Biotechnological Issues Portrayed In Chinese Textbooks

Abstract

The current study aims at evaluating whether the discussion of socio-scientific issues in the textbooks could foster the development of students’ decision-making capabilities for SSI embedded in complex settings. Reviewing the literature regarding the learning and teaching of SSI, three research questions have been formulated: (1) To what extent do the textbooks provide balanced discussion of the knowledge background of, and the benefits and problems brought about by the biotechnologies involved in socioscientific controversies? (2) To what extent do the textbooks provide sufficient discussion for the various perspectives on the SSI in particular the values and interests involved? (3) To what extent do the textbooks provide opportunities for students to perform socio-scientific decision-making? Six textbook sets used by students in Mainland China and Hong Kong during their senior secondary schooling, including two Biology textbooks from Mainland China, two Biology textbooks from Hong Kong, and two Liberal Studies textbooks from Hong Kong are sampled. Only the textbooks within these sets with at least one chapter on biotechnology were examined in the current study. The inclusion of the Biology textbooks from mainland China and Hong Kong allowed cross-site comparison to be performed, while the inclusion of Biology and Liberal Studies (an interdisciplinary/integrative subject) textbooks from Hong Kong allowed inter-disciplinary comparison. In terms of coverage, most examined textbooks pointed out the benefits and possible drawbacks brought about by the biotechnologies behind the SSI discussion, with the exception of one sample where students are asked to work on a decision-making exercise. Moreover, although the two Liberal Studies textbooks in Hong Kong provided discussions of the potential benefits and drawbacks of the biotechnologies studied, there is no coverage of the relevant conceptual and technical background. Second, the quality of the presentation of the perspectives of different stakeholders of the SSI varies much among textbooks. One of the samples provided well-substantiated arguments from a variety of involved parties while similar discussion in another sample stops at stating the worries on the potential health effects of “some (unidentified) people”, and the discussion of the values and interests behind the viewpoints is even rarer. Also, only in one of the samples that the students are asked to examine the scientific foundation of the supports to different viewpoints. Lastly, the facilitation of students’ socio-scientific decision making is the weakest component of the coverage of SSI in the examined textbooks. Almost all samples are providing no more two instances for students to make socio-scientific decision-making. Even among these decision-making exercises, only those in one of the samples demand the use of scientific evidences in decision-making. The results of the current and follow-up study could provide guidance to curriculum developers and textbook writers regarding the inclusion of content knowledge, the representations of different positions, and the required scaffolding for meaningful in-class socioscientific discussions in the curriculum materials. The three-dimensional analytical framework deployed might serve as the basis for the development of more matured and generic analytical framework for educational socioscientific texts.