Exploring Teachers’ Concerns About Bringing Responsible Research and Innovation to European Science Classrooms

References

• Akerson, V. L., Townsend, J. S., Donnely, L. A., Hanson, D. L., Tira, P., & White, O. (2008). Scientific modeling for inquiring teachers network (SMIT’N): The influence on elementary teachers’ views of nature of science, inquiry, and modeling. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 21–40.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apotheker, J., Blonder, R., Akaygün, S., Reis, P., Kampschulte, L., & Laherto, A. (2016). Responsible Research and Innovation in secondary school science classrooms: Experiences from the project IRRESISTIBLE. Pure and Applied Chemistry. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1515/pac-2016-0817
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, D. B., & Palsha, S. A. (1992). Qualities of the Stages of Concern questionnaire and implications for educational innovations. Journal of Educational Research, 85(4), 226–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bamberger, Y. M., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Teacher belief and change about integrating nanoscale science and technology into a secondary science curriculum. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 16(1), 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Bitan-Friedlander, N., Dreyfus, A., & Milgrom, Z. (2004). Types of “teachers in training”: The reactions of primary school science teachers when confronted with the task of implementing an innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 607–619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blonder, R., Zemier, E., & Rosenfeld, S. (2016). The story of lead: A context for learning about Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in the chemistry classroom. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 1145–1155.
   Google Scholar
• Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291–318.
   Google Scholar
• Dass, P. M. (2001). Implementation of instructional innovations in K–8 science classes: Perspectives of inservice teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 969–984.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vocht, M., & Laherto, A. (in press). Profiling teachers based on their professional attitudes towards teaching Responsible Research and Innovation. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.
   Google Scholar
• Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (2005). Case‐based long‐term professional development of science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1413–1446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eagly, A. H. (1992). Uneven progress: Social psychology and the study of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 693–710.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2014). Responsible Research and Innovation, Europe’s ability to respond to societal challenges. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. doi: 10.2777/74572
   Google Scholar
• Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. J., Jr., & Dosset, W. F. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions. Austin: University of Texas.
   Google Scholar
• Hollingshead, B. (2009). The concerns-based adoption model: A framework for examining implementation of a character education program. NASSP Bulletin, 93(3), 166–183.
   Google Scholar
• Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 177–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laherto, A. (2011). Incorporating nanoscale science and technology into secondary school curriculum: Views of nano-trained science teachers. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 7(2), 126–139.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, Y. (2005). Concerns of teachers about technology integration in the USA. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(1), 35–47.
   Google Scholar
• Luft, J. A., & Hewson, P. W. (2014). Research on teacher professional development programs in science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 889–909). ‬New York, NY: Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 275–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newhouse, C. P. (2001). Applying the concerns-based adoption model to research on computers in classrooms. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(5), 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Okada, A., & Bayram-Jacobs, D. (2016). Opportunities and challenges for equipping the next generation for responsible citizenship through the engage hub. In S. McKinney, M. Makgopa, S. Sharma, P. Gray, S. Parhi, D. Jackson-Sillah, S. Vallipuram, & R. Kumar (Eds.), Research papers presented at the 2016 LSME international conference on responsible research in education and management and its impact (pp. 42–57). London, UK: London School of Management Education.
   Google Scholar
• Overbaugh, R., & Ruiling, L. (2008). The impact of a federally funded grant on a professional development program: Teachers’ stages of concern toward technology integration. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2), 45–55.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ratinen, I., Kähkönen, A., Lindell, A., & de Vocht, M. (2016). Does RRI focused science teaching help students incorporate RRI into their inquiry-based lesson plans? In H. Silfverberg & P. Hästö (Eds.), Annual symposium of the Finnish Mathematics and Science Education Research Association 2015 (pp. 122–132). Turku, Finland: The Finnish Mathematics and Science Education Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ruggiu, D. (2015). Anchoring European governance: Two versions of Responsible Research and Innovation and EU fundamental rights as “normative anchor points.” Nanoethics, 9, 217–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shoulders, C. W., & Myers, B. E. (2011). An analysis of national agriscience teacher ambassadors’ stages of concern regarding inquiry-based instruction. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(2), 58–70.
   Google Scholar
• Sutcliffe, H. (2011). A report on Responsible Research and Innovation. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., Walma van der Molen J. H.,& Asma, L. J. (2011). Primary teachers’ attitudes toward science: A new theoretical framework. Science Education, 96(1), 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• van den Hoven, J., & Jacob, K. (2013). Options for strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation: Report of the expert group on the state of art in Europe on Responsible Research and Innovation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar