Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• Akaygun, S., & Adadan, E. (2017, May). Teaching Nanotechnology as an Extracurricular Activity: Views of Teachers. Paper presented at the International Conference in Education of Mathematics, Science and Technology (ICEMST), Aydin, Turkey.
• Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating Knowledge of the Nature of (Whole) Science. Science Education, 95(3), 518-542. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20432.
• Apotheker, J., Blonder, R., Akaygun, S., Reis, P., Kampschulte, L., & Laherto, A. (2017). Responsible Research and Innovation in secondary school science classrooms: experiences from the project Irresistible. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 89(2), 211-219. https://doi.org/10.1515/pac-2016-0817.
• Bardone, E., Burget, M., Saage, K., & Taaler, M. (2017). Making Sense of Responsible Research and Innovation in Science Education through Inquiry-based Learning. Examples from the Field. Science Education International, 28(4), 293-304.
• Blonder, R., Rap, S., Zemler, E., &. Rosenfeld, S., (2017). Assessing attitudes about responsible research and innovation (RRI): the development and use of a questionnaire. Sisyphus Journal of Education, 5(3), 122-156.
• Blonder, R., Zemler, 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(4), 1145-1155. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00177G.
• Burguet, M., Bardone, E., & Pedaste, M. (2017). Definitions and conceptual dimensions of responsible research and innovation: A literature review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1.
• de Vocht, M., & Laherto, A. (2017). Profiling teachers based on their professional attitudes towards teaching responsible research and innovation. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(3), 271-284.
• de Vocht, M., Laherto, A., & Parchmann, I. (2017). Exploring teachers’ concerns about bringing Responsible Research and Innovation to European science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(4), pp. 326-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2017.1343602.
• Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554-567. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1023.
• Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014). Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education: Scientific Knowledge, Practices and Other Family Categories. Dordrecht: Springer.
• European Commission (2007). Science Education Now: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. Report to the European Commission of the High Level Group on Science Education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
• European Commission (2012). Responsible research and innovation – Europe’s ability to respond to societal challenges. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
• European Commission (2015). Science Education for Responsible Citizenship. Report to the European Commission of the expert group on science education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
• European Commission (2015b). Indicators for promoting and monitoring Responsible Research and Innovation. Report from the Expert Group on Policy Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
• 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 Inst. of Education (DHEW).
• Heras, M., & Ruiz-Mallén, I. (2017) Responsible research and innovation indicators for science education assessment: how to measure the impact? International Journal of Science Education, 39(18), 2482-2507. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1392643.
• Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20, 591-607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9293-4.
• Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_30.
• Kampschulte, L., & Parchmann, I. (2015). The student-curated exhibition - A new approach to getting in touch with science. LUMAT, 3(4), 462-482.
• Kárpáti, A., & Király, A. (2016, June). Creating a socially sensitive learning environment for science education: The SSIBL framework. In: Teixeira, A. M., Szűcs, A., & Lázár, I. (Eds.), Re-imagining learning scenarios. Paper presented at the EDEN 2016 Annual Conference, Budapest (pp. 599-608).
• Kearney, C. (2016). Efforts to Increase Students’ Interest in Pursuing Mathematics, Science and Technology Studies and Careers. National Measures taken by 30 Countries – 2015 Report. Brussels: European Schoolnet.
• Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 831-879.
• Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on Teaching and Learning of Nature of Science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II (pp. 600-620). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Liu, Y., & Huang, C. (2005). Concerns of teachers about technology integration in the USA. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(1), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760500039928.
• McComas, W., & Olson, J. (1998). The Nature of Science in Science Education. Science and Education, 7(6), 511-523. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008642510402.
• Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39, 751-760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093.
• Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/Science literacy. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Research on science education, Vol. II (pp. 545–558). New York: Routledge.
• Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the ‘Nature of Science’ as a Curriculum Component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202700182628.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0240-3.
• Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9.
• Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.
• Sutcliffe, H. (2011). A report on responsible research and innovation. MATTER / European Commission. Retrieved on 06.07.2017 from https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/rri-report-hilary-sutcliffe_en.pdf.
• von Schomberg, R. (2013). A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118551424.ch3.
• Wenning, C. (2006). Assessing nature-of-science literacy as one component of scientific literacy. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 3(4), 3-14.

APA

Laherto, A., Kampschulte, L., de Vocht, M., Blonder, R., Akaygun, S., & Apotheker, J. (2018). Contextualizing the EU’s “Responsible Research and Innovation” Policy in Science Education: A Conceptual Comparison with the Nature of Science Concept and Practical Examples. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2287-2300. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89513

Vancouver

Laherto A, Kampschulte L, de Vocht M, Blonder R, Akaygun S, Apotheker J. Contextualizing the EU’s “Responsible Research and Innovation” Policy in Science Education: A Conceptual Comparison with the Nature of Science Concept and Practical Examples. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2018;14(6):2287-300. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89513

AMA

Laherto A, Kampschulte L, de Vocht M, Blonder R, Akaygun S, Apotheker J. Contextualizing the EU’s “Responsible Research and Innovation” Policy in Science Education: A Conceptual Comparison with the Nature of Science Concept and Practical Examples. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2018;14(6), 2287-2300. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89513

Chicago

Laherto, Antti, Lorenz Kampschulte, Miikka de Vocht, Ron Blonder, Sevil Akaygun, and Jan Apotheker. "Contextualizing the EU’s “Responsible Research and Innovation” Policy in Science Education: A Conceptual Comparison with the Nature of Science Concept and Practical Examples". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2018 14 no. 6 (2018): 2287-2300. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89513

Harvard

Laherto, A., Kampschulte, L., de Vocht, M., Blonder, R., Akaygun, S., and Apotheker, J. (2018). Contextualizing the EU’s “Responsible Research and Innovation” Policy in Science Education: A Conceptual Comparison with the Nature of Science Concept and Practical Examples. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), pp. 2287-2300. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89513

MLA

Laherto, Antti et al. "Contextualizing the EU’s “Responsible Research and Innovation” Policy in Science Education: A Conceptual Comparison with the Nature of Science Concept and Practical Examples". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 14, no. 6, 2018, pp. 2287-2300. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89513