Socioscientific issues via controversy mapping: bringing actor-network theory into the science classroom with digital technology

References

• Aikenhead, G. (1994). What is STS science teaching? In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives in reform. New York: Teachers College Press. Retrieved from https://education.usask.ca/documents/profiles/aikenhead/sts05.htm
   Google Scholar
• Biesta, G. (2007). Education and the democratic person: Towards a political conception of democratic education. Teachers College Record, 109(3), 740–769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birkbak, A. (2013). From networked publics to issue publics: Reconsidering the public/private distinction in web science. In Proceedings of Web Science ‘13. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2464489.
   Google Scholar
• Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1909). Moral principles in education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fensham, P. (1985). Science for all: A reflective essay. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4), 415–435.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fountain, R.-M. (1999). Socio-scientific issues via actor network theory. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 339–358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knain, E. (2015). Science literacy for participation: A systemic functional approach to analysis of school science discourses. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Kolstø, S. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1992). One more turn after the social turn: Easing science studies into the non-modern world. In E. McMullin (Ed.), The social dimensions of science (pp. 272–292). Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2005). From realpolitik to dingpolitik or how to make things public. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy (pp. 14–41). Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B., Jensen, P., Venturini, T., Grauwin, S., & Bouiller, D. (2012). ‘The whole is always smaller than its parts’ – a digital test of Gabriel Tardes' monads. The British Journal of Sociology, 63(4), 590–615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law, J. (2009). Actor network theory and material semiotics. In B. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 141–158). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Linn, M., & Slotta, J. (2000). WISE science. Educational Leadership, 58(2), 29–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madsen, A. (2012). Web-visions as controversy-lenses. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 37(1), 51–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäkitalo, Å. (2014). Learning to engage with science and technoscientific issues in a digital landscape: The arrival of controversy mapping as a method for digital inquiry in a Swedish upper secondary school. University of Gothenburg: Department of Education, Communication and Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Mäkitalo, Å, Solli, A., Ferraz Freire, S., & Elam, M. (2018 forthcoming). Digital inquiry into emerging issues of public concern. Controversy mapping in a Swedish school context. In Å Mäkitalo, T. Nicewonger & M. Elam (Eds.), Designs for experimentation and inquiry: Approaching learning and knowing in digital transformation. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Marres, N. (2015). Why map issues? On controversy analysis as a digital method. Science, Technology and Human Values, 40(5), 655–686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marres, N. (2017). Digital sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marres, N., & Moats, D. (2015). Mapping controversies with social media: The case for symmetry. Social Media and Society, 1(2), 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marres, N., & Rogers, R. (2005). Recipe for tracing the fate of issues and their publics on the Web. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy (pp. 922–933). Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marres, N., & Rogers, R. (2008). Subsuming the ground: How local realities of the Fergana valley, the Narmada dams and the BTC pipeline are put to use on the web. Economy and Society, 37(2), 251–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, A. (1992). From science as knowledge to science as practice. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 1–26). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pierce, C. (2015). Learning about a fish from an ANT: Actor-network theory and science education in the postgenomic era. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(1), 83–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinch, T. (2015). Scientific controversies. In International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 281–286). Oxford: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Pouliot, C. (2008). Students’ inventory of social actors concerned by the controversy surrounding cellular telephones: A case study. Science Education, 92(3), 543–559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regeringskansliet. (2017). Stärkt digital kompetens i skolans styrdokument. [Strengthened digital competence in school directives.] Promemoria 2017–03–09.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, R., & Marres, N. (2000). Landscaping climate change: A mapping technique for understanding science and technology debates on the world wide web. Public Understanding of Science, 9(2), 141–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross Winthereik, B., & NavCom Team. (2016). Navigating complexity: Mapping, visualisation and decision-making – course manual. Copenhagen: IT University of Copenhagen.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T., & Zeidler, D. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909–921.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solli, A., Hillman, T., & Mäkitalo, Å. (2017). Navigating the complexity of socio-scientific controversies: How students make multiple voices present in discourse. Research in Science Education. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.1007/s11165-017-9668-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solomon, J. (1993). Teaching science, technology and society. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stengers, I. (2005). The cosmopolitical proposal. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy (pp. 994–1003). Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: How to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venturini, T. (2012a). Building on faults: How to represent controversies with digital methods. Public Understanding of Science, 21(7), 796–812.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venturini, T. (2012b). What is second-degree objectivity and how could it be represented? Paris: Sciences Po Médialab.
   Google Scholar
• Venturini, T., Jacomy, M., Meunier, A., & Latour, B. (2017). An unexpected journey: A few lessons from Sciences Po médialab’s experience. Big Data and Society, 4(2), 1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venturini, T., & Latour, B. (2010). The social fabric: Digital traces and quali-quantitative methods. In The digital future of the city. Proceedings of futur en seine 2009 (pp. 87–101). Paris: Cap Digital.
   Google Scholar
• Venturini, T., Ricci, D., Mauri, M., Kimbell, L., & Meunier, A. (2015). Designing controversies and their publics. Design Issues, 31(3), 74–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whatmore, S. (2009). Mapping knowledge controversies: Science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise. Progress in Human Geography, 33(5), 587–598.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, S., Wan, Z., & Cheng, M. (2011). Learning nature of science through socioscientific issues. In T. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 245–269). Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Yaneva, A. (2012). Mapping controversies in architecture. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Zeidler, D. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 697–726). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Zeidler, D., Applebaum, S., & Sadler, T. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In T. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 277–305). Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Zeidler, D., & Nichols, B. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58.
   Google Scholar
• Zeidler, D., Sadler, T., Simmons, M., & Howes, E. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar