The story of lead: a context for learning about responsible research and innovation (RRI) in the chemistry classroom

Ron Blonder; Esty Zemler; Sherman Rosenfeld

doi:10.1039/C6RP00177G

View PDF VersionPrevious ArticleNext Article

DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00177G (Paper) Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2016, 17, 1145-1155

The story of lead: a context for learning about responsible research and innovation (RRI) in the chemistry classroom†

Ron Blonder *, Esty Zemler and Sherman Rosenfeld
The Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel. E-mail: ron.blonder@weizmann.ac.il

Received 16th August 2016 , Accepted 1st September 2016

First published on 1st September 2016

Abstract

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) stands at the center of several EU projects and represents a contemporary view of the connection between science and society. The goal of RRI is to create a shared understanding of the appropriate behaviors of governments, business and NGOs which are central to building trust and confidence of the public and other stakeholders in research and innovation. In this paper we describe a 4.5 hour lesson, “The Story of Lead,” which was developed for teaching RRI to high school chemistry students, based on the historical story of lead. The lesson is part of a larger module. The lesson connects the chemistry curriculum, related to the scientific aspects of lead, to the 6 RRI dimensions. We describe the progression of the lesson, provide relevant links and teaching materials, and present responses of teachers, after they tried out the lesson. The RRI dimensions are compared to prior work done in the field of Socioscientific Issues (SSI). Based on this evidence, we suggest that the lesson can be a good introduction to the topic of RRI in chemistry classrooms.

Introduction

In this study we describe the evaluation study of a lesson “The Story of Lead”. The lesson was designed to address the need to connect high school science education to the EU call for educating the next generation of researchers to be aware of their responsibility for the environment and the society in which they operate. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) represents a contemporary view of the connection between science and society and stands at the centre of several EU projects. Previous ‘techno-disasters’ together with many facets of the current financial crisis have resulted in a loss of public trust in business and governments across the world. The goal of RRI is to create a shared understanding of the appropriate behaviours of the European Commission, governments, business and NGOs which are central to building trust and confidence of the public and other stakeholders in safe and effective systems, processes and products of innovation (Sutcliffe, 2011).

There are several definitions for Responsible Research and Innovation. The following definition is based on Schomberg and Von Schomberg (2013): RRI “is a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society)”. RRI is built of six dimensions: (1) engagement; (2) open access; (3) ethics; (4) science education; (5) gender equality; and (6) governance. The integration of these dimensions is recommended in order to improve the RRI. We are aware of other dimensions that contribute to the perception of RRI (e.g., anticipation, reflexivity, deliberation) (Owen et al., 2012), however, we decided to focus our efforts on these six dimensions as they were published and recommended by the Horizon 2020 framework of the European commission (2015).

The effort to bring RRI into science education was very recently made. For example, the First European seminar on RRI in Science Education was held in Paris in 2014, “to share questions, challenges, and recommendations for knowledge exchange between projects” relating to topics such as RRI concepts, RRI practices, CPD (Continuous Professional Development), integrating RRI into formal learning, and RRI partnerships. The suggested RRI practices in the classroom include using authentic examples and case studies regarding how RRI has been applied, showing how educators and learners work with ethics, and developing standards for RRI (Okada, 2016).

Several EU-sponsored projects have been devoted to integrating RRI into science education (Table 1). The general approach has been to provide relevant curricular materials to Communities of Teachers, in order for them to engage their students in socio-scientific issues via IBSE (Inquiry-Based Science Education) strategies. For example, the engage projects offer three kinds of materials: dilemma lessons, problem-solution lessons, and scenario-based topics (Okada et al., 2015).

Table 1 Representative EU-Projects designed to integrate RRI with science education

Project name	Project goals and website
Engage	Aims to help teachers develop the beliefs, knowledge and classroom practice for RRI teaching. The project synthesizes contemporary models of professional learning and curriculum development. Its three-stage path (adopts, adapt, and transform) provides: (1) an online community of practice to support teacher reflection; (2) online courses and workshops to add coaching and feedback; (3) a toolkit of examples, explanations and activities to help students learn effectively and (4) open-ended projects to put teachers and students into partnership with practicing scientists, to learn about RRI directly. http://www.engagingscience.eu/en
Parris (Promoting Attainment of Responsible Research and Innovation in Science Education)	Aims to build up a scientifically literate society, which enables its citizens to participate in the research and innovation process as part of RRI. The project offers an integrated approach to Socio-Scientific Inquiry-Based Learning (SSIBL). It collects and shares the existing best practices across Europe and develops learning tools, materials and in/pre-service training courses for science teachers based on the SSIBL approach. The project has established a multidisciplinary team and facilitates networking activities among teachers, teacher educators and educational researchers. http://www.parrise.eu/
RRI tools	Aims to develop a set of digital resources to advocate, train, disseminate and implement RRI to 19 Hubs and 30 countries in the EU. These hubs are responsible for training in the use of these tools, advocating policy makers at national and regional level, and spreading the concept of RRI. The ultimate goal is to bring into being a European community of practice that draws together all people and organizations that are active in this new vision of scientific and social development, and that can use and continuously contribute to the RRI toolkit. http://www.rri-tools.eu/
Responsibility	Aims to create a network of stakeholders that would adopt and diffuse a common understanding in RRI between different actors in Europe and around the globe. The project provides a forum for discussion and determination of RRI, and a virtual Observatory of RRI as a means to develop a structure that would support the enhancement of common understanding and the diffusion of knowledge and the deployment of practical tools. http://responsibility-rri.eu/
HEIRRI (Higher Education Institutions and Responsible Research and Innovation)	Aims to integrate RRI to university education. The premise of this project is that, given that the RRI has the potential to make research and innovation more efficient and address them towards solving global social problems, a strong background in RRI is necessary from the earliest stages of higher education. http://heirri.eu/
Irresistible (Including Responsible Research and innovation in cutting Edge Science and Inquiry-based Science education to improve Teacher’s Ability of Bridging Learning Environments)	Aims to make young people more aware about RRI issues, through curricular materials to be used both in the classroom and in science centers. Each partner country has formed a Community of Learners (CoL) in which teachers work together with formal education experts, informal education experts, and research scientists. The topics are derived from cutting-edge research taking place at each partners’ university. Ten modules will be published and disseminated using www.scientix.eu and through workshops at local and (inter)national conferences. http://www.irresistible-project.eu/

The Irresistible project was designed to educate students and teachers about RRI, via learning modules designed for this purpose. Ten EU countries participated in the project. In this paper we describe an introductory lesson that was developed in Israel for teaching RRI for high school chemistry students by analyzing the historical story of lead. This lesson is part of a larger module, which is described in the Irresistible Website (2015).

Description of the lesson

The 4.5 hour lesson, “The Story of Lead”, is composed of 6 classroom activities presented in Table 2, and described below.

Table 2 Summary of “The Story of Lead”

Class activity	Type of activity	Hours
1. Characteristics of Lead	Classroom lesson	0.5
2. A Short History of Lead Use	Classroom lesson	1.5
3. The Story of Clair Peterson: A Scientist Who Fought Against Leaded Gasoline	Video	1
4. Students Identify RRI Dimensions	Group discussion	0.5
5. Elaborating the 6 RRI Dimensions	Class discussion	0.5
6. Applying RRI Dimensions	Game	0.5

Characteristics of lead

The opening lesson connects the module to the chemistry content that is usually taught. Teachers teach about the chemical properties of element lead (e.g., a bright and silvery metal with a slight shade of blue, a soft metal easy to use for welding and brazing); how it is found in nature; how lead is extracted and produced, the radioactive decays that produce lead, and uses of lead (e.g., lead-sulfur plates in accumulators and some batteries, corrosion-resistant coating, diving and fishing weights). The opening lesson can be introduced when teachers teach about the periodic table or when they teach about radioactive decays; both are part of the high school chemistry curriculum in Israel.

A short history of lead use

After the introduction of the chemical properties of lead, the teachers tell their students about the Romans, who used lead in their water pipes and vessels, including cooking pots and wine bottles. One of the “value-added” aspects of the latter case is that lead neutralized the wine's acidic taste and added a sweet taste to the wine, as presented in eqn (1). Unfortunately, the Romans did not know that lead is poisonous to the human body and can cause severe neurological damage, cognitive damage and sterility. Some historians believe that lead poisoning was a contributing factor to the fall of the Roman Empire.


PbO_(s) + 2CH₃COOH_(aq) → Pb(CH₃COO)_2(aq) + H₂O_(l)	(1)

The first documented evidence of lead's toxicity was made in the 1st century. Pedanius Dioscorides (about 40–90 AD) was a Greek physician who lived in the time of Roman Emperor Nero. He pointed out that lead is toxic and can cause a person to become mentally ill, noting that “Lead makes the mind give way.”

Another aspect of the story of lead is then presented – its connection with the paint industry in the early 20th Century. Lead was used as an additive to speed up drying, increase durability and resist moisture that causes corrosion. Once again, these benefits were offset by the severe problem of lead poisoning, which is especially acute with children. Although this problem was known, it was downplayed by the paint industry. Eventually, lead was outlawed in paints.

The story of Clair Peterson: a scientist who fought against leaded gasoline

To continue the story of lead, the teachers show a video (Cosmos, n.d., episode 7) (n.d.) about Clair Peterson (1922–1995), who campaigned against the oil industry's use of leaded gasoline (The exact minutes that are essential for the lesson are provided in the ESI†). The addition of tetraethyl lead (TEL) helped to reduce engine knock and to design cars with higher compression in the cylinders, resulting in greater power and efficiency. But the health hazards of lead were once again ignored or (as has been recently documented) suppressed by the oil industry. Peterson was a well-respected geochemist, one of the inventors of the lead–lead dating method, which established the age of the Earth at 4.5 billion years. In the mid-1960's, he became an outspoken opponent of leaded gasoline. His efforts, based on his scientific studies on the health hazards of lead, contributed to the outlawing of lead additives in gasoline in the United States in the mid-1970's; unfortunately, today leaded gas is still widely used in other countries, such as in Africa.

Students identify RRI dimensions

This historical case study becomes the basis for a class discussion of the ethical, social and environmental aspects of lead. Students discuss in small groups questions such as “What could have been done to prevent the terrible consequences of lead use? Why did it take hundreds of years before lead poisoning was recognized on a societal level and outlawed? How might society avoid similar dangers, today and in the future?” To engage the students in the discussion the teachers ask them three questions for a group discussion:

(a) Were “red lines” crossed?

(b) What are the reasons?

The groups present their conclusions to the class and the teachers use the class discussion as the catalyst to present the 6 dimensions of RRI: engagement, gender equality, science education, open access, ethics, and governance. Students are challenged to address this question: “Under what circumstances could the story of lead be different? What dimensions of RRI could or should have been applied earlier?”

Elaborating the 6 RRI dimensions

In the class discussion the teachers collect on the board different dimensions raised by the students groups. The teachers guide the students to use “The Story of Lead” to extract the different dimensions of RRI, while adding those dimensions that were not identified by the students (usually science education and gender equality). The teachers present and explain the 6 dimensions. For each dimension the students are asked to suggest questions that could be asked to examine the dimension. Examples of possible questions for each dimension are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Student questions related to each RRI dimension

RRI dimension	Related student questions
Engagement	Which public organizations should be involved in the research or innovation? Are the voices of everyone involved equal in the decision-making process? What is the decision-making process? To what extent (if at all) should people who are not knowledgeable about science influence scientific decisions?
Open access	Is it enough to publish research results in professional journals that are accessible only to the scientific community? If not, how might research results be presented so they are available to the general public? Should studies also publish possible shortcomings and risks of the innovation? Should there be an obligation to publish information about patents?
Ethics	Which ethical values are essential to consider? Does adhering to ethical standards improve research or hinder it? To what extent do the product and its development take into account social and environmental values? Is the development sustainable? Does it take into account possible effects on the future?
Science education	What degree of commitment (if any) should the scientist have to science education? How much effort should scientists and technologists be asked to invest, in order to share their research and development with people who are not experts in these areas?
Gender equality	What is the proper representation of men and women in R & D work? What should happen if there is no proper representation of men and women?
Governance	Who will supervise the work? What stages of research and development need to involve supervision? What should be the source of authority for this supervision? Do scientists and technologists have an obligation to report their work? What specifically should be involved in the process of supervision?

Applying RRI dimensions

A game was played by different student groups. Its purpose was to challenge the students to apply different RRI dimensions to specific information about “The Story of Lead”. In the game, each group was given one of 13 information cards which presented specific information regarding “The Story of Lead” (Table 4). A member of the group rolled a 6-sided die which had a different RRI dimension written on each side, resulting in the random choice of one RRI dimension. In the game, the students are asked to find evidence of the chosen RRI dimension in their information card. For example, one information card shows an advertisement from 1940, in which a miner of lead describes the value of adding lead to paint (see #3 in Table 4). If the group rolled the die and received the RRI dimension of Open Access, they would need to find how this dimension relates to the advertisement. In this case, students might conclude that the advertisement did not present the detrimental characteristics of lead. If the group received the RRI dimension of Governance, they might conclude that during the time of the advertisement there were no standards limiting the addition of lead in paint (such standards were introduced only in the 1950's). If the group received the RRI dimension of Gender, they might conclude that there is no connection with the information card.

Table 4 Description of the cards in the RRI game

Card number	Card content	Link to graphic/information source
1	Advertisement in National Geographic (1923), one of a series of the National Lead Company: “Lead helps to guard your health.”	http://theintellectualist.co/the-insidiousness-of-the-lead-industry-lead-helps-to-guard-your-health/
2	Advertisement of Dutch Paints (n.d.) which claims that the painted walls “don’t just look good. They’re yummy too!”	http://www.trurealty.net/2011/10/13/lead-based-paint-lbp/
3	Advertisement in which a miner of lead describes the value of adding lead to paint (1940).	http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YdgdQBVql5w/UGo_cbQBVGI/AAAAAAAAIQA/ayh1-ih5r9Y/s1600/LeadPaint.jpg
4	A list of regulations regarding the use of lead in paints, in different countries, from 1909 to 1978.	http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/History+of+Lead+Use (Protzman et al., 2016), pp. 7–18
5	Newsweek cover about an investigative journalism article (“Lead and Your Kids”) showing that up to year when lead was regulated in paint (1978) over 3 million children in the USA suffered from lead poisoning.	http://europe.newsweek.com/lead-and-your-kids-205232?rm=eu
6	The changing definition of “lead poisoning in children” (in terms of elevated blood lead levels) from 40 μg dL⁻¹ in 1971 to 10 μg dL⁻¹ in 1991.	http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/History+of+Lead+Use (Protzman et al., 2016), pp. 7–18
7	Description of a tragic case study of lead poisoning in Nigeria (2008), as the result of gold mining. The gold had to be purified from lead and the process released lead dust into the environment, which caused severe lead poisoning, leading to death of 460 children.	http://www.terragraphicsinternational.org/#!nigeria/c1jis
8	Information about tetra ethyl lead (TEL), General Motors' lead additive to gasoline (1923).	http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley,_Jr
9	Information about how General Motors hired a medical consultant, Robert Kehoe, who argued that research did not show that TEL was a public health hazard (1925).	http://www.thenation.com/article/secret-history-lead/
10	Advertisement in National Geographic (1927) presenting TEL’s added value of “high compression.” In the advertisement, the words “TEL” and “lead” are not mentioned. Instead, the additive is called “Ethyl”.	http://www.amazon.com/Ethyl-Gasoline-Compression-Original-Vintage/dp/B007FS9I4E
11	A 1933 advertisement showing a father and son riding in a car, with the son showing his disappointment in saying, “Gee, Pop – They’re all passing you.” The advertisement concludes: “Next time, stop at the Ethyl pump.”	http://advertisingcliche.blogspot.co.il/search/label/1933
12	A list of regulations around the world, prohibiting the use of lead in gasoline from 1970 to 2007.	http://www.lead.org.au/Chronology-Making_Leaded_Petrol_History.pdf
13	Summary of 1985 research conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the reduction of cases in lead poisoning, as a result of regulation.	http://www.nytimes.com/1985/03/05/us/epa-orders-90-percent-cut-in-lead-content-of-gasoline-by-1986.html
14	Data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) regarding the percentage of children under 6 years with elevated blood levels, from 1997–2012.	http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/data/StateConfirmedByYear1997-2012.htm
15	Illustrations from Dutch Boy Paints booklet for children, describing the advantages of lead in different commercial products. The children are encouraged to give these coupons to their parents.	http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/publications/in-vivo/Vol1_Iss16_oct09_02/pov.html

Research questions

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the lesson two research questions were posed. Studying these two questions will provide understanding of teachers’ and students’ perception regarding the lesson, which are both important for the evaluation process.

(1) What are teachers' responses to the “The Story of Lead” lesson and to the RRI framework that is embedded in the lesson?

(2) What are students' responses to the “The Story of Lead” lesson and to the RRI framework as perceived by their teachers?

Methodology

Participants

During three years (2014–2016), forty-two chemistry teachers participated in 4 Communities of Learners (CoL) of the Irresistible project in Israel and 25 of them taught the lesson “The Story of Lead” in their classrooms. All the teachers are high school chemistry teachers with 3–27 years of teaching experience. The teachers enrolled into the CoL for professional development, which was offered to inservice chemistry teachers. Only three teachers had previous experience in integrating societal issues in chemistry teaching; two of these teachers were part of the first CoL that developed this lesson. The other teachers indicated that they had never used the approach of socio-scientific issue in their class.

Data collection and analysis

We collected data related to the main goal of the study, i.e., determining the effectiveness of the “The Story of Lead” lesson. We examined teachers' responses to the lesson on two levels: (a) teachers as learners, and (b) teachers describing their students' reactions to the lesson. The data from different sources were collected for triangulation of the data sources (Swanborn, 1996). The data sources included: an on-line teacher questionnaire; semi-structured interviews with selected teachers who tried the lesson with their students; and minutes of the CoL meetings. The analyses of the interviews, questionnaire, and minutes were done according to basic methods of qualitative data analysis (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). In the following section we elaborate on each analysis of the collected data.

On-line teacher questionnaire

An on-line teacher questionnaire was developed and sent to all 42 teachers who participated in the CoLs. All the teachers filled the questionnaire, which was constructed of three parts:

(1) Previous experience:

• Did you learn about integrating environmental or societal issues in chemistry education before participating in the CoL? (If yes, please indicate where you learnt about this.)

• Do you have any experience in integrating environmental or societal issues in your chemistry teaching? (If yes, please indicate what did you do.)

(2) RRI beyond the CoL meetings:

• Did you apply the RRI framework when you were thinking about issues that are not “The Story of Lead”? (If yes, please indicate the issue and what the trigger was)

• Did you talk about RRI to someone outside school? (If yes, please indicate who was this person and what did you share with him/her.)

• Did you teach “The Story of Lead” in your class? (Yes/No) (Please explain why.)

(3) Students' perceptions of RRI and “The Story of Lead”

This part was sent only to teachers who taught “The Story of Lead” in their classes.

• Please write: How did your students react to the “The Story of Lead” lesson?

• Did you use the term RRI in class, beyond the lesson? (If yes, please give examples.)

• Did your students use the term RRI in class beyond the lesson? (If yes, please give examples.)

The on-line questionnaire was designed to provide the researchers a first glance into all the teachers' responses to “The Story of Lead”. We therefore included several Yes/No questions that were analysed by descriptive statistics using Excel. The open-ended questions were analysed according to the categories that were found in the interviews (three categories; see below).

Semi-structured interviews

Three teachers out of the 25 teachers who taught the “The Story of Lead” lesson in their classes were interviewed; they described their insights into how they and their students experienced the lesson. We selected teachers who taught “The Story of Lead” but did not report to have a previous experience in integrating SSI in their chemistry teaching. In the interview, teachers were able to elaborate on their experience with the lesson in their class as teachers as well as the influence of the lesson and the RRI framework which is derived from the lesson on themselves as scientifically-literate people. Semi-structured interviews (60 min each) with three teachers included two parts (Fontana and Frey, 1998). In the first part, the teachers were requested to freely describe their opinion of the “The Story of Lead” lesson and RRI. The second part was semi structured and focused the teachers describing their teaching of the lesson, and reflecting about students' reactions. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and then analyzed by the first author of this paper according to two main categories that emerged from the open questions in the teacher questionnaire: (1) teachers' transfer of RRI to other settings beyond the “The Study of Lead” lesson, and (2) teachers’ perceptions of students' reactions to the lesson and to the idea of RRI, as well as and their perceived difficulties in learning the lesson. The first author systematically analyzed the interviews in an initial analysis. A secondary analysis for validation was conducted by the third author, who re-read the interview transcriptions and commented on unclear category attribution. Then, the two researchers discussed these cases until they reached agreement on category attribution.

Minutes of the CoL meetings

Teachers' responses as learners were collected by analyzing the minutes of the CoL meetings that occurred after they learned the lesson. After the teachers learned about RRI in the CoL meetings, they continued to meet in the Irresistible teachers’ group to learn more about the Irresistible project (beyond “The Story of Lead”). The structure of the CoL, in which we conducted the professional development, invited teachers to raise their ideas and to elaborate on them (DuFour, 2004). In the CoL meetings, teachers spontaneously raised issues they heard about on the radio, or read about in the newspaper, which should be examined using the RRI perspective.

The second author of this paper wrote the protocol of the discussions held during the CoL meetings. From reading the minutes, we could learn about the teachers' perceptions regarding RRI and its relation to everyday life. The minutes also helped us triangulate the data that were collected from the interviews and analyzed according to issues that were revealed during the meetings. After the completion of the analysis of the teacher interviews, the first author read the minutes of the CoL meetings and looked for evidence regarding the two categories.

Results

The results will be presented according to the research tools and the integration of the results will be then conducted in the discussion section.

Teacher on-line questionnaire

More than half of the teachers who participated in the CoL (25) were familiar with the idea of integrating socio-scientific issues (SSI) in chemistry education before they attended the CoL. They had learned this aspect of chemistry education in different professional development courses. However, only three teachers reported that they actually integrated SSI into their chemistry teaching before they learned the “The Story of Lead” lesson. Two of these three teachers were part of the first CoL that developed the “The Story of Lead” lesson. These two teachers were selected to participate in the first CoL based on their reputation in integrating SSI in their teaching. The third teacher participated in the second CoL and reported that she conducted a debate and activity regarding the construction of a new power station near the school. She also wrote that conducting this activity motivated her to further learn about integration of SSI in her teaching and to participate in the CoL. The results of the teacher questionnaire are presented in Fig. 1 and described in the next section, according to the two categories mentioned above.


	Fig. 1 Teachers' responses to the on-line questionnaire: their previous experience with SSI, and their using RRI beyond the CoL meetings.

(1) Transferring RRI to other settings beyond the “The Story of Lead” lesson

The teacher’s questionnaire also checked different levels of applying or transferring the RRI frame beyond “The Story of Lead”. Almost all the teachers reported that they personally applied the RRI frame to analyse different stories, as presented in Fig. 1. They wrote examples of these stories, as presented in Table 5. E.g., being more critical when they see advertisement of new medication in the TV; thinking about hidden interests that promote using natural gas that was found in Mediterranean Sea in front of the Israeli shore. The teachers also reported that they talked about RRI outside the classroom and shared their knowledge and insights with their family and colleagues.

Table 5 Examples of teachers' trnasfering RRI beyond “The Story of Lead” in the classroom and outside the school setting

Transfer setting	Examples
Thinking about RRI	“When I see an advertisement about a new medical treatment, I immediately think: What are the hidden interests of this medicine?” “When I read about the air pollution in the northern part of Israel, I thought that there are people or factories who want to hide this information from the public.”
Telling about RRI to others	“In Passover we usually serve the dessert in crystal glasses. This year I didn't use them because of the lead that is added to the crystal glasses to make them shine. I know that the acidity of the fruits salad may dissolve the lead ions. I explained that to my family and told them about “The Story of Lead”. “I told my husband about hidden interests of medicine factories that sometimes do not benefit public health when there is a conflict with the company's profits.”
Discussing RRI with students	“Since I taught “The Story of Lead,” my students and I are more aware of the news items we hear that are relevant to RRI and we talk about this in class. One example is the new natural gas agreement that is supposed to be signed soon Israel.” “I taught the students about the ammonia production and the Fritz Haber process during the First World War. This topic immediately lead the class to an active RRI discussion. This was the first time that this happened to me when I taught the Fritz Haber process.”

Twenty five of the teachers reported that they actually taught “The Story of Lead” in their classes (see Fig. 1). They were able to integrate the lesson when they taught about metals in their teaching of the Periodic Table in the chemistry curriculum. These teachers answered three more questions related to their students' reactions and the influence of the lesson on their teaching (see part 3 in teachers' questionnaire). The teachers reported that after they taught “The Story of Lead” they used RRI with their students in a variety of subjects that they taught in the chemistry lessons. Examples are presented in Table 5.

(2) Teacher perceptions of students' reactions to the lesson and to the idea of RRI, as well as their perceived difficulties in learning the lesson.

According to teachers' questionnaires, students reacted favourably to the 4.5 hour lesson. Studying historical examples regarding “The Story of Lead” motivated students to ask questions and debate different positions – in favour or against different uses of lead. After students responded intuitively to these historic examples, they were presented with the 6 RRI dimensions (as defined by the European Union) and integrated their questions into these dimensions (Table 3). Below we present selected teacher quotations that exemplify their students' reactions to the lesson and to RRI.

The process of the lesson guided students to apply their emotional responses to historical examples (such as leaded paint and leaded gasoline) to the different RRI dimensions. As one teacher reported:

“My 9th grade students had different reactions to the lesson. Some students were angry because they felt that the people had the right to know all the information about the risks of the lead before using it, and yet the information about lead was hidden from them (the “Open Access” dimension). They felt that this wasn't fair and not ethical. Others blamed the governmental company and felt it did not behave decently with the researcher (Dr Clair Peterson). The students supported Dr Peterson's reactions and attitude.”

The same teacher wrote that the lesson provided a “unique perspective” which students would try to use in the future, as responsible scientists:

“What is really new to these students is the unique perspective of how to look at and deal with scientific ethical issues. Their involvement in the lesson made them realize how important it is to be a responsible scientist and what a difficult mission this is. They told me that they would love to be scientific researchers, and definitely will take into consideration all the ethical issues and the RRI dimensions they learned in the lesson, even if they do not become scientists.”

Another teacher echoed this sentiment, regarding her students and wrote:

“The lesson was new for my students. Although they recognized some of the RRI dimensions, this was a new way of thinking for them. It caused them to think differently and to apply these dimensions to new situations, such as the development of medicines, the use of pesticides, and other topics.”

Still another teacher emphasized how this “new way of thinking” affected her students:

“My students never before connected society with chemistry, and they never before learned about the 6 RRI dimensions. They never before examined how scientists can deal with the social consequences of poisonous substances, such as lead. They were amazed at the courage of Clair Peterson, who exposed this issue in public. They asked themselves: “Would we have the courage to do something similar, to stand up for the truth, even if doing so might have negative consequences for us?”

This teacher also explained that the lesson led her students to learn to debate the social consequences of scientific innovations. Through participating in these debates, her students told her that they had learned several important skills:

“My students told me that they learned to stand in front of others and defend their opinions. They told me they learned to gather evidence to defend their opinions. They also told me that debating an issue helped them to learn new things and to learn that they could change their opinions. All of this was new to them.”

In the teachers’ questionnaire the teachers did not report on any difficulty that they faced during teaching the lesson.

Minutes of the CoL meetings

In the CoL meetings, the teachers initiated discussions of local news items from a RRI perspective. These discussions were initiated by the teachers of CoL and were led by the CoL facilitator (first author). They asked themselves the following questions: What information is missing? What stakeholders might benefit? What are the health considerations, including environmental problems, which should be taken into account? Examples of issues that were raised by the teachers include:

• Medical companies do not want to invest in the development of some new antibiotics because these medicines are not used in chronic diseases and therefore are not profitable.

• A recent study shows that babies in Haifa (a city in the northern Israel) are born with smaller head perimeters than babies in the rest of the country. This study was not accepted by the health authorities in Israel and disappeared from the news.

• What water should we drink? This question was raised in a television program that investigated the different commercial water filer systems on the market.

• A “fair trade” logo was discovered by one of the teachers while she was drinking coffee. This raised the issue of child slavery in the coffee production process.

These examples show that the issues that were raised by the teachers came from different sources and represent a variety of fields. These examples provide good evidence that the teachers actually internalized the idea of RRI and were also able to transfer the use of RRI beyond the original issues that were presented in the “The Story of Lead” lesson.

The teachers also found that the lesson influenced the way they examine the world around them. For example, when one teacher heard a journalist podcast regarding air pollution in the north of the country she said:

“When I heard the news about the air pollution in Haifa [a city in the north of Israel] I started to think about different RRI dimensions in this story: why do we hear about this only now? Those factories have been releasing pollution for more than 40 years! What are the hidden interests of those who conducted this research about the health problem resulting from the air pollution? Where were the authorities during all these years? I will definitely conduct a discussion with my students about this issue in my next chemistry lesson.”

The teachers did not discuss the teaching of the “The Story of Lead” lesson in class since they were able to do it only after the completion of the CoL meetings.

Teacher interviews

While analysing the interviews we searched for evidence related to the two research questions. In this data source we found evidence for students’ difficulties.

(1) Transferring RRI to other settings beyond “The Story of Lead”

Analysing the teacher interviews supported the insights that were gained from the questionnaire. The teachers reported that the students were engaged in the “The Story of Lead” lesson. Students provided examples from the local news for using RRI in other issues beyond “The Story of Lead”. The examples that were given in the interview repeated and strengthen the data that were gathered from the teachers' questionnaire. An additional aspect that was raised in the interview related to the influence of the lesson on students and teachers showed that the lesson influence went far beyond the example of lead, as can be seen in the following teacher response:

“Since I taught the lesson “The Story of Lead”, my students and I use the term RRI as a verb. When there is an opportunity to discuss a scientific issue that is related to society I say to my students: “Let's do a RRI on this issue' and my students examine the issue through the six dimensions of RRI.”

This notion of using the word RRI as a verb, that both the students and the teachers use as a code for its six-fold meaning, was mentioned by other teachers as well. They described that after they had taught the “The Story of Lead” lesson, their students bring to class issues they heard about in the news and ask to “do a RRI” on the issue. This process includes discussing the scientific aspects of an issue and then looking for hidden stakeholders that might have an interest in promoting or inhibiting the issue or its publication in open access media. This finding strengthens the examples that were provided in the questionnaire of transferring the RRI frame to other issues, which was done by the students and the teachers.

(2) Teachers’ perceptions of students' reactions to the lesson and to the idea of RRI, as well as their perceived difficulties in learning the lesson.

The interview provided the teachers with an opportunity to report on the difficulties that they faced before and during teaching the lesson. One teacher was concerned that “The Story of Lead” would be boring for her students. She said “I was concerned that my students won't like a historical story in middle of a science lesson. To my surprise they were fascinating about the story. I was glad that I dared to try something new.”

Another difficulty was expressed by one of the teachers. She reported that dealing with RRI was often difficult for even the best chemistry students, as reflected by an excellent chemistry student who said to his teacher the following:

“One of my students (an excellent student) told me that it is much more difficult to do RRI on a scientific issue than it is to answer questions in chemistry, because in chemistry you have only one right answer for any question. But when you try to answer RRI questions, there are many aspects to examine and this is much more difficult.”

Discussion

In the discussion we will first refer to the research questions for providing an integrative answer based on all the research tools applied in the study. We will then discuss our findings in light of the field of SSI in order to understand the differences between RRI and SSI.

What are teachers' responses to “The Story of Lead” lesson and to RRI framework that is embedded in the lesson?

The results obtained from the different research tools (minutes of CoL meetings, teachers' questionnaire, and teachers' interviews) show that the teachers who participated in the CoLs dealing with RRI and the “The Story of Lead” lesson strongly identified with the framework of RRI. They described what they thought about RRI in new situations (e.g., when they read the newspaper or saw TV) and shared the RRI idea with family members. They also reported that after being acquaintance with RRI through learning the “The Story of Lead” lesson, they started to think about the hidden interests of the participants in controversial socio-scientific issue. They used the 6 dimensions of RRI to examine these issues. These teachers' responses can be considered as a positive outcome of the lesson. As a result of their exposure to the lesson, the teachers started to critically examine the world, combining their scientific knowledge with the RRI dimensions tool box. This result – that the teachers experienced the lesson as learners and identified with its goals and ideas – is a necessary stage for the sustainable implementation of an educational innovation (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2010).

In addition to their personal identification with the RRI framework while they learned the “The Story of Lead” lesson, more than half of the teachers chose to teach the lesson in their classes. Several studies show that effective professional development needs to have these two stages: first, the teachers need to experience the innovation as learners and then they can adapt the innovative teaching as teachers. In the current study the teachers reported on these two essential stages (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2010).

Prior research has explored teachers' perspectives regarding the use of socio-scientific issues (SSI) in the context of science teaching (Sadler et al., 2006). Different teachers’ profiles were identified in regard to the way teachers adopted or chose not to use SSI in the science teaching; teachers who incorporated SSI in their classrooms highly-identified with the SSI approach. However, “even among those high school teachers who supported the idea of SSI curricula, most reported that they failed to incorporate these themes in their own classrooms because of constraints imposed upon them.” (Sadler et al., 2006, p. 368); in other words, the initial stage of identifying with the innovation is not enough. Similarly, in the present study, we found that all the teachers were personally engaged with “The Story of Lead”; they talked about “The Story of Lead” and about RRI outside the school and thought about RRI when they heard news about controversial SSI. But we also found that only 25 teachers (out of the 42 who participated in the CoL) taught “The Story of Lead” in their class. More research should be conducted in order to learn about the factors that supported teachers to introduce this approach in their science teaching.

What are students' responses to “The Story of Lead” lesson and to RRI framework as perceived by their teachers?

According to teachers' reports in the questionnaire and in the interviews, students were engaged in the “The Story of Lead” lesson. They actively participated in the lesson and inquired into the factors which could prevent the catastrophe of lead poisoning in paints and gasoline. The teachers reported that the students appreciated the honesty and the courage of Clair Peterson, the scientist who exposed the harmful effects of lead poisoning. Students had never connected these character traits with the work of a scientist. Moreover, students were able to transfer the RRI framework that they learned using the historical story about lead to contemporary socio-scientific issues. Turning the RRI into a verb, and using this verb to examine a SSI with the 6 RRI dimensions is a great learning achievement of the lesson. In addition to their enthusiasm for applying RRI to SSI, students also expressed some difficulties that were raised during the teachers' interviews. The students felt that the reasoning that occurs during examination of SSI differs from the scientific reasoning they apply in school science. In a scientific question you have a right answer but when you try to answer a SSI-related question there is not one right answer. The students were facing the “informal reasoning” approach that is usually applied when discussing a real-life ill-defined SSI (Sadler, 2004; Sadler and Zeidler, 2005).

The connection between SSI and RRI

Socio-scientific issues (SSI) are a well-accepted field in science education research and practice. It deals with real-world, controversial, and socially relevant problems that are informed by science and often include an ethical component (Sadler et al., 2007). Before the European commission started to implement RRI in science education (2015), the SSI approach has been implemented in science curricula throughout the world. Issues such as global climate change and energy systems, genetically modified food, nanotechnologies, gene therapy, and pharmaceuticals were used for these curricula (Albe et al., 2014; Hofstein et al., 2014). In general, dealing with SSI often involves argumentation and decision-making about social dilemmas linked to scientific topics that are typically open-ended and ill-structured which citizens find in their lives (Molinatti et al., 2010). Students need to argue for or against different positions and to be able to support their opinions, based on strong scientific evidence and logical reasoning (Sadler, 2004). Clearly, argumentation in SSI is different from argumentation in scientific thinking and scientific reasoning (Sadler, 2004; Sadler and Zeidler, 2005). This difference – between the formal reasoning of science and the informal reasoning of SSI – makes it difficult for some teachers to adopt SSI pedagogy and to implement it in their science teaching (Sadler et al., 2006; Albe et al., 2014).

Below we review how the six dimensions of RRI are treated in the SSI literature. What contribution might these dimensions make in the implementation of SSI in the science classroom?

In the RRI framework, the contribution of the different societal partners in the scientific process is called Engagement (Table 3). The engagement dimension emphasizes the importance of the contribution of different societal entities in the process of decision-making. The students who learn to engage in RRI will ask questions like: Who should be involved in this decision? What hidden interests do each of the participants have? In comparison, similar descriptions exist in the SSI literature. For example, Bauer (2009) describes the contributors to decision-making process regarding SSI that include political and economic considerations, writing by journalists and NGOs, and science education. His “cycles of influence” that reflect the relationship between science and society were implemented in Eilks' pedagogical stages for teaching SSI (e.g., Marks and Eilks, 2009).

The above list of contributors to the scientific knowledge include Science education (Bauer, 2009; Hofstein et al., 2014). The SSI movement led to the development of many science curricula that integrated SSI with science content. However, the involvement of science education in the RRI dimension (fourth dimension in Table 3) goes beyond including science education in the list of contributors to the development of scientific knowledge. The explicit emphasis of this RRI dimension is on the obligation of the scientists to contribute to the field of science education, by communicating their cutting-edge development to the public in settings such as science classrooms and science museums.

The third RRI dimension is the Ethics dimension (third dimension in Table 3). This dimension can be identified as the most common dimension integrated in SSI. Ethical considerations are part of an important component of a wide variety of curricula dealing with different scientific topics, such as nanoethics in teaching nanotechnology (Schummer, 2007; Sakhnini and Blonder, 2015); ethics in genetics debates (Zohar and Nemet, 2002; Sadler and Zeidler, 2005); environmental issues (Marks and Eilks, 2009; Mandler et al., 2012) etc. This RRI dimension was therefore built upon previous knowledge in science education and, more specifically, in the prior experience of the SSI movement.

The fourth RRI dimension which we would like to discuss in light of the SSI literature is “Open access” (second dimension in Table 3). In the “The Story of Lead” lesson, this dimension played a central role in the story because of the lack of public accessibility to scientific research, which had clearly demonstrated the harmful influence of lead on health. Thus, open access is a key RRI dimension for any technological innovation. In comparison, in the SSI approach, “the indirect link of the scientific information to society can be understood by means of valid models of information transfer” (Hofstein et al., 2014, p. 93); moreover, according to the authors, there is a dynamic interaction between the researchers who create the knowledge and the citizens who consume it. This interaction is mediated by intermediary mechanisms that include journalists, NGOs, politicians, lobby groups, etc., which imply “open access” to this knowledge. In the RRI's language framework, the role of the scientist is to keep the channel of scientific knowledge open, while the role of society is to consume and critique the available scientific information. Parenthetically, this dimension emphasizes the important of the “science education” dimension discussed above, which can provide future citizens the knowledge and skills necessary for them to be involved in such a process (Stengers, 2014).

The “Gender Equality” dimension of the RRI framework differs from the other RRI dimensions. It is clear that society should strive to achieve gender equality and equality in general. However, we did not find ways to connect this valuable goal to a controversial SSI. Nonetheless, this is one of the 6 RRI dimensions. In regard to RRI, although this dimension did not work as a useful lens with which to examine the SSI, it is known that SSI is very motivating for girls (Simonneaux, 2014). In addition, the inclusion of the gender dimension in the RRI framework not only gives the gender equality attention, but it also influences girls' self-efficacy positively (Mamlok-Naaman et al., 2011) and encourages them to take an active role in science.

The last dimension provided by the RRI framework is the “Governance” (Table 3). This dimension raises a new perspective that was only briefly included (as far as we know) in the SSI movement (Simonneaux, 2014). Questions included in this dimension are: Who will supervise the work? What is the source of authority for this supervision? Who looks out for the public good in technological developments? Do scientists and technologists have an obligation to report their work? (For more related questions, see Table 3) These questions do not seem to have a major part in SSI discussions in school science. It is interesting to note that the dimension of trusting the governance to defend the public interest is different in different countries. A comparative study that was conducted in Finland, Austria, France, Israel and the US found that students from these countries showed different level of trust in their government regarding new-developed applications in nanotechnology (Gardner et al., in press). Nonetheless, the dimension of Governance is a critical dimension in the RRI approach and can contribute to the analysis of any SSI.

As a result of the above review, comparing the 6 RRI dimensions to prior work done in the field of SSI, we can conclude that most of these dimensions are at least mentioned in the SSI literature, though not in a systematic way. We suggest that these 6 dimensions can make a significant contribution by providing a systematic framework to guide the implementation of SSI in the science classroom.

Conclusions

The study presents solid evidence that the 4.5 hour lesson on “The Story of Lead” can be a good introduction to the topic of RRI in chemistry classrooms. It creates a different way of perceiving the connections between science and society and it activates chemistry teachers and students to be more aware of possible problems that can influence them as responsible scientifically literate citizens.

Most of the six RRI dimensions are at least mentioned in the existing SSI literature. However, the integration of them together in a common guiding framework could provide an operative educational tool that is not difficult for teachers to adopt and for students to understand. We therefore believe that using the RRI dimensions, as six critical lenses, can advance the field of SSI.

We would like to conclude with the following quote from one of our teachers:

“The 6 RRI dimensions are not just good for researchers. They are good for all of us. They build a person's character because they are also good principles for helping you to think deeply and to lead you to better manage your life.”

Acknowledgements

The module “The Story of Lead” was developed within the project IRRESISTIBLE, funded by the EU as FP-7 project number 612367.

References

Albe V., Barrué C., Bencze L., Byhring A. K., Carter L., Grace M., Knain E., Kolstø D., Reis P. and Sperling E., (2014), in Bruguière C., Tiberghien A. and Clément P. (ed.), Topics and trends in current science education, Pintforce, the Netherlands: Springer, vol. 1, pp. 55–70.
Bauer M. W., (2009), The evolution of public understanding of science – discourse and comparative evidence, Science Technology Society, 14, 221–240.
Cosmos A Spacetime Odyssey - Episode 7, http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyNRQOpLdu8.
DuFour R., (2004), What is a “Professional Learning Community”? [electronic version], Educ. Leadership, 61, 6.
Fontana A. and Frey J. H., (1998), in Denzin N. K. and Lincoln Y. S. (ed.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 47–78.
Gardner G. E., Jones M. G., Albe V., Blonder R., Laherto A. and Paechter M., (in press), Undergraduate students' perceptions of the public communication of an emergent technology: an international comparative study, Research in Science Education, DOI:10.1007/s11165-016-9537-7.
Glaser B. and Strauss A., (1967), The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Hofstein A., Nielsen A. J. and Eilks I., (2014), in Bruguière C., Tiberghien A. and Clément P. (ed.), Topics and trends in current science education, Pintforce, the Netherlands: Springer, vol. 1, ch. 6, pp. 85–100.
Horizon 2020 (2015). http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/.
Irresistible, (2015), http://www.irresistible-project.eu/index.php/en, accessed 20 November, 2015.
Loucks-Horsley S., Stiles K. E., Mundry S., Love N. and Hewson P. W., (2010), in Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics, California: Corwin, 3rd edn, ch. 5, pp. 157–278.
Mamlok-Naaman R., Blonder R. and Dori Y. J., (2011), in Chiu M.-H., Gilmer P. J. and Treagust D. F. (ed.), Celebrating the 100th anniversary of madam Maria Sklodowska Curie's Nobel Prize in chemistry, Sense Publishers pp. 119-139.
Mandler D., Mamlok-Naaman R., Blonder R., Yayon M. and Hofstein A., (2012), High-school chemistry teaching through environmentally oriented curricula, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 13, 80–92.
Marks R. and Eilks I., (2009), Promoting scientific literacy using a socio-critical and problemoriented approach to chemistry teaching: concept, examples, experiences, International Journal Environment Science Education, 4, 231–245.
Molinatti G., Girault Y. and Hammond C., (2010), High school students debate the use of embryonic stem cells: the influence of context of decision-making, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 32, 2235–2251.
Okada A., (2016), Responsible Research and Innovation in Science Education, Milton Keynes: The Open University UK - Knowledge Media Institute.
Okada A., Young G. and Sherborne T., (2015), Innovative teaching of responsible research and innovation in science education, Open Education Europa Journal – eLearning Papers, 44, 1–14.
Owen R., Macnaghten P. and Stilgoe J., (2012), Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society, Sci. Public Policy, 39, 751–760.
Protzman C., Whiton F., Kerpchar J., Lewandowski C., Stenberg S. and Grounds P., (2016), The lean practitioner's field book, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Sadler T. D., (2004), Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 41, 513–536.
Sadler T. D. and Zeidler D., (2005a), Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 42, 112–138.
Sadler T. D. and Zeidler D., (2005b), The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues, Sci. Educ., 89, 71–93.
Sadler T. D., Amirshokoohi A., Kazempour M. and Allspaw K. M., (2006), Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: teacher perspectives and strategies, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 43, 353–376.
Sadler T. D., Barab S. A. and Scott B., (2007), What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry?, Res. Sci. Educ., 37, 371–391.
Sakhnini S. and Blonder R., (2015), Essential concepts of nanoscale science and technology for high school students based on a Delphi study by the expert community, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 37, 1699–1738.
Schomberg V. and Von Schomberg R., (2013), in Owen R., Heintz M. and Bessant J. (ed.), Responsible Innovation, London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 51–74.
Schummer J., (2007), in ten Have H. (ed.), Nanotechnologies, ethics and politics, Paris: UNESCO, ch. 3, pp. 79–98.
Simonneaux L., (2014), in Bruguière C., Tiberghien A. and Clément P. (ed.), Topics and trends in current science education, Pintforce, the Netherlands: Springer, vol. 1, pp. 37–54.
Stengers I., (2014), in Bruguière C., Tiberghien A. and Clément P. (ed.), Topics and trends in current science education, Pintforce, the Netherlands: Springer, vol. 1, pp. 159–174.
Sutcliffe H., (2011), A report on Responsible Research and Innovation for the European Commission.
Swanborn P. G., (1996), A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and qualitative research, Quality and Quantity, 30, 19–35.
Zohar A. and Nemet F., (2002), Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 39, 35–62.

Footnote

† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available: All the links to on-line materials. See DOI: 10.1039/c6rp00177g