Promoting Societal-Oriented Communication and Decision Making Skills by Learning about Advertising in Science Education
Keywords:
Science education, Science-technology-society, Socio-scientific issues, Communication skills, Critical media literacy, Advertising
Abstract
In our everyday lives we are surrounded by advertising in its various forms. Thus in the school context it is not surprising that the issue of advertising is addressed by different subjects, with the main foci being advertising-specific language, images and illustrations, use of stereotypes, strategies of persuasion etc. But advertising also contains factual information, being explicit or implicit, to make a campaign more credible and underline the effectiveness of a certain product. Dealing with the use of factual information in advertising critically is important for the consumer. For many products this information is derived from science and technology. Understanding the science in and behind advertising is necessary to become a critical consumer. Learning about the use of science in advertising also allows promoting societal-oriented communication and decision making skills in the science classroom. Unfortunately, only a few examples on the use of advertising in the science classroom exist. This paper provides a justification for the use of advertising in science education. Examples from the classroom developed in the framework of the PROFILES-project are provided by way of illustration.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Aikenhead, G. S. (2007). Humanistic perspectives in the science curriculum. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 881-911). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90.
Belova, N., & Eilks, I. (2014). Werbung im naturwissenschaftlichem Unterricht: Informationsquelle, Kontextualisierung oder Beitrag zur Medienerziehung [Advertising in science lessons: Source of information, contextualization, or contribution to media education]. Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, 67, 77-82.
Bolte, C., Streller, S., Holbrook, J., Rannikmäe, M., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Rauch, F. (2011). PROFILES: Professional Reflection-Oriented Focus on Inquiry based Learning and Education through Science. Proceedings of the European Science Educational Research Association (ESERA), Lyon, France, September 2011.
Burmeister, M., & Eilks, I. (2012). An example of learning about plastics and their evaluation as a contribution to Education for Sustainable Development in secondary school chemistry teaching. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 93-102.
Burmeister, M., Rauch, F., & Eilks, I. (2012). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and secondary chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 59-68.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Toward an understanding of scientific literacy. In W. Gräber & C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacy – an international symposium (pp. 37-68). Kiel: IPN.
Dhingra, K. (2003). Thinking about television science: How students understand the Nature of Science from different program genres. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 234-256.
Eilks, I., Belova, N., von Döhlen, M., Burmeister, M., & Stuckey, M. (2012). Kommunizieren und Bewerten lernen für den Alltag am Beispiel der Energydrinks [Communication and evaluation for everyday life along the example of energy drinks]. Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, 65, 480-486.
Eilks, I., Nielsen, J. A., & Hofstein, A. (2014). Learning about the role of science in public debate as an essential component of scientific literacy. In C. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien, & P. Clément (Eds.), Topics and trends in current science education (pp. 85-100). Dordrecht: Springer.
Eilks, I., & Ralle, B. (2002). Participatory Action Research in Chemical Education. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Research in Chemical Education - What does it mean? (pp. 87-98). Aachen: Shaker.
Elliott, P. (2006). Reviewing newspaper articles as a technique for enhancing the scientific literacy of student teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1245-1265.
Elmose, S., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Allgemeinbildung: Readiness for living in a risk society. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 11-34.
Feierabend, T., & Eilks, I. (2011). Teaching the societal dimension of chemistry using a socio-critical, problem-oriented lesson plan based on bioethanol usage. Journal of Chemical Education, 88, 1250-1256.
Fensham, P. (2004). Increasing the relevance of science and technology education for all students in the 21st century. Science Education International, 15, 7-27.
Frazier, A. S., Webb, A., Little, G. D., & Saxon, S. (1985). Facets: Grammatical deviance in advertising language: is it undermining our teaching of correct usage? The English Journal, 74(4), 18-21.
Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy. A teacher’s guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam: Sense.
Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education: a pedagogical justification and the state of the art in Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1459-1483.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1347-1362.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2010). Contextualisation, de-contextualisation, re-contextualisation - A science teaching approach to enhance meaningful learning for scientific literacy. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.), Contemporary science education (pp. 69-82). Aachen: Shaker.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2012). Innovative inquiry-based science learning environments in the framework of PROFILES. In C. Bolte., J. Holbrook, & F. Rauch (Eds.), Inquiry-based science education in Europe: Reflections from the PROFILES Project (pp. 52-55). Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.
Jungbauer, W. (2009). Designer Food – und du hast mehr vom Leben [Designer Food – and you will get more from life]. Praxis der Naturwissenschaften – Biologie in der Schule, 58(4), 4-5.
Klafki, W. (2000). The significance of classical theories of Bildung for a contemporary concept of Allgemeinbildung. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: the German Didaktik tradition (pp. 85-108). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
KMK. (2004). Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie/Chemie/Physik für den Mittleren Bildungsabschluss [Educationals standards in the subject biology/chemistry/physics for the lower secondary degree]. München: Luchterhand.
Lee, M.-K., & Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of Science–Technology–Society teaching on students’ attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1315-1328.
Marks, R., Bertram, S., & Eilks, I. (2008). Learning chemistry and beyond with a lesson plan on “potato crispsâ€, which follows a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry lessons – A case study. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 267-276.
Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting scientific literacy using a socio-critical and problemoriented approach to chemistry teaching: concept, examples, experiences. International Journal of
Environmental and Science Education, 4, 231-245.
Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2010). The development of a chemistry lesson plan on shower gels and musk fragrances following a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach – A project of Participatory Action Research. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 129-141.
Marks, R., Otten, J., & Eilks, I. (2010). Writing news spots about science – A way to promote scientific literacy. School Science Review, 92(339), 99-108.
Marks, R., Stuckey, M., Belova, N., & Eilks, I. (2014). The societal dimension in German science education – From tradition towards selected cases and recent developments. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science and Technological Education, 10, accepted for publication.
McClune, B., & Jarman, R. (2010). Critical reading of science-based news reports: Establishing a knowledge, skills and attitudes framework. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 727–752.
McSharry, G., & Jones, S. (2002). Television programming and advertisements: Help or hindrance to effective science education? International Journal of Science Education, 24, 487–497.
Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: a critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43, 371-393.
O’Guinn, T. C., Allen, C. T., & Semenik, R. J. (2012). Advertising and integrated brand promotion. Mason: South-Western Educ. Pub.
Osborne, J. (2003). Attitude towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049-1079.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88, 263-291.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Heidelberg: Springer. Scheibe, C., & Rogow, F. (2012). The teacher’s guide to media literacy. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Schindler, D., Markic, S., Hauk, C., Jäschke-Behrendt, E., Wilkes, M., Stuckey, M., & Eilks, I. (2014). What shall I do with my old mobile phone? – Collaborative curriculum development in PROFILESBremen. In C. Bolte, J. Holbrook, R. Mamlok-Naaman, & F. Rauch (Eds.), Science teachers’ continuous professional development in Europe. Cases from the PROFILES Project (in print). Berlin: FU Berlin.
Simon, S., & Amos, R. (2011). Decision making and use of evidence in a socio-scientific problem on air quality. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 167-192). New York: Springer.
Sjöström, J. (2011). Towards Bildung-oriented science education. Science & Education, 22, 1873-1890.
Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (Eds.) (1994). STS education: international perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Stolz, M., Witteck, T., Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). Reflecting socio-scientific issues for science education coming from the case of curriculum development on doping in chemistry education.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technological Education, 9, 273-282.
Stuckey, M., Belova, N., Hüneburg, J., Ostersehlt, D., Duske, C., Sichtling, M., Neudorf, B., Dahm, M., Ozan, N., & Kelm, A. (2012). Clothes - the second skin. Cosmetics: Between hope and effect. In C. Bolte, J. Holbrook, & F. Rauch (Eds.), Inquiry-based science education in Europe: Reflections from the PROFILES project (pp. 166-168). Berlin: FU Berlin.
Stuckey, M., Lippel, M., & Eilks, I. (2012). Sweet chemistry: Learning about natural and artificial sweetening substances and advertising in chemistry lessons. Chemistry in Action, 98, 36-43.
Stuckey, M., Lippel, M., & Eilks, I. (2014). Teaching chemistry about ‘Stevia’ – A case of cooperative curriculum innovation within PROFILES in Germany. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 4(1), 69-84.
Stuckey, M., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of ‚relevance‘ in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49, 1-34.
UNESCO. (2006). Media education. A kit for teachers, students, parents and professionals. Retrieved October 5 2013 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001492/149278e.pdf
UNESCO. (2011). Media and information literacy. Curriculum for teachers. Retrieved October 5 2013 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001929/192971e.pdf
Vogt, P. (2011). Heizen mit Holz, Briketts oder Diesel? Aufgaben zum Heizwert von Brennstoffen [Heating with wook, coal, or diesel?]. Naturwissenschaften im Unterricht - Physik, 22(121), 36-37.
Von Borstel, G., Böhm, A., & Hahn, O. (2006). „Powerstoff mit Sauerstoff?“ Kontextnahe Erarbeitung der Löslichkeit von Gasen durch kritisches Hinterfragen von Werbeaussagen [„Powerstuff with oxygen?“ Contextualized contention with solubility of gases by critical analysis of advertisings]. Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, 59, 413-415.
Ware, S. A. (2001). Teaching chemistry from a societal perspective. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 7, 1209-1214.
Yager, R. E., & Lutz, M.V. (1995). STS to enhance total curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 28-35.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). A research based framework for socio-scientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357-377.
Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90.
Belova, N., & Eilks, I. (2014). Werbung im naturwissenschaftlichem Unterricht: Informationsquelle, Kontextualisierung oder Beitrag zur Medienerziehung [Advertising in science lessons: Source of information, contextualization, or contribution to media education]. Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, 67, 77-82.
Bolte, C., Streller, S., Holbrook, J., Rannikmäe, M., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Rauch, F. (2011). PROFILES: Professional Reflection-Oriented Focus on Inquiry based Learning and Education through Science. Proceedings of the European Science Educational Research Association (ESERA), Lyon, France, September 2011.
Burmeister, M., & Eilks, I. (2012). An example of learning about plastics and their evaluation as a contribution to Education for Sustainable Development in secondary school chemistry teaching. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 93-102.
Burmeister, M., Rauch, F., & Eilks, I. (2012). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and secondary chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 59-68.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Toward an understanding of scientific literacy. In W. Gräber & C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacy – an international symposium (pp. 37-68). Kiel: IPN.
Dhingra, K. (2003). Thinking about television science: How students understand the Nature of Science from different program genres. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 234-256.
Eilks, I., Belova, N., von Döhlen, M., Burmeister, M., & Stuckey, M. (2012). Kommunizieren und Bewerten lernen für den Alltag am Beispiel der Energydrinks [Communication and evaluation for everyday life along the example of energy drinks]. Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, 65, 480-486.
Eilks, I., Nielsen, J. A., & Hofstein, A. (2014). Learning about the role of science in public debate as an essential component of scientific literacy. In C. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien, & P. Clément (Eds.), Topics and trends in current science education (pp. 85-100). Dordrecht: Springer.
Eilks, I., & Ralle, B. (2002). Participatory Action Research in Chemical Education. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Research in Chemical Education - What does it mean? (pp. 87-98). Aachen: Shaker.
Elliott, P. (2006). Reviewing newspaper articles as a technique for enhancing the scientific literacy of student teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1245-1265.
Elmose, S., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Allgemeinbildung: Readiness for living in a risk society. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 11-34.
Feierabend, T., & Eilks, I. (2011). Teaching the societal dimension of chemistry using a socio-critical, problem-oriented lesson plan based on bioethanol usage. Journal of Chemical Education, 88, 1250-1256.
Fensham, P. (2004). Increasing the relevance of science and technology education for all students in the 21st century. Science Education International, 15, 7-27.
Frazier, A. S., Webb, A., Little, G. D., & Saxon, S. (1985). Facets: Grammatical deviance in advertising language: is it undermining our teaching of correct usage? The English Journal, 74(4), 18-21.
Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy. A teacher’s guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam: Sense.
Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education: a pedagogical justification and the state of the art in Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1459-1483.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1347-1362.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2010). Contextualisation, de-contextualisation, re-contextualisation - A science teaching approach to enhance meaningful learning for scientific literacy. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.), Contemporary science education (pp. 69-82). Aachen: Shaker.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2012). Innovative inquiry-based science learning environments in the framework of PROFILES. In C. Bolte., J. Holbrook, & F. Rauch (Eds.), Inquiry-based science education in Europe: Reflections from the PROFILES Project (pp. 52-55). Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.
Jungbauer, W. (2009). Designer Food – und du hast mehr vom Leben [Designer Food – and you will get more from life]. Praxis der Naturwissenschaften – Biologie in der Schule, 58(4), 4-5.
Klafki, W. (2000). The significance of classical theories of Bildung for a contemporary concept of Allgemeinbildung. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: the German Didaktik tradition (pp. 85-108). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
KMK. (2004). Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie/Chemie/Physik für den Mittleren Bildungsabschluss [Educationals standards in the subject biology/chemistry/physics for the lower secondary degree]. München: Luchterhand.
Lee, M.-K., & Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of Science–Technology–Society teaching on students’ attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1315-1328.
Marks, R., Bertram, S., & Eilks, I. (2008). Learning chemistry and beyond with a lesson plan on “potato crispsâ€, which follows a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry lessons – A case study. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 267-276.
Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting scientific literacy using a socio-critical and problemoriented approach to chemistry teaching: concept, examples, experiences. International Journal of
Environmental and Science Education, 4, 231-245.
Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2010). The development of a chemistry lesson plan on shower gels and musk fragrances following a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach – A project of Participatory Action Research. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 129-141.
Marks, R., Otten, J., & Eilks, I. (2010). Writing news spots about science – A way to promote scientific literacy. School Science Review, 92(339), 99-108.
Marks, R., Stuckey, M., Belova, N., & Eilks, I. (2014). The societal dimension in German science education – From tradition towards selected cases and recent developments. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science and Technological Education, 10, accepted for publication.
McClune, B., & Jarman, R. (2010). Critical reading of science-based news reports: Establishing a knowledge, skills and attitudes framework. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 727–752.
McSharry, G., & Jones, S. (2002). Television programming and advertisements: Help or hindrance to effective science education? International Journal of Science Education, 24, 487–497.
Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: a critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43, 371-393.
O’Guinn, T. C., Allen, C. T., & Semenik, R. J. (2012). Advertising and integrated brand promotion. Mason: South-Western Educ. Pub.
Osborne, J. (2003). Attitude towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049-1079.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88, 263-291.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Heidelberg: Springer. Scheibe, C., & Rogow, F. (2012). The teacher’s guide to media literacy. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Schindler, D., Markic, S., Hauk, C., Jäschke-Behrendt, E., Wilkes, M., Stuckey, M., & Eilks, I. (2014). What shall I do with my old mobile phone? – Collaborative curriculum development in PROFILESBremen. In C. Bolte, J. Holbrook, R. Mamlok-Naaman, & F. Rauch (Eds.), Science teachers’ continuous professional development in Europe. Cases from the PROFILES Project (in print). Berlin: FU Berlin.
Simon, S., & Amos, R. (2011). Decision making and use of evidence in a socio-scientific problem on air quality. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 167-192). New York: Springer.
Sjöström, J. (2011). Towards Bildung-oriented science education. Science & Education, 22, 1873-1890.
Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (Eds.) (1994). STS education: international perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Stolz, M., Witteck, T., Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). Reflecting socio-scientific issues for science education coming from the case of curriculum development on doping in chemistry education.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technological Education, 9, 273-282.
Stuckey, M., Belova, N., Hüneburg, J., Ostersehlt, D., Duske, C., Sichtling, M., Neudorf, B., Dahm, M., Ozan, N., & Kelm, A. (2012). Clothes - the second skin. Cosmetics: Between hope and effect. In C. Bolte, J. Holbrook, & F. Rauch (Eds.), Inquiry-based science education in Europe: Reflections from the PROFILES project (pp. 166-168). Berlin: FU Berlin.
Stuckey, M., Lippel, M., & Eilks, I. (2012). Sweet chemistry: Learning about natural and artificial sweetening substances and advertising in chemistry lessons. Chemistry in Action, 98, 36-43.
Stuckey, M., Lippel, M., & Eilks, I. (2014). Teaching chemistry about ‘Stevia’ – A case of cooperative curriculum innovation within PROFILES in Germany. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 4(1), 69-84.
Stuckey, M., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of ‚relevance‘ in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49, 1-34.
UNESCO. (2006). Media education. A kit for teachers, students, parents and professionals. Retrieved October 5 2013 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001492/149278e.pdf
UNESCO. (2011). Media and information literacy. Curriculum for teachers. Retrieved October 5 2013 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001929/192971e.pdf
Vogt, P. (2011). Heizen mit Holz, Briketts oder Diesel? Aufgaben zum Heizwert von Brennstoffen [Heating with wook, coal, or diesel?]. Naturwissenschaften im Unterricht - Physik, 22(121), 36-37.
Von Borstel, G., Böhm, A., & Hahn, O. (2006). „Powerstoff mit Sauerstoff?“ Kontextnahe Erarbeitung der Löslichkeit von Gasen durch kritisches Hinterfragen von Werbeaussagen [„Powerstuff with oxygen?“ Contextualized contention with solubility of gases by critical analysis of advertisings]. Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, 59, 413-415.
Ware, S. A. (2001). Teaching chemistry from a societal perspective. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 7, 1209-1214.
Yager, R. E., & Lutz, M.V. (1995). STS to enhance total curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 28-35.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). A research based framework for socio-scientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357-377.
Published
2014-03-31
How to Cite
Belova, N., & Eilks, I. (2014). Promoting Societal-Oriented Communication and Decision Making Skills by Learning about Advertising in Science Education. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 4(1), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.211
Section
FOCUS
In order to ensure both the widest dissemination and protection of material published in CEPS Journal, we ask Authors to transfer to the Publisher (Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana) the rights of copyright in the Articles they contribute. This enables the Publisher to ensure protection against infringement.
