research. A priority issue is that these stereotypes be tackled. A researcher is not a megalomaniac genius that puts his craving for power before other people’s lives; even though, to tell the truth, techno-science and the market system may certainly push economic interests before those of individuals or of the envi-ronment, and somehow the myth of Golem or of the sorcerer’s apprentice may somehow represent this issue. A scientist is not even a superman devoted to sacrifice for humankind’s well-being. However, as is sometimes the case, some scientists really appear as specimens of a superior intellect; and many scientists have really fought, running some personal risks to the point of self-denial, to understand nature or to treat

42

diseases; and yet, the vast majority of the researchers, more or less ingenious people, really show an inner passion for research that makes them work hard regardless of time, fatigue and money (or lack thereof).

This bipolar nature of the image of a scientist is very much rooted in our culture; it will suffice to consider the huge – and still persisting – success of the story of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, which contains many aspects of the imagery previously dealt with in this article and is a masterly narrative implementa-tion of the black and white science embodied by this scientist that becomes two different people.

Facing these stereotypical images, an adolescent may rightfully think: perhaps I am not enough of a genius, or not enough determined, I don’t want to sacrifice myself, I want to lead a normal life… I don’t know whether I can or want to be a scientist.

They probably do not imagine that a scientist – to be conceived here as anybody working in the field of science and technology – can be a physicist working on the data produced by a particle accelera-tor, sitting before a computer in a small room, but also an engineer working in a laboratory to devise new techniques to produce a vacuum, or a botanist working in the “backstage” of a natural history museum, studying ancient collections and herbariums, or a mathematician devising models to explain particular aspects of the financial markets, or a biotechnologist spending all of his time in a laboratory, or a geologist travelling around to read the conformation of the ground, or an astrophysicist unable to read a starry sky because he only studies the internal physics of the stars, or a physicist working for a manufacturing industry to optimise its production processes or a neuroscientist cooperating with doctors in the attempt to understand why people are able (or unable when they fall ill) to carry out certain actions.

These are all examples of extremely different types of intellectual and professional commitment – only very few cases have been mentioned here and the scope of their working activities is much broader than this – that require a widely-ranging set of characters, dispositions, intellectual abilities and plans for life. And they also employ different instruments and regard different components of scientific ac-tivity.

What has emerged from the results is that the strongest component of the scientific activity is the experimental one; also in this sense, the variety in the images of children and adolescents is quite poor: consequently, even making them aware of the actual number of existing telescopes or microscopes may suffice to unveil a fascinating world.

This variety of roles, contexts, personalities, rather than the hagiographic view of a scientist, could be used to inspire young people to a scientific career, and it complies with the suggestion contained in the new work plan “Science in Society” of the seventh framework programme of the Directorate-General for Research of the European Commission:

“Actions to combat stereotypical images of science and scientists; to promote interest in science among young people and to promote realistic role models. Special attention should be paid to gender-specific differences and to the needs of young people from disadvantaged, under-represented or under-performing groups. Narrow images of scientists (as portrayed through the popular media for example), need to be broadened to become more representative in order to appeal to young people from a diver-sity of backgrounds.”

For instance, a new and innovative educational proposal has been created within the SEDEC project: as already mentioned, the problem we are facing is not only about prompting a higher number of young people to embark on a scientific-technological career. The point is also to provide young

43

PART 3 - The scientist, between Superman and Frankenstein

people with scientific knowledge linked to contemporary life, so pervaded by science and technology – a knowledge which might come in useful also for those who are not willing to go for a job within the world of research and, most of all, which should make these people aware of the process needed to build scientific knowledge, of its power and limitations (in a certain sense, the two sides of the same coin), in order to make them participate consciously in the public management of science which, as regards some controversial issues such as the ones mentioned above, is not only desirable, but is also unavoidable.

Even to achieve this long-term result, stereotypes should be overcome. The image of Dr Kildare busy building semi-human monsters, but also the image of a doctor considered as a sort of saint en-dowed with the gift of omniscience and omnipotence are extremely misleading. On the contrary, to consistently follow this example, it would be useful to learn about the way a medicine is proved to be effective, or the conditions for its marketing.

The benefit cost ratio, risk management, the precaution principle – and many other indispensable concepts to make decisions in contemporary society, not only as regards medical issues – are essential instruments for future citizens.

Hence, they should be built beyond an environmental education implying a moralistic attitude, which is too often taught at school and which only theoretically promotes some ethical behaviours that are actually ignored by society; i.e., instead of simply being taught that “you must love nature”, students should be given the tools to start considering how an environmental issue is to be tackled: by analysing and distinguishing what the current problems are, what the uncertainties and the known factors, what the impacts for the possible solutions, etc.

On the other hand, the concern for the environment is very widespread also among the teach-ers (see Daniele Gouthier, in that same book). And apparently Europe is expected to provide some response. Maybe this could be a good ground to build both a modern scientific knowledge and a Eu-ropean scientific citizenship.

It is positive to talk about the emotions of children, their desires and fears, which need room for expression. At this point we would suggest the use of conceptual maps as a collective activity for classes, to introduce in an absorbing and surprising way the topics that are to be discussed with pupils.

Indeed, in a class debate pupils often feel they should say what the teacher wants to hear. The conceptual maps, which enable the revelation of thought associations, memories, emotions, are an ex-cellent instrument to set up a really free discussion; whereas at the same time they help the teacher to record the existing knowledge and beliefs.

Debate helps questions arise, originating a search for answers that can be found through study and experimental activity, but also through the help of experts, the exchange of information and opinions with other European young students (thanks to the European programmes, which help schools to build a network and work in a European dimension); all of this may lead - probably not tomorrow but soon enough, not everywhere but in some place - to that participated research which is one of the goals of the seventh framework programme.

Aside from the environment, as previously shown, health is another key point emerging from the results. Probably the quantity of indirect medical information children receive is underestimated: while they listen to their parents, relatives and friends, while they watch TV or browse magazines and newspapers. Maybe medicine should become a relevant subject at school. Not so much as a study of the

44

human body (which obviously is mandatory), not so much or not just as “health education” (which, as in environmental education, sometimes only serves the purpose of easing our conscience without impacting on our children’s life), but rather as a foundation for a medical knowledge that would make us conscious users of medicine.

Note and references1. Brandi M.C., Cerbara L., Misiti M.and Valente A., Giovani e scienza in Italia tra attrazione e distacco, Giovani e scienza in Italia

tra attrazione e distacco, Jcom 4(2) 2005.2. Castelfranchi Y, For a paleontology of the scientific imaginary, Jcom 2(3) 2003.

3. Castelfranchi Y. and Pitrelli N., Come si comunica la scienza?, Laterza, Roma-Bari (2007).4. Bucchi M., Scienza e società, il Mulino, Bologna (2002).5. Bucchi M., Scegliere il mondo che vogliamo. Cittadini, politica e tecnoscienza, il Mulino, Bologna (2006).6. Gouthier D., Castelfranchi Y., Manzoli F. and Cannata I., L’evoluzione dell’immagine della scienza dall’infanzia all’adolescenza,

Report 2003, Octs - Observatory on Children, Teens and Science, SISSA (2003).7. Gouthier D. and Manzoli F. (eds), Il solito Albert e la piccola Dolly, Springer, Milano (2008).8. Sjoberg S., Science and scientists: The SAS-study Cross-cultural evidence and perspectives on pupils interests, experiences and

perception, Acta Didactica 1, University of Oslo, Revised and enlarged version (2002), http://folk.uio.no/sveinsj/9. Sturloni G., Le mele di Cernobyl sono buone, Sironi, Milano (2006).

This article appeared before in Jcom 6(3), September 2007. http://jcom.sissa.it

45

In order to investigate the imagery of children and adolescents as far as science and scientists are concerned, we set up – along with the “Draw a scientist” test – a simple and brief questionnaire, reproduced in the Appendix, that was first tested on a small group of classes and subsequently dis-tributed to the selected sample, as previously mentioned.

While the drawing test directly provides a highly dreamlike imagery, a non-verbal one, that draws on contemporary popular culture, as much as on the archetypical one rooted in the mytholog-ical heritage, questionnaire draws, at least partially, on explicit, verbal knowledge. Indeed, some of the questions were about the young people’s interests vis-à-vis science, their expectations regarding research and the European Union, whereas some others were about their knowledge on the nature of a scientist’s job and their instruments.

This chapter will deal with the analysis of the answers by the respondents.

European scientists: who are they in the eyes of children?The first question of the questionnaire required the children to name “three European scien-

tists”. The purpose was not only to understand what and how many scientists are known within the two age groups taken into consideration, but also to understand whether the addition of the adjec-tive “European” would affect the answers, in order to detect some information about the children’s imagery on the European dimension of research.

The first thing to be noted is that slightly less than half of the sample wrote all three requested names and that up to 27% of the respondents did not name anyone. Unfortunately, there are not many scientist names known to children and adolescents, irrespective of the “European” adjective, as explained below with reference to the Italian case.

When answers are sorted by country, the evidence is that 80% of the Polish and Romanian children and adolescents could mention three scientists, while in the other four countries this only applies to 30% of the sample. The Czech and Portuguese pupils are the ones that gave the smallest number of responses. Indeed, nearly 60% of the former did not write anything, whereas this is true only for 50% of Portuguese respondents.

In Poland (2.7 scientists per pupil) and Romania (2.6), pupils are apparently more familiar with the names of scientists and are more able to identify a class of “European” scientists. This familiarity

Is science for me?Science and scientists in the answers of European pupilsDaniele GOUTHIER and Paola RODARI

46

is satisfactory in Italy (1.9) and France (1.7) and below standard in Portugal (1.3) and in the Czech Republic (1.2). As shown also in drawings, the eastern European countries appear to be more active in dealing with the national historical scientific heritage at school, and it can partly account for this result. The data regarding Poland and Romania are considerable also in terms of variety: indeed, the 591 Polish responses make up a list of 65 scientists*; and the 440 Romanian responses compile a list of 53 scientists**.

The total number of names mentioned is 2,101 (1.8 per pupil on average) and they refer to 199 different people. They are more or less well-known scientists, more or less frequently selected – on average slightly more than ten occurrences per name – but undoubtedly they make up a very broad and diversified range. The only name that has a stronger representation is Einstein, the icon of sci-ence par excellence, although his name does not show any special European characterisation.

Poland and Romania also stand out for the high number of national scientists, some of whom are not particularly well-known throughout the rest of Europe, and also for mentioning historians, geographers, leaders – especially historical ones – who cannot be strictly defined as scientists (Alex-ander Macedon, Demokrit, Sofocles, Vasco da Gama). In any case, the presence of people other than scientists is also frequent in the answers by pupils from other countries.

All the names are listed with their rankings in table 1.

Einstein 44,47% Sofocles 0,60% Otto 0,17% Saindler 0,09% Haldane 0,09%

Newton 17,44% Ohm 0,60% Napoleon 0,17% Sadoveanu 0,09% Greenwhich 0,09%

Marie Skłodowska-Curie 12,52% Ampere 0,60% Müller 0,17% Rousseau 0,09% Giovanni 0,09%

Kopernik 9,67% Réaumur 0,52% Mme Lemoine 0,17% Riquiet 0,09% Galet 0,09%

Archimedes 6,82% Euclid 0,52% Mariucci 0,17% Rici 0,09% Gagarine 0,09%

Pascal 6,13% Eminescu 0,52% Lucia 0,17% Ptolomeus 0,09% Franck 0,09%

Pythagoras 5,35% Sara 0,43% Lamark 0,17% Prof Vendrec 0,09% Ford 0,09%

Leonardo da Vinci 4,58% Mme Riquiet 0,43% Indiana Jones 0,17% prof Rainer 0,09% focolle chag 0,09%

Galileo Galilei 3,80% Magellan 0,43% Hermaszewski 0,17% prof Tournesol 0,09% Flannery 0,09%

Armstrong 3,37% Śniadecki 0,35% Hamilton 0,17% Palacky 0,09% Fermi 0,09%

Edison 3,28% Proust 0,35% Freud 0,17% Oudini 0,09% Fabre 0,09%

Mendeleiev 3,20% Nieves 0,35% Fred et Jamie et Sabine 0,17% Newton, Kepler 0,09% Espettore

Gaged 0,09%

Pasteur 3,20% Mozart 0,35% Frantisek 0,17% Mr. Mircea 0,09% Enzo 0,09%

Lavoisier 2,59% Mościcki 0,35% Franklin 0,17% Montgolfier 0,09% Eiffell 0,09%

Coulomb 2,33% Kołodziejczyk 0,35% Dexter 0,17% Modrzewski 0,09% Duss 0,09%

Dalton 2,25% Knobel 0,35% Cosbuc 0,17% Mme Kislin 0,09% dottor Jack 0,09%

Wolszczan 1,81% Gutenberg 0,35% Cartier 0,17% Mme Bormann 0,09% docteur Chmit 0,09%

47

PART 3 - Is science for me?

Fleming 1,73% Gagarin 0,35% Carducci 0,17% Mle Belanger 0,09% Divens Homor 0,09%

Frankenstein 1,64% Creangă 0,35% Buffon 0,17% Mihai 0,09% Descartes 0,09%

Watt 1,55% Celsius 0,35% Bill Gates 0,17% Melania 0,09% Demokrit 0,09%

Herodotus 1,38% Amundsen 0,35% Bell 0,17% Maxwell 0,09% de la Tour 0,09%

Volta 1,30% Alexander Macedon 0,35% Beethoven 0,17% Martin 0,09% Cook 0,09%

Thales 1,30% Vuia 0,26% Babes 0,17% Mariotte 0,09%Colonel Giuliacci father

0,09%

Mendel 1,21% Vlaicu 0,26% ana rita rodrigues 0,17% Marconi 0,09% Colonel

Giuliacci son 0,09%

Joule 1,21% Strandvist 0,26% Wichterle 0,09% Lous XVI 0,09%

Those who make the weather forecast

0,09%

Pierre Curie 1,12% Natta 0,26% Watson 0,09% Louis XI 0,09% Caraliov 0,09%

Nobel 1,12% Marie e Pierre Curie 0,26% von Hubrick 0,09% Litellaistaim 0,09% Cantacuzino 0,09%

Chasles 1,04% Łukaszewicz 0,26% Voltaire 0,09% Linneusz 0,09% Brown 0,09%

Aristoteles 0,95% Lomonosov 0,26% Vlahuta 0,09% Lamarck 0,09% Bogdanov 0,09%

Spallanzani 0,86% Kuciński 0,26% Viteazu 0,09% Koch 0,09% Bernisou 0,09%

Laplace 0,86% Hertz 0,26% Vincent 0,09% Kelvin 0,09% Becquerel 0,09%

Bohr 0,86% Diesel 0,26% Veverka brothers 0,09% Kant 0,09% Bartolomeu 0,09%

Vasco da Gama 0,78% Angela Piero 0,26% Toma 0,09% Justin 0,09% Archimedes, Sofokles 0,09%

Olszewski 0,78% Victor 0,17% Tiago 0,09% Joao 0,09% Angela Alberto 0,09%

Kepler 0,78% Vichterle 0,17% Stein 0,09% Jeanne d’Arc 0,09% andre pacheco 0,09%

Cousteau 0,78% Rutherford 0,17% Stanilas 0,09% Irwin 0,09% andre 0,09%

Darwin 0,69% romania 0,17% Stalin 0,09% Irene Joliot-Curie 0,09% Amerling 0,09%

Colonel Giuliacci 0,69% Religa 0,17% Smoluchowski 0,09% Hyppocrates 0,09% alessandro 0,09%

Coanda 0,69% Purkyne 0,17% Simone 0,09% Herakles 0,09% Aconite 0,09%

Wróblewski 0,60% Pedro 0,17% Schumacher 0,09% Hentotoun 0,09%

Table 1. All the names mentioned by the pupils in the questionnaire

*. Scientists mentioned by Polish pupils: Archimedes, Aristoteles, Armstrong, Becquerel, Bohr, Celsius, Cook, Coulomb, Dalton, Darwin, Demokrit, Edison, Einstein, Fleming, Ford, Frankenstein, Franklin, Gagarin, Galileo Galilei, Gutenberg, Herakles, Hermaszewski, Hyppocrates, Irene Joliot-Curie, Kant, Kelvin, Kepler, Knobel, Koch, Kołodziejczyk, Kopernik, Kuciński, Lamarck, Lavoisier, Leonardo da Vinci, Linneusz, Łukaszewicz, Marconi, Marie Skłodowska-Curie, Marie Skłodowska-Curie, Maxwell, Mendelejev, Modrzewski, Mościcki, Newton, Nobel, Olszewski, Pascal, Pasteur, Pierre Curie, Proust, Pythagoras, Religa, Smoluchowski, Śniadecki, Sofocles, Strandvist, Vasco da Gama, von Hubrick, Watt, Wolszczan, Wróblewski.

**. Scientists mentioned by Romanian pupils: Aconite, Alexander Macedon, Ampere, Amundsen, Archimedes, Babes, Bill Gates, Cantacuzino, Celsius, Coanda, Cosbuc, Coulomb, Cousteau, Creangă, Dexter, Diesel, Edison, Einstein, Eminescu, Enzo, Euclid, Fleming, Frankenstein, Franklin, Galileo Galilei, Herodotus, Irwin, Joule, Kopernik, Leonardo da Vinci, Marie Skłodowska-Curie, Mendeleiev, Mihai, Mozart, Mr. Mircea, Napoleon, Newton, Nobel, Otto, Pascal, prof Rainer, Pythagoras, Sadoveanu, Sofocles, Stein, Thales, Toma, Viteazu, Vlahuta, Vlaicu, Vuia, Watt.

48

Einstein was mentioned the most, namely by 44% of the respondents in the sample. Obviously, Einstein is something more than a famous scientist: in some respects, he stands for the idea of sci-ence itself. Similarly to the case of drawings, his smiling face, his genius and flexibility, as much as his dual nature as the inventor of a new power, but also of new dangers for humanity, are the qualities universally supposed to be typical for all scientists.

Einstein is seen as an icon rather than as a person really known for his life and works, and this is evident when you consider the long list of different spellings provided for his name: this may imply that his name was only absorbed through brief mentions and was not really read or studied. This research alone gathered an astonishing 76 spellings.

The highest number of references to Einstein was found in Romania (Einstein accounts for 66% of the answers), in Italy (54%) and France (50%). On the other hand, his presence is less relevant in Portugal (30%), and diminutive in the Czech Republic (11%) and Poland (17%). In the Czech Republic he is the most selected person, but only a little more than Newton and Pascal; in Poland he ranks only third, coming after Marie Skłodowska-Curie and Kopernik and, once again, it shows the special focus given to the national scientific tradition, which is stronger in these countries.

Living scientists are missing from the first positions, if not missing from the entire list at all: the children and adolescents’ imagery (and maybe the adults’ one too) is probably not made of a real and factual knowledge of scientific work (a data confirmed also by the analysis of the drawings), rather by a pantheon of legendary figures of famous scientists, who are the subjects of “legends”, such as those concerning other historical figures. In the children’s imagery emerging from our research, the great scientists are indeed confused and mixed with the great figures from history, as they stand aside Beethoven, Napoleon, Magellan, Mozart and even Stalin.

References to the present time appear here and there in the list, especially with people appearing on TV, such as meteorologists presenting the weather forecast.

Working on scienceAfter the analysis of the reference figures respondents have for a scientist, question n. 3 required

the students to classify in four degrees (from very important to not important at all), some activities that altogether make up the job of a scientist, from “making forecasts” to “making discoveries”.

How important for a scientist is...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Making discoveries

Inventing news things

Making experiments

Observing Nature

Creating theories

Making computations

Writing science books

Making forecasts

Transforming Nature

VERY IMPO A BIT NOT nr

Figure 1. The answers to the questions n.3

49

PART 3 - Is science for me?

The answers clearly reveal that, according to children, the most important trait of a scientist is that of making discoveries, inventing new things and making experiments (fig. 1). It is an experi-mental and applied science that appears to be closer to technology rather than to theoretical reflec-tion, without any significant difference between children and adolescents.

“Making forecasts” is not seen by our respondents as such an important activity for a scientist, in contrast to responses given by teachers (see Gouthier). A simple explanation may be the fact that children and adolescents do not have a clear idea of what “making forecasts” means and are not able to associate it with scientific activities (e.g. those mentioned above) that are widely known and have a general interest.

Likewise, “writing books” is not seen as a crucial point, as it is also part of a vision of the produc-tion process of the scientific knowledge, which is probably too sophisticated. Children and teenagers apparently confine scientific writing among scarcely important activities and therefore, at the end of the day, they see them as quite irrelevant for the development of science.

At the opposite end of the scale, right after “making discoveries” – the scientific activity par excellence – “making experiments” and “inventing new things” interestingly are substantially equal. Indeed, both of them are important to science, but they somehow reveal two visions of research. The experiment is the traditional epistemological instrument, with deep historical roots, well-established in the ground of the past science. On the other hand, invention is also a modern aspect of a science that becomes business and follows the new paths of patenting and marketing. This is not to say that inventions have never existed – Archimedes and Leonardo were supreme scientists and inventors, only to mention a couple of them. Nevertheless, the hypothesis we want to suggest is that the con-temporary imagery may refer both to a traditional view of a scientist and his/her new position in a society where science and technology are closely linked to the market of products and innovation.

Even so, in the children’s imagery, inventing is also related to another ingenious and creative activity: wizardry, still a very frequent paradigm, as mentioned when discussing the drawings. The most modern vision and one with ancient roots are found to merge in the drawings, as previously reported.

Science in everyday lifeAfter an attempt to analyse the image of a scientist’s job and the “legendary” figures that spring

to children’s minds, question n. 4 was aimed at detecting whether children and adolescents can re-alise to what extent science is pervasive in their everyday life. Therefore, their task was to mention three objects related to science they can see in their homes.

The vast majority of the children were able to mention three objects and, on average, children and the teenagers mentioned 2.6 instruments (table 2).

Object Occ % Occ/Pup Object Occ % Occ/Pup

Computer 476 16,49% 41,11% Radio 26 0,90% 2,25%

TV 301 10,43% 25,99% Calculator 26 0,90% 2,25%

Books 180 6,24% 15,54% Electric bulbs 25 0,87% 2,16%

50

Microscope 158 5,48% 13,64% Telephone 24 0,83% 2,07%

Telescope 75 2,60% 6,48% Flowers 24 0,83% 2,07%

Magnifying glasses 60 2,08% 5,18% Atlas 24 0,83% 2,07%

Microwave oven 51 1,77% 4,40% Phone 22 0,76% 1,90%

Washing machine 50 1,73% 4,32% Lamps 20 0,69% 1,73%

Electricity 42 1,46% 3,63% Clock 17 0,59% 1,47%

Binoculars 42 1,46% 3,63% Plants 16 0,55% 1,38%

Plants 41 1,42% 3,54% Encyclopedia 15 0,52% 1,30%

Globe 34 1,18% 2,94% Cooker 15 0,52% 1,30%

Thermometer 31 1,07% 2,68% Stove 14 0,49% 1,21%

Mobile phone 30 1,04% 2,59% Medicine 13 0,45% 1,12%

Bulb 30 1,04% 2,59% Science books 12 0,42% 1,04%

Water 29 1,01% 2,50% Maps 12 0,42% 1,04%

Refrigerator 29 1,01% 2,50% Scientific books 11 0,38% 0,95%

Fridge 27 0,94% 2,33% Playstation 11 0,38% 0,95%

Test tube 26 0,90% 2,25% Light 11 0,38% 0,95%

Table 2. The objects mentioned by the pupils for question n. 5The list includes only the objects that have recorded more than ten mentions

Quite remarkably, the first three objects – the computer, the television and books – are instru-ments for communication and learning. Rather than products obtained thanks to scientific princi-ples and technological innovations (which is true for computers and TV-sets, but not for books), apparently they are associated to science as they are concentrates of information. Strikingly, the subsequent group consists of microscope, telescope and magnifying lenses. None of them is strictly an object for everyday use; they are not communication instruments, they are real scientific instru-ments. But their frequency as educational games can be quite high, and this role of theirs may be the reason why they were mentioned so often. Or presumably, when answering, children thought about the school environment rather than their homes.

In any case, pupils proved to be able to identify the contribution of science also in a familiar and everyday environment such as their home: from the washing machine to electricity, from the mobile phone to plants, from bulbs to water, they can realise that science is related to everything.

What emerges is that their homes are full of objects that can be used to learn about science, as well as objects that technologically result from it, and both intrigue the children.

Science for sustainable progressQuestion n. 5 prompted children and adolescents to mention the issues science should contrib-

ute to for a better Europe (“What do you think scientists should study for a better future for Europe? Name three things”).

Despite their young age, both children aged 9 and adolescents aged 14 within our sample have

51

PART 3 - Is science for me?

very adult concerns, as this question was answered by many of them (2,399 themes were gathered, over 2 for each respondent) and not by mentioning super-technologies featured in science fiction, but rather expressing a concern that is completely rational, for instance the environment they live in. Once again, their descriptions are rich and interesting. They were grouped by similar themes; in table 3 the keywords referring to the themes and their frequencies.

Thematic groups Occ % Occ/Pup Grouped theme Occ % Occ/Pup

pollution 208 9,90% 17,96% oil 6 0,29% 0,52%

nature 94 4,47% 8,12% inventing sun engine cars 6 0,29% 0,52%

environment 73 3,47% 6,30% hydrogen 6 0,29% 0,52%

technologies 61 2,90% 5,27% flying cars 6 0,29% 0,52%

improving our lifestyle 45 2,14% 3,89% creating new theories 6 0,29% 0,52%

transportation 40 1,90% 3,45% perpetum mobile 5 0,24% 0,43%

space 37 1,76% 3,20% people needs 5 0,24% 0,43%

diseases 32 1,52% 2,76% new theories 5 0,24% 0,43%

observing nature 31 1,48% 2,68% nature 5 0,24% 0,43%

medicines 25 1,19% 2,16% education 5 0,24% 0,43%

computer 25 1,19% 2,16% cloning 5 0,24% 0,43%

plants 24 1,14% 2,07% trash 4 0,19% 0,35%

climate 24 1,14% 2,07% machines 4 0,19% 0,35%

inventions 23 1,09% 1,99% inventing vaccines 4 0,19% 0,35%

energy 22 1,05% 1,90% human body 4 0,19% 0,35%

robots 19 0,90% 1,64% galaxies 4 0,19% 0,35%

factories 19 0,90% 1,64% foreign languages 4 0,19% 0,35%

mathematics 16 0,76% 1,38% foods 4 0,19% 0,35%

chemistry 16 0,76% 1,38% flowers 4 0,19% 0,35%

ecology 15 0,71% 1,30% electric cars 4 0,19% 0,35%

physics 13 0,62% 1,12% weather 3 0,14% 0,26%

experiments 13 0,62% 1,12% warm water 3 0,14% 0,26%

working on better future for Europe 12 0,57% 1,04% volcanoes 3 0,14% 0,26%

water 12 0,57% 1,04% tobacco 3 0,14% 0,26%

recycling 12 0,57% 1,04% to limit pollution 3 0,14% 0,26%

discoveries 12 0,57% 1,04% to be polite 3 0,14% 0,26%

health 11 0,52% 0,95% study nature 3 0,14% 0,26%

ecological cars 11 0,52% 0,95% solar energy cars 3 0,14% 0,26%

vaccines 10 0,48% 0,86% solar cars 3 0,14% 0,26%

writing science books 9 0,43% 0,78% planets 3 0,14% 0,26%

geography 9 0,43% 0,78% new fuels 3 0,14% 0,26%

economy 9 0,43% 0,78% nanotechnology 3 0,14% 0,26%

52

waste 8 0,38% 0,69% increasing human communication 3 0,14% 0,26%

trees 8 0,38% 0,69% heat in schools 3 0,14% 0,26%

electricity 8 0,38% 0,69% eraser on which you can write (by pen) 3 0,14% 0,26%

history 7 0,33% 0,60% economy 3 0,14% 0,26%

energy 7 0,33% 0,60% discovering life in the Universe 3 0,14% 0,26%

earth 7 0,33% 0,60% dinosaurs 3 0,14% 0,26%

technologies 6 0,29% 0,52% conservation species 3 0,14% 0,26%

science 6 0,29% 0,52% communications 3 0,14% 0,26%

Table 3. The keywords referring to the themes emerging from the answers to question n. 5, and their frequencies

There is a serious concern for the environment (pollution, nature, transportation, climate), as previously shown by the drawings. Subsequently, there is an interest in technology (technologies, computer) and for health (diseases, medicine). The first strictly scientific themes are: space, observ-ing nature and plants.

Children and adolescents seem to have great expectations on the role played by science in the improvement of their everyday life.

The themes regarding the environment, pollution, the relation between development and nature and, in general, quality of life comes forth in the conceptual maps. It shows that the science-Europe pair is highly oriented towards the need for sustainable development.

Interests and curiosity Two questions (n. 6 and n. 7) were conceived as two long lists of topics: in this case students had

to select “Yes” only if they were interested in further information about the topics.Question n. 6 was about the “pure” scientific themes: from stars to the functioning of the hu-

man body, from evolution to technology. The aim was to understand what are the most interesting themes for our sample, and if there are any relevant differences between the youngest and the eldest and between boys and girls in the sample. This question drew partially on the questionnaire used by Sjoberg1, also to improve comparison possibilities with data gathered in several countries of the world.

Question n. 7 introduced the European dimension and required the students to show their pos-sible interest in the issues linked to Europe itself or to scientific research in Europe or to the impact of science on the European social and economic context. The answers to question n. 6 are summa-rised in figure 2.

Looking at the results as a whole, without sorting them by age group, the interest shown is main-ly about life: “how animals live and communicate” ranks first as a theme, whereas “the evolution of life on earth” ranks second. Except for stars, planets and galaxies, one of the most popular scientific themes ever, not only among children, the first half of the list still sees themes that concern life and health: how science and technology can help to defeat diseases or to protect the environment, the functioning of our brain, and the food needed to remain healthy.

53

PART 3 - Is science for me?

On the other hand, the bottom of the list sees the group of the so-called “hard” sciences (phys-ics with the elementary components of matter, mathematics represented by numbers and formulas), whereas technology comes last (“how things work”).

A further explanation is required at this point. The question was designed to make the respond-ents select the topics they were most curious about, and not those believed to be the most interesting ones. Owing to its massive presence in our lives, technology is maybe seen as something familiar and consequently it may not be able to arouse a special curiosity, although this may not imply an absolute lack of interest in children.

The research by Sjoberg actually revealed that technological issues were the subject of a special interest especially in children from developing countries, who could be more attracted to this kind of novelty, whereas Japanese children, whose everyday life is now pervaded by technology to the maximum extent, were most uninterested in it.

In any case, the choices made by children should be separated from those by adolescents, as at times they are completely different. Indeed, reading the data collected after having sorted them by

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%

How animals live and communicate

The evolution of life on earth

How we can protect air, water and the environment

Stars, planets, galaxies and our Universe

How our brain works

Stars, planets, galaxies and our Universe

How our body works

What we should eat and what we should do to be healthy

AIDS, aviary flu, other transmissible diseases:what they are and how they spread

Earthquakes and volcanoes and our earth

Computers, personal computers, and what we can do with them

Satellites, mobiles and modern communication

The origin and evolution of the human being

Alternative sources of energy: from the sun,from the wind, water, and waves

Plants, flowers and the different habitats

Numbers, formulae and shapes: what we can do with mathematics

Atoms and molecules: the smallest constituents of matter

How devices and instruments work

YES NO nr

0%

Figure 2. The answers to question n. 6

I would like to know more about...

54

level of education, what emerges is that children are much more curious about the human body (and the functioning of the brain) than teenagers are (fig. 3).

LEVEL: The origin and evolution of the human being

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

YES

NO

nr

Primary Secundary

Figure 4. Age differences in answering question n. 6

The same applies for “the origin and evolution of the human being” (fig. 4).

The youngest children are probably more interested in a theme like evolution, as this is usually explained according to a narrative paradigm that is easier to understand and closer to the imaginative dimension of childhood. Or perhaps teenagers have already heard much about this issue and do not believe they need further information.

Another case, still different from the two above, is the imbalance in the theme “plants and flow-ers”. Whereas children still have a special interest for plant life (expressed also in the drawings), as age increases this theme appears to be too simple, “childish”, to the eyes of adolescents, as also confirmed by other research projects (fig. 5).

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

YES

NO

nr

Primary Secundary

LEVEL: How our body works (the same graph works for “How our brain works”)

Figure 3. Age differences in answering question n. 6

55

PART 3 - Is science for me?

Our data do not highlight a significant gender influence. Only one question is marked by a certain gender gap (fig. 6).

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Important inventions and discoveries

Improvements in our life due to sciences and technologyThe possible dangers of science and technology

Important questions that scientists yet cannot answer

European space missions: satellites, probes, telescopes.

The different European populations, languages and culturesNatural parks and wild spaces in Europe

European environmental problems: pollution and energy

Science careers in Europe: what we chose as a future jobScience research in my country: where are the scientists and what they do

Where are European science museums, aquaria, planetariaEuropean geography and history

Scientific research outside EuropeEuropean research centres: where are the scientists and what they do

Famous European scientists and their life

European economy: industries, products, agriculture

YES NO nr

GENDER: AIDS, aviary flu, other transmissible diseases

When asked to state whether they are interested in transmittable diseases, such as AIDS and the avian flu, boys tend to say no, whereas girls tend to say yes. In all the other cases, the deviations from the average in the answers of the two genders are irrelevant in every respect.

Answers to question n. 7 are summarised in figure 7.

I would like to know more about...

Figure 7. Answers to question n. 7

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

YES

NO

nr

Primary Secundary

Figure 5. Age differencesin answering question n. 6.

LEVEL: Plants, flowers and their different habitats

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

YES

NO

nr

male female

Figure 6. Gender differences in answering question n. 6.

56

The preferences in our sample are very clear: in first place there are the impacts of science on society, arising from the inventions, the discoveries and, in particular, the improvements that science and technology may contribute to our life, and the possible risks connected to scientific activity – they are the first three themes chosen from the list. The fourth position is occupied by the limitations of science, including the popular issues scientists have not been able to tackle as yet. On the other hand, the themes that concern Europe are all to be found at the bottom of the list.

The European theme that arises the greatest interest is space missions. Next, come European populations, languages and cultures that, even though not strictly linked to science, bear witness to a desire to improve one’s understanding of what the European Union is. The strong association between Europe and the linguistic and cultural variety is confirmed also in the conceptual maps, as the most recurrent words concern precisely languages and European peoples, sometimes even food, poets, songs and other aspects of the local and national cultures.

Let’s consider now if we can find country-based differences in the answers to questions 6 and 7.As previously mentioned, environmental protection is the “hot” issue children and adolescents

believe science should work on. The protection of air, water and nature in general originates a divide between Italian, Portuguese, Romanian and Czech students on the one hand, and French and Polish students on the other (fig. 8).

In Italy, the interest in this subject is extremely high, and perhaps this is because in this country environmental culture is limited or totally inexistent. Facing the environmental and urban disasters occurring in their country, Italian young people can be nothing but alarmed and in need of better information and actions. Apparently, in France the situation is completely the opposite, at least in the area represented in the survey.

The gap in the interest in the environment is confirmed by the opinions collected on alternative energy sources, once again showing the highest interest level in Italy, Romania and Portugal (fig. 9).

As regards the issue of natural protection, the level of interest in the specific issue of the energy sources decreases by over ten per cent in all cases.

The famous European scientists (as shown in the general list), are of little interest as is demon-

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CZ

FR

IT

PL

PT

RO

YES NO nr

COUNTRIES: How we can protect air, water and the environment

Figure 8. Country-based differences in answering question n. 7.

57

PART 3 - Is science for me?

strated by the fact that less than 50% of the respondents express their interests in this subject. Posi-tive exceptions can be found in Italy and, most of all, in Romania, which shows a very high interest (fig. 10).

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CZ

FR

IT

PL

PT

RO

YES NO nr

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CZ

FR

IT

PL

PT

RO

YES NO nr

Figure 9. Country-based differences in answering question n. 7

COUNTRIES: Alternatives sources of energy...

Figure 10. Country-based differences in answering question n. 7

COUNTRIES: Famous European scientists and thier life

The interpretation is not easy. Maybe the biography of scientists is not appealing in general, or the adjective “European” sounds bureaucratic and not really evocative.

The last comparison between countries regards the interest in “science research in my country” (fig. 11).

In this respect, countries are divided in three groups. The children from the Czech Republic and Poland are not very interested in the national dimension; on the other hand, they are very good at expressing it when asked to mention famous scientists or to portray them in the drawings; probably they are less interested as they believe they are sufficiently informed on these issues. In contrast, the Italian and Romanian children tend to be very interested.

The history of science is not a common subject in Italy, neither in general history classes, nor as a component of scientific education. Such an evident interest demonstrated by pupils is quite inter-esting and it should be an inspiration for teachers.

The figures recorded in France and Portugal fall within the average, yet this interest exceeds by far 50%.

58

The interest in the national dimension of science is clearly higher than the one in research at a European level. Maybe this is so because the European identity is still weak in many respects, and therefore a child does not feel emotionally pushed to know what happens in a supranational dimen-sion. Certainly, “European” science does not have a strong or successful image, nor are laboratories and institutions working in this sector widely known. Maybe pupils simply bear witness to the lack of a communication policy. On the other hand, if we refer to the conceptual maps, the more Europe is associated to the dimension of cultural variety, the less it is associated to research.

Would you like to be a scientist? Why?When asked “Would you like to be a scientist?”, children are split in two nearly equal groups

between yes and no (fig. 12).

511565

38 44

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

YES NO MAYBE nr

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CZ

FR

IT

PL

PT

RO

YES NO nr

Figure 11. Country-based differences in answering question n. 7

COUNTRIES: Science research in my country...

Figure 12. Answers to question n. 8

Would you like to be a scientist?

However, the most interesting aspect is to read the reasons they wrote for their positive answers, even though they are not always consistent with the content of other sections of the questionnaire: indeed, some who said they are not interested in science actually show a very great interest when explaining their rejection; otherwise, some respondents gave a positive answer, but their statements have a worried, perplexed or even negative tone.Some crucial themes emerge when the respondents support their answers.

59

PART 3 - Is science for me?

Regarding the positive answers, children want to become scientists because science can help the world:“Yes, scientists help the world and care about the future” (PL)“Yes, I want to do something good for society and the environment” (PL)“Yes, because I could invent things to improve people’s lives and reduce pollution” (IT)“Yes, I’d like to be a female scientist because I could discover new things that would benefit mankind” (IT)

Because science can treat diseases (a popular theme also in drawings):“Yes. I would like to be a scientist. I would study diseases to help persons with diabetes, handicap, obesity, coeliac disease” (IT)“Yes. Because I could help people and cure the most dangerous diseases” (RO)

Another reason is because a scientist leads an exciting life:“Yes. Scientist can travel a lot and learn a new things” (PL)

Because scientists are well-known and well-paid:“Yes. I will make some inventions and I’ll be famous in the whole of Europe” (PL)“Yes. I need a well paid job and social recognition” (PL)“Yes. I will become a celebrity, I will be smart …” (RO)“Yes. Because as scientist you have access to a large amount of information and you may discover amazing new things, that were not yet discovered. You will be famous, not only in your country, but throughout the world.” (RO)

“I am not sure. It can give you money and fame but it is boring” (PL)“Yes, I would like to be a scientist but only in a specific domain. Science is an interesting and complex domain, but it offers a lot of very well paid jobs all over the Europe” (RO)

Working in a laboratory is fun (as is travelling into space!):“Yes. I want to be a mad scientist and spend time in laboratory” (PL)“Yes. If I will become a scientist I will experiment and I will find forms of life in space” (RO)“Yes. I would like to visit space and to see asteroids.” (FR)“Yes, the job of scientist is appealing to me. I will go into space and on the Moon. I also love biology.” (FR)“Yes, because I wish (I have a dream) to travel on Mars, and to find out if other intelligent creatures live in the Universe” (RO)

Children want to become scientists because they are seen as smart people, even though it may make them feel inadequate:“Yes, to have an intelligent mind, to know more than others, to discover new formulas and new theories to write books” (IT)

60

“No because scientists are wise but not in a normal way, super wise. I’d like to be a biologist” (PT)

Some have a problem with mathematics:“No because I don’t like mathematic and it’s difficult for me” (FR)“I am not sure. I am not good in math and phys” (PL)“No because I’m unable to formulate alone a hypothesis and I don’t like to do it, but I like to hear it made by other people” (IT)“No because there is no place with imagination in sciences. It is necessary to prove by calculations” (FR)

Also the danger implied is an issue (the same applies to liquids!):“No, because it is very dangerous and there are many risks, and I would never put my life in danger for discovering some new idea.” (RO)“Yes, I could go to space and work with chemical reagents but I know it’s dangerous” (PT)“I don’t know, because it may be dangerous, but it could be nice” (FR)“I am not sure. You can help but M. Curie died because of radiation” (PL)“It depends. Because I don’t want to travel in space and if there was an explosion or things that destroy my lungs” (FR)“No, because I don’t like liquids” (PT)

In any case, a common belief is that scientists have to work hard – and probably on their own:“I don’t know. On one hand yes because I would like to find solutions, on the other hand no because it’s too much work” (PT) “No, I am not interested in this field. Nowadays, children can find no satisfaction in spending 7 days out of 7 in a room, in front of mathematics and formulas. We should study more arts, and especially every kind of design” (RO)“No. It is interesting but I need a contact with people in my future work” (PL)

The past few years have seen an increase in the awareness of little girls that science may be part of their professional future, that one day they too could be scientists. It can be seen through their drawings, and in the texts of their answers.

Their attention is focussed on sciences studying life rather than technological applications, and on observation, rather than experiment. They spontaneously consider science as one of their possible professional paths and it is a trend worth noticing.

They have removed all kinds of estrangement and exceptionality. In a normal context, a girl may imagine to be a future scientist. The gender issue is almost totally missing in the answers given by children.

1. Sjoberg S., Science and scientists: The SAS-study Cross-cultural evidence and perspectives on pupils’ interests, experiences and perception, Acta Didactica 1, University of Oslo, Revised and enlarged version, 2002, http://folk.uio.no/sveinsj/

61

In this article we will present and discuss the data coming form the part of the SEDEC survey aimed at understanding what image teachers have of science and scientists.

The teachers, by virtue of their professional competence and role, are special observers of children’s imagery. They meet pupils on a daily basis and debate their naïve conceptions, their beliefs and attitudes with them. Moreover, they highly contribute to building not only the knowledge, but also the beliefs and attitudes of students as concerns science, both directly, by teaching, and indirectly, by transferring, even involuntarily and in a non-planned way, their own conceptions and beliefs. For those reasons we aimed at understanding what imagery re-lated to science and the European dimension of science teachers have, in order to identify the images they carry when facing young students.

Hence, we asked ourselves some questions: what are the visions inspiring people who teach science? How do they imagine the work done by a researcher? What do they believe is the role of science in society? Are they aware of the European dimension of research? Are they interested in the historical-scientific heritage of Europe? Are there recurrent elements in this imagery of theirs?

In order to answer all of these questions we drafted a questionnaire that was partly inspired by the questionnaire used in Italy in the previous OCTS survey1,2, so as to subsequently com-pare the data from both research projects; on the other hand, it was devised to include some of the questions from the SEDEC questionnaire submitted to the pupils, to verify the possible proximity or distance between the imagery of teachers and that of pupils.

Implementation of the questionnaire and sampleAfter having tested the questionnaire on a small group of teachers, the form was posted

online in a private web page, and the partners of the project invited groups of known teachers to fill it in. They were enabled to answer the questionnaire autonomously, any time and any place they deemed suitable.

The goal to be achieved was a sample, comprising a minimum number of 50 teachers in each of the 6 countries involved in the project. It was nearly accomplished (279 completed

Trust and worriesScience and scientists in the answers of European teachersDaniele GOUTHIER

62

questionnaires were collected), yet organisational problems in each of the countries hindered the formation of a totally balanced and numerically satisfactory sample.

Like the survey concerning pupils, also this part of the research does not claim to be statisti-cally significant for the European context; its goal is rather to identify trends and thematic areas, to be possibly further analysed or to be used as sug-gestions to later devise the educational activities of the project.

As far as the participant countries are in-volved (Czech Republic, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania), the distribution is quite bal-anced; however, Italy is overrepresented, whereas the Czech Republic is underrepresented (fig. 1).

The teachers of the sample are from primary and secondary schools, although if the majority works in primary schools (fig. 2).

As regards the gender, quite not surprisingly 84% of the teachers are women. This data is rela-tively constant in all of the countries involved (fig. 3).

In relation to the age distribution, two thirds of the teachers are quite young, though not very (fig. 4). It is to be noted that this data varies very much in the different countries: in Italy, young teachers are totally missing, whereas there are a lot of teachers over 46. The opposite happens in the Czech Republic and Romania, where young teachers constitute the majority of the sample. Finally, Portugal and France substantially fol-low the general trends, although the former has a number of teachers above the average in the 26-35 age group and the latter has it in the 36-45 age group.

RO 19%CZ 6%

FR 13%

IT 33%

PL 14%

PR 15%

Teachers per counTry

Primary59%

Secondary27%

NA 14%

school levels

M 16%

F 84%

Gender

Figure3. Teachers per gender

Figure 1. Teachers per country

Figure 2. Teachers per school levels

63

PART 3 - Trust and worries

The scientistIn the questionnaire addressed to teachers, as in the one for students, respondents were

first of all asked to “write the first three names of European scientists that occur to you” (table 1). The adjective “European” was meant to check whether a particular European dimension of research has emerged. Only 36 people (13%) did not write any name, and six mentioned only two names; the rest of the teachers wrote the three names, as requested. Approximately eighty scientists registered less than 4 occurrances each, outlining a rich and varied scientific pantheon,3 whereas the majority of the occurrances are spread over a group of 18 scientists.

albert einstein 121 charles darwin 18 emil racoviță 10 antónio damásio 7

Marie curie 63 enrico Fermi 17 Ian Fleming 10 henri coandă 7

louis pasteur 47 antonino Zichichi 15 Blaise pasqual 9 victor Babes 7

rita levi Montalcini 45 renato dulbecco 15 Georges charpak 8 antoine lavoisier 6

Isaac newton 42 Margherita hack 14 Graham Bell 8 alfred nobel 5

carlo rubbia 39 nikola Kopernik 13 Gregor Mendel 8 Ivan pavlov 5

Galileo Galilei 25 Thomas edison 12 pierre et Marie curie 8 James Watson 5

Table 1. Scientists mentioned by the teachers at least four times (number of occurrences)

In the imagery of the teachers Einstein is once again the undisputed leader, although the gap between first and second place is smaller then in the students’ list. Marie Curie ranks sec-ond, and the third position is occupied by Louis Pasteur, whereas Darwin, quite unexpectedly, is mentioned only by 18 teachers.

However, these data cannot be interpreted as European data, because a local factor has strongly affected the results. The Italian teachers, indeed, mentioned less scientists and with a much higher frequency if compared to their foreign colleagues. Therefore, as Italians constitute one third of the sample, seven Italian scientists are among the twelve most mentioned ones (the fourth place is occupied by he Nobel Price Rita Levi Montalcini, even though Italians are not aware she is so famous outside Italy).

In order to outline what image teachers have of a scientist, they were asked to attach some attributes to the scientists (hard-working, curious, etc.) and to give a value to them (i.e. we asked teachers to place a scientist on some Likert scales) (fig. 5).

7%

20-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 over 56

23% 24%

33%

4%

Figure 4. Age of the teachers

Teachers’ age

64

Reading the overall results of the scales, a scientist is more a positive person than a negative one: they are more pleasant than unpleasant, more curious than monotonous, more altruistic than egoist, more diligent than absent-minded. These are all terms associated with a positive connotation, especially when in contrast with their opposites.

Only one out of five scales sees a substantially balanced result: the one between tidy and untidy, two attributes who are apparently both typical in the image of a scientist. This is totally consistent with what emerges from the analysis of the drawings: a scientist has a dual side, he can be a pedantic and spectacled hyper-accurate man or, conversely, a crazy genius with no time (nor inclination) to tidy up his clothes.

Curiosity is certainly the most important feature of his personality: three quarters of the sample believe that scientists are absolutely more curious than monotonous, and a further 10% see them as much more curious than monotonous.

It should be noted that the most patent features appear precisely in two qualities that regard the “professional” nature, as are curiosity and diligence. The more personal features, such as altruism and pleasantness, still receive some consensus, although more vaguely .

A series of statements (about which teachers had to express their level of agreement: very much, quite, a bit, not at all) attempted at highlighting the social dimension of a scientist.

The results show that scientists still live in their ivory tower, “completely estranged from society”, work very much on their own, but when they are not alone, they are with their col-leagues. Yet, in the ivory tower, they still think about other people: indeed, they work for the common well-being (fig. 6).

74%

Pleasant/Unplease

Tidy/Untidy

Altruistic/Egoist

Diligent/Absentmind

Curious/Monotono11% 7% 4% 4%

28% 30% 24% 12% 6%

16% 29% 43% 7% 4%

14% 20% 38% 17% 11%

13% 20% 53% 9% 4%

1 2 3 4 5

From one to five, you think a scientist is...

Figure 5. Characteristics defining a scientist

0%

QUITE important

A scientist with his colleagues in an institute. His work is the result of a precise hierarchyA scientist is totally estranged from society

A scientist works mostly in isolation. His work is the result of his own geniusA scientist works for the benefit of everyone

A scientist collaborates and gains insights from other professionsA scientist works with the scientific community as a whole. His work is the result of a collective contribution

A scientist cannot work in isolation from the rest of societyIf you want to be a scientist you have to be willing to make sacrifices and to study a lot

A scientist has a family and friends of his own, just like anybody elseTo be a scientist you have to be very intelligent

Anyone can be a scientistIf you want to be a scientist you have to be interested in, and show compassion for, animals, plants and nature in general

A scientist works with some friends. His work is the result of their mutual understandingTo be a scientist, you need being endowed with mathematics

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

A BIT important NOT importantVERY important

rate how much you believe the following statement to be true

Figure 6. The social dimension of a scientist

65

PART 3 - Trust and worries

One of the statements teachers said they do not agree with very much is, quite surprisingly, “to be a scientist, you need being gifted in with mathematics” and less than half of them think that “to be a scientist you have to be very intelligent”; conversely, they do not believe that much that “anyone can be a scientist”; probably because many of them believe that “if you want to be a scientist, you have to be willing to make sacrifices”.

The work of a scientistWhat is the work of a scientist about? Question n. 9 required the respondents to classify

in four grades, from very important to not important at all, some activities that altogether are part of the work by scientists, from “making forecasts” to “making discoveries”. The three most typical activities in the scientific research work are: making experiments, discoveries and observing nature (fig. 7).

0%

Making experimentsMaking discoveriesObserving nature

Making forecastCreating theories

Inventing news thingsMaking computationswriting science booksTransforming Nature

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

QUITE important A BIT important NOT importantVERY important

Figure 7. The work of a scientist

Interesting data emerge regarding “making forecasts”: if you consider the options “very im-portant” and “quite important” together, according to teachers this activity is the most typical in a scientist’s work; this data is in contrast to what children and pupils think, as they placed this option in the second-last position. Another visible difference between the choices made by adults and children regards “inventing new things”, which is slightly typical according to teach-ers, whereas it comes second after “making discoveries” in children – for whom, as previously mentioned, scientist, inventor and wizard are tightly interwoven figures.

Again, according to adults “making computations” is slightly important, maybe an unex-pected result, even though it is consistent with the belief that to be a scientist it is not necessary to be good at mathematics.

A rather common image of science in mass media is that of science as an activity that “trans-forms nature”, particularly as regards controversial scientific issues: from the cloning of Dolly to avian flu, from nuclear energy to GMOs. However, on the contrary, the transformation of nature is not, according to our sample, one of the typical activities of the work of a scientist. Actually, it is the only option, among the given ones, that reaches less than half of the positive responses.

As it does not transform nature, what is then the effect of the work by a scientist? A ques-tion in the form was about this issue; the teachers had to complete this sentence: “A scientist’s work leads to…” choosing among 7 possible endings (improving everyday life, defeating dis-

a scientist’s work is about...

66

eases and perhaps even death, etc.). They could choose up to three endings.Three endings were the most selected: a scientist’s work leads to the understanding of truths

that had only been perceived before (27%), to the deepening of new tools to our knowledge (29%) and leads to an improvement in our everyday life (24%) (fig. 8).

Figure 8. The results of scientists’ work

No real improvementin our everyday life0%

Deepening new toolsto our knowledge29%

Understanding truthsthat had only beenperceived before27%

Wreakingdamage and disaster2%

Jeopardising mankindand Nature3%

Defeating diseasesand perhaps even death15%

Improving everyday life24%

a scientist’s work leads to...

A long series of sentences to be completed attempted then at an analysis of the different aspects of scientific research.

According to the majority of the teachers, discoveries can come at any time, provided that there is inspiration. Conversely, ten per cent of the sample believes that results are achieved when actually at work, i.e. discoveries occur during office hours.

A contemporary scientist is a modern wanderer of knowledge, moving from laboratory to laboratory, changing institute, university, country, taking part in conventions, conferences held in remote and generally beautiful places. Are they seen like that also by those who do not know the world of research? And, most of all, what do the non-experts think about the reason behind a scientist’s travels?

A scientist’s travels are commonly justified by two reasons: first of all, to observe phenom-ena which he or she may be unable to reproduce, and secondly to meet other scientists. In addi-tion, as selected by quite a significant number of teachers (28%), a scientist travels also because he or she likes to do so!

Unfortunately, he or she does not travel all the time, and a considerable part of his or her activity is performed in the same place. The typical place for this activity is a laboratory that has primarily two functions (fig. 9; two choices were allowed).

Figure 9. Why work in a laboratory

13

Helping scientistmeet one anotherin the same place

Inventingcompletely newsituations and

world

Carrying outdangerous

acticities in a safeenvironment

Isolating and studying peculiar

aspects of a natural

phenomenon

Repeating many times a particularsituation

5389

179 180

What a laboratory is for...

67

PART 3 - Trust and worries

It enables scientists to reproduce a specific situation many times, and enables them to isolate themselves and study specific aspects of a natural event. It is the place for observation and verification, for precision and discipline, in one word, for repeatability, as a foundation of scientific knowledge.

In the relation between experiment and theory, instruments, according to teachers, have more a positive function (pars construens), rather than a negative one (pars destruens).

According to teachers, the scientist primarily observes and verifies (fig. 10; two options could be selected). Yet he also reflects and builds some hypothesis. Likewise, he sets up models and deductions. Everything is aimed at correcting the errors that he has committed.

Testing and vivisecting Correcting his own errors

Making models and deductions

20

Thinking and makinghypothesis

Observing and testing

69 83

158215

a scientist works especially by...

Figure 10. What a scientist does

While errors are admissible, according to the teachers horrors are not,: vivisection, while existing in the children’s imagery, is confined to a much more peripheral position compared to the media, and probably compared to the ordinary procedures of many research projects.

TrustThe final part of this article will deal with an analysis of the trust towards science and sci-

entists.The first question in this area was an attempt to assess the level of trust attached by the

teachers to a series of jobs (fig. 11; three choices were allowed). 85% of the sample considers the teacher as the most trustworthy figure of all. The three following positions seem to be linked to the different faces of science and technology (doctor, engineer and software developer).

The less trustworthy figure is the soccer-player, quite obviously. The nature of the other professions ranking last in the chart is even more interesting: advertising writer, mayor and

select three professions which you find trustworthy

1 4 19 24 31 31 44 62 80123

200236

Socc

er - play

er

Adverti

sing w

riter

May

or

Minist

er

Lawye

r

Optician

Journ

alist

Policeman

Softwar

e developer

Engineer

Doctor

Teac

herFigure 11. Trust and professions.

68

minister. Indeed, they are all characterised by a strong relation with decision-making and inter-est. The advertising writer’s job is to influence individual decisions in order to guide purchase intentions, whereas mayor and minister are two decision-makers and, as politicians, are evi-dently biased.

Science is somehow placed at the opposite end of the spectrum compared with politics; it is a place for disinterested and expert knowledge, in which trust can be rightfully placed.

The results in answer n. 7 on the relation between trust and professions is confirmed by the results of question n. 26 (fig. 12; two choices were allowed), which required the respondents to identify the people who may make an improper use of science.

Once again those who carry party interests (industrialists, politicians, soldiers) are the focus of the teachers’ worries. Eighty teachers (i.e. a considerable 28%) consider that also scientists may use science for illegal and selfish purposes: the craving for power (once again the myth of Golem) may push them to use their knowledge in a wicked way.

1480

132 145 166

Doctors, to manipulatethe individuals

Scientist themselves,craving for power

Soldiers, to make war

Politicians, to manipulatepublic opinion

Industrialist, for greed

Who may make an improper use of science?

Figure 12. The misuses of science

What are the interests scientists may carry, according to the teachers in our sample? The results (fig. 13; two choices were allowed) once again outline a scientist showing no interests, driven primarily by his or her professional fulfilment. These data depict once again a trustwor-thy figure.

4

3948

99

141149

Wants for himself

everything he discovers

Is in competitionwith his collegues

Is satisfied if he wins

prizes and awards

Always collaborates

with his collegues

Is satisfied if a results

of his is publishedand cited

Is more interested todiscoveriesthan in hisown gain

Today, a scientist...

Figure 13. Scientists’s interests

Finally, the general level will be now reconsidered and followed by an attempt at defining what the overall evaluation on the work of science is, in the past but also in the future (fig. 14). Also the results of this last question outline a view of science which is definitely positive, as well as equally positive expectations.

69

PART 3 - Trust and worries

These levels of trust were not reached by the 5,000 Italian students that answered this question in 2003: indeed, whereas the result showed that the past action of science could be assessed as highly positive, the same did not apply to future expectations, which were positive in any case, even though to a lower degree. Older than the sample of students involved in this research, and less biased in favour of culture and knowledge than the SEDEC teachers, Ital-ian adolescents expressed a concern (probably on the grounds of what mass media show and convey) about a science more and more controlled by interest and/or in any case potentially dangerous for its development, which are not counterbalanced by a growth in social equality, peace and tolerance.

Notes and references1 F. Manzoli, Y. Castelfranchi, D. Gouthier and I. Cannata, Children’s perceptions of science and scientists, in The

9th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology, Seul (2006).2 D. Gouthier, I. Cannata, Y. Castelfranchi and F. Manzoli, The perception of science and scientists in the young

public, in The 9th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology, Seul, 20063 2-4 mentions: Egas Moniz, Guglielmo Marconi, Leonardo da Vinci, Niels Bohr, Otto Wichterle, Stephen Hawk-

ing, Umberto Veronesi, Giulio Natta, Hanri Coandă, Karol Linneusz, Konrad Lorenz, Wolszczan, Alessandro Volta, Ann McLaren, Aristotele, Clara Pinto Correia, Dmitri Mendeleev, Francis Crick, Gerard Genette, Gustav Hertz, Haroun Tazieff, Hubert Reeves, Jacques Monod, Jean Piaget, Lumiere brothers, Max Planck, René Des-cartes, Sigmund Freud, Wolniewicz

1 mention: Absolon, Alexander Fleming, André-Marie Ampere, Antonín Holý, Archimede, Augustin Cauchy, Aurel Vlaicu, Axel Kahn, Camillo Golgi, Carlo Linneo, Charles Coulomb, Conrad Roentgen, Paul Crutzen, Giuseppe Di Bella, Ernest Rutherford, Erwin Schroedinger, Ferdinand de Saussure, Fischer Hans, Francesco Salamini, Franco Brezzi, George Palade, Grigore Moisil, Helghe Koch, Henri Poincaré, Jan Purkyně, Jan Werich, Jaroslav Heyrovský, Jean-Pierre Haigneré, Johannes Gutenberg, Joseph Jacquard, Jozef Łukaszewicz, Karl Marx, Krzysztof Pilch, Joseph-Louis Lagrange, Léon Schwartzenberg, Lise Meitner, Lobo Antunes, Ludwig Boltzmann, Marco Bersanelli, Michel de Montaigne, Michel Rocard, Michel Rolle, Neil Armstrong, Nicolae Paulescu, Parhon Constantin, Piergiorgio Odifreddi, Pitagora, Platone, Scipione Bobbio, Silvio Garattini, Tommaso Poggio, Vasile Parvan, Voskovec, Watson and Crick, Werner Heisenberg, Wróblewski, Young

56% 44%

Evil Good

57%

43%

Evil Good

In the future, science will do more evil than good? To date, science has done more evil than good?

Figure 14. Science and the future

Part 4SEDEC in classes

Training and research-action

73

All over Europe a number of countries have national curricula: France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Spain, the United Kingdom1. In most of these countries common guidelines for conceiving a core curriculum – subject curricula, syllabuses, and textbooks – are followed. The European project Science Education for the Development of European Citizenship has tried to offer an interesting and necessary perspective for approach-ing science education in schools.

SEDEC intends to present an approach where the pupils’ opinions and teachers’ percep-tions matter, and where people with different backgrounds work together: specialists and re-searchers in science and in education, museums educators and science teachers. In the third working group within the SEDEC Project – the Teaching Materials working group (TM) – we try to conceive educational materials aimed to developing their pupils’ behaviours as European citizens, starting from the teachers’ perceptions about teaching science. In this paper we will show in which way we tried to identify teachers’ perceptions. To fulfil this goal two teachers’ debates were organized in two countries of the SEDEC project– France (with primary educa-tion teachers) and Romania (with secondary education teachers). To better understand French and Romanian teachers’ points of view, we will make first a short insert on these two education systems in terms of curriculum organization.

French and Romanian curriculums French2 and Romanian3 curriculum frameworks are organized as a series of multi-year cy-

cles, during which students must acquire specific knowledge and demonstrate given competen-cies. In these two systems of education the teaching of mathematics, physics and chemistry is a matter of pride and prestige. It features a global approach in which students are exposed at an early stage to a wide range of mathematical concepts: geometry, addition, subtraction and mul-tiplication, algebra, fractions, the decimal system. Each year these mathematical concepts are expanded and students’ comprehension improves. Logic and expression are always prioritized.

Students in primary schools in France advance through the primary grades; they study many subjects that are related to science: computers, astronomy, earth and life sciences, geog-raphy.

A better understanding of the world for an effective civic engagementResults from the SEDEC teachers’ debatesLaura DUMBRÄVEANU

74

In Romania, the National Curricula Framework4 does not integrate any subject related to science, except for the last two years of high school education, and not in every type of high school either. In general, the subjects are grouped in seven large curricular areas with a certain number of hours being allocated to each of them per week; one of them includes mathemat-ics and science. In this particular curricular area a few subjects related to the science field are grouped together: mathematics, physics, chemistry, natural sciences, biology and geography. The main criterion that organizes these school disciplines is the science core-knowledge pack-age that is approached from different subject perspectives and that is explained to the pupils offering them a larger view upon the causes and the effects of particular scientific phenomena.

In these two centralized systems of education there are some general rules that have to be respected in order to plan classes. For example, in Romania, teachers, including those whose teaching subject is related to science education and is included in this particular curricular area, are advised from the Ministry of Education, Research and Youth level to make sure they teach all the topics that are included in the subject curricula. Because of this national goal teachers lament that they do not have enough time during classes to teach their pupils properly, because in a short period of time they have to teach facts and have no time to debate or to discuss with their students, nor for deeper explanations and experiments.

On the contrary, modern pedagogy and European guidelines suggest that during science classes calculating the correct answer is not sufficient; a student must explain how the answer was obtained, and why. Logic and the ability to articulate one’s reasoning have to be empha-sized in every grade and field. Students are not invited to use their teachers’ mental algorithms. Meg’s Case5 is relevant in this particular situation6: Meg, a second grade, field test teacher, uses an activity called “Enough for the Class,” in which students consider whether the number of cubes in a bag is enough for each student in the class to have one. She gives them the following problem: In the classroom there are 26 students. There are 16 blue cubes and 17 red cubes. Are there enough for the entire class? Students quickly decide that there are enough for the class of 26 students and begin figuring out how many extra cubes there will be. Meg is taken by surprise when some of her students solve the problem this way: I can take 10 cubes from the 16 and 10 cubes from the 17 that makes 20. Then I need 6 more cubes, so I take away 6 from the 16. Now, I have 26, enough for the class. That leaves just 7 cubes from the 17.

SEDEC’s new approachThe SEDEC group dedicated to the developing of teaching materials aimed at conceiving

concrete educational materials for classroom activities during science lessons, also using the sug-gestions coming from the other two main working groups of the project. For example some of the materials have been developed on the basis of the results of the survey about teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of science and scientists, and others using the SEDEC database. The general aim is to encourage inquiry learning and first-hand experience of evidence of the history of sci-ence, as well as of scientific phenomena, for the development of knowledge, skills and abilities for building a lifelong familiarization with science and technology.

75

PART 4 - A better understanding of the world for an effective civic engagement

Two debates were organized with science teachers in France and Romania. These debates were dedicated to collecting teachers’ perceptions about teaching science and to understanding to which extend this topic is related, in their point of view, to developing European citizenship behaviour in students. Also, we wanted to see if the information used during science lessons are provided exclusively by school lessons or in partnership with other local, national or interna-tional institutions that develop educational activities on this topic.

Findings from the science teachers’ debates The debate organized in France7 brought together science teachers from primary education,

while in Romania8 the debate included science teachers at secondary education level – more precisely teachers that teach in the Gymnasium (5th to 8th forms).

Some of the teachers’ perceptions in these two countries, without regard to country of ori-gin, were almost similar. From their point of view to be a good European citizen means: to be open to other cultures, from which we accept and share the rules of life that lead to exchange; to communicate in other languages; to surpass national identity; and to provide solidarity and mutual assistance.

The most interesting ideas were related to the terms for describing the relationship between teaching science and developing the European citizenship during classes. Here there were sig-nificant differences between the French teachers and Romanian teachers` points of view. The French teachers mentioned that the relation between science and the European citizenship is initially well perceived in certain topics related to ecology, to resources management – e.g. the waste issue. French teachers declared that scientific knowledge and the historical inheritance of sciences must be shared among Europeans, and the successes clearly shown. They said that the behaviours induced by the scientific activities are to be considered on a large scale, like conse-quences of the actions of each individual, and international collaborations have to be facilitated in order to better solve the problems.

The Romanian teachers’ first impression is that the relationship between science and Eu-ropean citizenship is not very well defined in the textbooks and in science subject curricula. Only during science lessons teachers can point this relation and can give some examples of good behaviours, together with their students.

Both groups of teachers agreed on the importance of the active learning9 principles, as the most efficient in developing science lessons. Science teachers from both countries underlined that is important to start from concrete problems, related to pupils’ everyday life. The pu-pil needs to be active: sensory handling, observation, groping, experimenting, manufacturing things, and acting in game frameworks are necessary. The pupil should be involved in debates, without being afraid of mistakes and errors. Very important is also the contact with “real” science and “real” scientists”. As our French colleague, Etienne Bolmont, pointed out in his transcripts of the French debate: “the class must open up towards the scientific world, make scientists come to the class, visit of laboratories”.

In terms of other organizations developing educational activities related to science, French

76

and Romanian teachers nominated few institutions: places of cultures – museums; places of science - universities and research laboratories; organizations of assistance for the scientific con-tents - partnerships with high school students, the general council. As a plus, French teachers’ answers quoted: institutional information centres like CPIE and Agencies of Water for water, or Côté Piles for the problem of the batteries; centres of nature conservancy (like the WWF); European programmes (like Erasmus); associations for teachers’ help and support (“La main à la pâte”, CODES, education for health); organizations of social assistance, like UNICEF; organizations of assistance to the exchanges between countries (OFAJ). Romanian teachers’ pointed out the importance of school parents’ associations, that can organize and sponsor all kind of activities that are developed for their children`s benefit.

Brief final commentsThe debates generated new questions for the SEDEC partners, and suggested possible an-

swers. During debates teachers explained in concrete terms their views of the relationship be-tween teaching science and developing European citizenship behaviours in their students. For example the French teachers mentioned that there is an unexplored new bond between science education and the social dimension of sciences. We should reflect on “how to explain to the children that the problem raised is European: pollution does not have borders”. Moreover: “sciences deal with everyday life, they are accessible, useful and they can modify our behaviour (to open a water tap), rather than to take into account great projects. Also, the distribution of electricity extends beyond the borders, and breakdowns abroad can have effects in France. There is a network between the countries. There exists a European standard for the start-up of air-conditioners.”

Students` curiosity and willingness to participate are to be supported. The children should become aware that greater scientific knowledge enables them to be actors and decision makers for their future. Specific science instruments and a scientific approach over the natural world around us - observation and experiment are means of understanding and of respecting – help them to understand things better and consequently to behave in a more efficient way, in ac-cordance with that deeper understanding. A more active didactics, aimed at participation and engagement, is also an effective way to make pupils like sciences. An opening to other institu-tions and exchanges between schools can support the European dimension and at the same time allow a better understanding and a wider engagement.

SEDEC teaching materials are between the first attempts, in Europe, to put in practice this new approach.

Notes and references1 As an important source for European education systems and their curriculum organization we took a look on the

following address: http://www.memory-key.com/Parents/international_curriculum.htm.2 To give appropriate information we analyzed information about French educational system from different Internet

sites. To make a brief overview of the French system of education you may search information at the following ad-dress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_education_in_France.

77

PART 4 - A better understanding of the world for an effective civic engagement

3 A résumé of the Romanian education at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_education_in_Romania.4 Relevant information you can find at the following Internet address: www.edu.ro, English version. 5 Source: Russell, S. J. (1997). The role of curriculum in teacher development. In S. N. Friel and G. W. Bright

(Eds.) Reflecting on Our Work: NSF Teacher Enhancement K-6. Lantham, MD: University Press of America.6 Within the SEDEC Project, during Lagos (Portugal) Science teachers` international seminar (February, 2007)– as

a dissemination and evaluation step at the Project – we developed this exercise with the Portuguese teachers and this activity confirmed our affirmation mentioned above.

7 The debate was organized in France on 30 April 2007, during an in-service training course, with 15 teachers of every level in primary school. The entire meeting lasted 1 hour and 15 minutes, being organized in two main parts: in the first, teachers wrote their answers to debate questions on the paper; in the second part, every question was debated among teachers, according to their answers on the sheets. Question after question, teachers spoke of their ideas and the debate could extend. The questions were shown with a video-projector on a screen and the teachers wrote their answers on a sheet. We took about 5 min per question, i.e. 35 minutes. A teacher took notes on the de-bate and during the meeting the French language was used. Etienne Bolmont (our French colleague in the SEDEC project) was coordinating this activity and afterwards translated the teachers` answers in English. In the end he made a summary of their answers. All the discussions were registered on an iPod.

8 The Romanian debate was organized on 18 June 2007, as an appendix to a research project that I was involved in. This research project was developed in Constanta (one large university city), 20 Science teachers being announced about this meeting two weeks in advance. 14 teachers every level in secondary education (5th - 8th forms) partici-pated in the debate . Constanta is a county as well, so at the meeting were presented Science teachers from all over the county, not only from the Constanta city – which is the capital of the county. The debate lasted 1 hour and 30 minutes and a lot of other points of view were developed during discussions, most of the issues being related to day by day teaching activity during Science lessons. The procedure was similar with the one developed in France, when teachers answered questions in two phases of the meeting – first written answers and then discussiong the answers. Another teacher (there is about the inspector for Romanian Language that helped us to organize this meeting) took notes on the debate. The spoken language was Romanian and then I translated the teachers` answers in English. Teachers` debate was registered on the audio tape then a transcript was done.

9 Active learning may best be described as a style of instruction that departs from the traditional lecture-based method of dispensing information and tnote taking- / term paper writing- / periodic examination-based method of receiving and returning information. (…) According to this source, the main characteristics of active learn-ing consist in the fact that: active learning techniques stimulate critical thinking; active learning is better tailored to fit changing patterns of concentration; active learning addresses the diversity of learning styles; active learning reinforces important democratic skills. (Source: http://faculty.saintleo.edu/SLU101/information/active_learning.htm)

10 L. Capita and M. Cerkez, The Development of Communication Competency for Students from Compulsory Education. Institute for Educational Sciences, Bucharest, Romania. (in Romanian) (2004).

11 L. Dumbraveanu, Romanian School System, in W.Horner et al. (eds.), The Educations Systems of Europe, Springer, Leipzig, Germany (2006).

12 S.J. Russell, The role of curriculum in teacher development, in S. N. Friel and G. W. Bright (eds.) Reflecting on Our Work: NSF Teacher Enhancement K-6. Lantham, MD: University Press of America (1997).

13 http://www.lelycee.org/academics/curriculum.en.php14 http://www.memory-key.com/Parents/international_curriculum.htm15 http://faculty.saintleo.edu/SLU101/information/active_learning.htm16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_education_in_Romania17 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_education_in_France18 www.edu.ro

78

The contribution of the IUFM of Lorraine to the SEDEC project basically starts from a reflec-tion on the implications resulting in terms of education from the links between science and Euro-pean citizenship. This process raises two main questions:

• What are the relations between science and citizenship; how to make them emerge and how to use them in a class context?

• What are the relations between science and European citizenship; how to take the European dimension into account?

We tried to give practical answers to these questions through two activities to be performed in primary school classes. Our approach, which is defined in the official directions for the science and technology program, is based on a four-step investigation:

• defining the problem: “what is a scientist’s job?”• allowing the children to express themselves according to their knowledge and ideas and to com-

pare their views;• validating or not their ideas through a twofold investigation: ○ thanks to a historical documentation, pupils can compare their starting ideas with the contri-

butions from the history of sciences;○pupils meet some scientists who operate in the relevant field and can truly understand their

job;• drawing up a written report on the whole process.

The first principle to be complied with is to include in the process some occasions on which pupils can freely debate the issues resulting from the examination of the subject submitted to their attention. During these debates, children must introduce and support their ideas by resorting to suitable arguments, but they must also understand and accept others’ ideas through constructive criticism. In this way, we build the pupils’ citizenship so that they become ready to acquire a critical spirit, which is essential in the field of sciences, but also in a social context. The process continues with a comparison of the various views expressed by pupils on a scientist’s job, the review of histori-

What is a scientist’s job? From drawings to citizenshipA French didactic experienceEtienne BOLMONT

79

PART 4 - What is the scientist’s job? From drawings to citizenship

cal documentation, the preparation of a survey for scientists, and the analysis of the results obtained from the survey. This debate-oriented approach is not easy for primary school pupils. It must be practised on various occasions and in other disciplines. Moreover, it requires a favourable environ-ment, where opinions can be expressed quite freely, pupils dare to express their opinions even when they are not sure about the “truth” of their words, and others’ criticism is acceptable.

The second principle to be complied with is to introduce in the activities some European cul-tural elements in order to make pupils understand, through an overview of the history of sciences in Europe, that the issues to which their attention is drawn are similar in all European countries, or that a shared culture exists. At any rate, this process should never be aimed at limiting the scientific problem to a European dimension because sciences can only be regarded as universal, unless we want to be an easy prey to scientific nationalism. Hence, the goal is not to think in terms of European science, which is the risk resulting from a comparison with the history of sciences, but to consider the issues under examination without stopping at the borders of any country, at least by regarding them as issues shared by the various European countries. Therefore, the European context serves the purpose of characterising them.

Within the framework of the SEDEC research program, we decided to refer our work to some elements of the database obtained from the survey on the perception of sciences in Europe. The views expressed by pupils on a scientist’s job are quite interesting because they show that pupils have relatively stereotyped ideas. We used the drawings made by pupils during our research to compare French children’s ideas to those expressed by other children.

AstronomersThe first experience was made with a primary school class of 10-year old pupils starting from

the following questions: «what is an astronomer’s job? What are his/her tools?». Pupils were asked to draw their answers. Thereaf-ter, they collected their drawings and divided them into catego-ries. The prevailing ideas are as follows.

An astronomer is a space traveller, who visits various plan-ets and picks up some samples. Sometimes, he/she is a tourist! This idea lays bare the confusion between the astronomer and the astronaut.

Relying on a drawing made by one of the pupils, we can sum-marise some other ideas emerged from this experience (fig. 1). Figure 1. A drawing made by a French student

80

Thereafter, pupils were shown the drawings made by other European children, which often sup-ported their ideas. Pupils have very similar ideas.

These drawings (fig. 2,3,4) made by Italian and Polish children give some additional contribu-tions, such as the last one that stresses the importance of teamwork and note taking.

At this point, we may ask ourselves what pupils know. Their written representations show a mul-titude of ideas; hence, the recognition of the scientific status of this job (bold words):

• he/she performs some research activities on space;• he/she observes stars, planets, heavenly bodies, anything that is in the sky;• he/she discovers new galaxies;• he/she monitors the planet “operation”;• he/she studies what is wrong, what is right…, what (the planet under examination) is made of;• he/she looks at another planet to check whether life is possible there;• he/she wishes to demonstrate that water exists;• he/she reflects;• he/she tries to make improvements;• he/she takes some written notes.

And what about history? We suggested them to go through the centuries, especially in order to discover the evolution of the tools used by astronomers.

Copernicus used some tools that were similar to those used by the Greeks: In 1608, Galileo devised his telescope, which was then improved until the 20th century (here,

in the 17th century, the Polish Hevelius). However, today, astronomers spend their time at a com-puter, instead of at a telescope.

This step being completed, pupils still had some questions left on the astronomer’s job. There-

Figure 2,3,4. Drawings made by Italian (first on the left) and Polish (on the right) children.

81

PART 4 - What is the scientist’s job? From drawings to citizenship

fore, in order to answer those questions, we contacted three astronomers, two Polish and one French, who at that time were working at the South Pole. Pupils prepared some questions. We chose the ones that referred to the astronomer’s job:

• Why did you choose this job? • Is it hard to become (and remain) an astronomer?• Where do you work? In a laboratory? In a planetarium? Outdoors?• Do you work by yourself or with a team? Does everybody do the same thing?• What is the equipment of your laboratory?• How do you “control a satellite from your computer”? • What are computers intended for?

They were astonished by some answers. All scientists made reference to an early vocation. Pupils were also worried by the difficulty in becoming an astronomer: studies are very long and there is a lot of math…

In the end, this process was strongly motivating for their astronomy program. Pupils became cu-rious and, most of all, they gained a better understanding of the activities performed by scientists.

BotanistsWe applied the same approach used for the astronomer’s job to the botanist’s job and asked the

question: «What is a botanist’s job?».This experience was totally different because we had two communicating classes close to Nancy,

and the citizenship dimension was developed through the exchange between them.Pupils exchanged their drawings and the conclusions they reached in their classes. First their

personal ideas appeared, and then they modified them following the exchange.Thereafter, they were shown the drawings made by other European children from the SEDEC

database, they debated the various contributions, and they were made aware of the historical evolu-tion of this science through a slide projection. The conclusions drawn in one class were also shared with the other one.

At that time, they had not a precise idea of the botanist’s job, even though they made their ideas evolve. At the beginning, they confusingly thought that a botanist could be a florist or a gardener. The contacts with a researcher from the University of Nancy, as well as the visits to a laboratory and a botanic garden enabled them to gain a much more precise idea of the botanist’s job. The two classes met on those occasions and these events made the pedagogical experience richer.

The debate between two classes is much easier to trigger than that within a single class, where often pupils do not dare to express themselves frankly. In this way, we could avoid the relational problems that may arise within a class when some pupils are challenged by their schoolmates.

Conclusions and perspectivesDuring these two experiences, pupils improved their citizenship thanks to a scientific activity

basically performed through debates within the some class or with another class.

82

We tried to raise their awareness of the European citizenship through• the comparison with drawings made by European pupils;• an overview of the history of sciences in Europe;• exchanges with European scientists.The design of the second experience gives children the opportunity to live their European citi-

zenship through communication between two European classes.

This article appeared before in Jcom 6(3), September 2007

83

Do we really have to engage in a debate about science? Is science really related to citizen-ship? Briefly illustrating what is currently occurring in the field of science communication, I will attempt to answer those questions and I will introduce some instruments that the Museum of Science and Technology “Leonardo da Vinci” in Milan has adopted to involve the citizens in the public scientific debate during a training course for teachers and in the new format “Fatti un’opinione” (“Form your own opinion”).

Many newspaper pages are devoted to scientific debates; the relationship between science and society has been debated from various points of view: sociology, science communication, scientific research, funding programmes. The involvement of non-expert citizens in the public debate of science is a key element in the temporary relation between science and society. The one-way transmission model between those who possess scientific knowledge and those who, as an empty container, must be filled with knowledge has not proved to be effective. As shown by the shift from a Public Understanding of Science to a Public Engagement with Science and Technology, the active involvement of the citizens in science plays a fundamental role.1

The European Union, through the Lisbon strategy (http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/it/lvb/n26021.htm), has pointed out as a priority goal the construction of an economy based on knowledge, founded on the citizens’ active participation. Part of the Seventh Framework Pro-gramme devoted to the relationship between science and society (Capacities, part 5) aims at encouraging the democratic debate with a more concerned and informed public and at offering better conditions to favour collective decisions on scientific issues.

The conflicts arisen over topical scientific issues (biotechnologies, stem cells, in vitro fertili-sation) have shown that the simple consultation of citizens, through Eurobarometer surveys, is no longer enough. Decisions on topical subjects that affect everybody’s life should no longer be made exclusively by politicians or scientists – even referendums are not enough –, they should rather involve actively the citizens, and a public debate is a good instrument for involvement. The Danish Board of Technology has suggested, since the 80s, some effective instruments to encourage the public debate on technology, to spread the results of technology research, to report the will of the citizens to the Parliament and to involve the citizens in the democratic process and in the decisions on scientific issues.2

On the other hand, it means that a modern democracy wants informed citizens who are

Debate as an educational method for science and citizenshipSara CALCAGNINI

84

also able to debate; now that non-experts have entered the arena of science, they should be able to actively participate and to make their voice heeded and respected. Hence, it is necessary to be able to examine information and to be able to debate over that information – in order to play a role and influence decision-making in the scientific field. Consequently, science and citizenship today are highly interdependent and, if we want to actively participate in the decision-making process in the scientific field, if we want to be citizens today, we need to be able to discuss about science and to illustrate our point of view.

Moreover, science itself can strongly contribute to democratic processes. Indeed, criticism is a fundamental component both in democracy and science. Both science and democracy are a method, a mental attitude, and are founded on the ability not only to support our statements, but also to listen to, debate and refute ideas that differ from ours. 3

For all of these reasons, science is related to democracy and citizenship and consequently debating is a crucial instrument both for science and democracy and for citizenship. In this re-lation between science and society, museums are strategic players in favouring the access to the scientific knowledge and to explore critically the scientific issues under discussion. A Museum aims at encouraging the public to access the knowledge held by scientists, and to critically ex-amine scientific research and the relevant issues.4

Indeed, a museum “should present itself as one of the places – indeed one of the most im-portant places – in which the new scientific citizenship is created, at all of its different levels”.5

In this reference context, the Museum has experimented in cooperation with a group of teachers a training workshop on biotechnologies aimed at illustrating informal debate tech-niques inspired by familiar board games and techniques to make decisions on the basis of in-formation on topical scientific issues.

Aside from understanding scientific phenomena and direct scientific experimentation, young people are more and more required, as citizens, to be able to debate and select informa-tion. School, in cooperation with a museum, can significantly contribute to preparing young people to act as citizens. The games are taken from the CitizenScience programme of the British science centre At Bristol (http://www.at-bristol.org.uk/cz/teachers/Default.htm). The programme aims at involving students and young people in the debate over scientific issues regarding biomedicine that have an impact on today’s society.

The games we chose to for testing with teachers in Milan were “Il taboo delle biotecnolo-gie”, “Parole in discussione” and “Decisioni difficili” (“Biotechnologies Taboo”, “Words un-der Discussion” and “Difficult Decisions”).

The training workshop schedule included an hour devoted to each game and 20 min-utes devoted to the debate on the results. With “Il taboo delle biotecnologie”, words were all connected to biotechnologies (for example: gene or allele, but also Frankenstein and Dolly). “Parole in discussione” was more focussed on the expression of one’s own ideas: indeed, the players have to put some controversial words on a scale from natural to artificial in order to represent their point of view. The selected words were insulin or biotechnologies, in order to show that the categories ‘artificial and natural’ of common sense can be hardly applied to con-temporary science. In “Decisioni difficili”, teachers had to select the families that are eligible to avail themselves of in vitro fertilisation as a free service and support their choices. The selected

85

PART 4 - Debate as an educational method for science and citizenship

cases focused on ethical issues, such as whether homosexual couples should be allowed to avail themselves of in vitro fertilisation.

Teachers greatly appreciated the games, although they stressed that time constraints of-ten forced them to adopt more traditional knowledge transmission methodologies, based on standard lessons. Furthermore, the main concern of a teacher is often to carry out the school programme and therefore any new activity should find a specific position within the school curriculum.

There are various types of games with various purposes; some may help teachers to focus words or concepts in classes (“Parole in discussione”), others may help to debate on one’s own ideas and to reveal beliefs or misconceptions existing among young people (“Parole in discus-sione”), others still to make young people identify with decision-makers as regards issues related to science and technology and the assessment of costs and benefits of each decision (“Decisioni difficili”). As a general rule, all of those games are very useful to involve young people in science, to make them understand that science is really part of our life when we choose whether to eat GMO food or to have a baby through assisted fertilisation. But, most of all, science has more and more social and ethical implications; hence, as previously mentioned, it is important not only to be informed about science, but also to understand its implications and make informed decisions. Other goals achieved through those games are: enhancing young people’s informa-tion, developing the abilities of expressing one’s point of view and illustrating one’s knowledge to other people. Teachers considered the games as a method to “give classes while students do not even realise it”, in order to create attention and interest towards science, a good method to let the young people’s pre-knowledge emerge and to present science in a more everyday and en-tertaining way. The training workshop has achieved one of the fundamental goals the Museum had set: showing how we build a scientific citizenship in various ways, reading newspapers or even playing with board games. Also through trivial instruments such as the ones mentioned above we can contribute to training citizens involved in science and who may want to improve decision-making processes about scientific issues.

The game “Parole in discussione” was also tested during the training course for teachers within the SEDEC project, which took place in February 2007 in Lagos (Portugal) in coop-eration with the Centro de Formação Dr. Rui Grácio. Even in this international setting the games were highly appreciated by the participating teachers. Another instrument adopted by the Museum to favour the dialogue between experts and citizens on scientific issues that affect society is the new format “Fatti un’opinione” (“Form your own opinion”). “Fatti un’opinione” involves the visitors through action and spurs them to think, discuss, and become aware thanks to experimental activities, free questions and the words from the experts. The experimental ac-tivities in the interactive laboratories and the meetings between experts and the public have the purpose of sharing knowledge and experience between scientists and citizens. The next points on the agenda of the “Fatti un’opinione” project will deal with other topical scientific issues: stem cells, DNA and privacy, food.

These experiences show that today museums are places where it is possible to meet people, debate and make experiments to better understand the reality we live in every day and thus to build a new scientific citizenship.

86

Notes and references 1 N. Pitrelli, The crisis of “Public Understanding of Science” in Great Britain, Jcom 2 (1), marzo 2003 http://jcom.

sissa.it/archive/02/01/E0201/.2 Consensus conference, S. Joss, J. Durant, Public Participation in Science, Science Museum (1995).3 E. Boncinelli, La scienza è democrazia, Corriere della sera, 8th February 2007.4 D. Chittenden, G. Farmelo, B.V. Lewenstein, creating connections: museums and the public understanding of

current research, Alta Mira Press (2004).5 M. Merzagora, P. Rodari, La scienza in mostra. Musei, science centre e comunicazione, Paravia Bruno Editore

(2007).

This article appeared before in Jcom 6(3), September 2007

87

Science usually advances by a succession of small steps, through a fog in which even the most keen-sighted explorer

can seldom see more than a few paces ahead. Occasionally the fog lifts, an eminence is gained,

and a wider stretch of territory can be surveyed - sometimes with startling results.James Jeans1

Students, especially in higher levels, usually find science classes more difficult, less interest-ing (compared to other subjects), and utterly impractical. Unfortunately there is some truth in students’ questioning of the practicality of the science they are taught. Who among us is able to reach such a level of competence as to be able to explain the way in which a mobile phone works starting from the very first principles? Furthermore, many of the problems with the per-ception of science result from the extensive use of mathematics in science. Mathematics makes it possible to see much further than common sense enable us to do, but one must learn accu-rate skills to be able to use it effectively. Thus, one can see that the problem of teaching science is rather complex. What can be done to improve science education? In this article we would like to suggest some ways in which to help encourage students to learn science through vari-ous performances which involve intellectual, sensory and verbal activities. We attempt to show science not as a ready-to-use product included in a syllabus, but rather as a historical and me-andering process.

Knowledge must come through action. Sophocles2

The controversy in gaining scientific knowledgeIt is important not to show science as a plain collection of facts. Phillip Frank pointed out

that “Science has to do, on the one hand with hard, stubborn facts, and on the other hand, with general ideas. What science teaches us is the correlation between both”3 . Hence gaining knowledge is a dynamic process. It resembles a puzzle, whose elements have to be rearranged from time to time to fit in better with one other, and to give a broader vision and understand-ing of Nature. Sometimes the elements of the puzzle, that is scientific facts, can be seen differ-

Controversies in the history of scienceand their usefulness in science educationEtienne BOLMONT and Jacek Piotr SZUBIAKOWSKI

88

ently, because they can be seen from another point of view and interpreted according to a new theory. This brings an element of dynamism to static school syllabuses, like pictures of science, and makes it more attractive for the young people. “Scientific knowledge lies precisely in what is being discussed in scientific debates, scientific knowledge is thus defined by what constitutes the ‘problem’ in the international researchers community”4.

Science as we know it today is the result of clashes between many contradictory ideas throughout its history. Nowadays, every fact discovered by scientists and every new interpre-tation have to be published immediately, and discussed publicly. Dialogue is inseparable from any scientific activity and the exchange of opinions is much faster than it was in the past. In giv-ing reliable arguments, a scientist must convince his colleagues about the validity of his propo-sitions. Trying to persuade his interlocutors is not a rhetorical process and leans on a system of proofs based on knowledge and reasoning. This method has always been employed. In the his-tory of science, we can see that science does evolve in conflicts of scientific ideas proposed by scientists. We have many examples of such situations, sometimes implying theories and being situated at crucial moments called scientific revolutions by Thomas Kuhn5. Other situations are less important for the destiny of theories, but allow us to observe scientists discussing an ex-periment, or the interpretation of an observation.

Moreover, the progress of science does not result from an uninterrupted increase of knowl-edge. It is a rather complicated process in which periods of consensus follow periods of debate and controversy. Science does not progress much in a period marked by consensus. On the contrary, moments where scientists are engaged in continuous discussions are the most fruit-ful. This appears clear in controversies about crucial points. The common image of scientific progress presents scientists who are gradually building a wall with bricks of knowledge. This image has to be modified by the fact that sometimes, part of that wall is broken and built again with new rearranged bricks. Fighting against an idea or even a theory means using some argu-ments and exchanging views directly through correspondence, or indirectly through publica-tions or speeches delivered in scientific societies. Some of these arguments find their origin in science itself, but sometimes scientists do not hesitate to refer to religion, aesthetic considera-tions, and at times even non-scientists intervene.

Only the educated are free.Epictetus6

Historical controversies and science educationHow can scientific controversy be employed to improve scientific education? The first el-

ement to be considered is that students, like most people, like to be witnesses of a conflict. Hence, the clash of different views on natural phenomena may be much more appealing for the audience than the dull lecture-like presentation of the theory. The second element is a human touch. Students, like most of us, are interested in the personal image of the protagonist. These two elements may be used to increase the interest of students in science and to encourage them to take it up more effectively.

Let us see a list of examples of famous controversies in the history of science, which may be

89

PART 4 - Controversies in the history of science and its usefulness in science education

useful for didactic purposes. First of all, the breakthroughs which took place in one domain of science and which spread to the others with great social implications must be listed. This group includes the transformations from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican system of the world, from Newtonian to relativistic or quantum mechanics, from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry. Each time, they affected very much common sense about the rationalization of nature.

Other examples are the famous and fruitful controversy about the real shape of the Earth between Isaac Newton and Giovanni Cassini, the controversy which concerned spontaneous life generation between Pasteur and Pouchet, the one about the explanation of combustion be-tween Lavoisier and Stahl, or about the nature of light between the Newtonian corpuscular the-ory and the waves theory initiated by Huygens. Many other examples from different domains of science could be cited, characterized by moments of great cogitation and exchanges of argu-ments between scientists. In those moments, new ideas supported by courageous men had to be explained to convince others or even to convert them to adopt another view of the world.

Let us give several more recent examples, like a well-known one from the 60s - the struggle between two concepts of the origin of the Universe: the steady state Universe and the Big Bang. A present day example is the controversy on global warming or the one, having a long history but still undecided, between Einstein and Bohr about the foundations of quantum mechanics and the different opinions about the true nature of cosmic dark matter.

Students are often unsuccessful when they try to follow the historical evolution of notions, methods and theories of contemporary science. It is difficult for them to follow the trace of philosophic or religious thoughts, which interfered with the development of better and more accurate theories. Teaching science from a historical perspective helps students to understand, why a now apparently obvious concept has been the object of so many doubts, hesitations and debates. It helps also to improve the image of science, to improve critical thinking and elevate the level of culture, which are beneficial for society.

Astronomy compels the soul to look upwards and leads us from this world to another.

Plato7

Copernicus vs. Ptolemy debate. An example of didactic use of historical controversies

We have chosen to present one example, which explains the choice that astronomers had to make between two theories in astronomy, Ptolemy’s geocentrism or Copernicus’ heliocen-trism, and the way in which they first came up against refusal and hesitation only to be subse-quently adopted.

Let us also consider the Copernican revolution as an important example of a controversial issue in the history of science. In our case, the controversy is presented in the form of a dia-logue between two groups of people, one supporting and the other opposing the heliocentric model. The dialogue is to take place along the lines of the most significant historical scene from the “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems - Ptolemaic and Copernican” written by Galileo Galilei in 1632. The essence of the dialogue presented here is necessarily

90

fictitious, but some fragments are adapted from the original statements attributed to the main characters. For the sake of simplicity one may imagine this dialogue as a real conversation of authors of both opposite theories, the geocentric and heliocentric one, Ptolemy and Coper-nicus. Such a conception runs into some problems of historical coherence of human knowl-edge, so one may consider two main debaters as the mouthpieces of supporters of two oppos-ing views of the Universe. To facilitate the perception of physical and philosophical problems being discussed, the moderator has been introduced and supplemented by opinions of post-Copernicus scientists and other persons that created the cultural and scientific context for the main debate.

What we would like to emphasize is the fact that Copernicus postulated the heliocentric system of the Universe mainly for aesthetic reasons, because in his opinion the equant intro-duced by Ptolemy was not in accordance with the ideal concept of uniform movement around a circle.

As was said by Arthur Eddington “for the truth of the conclusions of physical science, ob-servation is the supreme Court of Appeal”8 , the result of the experiment is, in accordance with Karl Popper’s opinion, a test for falsification or refutation of hypotheses.9

However, we know from the history of science that at a turning point of a scientific revo-lution the interpretation of the results of the observations and experiments is strongly influ-enced by the theory which the scientist believes in, called ‘paradigm’ by Kuhn. The accuracy of both competing theories did not matter in that case. The predictions of both were similar by the time of Copernicus, only the introduction of elliptical orbits by Kepler was the substantial advantage that diminished ten times the errors in the calculated positions of planets. So, the possibility of a student’s debate in class, about questions coming from scientific problems, ac-cording to their own conceptions or proposals, is similar to what originally happened and hap-pens in science.

At the end of the paper the reader will find didactic material that can be used in class, as an example of an activity that uses controversies in the history of science to enhance students’ skills in scientific reasoning.

General conclusions on the relevance of debates in science educationThe importance of scientific debates in class is now well recognised in educational research.

Debating in class is not only “a way for better understanding and better learning, it’s a neces-sary condition to do science”10. It goes against the tendency to reduce scientific activities to the level of experimental work. Scholastic knowledge which is not object of discussions cannot as-pire to a true scientific status.

The method used in class mainly consists in the search of proofs by investigation of argu-ments, not dwelling on what is required the constituent elements of the research, but rather on the emergence of scientific questions that arise from the first ideas of the students about the problem. The way in which the results of the investigation are discussed to reach a common formulation is rarely observable. The aim of using scientific debates in the classroom is to de-velop a culture of research rather than of results. The class becomes a model of a research com-

91

PART 4 - Controversies in the history of science and its usefulness in science education

munity, discussing a problem, which implies that the students are focused on searching for an argument.

What happens in the classroom will depend on the educational method the teachers use to solve scientific questions. In addressing a scientific problem, formulated in such a manner as to be understood by the students, we can let them express their ideas. Generally, in a traditional approach, the teacher retains only what is good in the answers and ignores the “bad answers” in order to reach the “truth”. In this case, he can take into account every answer and remain aside from the dialogue between himself and the students. He has to make the students explain their point of view, listen to the others, argue and accept to change their mind in the face of evidence. Their conceptions are sometimes to be tested, even if the teacher knows that they are not true, in order to make the children conscious of the weakness, or the untruthfulness in their reason-ing. This is a crucial point in the educational method.

The reader can thus perceive that we have transposed the need to discuss results or theories in the scientific community to the classroom context, where students need to weigh their ideas by confronting them with their fellow students. In that situation the teacher has no right to give bad marks, he has to ignore without any argument the “bad” ideas of his students. So, to go on, he has to push them to find a proof of what they are thinking, in experiments or observations or by using models, or documents. The debate is not reduced to a confrontation between dif-ferent conceptions, it has to promote cooperation towards the solution. Of course, we have to question the reference to the scientists’ practice, because if scientists produce new knowledge, students get established knowledge.

Here, we suggest to use the role-playing activities in order to help the students’ debate to proceed. Role-playing is an effective method for the understanding of complex issues in litera-ture, history, and also science. Jean Piaget, formally distinguished two modes of learning: as-similation and accommodation11. In the process of assimilation, information perceived in the external world is incorporated into a mental map or database, without changing that internal map or database structure.

The external perception is fitted to the categories already defined in the database and new information, which fits into those categories, can be easily assimilated. In accommodation, on the contrary, the map or database has to accommodate the evidence with which it is faced. It may be a more difficult process. However, that kind of learning produces longer lasting and better memorized effects, in the contrast to the easier assimilative learning that is particularly forgettable.

Role-playing arouses students’ interest in science through the need to stir up questions and explore alternative explanations. Furthermore, seeking new and creative solutions largely con-tributes to the integration of their knowledge.

The accommodative features of the role-playing methodology may help students under-stand the fine aspects of science and may contribute to assess the improvement of their debat-ing skills. Role-playing is an efficient technique to build up the skills of initiative, communica-tion, problem-solving, self-awareness, and working cooperatively in teams. All these behavioral elements can be effectively applied in different social situations and they are of the great impor-tance for the development of European citizenship.

92

Copernicus vs. Ptolemy debate in science classesEDUCATIONAL MATERIAL

How to organize this activity?How to organize this activity? The teacher may bring up for discussion a scientific problem

that was vital in the time of Copernicus. For example, based on observations, students may at-tempt to imagine the simultaneous movements of the Sun, Mars and the Earth to explain the observed retrograde motion of Mars. The observation could be introduced by showing the ani-mation of apparent motion of Mars moving through zodiac constellations (this can be easily found in the web, see the NASA website for an example).

To introduce role-playing, the teacher has to divide the class in two groups, and to give the roles of Copernicus and of Ptolemy to each group respectively. For each group, the teacher should assign the corresponding state of the art knowledge, and give a time for students to as-similate this information and to prepare arguments for the debate. During the role-playing de-bate, the teacher acts as a moderator, keeping each group in its role, and, according to our sug-gestion, adding supplementary material before making the debate rebound. In our example this is done with some arguments of Kepler.

The state of art astronomical knowledge in the time of Copernicus Let us list the observational facts concerning the planetary system known at the time of

Copernicus: • the diurnal rotation of stars and Sun;• the sphericity of Earth (not discussed here);• the movement of the Sun in a plane of the ecliptic tilted at an angle to the equatorial plane

and all planets are observed in the vicinity of the ecliptic plane;• the precession of equinoxes (discovered by Hypparcos);• the quasi periodic movement of planets;• two different kind of behaviour of planets (Venus and Mercury on the one, Mars, Jupiter

and Saturn of the other );• the anomalies in the movement of planets: the non-uniform speed, retrograde motion, and

the variations in brightness;• the dimensions of Earth and Moon and their distances from Sun.

The interpretation of these facts was not unique, and strongly depended on the chosen model of planetary system. The problem of the choice between two competing geocentric and heliocentric systems was the object of fervent controversy. The facts quoted above imply the controversies about: • the sphere of fixed stars;• the position of the Earth or the Sun in the centre of movement;• the different explanations of the complex movement of planets;

93

PART 4 - Controversies in the history of science and its usefulness in science education

• the real existence of the spheres carrying the planets;• the order of planets;• the sphericity of planets.

In the fictitious debate, we will make the main characters Ptolemy and Copernicus ex-change their opinions. This dialogue is completed by opinions expressed by other astrono-mers who are mainly the followers of Copernicus in order to bring the discussion closer to the contemporary level of knowledge. Non-scientists also take part in the debate, whose presence shows the social connections of scientific research at the time of Copernicus and his followers.

A short biography of our two main charactersPtolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus) was born in Egypt after 83 AD and died in Alexandria in

161 AD. He was a Greek mathematician, geographer, astronomer and astrologer. In astrono-my, he wrote the Almagest, which after having been translated by the Arabs, became the refer-ence until Copernicus. His model of Universe was geocentric.

Nicolaus Copernicus was born in Toruń (Poland) on February 19, 1473. In 1491 Coper-nicus enrolled at the Kraków Academy (now Jagiellonian University), where he probably first encountered astronomy with Professor Albert of Brudzewo. Then he went to study law and medicine at the universities of Bologna and Padua. In Bologna, Copernicus attended lectures given by famous astronomer, Domenico Maria Novara da Ferrara.

In 1503 he returned to Poland, to the Prince-Bishopric of Warmia, where he continued his scientific work for the rest of his life.

Copernicus was the first astronomer to formulate a scientifically based heliocentric cosmol-ogy. His epochal manuscript, De revolutionibus (On the Revolutions), is often regarded as the starting point of modern astronomy and the defining epiphany that began the Scientific Revo-lution. Copernicus died in Frombork on May 24, 1543.

The presentation of the debaters standpoints.Ptolemy:In the “Almagest”, I described the sys-tem of the Universe. According to com-mon sense a spherical, unmovable Earth rests in the centre of the Universe. Earth took its place in accordance with Aristo-tle as the heaviest element. Around it there are the rest of the elements: water, air and fire. Above lie the spheres of the Moon, the Sun, the planets and the furthermost sphere of fixed stars. The heavenly spheres are actual, physical spheres made of quin-tessence. They are in uniform circular mo-tion and without an external force they move daily westward.

94

Copernicus:If one allows the Earth to spin around its axis, such a rotation would be a satisfying reason for the observed phenomena of rising, culminating and setting celestial objects. The daily motion of heavens relative to the ho-rizon results from the Earth’s motion about its axis that replaces the rotations of many celes-tial spheres.

1st problem: rotation and revolution of EarthPtolemy:How does the Earth rotate without objects fly-ing off its surface? In the case of the Earth’s rotation an enormous centrifugal force would uproot the mountains and even tear the globe to pieces.

Copernicus:Such a phenomenon will not occur as all objects in Earth’s vicinity participate in its motion and are being carried by it.

Ptolemy:It is not a convincing argument.

Copernicus:I have no idea what natural force keeps the whole Earth together, but I feel that such a force exists.

Ptolemy:But please let me finish the presentation of my model of Universe. Well, besides the daily movement of the whole heaven, the celestial spheres are involved in a subtle and more difficult to observe movement over a year. Day by day the Sun appears to move eastward against the background of the zodiacal constellations and the planets accompany the Sun in that move-ment. Following Aristotle, I found the uniform circular movement the most aesthetically satis-fying for the celestial spheres. It fits well with a commonsense observation.

Copernicus:I agree with you about the exceptionality of the uniform circular movement.However, one may consider a different scenario: the Sun rests in the middle of Universe and the Earth, along with the rest of planets, goes round it. You can imagine this by thinking of walking around the shining lamp. After completing one trip around it you will have had the opportunity to see the lamp on the background of each wall.

95

PART 4 - Controversies in the history of science and its usefulness in science education

Ptolemy:Again a moving Earth! No one in their right mind can suggest such a phenomenon. When you look up at the route of Sun or Moon you have a convincing impression that these bodies are moving across the sky and you are not. So you are the centre of the Universe. If Earth were moving around Sun or spinning, wouldn’t we feel that motion?

Narrator: Copernicus would like to find the direct proof that the Earth spins, but unfortunately he is un-able to do so. Opponents of the heliocentric theory used even the arts in their intellectual fight. Du Bartas12 wrote a very famous poem describing the absurd character of the movement of Earth: “If someone on a ship throws a stone vertically, it would fall far away behind our backs”. One of the most well-known philosophers of his time, Jean Bodin13, criticized Copernicus with similar arguments: “At the slightest shake of the Earth we would see cities and fortresses, towns and mountains thrown down.” But poems and comments by philosophers were not at all the fiercest form of opposition, which came to a greater extent from non-scientists. Copernicus was aware that his ideas would inevitably create conflicts with religion.

Luther14: There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the Earth moves and the sky, the Sun, and the Moon do not. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the Earth and the trees were moving... Earth movement is in conflict with common sense, as the laws of movement have been estab-lished for a long time. The Holy Bible said that Joshua ordered the Sun to stop, and not the Earth.

Calvin15: Who will risk to place Copernicus’ authority over that of the Holy Spirit? Copernicans are in-fidels and atheists.

A Catholic Church bishop: The Catholic Church has outlawed reading and teaching the Copernican theory. It is a pure heresy.

Copernicus:It is not my intention to remove God from Universe. The Sun would be the personification of the eternal, all-powerful and life-giving God. I find its central position as more appropriate for God, with man revolving around Him. I stated in De revolutionibus “... in the midst of all stands the Sun. For who could in the most beautiful temple place this lamp in another or bet-ter place than that from which it can at the same time illuminate all? That which some people not unsuitably call the light of the world, others the soul or ruler. Trismegistus calls it the vis-ible God, the Electra of Sophocles, the all-seeing. So indeed does the sun, sitting on the royal throne, steer the revolving family of stars.”

96

Narrator: Let us to give the floor to early supporters of Copernicus Osiander and Erasmus Reinhold.

Osiander16: I am the author of the preface to the first printed edition of De revolutionibus. I found this book to be very important for the development of human knowledge but knowing that Coper-nicus’ ideas would not meet with general acceptance, I had written in the preface that astrono-mers could use Copernicus’ mathematics technique to calculate ephemeredes, without consid-ering that Earth was physically spinning around its axis.

Reinhold17: I followed this advice and built new astronomic tables using Copernicus’s mathematical meth-ods based on the heliocentric hypothesis. My work gave strong support to Copernicus’s ideas. My tables, known as the Prutenic tables, were deemed to be better than the previously used Al-fonsine one, based on Ptolemy’s concepts.

Narrator: There were also some attempts at a compromise between geocentric and heliocentric ideas. The most spectacular was that given by Tycho Brahe the most skilled observer of his time.

Tycho Brahe18: I came to the conclusion that instead of debating if planets actually revolve around the Sun, it would be a more rational attempt to make careful measurements of their positions to find the answer to that question. For many years I observed the planets in my astronomical observatory on the Hven Island near Copenhagen. I greatly improved the observational instruments that made my observations of the planetary positions exceptionally precise. By finding that Mars in opposition is closer to Earth than to Sun. I thus arrived at the conclusion of a conciliatory model of the Universe. It is a merged geoheliocentric system, in which the Earth is resting in the centre and the Moon and the Sun are orbit-ing around it. But the rest of the planets are or-biting around the Sun.

Narrator: Tycho’s system preserves the most important mathematical ideas of Copernicus. It’s an indi-rect effect of “De Revolutionibus” that led as-tronomers to abandon Ptolemy for Tycho. The Tychonic system became the major competi-tor with Copernicanism, and was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church for many years as its official astronomical conception of the uni-verse.

97

PART 4 - Controversies in the history of science and its usefulness in science education

Rothmann19

Tycho added complexity where Copernicus introduced simplicity.

Tycho Brahe: My observations of the comets induced me to abandon the crystal spheres that carried the plan-ets, as the Sun’s sphere crosses the spheres of Mercury and Venus, contrary to Ptolemy’s theory. I also observed a new star, the nova, and this suggested that heavens are not immutable.

Narrator: The invention of the optical telescope was an important event in the history of science. Its ap-plication by Galileo to the astronomical observations brought the first qualitative new proofs since the Antiquity.

Galileo20: The heavens are not so perfect if one takes a closer view. The Moon’s surface is covered with mountains and craters. Seeing this landscape casts a shadow of doubt over the Aristotelian jus-tification of the distinction between regions of the Earth and the heavens. From time to time one may see spots on Sun. If we use them as reference points we may discover the Sun to be spinning around its axis. There was not a single word about such a phenomena in the old Al-magest. But the most striking view of all was the one I saw when looking at Jupiter through the telescope. Four satellites revolved around the giant planet. The discovery of the moons of Ju-piter gave a visible model of Copernicus’ Solar System. The observation of phases showed that Venus was turning around the Sun.

Narrator:The last observation was not sufficient as a proof, because Tycho’s model could explain the phases of Venus too. But the Ptolemy’s system should abandon its conservative status and evolve to take in account these observations with the telescope. Some people rejected the ob-servations with a telescope as illusions created by the device itself. Some people admitted the truthfulness of the events visible with the telescope, but denied these observations the status of proof.

Galileo: In the “Dialogue” which has the form of a debate between three persons, I also gave some proof for the movement of Earth, not sufficient to counteract the immobility of Earth, but I tried to show that there was another explanation to the same empirical facts, such as the fall of a stone from a tower or from the mast of a ship. The relativity of movement is a crucial point, in that it also implies the relativity of an explanation.

2nd problem: irregularities in the movement of planetsCopernicus:So how do you explain the retrograde motion of the planets observed from time to time?21

98

Ptolemy:Yes, the retrograde motion of the planets does occur. Following Hipparchus22, I describe it us-ing a smaller circle (epicycle) moving on the larger one (deferent). Epicycles moving on defer-ents produce the retrograde motions of the planets.

Copernicus:And what about the uniform motion of the Sun? Hipparchus himself found that the seasons are unequal.

Ptolemy:I know that the speed of the Sun, and the planets’ motion through the zodiac are irregular, which results in the inequalities of the seasons. To resolve this problem I invented my own geo-metric device - the equant. I assumed the offset (eccentricity) of Earth from the true centre of the circular path of Sun (deferent). It additionally accounts for the variations in the retrograde motions of planets and made it possible to match better the theoretical predictions to the ac-tual observations.

Copernicus:This invention violated the ideal geometric construction because the equant required that celes-tial motions were no longer uniform around the centre of the circle. The notion of the equant is even more problematic because it is not a material object. On the other hand, placing the Sun at the centre of the planetary system is sufficient to explain some appearances of the planetary movements in the sky. The retrograde motion of the planets is an expected result of the Earth and planets’ revolutions. It is produced by the relative circular motions of Earth and planets.

Ptolemy:In what way?

99

PART 4 - Controversies in the history of science and its usefulness in science education

Copernicus:As I said, the cosmos is heliocentric. All heavenly spheres revolve around the Sun. The planets move in this same direction at uniform speeds in their circular paths. The closer the planet is to Sun, the greater its speed. For instance, because Mercury is closer to Sun than Earth, its speed around Sun is faster than Earth’s.

Ptolemy:Well, well, well.. but what does that have in common with the retrograde motion?

Copernicus:The inner planets are running faster, recurrently passing the slower, outer ones. For example, as the Earth catches up with a planet, the line of sight from the Earth to it moves eastward. But as Earth passes a planet, the line of sight swings westward relative to the stars. As Earth moves on, the line of sight eventually moves eastward again. Then as Earth passes a planet, this planet seems to move westward (backward) against the zodiac.

Ptolemy:It is very clever explanation. But what if a planet moves faster than Earth? What about Mer-cury and Venus?

Copernicus:The retrograde motions of Venus and Mercury follow a similar scenario. In this way, I might eliminate five epicycles from the model.

Ptolemy:Would you be able to say that your model is completely devoid of epicycles?

Copernicus:No. Unfortunately, I still have to use them.

Ptolemy:So you did use them. But what for, if you claim a different explanation for retrograde mo-tion?

Copernicus:There are two reasons. The first is that to build a truly heliocentric model I needed to remove the nonphysical construction of the equant. I replaced it with an epicycle and obtained a simi-lar result. The second reason is that without epicycles my model does not give an accurate pre-diction of the position of planets.

Ptolemy:Then you found the predictions based on my model accurate?

100

Copernicus:Yes, your ephemeredes are pretty good. When in the winter of 1503-1504, I observed consecu-tively two great conjunctions of Jupiter, Saturn and Mars, the error of your predictions of plan-etary positions did not exceed 2°.

Ptolemy:If my model was so good, why don’t you simply modernize it, adjusting some parameters? Why did you prefer to build a new one?

Copernicus:The accurateness of planetary ephemeredes was not my solely motivation to develop new helio-centric model. I was moved by philosophical and aesthetic reasons, by my feelings about a new harmony. In my model the spacing of the planets is determined by observation, in contradic-tion to the geocentric one.

Narrator:Converted by Maestlin23 to the Copernican ideas, Kepler developed the arguments of Coperni-cus and tried to eliminate the archaism remaining in Copernicus’ ideas.

Kepler24:According to my opinion the Sun plays the main role. I made use of an extensive set of excep-tionally precise observations of Mars made by Tycho. It enabled me to resolve the problem of the orbit of Mars. In 1609, I announced in my work Astronomia Nova that planets move along ellipses. It was the first law I formulated. The planets move with a variable speed given by my second law; the law of areas. The third law, giving the relation between periods and distances of planets from the Sun, completes my work. My theory explains the harmony of the Coper-nican universe.

3rd problem: distances of the celestial objects and parallaxPtolemy:How do you measure planetary distances?

Copernicus:On the basis of the observation of the synodic periods of the planets. That is the period of time re-quired for a planet to return to the same alignment with the Sun. Again I calculated the planetary sideral period, the period of true revolution of a planet around the Sun. I found that sideral peri-ods are correlated with the order of the planets. The distance from the Sun’s sequence begins with Mercury, with the shortest period and shortest distance from Sun, and finishes with Saturn with the longest period and the largest distance. Such a construction of the Universe made it possible in a natural way that the planets Mercury and Venus, which both are inside the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, can be found only in the vicinity of Sun. In contrast to Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, that are

101

PART 4 - Controversies in the history of science and its usefulness in science education

more distant from Sun than Earth and for that reason may wander freely along the zodiac relative to Sun. In my heliocentric model there is no need to describe the motion of Mercury and Venus dif-ferently from other planets.

Ptolemy:The outer sphere of fixed stars that was at a distance of approximately 20,000 Earth’s radii from the Earth enclosed the whole Universe. If the Earth moves in circles around the Sun, the nearby stars would change its brightness and reflect that movement during the year. The heliocentric parallax should be observed.

Copernicus:A reason may be that the distance from the Earth to the sphere of fixed stars is much greater than the distance from the Earth to the Sun. The stars are extremely distant objects, much more distant than is suggested in your model and for that reason the small parallax effect is unobservable. There is no physical and observational reason to put the stars so close to the center as you did in the geo-centric model. Please, notice that in my model fixed stars are attached to an immovable sphere sur-rounding the Sun.

Ptolemy:In my opinion such a reason exists. If, as you suppose, stars are so distant, then they should begigan-tic and enormously bright objects.

Copernicus:That’s right. Perhaps they are.

Ptolemy:So, according to you, stars are fixed to an unmovable celestial orb and the Earth spins and at the same time circles around Sun. Don’t you think that the motion of the Earth is complicated?

Copernicus:It is not a complete description of the Earth’s motion yet. Please, have a look on Polaris. It does not stay in the same position in the sky because the axis of the Earth slowly wobbles.It is extremely difficult to notice that motion because it is very slow and, unfortunately, I am unable to account for it.

Digges25: In my opinion the stars are not fixed to the celestial sphere but are dispersed in the space of the Uni-verse enclosing the Sun and the planetary system. The Universe may be infinite.

Galileo:The stars are really very distant, as opposed to the Sun, the Moon and the planets. The apparent diameter of stars does not change if one looks at them through a telescope. When I aimed my tel-

102

escope to Milky Way I was able to observe lots of faint stars, so the Milky Way is in fact a huge col-lection of stars.

Giordano Bruno26: If one can imagine an infinite Universe, why not imagine an infinite number of suns with plan-ets turning around them?

Narrator:Kepler and Galileo gave astronomic proofs of the Copernican System, but they didn’t answer to non-astronomic arguments, i.e. physical, cosmological and religious arguments. If the Earth was not in the center of the world, it implied a complete change in considering the relation with God. This idea was a threat to the established order. In 1615, cardinal Bellarmine27 admitted the need to be careful in the interpretation of the Bible if there were proofs of the movement of the Earth. But after 1616, the Catholic Church went as far as to condemn Copernican ide-as, putting Galileo in jail and making him recant, excommunicating and banishing Catholic Copernicans.

EpilogueNewton’s work put an end to the controversies, 150 years later…

Notes and references1. James Jeans, Physics and Philosophy, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1942. 2. Sophocles (496 BC - 406 BC), Trachiniae.3 Phillip Frank, Philosophy of science, Prentince-Hall Inc. Englewood 4 Michel Tozzi: Débat scolaire: Les enjeux anthropologiques d’une didactisation, revue Trema, IUFM Montpellier

20035 Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, , Second Edition, Enlarged, The University of Chicago

Press, Chicago, 1970. 6 Epictetus (55 AD - 135 AD), Discourses.7 Plato (427 BC - 347 BC) The Republic.8 Arthur Eddington, The philosophy of physical science, Cambridge University Press, 1939.9 Karl Popper, The logic of scientific discovery, London : Routledge, 200210 Orange Christian, Écrits de travail, débats scientifiques et problématisation à l’école élémentaire, in Aster n°33.

INRP, Paris, 200111 J S Atherton Learning and Teaching: Assimilation and Accommodation, 2005, [On-line] UK: Available: http://

www.learningandteaching.info/learning/assimacc.htm Accessed: 16 May 200812 Guillaume du Bartas (1544-1590): French poet. author of La Semaine (1578), an influential poem about the crea-

tion of the world.13 Jean Bodin (1530-1596) : French jurist and political philosopher, lawyer of the religious tolerance.14 Martin Luther (1483-1546), chief of the reform in Germany.15 John Calvin (1509-1564), French reformer, chief of the reformed Church of Geneva16 Andreas Osiander (1498-1552): Lutheran theologian, he wrote the preface of the book of Copernicus (De Revolu-

tionibus), giving to the Copernican model only the role of a mathematical hypothesis17 Erasmus Reinhold (1511-1553), reputed mathematician used Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus to calculate new

astronomic tables, the Prutenic Tables, which acquired a real success but were not much better than the old Al-phonsine Tables.

18 Tycho Brahe (1546-1601): Dane astronomer, well known to have improved the old astronomical devices. He

103

PART 4 - Controversies in the history of science and its usefulness in science education

observed comets, novae, built an astronomical observatory Uraniborg on an island in Denmark. He came to Prague in 1599 as Imperial Mathematician of Rudolph II von Habsbourg. In 1600 he took Kepler as his disciple.

19 Christopher Rothmann (~1555- ~1595), German mathematician, his work was to get proofs against the parallax of comets, which could shake the theory of Aristotle. He became Copernican in 1588.

20 Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was an Italian scientist who appreciated the role of experiment. Galileo was the origina-tor of the modern physics foundations. He was the first astronomer to use a telescope for observations of lunar craters, sunspots and discovered four largest satellites revolving around Jupiter. Galileo espoused the Copernican model of the Universe. His scientific accomplishments played a major role in the scientific revolution.

21 The movement of Mars in fall 2003, http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/allabout/nightsky/nightsky04-2003animation.html.22 Hipparchus (190-120 BC), Greek astronomer. He discovered precession and built the first catalog of stars.23 Michael Maestlin (1550-1631), German astronomer, Copernican and mentor of Johannes Kepler24 Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), German astronomer who discovered the elliptical orbits of planets, and gave two

other laws of their motion, the areas law and the harmonic law. These empirical laws were used by Newton to establish his theory of mechanics.

25 Thomas Digges (1546-1595), English astronomer, Copernican gave an infinite extension to the Universe.26 Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) Italian philosopher, priest and cosmologist. Bruno is known for his idea of an infi-

nite universe and for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds. Burnt at the stake as a heretic by the Roman Inquisition.

27 Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. He has forbidden Galileo to defend the Copernican theory in 1616.

104

There is a growing need to think about teachers’ training in light of the new scientific para-digms and more recent ideas and practices. Who are we? Where are we going? How? These are important questions that all teachers should ask themselves.

More than ever before one feels that education in Europe is going through a time of criti-cal questioning, and attempts to change. The awareness that educational development proc-esses hold a systemic, intentional and relational aspect, has brought with it significant attitudes from those who play such parts, where projects, images and interpretations, all contribute to the elimination of positivist and objectivist prejudice.

More than ever before one discovers the role played by educational innovation as well as change, where a teacher’s profile is promoted as being a thinking, active professional, conscious of the complexity of learning and human development processes, as well as of the contexts in which they are developed.

More than ever, problems are now being raised, reflecting over educational situations, while new approaches are outlined, just as new logics in education, in an attempt that can be revised if necessary.

More than ever, one feels the criticism to dogmas, while pluralism and diversity on ap-proaching humanity’s contribution is urged.

In a world that is continuously changing, training is therefore an extremely wide concept. Thus, in order to think about training one will have to use global and multilevel approaches brought by recent research on Human and Educational Sciences and its many domains, par-ticularly the teacher training field.

Teachers’ developmentThe idea of a teacher as a thinking professional1 approaches the understanding and im-

provement of a teacher’s work, based on reflections over his/her own experience. Although em-phasising individualised paths of self-training processes, this perspective sends us simultaneous-ly towards teacher co-operation principles, supported by thinking-acting processes2. Thinking on practice is based on a context which matches a social practice, and is therefore of the utmost

SEDEC teachers’ experimentation and training in PortugalGuadalupe JÁCOME and Ana Cristina MADEIRA

105

PART 4 - SEDEC teacher’s experimentations and training in Portugal

importance to teacher development “to constitute learning communities (...) where they can support and stimulate themselves mutually”3.

The growing movement for a thinking practice, which goes back to John Dewey, Mon-tessori, Tolstoy and others, is at the centre of an epistemological conflict. In schools, technical rationality is still a reality. Simultaneously, there is a larger awareness of technical rationality’s inadequacies, not only as far as teaching is concerned, but also in every other profession. What is at stake is a growing awareness of a need for change, for the use of more human and creative features of the human being, and particularly of teachers as developing adults.

Assuming a teacher not as a mere client of pre-made processes, but as co-producer of his own training (on action), the metaphor of the autonomous, thinking teacher, will become something more than just a theory. Being active, thinking and autonomous will become a growing reality of cultural and professional value and it will lead to a greater awareness of train-ing’s possibilities and alternatives, in which each teacher may take upon (him) herself within a personal and professional development frame.

Teacher’s strategic knowledge takes on even more importance to personal and professional development as a way to approach educational problems. The sight of such problems, in our changing society, is not compatible with casual, theoretical or pre-determined “glances”. On the contrary, criticising awareness of education situations is gained through permanent analysis on educational practices, inter-personal relations, and a systemic understanding of problems.

The ecological perspectiveThe conception of a teacher as a thinking practitioner joins in general the contributions that

came from research in the training of adults, in a human development frame. It is a fact that teachers are adults in training, who care more about improving and thinking over their profes-sional practice than memorising new contents or techniques in abstract terms. People and their context are therefore the Gordian knot of a teachers’ training project. A teacher will feel the ab-solute need to understand himself, to develop himself individually, to think over his profession-al and institutional collocation – being a teacher, students, school, education system and train-ing system accept themselves as targets of analysis, criticising thinking and active intervention.

In-service training, according to Nóvoa4, can stop being the place where a dry and limited learning ritual is obeyed in terms of a given set of theoretical contents/knowledge, and gradu-ally it becomes a participating space of culture as well as an opportunity for personal and pro-fessional development. According to the same author, it is necessary to redefine, from the the-oretical – methodological point of view, teacher in-service training conceptions, methods and practices related to adult professional training according to a new paradigm of personal and professional development, creating a new concept of the teaching profession.

Optimising the training potential of work situations is connected - in personal, professional and organisational terms - to taking on a teacher as an agent of change. This need, pointed out by the United Nations5, leads us to a school-centred training perspective, which has been a target for theoretical production over the last few years.

106

Developing school-centred training is an ecological process substantiated in joining new working organisation models and new training models, which facilitate and enable the simulta-neous production of individual and collective changes. It would be the intelligence of the act of work by those who produce it, which would secure its training aspect, developing self-analysis, self-assessment and professional co-operation abilities, in terms of a project logic: a privileged vector of changing strategies of social actors as bearers of diversified interests, the project is in fact on the bottom line of current social mutations and leads to rethinking existing relations be-tween action, research and identity transformation, which overcome extraordinarily the simple problem of planning training sessions.

In a comparative study on teacher’s in-service training, within the European Union bor-ders, Blackburn and Moisan6 point out that in-service training cannot be efficient if it is not connected to a professional development project from those who receive/attend it and that “a true school-centred training, as a component of a collective development project, represents an efficient factor towards the change of education systems”.

A combined, global and investigating approach to in-service training, therefore involves an accepted school project, shared and built, both individually and collectively, within the school context. This is a condition necessary to build training, which will aim at teachers’ professional development, bearing in mind the context and the organisational culture of the school in which it develops. It is the human in its diachronic and synchronic sides, i.e., in its life’s story and in the context of his performance.

Being compulsory in Portugal, access to in-service training does not end, as we have seen, with the traditional training models, i.e., with the mere acquisition of isolated theoretical knowledge. A teacher can access different in-service training modalities, research-training and research-action, foreseen by the system, but seldom used in reality. There are some which are able to combine, given its own nature and methodology, action and thinking, practice and the-ory, favouring thinking–while-acting2 in daily educational and professional practices, whether a teacher acts individually or joins collective learning processes – namely study circles and project modality, which could be weighed and joined to promote coherent training practices within the new concept of this profession.

Above all, these active training models are, in a training-action or research-action perspec-tive, the ones who, privileged in a school project and carried out in consecutive training plans, will be able to exert a definite influence on the degree of quality of training, the degree of edu-cational development they produce and the impact on the school community.

Towards education development, then, as a primary concern of a teacher in-service training system, alternative models to approach training reality should be established, which, already in itself complex and multidimensional, needs equally multidimensional training concepts. Thus emerges the idea of investing on in-service teacher training in close relation with an ecological perspective of teachers’ personal and professional development. An in-service training organisa-tion should, more than ever before, bare in mind these teacher collective learning processes and choose the working contexts optimisation, transforming them into training contexts.

Some innovating field experiences also show this perspective’s strong potential. Dr. Rui Grácio Training Centre’s experience in Lagos7, given by training programs developed over the

107

PART 4 - SEDEC teacher’s experimentations and training in Portugal

last few years, points out that in-service training models which best fit this line of thought, such as study circles and project modality, favour the integrating processes of training. The experimen-tal development of these modalities inserted in innovation projects seem to best correspond to teachers’ expectations, wishes and motivations, as shown on Training Assessment Reports which leads us to the need for further studies on these training processes, in terms of concep-tion, systematisation and assessment of innovating models in a near future.

Project modality towards teachers’ developmentAccording to the experience of Centro de Formação Dr. Rui Grácio, on the field of specific

methodology, training in the project modality can be defined by:

• a cooperative and a present strategy of the training process - identifying needs in the form of a (self)evaluation, discovering themes and problems, defining aims, contents/subjects of study, methodologies of action as well as sources of information and documentation in or-der to produce teaching materials...;

• adopting specific integrated methodologies that confirm the basic principle between theory and practice, becoming themselves executors of the process of training-action or research-action, regarding the topic teachers are supposed to study;

• giving teachers the assignment of defining the strategies of building teaching materials, us-ing their scientific, cultural and historical knowledge;

• its own systemic nature as a development process for teachers, students, schools and educa-tional communities.

Having an important role in innovation, training in the project modality allows teachers, in this way, to have means of study for several topics and situations, means for analysis, syn-thesis and criticism allowing them, as well, to determine their teaching strategies and also sci-entific life in school.

This methodological approach is a strong development device that allows teachers to have a new vision of the student, the school and the community and was the basis of the training project we have organized in the framework of the SEDEC project.

SEDEC teachers’ training: theoretical background and motivationsAs the SEDEC European partnership had the goal of creating a database on the Internet

as an interchange platform of teaching/learning resources, teaching materials and examples of good practice with contributions of teachers from all the countries in the project, to be shared and used by European teachers, we decided to invite teachers in the Lagos teacher training cen-tre area (Centro de Formação Dr Rui Grácio) to collaborate in building, using and evaluating teaching materials and, at the same time, in getting used to not only sharing their own work but also using the database itself for their daily practice.

108

Some of the reasons that make science teaching and European citizenship construction strongly linked are: • the recognition that Europe shares a common scientific heritage;• the idea that building scientific knowledge is a task that cannot be constrained by borders,

even if only the ones that exist in our minds alone;• the conviction that science teaching/learning develops arguing, accepting the opinions of

others, and decision-making skills, as well as the recognition that scientific truth can be si-multaneously solid and ephemeral. Raising awareness of European citizenship values in the process of science teaching/learn-

ing is a need for the in-service, training of teachers not only because teaching materials for sci-ence classes that explicitly focus on these values are scarce, but also due to the lack of strategies that can promote in young Europeans a preservation attitude towards our common historical scientific heritage8,9.

The SEDEC science perception survey dedicated to 10 and 14 year-old students (end of primary school and end of compulsory studies in Portugal) and also primary school teachers, helped us to better realize that: • the way children see science depends on the way it is shown to them by society through its

stereotypes (especially by their teachers);• sometimes the relation between scientific knowledge and the process of building citizenship

is not very obvious;• the construction of a sense of belonging to a wider-than-our-little-corner community is

still incipient and Europe remains a Babel tower in what concerns ideas beyond economics, politics and maybe the recognition of a cultural diversity, although we know that, as far as science is concerned, we could do far better if we brought together our potential.

Teachers’ profileSince the goal of the SEDEC project is transversal to all school levels, the training program

“Ensino das Ciências para o Desenvolvimento da Cidadania Europeia – Construção de Mate-riais Pedagógicos” (“Science Teaching for the development of European citizenship – teaching materials construction”) through project modality, was intended for primary school teachers and also for science teachers of lower and higher secondary schools. The 22 teachers who were involved in the project were distributed as follows:

• Type of School: 18% (f: 4) of the participants were teachers in cycles 1 of Basic Education schools, 64% (f: 14) of the participants were teachers in cycles 2 and 3 of Basic Education schools and 18% (f: 4) of them in secondary school.

• Age: Percentages related to the ages of the participants were respectively as follows: 4, 5% (f: 1) between the ages of 20–30, 54,5% (f: 12) between the ages of 31–40, 32% (f: 7) be-tween the ages of 41–50 and 9% (f:2) have more than 51 years old.

109

PART 4 - SEDEC teacher’s experimentations and training in Portugal

• Professional experience: Professional experiences of the participants varied in the following way respectively: 0% (f:0) 1-5 year(s); 32% (f:7) 6-10 years; 27% (f:6) 11-15 years, 23% (f:5) 16-20 years, 0% (f:0) 21-25 years and 18% (f:4) more than 25 years in service.

• Gender: 91% (f:20) of the participants were female and 9% (f:2) of them were male• Educational Status: Educational status of the research participants was as follows: 4,5%

(f:1) Bachelor / First University degree, 81,5% (f:18) graduate (university graduation), 14% (f:3) postgraduate (Master) and 0% (f:0) postgraduate (PhD).

As for the teaching subject, see table 1.

Table 1. Teaching Subject

F %

Biology & Geology 5

Physics & Chemistry 5

Maths/Sciences (2nd cycle) 4

Maths 2

Geography 2

Basic Education- Cycle 1 (Primary) 3

Special Education (Primary) 1

Total 22 100.0

Training designThis training was designed over 75 hours and was divided in three fundamental stages:

• An attendance component of 9 hours where the SEDEC project and the results of the sur-vey were presented and the concept of European citizenship was discussed. This discussion started by building a conceptual map (fig. 1) that, as usual, showed how far, in our minds, science and Europe concepts lie.

Euro

Multiculturality

Blue andstars

DurãoBarroso

Countries

ContinentUnion

Westerncivilization

EuropeanParliament

Commonpolitics

Food

Leisure

Travelling

Bull

Football

Figure 1. The conceptual map made by the teachers

110

• An autonomous component where teachers, alone or in groups, designed and produced teaching materials using science teaching strategies to develop European citizenship. They also tested the materials produced and prepared the final presentation of their work to the group. Part of this stage (12 hours) took place in the Centre where teachers used computers and Internet to search for data they needed and were given help when requested, and the other part (50 hours) took place in their own schools and homes as autonomous work.

• The final presentation and an analysis of the work produced (4 hours).

Training goalsThe goals of this training were:

• Teachers had to search and produce teaching materials that could render the relationship of European citizenship with science teaching explicit.

• Materials produced could be used by a European teachers network, students, and future courses.

• The use of the SEDEC database (and, eventually, other similar resources) had to be a part of the work, enriching participants’ daily practice. Some interchanges with foreign teachers and students were attempted, but the dramat-

ic changes in Portuguese legislation and regulations for teachers and schools, with the huge amount of extra work they entail, made the work hardly feasible and therefore the results were not as rich as expected. In any case, some work was done about DNA structure, function and biotechnology and the results were shared. Their analysis did actually show how similar are the Portuguese and French students ideas about this subject.

Training evaluationIn the beginning, teachers filled in a questionnaire and were asked to write their reasons

for joining the project and their expectations. In the end, another questionnaire has tried to evaluate their degree of satisfaction. The results of the 19 questionnaires filled in and returned are summarized in the following tables (2-6). The good results of this questionnaire enable us to say that the training program obtained in general a high level of satisfaction in the teacher’s opinion and promoted the development of teachers in different dimensions: personal, social and professional.

Table 2. Question 1. Why did you follow this training program?

Item / 1 (most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Interest in the topic 6 6 7 0 0 0

Gaining or improving knowledge in Science 9 6 2 2 0 0

Progress in teaching career 2 2 8 7 0 0

111

PART 4 - SEDEC teacher’s experimentations and training in Portugal

Developing professional curriculum 3 4 3 9 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 3. Question 2. Aims, structure, contents, methodology…

Y (yes) N (no) P (partially)

The aims of the training were achieved 15 0 4

The aims were adequate to professional practice 13 0 6

The structure of the training program was adequate at a theoretical level 11 2 6

The structure of the training program was adequate at a practical level 14 0 5

The structure of the training program was adequate to the duration 16 0 1

The contents were clearly presented by the trainer 16 0 2

The methodologies followed by the trainer have motivated exchange of teaching experience 17 0 1

The methodologies followed by the trainer were motivating 14 0 4

The relationship between trainer and teachers was good 19 0 0

The performance of the trainer was globally good 17 0 1

The equipment was adequate to your needs 11 2 5

The training room was adequate 13 0 6

Table 4. Question 3. The training program was useful for…

Y (yes) N (no) P (partially)

Promoting self-training 18 0 1

Innovating educational practice 16 0 3

Creating dynamics and intervening in Educational Community 14 0 5

Promoting relations between educational community and environment 14 0 5

Updating Knowledge in Science Education 11 0 8

Improving Knowledge in Science 9 0 9

Improving teaching practice 9 0 9

Other 0 0 0

Table 5. Question 4. Positive aspects

ITEMS FR.

Relationship with colleagues from different teaching levels /subjects 9

Sharing experiences 5

112

Sharing teaching materials 3

Availability and mutual help to produce ideas for the work 2

Using ICT 1

Innovating Educational practice 1

Improving knowledge 1

Relation Trainers / Trainees 1

Table 6. Question 5. To be improved

ITEMS FR.

“Open office” Software was not adequate 4

Timetable (18.30h-21.30h) 3

Room 2

No Printer available 2

Also the teachers’ work was evaluated, with respect to the level of participation in the activi-ties and results: produced teaching materials, their presentation and final report.

The training was very rewarding once there was a general atmosphere of sharing and discus-sion and everybody seamed very motivated. As they mentioned in the evaluation, the fact that there were teachers from the three levels of schools enriched the discussions and allowed each one to understand better others specific problems.

The materials produced tried to meet some of the needs identified by the final results of the SEDEC survey, and were diverse and interesting, and all of them presented excellent ideas that can be developed in the future (see table 7 for an index of materials).

Conclusion As referred above, the most successful aspect of this training project was diversity, not only

in teaching levels, but also in the subjects taught. This diversity was in itself very enriching for everyone present.

The discussion on European citizenship as well as on some of the paradigms of our society on science and scientists made teachers more aware of their own responsibilities as European citizens, of the need to make citizenship more explicit in their practice and also of the advan-tages of sharing ideas in a widened community. We believe these questions will be, from now on, more present in their daily practice contributing to fit the teaching/learning process to the new requirements of this enlarged community we now belong to.

113

PART 4 - SEDEC teacher’s experimentations and training in Portugal

We would dare say that the fact that they gave their contribution to the SEDEC project database made our teachers more open to the work of others and more aware that cooperation with European colleagues is an important step to turn Europe into a real community of Euro-pean citizens to bring down the barriers that still remain.

Table 7. Index of training final products

Meia Praia DunesA Powerpoint presentation about the dune system that limits the biggest beach in Lagos, the reasons itis endangered and how and why it should be protected and preserved.

Alcohol drinking, why and what for? – Web quest

A methodological work proposition, preferably using Internet, by means of guided activities. The information that the students interact with is partly or entirely obtained through the Internet, using different means, such as e-mail and other com-munication tools. Students are intended to take the role of investigators in order to collect as much information as possible about the use and overuse of alcoholic substances, its effects and risks for adolescents and their health. With the acquired knowledge students will elaborate an informative folder which will be distributed to the school community and therefore contribute to the preven-tion of alcohol consumption and abuse.

Gene Manipulation... how far?

Two Powerpoint presentations and an inquiry activity on DNA structure, gene manipulation, its history and European scientists that worked or are working in this field, transgenic foods and possible consequences on different aspects: health, environment, economy, social and international relations, etc. It emphasizes that the main interest could be improving or solving serious health and nutrition problems from which humanity suffers, but also that its goal is directed to the control of the whole food chain profit. The development of genetic engineering and with it the creation of the first transgenic food products, makes an analysis by the consumers necessary.

The salt marsh of Ria de Alvor, a wetland of international relevance

A video about a school field trip to Ria de Alvor, the most important wetland in western Algarve where hundreds of species of birds live, spend winter, summer or rest during their migration northward or southward. There are also documents to support this field trip such as “Most common birds of Ria de Alvor” and a “Field guide for birds”.

Open laboratory: traveling in the world of experiments

A video showing an open laboratory activity, where students showed visitors (younger students) their scientific knowledge and some of its applications in every-day life as a way of developing honesty, sharing and solidarity skills.

The number π A Powerpoint presentation about the most well known number of all times, its his-tory and importance in our lives.

Field guide to Praia da Salema

A guide to a geological visit to a place with an important natural heritage: dinosaur tracks and other geological features can be used to develop a better understanding of the past, either in students or in the general public.

The Dodo bird extinction A Powerpoint presentation that raises the question: “what unexpected effects occur when a species disappears”.

«Capelinhos» volcano (Azores)

A Powerpoint presentation and some activities for a multidisciplinary work where Natural Sciences, Physics and Chemistry and Mathematics may work together. The social impact of this eruption may also be used as a starting point for a discussion about the reasons for human migrations and phenomena like xenophobia that are sometimes associated with them. Also safety can be discussed and the question of deciding how scientific knowledge can contribute to minimizing risk even when danger is high.

114

Elections and vote counting methods

This is a series of documents about different methods of counting votes in an elec-tion. Students can use real results and apply the Hondt method in a way that helps understanding and discussing constraints in a participative democracy.

Experimental protocol to build a geological model of oil traps

Besides laboratory work, students can discuss questions related to scientific knowl-edge construction, like the validity limits of scientific models and the reproducibility of experimental results. Energy and oil prices, environmental impact of different energy sources or the ongoing oil crises can be also discussed with students.

Using an aquarium in the classroom

Some different lab activities, according to students’ age and level using an aquarium. Besides, keeping an aquarium with tropical fish promotes a sense of responsibility for the well-being of animals.

PartulaA Powerpoint presentation about the quasi extinction of Partula, a small gastropod from the Pacific island of Moorea, raising the discussion on which species are worth protecting and how far we are willing to go to keep biodiversity.

ESA – European Space Agency

A small movie maker presentation about an example of cooperation between countries that is producing good scientific results that would not be possible for any of the countries individually.

The food week A Powerpoint presentation about a school activity centered on food, the analysis of its results and impact on students and on the school.

The story of a cigarette A Powerpoint presentation targeted to primary school children that uses a simple tale to try to prevent them from smoking.

Notes and references1 Zeichner, K. M., ”Novos caminhos para o practicum: uma perspectiva para os anos 90”, in: Os professores e a sua

formação, Lisboa, D. Quixote / Instituto de Inovação Educacional (1992).2 Zeichner, K. M., A Formação reflexiva de professores. Ideias e práticas, Lisboa, Educacional (1993).3 Schön, D. A., “Formar professores como profissionais reflexivos”, in: Os professores e a sua formação, Lisboa, D.

Quixote / Instituto de Inovação Educacional (1992).4 Nóvoa, A. (ed), Os professores e a sua formação, D. Quixote / Instituto de Inovação Educacional (1992).5 ONU, Reforço do papel dos professores num mundo em transformação - recomendação nº 3 - “Formação

contínua, direito e dever ao mesmo tempo de todo o pessoal da educação”, 45ª sessão da Conferência Internacional de Educação, Genebra, ONU para a Educação, Ciência e Cultura (1996).

6 Blackburn, V. and Mosina, C., La formation continue des enseignants, dans les douze Etats membres de la Com-munauté Européenne, Maastricht: Presses Interuniversitaires Européennes (1987).

7 Madeira, A. C., “Das dinâmicas locais à dimensão europeia do desenvolvimento pessoal e profissional dos profes-sores”, in: Caminhos para o encontro educativo, Faro, Escola Superior de Educação da Universidade do Algarve / Departamento de Educação da Universidade de Huelva (1997).

8 Carvalho, Anna M. P., and Gil-Pérez, Daniel, Formação de professores de ciências: tendências e inovações. 2 ed. São Paulo: Cortez (1995).

9 Fernandez, A. J., Direitos Humanos e Cidadania Europeia. Fundamentos e Dimensões. Coimbra. Almedina (2004).

10 Paixão, M. de Lurdes L., Educar para a Cidadania. Lisboa. Lisboa Editora (2000).

Part 5SEDEC online

Database and e-learning

117

Functions and uses of a LMS (Learning Management Systems)Teaching via the Internet has lead to the rise of a new phenomenon, the so-called “virtual

schools”. A virtual school is a server with an appropriate software, a Learning Management Sys-tem (LMS), that offers versatile learning support. Through the Internet and Intranet an LMS proposes teaching materials so that pupils and students can access them from any location, us-ing ordinary web browsers. Teaching resources can be organized in hyper-media form, i.e. they can include texts, pictures, video clips, sound sequences, and references to sources of informa-tion on the Internet etc. An LSM can support the hierarchical organization of teaching resourc-es in the way which best suits the aims of a lesson/course. Individual pages of teaching resources are usually arranged in a unique way and each page has icons for easy handling of all LMS func-tions and services. An LMS contains a database, where all necessary data about a LMS users and teaching resources are stored.

Among the most important services of an LMS rank diverse instruments for intensive com-munication, like electronic conferences and discussion groups, not only among pupils and teachers but also among pupils themselves, so that they can discuss problems and learn how to co-operate on joint projects. LMS also supports doing assignments, their commendation or evaluation by a teacher and the recording of results.

An LSM is able to evaluate tests automatically. An LSM can then, also automatically, draw the teacher’s attention to excellent or insufficient pupils’ results, and according to the results it can assign extra tutoring etc. In addition, an LSM enables teachers to answer questions, to in-spire and monitor pupils and possibly to moderate their discussion, evaluate the work done by individuals and teams or test results and publish them. An LSM also supports the convenient preparation of teaching resources, reducing this task to completing electronic forms. An LMS administrator allots users’ authorizations to pupils and teachers. He/she also takes care of ar-rangement and specific modification of LMS (see box 1).

Box 1Basic LMS characteristics

A Learning Management System (LMS) facilitates the creation, application, and adminis-tration of teaching resources in an electronic environment by providing:

Moodle as a platform for teachers: sharing materials, ideas and communicatingThe SEDEC Database of resourcesZdenka TELNAROVÀ

118

• An interface, enabling the creation, presentation and use of teaching resources • A set of teaching tools facilitating self-study, communication and co-operation • A set of administrative tools, which help the teacher in processes of administering, improv-

ing and using teaching resources.

Basic LMS functions• Organization of resources and their distribution • Communication • Evaluation, including feedback.• Administration of teaching resources.

LMS users• Administrator Manages the LMS server, but he/she does not create study materials or other educational resourc-

es. He/she usually installs and maintains environment for courses, teachers, and pupils.

• Designer Author of the course, usually also the teacher – but this is not a prerequisite - who has complete

control over content and its management. The role of a designer can be held by several people. The author of the course closely co-operates with an author (authors) of other teaching resources.

• Teacher A tutor, who does all the teaching in the course. He/she is frequently also the designer of a course.

Apart from using teaching resources, a teacher also does the teaching, composes the work schedule, and supplements activities to motivate a student or a pupil to study. He/she usually has access to management of pupils’ accounts.

• Pupil Pupil enrols into the course (or he is registered by a teacher – it depends on the nature of the

course) and he/she usually cannot manipulate with the course content outside areas determined by the designer.

Tools for pupils• Educational package All educational resources in different forms split into modules, including working schedule for

self-study. Assignments, tests, self-evaluating quizzes, all tasks which need the teacher’s response have a set date.

• Communication tools Communication tools can be e-Conference, email, mail, discussion, virtual classroom (live ses-

sion, blackboard), chat, etc.

119

PART 5 - Moodle as a platform for teachers: sharing materials, ideas and communicating

• Self-image It is mainly based on so-called self-evaluation quizzes. The test result is usually sent to a pupil

automatically without the teacher’s intervention.

• Course management Pupils can continuously track the aims of the course and how well they are doing. Pupils can

monitor evaluation; comments to individual tasks. Pupils can create their own homepages.

Designer’s tools• Creating and updating the course The designer usually begins with creating a basic structure of a course. Goals of a module, teach-

ing resources relating to a module, assignments, quizzes, so called live materials (live session, blackboard, etc.) are incorporated within individual modules. The working schedule of tasks with a fixed deadline is also part of the plan of the course.

• Creating and updating the environment for communication The designer of the course creates relevant discussion groups, teams which will work on team

problems and sets their characteristics.

Teacher’s tools• Communication tools The teacher has similar communication tools as a pupil (see tools for pupils). In addition to that

he/she is usually a moderator for discussions. He/she can use other communication activities as surveys, research, on-line chat, etc.

• Management of pupils Monitoring pupils’ progress, how the pages are being used, how correspondence assignments are

sent, how quizzes and team work are being worked out, etc. Monitoring how course work sched-ule is respected.

• Testing pupils The examination itself usually takes place in a face-to-face context, but tests performed in an

LMS environment can also be part of the testing. The tests in an LSM environment can be pa-rameterized, i.e. adapted to specific requirements of the work schedule, etc. Students’ answers during the course, their responses to questions and classmates’ answers, automated assessment etc. can also be taken into account.

The database of SEDEC resourcesIn order to choose the platform for collecting, administering, sharing and using teaching

resources for our project, we have established some important characteristics we wanted the

120

platform to feature, namely: easy platform access and accessibility to resources, easy operation, possibility of sharing in real time, possibility of active user access, flexibility, adaptability for ed-ucational purposes. An LMS, which satisfies most of these criteria and is relatively widespread also in primary and secondary schools is Moodle. For that reason we have decided to use it for the SEDEC project, although it also has some disadvantages. One of the greatest drawbacks is a not very effective way for searching for resources. In spite of this, the advantages prevail, and we were and remain persuaded that the Moodle system could become a suitable tool for further spreading and updating resources as well as for the management of teaching itself, even after the end of the project. Considering the fact that it is an open platform, there is a space for sup-plementing modules for more effective resource searching or other modules. However, this task goes beyond the framework of this project.

A structure of teaching resources was designed and created, and it was implemented into individual Moodle courses, corresponding to proposed categories. We have chosen five catego-ries, in which to organize the SEDEC teaching resources, categories that correspond to differ-ent areas of interest of SEDEC: Teaching Materials, Cultural Heritage, Museum & Science Centres and School Activities, Theoretical Background. For each of the categories the goals that any possible resource should fulfil in order to be included were defined (see box 2). These categories are open spaces, because one of the goals of the project is that each interested person can supplement new resources. The only request is to register and get the authorization for op-erating on the platform (fig. 1).

Figure 1. Introductory screenshot of the SEDEC database

121

PART 5 - Moodle as a platform for teachers: sharing materials, ideas and communicating

During the life of the SEDEC project, groups of contributors, organized in the different countries by the SEDEC partners, started to insert resources in the SEDEC database of re-sources, but we hope that will also inspire other teachers or educators all around Europe to in-crease and improve the contents of the platform.

Box 2Goals of the category “Teaching materials”

The category “Teaching materials” of the SEDEC database is aimed to:• collect teaching and learning materials which can be used to teach science and take European

citenship into account;• collect pupils’ and students’ work which can demonstrate European attitude;• collect resources that can help to prepare school projects concentrated on science education and

European citizenship;• share materials and open up possibilities to establish relations among European schools.

Goals of the category “Cultural heritage”The category “Cultural heritage” of the SEDEC database is aimed to:

• collect descriptions of European territorial resources which can be used to teach Science, increas-ing at the same time the value of the contribution of European scientists;

• to make easier the work of teachers who want to organize school trips in Europe, aimed to make students know the contribution of Science to the history of human knowledge;

• to develop relations between schools and European territory, to facilitate a science education di-rected towards the development of a sense of belonging to Europe (school science tourism, knowl-edge of one’s own territory, exchanges and twinning between different European schools, etc.).

Goals of the category “Museums and Science Centres”The category “Museums and Science Centres” of the SEDEC database is aimed to collect:

• short descriptions of museums and science centres that have a collection somehow connected with the idea of European citizenship (for example showing how a scientist travelled all over Europe and came into contact with other scientists);

• science activities that have connections with European citizenship (for example activities re-lated to the Environment can raise the awareness of belonging to a European community);

• experiences of cooperation between science museums and schools at European level (for example European projects);

• experiences of cooperation between museums, universities, research centres at a European level.

Goals of the category “School activity”The category “School activity” of the SEDEC database is aimed to:

• collect pedagogical project reports which can be used as examples of good practices on teaching Science through a European citizenship approach;

• collect students work reports which can demonstrate European attitude related to science activi-ties at school;

122

• share materials and multiple resources among schools;• promote communication and link schools with good practices on science and European Citizen-

ship Education: school webpages, pedagogical projects webpages, forum, discussion, etc.

Goals of the category “Theoretical Background”In this category of the SEDEC database it is possible to find some articles (or links to other pub-

lished materials) produced inside or outside the project, which can help to better understand the SE-DEC aims, methodologies, and results.

Each unit (“course”) has its own structure, dependent on the character of teaching resourc-es which are inserted into it. Metadata of teaching resources are part of a database; they contain for example: name of the resource, type, author, target group, subject, language, country, de-scription in local language, description in English and the resource itself (fig. 2).

A resource can be a set of different kinds of documents and information that links them: texts, hypertexts, pictures, animations, videos, graphs, etc. which are part of a lecture (explana-tion) for a topic or theme; and then exercises related to the topic, solved and unsolved tasks, thought-provoking questions, titles for essays, reference to other Internet sources, recommend-ed literature etc.

Any kind of activity which motivates and helps the pupils engage with science and tech-nology can be considered as a resource. In fact Moodle offers tools for building several moti-

Figure 2. The description of a resource

123

PART 5 - Moodle as a platform for teachers: sharing materials, ideas and communicating

vational instruments such as assignments, exercises, quizzes, surveys, choices, workshop, wikis, etc. “Assignment” for example enables the teacher to prepare and set a task to a pupil, the pupil solves it and sends it back to the teacher for checking, usually in a form of an attachment. The teacher can then give points for the assignment, verbally evaluate it or he/she can start discus-sion with the pupil over the solution of the assignment. Popular motivational and self-evalu-ating elements are “quizzes”. Moodle offers broad range of tests, for example multiple choice, true/false, short answer, numerical, calculated, matching and random short-answer matching. It also enables to import tests created in other environments and formats as Suken, AON, Blackboard, Course Test manager, Examview, GIFT, Hot Potatoes, Learnwise, Missing word, Moodle XML and WebCT. Integrated surveys can also be an advantage. Teachers can use a pre-defined set of questions which are directed at evaluation: relevance, reflective thinking, in-teractivity, tutor support, peer support, interpretation, etc.

Communication tools are also no less important for a teacher. Moodle offers three ba-sic communication tools: online communication through chats, and off-line communication through forum and a dialogue. While forum is an open platform for bringing up any topics which can be discussed by all users, a dialogue is aimed at communication between a pupil and a teacher. Communication tools do not serve only for questioning and answering questions but first of all they can be used as a space for expressing new ideas, thoughts, observations and stimuli. Thanks to the application of communicative tools the course comes to life and it simu-lates a typical class at school.

ConclusionThe main aim of the SEDEC database of resources was to design an environment and cre-

ate a structure for inserting teaching resources, which could be used by teachers and educators of all Europe for building the relation among science and citizenship.

Many resources have been collected and published to be shared: literature on the public perception of science, discussions around the ideas of European citizenship, new methods for science education based on active participation, European contemporary research and histori-cal scientific heritage.

We hope that the platform we have built will be of inspiration for teachers, so that they will not just use the resources but also take an active part in their creation.

124

One of the possible outcomes of a European Commission funded project within the COMEN-IUS 2.1 action is the design of a European in-service training course targeted to trainers, teachers and educators.

These courses are instruments for presenting, experimenting and disseminating ideas and in-novations coming from the project.

In the case of SEDEC we decided to produce an online course in order to experiment the po-tential of collaborative e-learning for increasing the impact of the dissemination of the project’s results.

This article aims at supplying a brief summary of the e-learning evolution and to present the ide-as that had driven the preparation of the SEDEC online course based on the “face-to-face” course.

The e-learning phenomenon With the term “e-learning” we refer to a learning environment in which students and teach-

ers, although physically separated, use the computer to interact. This interaction is supported by a virtual didactic environment, that is characterized both by the technology platform and the pedagogical model chosen for designing the environment.

Whether or not e-learning was used initially to provide and disseminate teaching materials at a low cost, it was not long before the emerging social dimension of the Internet (i.e. com-munities of practice) and the exceptional technological developments highlighted the intrinsic potential of this media. E-learning then began to be considered as an innovative and effective tool for a new pedagogical paradigm.

A brief presentation of the main e-learning models. The simplest one is based on individual self-training. The learner gets access to teaching

materials, has a set of tasks to complete, and performs his work autonomously. In this context the interaction with the teacher and other learners is minimal. This model was the first to appear on the web, descending directly from the distance education model, that, before the Internet, was supported by snail mail. This model can still be used in a specific context or in a individualization perspective.

Philosophy and structure of an e-learning projectThe case of the SEDEC e-courseStefania QUATTROCCHI

125

PART 5 - Philosophy and structure of an e-learning project

The second model is founded on the socio-constructivist theories that have been develop-ing in the last 20 years. According to these theories, learning is seen as a social process, and as such it develops inside communities, where the community members actively contribute to building a shared knowledge.

In the past few years we have seen the growing phenomenon of online communities on the web, groups of users that aggregate spontaneously around common interests, while at work or in their spare time. More innovative approaches to e-learning have embraced this trend, and technological platforms have started to include collaborative tools, first of all forums.

In the evolution from web 1.0 to web 2.0, the e-learning platforms have been more and more enriched by tools and functionalities according to this new vision. The collaborative di-mension of e-learning has been reinforced introducing wiki to support collaborative writing, blogs and synchronous communication facilities such as chat and videoconferencing to facili-tate the relationship between participants.

The pedagogical model is progressively moulded to the socio-constructivist model, e-learn-ing activities are centered around collaborative production, sharing and exchange of ideas and materials, debating to construct shared meanings; the focus moves from the content to be learned to the process of learning.

Now we are facing a new shift in the paradigm, defined by somebody as connectivism1, that considers learners as autonomous agents, building their own learning path on a lifelong per-spective, integrating formal, informal and not-formal learning, building relationship networks using the infinite possibilities offered by the network.

So the Internet becomes a “global” learning place, overcoming the “closure” of the walled garden environments that are the traditional e-learning platforms.

Apart from current trends, that naturally go in several directions, the blossoming and evo-lution of the e-learning phenomena has pointed out the need of new professionals, having both specific and multidisciplinary competencies.

In this respect, in Italy at least, we are still at the very beginning. Too many times in the past e-learning has been considered a low-cost substitute for the

classroom, reducing the design of online courses to the digitalization of teaching materials, without taking into account the peculiarities of the media and the differences between virtual and on-site setting. These mistakes caused the failure of many online courses and generated a sense of mistrusts among users.

Designing an online course is a complex activity requiring technological and educational competence, knowledge of Computer Mediated Communication and a close cooperation with content experts.

When designing a course you need to define the educational (online) strategies, plan the collaborative activities, envisage the communication dimension, manage support materials, and, last but not least, implement the course in a Virtual Learning Environment.

A professional who is able to do that can be called an instructional designer or an e-learning architect.

The lack of people with the required competence for carrying out the online tutoring, is surely one of the reasons for the failure of many e-learning experiences in the past.

126

A teacher who is used to working in a classroom is not necessarily able to carry-on an on-line course, at least because an e-tutor must have technological and CMC competencies. In my opinion he should have also an attitude to work at a distance.

In short e-tutors should carry out: • a social function: to keep the learning environment alive and attractive, to support and

stimulate the learners, to manage conflicts; • a technical function: to provide support and facilitate the learner’s approach to the techno-

logical environment; • a pedagogical function: to shape activities according to the relationships emerging inside

the learning environments; • a methodological and organisational function: to help the learners define their working

practice.

The SEDEC online course design The main objective of a European in-service training course is to present ideas and in-

novative teaching tools coming from the project results to teachers. To achieve this goal the course must be planned assuming a continuous exchange flow between trainers and trainees, the former proposing educational innovation strategies and materials and the latter contribut-ing with their teaching expertise.

So normally this kind of courses integrates frontal lessons with activities requiring every-body’s contribution; then, the online course is based on a tutored collaborative environment. The online course, apart from its peculiarities, shares the educational goals of the face-to-face course.

The design work started from the face-to-face course trying to establish which activities could be meaningfully proposed online. Many factors contributed to defining this choice, in some case, for instance, some activities could not be “transferred” because it would take too much time to perform them online, or because they would require a too complex synchronous interaction between the parts.

It must be underlined that online courses activities are mainly carried on asynchronously: synchronous interaction, for instance by means of chat or videoconferencing, should be evalu-ated depending from the context, because it is often very difficult to achieve participation of a large number of users to these interactions. It is possible to define activities conceived to be performed by small groups, so that every group organizes itself and identifies the most effective communication channels between its components.

Is is also advisable to avoid very complex activities, whose interpretation can raise ambigui-ties and misunderstandings. We must keep in mind that distance has the side effect of length-ening the execution time for the activities: it is enough to consider e.g. how a discussion is performed in classroom as compared to the same discussion carried on using an online forum. The latter allows however a more reflective and profound participation and, if well tutored and promoted, facilitates everybody’s participation.

127

PART 5 - Philosophy and structure of an e-learning project

As we said before the on-site course and the on-line course have in common general ideas, educational objectives and pedagogical model. In particular, both courses focus around three main categories: Science and society, Active learning, European citizenship (fig. 1).

Figure 1. The general ideas for the on-site course and the e-learning course

Inside this framework we identified some relationships that may be found in the objectives of every single learning activity planned:

• Scientists and society => how to modify children’s perception of scientists, starting from the survey results;

• scientific method and active learning => how to transfer the scientific research methods into the scientific teaching practice;

• scientific cultural heritage and IST (Information Society Technology) => how to connect European scientific cultural heritage throughout ICT, how to produce educational resourc-es in a collaborative way, how to share good-practice in a European dimension.

Since the very beginning of the project the partnership adopted Moodle as a supporting platform for the various project activities, thanks in particular to the participation of the De-partment of computer science of the University of Ostrava, that made available its Moodle platform.

In the first phase of the project the platform was mainly used to collect and classify educa-tional resources and related documentation. The same platform was later used to provide the online course.

Moodle is an open source e-learning platform very widely adopted in schools and in the academic world (currently there are 38.838 sites from 199 countries who have registered to the website moodle.org).

Science & Society

Active learningEuropean citizenship

128

Mooodle is a very significant example of what an “open source” project is: it has virtual communities in every country, and evolves very quickly following the experimentation and the knowledge exchange between many developers and users (33 countries’ communities, only to mention the official list).

A very important feature in Moodle is that of the course format, that very strongly influ-ences the learning path. Three formats are supported: weekly, topic based, relational.

The first, weekly, is used when the learning path has a strong temporal aspect, so every module (course units) have well-defined starting and finishing points.

The second, topic based, applies when the learning path develops around specific topics, so every module covers a topic.

The third, relational, is centered on discussion forums and can be applied when collabora-tive activities involving peer-to-peer interaction are requested, and the focus is the discussion and the agreement of shared meanings.

Every course, independently from the format, is divided in modules, and each module can contain resources and activities.

Moodle course resources correspond approximately to materials and contents, while ac-tivities are more dynamically defined and require the active participation of the learner. As resources we can see: textual contents produced using the system authoring tools or links to external materials. Activities can instead been subdivided in four main categories: communica-tion, paths, production and assessment (fig. 2).

Figure 2. The four main categories of activities proposed in a Moodle e-course2.

The SEDEC online course is currently in design phase3.So far we have identified three different modules that are divided in multiple activities.

Module 1. The first module must provide an ice-breaking activity in order for participants to get to know one another and approach the subject matter in a soft way.

Activities

Paths

Chat

Forum

QuizChoice

Questionnaire

ProductionAssessmentCommunication

Database

WikiGlossary

Assignment

Workshop

Lesson

129

PART 5 - Philosophy and structure of an e-learning project

In particular the trainees will have to present themselves and to express their expectations about the course whereas the trainers will present clearly educational aims and way of working. Of course even if our intention is to open the course to people familiar with e-learning context, before this first module there will be a time for experimenting the technological platform.After the warm-up time, we have planned an individual intensive activity regarding a virtual visit to a museum or a scientific laboratory concluded by a reflection/discussion within the group about the experience and the possibility of using this kind of technological resource in actual teaching practice.

Module 2. A key competence for European citizenship is to be able to debate. Moreover science offers a great opportunity to exercise this ability. In this second module we will ask participants to discuss the students’ perception of scientists, using as stimulus materials coming from the survey, such as the pupils’ drawings. After that, we will propose some solutions, such as teach-ing materials and helpful strategies for working on changing the wrong stereotypes.

Module 3. The third module will be focused on participants’ production of teaching materials, to be used in scientific education to promote European active citizenship.

For every module we will provide questionnaires to stimulate self-reflection and evaluation.4

Notes and references 1. See http://www.umanitoba.ca/learning_technologies/connectivism/2. For a detailed ecxplanation of the Moodle activities see http://moodle.org3. A first online course pilot will be activated in autumn 2008.4. Further readings:- Bonaiuti G. (ed), E-learning 2.0, Erickson (2006).- Matteucci M.C.(ed), Report of the Socrates - Minerva Project “Social networks and knowledge construction pro-

motion in e-learning contexts” 229692-CP-1-2006-1-IT-MINERVA-M (2006).- O’Reilly T., What is web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the next generatin of software, http://www.

oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html- Preece J. “Online Communities: designing usability and supporting sociability”, John Wiley & Sons (2000).- Rheingold H.,”The virtual community”, MIT Press (2000).- Salmon G., E-moderating. The key to teaching and learning online, Routledge Falmer, 2 ed, (2004).- Wenger E., Snyder W. “Learning in Communities” (2002).- Wenger E.,”Communities of Practice. Learning as a Social System” (1998).

131

Draw a person who works in science

1. Write something about your drawing.- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2. Write the name of three European scientists. 1. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 3. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -

3. How important do you believe are the following activities for a scientist? Rate the statements putting a cross.

Very important Important A bit Not important at all

Making discoveries

Making forecasts

Making computations

Observing Nature

Transforming Nature

Inventing news things

Making experiments

Creating theories

Writing science books

The children’s questionnaire

132

4. Name three objects in your home that have to do with science.1. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -3. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -

5. What do you think scientists should study for a better future for Europe? Name three things.1. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --3. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

6. I would like to know more about (put a cross on the boxes below yes or not):

YES NO YES NO

How we can protect air, water and the environment

Stars, planets, galaxies and our Universe

How animals live and communicate What we should eat and what we should do to be healthy

Alternative sources of energy: from the sun, from the wind, water, and waves… How our brain works

How science and technology may help hill people

The origin and evolution of the human being

Computers, personal computers, and what we can do with them

Earthquakes and volcanoes and our earth

AIDS, aviary flu, other transmissible dis-eases: what they are and how they spread

How devices and instruments work

Satellites, mobiles and modern com-munication

Plants, flowers and the different habitats

Numbers, formulae and shapes: what we can do with mathematics

Atoms and molecules: the small-est constituents of matter

How our body works The evolution of life on earth

7. I would like to know more about (put a cross below yes or not)

YES NO YES NO

The different European populations, languages and cultures

European research centres: where are the scientists and what they do

Science research in my country: where are the scientists and what they do

The possible dangers of science and technology

Natural parks and wild spaces in Europe European geography and history

133

APPENDIXES - The children’s questionnaire

European environmental problems: pollu-tion and energy

European economy: industries, products, agriculture…

Famous European scientists and their life Science careers in Europe: what we chose as a future job

Where are European science museums, aquaria, planetaria

Important inventions and discover-ies

Scientific research outside Europe European space missions: satellites, probes, telescopes.

Improvements in our life due to sciences and technology

Important questions that scientists yet can’t answer

8. Would you like to be a scientist? Why?-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Your personal data - Please put a cross in the boxes

Gender: Female Male

Home: Town Out of town

134

EtiEnnE BolmontEtienne Bolmont is a member of the iUFm de lorraine, a teachers training institute based in nancy, France. Before 2001, Etienne was a teacher trainer in sciences and technology. He took his PhD in 1999 with a dissertation on “the epistemic role of analogies in electromagnetism in the 19th century”. He has been lecturer in Epistemology, History of Sciences and technology since 2001. Actually, his research at University laboratory, lPHS-Archives Poincaré is about the “Correspondence between Henri Poincaré and physicists. the birth of the sciences university in nancy”. in iUFm he studies the role of documents in the method of investigation. He participates to the European projects SmEC and SEDEC. http://www.lorraine.iufm.fr/

SArA CAlCAgniniSara Calcagnini has a degree in Conservation of Cultural Property obtained at the University of Pisa and she currently works at the Educational and training Services Department of the national museum of Sci-ence and technology “leonardo da Vinci” in milan. in particular, she deals with national and European educational projects (SEDEC, “Hands on Brains on”, SmEC, ESt) and with the development of educa-tional activities addressed to adults (“Fatti un’opinione”), the monitoring and assessment of educational and training activities of teachers and explainers. Previously, she collaborated with the Educational Serv-ices of the musei Civici of genoa (2003) and of the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts of norwich (2002). http://www.museoscienza.org/

roBErto CEriAnigraduated in Physics, for years Ceriani has taught mathematics and physics at scientific high schools in milan. A trainer for teachers from the Piano nazionale per l’informatica (information technology na-tional Plan), he has held several training courses for science teachers in service. As a researcher at irrE lombardia (istituto regionale di ricerca Educativa – regional institute for Educational research, now AnSAS), he has published books and articles addressed to teachers, coordinated projects on the didactic use of the information technologies and participated in various European projects in the scientific area. After having supervised the SEDEC European project, he now works as a headmaster. http://www.irrelombardia.it

lAUrEttA D’AngElograduated in modern languages and literatures (german studies), D’Angelo taught german language and literature in the upper secondary school until the year 2000. Since 1990 she has been studying the European dimension of teaching and the strategies for the intercultural education, first as an external collaborator and then at the regional institute for Educational research of lombardy (irrE, now An-SAS), where she is in charge of the European and intercultural dimension area. She has published books

Author biographies

135

APPENDIXES - Author biographies

and articles on language learning and on the European and intercultural dimension of teaching. She is in charge of the “European laboratory” department of the journal “ricerche Educative” published by irrE lombardia.http://www.irrelombardia.it

lAUrA DUmBräVEAnUlaura Dumbräveanu graduated at the Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences - Al. i. Cuza Univer-sity (iasi, romania). She followed a master program in Educational Policies at the same university and in the present time she is a PhD fellow at the Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences – University of Bucharest. At the Universities she has developed many research projects in the education field, and then she has been hired as a researcher at the national institute for Educational Sciences in Bucharest from 2003 at the Curriculum Department. Here she has been involved within the SEDEC Project where she coordinates the activity for teaching materials working group. http://www.ise.ro

DAniElE goUtHiErScience writer and freelance journalist, Daniele gouthier obtained a PhD in Functional Analysis and Ap-plications in 1996 at SiSSA, in trieste. He writes about mathematics for primary and secondary school. He is editor of the series “l’occhio e la lente” concerning present issues in the relationship between science and society, published by Springer italia. From 2003, he is editor of JCom (Journal of Science Commu-nication) and is member of the group iCS for which he coordinates the observatory on Children, teens and Science. He is a member of the Scientific Board of the Association “Scienza Under 18” and of the Administrative Board of the “United World College of the Adriatic”.http://medialab.sissa.it

gUADAlUPE JáComEguadalupe Jácome has a degree in Biology obtained at the Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de lis-boa. She is author of school books for the 10th grade on Biology and geology. She teaches biology and geology in the Escola Secundária “gil Eanes”. She works as teacher trainer and external consultant for the Centro de Formação “Dr. rui grácio”, lagos, Portugal.http://cfrg.no.sapo.pt/

AnA CriStinA mADEirAAna Cristina has a degree in languages and modern literatures, Faculty of Humanities, University of lisbon, Portugal, and a degree in Education taken in the University of the Algarve. She has done the curricular part of the PhD on Educational Sciences “Didactics and organization of the Educational in-stitutions”, in the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Seville, Spain. She is presently preparing her PhD thesis on Educational Sciences -- “Educational innovation and teachers’ Development”, in the same Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Seville, Spain. Since 1993, she is the Director of “Dr. rui grácio” teacher training Centre in lagos, Portugal. She’s the co-ordinator of the project of organisation, management and evaluation of in-service teacher training. She has worked as co-ordinator of the European projects Socrates-Comenius, action 2.1: “Strategies and methodologies of Autonomous learning at School” (1999-2001) and “Historical recreation as a Peda-gogical Project -- From training to action»(2006-2009).http://cfrg.no.sapo.pt/

136

PAolA roDAriPaola rodari works as content developer and project manager for new science centres for SiSSA medi-alab, a no-profit company dedicated to science publishing and science communication products owned by SiSSA University in trieste, italy. She has been the project leader for the realization of italian science centres (immaginario Scientifico, trieste; museo del Balì, Saltara, and others), where she worked also as head of the educational departments, and she was the leader of EUrEKA, a structure of the University of trieste dedicated to teachers in-service training. now she works on the training of science museums staff: she was the coordinator of the European project DotiK (http://www.dotik.eu), aimed at the train-ing of explainers for participatory events, and she is the coordinator of tHE group (thematic Human interface and Explainers group) of ECSitE, the European network of science centres and museums. She teaches museums Studies in a master in Science Communication (SiSSA, trieste, italy; http://mcs.sissa.it) and is a senior researcher of the iCS group (innovation in the Communication of Science), based in SiSSA (http://ics.sissa.it). http://medialab.sissa.it

FEDEriCA SgorBiSSAFederica Sgorbissa graduated in Psychology at the University of trieste in 1999. She got a PhD in Visual Perception, with a study in the field of both psychophysics and neural networks. After leaving university she attended the SiSSA master in Science Communication, and then started to work as a science commu-nicator. She has worked for the immaginario Scientifico Science Centre, both as head of the communica-tion office and as developer of didactical activities. At present she works for SiSSA medialab, as a content developer for science museums, exhibitions, websites, etc. last year she participated at the organization of the DotiK European School for Young Scientists and museums Explainers as Executive manager.http://medialab.sissa.it

JACEK Piotr SzUBiAKoWSKiJacek Piotr Szubiakowski in 1981 graduated in Physics from nicholas Copernicus University in toruń, Poland. till 1982 he worked in the laboratory of Astrophysics of the n. Copernicus Astronomical Cent-er in toruń. in 1983 he joined the Planetarium and Astronomical observatory in olsztyn. in 1996 re-ceived his PhD from nicholas Copernicus University. in years 1998 and 1999 on postdoctoral research appointments at Hasselt University in Depenbeek and then at Catholic University louven. From 1999 he is a lecturer in Department of Physics and Computer methods at Warmia and masury University in olsztyn. in 2003 he was appointed director of Planetarium and Astronomical observatory in olsztyn. http://www.planetarium.olsztyn.pl

zDEnKA tElnAroVàgraduated in System Engineering at technical University in ostrava, PhD thesis – “Deductive data-base analysis, design and implementation”. She worked as analyst of multidimensional medical data. Since 1994 she has been working for University of ostrava, Faculty of Science, Department of Compu-ter Science. She has published books and articles on Data modeling, Deductive approaches to database modeling and implementation of deductive rules. She focuses also on Distance forms of education and e-learning. http://www.osu.cz