How Understanding the Nature of Science Supports Lifelong Learning

Aneta Krzewińska; Małgorzata Dzimińska; Izabela Warwas

doi:10.18778/2450-4491.21.06

Authors

Aneta Krzewińska University of Lodz https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5267-3600
Małgorzata Dzimińska University of Lodz https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7998-8178
Izabela Warwas University of Lodz https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8066-746X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/2450-4491.21.06

Keywords:

nature of science, scientific literacy, science communication, public consultations, lifelong learning

Abstract

This study examines Polish citizens’ understanding of the Nature of Science (NoS) (McComas 2020) through public consultations on science communication in four areas: climate change, GMOs, vaccinations, and alternative medicine. Qualitative analysis of group discussions revealed that while all NoS elements were addressed, tools, processes, and products of science were most frequently referenced, with human elements and limitations mentioned less often. NoS principles were most evident among participants with higher education. The authors suggest using these insights as a litmus test for Polish citizens’ scientific literacy and advocate for professional science communication that goes beyond reporting findings to include explanations of scientific processes. This approach, they argue, can effectively support citizens’ lifelong learning.

Author Biographies

Aneta Krzewińska, University of Lodz

Aneta Krzewińska – Associate Professor, PhD in the humanities in the field of sociology, head of the Department of Methods and Techniques of Social Research (Faculty of Economics and Sociology at the University of Lodz, Poland). She is an author of numerous methodological publications. She implemented 30+ qualitative and quantitative research studies. Her scientific interests include: deliberative techniques, social consultations, social research methodology. She is actively searching for new tools to collect citizens’ opinions and learn about the mechanisms of the research tools’ acculturation. She carries out methodological tests on the techniques of group decision making and consensus reaching. She worked on implementing the participatory budgeting in the city of Lodz and designed public consultations using deliberative techniques in such areas as space planning, revitalization, culture, science. Following that she assessed the methodological value of the different techniques. These experiences resulted in authoring the book Deliberation. Idea– Methodology – Practice (Krzewińska, 2016), e-mail: aneta.krzewinska@uni.lodz.pl.

Małgorzata Dzimińska, University of Lodz

Małgorzata Dzimińska – PhD, Assistant Professor at the University of Lodz in Poland. Her main research interests revolve around higher education where she focuses on the topics of quality assurance, knowledge management, data use for educational improvement, science communication and community-based participatory research. She teaches using active learning pedagogies, presents at conferences and publishes in international journals. She is a member of Society for Research in Higher Education (SRHE) and the European Higher Education Society (EAIR), e-mail: malgorzata.dziminska@uni.lodz.pl.

Izabela Warwas, University of Lodz

Izabela Warwas – professor at the Faculty of Economics and Sociology at the University of Lodz. Head of department of labor and social policy. Her scientific interests focus on the issues related to science communication, human resources management, age and diversity management. Author and co-author of 140 publications. She participated, as a principal investigator, coordinator, specialist on evaluation and expert, in over 40 European projects. Moreover, she participated in several national projects ordered by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Ministry of Regional Development, marshal offices. Fellow at the University of Glasgow (2015) and participant STSM in The German Centre of Gerontology in Berlin (2017). She was awarded the Polish Academy of Sciences prize (2016, 2017). The Cross-Cutting Activity (CCA) on science communication, European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) and The Sloan Research Network on Aging & Work (Boston College) participant, e-mail: izabela.warwas@uni.lodz.pl.

References

Adamczyk M. D. (2022) Uczenie się przez całe życie jako element uczestnictwa społecznego osób starszych i ich aktywnego starzenia się, “Zeszyty Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego Jana Pawła II”, no. 65(3), pp. 67–86, https://doi.org/10.31743/znkul.14471.
Google Scholar

Blue G., Medlock J. (2014) Public Engagement with Climate Change as Scientific Citizenship: A Case Study of World Wide Views on Global Warming, “Science as Culture”, no. 23(4), pp. 560–579, https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2014.917620.
Google Scholar

Bybee R. W., Powell J. C., Trowbridge L. W. (2008) Teaching Secondary School Science. Strategies for Developing Scientific Literacy, 9th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Merril Prentice Hall.
Google Scholar

Day S. B., Goldstone R .L. (2012) The Import of Knowledge Export: Connecting Findings and Theories of Transfer of Learning, “Educational Psychologist”, no 47(3), pp. 153–176, https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.696438.
Google Scholar

Dorsah P. (2020) Pre-Service Teachers’ View of Nature of Science (NoS), “European Journal of Education Studies”, no. 7(6), pp. 124–146.
Google Scholar

Durant J. (1994) What is Scientific Literacy?, “European Review”, no. 2, pp. 83–89, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798700000922.
Google Scholar

Gyllenpalm J., Rundgren C. J., Lederman J., Lederman N. (2022) Views About Scientific Inquiry: A Study of Students’ Understanding of Scientific Inquiry in Grade 7 and 12 in Sweden, “Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research”, no. 66(2), pp. 336–354, https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1869080.
Google Scholar

Krzewińska A., Dzimińska M., Warwas I., Wiktorowicz J. (2021) Komunikacja naukowa w Polsce. Szczepionki, medycyna alternatywna, zmiany klimatyczne, GMO pod lupą, Łódź, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, https://doi.org/10.18778/8220-553-4.
Google Scholar

Kuhn T. (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolution, Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar

Laal M., Salamati P. (2012) Lifelong Learning; Why Do We Need It?, “Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences”, no. 31, pp. 399–403, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.073.
Google Scholar

Lederman N. G., Abd-El-Khalick F. (1998) Avoiding De-Natured Science: Activities That Promote Understandings of the Nature of Science in: The Nature of Science in Science Education, Rationales and Strategies, W. F. McComas (ed.), Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 83–126, https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_5.
Google Scholar

Llorente C., Revuelta G., Dzimińska M., Warwas I., Krzewińska A., Moreno C. (2022) A Standard for Public Consultation on Science Communication: The CONCISE Project Experience, “Journal of Science Communication”, no. 21(3), pp. 1–25, https://doi.org/10.22323/2.21030802.
Google Scholar

Lombrozo T., Thanukos A., Weisberg M. (2008) The Importance of Understanding the Nature of Science for Accepting Evolution, “Evolution: Education and Outreach”, no. 1(3), pp. 290–298, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-008-0061-8.
Google Scholar

Malewski M. (2013) Studia nad kondycją edukacji dorosłych, “Edukacja Dorosłych”, no. 1(68), pp. 9–23.
Google Scholar

Matthews M. (2002) Foreword and Introduction in: The Nature of Science in Science Education, Rationales and Strategies, W. F. McComas (ed.), Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. xi–xxi.
Google Scholar

McComas W. F., Clough M. P., Almazroa H. (2002a) The Principal Elements of the Nature of Science: Dispelling the Myths in: The Nature of Science in Science Education, Rationales and Strategies, W. F. McComas (ed.), Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 53–70, https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_3.
Google Scholar

McComas W. F., Clough M. P., Almazroa H. (2002b) The Role and Character of the Nature of Science in Science Education in: The Nature of Science in Science Education, Rationales and Strategies, W. F. McComas (ed.), Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 3–39, https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_1.
Google Scholar

McComas W. F. (2020) Principal Elements of Nature of Science: Informing Science Teaching while Dispelling the Myths in: Nature of Science in Science Instruction, McComas W. F. (ed.), Cham, Springer, pp. 35–65, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_3.
Google Scholar

McPhetres J., Rutjens B. T., Weinstein N., Brisson J. A. (2019) Modifying Attitudes About Modified Foods: Increased Knowledge Leads to More Positive Attitudes, “Journal of Environmental Psychology”, no. 64(February), pp. 21–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.012.
Google Scholar

Miller J. D. (1992) Toward a Scientific Understanding of the Public Understanding of Science and Technology, “Public Understanding of Science”, no. 1(1), pp. 23–26, https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/005.
Google Scholar

Muszyński M. (2023) Trzy wymiary całożyciowego uczenia się – na przykładzie gerontologii edukacyjnej, “Edukacja Ustawiczna Dorosłych”, no. 3(122), pp. 221–231.
Google Scholar

Nelson C. E., Scharmann L. C., Beard J., Flammer L. I. (2019) The Nature of Science as a Foundation for Fostering a Better Understanding of Evolution, “Evolution: Education and Outreach”, no. 12, article 6, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-019-0100-7.
Google Scholar

OECD (2021) OECD Skills Outlook 2021: Learning for Life, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Google Scholar

Ranney M. A., Clark D. (2016) Climate Change Conceptual Change: Scientific Information Can Transform Attitudes, “Topics in Cognitive Science”, no. 8(1), pp. 49–75, https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12187.
Google Scholar

Rask M., Worthington R. (eds.) (2017) Governing Biodiversity through Democratic Deliberation. Governing Biodiversity through Democratic Deliberation, London, Routledge.
Google Scholar

Schwartz R., Lederman N. (2008) What Scientists Say: Scientists’ Views of Nature of Science and Relation to Science Context, “International Journal of Science Education”, no. 30(6), pp. 727–771, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701225801.
Google Scholar

Shapin S. (1992) Why the Public Ought to Understand Science-in-the-making, “Public Understanding of Science”, no. 1(1), pp. 27–30, https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/006.
Google Scholar

Sullenger K., Turner S. (2002) Nature of Science: Implications for Education an Undergraduate Course for Prospective Teachers in: The Nature of Science in Science Education, Rationales and Strategies, W. F. McComas (ed.), Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 53–70.
Google Scholar

Weisberg D. S., Landrum A. R., Hamilton J., Weisberg M. (2021) Knowledge About the Nature of Science Increases Public Acceptance of Science Regardless of Identity Factors, “Public Understanding of Science”, no. 30(2), pp. 120–138, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520977700.
Google Scholar

Yearley S. (1994) Understanding Science from the Perspective of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: An Overview, “Public Understanding of Science”, no. 3(3), pp. 245–258, https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/3/3/001.
Google Scholar

WWV on Global Warming (nd.), https://globalwarming.wwviews.org/node/259.html (accessed: 25.01.2025).
Google Scholar

World Economic Forum (2015) New Vision for Education – Unlocking the Potential of Technology. World Economic Forum, BCG, Geneva. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEFUSA_NewVisionforEducation_Report2015.pdf (accessed: 25.01.2025).
Google Scholar