author: john james murray, phd student in education title ...€¦ · natural resources but rapidly...

ANewConsensusonPossibleFutureOrientationsforScienceEducationinCanada:ADelphiStudy(Part1)

i

Author:JohnJamesMurray,PhDStudentinEducation

Title:ANewConsensusonPossibleFutureOrientationsforScienceEducationinCanada:ADelphiStudy

(Part1)

Abstract:

TherecentPlanetaryBoundariesconceptualframeworkoftheStockholmResilienceCentre

providesthebasisforinstitutingaglobalefforttounderstanddeeplythecriticalEarthsystemsupon

whichtheenduranceofhumansocietiesdepends.TheemergenceofanAnthropocenePeriodofhuman

activitysimilarlyarguespersuasivelyforhumanitytoappreciateitspositionasahigh-impactspeciesof

geologicalandgeochemicalsignificance.Takentogether,thepresentconditionsprovidefertilityfor

consideringanewvisionofwhatitmeanstobeeducatedinthesciencesinsucceedinggenerations.Any

newvisionforscienceeducationshouldaccountforthescalesatwhichhumanityanditsscienceare

currentlyoperationalandimpactful.Thatis,thecouplingofboundaryconditionsatplanetaryscalesto

thelocalandregionalscalesatwhichhumandevelopmentoccurscreatesconditionsforeducationnot

requiredbyprevioussocieties.ReportedherearethefirstresultsofaDelphistudyoftheexpert

communityconcerningthefutureofscienceeducationinCanada.Theobjectiveoftheresearchwasto

empiricallydeterminelevelsofconsensusconcerningtheprincipaltheoreticalfoundationsandthe

effectsofsystemconditionsforthenextgenerationofscienceeducationinCanada.Theresearchwas

conductedthroughanonline,anonymous,andfutures-orientedmodifiedDelphimethodology.Overa

five-monthperiod,anassembledexpertpanelderivedfrom130peer-acknowledged,criteria-

referenced,andrepresentativescienceeducationspecialistsfromCanada-comprisingfourteen

identifiableprofessionalaffiliationsintwocohorts-participatedinaDelphihavingthreerounds.The

outcomeoftheresearchwassettingprioritiesamong47themesacrossfivemajordomainstogether

witharicharrayofparticipantcommentary.Thisfirst-of-kindstudyidentifiedanumberofconsensus

positionsinaccordancewithstandardstatisticalcriteriaheldascustomaryinaDelphiapproach.These


ii

consensuspositionsoccuracrossthreeprincipalareasexpectedtohavehighimpactonCanadian

scienceeducationinthecomingdecades:(1)identificationofsignificantnationalandinternational

globalizationtrends;(2)settingoutthefoundationsandgoalsofscienceeducation;and;(3)describing

thecontextforthefutureofscienceeducationinCanada.Thefindingsofthestudyprovideanewbasis

for,andconstitutepotentialnewchallengesto,scienceeducationinCanadaandarguepersuasivelyfor

situatingthesustainabilityofhumansocietieswithinourplanet’ssystemsasbeingcentraltothe

purposesofscienceeducationinternationally.SustainabilityScience,Technology,Economyand

Environment(SSTEE)ispresentedasaguidingfoundationforscienceeducation.Thisterminology

constitutesanewtensionforsciencecurriculumdevelopment,anddirectlychallenges(or

complements)therapidemergenceofScience,Technology,EngineeringandMathematics(STEM)asa

basisforsciencecurriculumreforminthepresentinternationalcontext.

Keywords:Canadianscienceeducation,sciencecurriculum,modifiedDelphistudy,STEMeducation,

planetaryboundaries,educationforsustainability.


1

Introduction

ThePlanetaryBoundaries(PB)conceptualframeworkoftheStockholmResilienceCentre,

includingitsmostrecentrevisionsandupdating,providesthebasisforinstitutingaglobaleffortto

understanddeeplythecriticalEarthsystemsuponwhichtheenduranceofhumansocietiesdepends

(Rockströmetal.2009a,b;Steffenetal.2015).Theeffortstodelineatethenineboundarieswhich

providealong-term“safeoperatingspaceforhumansocieties”hasattractedconsiderablefocusonthe

PBconceptamongthespheresofgovernance,policy,andtheeconomybutitsconceptualbasishasyet

toreachthediscourseofscienceeducation.TheemergenceofanAnthropocenePeriodofhuman

activitysimilarlyarguespersuasivelyforhumanitytoappreciateitspositionasahigh-impactspeciesof

geologicalandgeochemicalsignificance(Steffen,CrutzenandMcNeill,2007;Crutzen,2002).Inmyview,an

appreciationfortheconsequencesofhigh-impactasaspeciesoncriticalenvironmentalandhuman-

constructedsystemsdemandsareconsiderationoftheverypurposesofscienceeducationinthe

modern,internationalcontext.Theaboveconsiderations,takentogetherwithpresentconditionsand

quitepossiblyunknowablefutureconditionsforhumansocieties,providesfertilityfortheconceptionof

anewvisionofwhatitmeanstobeeducatedinthesciences.Statedanotherway,thetimeisopportune

toconsiderseriouslytherationaleformaintainingscienceeducationinsystemsofformaleducationina

recognizableformatatimewhenplanetary-scalesystemsareexperiencingunprecedentedlevelsof

stressduetohumanactivities.Inaddition,systemsofeducationinmanypartsoftheworldhave

enthusiasticallyembracedthesubstantialdiversityofaspirationsandgoalswhich,collectively,actto

providedefinitiontowhatitmeanstolivesustainablyonaplanethavingconsiderablehumanand

naturalresourcesbutrapidlystressingtheverysystemsuponwhichsustainablesocietiesmustbe

grounded(Griggsetal.2013).


2

ThisarticlepresentstotheManitobagraduatestudentandresearchercommunitiesthefindings

ofarecentdoctoraldissertationDelphistudyconductedinCanadawhichsoughttoexplicitlyand

empiricallydeterminelevelsofconsensusconcerningtheprincipaltheoreticalfoundationsandthe

effectsofsystemconditionsforthenextgenerationofscienceeducationinCanada1.Theresearchwas

conductedthroughanonline,anonymous,andasynchronousmodifiedDelphimethodology.Overafive-

monthperiod,anassembledexpertpanelderivedfrom(N=130)peer-acknowledged,criteria-

referenced,andrepresentativescienceeducationspecialistsfromCanadaparticipatedintheDelphi

havingthreerounds-comprisingfourteenidentifiableprofessionalaffiliationsintwocohorts.The

cohortsweredesignedtorepresenttwodistinctperiodsofprofessionalactivitywithrespecttothe

sciencesandscienceeducation.Onecohortcouldbedescribedasaveterangroupwhoseindividuals

hadmorethantwentyyearsofprofessionalexperiencetobringtobearonthequestionsofCanadian

scienceeducation,andasecondcohortjustreachingtheircareermidpoints.

Thestudywasdeemedopportuneandtimelyacrossthreeprincipalareasofconsideration–

history,emergence,andCanadiancontext2:

1) History:CanadianscienceeducationisatapointwherethehistoriceffortoftheScience

CouncilofCanada(SCC)whichculminatedinthe1984releaseofScienceforEveryStudent:

EducatingCanadiansforTomorrow’sWorld,isnow30yearsbehindus(Orpwood,1985;

OrpwoodandSouque,1984;1985;ScienceCouncilCanada,1984a;b;c);about20yearshave

passedsincetheCouncilofMinistersofEducation,Canada(CMEC)initiatedtheprimarily

bureaucraticprocessthatresultedintheCommonFrameworkofScienceLearningOutcomes

K-12:Pan-CanadianProtocolforCollaborationonSchoolCurriculum(CMEC,1997;hereafter

1Thefulltextofthestudy(Murray,2014)isavailableonlineat:http://hdl.handle.net/1993/30080.2ForamoreextensivetreatmentofthehistoricalperspectiveswhichhaveshapedCanadianscienceeducationsincethelate1950’s,andinformedthisstudy,readersareencouragedtoconsultchapter2inMurray(2014).


3

theCommonFramework).Thispan-Canadianeffortresultedinanationalconsensusona

frameworkofsciencelearningoutcomeswasunabletoovercomethebarrierspresentedby

strongprovincialresponsibilityforeducationandcurriculuminCanadaandultimatelyfailed

tobeaprojectunifyingthevisionforscienceeducation.

2) Emergence:TheNextGenerationScienceStandards(AchieveIncorporated,2010;2013;

NationalResearchCouncil(NRC),2012)providesacharacterizationofscienceeducation

drivenstronglybycorporatist,bureaucratic,andScience,Technology,Engineeringand

Mathematics(STEM)influenceswhicharesimultaneouslycommonplaceinthescience

educationdiscourseandbeingadoptedratheruncriticallybycertainAmericanstatesand

theirscienceeducators.

3) Canadiancontext:CanadaisacircumpolarnationwitharelativelysmallpopulationinG20

termsandinpossessionofecosystemsservicesonanimmensescaleduetoitsgeographic

extent;Canadaisalsohometoasensitivearcticenvironment,largeIndigenouspeoples’

communities,andparticipatesintheinternationalcommunityamidstgrowinginfluencesof

neo-liberaleconomics,globalisationpatterns,anditsowngrowingfossilfuelimprintonthe

planet’satmosphere.

Eachofthethreeareasofconsiderationjustmentionedholdstheattentionofaninternationalaudience

byvirtueofechoesintheirrespectivecountriesandregionsoftheworld.Forinstance,thoughthe

projectdescribedherewasconductedinCanada,therewasarecognitionattheoutsetthatmuchof

whatwouldcomeforwardintheresearchwouldhavepotentiallybroaderinternationalappeal.The

reasonforthisispartlyhistoricalinsofarasmanysciencecurriculathroughouttheworldfordecades

demonstratecommonfoundationalaspectswhichcanbetracedtoveryinfluentialdocument

frameworksdevelopedinnationssuchasAustralia,Canada,NewZealand,theUnitedKingdom,andthe

UnitedStates(Alters,1997).Point(1)aboveemphasesthisbyvirtueofacontrast:theeffortsoftheSCC


4

intheearly1980sinCanadawerearguablythemostinfluentialuptothatpointintimeinidentifying

uniquecontextsforCanadianscienceeducationbutbecameamerefootnotetotheCommon

Frameworkdevelopedinthemid-1990swhichhadasitsbasisU.S.reformframeworks.Suchframework

influenceswhich,onoccasion,havebeenaresponsetoperceivedcriticalpointsinanation’sposition

withrespecttoscienceandtechnologyeducationhavebeenknowntoextendtheirreachbeyondtheir

designatedtargetaudience.Thatis,toothercountries’sciencecurriculawhichdidnotsharethesame

reasonsforenteringintocurriculumreform.

Point(2)aboveraisesatensionabouttheinfluencesandeffectsofscienceeducationalsloganism

andthenatureofscienceeducationmovingdeeperinto21stcenturylearning.Inrespecttoeducational

sloganismweareremindedoftheseminalworkonslogansystemsinthemannerofKomisarand

McClellan(1961).Theirissuewitheducationalsloganismwasprincipallyduetoarecognitionthat

trendswithmonikersoracronymswere“systematicallyambiguous”.Bybee(2010)indicatedthatthe

“associatedambiguity”ofusingtheSTEMsloganamongpolicies,programsandpracticesinscience

educationforcesanecessaryclarificationofthepurposeofSTEMeducationwhichmayproveelusive.

AccordingtoRoberts(1983),sciencecurriculummusthavemultivariateinfluencesandanorientation

thatreconcilesschoolscience,thenaturalsciences,thenatureofscience,andthenatureofhistory.

Sucha“logicofslogans”fostersarecognitionthatmovementssuchasScience,Technology,Society,and

theEnvironment(STSE),andSTEMhavecontributedto,andcancontinuetocontributeto,science

education.Thesuggestionhereisthatanyparticularcurriculumframeworkorientationmaybedeemed

necessarybysome,butisnotasufficientcontributorintheabsenceofvarietyinvisionsforscience

education.RecentinternationaleffortstogathercurrentreportingonSTEMhasprovidednewinsights

fromSouthAfrica,Korea,China,Taiwan,Japan,Brazil,Canada,theU.S.,theU.K.,Australia,New

Zealand,France,Finland,andtheRussianFederation(Marginson,2015;Freeman,MarginsonandTytler,

2015).Thistypeofinternationalreporting,particularlythefreshnessofattemptstoaddressthelackof


5

world-widepolicyinformationandprogrammeparticipationinSTEM,hasbecomeanareaof

importancegiventheenergeticresearchinthisareabeingconductedinCanadainrecentyears(Amgen

Canada,2012;Let’sTalkScience,2014).Descriptionsof21stcenturylearningareasmyriadasthevariety

ofarticleswhichseektodelineatewhatthetermimplies.Aboutadecadeago,Osborne(2007)argued

that“thedominantformofscienceeducationthatiscommonacrosstheworldrestsonasetofvalues

thathavenomerit”,asetof“arcaneculturalnorms”(p.173).Hefurtherarguedthatthesetof

conditionsneededforfuturepractitionersofsciencewere(andperhapsstillremain)quitedifferentthan

thoseofthefuturecitizen.Continuingtomakeattemptsthroughcurriculum,pedagogy,andassessment

toservicebothoftheseneedscannotpossiblysucceed.Thereislikelyacertainlevelofagreement,

perhapsevenemerginginternationalconsensus,aboutwhatatrulyeffectiveandappropriate21st

centuryeducationinthescienceswouldentail,butIsuggestthatweruntheriskofbecomingentrained

inanotherformofeducationalsloganismifweweretoadmitthatwehavearrivedataconsensus

position.

Point(3)holdsimportanceinternationallybyvirtueoftheemphasescurrentlybeingplacedupon

therelationshipbetweencultureandscienceeducation,notablyincountriessuchasNewZealand,

Australia,Canada,theU.S.,andJapan.Thesenations,andothers,havehistorically-placedcolonizing

influencesineducationleavingalegacywhereIndigenouspeoplesaresubjectedtodominantcultural

influenceswithinthecurriculum,maywellbeinneedofanalternativevisionforSTEMeducationwhere

students“bordercrossintothesub-cultureofthesciences”(AikenheadandSutherland,2015;

Aikenhead,2006)andarestrugglingwiththecomplexitiesofdisproportionateinstitutionalaccess,lower

studentsuccessrates,andbecominganincreasinglyimportantsegmentoftheCanadianpopulationin

economicterms(Freeman,MarginsonandTytler,2015).Moreover,itistobeexpectedthatculturally-

responsivesciencecurriculumandteachingwillremaincontentiousinthediscoursesonscience

curriculum(GondweandLongnecker,2014).InacountrysuchasCanada,Indigenousperspectivesand

Murray, John (EAL)� 2015-2-17 2:14 PMDeleted:where

Murray, John (EAL)� 2015-2-17 2:14 PMDeleted:provide

Murray, John (EAL)� 2015-2-17 2:14 PMDeleted:situation

Murray, John (EAL)� 2015-2-17 2:14 PMDeleted:andoftenmust


6

worldviewshavereachedapositionofexplicitstatusincertainCanadianprovincialsciencecurriculaand

areinseparablefromtheidentificationoftheaspirationsofthecountryandthefutureofhumanrights

inafederationofstates(WeinribandJones,2015).

ConnectionstoInternationalTrendsinScienceEducationCanadianscienceeducationpolicytodayisrapidlymovinginthedirectionofaSTEMfocuswith

itsprovincesembeddedinthelargersynthesisasafederationandalsointernationally.Inabackground

consultingreportpreparedbyWeinribandJones(2013)fortheAustralianCouncilofLearned

Academies’(ACOLA)volume,SecuringAustralia’sFutureSTEM:CountryComparisons,theseauthors

providedaveryfavourableoutlookforCanadianSTEMeducationatthepost-secondarylevelsofmore

advancedstudy.ItrecognisedthatCanadahasthechallengeofencouragingnationalscienceeducation

initiativesbutwithnofederal-levelministrytosetthevisionforscienceeducationoramechanismto

exertbindingpolicyinfluencesamongtheCanadianprovinces.Theirreportdid,however,identifythe

importantandofteninfluentialrolesplayedbyexternalstakeholderorganizationsinCanadasuchasthe

CMEC(1997),theCouncilofCanadianAcademies(CCA,2012;2014),andAmgen/Let’sTalkScience

(Amgen,Inc.,2012).TheACOLAinitiativehasbeensummarizedinanewly-releasedsetofcountry

comparisonsintheeditedvolumetitled‘TheAgeofSTEM’.Inthatcollection,Freeman,Marginsonand

Tytler(2015)provideabundantevidencethatSTEMeducationisshapingpolicy-makinginadiversityof

nationsaroundtheworld,andofteninsomeverynation-specificorcontext-specificways.

Inasimilarvein,theCanadianCouncilofChiefExecutivesreleaseditsbrief,Competinginthe

21stCenturySkillsRace(Orpwood,Schmidt&Jun,2012),andnotedthattheproportionofCanadian

studentsinSTEMprogramsatthepost-secondarylevelswasweakwhencomparedwiththerobust50%

inthePeople’sRepublicofChina.Theiranalysisraisedwhattheauthorsdescribedassome

“uncomfortablequestionsforCanadians”,suchas:

Murray, John (EAL)� 2015-2-17 2:14 PMDeleted:byWeinrib&Jones(2013)


7

• WhataretheskillsthatwillenableCanadatocompetesuccessfullyinthe21stcentury,and

whatinstitutionalarrangementswillensurethis?

• HowcanCanadadevelopeducationalpoliciesandplansgearedtonationaleconomic

prioritieswhenourConstitutiongivestheprovincesandterritoriesexclusiveresponsibility

foreducation?

• Whatwillittaketoconvincepolicy-makersandthepublicthateducationisaninvestment

inoureconomicfuture(particularlyforindigenousCanadians)andnotmerelyasocialcost?

• Howwillwemeettheneedformorescientists,engineers,andtechnologistswhenour

post-secondarysystemislargelydrivenbystudentchoice,and,wheninsufficientnumbers

ofstudentsseeminclinedtopursue[STEM]careers?

• Inwhatwayscanschools,colleges,universities,libraries,museumsandotherinstitutions

helptoimproveCanadianeducationaloutcomes?(Orpwood,Schmidt&Jun,2012;p.4)

Thefirst,secondandfourthquestionsinthislistessentiallyframetheproblemof“whatkindof

scienceeducationisdesirableforCanadianstudents?”andgeneratedtheresearchfocuswhichguided

thestudydescribedinthisarticle.First,therewasaneedforalogicofconsensusastowhatconstitutes

“21stcenturyskills”intheSTEMsystemofeducationduetothecontinuingill-definitionofthetermand

thegrowingpreponderanceofSTEMterminologyintheCanadianscienceeducationliterature;

secondly,thestubborndilemmaofseekingafteraCanada-wideconsensusonscienceeducationforthe

nextgenerationamidsttherealityoftightly-heldprovincialjurisdictionalcontrolofCanada’seducation

systems,and;thirdly,whatwillcharacterisemanyofthetrends,pressures,andprioritiesthatwillbethe

principaldriversofscienceeducationreform(orreconstruction)inCanadaoverthenextgeneration?

Theseandrelatedquestionsformedthebasisforthedevelopmentofthestudyoutlinedhere,and

frameditsstructureandorientation.Thenextsectionofthearticlewillprovideabriefhistoricalaccount

oftheDelphitechniqueasaresearchmethodologyandhowitsnaturealignswiththestudypresented

here.


8

TheUseoftheDelphiApproachasMethodTheDelphimethodofanonymousforecastingwasoriginallydevelopedunderclassified

circumstancesinthelate1950sbyresearchersattheRANDCorporationinCalifornia,becomingde-

classifiedasamethodologyonlyintheearly1960s.TwoRANDresearchers–NormanDalkeyandOlaf

Helmer-Hirschberg–openeduptheDelphimethodtoabroaderforecastingcommunitywiththeir

publishedaccountofhowtheU.S.AirForcecametounderstand(throughtheopinionsofitsexperts)

thenumberofatomicweaponsnecessarytoreduceoverallexpendituresonconventionalmunitionsby

aprescribedamount–andtoconstructthescenariofromthestandpointofaSoviet-eraplanner(Dalkey

&Helmer-Hirschberg,1963).Ina30-yearretrospectiveontheuseofDelphi(andlookingaheadasthe

forecastingtechniquewoulddemand),LinstoneandTuroff(2011)providetheirthoughtsonthe

evolutionofDelphitechniquesandpossibilitiesforitsfuture.Intheirsummaryobservationsregarding

thefutureofDelphi,theystatethat:

“ThefutureofDelphiwillbeincollaborativeorganizationalandcommunityplanningsystems that are continuous, dispersed, and asynchronous.....it will replace theimpact of controlled surveys as amechanism of influencing various organizationalandcommunitydecisionprocesses.Thesewillallowmanythousands toparticipateorobserveanongoingplanningprocess.”(p.1718)

TheDelphiapproachisconsideredtobeuniquelysituatedtotheanalysisoftopicsandissuesfor

whichthereislittlehistoricalprecedent(Martino,1972),whererapidlychangingeventsareoccurringor

areconsideredtobeimminent(Patton,2002),andthosethathavehighlevelsofconnectivityand

complexitysuchassettingeducationalgoalsorconstructinginnovativecurriculum(Sweigertand

Schabacker,1974).AccordingtoFranklinandHart(2007)therearethreeinterestareasforresearchers

whoareseekingtocollectandanalysethejudgmentsofanexpertcommunity:a)todocumentand

assessthosejudgmentsfromthestandpointoftheresearcheralsobeingamongtheexpertcommunity

(Stewart,2001;Powell,2003);b)capturetheareasofcollectiveknowledgeamongprofessionalsthat


9

areoftennotverbalizedorexplored(StewartandShamdanasi,1990),and;c)forcenewideastoemerge

aboutthetopic.TothesethreeareasofinterestIwouldaddafourth–thatofcreatinganovellearning

experienceamongthepanelofexpertswithinthefieldofexpertiseunderexamination.

Inessence,theDelphiapproachseekstoallowforacomplexproblemtobeaddressed,

anonymously,byapanelofselected‘experts’underthecontrolofaresearcherorprojectleaderwho

guidestheprocess.TherearethreefeaturesoftheDelphiapproachthatarecommonlyincludedand

distinguishitfromotherformsofgroupinterrogativeresearch,namely:1)anonymousgroup

interactionsandresponsestoguidingquestionsorstatementsthathaveafutureorientation;2)multiple

iterationsofsharinggroupresponses(oftenwithassociatedfeedbackloops)andthecreationofnew

questionnairesthatrefinetheresponsesofpreviousroundsofquestioning;and3)presentationofthe

resultstogroupmemberswithacoresetofdescriptivestatisticalanalyses(Cochran,1983).Murryand

Hammons(1995)identifiedfourprincipaladvantagesoftheDelphiapproachinsecuringtheopinionsof

experts:

• TheDelphiprocessmakesuseofgroupdecision-makingtechniquesthatinvolveexpertsinthefield,thoughttohavegreatervaliditythantheopinionsofindividuals.

• Theanonymityoftheprocess(e.g.,useofquestionnaires)helpstoavoidsomeoftheproblemsassociatedwithface-to-facegroups:forinstancedeferencetoauthority,speciouspersuasiontechniques,oralfacility,andreluctancetomodifypositionsalreadyknownpublicly,andgroup“bandwagoneffects”.

• Theconsensusreachedbythegroup(hopefully)reflectsreasonedopinionsbecausetheDelphiprocessforcesgroupmemberstoconsideronlytheproblemathandandprovidewrittenresponses.

• Thegroupofexpertscanbegeographicallyseparatedfromoneanotherandrendercontributionsatminimalcosttotheresearcher(s).

Theaboveadvantagescanbeconsideredasantidotestotheshortcomingsandseriousobstructions

comingfromface-to-facedeliberationsasoutlinedinUhl(1983),including:


10

• Groupopinionishighlyinfluencedbydominantindividualswhousuallymonopoliseadiscussion,withlittlecorrelationbetweenverbosityandone’sactualknowledgeofthesubjectmatterunderdiscussion;

• Muchdiscussioningroupsituations,whilehavingtheexternalappearanceofbeingproblem-oriented,iseitherirrelevantorbiasedbecauseitisusuallymoreconcernedwithindividualandgroupintereststhanwithproblem-solving,and;

• Individualjudgmentcanbedistortedbygrouppressurestoconform(p.82).

Inordertodetermineatleastafirst-orderjustificationforusingDelphiinthisstudy,itwas

importanttoidentifyintheliteratureanexampleofaDelphistudywhichsharedstrongconnectionsto

thedesignofthisstudy,wasrelateddirectlytoscienceeducation,andalsohadsufficientpeer

acknowledgement.OneofthebestknownDelphistudiesofthelastfifteenyearsinscienceeducation

providedamorethansufficientmodel.ThiswastheDelphiexamining“ideasaboutthenatureof

science”ofOsborne,Collins,Ratcliffe,MillarandDuschl(2003).

Indiscussingtheiruseofathree-roundDelphidesign,certaindisadvantagesofthetechnique

wereidentifiedbyOsborneetal.alongsidemanyoftheadvantagesoutlinedearlierinthissection.

Amongtheperceiveddifficultiestheyidentified,thefollowingarepertinenttothepresentdiscussion:

(1)thelengthoftheprocess(itgenerallyrequiresabout6to8monthsforthedatacollectionphases);

(2)thepotentialoftheresearchertoinordinatelyinfluencethequestionnaireformulation,and;(3)the

difficultyofassessingappropriatelytheexpertiseofthegroupsincetheparticipantsneveractually

meet.InadditiontothesepotentialthreatstoresearchintegrityinaDelphiapproachwecanaddthe

followingconsiderations:providingrespondentswithadequateguidancewhileavoidingundue

direction,refiningwithjustificationtheprocessofdefiningthequalitiesofa“scienceeducationexpert”,

selectingandmaintainingthemembershipoftheexpertpanel,anddeterminingwhattheoperational

definitionofpanelconsensusistobe.


11

TheResearchObjectivesandProceduresThecentralpurposeofthisstudyofscienceeducationinCanadawastoengageanassembled

‘expertcommunity’ofscienceeducators,andthosewithdeepinterestsandcommitmentstoscience

education,toidentifythepurposesforCanadianscienceeducationgoingforward.Toaccomplishthis

principalobjective,anexpertpanelwasconvenedtoparticipateinaDelphiforecastingexercisewhich

soughttoframetheprobleminawaywhichcapitalizedonmanyoftheadvantagesoftheDelphijust

describedintheprevioussection.Thestudyincludedanumberofsub-objectives,butforthepurposes

ofthisarticletherewillbeaconcentrationonjusttwoofthese:

a. Todescribeandgivedefinitiontotheeducationsystemconditionsthatwillinfluence

futuredevelopmentsinscienceeducationinCanada,and;

b. Todetermineanddescribetheprincipalfoundationsandgoalsforthefutureofscience

educationwithaviewtochangingcurriculumemphases.

ChoiceofExpertPanelMembersDuringtheperiodNovembertoDecember,2013,alistofcandidateparticipantswasassembled

byaccessingpubliclyavailable,onlinecontactinformationacrossthefollowingdomainsofprofessional

activityinCanada:

• Seniorcivilservants inMinistriesofEducationinallCanadianProvincesandTerritories

responsibleforscienceeducation

• Provincial science specialists in Ministries of Education in all Canadian Provinces and

Territories; itwas considered an asset if therewas direct involvement as a lead for a

provincialsciencecurriculumprojectand/ordemonstratedworkonthe1997CMECPan-

CanadianScienceProject(1995-1997)

• Past recipients (1993 to 2013) of a Canada Prime Minister’s Excellence in Teaching

Certificate (at all grade levels K-12 where the recipient’s biography indicated a

preferencefortheteachingofscience)


12

• TheCouncilofCanadianAcademies’ ExpertPanelsworkingoncurrentassessmentsor

onescompletedsince2008

• TheCanadianSpaceAgency’sastronautcorps(activeandretired)

• Researchers who worked on the Science Council of Canada study (1981-1984) or

authoredbackgroundpapersfortheCouncil’sefforts

• DeansofCanadianuniversitymedicalschools

• Teacher-educatorsinfacultiesofeducationinCanadiancollegeoruniversitysettings

• A randomized selection from among Tier 1 Canada Research Chairs in the natural

sciences, science education, and engineering, generally representative of geographic

dispersioninCanada(N=830inrandomsample,whereN(selected)=20)

Theexpertpanelofparticipantswasdividedintotwocohortsbasedonprofessionalexperience,

andweretomeet(ataminimum)oneormoreofthefollowingcriteria:i. ForCOHORT1,acknowledgedasamemberofatleastoneofthefollowingscienceeducation

communitiesinCanada:academicsciences(facultyorgraduatestudent),provincial/territorial

ministryofeducationasascienceeducationspecialistordirectorofcurriculum,teacher-

educatorinafacultyofeducation,ascienceteacherhavingreceivedaPrimeMinister’s

CertificateofTeachingExcellence,aninstructoratacollegeofappliedartsandtechnology,or

activeinthemediaforthepurposesofthepublicunderstandingofscience;allsatisfiedaneed

tobeapractitionerinscienceeducationsincetheeraoftheearly1990stothepresentand

furtheridentifiedbypeerinfluencestogetherwiththeresearcher’sopinionasbeinga

respectedexpertinthefieldofCanadianscienceeducationthroughacombinationof

publications,formalandinformalpresentations,notedcontributionstoschools,school

divisions,curriculumandprogramdevelopment,orparticipationinorganisationsdedicatedto

theadvancementofscienceteachingandlearning.

ii. ForCOHORT2,criteriawereasin(i)above,butwiththeexceptionofhavingbeena

practitionerorresearcherinthesciences,alliedfields,orscienceeducationasearlyasthe

1960stothe1980sandinsomecasestothepresenttime;

iii. Presentlyemployed,orhavinghelddirectexperiencein,oneormoreofthefollowing:

a. Provincial/Territorialscienceeducationspecialist,curriculumconsultant,director,officer,

assistantdeputyministerordeputyministerofaCanadianeducationministry;


13

b. Collegeoruniversityfacultyinscienceeducationortherelatedsciencespecialties(e.g.,

engineering,appliedsciences,etc.);

c. K-12scienceeducationwithhavingworkedinsciencecurriculumdevelopmentdeemedas

anasset;inthecaseofpracticingscienceteachers,allinCOHORT1weresampledfrom

thosewhoheldaPrimeMinister’sAwardforTeachingExcellenceintheperiod2004to

2013;thoseinCOHORT2weresampledfromthosewhoheldaPrimeMinister’sAwardfor

TeachingExcellenceCertificateintheperiod1993to2003;

d. Sciencemediaandthepublicunderstandingofscience;

e. ProvidedexpertiseorbackgroundstudiestotheScienceCouncilofCanadastudyinthe

period1980–1984;

f. Providedexpertiseto,ordirectlyconnectedtodecision-makinginthedevelopmentofthe

1997CMECPan-CanadianCommonFrameworkforScienceLearningOutcomes,K-12.

Thefinallistofcandidatesforparticipationinthestudy(N=130)3wascomprisedasfollowsinFigure1below:

3Thetotalinthislistslightlyexceeds130assomeindividualsareincludedinmorethanonecategory.

ScienceTeachers,[VALUE],

[PERCENTAGE]

DisqnguishedProfessors,[VALUE],

[PERCENTAGE]

MinistryScienceCurriculumSpecialists,[VALUE],

[PERCENTAGE]

TeacherEducators,[VALUE],

[PERCENTAGE]

AcademicScienqsts,[VALUE],[PERCENTAGE]

Non-Gov't/Non-Profit,[VALUE],[PERCENTAGE]

Professorsemeriq,[VALUE],

[PERCENTAGE]

IndustryandR&D,[VALUE],

[PERCENTAGE]

Medical/HealthSciences,[VALUE],[PERCENTAGE]


14

Fig.1 InvitedcandidatestotheDelphibydeclaredprofessionalaffiliation(n=130).

ThemeGenerationinRound1oftheDelphiThenatureofhowaDelphistudyisdesignedandthemannerinwhichitisconductedand

producesdataencouragesthereportingofresultsforeachround.Putanotherway,whatmayappearto

someasanover-emphasisonmethodologicalaspectsoftheDelphistudyisactuallysomewhat

intentional.Achoicehasbeenmadehere,therefore,toallowtheroundsoftheDelphitoassistin

buildingthelargerpicturetowardspossiblefuturesinscienceeducationandaccomplishthisbytreating

thetwocohortsinvolvedasiftheywereeventualcontributorstoalarger,combinedcommittee

structure.IthasbeenrecommendedbyexperiencedDelphistudyauthorsthatthefirst-round

questionnairebequiteopen-endedintheinitialphaseofthedatacollection(e.g.,Hassonetal.,2000;

Keeneyetal.,2006;Rieger,1986;Ziglio,1996).InRound1ofthisstudy,instructionsweregiventothe

expertpanelcohortstorespondfree-formtofourgeneralquestions(andatalengthoftheirchoosing)

thatwereintendedtocontextualizeabasisforforecastingthenatureofCanadianscienceeducationfor

thenextgeneration.ItwasimportantinthisopeningroundoftheDelphitonotunnecessarilydirectthe

expertpanelinamaterialwaynorprovidetheactualcontentoftheresearchquestions.Accordingto

Mitchell(1991),open-endedquestionsintheearlystagesoftheDelphi“allowsapanelisttoutilizethe

intellectualapparatusthatmakesthemexpertandmayreduceanyfeelingofunderutilization”(p.344).

Inaddition,Mitchellviewedtheincorporationofpanelists’responsesintofutureDelphiround

questionnairesasmotivatingintermsoftheircontinuanceandcommitmenttotheresearchstudy–a

formof“seeingthemselvesastheresearchunfolds”(p.344).Ziglio(1996)deemedthefirststagesofthe

Delphias“ofcrucialimportanceinunderstandingtheaimoftheDelphiexercise”(p.9)and

recommendedindividualcontactwithexpertpanelistsandtheprovisiontothemof“appropriate

backgroundinformationonthetechnique”(p.10).TofulfilZiglio’srecommendation,allparticipants

wereprovidedabriefprimerontheDelphiapproachbothintheinitialinvitationletterandinafollow-


15

upemailcommunication.Onoccasion,justpriortoRound1opening,afewindividualsaskedforquite

detailedclarificationofhowthestudyroundswouldproceedandinsomeinstancessoughtliterature

referencesofpastDelphistudiesthatwouldprovidefurtherbackgroundtotheirparticipation.Hence,

theDelphiaslearningexperiencewasunderway.

Round 1 began January, 2014with four “seed questions” offered for the consideration of the expert

panel members. Two of these questions are presented here as these will contribute to the present

discussionandanalysis:

• Question1:What, ifany,significantglobaltrendscanyouidentifywhichcouldhaveeffectson

the nature of science education in the next 15 years here in Canada? For each trend or issue

providedinyourresponse,pleasegiveasclearadescriptionas ispossibleofyourviewsonits

probableeffectsonscienceeducationand(ifpossible)themagnitudeofsucheffects.

• Question2:What, ifany,shouldbetheprincipalfoundationsandgoalsofscienceeducationin

Canadaforthenextgeneration?Foreachresponseprovided,pleasegiveasclearadescription

of each idea youpresent as is possible, and statewhyeach is important for education in the

Canadiansociety.

Therangeofresponselengthtoeachofthe‘seed’questionswasexpectedlyvariable,withsome

individualsprovidingextensivetreatmentoftheissuesarisingfromtheseedquestionsandtaking

opportunitytoclarifyatsomedepththeircommitments,theirconsideredopinions,andtheirpositions.

Inall,respondentsprovidedinexcessof47,000wordsoftexttobecodediterativelyandreflexivelyin

ordertoidentifytheprincipalthemesemergentinthedatainthisinitialround.Oncethefour-week

periodassignedtoRound1responsescametoaclose,thefirstsetofqueriesmadeuseofNVivo10™

computerassistedqualitativedataanalysissoftware(CAQDAS)fromQSRInternationalandtechniques

developedforCAQDASinthelastdecade(Bazeley,2006;2009;Bazeley&Jackson,2013).Thisearly


16

stageNVivo10™analysisprovidedtextualassociationsofpredominantkeywordssortedintoword

clusterswhichcouldthenbethesubjectsofanewsetofassociationscomprising“nodeclassifications”.

Suchwordassociationswerecriticalindeterminingwhatthecodingnodeswouldbeforeachindividual

responseinRound1.Theresultsofthesequeriesestablishedthefollowingsevenmostcommonnode

classificationsacrossallresponsestotheseedquestions:

NodeClassifications–GlobalTrendsAffectingScienceEducation

• DevelopmentofScience-OrientedSkills

• Science,Technology,EngineeringandMathematics(STEM)

• SustainabilityandSustainableDevelopment

• GlobalizationandNeo-Liberalism

• Indigenous4PerspectivesandKnowledge

• RelevanceofSciencetoStudents

• NewLearningTechnologies`

NodeClassifications–FoundationsandGoalsforScienceEducation

• ScienceforSustainabilityandGlobalCitizenship

• Science,Technology,SocietyandtheEnvironment(STSE)

• TheNatureofScientificPractices

• InteractingGlobalSystems

• ScientificSkillDevelopment

4Inthisarticle,theterm“Indigenous”includes,worldwide,theoriginalinhabitantsofaplaceandtheirdescendants’subjectiontocolonizinginfluences.ItalsofollowstheUNconventionfortheterm.InCanada,theterm“indigenous”includespeoplesself-identifyingasFirstNations’,Inuit,andMétisandusesuppercaseforminrespectforhowIndigenousscholarsspelltheterm(Aikenheadetal.,2014).


17

• LiteracyinScience-RelatedIssuesandScientificLiteracy

• ScienceforEconomicCompetitiveness

Thesehigher-levelnodeclassificationswerethenusedtocodethewrittenresponsestodeterminethe

principalthemesemergingfromthisfirstphaseofthedatacollection(Flanagan,1954;Greenetal.,

2007;Sinkovics&Alfoldi,2012).Thefivecodingproceduresdescribedbelowbecamethebasisfor

identifyingthethemesinthedata:

a. WordfrequencyanalyseswereconductedforeachofthefourRound1seedquestionsacross

eachoftheexpertpanelparticipantsinbothcohortsindividually(N=30andN=26).

b. Ifaparticularterm,phrase,orwordassociationappearedrepeatedlyinawordfrequency

analysisfromoneparticipant,itwasnotedandcodedforasa“node”inNVivo10™;inaddition,

ifaterm,phrase,orwordassociationhadclosesimilarityamonganumberofparticipant

responses,thattoowasnotedandcodedasa“classificationnode”;allkeywordsand

terminologiesdirectlyassociatedwiththeseedquestionwordingwereautomaticallyeliminated

fromwordfrequencyanalysesthroughfiltering.

c. Thesecodedconcepts,explanatoryideas,andphraseswereconsideredas“emergent”point

sources(i.e.,nodes)inthedata;eachnodewasassociatedwithabrief,writtendescriptionsoas

tomaintainconsistencyinthecoding;clustersofsimilarnodesweregroupedintocategorical

nodesthatwouldeventuallydescribethethemesintheRound1data.

d. Anynodecategoriescontainingaminimumof2sources(a“source”isanindividualrespondent)

and2references(a“reference”isacodeableitemasidentifiedin(b)above)werethenprovided

asecondpassbytheresearcherforre-coding;thissecondpassinvolvedcodingofindividual

responsesacrosseachofthetwocohortsseparatelyandanothercodingwithallresponses

collatedintotoasingletextdocument(combinedcohorts)–onedocumentforeachofthefour

Round1seedquestions.

e. Anynodereferencesthatreachedaminimumof>75%coverageintermsoftheiremergencein

thedata(i.e.,wereobservedtohavecodinginatleastthreeof:(1)individualparticipant


18

responses,(2)aggregatedresponseswithinacohort,(3)auto-codedresponsesfromtext

analysesinNVivo10™,and(4)matrixcodinginNVivo10™usingtwoormoresimilarconcepts,

explanatoryideas,orphrases(asoutlinedin(c)above).

Inall,29themeswereidentifiedfromtheseedquestionsinRound1responses,andtheseweregrouped

bytheauthorintothreeclustersinaccordancewiththeresearchquestions.Aswewillsee,these

themesprovidethebasisfortheconstructionofratingscaleswhichwereusedintheRound2

questionnaire.Thethemesandclustersidentifiedareasfollows(innospecificorder):

GlobalTrendsAffectingFutureScienceEducationCluster(11themes)

1. Science,Technology,Engineering&Mathematics(STEM)

2. IntegrationofIndigenousPerspectives/Knowledge

3. DevelopingScience-OrientedSkills

4. ScienceandEducationforSustainability

5. National/InternationalStudentAssessments(e.g.,PISA,TIMMS)

6. NewLearningTechnologies

7. RelevanceofScienceEducationtoStudents

8. National/InternationalStandards

9. ScienceEducationforEconomicCompetitiveness

10. Re-conceptualizingthePurposesofScienceEducation

11. GlobalizationoftheInternationalCommunityandNeo-LiberalValues

TheFoundationsofCanadianScienceCurriculumCluster(7themes)

1. ScienceEducationforGlobalCitizenship

2. ScienceEducationforSustainability

3. TheNatureofScience

4. Science,Technology,SocietyandtheEnvironment(STSE)

5. InteractingSystemsandSystemsThinking

6. ScientificSkillsforthe21stCentury


19

7. ScientificKnowledge

TheGoalsofCanadianScienceEducationCluster(11themes)

1. DemocraticCitizenshipinaGlobalTechnologicalSociety

2. Career-buildingforaTechnologicalSociety

3. EconomicCompetitiveness

4. LiteracyinScience-RelatedIssues

5. PersonalCharacterDevelopment

6. Life-LongLearning

7. ContributionstoHumanHealthandWell-Being

8. TrainingofFutureScientists

9. DevelopingaDeepSenseofWonderandCuriosity

10. PursuingProgressivelyHigherLevelsofStudy

11. SustainingEarth'sSystems

Round2oftheDelphiPriortothedistributionoftheRound2questionnaire,allpanelmembersreceivedasummaryof

thethemesgeneratedinRound1.Thesummarywasdeliveredbacktopanelmembersasaformof

controlledfeedbacktypicaloftheDelphiapproach.Theformatofthesummarywasanadaptationof

similartechniquesdevelopedbyCollinsetal.(2001)andOsborneetal.(2003),andincludedthe

followingcomponents:(a)provisionallarge-scalethemetitles;(b)abriefsynopsisofthejustificationfor

emergenceforeachthemeincludingasamplingofcontextualcommentstaggedwithalpha-numericID

codesofparticipants,and;(3)directquotations(againwithattachedIDcodes)fromparticipantswhich

providedbothrepresentativeandnotabledefinition(s)toaparticulartheme.

IntheRound2questionnaire,participantswereaskedtoratetheimportance,relevance,or

influenceof(asthecasemaybe)foreachofthethemesgeneratedinRound1,usuallyona5-point

Likertscalewith‘5’beingofgreatestrelevanceorimportance,etc..Inordertoclarifytheirintent,a


20

numberofitemsrequiredparticipantstojustifytheirratingsand/orcommentupontheitem.Insome

cases,commentarywasaskedforwithrespecttothedegreetowhichthewordingspresentedinthe

questionnaireitemswasrepresentativeoftheirunderstandingofthatitem.Forexample,whenrating

the11themesoftheGlobalTrendsAffectingFutureScienceEducationcluster,panelmemberswere

askedtoratetheitemstwice–firstaccordingtotheirperceptionoftheactualaffectonthefutureof

scienceeducation,andthenasecondtimeassessingwhattheythoughtthedesiredaffectshouldbe.

ThiswasinaccordancetosimilarproceduresdevelopedbyLewthwaite(2001;2006)inhisScience

CurriculumImplementationQuestionnaire(SCIQ)andLewthwaite&Cuthbert(2008)inastudyof

teacherperceptionsofsciencecurriculumascasestudiesinaCanadianschooldistrict.Whenone

considersprobableandpossiblefuturesinscienceeducation,itwasdeemedimportanttomakethis

distinctionwithrespecttocurrentinternationalinfluencesandvectorforces.

OnceRound2wascompletedonline,detailedsummaryreportsweregeneratedandfedback

intotheexpertpanelcohorts.Thistime,thesummariesincludeddescriptivestatistics(percentages,

mean,median,standarddeviation,variance,andinterquartileranges(Q3-Q1))foreachitemratedin

thequestionnaire.Justificationcommentsthatweredeemedrepresentativeeitherofnotable

departuresfromtheconsensuspositionoralignedwithconsensuswerealsoprovidedtothepanel.In

orderforparticipantstobepreparedforthemannerinwhichthesestatisticalsummarieswouldbe

organized,abetween-roundbriefwaspreparedandsenttotheexpertpanelaheadofthesummary

reportsonceonlinesubmissionforRound2hadended.Containedinthatinformationbriefwas:a

descriptionofwhatwouldbepresentedstatisticallyandwhy;howmeans,medians,andvarianceswere

tobeunderstoodintermsofratingscaledesignandachievingconsensus;samplesofjustification

statements,and;notesaboutwhattoexpectfromitemdesigninRound3.Thisprocedurefordata

organizationandreportingtotheexpertpaneliswell-supportedintheliteratureforDelphistudies

(Hasson,Keeney&McKenna,2000;Hsu&Sandford,2007;Powell,2003).Table‘A’(Appendix‘A’)


21

providesacompletelistingofthepanel’sratings(disaggregatedbycohort)totheRound2itemsacross

all29themesinthethreeclusters.

Round3oftheDelphi

InRound3,aswiththepreviousround,participantswereaskedtoratetheimportance,

relevance,orinfluenceof(asthecasemaybe)eachofthethemesandcontributorstoCanadianscience

educationasfirstratedinRound2.TableB(Appendix‘B’)providesacomplete,disaggregatedlistingof

thepanel’sratingstotheRound3itemsacrossallthemes.Inordertoprovideasummary,Table1(this

section)offerscombinedratingsofthemesacrossbothcohortsasifallpanelmemberswere

contributingasasinglegrouping.AttritionwaslowinRound3,with42membersprovidingcomplete

questionnaireresponses.Inordertoclarifymeaningortonowsolidifyexpertpanelmembers’positions,

certainoftheitemsfromRound2requiredparticipantstoagainprovidejustificationfortheirratings

and/orrendercommentary.Thiswasespeciallynecessaryiftheirpositionhadchangedfromthe

previousroundorremainedinanoutlierposition.Inothercases,optionalcommentarywasencouraged

fromwhathadbeenarticulatedbypanelmembersinRound2.Inthisway,theresearcherwasafforded

opportunitytomoreclearlyidentifypositionsthatwererepresentativeoftheemerginggroup

understandingofaparticularitemortheme.AswasdonebetweenRound1andRound2,expertpanel

memberswereagainprovidedastatisticalsummaryandcontrolledfeedbackofanonymoussupporting

commentsfromRound2asafeed-inpreparationforthefinalround.


22

Table1CombinedconsensuspositionsforCOHORTS1and2aftercompletionofRound3.

COMBINEDCONSENSUS-COHORTS1&2(N=42)

THEMES–GLOBALTRENDS&SCIENCEEDUCATION

(PerceivedInfluenceAccordingtoExpertPanel)

Mean Median Mode S.D. ConsensusLevel

DevelopingSkillsforthe21stCentury 4.24 4.0 4 0.77 80.95%

ScienceandEducationforSustainability 4.00 4.0 4 0.70 71.43%

NewLearningTechnologies 3.71 4.0 4 0.67 64.29%

RelevanceofScienceEducationtoStudents 3.71 4.0 4 0.83 57.14%

National/InternationalStudentAssessments 3.56 3.0 3 0.79 51.28%

GlobalizationoftheInternationalCommunity 3.48 4.0 4 0.83 54.76%

National/InternationalStandards 3.40 3.0 4 0.84 50.00%

Re-conceptualizingofScienceEducation 3.40 3.0 3 0.96 38.10%

ScienceEducationforEconomicCompetitiveness 3.36 3.0 3 0.98 53.66%

THEMES–GLOBALTRENDS&SCIENCEEDUCATION

(DesiredInfluenceAccordingtoExpertPanel)


ScienceandEducationforSustainability 4.52 5.0 5 0.63 92.86%

DevelopingSkillsforthe21stCentury 4.39 5.0 5 0.70 95.24%

RelevanceofScienceEducationtoStudents 4.31 4.0 5 0.78 85.71%

Re-conceptualizingofScienceEducation 3.95 4.0 4 0.99 71.43%

NewLearningTechnologies 3.81 4.0 4 0.83 64.29%

Science,Technology,Engineering&Mathematics(STEM) 3.73 4.0 3 0.93 62.50%

GlobalizationoftheInternationalCommunity 3.71 4.0 4 1.04 59.52%

IntegrationofIndigenousPerspectives/Knowledge 3.38 3.0 3 1.06 45.24%

ScienceEducationforEconomicCompetitiveness 3.15 3.0 4 0.94 39.02%

National/InternationalStandards 3.13 3.0 3 0.98 30.77%

National/InternationalStudentAssessments 2.90 3.0 3 0.85 20.51%


THEMES–FOUNDATIONSofSCIENCEEDUCATION


ScienceEducationforSustainability 4.45 5.0 5 0.63 92.86%

Science,Technology,SocietyandtheEnvironment(STSE)

4.33 4.0 4 0.61 92.86%

ScientificSkillsforthe21stCentury 4.22 4.0 4 0.72 87.80%

TheNatureofScience 4.07 4.0 4 0.71 78.57%

ScientificKnowledge 3.88 4.0 4 0.67 71.43%


23


THEME–GOALSofSCIENCEEDUCATION


LiteracyinScience-RelatedIssues 4.45 4.0 4 0.50 100.00%

SustainingEarth'sSystems 4.26 4.0 5 0.77 80.95%

DevelopaDeepSenseofWonderandCuriosity 4.19 4.0 4 0.71 83.33%

ContributetoHumanHealthandWell-Being 4.14 4.0 4 0.61 88.10%

Life-LongLearning 4.00 4.0 4 0.70 78.05%

CitizenshipinaGlobalTechnologicalSociety 3.88 4.0 4 0.89 73.81%

Career-buildingforaTechnologicalSociety 3.48 3.0 3 0.74 45.24%

TrainingofFutureScientists 3.31 3.0 3 0.68 28.57%

PersonalCharacterDevelopment 3.26 3.0 3 0.66 35.71%

EconomicCompetitiveness 3.12 3.0 3 0.92 33.33%

PursueProgressivelyHigherLevelsofStudy 3.12 3.0 3 0.71 21.43%


24

References(Part1)

Achieve,Inc.(2010).Internationalbenchmarkingreport:Takingtheleadinscienceeducation:Forgingnext-generationsciencestandards.Availableonlineathttp://www.achieve.org/files/InternationalScienceBenchmarkingReport.pdf.RetrievedJanuary22,2013.

Achieve,Inc.(2013).Nextgenerationsciencestandards.Availableonlineathttp://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standardsRetrievedAugust22,2013.

Aikenhead,G.S.(1999).STSscienceinCanada:Frompolicytostudentevaluation.InD.Kumar,&D.Chubin(Eds.)Science,technology,&societyeducation:Aresourcebookonresearchandpractice.KluwerAcademicPress(pp.49-89).

Aikenhead,G.S.(2006).Towardsdecolonizingthepan-Canadianscienceframework.CanadianJournalofMath,Science&TechnologyEducation,6(4),387-399.

Aikenhead,G.S.andSutherland,D.(2015).ChangingtheshapeofSTEM:WisdomofgrassrootsIndigenousmovementsinCanada.InB.Freeman,S.MarginsonandR.Tytler(eds.)TheAgeofSTEM:EducationalPolicyandPracticeAcrosstheWorldinScience,Technology,EngineeringandMathematics(pp.151-160).OxfordUK:TaylorandFrancis.

Alters,B.J.(1997).Whosenatureofscience?JournalofResearchinScienceTeaching,(34),pp.39-55.

AmgenCanada,Inc.(2012).Spotlightonsciencelearning–AbenchmarkofCanadiantalent.Availableonlineat:http://stream1.newswire.ca/media/2012/06/05/20120605_C5880_DOC_EN_14615.pdf.RetrievedJanuary15,2013.

Bazeley,P.(2006).Thecontributionofcomputersoftwaretointegratingqualitativeandquantitativedataandanalyses.ResearchintheSchools,13(1).

Bazeley,P.(2009).Analysingqualitativedata:Morethan‘identifyingthemes’.MalaysianJournalofQualitativeResearch,2(2),6-22.

Bazeley,P.,&Jackson,K.(Eds.).(2013).QualitativedataanalysiswithNVivo.SagePublicationsLimited.

Bybee,R.W.(2010).AdvancingSTEMeducation:A2020vision.TechnologyandEngineeringTeacher.70(1).September,2010.https://dc117s6n40i36.cloudfront.net/uploads/forums/2014/07/06/Bybee-Integrated_STEM_Plan.pdf.AccessedFebruary17,2015.

Cochran,S.W.(1983).TheDelphimethod:Formulatingandrefininggroupjudgments.JournalofHumanSciences,2(2),111-17.


25

Collins,S.,Osborne,J.,Ratcliffe,M.,Millar,R.,&Duschl,R.(2001).What‘ideas-about-science’shouldbetaughtinschoolscience?ADelphistudyoftheexpertcommunity.PaperpresentedattheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation(AERA)nationalconference.Seattle,WA,April2001.28pp.AccessedDecember28,2013from:http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/58275/.

CouncilofCanadianAcademies(2012).ThestateofscienceandtechnologyinCanada,2012.TheExpertPanelontheStateofScienceandTechnologyinCanada.Ottawa:CCA.232pp.Availableonlineat:http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/sandt_ii/stateofst2012_fullreporten.pdf.RetrievedAugust15,2013.

CouncilofCanadianAcademies(CCA)(2014).Scienceculture:WhereCanadastands.TheExpertPanelontheStateofCanada’sScienceCulture.Ottawa:CCA.222pp.Availableonlineat:http://www.scienceadvice.ca/en/publications/assessments.aspx.RetrievedSeptember28,2014.

CouncilofMinistersofEducation,Canada(CMEC)(1997).Commonframeworkofsciencelearningoutcomes:Pan-Canadianprotocolforcollaborationonschoolcurriculum.RetrievedMay30,2012.261pp.Availableonlineat:http://publications.cmec.ca/science/framework/.

Crutzen,P.J.(2002).Geologyofmankind.Nature(415)23.10.1038/415023aMedlineDOI:10.1038/415023a.

Dalkey,N.,&Helmer,O.(1963).AnexperimentalapplicationoftheDelphimethodtotheuseofexperts.ManagementScience,9(3),458-467.

Flanagan,J.C.(1954).Thecriticalincidenttechnique.PsychologicalBulletin,51(4),327.

Freeman,B.,Marginson,S.,andTytler,R.(2015).WideninganddeepeningtheSTEMeffect.InB.Freeman,S.MarginsonandR.Tytler(eds.)TheAgeofSTEM:EducationalPolicyandPracticeAcrosstheWorldinScience,Technology,EngineeringandMathematics(pp.1-21).OxfordUK:TaylorandFrancis.

Gondwe,M.,&Longnecker,N.(2014).Scientificandculturalknowledgeininterculturalscienceeducation:Studentperceptionsofcommonground.ResearchinScienceEducation,1-31.DOI:10.1007/s11165-014-9416-z.

Green,J.,Willis,K.,Hughes,E.,Small,R.,Welch,N.,Gibbs,L.,&Daly,J.(2007).Generatingbestevidencefromqualitativeresearch:theroleofdataanalysis.AustralianandNewZealandjournalofpublichealth,31(6),545-550.

Griggs,D.,Stafford-Smith,M.,Gaffney,O.,Rockström,W.,Ohman,M.C.,Shyamsundar,P.,Steffen,W.,Glaser,G.,Kanie,N.,Noble,I.(2013).Policy:Sustainabledevelopmentgoalsforpeopleandplanet.Nature,495,305–307.10.1038/495305aMedlineDOI:10.1038/495305a.

Hasson,F.,Keeney,S.,&McKenna,H.(2000).ResearchguidelinesfortheDelphisurveytechnique.JournalofAdvancedNursing,32(4),1008-1015.

Hsu,C.C.,&Sandford.B.A.(2007).TheDelphitechnique:Makingsenseofconsensus.PracticalAssessment,Research&Evaluation,12(10),1-8.Retrievedfromhttp://www.pareonline.net/pdf/v12n10.pdf.


26

Keeney,S.,Hasson,F.,&McKenna,H.(2011).ConductingResearchUsingtheDelphiTechnique.TheDelphiTechniqueinNursingandHealthResearch,69-83.JohnWiley&Sons.

Komisar,B.P.,&McClellan,J.E.(1961).Thelogicofslogans.InSmith,B.O.andEnnis,R.H,(Eds.)Languageandconceptsineducation.(pp.195-214).Chicago:RandMcNally.

Let’sTalkScience(2014).Spotlightonsciencelearning:Shapingtomorrow’sworkforce:WhatdoCanada’steensthinkabouttheirfutures?AmgenCanadaInc.andLet’sTalkScience.Availableonlineat:http://www.letstalkscience.ca/research-publications/spotlight-on-science-learning/spotlight-2014.html.RetrievedDecember1,2014.

Lewthwaite,B.E.(2001).Thedevelopment,validationandapplicationofaprimaryschoolsciencecurriculumimplementationquestionnaire.UnpublishedSc.Ed.D.Thesis,CurtinUniversityofTechnology,Perth.Availableonlineat:http://adt.curtin.edu.au/theses/available/adt-WCU20030717.155648/.

Lewthwaite,B.E.(2006).Constraintsandcontributorstobecomingascienceteacher-leader.ScienceEducation,90(2),331-347.

Lewthwaite,B.,&Cuthbert,P.(2008).Exploringtheinfluenceofasuperintendentonsciencecurriculumdelivery:Acasestudy.AChronologyofChange,42.MERNJournal.Availableonlineat:http://www.mern.ca/journal/Journal-V2.pdf#page=48.

Linstone,H.A.,&Turoff,M.(2011).Delphi:Abrieflookbackwardandforward.TechnologicalForecastingandSocialChange,78(9),1712-1719.

Marginson,S.(2015).Whatinternationalcomparisonscantellus.InB.Freeman,S.MarginsonandR.Tytler(eds.)TheAgeofSTEM:EducationalPolicyandPracticeAcrosstheWorldinScience,Technology,EngineeringandMathematics(pp.22-32).OxfordUK:TaylorandFrancis.

Marginson,S.,Tytler,R.,Freeman,B.,andRoberts,K.(2013).STEM:Countrycomparisons:Internationalcomparisonsofscience,technology,engineeringandmathematics(STEM)education.Finalreport.

AustralianCouncilofLearnedAcademies.Melbourne,Victoria,Australia.http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30059041.AccessedFebruary02,2015.

Martino,J.P.(1972).Toolsforlookingahead.Spectrum,IEEE,9(10),32-40.

Mitchell,V.W.(1991).TheDelphitechnique:Anexpositionandapplication.TechnologyAnalysis&StrategicManagement,3(4),333-358.

Murry,J.W.,Jr.&J.O.Hammons(1995).Delphi:Aversatilemethodologyforconductingqualitativeresearch.ReviewofHigherEducation,18,423-436.

NationalResearchCouncil(NRC)(2012).Nationalscienceeducationstandards.Washington,D.C.:Nationalacademypress.262pp.RetrievedMay30,2012,fromhttp://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/html/6e.html.


27

Orpwood,G.W.F.(1985).TowardtherenewalofCanadianscienceeducation.I.Deliberativeinquirymodel.ScienceEducation,69(4),477-489.

Orpwood,G.W.F.,&Souque,J.P.(1984).ScienceeducationinCanadianschools.Summaryofbackgroundstudy52.ScienceCouncilofCanada,Ottawa:ON.

Orpwood,G.W.F.,&Souque,J.P.(1985).TowardtherenewalofCanadianscienceeducation.II.Findingsandrecommendations.ScienceEducation,69(5),625-636.

Orpwood,G.W.F.,Schmidt,B.A.,&Jun,H.(2012).Competinginthe21stcenturyskillsrace.CanadianCouncilofChiefExecutives/Conseilcanadiendeschefsd'entreprise.Availableonlineathttp://www.canadianopenlibrary.ca/SwfDocs/235/235164.pdf.AccessedAugust14,2013.

Osborne,J.(2007).Scienceeducationforthetwentyfirstcentury.EurasiaJournalofMathematics,Science&TechnologyEducation,3(3),173-184.

Osborne,J.,Collins,S.,Ratcliffe,M.,Millar,R.,&Duschl,R.(2003).What“ideas-about-science”shouldbetaughtinschoolscience?ADelphistudyoftheexpertcommunity.JournalofResearchinScienceTeaching,40(7),692-720.

Patton,M.Q.(2002).Twodecadesofdevelopmentsinqualitativeinquiry:Apersonal,experientialperspective.QualitativeSocialWork,1(3),261-283.

Powell,C.(2003).TheDelphitechnique:Mythsandrealities.JournalofAdvancedNursing,41(4),376-382.

Rieger,W.G.(1986).DirectionsinDelphidevelopments:Dissertationsandtheirquality.TechnologicalForecastingandSocialChange,29(2),195-204.

Rockström,J.,Steffen,W.,Noone,K.,Persson,Å.,Chapin,F.S.,Lambin,E.F.,Lenton,T.M.and22others(2009a).Asafeoperatingspaceforhumanity.Nature,461(7263),472-475.

Rockström,J.,Steffen,W.,Noone,K.,Persson,Å.,Chapin,F.S.,Lambin,E.F.,Lenton,T.M.and22others(2009b).Planetaryboundaries:Exploringthesafeoperatingspaceforhumanity.EcologyandSociety,14(2).http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/.AccessedJanuary29,2015.

ScienceCouncilofCanada(SCC).(1984a).ScienceeducationinCanadianschools,Volume1:Introductionandcurriculumanalyses.BackgroundStudy52.Hull:Quebec:MinisterofSupplyandServices,Canada.

ScienceCouncilofCanada(SCC).(1984b).ScienceeducationinCanadianschools:Volume2;StatisticaldatabaseforCanadianscienceeducation.BackgroundStudy52.Hull:Quebec:MinisterofSupplyandServices.

ScienceCouncilofCanada(SCC).(1984c).Scienceforeverystudent:EducatingCanadiansfortomorrow'sworld.SummaryofReport36.Hull:Quebec:MinisterofSupplyandServices,Canada.


28

Sinkovics,R.andAlfoldi,E.A.(2012).Progressivefocusingandtrustworthinessinqualitativeresearch:Theenablingroleofcomputer-assistedqualitativedataanalysissoftware(CAQDAS).ManagementInternationalReview,52(6),817-845.(DOI:10.1007/s11575-012-0140-5).

Steffen,W.,Crutzen,P.J.,&McNeill,J.R.(2007).TheAnthropocene:arehumansnowoverwhelmingthegreatforcesofnature?AMBIO:AJournaloftheHumanEnvironment,36(8),614-621.

Steffen,W.,Richardson,K.,Rockström,J.,and15others(2015).Planetaryboundaries:Guidinghumandevelopmentonachangingplanet.ScienceExpress.DOI: 10.1126/science.1259855. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/recent.AccessedFebruary04,2015.

Stewart,D.W.,&Shamdasani,P.N.(1990).Focusgroups:Theoryandpractice.Appliedsocialresearchmethodsseries.FocusGroups:TheoryandPracticeAppliedSocialResearchMethodsSeries.

Stewart,J.(2001).IstheDelphitechniqueaqualitativemethod?MedicalEducation,35(10),922-923.

Sweigert,Jr,R.L.,&Schabacker,W.H.(1974).TheDelphitechnique:Howwelldoesitworkinsettingeducationalgoals.PaperpresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation(Chicago,Illinois,April,1974).Atlanta,GA:GeorgiaStateBoardofEducation.

Uhl,N.P.(1983).UsingtheDelphitechniqueininstitutionalplanning.NewDirectionsforInstitutionalResearch,1983(37),81-94.

Weinrib,J.,&Jones,G.A.(2015).Decentralization,federalismandSTEM.InB.Freeman,S.MarginsonandR.Tytler(eds.)TheAgeofSTEM:EducationalPolicyandPracticeAcrosstheWorldinScience,Technology,EngineeringandMathematics(pp.134-150).OxfordUK:TaylorandFrancis.

Weinrib,J.&Jones,G.A.(2013).Consultantreport:SecuringAustralia’sFutureSTEM:CountryComparisons.Canada’sApproachtoScience,Technology,EngineeringandMathematics(STEM):Context,Policy,Strategy,andPrograms.AustralianCouncilofLearnedAcademies.http://www.acola.org.au/PDF/SAF02Consultants/Consultant%20Report%20-%20Canada.pdf.Accessed04April,2014.

Ziglio,E.(1996).TheDelphimethodanditscontributiontodecision-making.In:Adler,M.,&Ziglio,E.(Eds.).(1996).Gazingintotheoracle:theDelphimethodanditsapplicationtosocialpolicyandpublichealth.JessicaKingsleyPublishers.pp.3-33.

author: john james murray, phd student in education title ...€¦ · natural resources but rapidly...

Documents