Inquiry-based learning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inquiry-based learning (also enquiry-based learning in British English) is a form of active learning that starts by posing questions, problems or scenarios—rather than simply presenting established facts or portraying a smooth path to knowledge. The process is often assisted by a facilitator. Inquirers will identify and research issues and questions to develop their knowledge or solutions. Inquiry-based learning includes problem-based learning, and is generally used in small scale investigations and projects, as well as research. The inquiry-based instruction is principally very closely related to the development and practice of thinking skills.

History

Inquiry-based learning is primarily a pedagogical method, developed during the discovery learning movement of the 1960s as a response to traditional forms of instruction—where people were required to memorize information from instructional materials, such as direct instruction and rote learning. The philosophy of inquiry based learning finds its antecedents in constructivist learning theories, such as the work of Piaget, Dewey, Vygotsky, and Freire among others, and can be considered a constructivist philosophy. Generating information and making meaning of it based on personal or societal experience is referred to as constructivism. Dewey's experiential learning pedagogy (that is, learning through experiences) comprises the learner actively participating in personal or authentic experiences to make meaning from it. Inquiry can be conducted through experiential learning because inquiry values the same concepts, which include engaging with the content/material in questioning, as well as investigating and collaborating to make meaning. Vygotsky approached constructivism as learning from an experience that is influenced by society and the facilitator. The meaning constructed from an experience can be concluded as an individual or within a group.

In the 1960s Joseph Schwab called for inquiry to be divided into three distinct levels. This was later formalized by Marshall Herron in 1971, who developed the Herron Scale to evaluate the amount of inquiry within a particular lab exercise. Since then, there have been a number of revisions proposed and inquiry can take various forms. There is a spectrum of inquiry-based teaching methods available.

Characteristics

Specific learning processes that people engage in during inquiry-learning include:

• Creating questions of their own
• Obtaining supporting evidence to answer the question(s)
• Explaining the evidence collected
• Connecting the explanation to the knowledge obtained from the investigative process
• Creating an argument and justification for the explanation

Inquiry learning involves developing questions, making observations, doing research to find out what information is already recorded, developing methods for experiments, developing instruments for data collection, collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data, outlining possible explanations and creating predictions for future study.

Levels

There are many different explanations for inquiry teaching and learning and the various levels of inquiry that can exist within those contexts. The article titled The Many Levels of Inquiry by Heather Banchi and Randy Bell (2008) clearly outlines four levels of inquiry.

Level 1: Confirmation Inquiry

The teacher has taught a particular science theme or topic. The teacher then develops questions and a procedure that guides students through an activity where the results are already known. This method is great to reinforce concepts taught and to introduce students into learning to follow procedures, collect and record data correctly and to confirm and deepen understandings.

Level 2: Structured Inquiry

The teacher provides the initial question and an outline of the procedure. Students are to formulate explanations of their findings through evaluating and analyzing the data that they collect.

Level 3: Guided Inquiry

The teacher provides only the research question for the students. The students are responsible for designing and following their own procedures to test that question and then communicate their results and findings.

Level 4: Open/True Inquiry

Students formulate their own research question(s), design and follow through with a developed procedure, and communicate their findings and results. This type of inquiry is often seen in science fair contexts where students drive their own investigative questions.

Banchi and Bell (2008) explain that teachers should begin their inquiry instruction at the lower levels and work their way to open inquiry in order to effectively develop students' inquiry skills. Open inquiry activities are only successful if students are motivated by intrinsic interests and if they are equipped with the skills to conduct their own research study.

Open/true inquiry learning

An important aspect of inquiry-based learning (and science) is the use of open learning, as evidence suggests that only utilizing lower level inquiry is not enough to develop critical and scientific thinking to the full potential. Open learning has no prescribed target or result that people have to achieve. There is an emphasis on the individual manipulating information and creating meaning from a set of given materials or circumstances. In many conventional and structured learning environments, people are told what the outcome is expected to be, and then they are simply expected to 'confirm' or show evidence that this is the case.

Open learning has many benefits. It means students do not simply perform experiments in a routine like fashion, but actually think about the results they collect and what they mean. With traditional non-open lessons there is a tendency for students to say that the experiment 'went wrong' when they collect results contrary to what they are told to expect. In open learning there are no wrong results, and students have to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the results they collect themselves and decide their value.

Open learning has been developed by a number of science educators including the American John Dewey and the German Martin Wagenschein.^{[citation needed]} Wagenschein's ideas particularly complement both open learning and inquiry-based learning in teaching work. He emphasized that students should not be taught bald facts, but should understand and explain what they are learning. His most famous example of this was when he asked physics students to tell him what the speed of a falling object was. Nearly all students would produce an equation, but no students could explain what this equation meant. Wagenschien used this example to show the importance of understanding over knowledge.

Inquisitive learning

Sociologist of education Phillip Brown defined inquisitive learning as learning that is intrinsically motivated (e.g. by curiosity and interest in knowledge for its own sake), as opposed to acquisitive learning that is extrinsically motivated (e.g. by acquiring high scores on examinations to earn credentials). However, occasionally the term inquisitive learning is simply used as a synonym for inquiry-based learning.

Inquiry-based science education

History of science education

Inquiry learning has been used as a teaching and learning tool for thousands of years, however, the use of inquiry within public education has a much briefer history. Ancient Greek and Roman educational philosophies focused much more on the art of agricultural and domestic skills for the middle class and oratory for the wealthy upper class. It was not until the Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason, during the late 17th and 18th century that the subject of Science was considered a respectable academic body of knowledge. Up until the 1900s the study of science within education had a primary focus on memorizing and organizing facts.

John Dewey, a well-known philosopher of education at the beginning of the 20th century, was the first to criticize the fact that science education was not taught in a way to develop young scientific thinkers. Dewey proposed that science should be taught as a process and way of thinking – not as a subject with facts to be memorized. While Dewey was the first to draw attention to this issue, much of the reform within science education followed the lifelong work and efforts of Joseph Schwab. Joseph Schwab was an educator who proposed that science did not need to be a process for identifying stable truths about the world that we live in, but rather science could be a flexible and multi-directional inquiry driven process of thinking and learning. Schwab believed that science in the classroom should more closely reflect the work of practicing scientists. Schwab developed three levels of open inquiry that align with the breakdown of inquiry processes that we see today.

1. Students are provided with questions, methods and materials and are challenged to discover relationships between variables
2. Students are provided with a question, however, the method for research is up to the students to develop
3. Phenomena are proposed but students must develop their own questions and method for research to discover relationships among variables

Today, we know that students at all levels of education can successfully experience and develop deeper level thinking skills through scientific inquiry. The graduated levels of scientific inquiry outlined by Schwab demonstrate that students need to develop thinking skills and strategies prior to being exposed to higher levels of inquiry. Effectively, these skills need to be scaffolded by the teacher or instructor until students are able to develop questions, methods, and conclusions on their own. A catalyst for reform within North American science education was the 1957 launch of Sputnik, the Soviet Union satellite. This historical scientific breakthrough caused a great deal of concern around the science and technology education the American students were receiving. In 1958 the U.S. congress developed and passed the National Defense Education Act in order to provide math and science teachers with adequate teaching materials.

America's National Science Education Standards (NSES) (1996) outlines six important aspects pivotal to inquiry learning in science education.

1. Students should be able to recognize that science is more than memorizing and knowing facts.
2. Students should have the opportunity to develop new knowledge that builds on their prior knowledge and scientific ideas.
3. Students will develop new knowledge by restructuring their previous understandings of scientific concepts and adding new information learned.
4. Learning is influenced by students' social environment whereby they have an opportunity to learn from each other.
5. Students will take control of their learning.
6. The extent to which students are able to learn with deep understanding will influence how transferable their new knowledge is to real life contexts.

In other disciplines/programs

Science naturally lends itself to investigation and collection of data, but it is applicable in other subject areas where people are developing critical thinking and investigation skills. In history, for example, Robert Bain in his article in How Students Learn, describes how to "problematize" history. Bain's idea is to first organize a learning curriculum around central concepts. Next, people studying the curriculum are given a question and primary sources such as eye witness historical accounts, and the task for inquiry is to create an interpretation of history that will answer the central question. It is held that through the inquiry people will develop skills and factual knowledge that supports their answers to a question. They will form an hypothesis, collect and consider information and revisit their hypothesis as they evaluate their data.

Ontario's kindergarten program

After Charles Pascal's report in 2009, the Canadian province of Ontario's Ministry of Education decided to implement a full day kindergarten program that focuses on inquiry and play-based learning, called The Early Learning Kindergarten Program. As of September 2014, all primary schools in Ontario started the program. The curriculum document outlines the philosophy, definitions, process and core learning concepts for the program. Bronfenbrenner's ecological model, Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, Piaget's child development theory and Dewey's experiential learning are the heart of the program's design. As research shows, children learn best through play, whether it is independently or in a group. Three forms of play are noted in the curriculum document, pretend or "pretense" play, socio-dramatic play and constructive play. Through play and authentic experiences, children interact with their environment (people and/or objects) and question things; thus leading to inquiry learning. A chart on page 15 clearly outlines the process of inquiry for young children, including initial engagement, exploration, investigation, and communication. The new program supports holistic approach to learning. For further details, please see the curriculum document.

Since the program is extremely new, there is limited research on its success and areas of improvement. One government research report was released with the initial groups of children in the new kindergarten program. The Final Report: Evaluation of the Implementation of the Ontario Full-Day Early-Learning Kindergarten Program from Vanderlee, Youmans, Peters, and Eastabrook (2012) conclude with primary research that high-need children improved more compared to children who did not attend Ontario's new kindergarten program. As with inquiry-based learning in all divisions and subject areas, longitudinal research is needed to examine the full extent of this teaching/learning method.

Misconceptions about inquiry

There are several common misconceptions regarding inquiry-based science, the first being that inquiry science is simply instruction that teaches students to follow the scientific method. Many teachers had the opportunity to work within the constraints of the scientific method as students themselves and figure inquiry learning must be the same. Inquiry science is not just about solving problems in six simple steps but much more broadly focused on the intellectual problem-solving skills developed throughout a scientific process. Additionally, not every hands-on lesson can be considered inquiry.

Some educators believe that there is only one true method of inquiry, which would be described as the level four: Open Inquiry. While open inquiry may be the most authentic form of inquiry, there are many skills and a level of conceptual understanding that the students must have developed before they can be successful at this high level of inquiry. While inquiry-based science is considered to be a teaching strategy that fosters higher order thinking in students, it should be one of several methods used. A multifaceted approach to science keeps students engaged and learning.

Not every student is going to learn the same amount from an inquiry lesson; students must be invested in the topic of study to authentically reach the set learning goals. Teachers must be prepared to ask students questions to probe their thinking processes in order to assess accurately. Inquiry-science requires a lot of time, effort, and expertise, however, the benefits outweigh the cost when true authentic learning can take place.

Neuroscience complexity

The literature states that inquiry requires multiple cognitive processes and variables, such as causality and co-occurrence that enrich with age and experience. Kuhn, et al. (2000) used explicit training workshops to teach children in grades six to eight in the United States how to inquire through a quantitative study. By completing an inquiry-based task at the end of the study, the participants demonstrated enhanced mental models by applying different inquiry strategies. In a similar study, Kuhan and Pease (2008) completed a longitudinal quantitative study following a set of American children from grades four to six to investigate the effectiveness of scaffolding strategies for inquiry. Results demonstrated that children benefitted from the scaffolding because they outperformed the grade seven control group on an inquiry task. Understanding the neuroscience of inquiry learning the scaffolding process related to it should be reinforced for Ontario's primary teachers as part of their training.

Notes for educators

Inquiry-based learning is fundamental for the development of higher order thinking skills. According to Bloom's Taxonomy, the ability to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information or new understandings indicates a high level of thinking. Teachers should be encouraging divergent thinking and allowing students the freedom to ask their own questions and to learn the effective strategies for discovering the answers. The higher order thinking skills that students have the opportunity to develop during inquiry activities will assist in the critical thinking skills that they will be able to transfer to other subjects.

As shown in the section above on the neuroscience of inquiry learning, it is significant to scaffold students to teach them how to inquire and inquire through the four levels. It cannot be assumed that they know how to inquire without foundational skills. Scaffolding the students at a younger age will result in enriched inquiring learning later.

Inquiry-based learning can be done in multiple formats, including:

• Field-work
• Case studies
• Investigations
• Individual and group projects
• Research projects

Remember to keep in mind...

• Teacher is Facilitator in IBL environment
• Place needs of students and their ideas at the center
• Don't wait for the perfect question, pose multiple open-ended questions.
• Work towards common goal of understanding
• Remain faithful to the students' line of inquiry
• Teach directly on a need-to-know basis
• Encourage students to demonstrate learning using a range of media

Necessity for teacher training

There is a necessity for professional collaboration when executing a new inquiry program (Chu, 2009; Twigg, 2010). The teacher training and process of using inquiry learning should be a joint mission to ensure the maximal amount of resources are used and that the teachers are producing the best learning scenarios. The scholarly literature supports this notion. Twigg's (2010) education professionals who participated in her experiment emphasized year round professional development sessions, such as workshops, weekly meetings and observations, to ensure inquiry is being implemented in the class correctly. Another example is Chu's (2009) study, where the participants appreciated the professional collaboration of educators, information technicians and librarians to provide more resources and expertise for preparing the structure and resources for the inquiry project. To establish a professional collaboration and researched training methods, administration support is required for funding.

Criticism

Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) review of literature found that although constructivists often cite each other's work, empirical evidence is not often cited. Nonetheless the constructivist movement gained great momentum in the 1990s, because many educators began to write about this philosophy of learning.

Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn cite several studies supporting the success of the constructivist problem-based and inquiry learning methods. For example, they describe a project called GenScope, an inquiry-based science software application. Students using the GenScope software showed significant gains over the control groups, with the largest gains shown in students from basic courses.

In contrast, Hmelo-Silver et al. also cite a large study by Geier on the effectiveness of inquiry-based science for middle school students, as demonstrated by their performance on high-stakes standardized tests. The improvement was 14% for the first cohort of students and 13% for the second cohort. This study also found that inquiry-based teaching methods greatly reduced the achievement gap for African-American students.

In a 2006 article, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute's president, Chester E. Finn Jr., was quoted as saying "But like so many things in education, it gets carried to excess... [the approach is] fine to some degree.". The organization ran a study in 2005 concluding that the emphasis states put on inquiry-based learning is too great.

Richard E. Mayer from the University of California, Santa Barbara, wrote in 2004 that there was sufficient research evidence to make any reasonable person skeptical about the benefits of discovery learning—practiced under the guise of cognitive constructivism or social constructivism—as a preferred instructional method. He reviewed research on discovery of problem-solving rules culminating in the 1960s, discovery of conservation strategies culminating in the 1970s, and discovery of LOGO programming strategies culminating in the 1980s. In each case, guided discovery was more effective than pure discovery in helping students learn and transfer.

It should be cautioned that inquiry-based learning takes a lot of planning before implementation. It is not something that can be put into place in the classroom quickly. Measurements must be put in place for how students knowledge and performance will be measured and how standards will be incorporated. The teacher's responsibility during inquiry exercises is to support and facilitate student learning (Bell et al., 769–770). A common mistake teachers make is lacking the vision to see where students' weaknesses lie. According to Bain, teachers cannot assume that students will hold the same assumptions and thinking processes as a professional within that discipline (p. 201).

While some see inquiry-based teaching as increasingly mainstream, it can be perceived as in conflict with standardized testing common in standards-based assessment systems which emphasise the measurement of student knowledge, and meeting of pre-defined criteria, for example the shift towards "fact" in changes to the National Assessment of Educational Progress as a result of the American No Child Left Behind program.

Programs such as the International Baccalaureate (IB) Primary Years Program can be criticized for their claims to be an inquiry based learning program. While there are different types of inquiry (as stated above) the rigid structure of this style of inquiry based learning program almost completely rules out any real inquiry based learning in the lower grades. Each "unit of inquiry" is given to the students, structured to guide them and does not allow students to choose the path or topic of their inquiry. Each unit is carefully planned to connect to the topics the students are required to be learning in school and does not leave room for open inquiry in topics that the students pick. Some may feel that until the inquiry learning process is open inquiry then it is not true inquiry based learning at all. Instead of opportunities to learn through open and student-led inquiry, the IB program is viewed by some to simply be an extra set of learning requirements for the students to complete.

Additional scholarly research literature

Chu (2009) used a mixed method design to examine the outcome of an inquiry project completed by students in Hong Kong with the assistance of multiple educators. Chu's (2009) results show that the children were more motivated and academically successful compared to the control group.

Cindy Hmelo-Silver reviewed a number of reports on a variety studies into problem based learning.

Edelson, Gordin and Pea describe five significant challenges to implementing inquiry-based learning and present strategies for addressing them through the design of technology and curriculum. They present a design history covering four generations of software and curriculum to show how these challenges arise in classrooms and how the design strategies respond to them.

Science education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Science education is the field concerned with sharing science content and process with individuals not traditionally considered part of the scientific community. The learners may be children, college students, or adults within the general public; the field of science education includes work in science content, science process (the scientific method), some social science, and some teaching pedagogy. The standards for science education provide expectations for the development of understanding for students through the entire course of their K-12 education and beyond. The traditional subjects included in the standards are physical, life, earth, space, and human sciences.

Historical background

The first person credited with being employed as a Science teacher in a British public school was William Sharp who left the job at Rugby School in 1850 after establishing Science to the curriculum. Sharp is said to have established a model for Science to be taught throughout the British Public Schools.

The next step came when the British Academy for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) published a report in 1867. BAAS promoted teaching of "pure science" and training of the "scientific habit of mind." The progressive education movement of the time supported the ideology of mental training through the sciences. BAAS emphasized separately pre-professional training in secondary science education. In this way, future BAAS members could be prepared.

The initial development of science teaching was slowed by the lack of qualified teachers. One key development was the founding of the first London School Board in 1870, which discussed the school curriculum; another was the initiation of courses to supply the country with trained science teachers. In both cases the influence of Thomas Henry Huxley was critical. John Tyndall was also influential in the teaching of physical science.

In the US, science education was a scatter of subjects prior to its standardization in the 1890s. The development of a science curriculum in the US emerged gradually after extended debate between two ideologies, citizen science and pre-professional training. As a result of a conference of 30 leading secondary and college educators in Florida, the National Education Association appointed a Committee of Ten in 1892 which had authority to organize future meetings and appoint subject matter committees of the major subjects taught in U.S. secondary schools. The committee was composed of ten educators (all men) and was chaired by Charles Eliot of Harvard University. The Committee of Ten met, and appointed nine conferences committees (Latin, Greek, English, Other Modern Languages, Mathematics, History, Civil Government and Political Economy, and three in science). The three conference committees appointed for science were: physics, astronomy, and chemistry (1); natural history (2); and geography (3). Each committee, appointed by the Committee of Ten, was composed of ten leading specialists from colleges and normal schools, and secondary schools. Each committee met in a different location in the U.S. The three science committees met for three days in the Chicago area. Committee reports were submitted to the Committee of Ten, which met for four days in New York, to create a comprehensive report. In 1894, the NEA published the results of work of these conference committees.

According to the Committee of Ten, the goal of high school was to prepare all students to do well in life, contributing to their well-being and the good of society. Another goal was to prepare some students to succeed in college.

This committee supported the citizen science approach focused on mental training and withheld performance in science studies from consideration for college entrance. The BAAS encouraged their longer standing model in the UK. The US adopted a curriculum was characterized as follows:

• Elementary science should focus on simple natural phenomena (nature study) by means of experiments carried out "in-the-field."
• Secondary science should focus on laboratory work and the committee's prepared lists of specific experiments
• Teaching of facts and principles
• College preparation

The format of shared mental training and pre-professional training consistently dominated the curriculum from its inception to now. However, the movement to incorporate a humanistic approach, such as inclusion of the arts (S.T.E.A.M.), science, technology, society and environment education is growing and being implemented more broadly in the late 20th century (Aikenhead, 1994). Reports by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), including Project 2061, and by the National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment detail goals for science education that link classroom science to practical applications and societal implications.

Fields of Science Education

Science is a universal subject that spans the branch of knowledge that examines the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Science education is most commonly broken down into the following three fields: Biology, Chemistry, and Physics.

Physics Education

Demonstrates a free body

Physics education is characterized by the study of science that deals with matter and energy, and their interactions.

Physics First, a program endorsed by the American Association of Physics Teachers, is a curriculum in which 9th grade students take an introductory physics course. The purpose is to enrich students' understanding of physics, and allow for more detail to be taught in subsequent high school biology and chemistry classes. It also aims to increase the number of students who go on to take 12th grade physics or AP Physics, which are generally elective courses in American high schools.

Physics education in high schools in the United States has suffered the last twenty years because many states now only require three sciences, which can be satisfied by earth/physical science, chemistry, and biology. The fact that many students do not take physics in high school makes it more difficult for those students to take scientific courses in college.

At the university/college level, using appropriate technology-related projects to spark non-physics majors’ interest in learning physics has been shown to be successful. This is a potential opportunity to forge the connection between physics and social benefit.

Chemistry Education

Chemistry education is characterized by the study of science that deals with the composition, structure, and properties of substances and the transformations that they undergo.

Children mix different chemicals in test tubes as part of a science education program.

Chemistry is the study of chemicals and the elements and their effects and attributes. Students in chemistry learn the periodic table. The branch of science education known as "chemistry must be taught in a relevant context in order to promote full understanding of current sustainability issues." As this source states chemistry is a very important subject in school as it teaches students to understand issues in the world. As children are interested by the world around them chemistry teachers can attract interest in turn educating the students further. The subject of chemistry is a very practical based subject meaning most of class time is spent working or completing experiments.

Biology Education

Biology education is characterized by the study of structure, function, heredity, and evolution of all living organisms. Biology itself is the study of living organisms, through different fields including morphology, physiology, anatomy, behavior, origin, and distribution.

Depending on the country and education level, there are many approaches to teaching biology. In the United States, there is a growing emphasis on the ability to investigate and analyze biology related questions over an extended period of time.

Pedagogy

While the public image of science education may be one of simply learning facts by rote, science education in recent history also generally concentrates on the teaching of science concepts and addressing misconceptions that learners may hold regarding science concepts or other content.  Science education has been strongly influenced by constructivist thinking. Constructivism in science education has been informed by an extensive research programme into student thinking and learning in science, and in particular exploring how teachers can facilitate conceptual change towards canonical scientific thinking. Constructivism emphasises the active role of the learner, and the significance of current knowledge and understanding in mediating learning, and the importance of teaching that provides an optimal level of guidance to learners.

The guided-discovery approach to science education

Along with John Dewey, Jerome Bruner, and many others, Arthur Koestler offers a critique of contemporary science education and proposes its replacement with the guided-discovery approach:

To derive pleasure from the art of discovery, as from the other arts, the consumer—in this case the student—must be made to re-live, to some extent, the creative process. In other words, he must be induced, with proper aid and guidance, to make some of the fundamental discoveries of science by himself, to experience in his own mind some of those flashes of insight which have lightened its path. . . . The traditional method of confronting the student not with the problem but with the finished solution, means depriving him of all excitement, [shutting] off the creative impulse, [reducing] the adventure of mankind to a dusty heap of theorems.

Specific hands-on illustrations of this approach are available.

Research

The practice of science education has been increasingly informed by research into science teaching and learning. Research in science education relies on a wide variety of methodologies, borrowed from many branches of science and engineering such as computer science, cognitive science, cognitive psychology and anthropology. Science education research aims to define or characterize what constitutes learning in science and how it is brought about.

John D. Bransford, et al., summarized massive research into student thinking as having three key findings:

Preconceptions 

Prior ideas about how things work are remarkably tenacious and an educator must explicitly address a students' specific misconceptions if the student is to reconfigure his misconception in favour of another explanation. Therefore, it is essential that educators know how to learn about student preconceptions and make this a regular part of their planning.

Knowledge Organization

In order to become truly literate in an area of science, students must, "(a) have a deep foundation of factual knowledge, (b) understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework, and (c) organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application."

Metacognition 

Students will benefit from thinking about their thinking and their learning. They must be taught ways of evaluating their knowledge and what they don't know, evaluating their methods of thinking, and evaluating their conclusions. Some educators and others have practiced and advocated for discussions of pseudoscience as a way to understand what it is to think scientifically and to address the problems introduced by pseudoscience.

Educational technologies are being refined to meet the specific needs of science teachers. One research study examining how cellphones are being used in post-secondary science teaching settings showed that mobile technologies can increase student engagement and motivation in the science classroom.

According to a bibliography on constructivist-oriented research on teaching and learning science in 2005, about 64 percent of studies documented are carried out in the domain of physics, 21 percent in the domain of biology, and 15 percent in chemistry. The major reason for this dominance of physics in the research on teaching and learning appears to be that understanding physics includes difficulties due to the particular nature of physics. Research on students' conceptions has shown that most pre-instructional (everyday) ideas that students bring to physics instruction are in stark contrast to the physics concepts and principles to be achieved – from kindergarten to the tertiary level. Quite often students' ideas are incompatible with physics views. This also holds true for students’ more general patterns of thinking and reasoning.

Science education in different countries

Australia

As in England and Wales, science education in Australia is compulsory up until year 11, where students can choose to study one or more of the branches mentioned above. If they wish to no longer study science, they can choose none of the branches. The science stream is one course up until year 11, meaning students learn in all of the branches giving them a broad idea of what science is all about. The National Curriculum Board of Australia (2009) stated that "The science curriculum will be organised around three interrelated strands: science understanding; science inquiry skills; and science as a human endeavour." These strands give teachers and educators the framework of how they should be instructing their students.

A major problem that has befallen science education in Australia over the last decade is a falling interest in science. Fewer year 10 students are choosing to study science for year 11, which is problematic as these are the years where students form attitudes to pursue science careers. This issue is not unique in Australia, but is happening in countries all over the world.

China

Educational quality in China suffers because a typical classroom contains 50 to 70 students. With over 200 million students, China has the largest educational system in the world. However, only 20% percent of students complete the rigorous ten-year program of formal schooling.

As in many other countries, the science curriculum includes sequenced courses in physics, chemistry, and biology. Science education is given high priority and is driven by textbooks composed by committees of scientists and teachers. Science education in China places great emphasis on memorization, and gives far less attention to problem solving, application of principles to novel situations, interpretations, and predictions.

United Kingdom

In English and Welsh schools, science is a compulsory subject in the National Curriculum. All pupils from 5 to 16 years of age must study science. It is generally taught as a single subject science until sixth form, then splits into subject-specific A levels (physics, chemistry and biology). However, the government has since expressed its desire that those pupils who achieve well at the age of 14 should be offered the opportunity to study the three separate sciences from September 2008. In Scotland the subjects split into chemistry, physics and biology at the age of 13–15 for National 4/5s in these subjects, and there is also a combined science standard grade qualification which students can sit, provided their school offers it.

In September 2006 a new science program of study known as 21st Century Science was introduced as a GCSE option in UK schools, designed to "give all 14 to 16 year old's a worthwhile and inspiring experience of science". In November 2013, Ofsted's survey of science in schools revealed that practical science teaching was not considered important enough. At the majority of English schools, students have the opportunity to study a separate science program as part of their GCSEs, which results in them taking 6 papers at the end of Year 11; this usually fills one of their option 'blocks' and requires more science lessons than those who choose not to partake in separate science or are not invited. Other students who choose not to follow the compulsory additional science course, which results in them taking 4 papers resulting in 2 GCSEs, opposed to the 3 GCSEs given by taking separate science.

United States

In many U.S. states, K-12 educators must adhere to rigid standards or frameworks of what content is to be taught to which age groups. This often leads teachers to rush to "cover" the material, without truly "teaching" it. In addition, the process of science, including such elements as the scientific method and critical thinking, is often overlooked. This emphasis can produce students who pass standardized tests without having developed complex problem solving skills. Although at the college level American science education tends to be less regulated, it is actually more rigorous, with teachers and professors fitting more content into the same time period.

In 1996, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. National Academies produced the National Science Education Standards, which is available online for free in multiple forms. Its focus on inquiry-based science, based on the theory of constructivism rather than on direct instruction of facts and methods, remains controversial. Some research suggests that it is more effective as a model for teaching science.

"The Standards call for more than 'science as process,' in which students learn such skills as observing, inferring, and experimenting. Inquiry is central to science learning. When engaging in inquiry, students describe objects and events, ask questions, construct explanations, test those explanations against current scientific knowledge, and communicate their ideas to others. They identify their assumptions, use critical and logical thinking, and consider alternative explanations. In this way, students actively develop their understanding of science by combining scientific knowledge with reasoning and thinking skills."

Concern about science education and science standards has often been driven by worries that American students lag behind their peers in international rankings. One notable example was the wave of education reforms implemented after the Soviet Union launched its Sputnik satellite in 1957. The first and most prominent of these reforms was led by the Physical Science Study Committee at MIT. In recent years, business leaders such as Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates have called for more emphasis on science education, saying the United States risks losing its economic edge. To this end, Tapping America's Potential is an organization aimed at getting more students to graduate with science, technology, engineering and mathematics degrees. Public opinion surveys, however, indicate most U.S. parents are complacent about science education and that their level of concern has actually declined in recent years.

Prof Sreyashi Jhumki Basu  published extensively on the need for equity in Science Education in the United States.

Furthermore, in the recent National Curriculum Survey conducted by ACT, researchers uncovered a possible disconnect among science educators. "Both middle school/junior high school teachers and post secondary science instructors rate(d) process/inquiry skills as more important than advanced science content topics; high school teachers rate them in exactly the opposite order." Perhaps more communication among educators at the different grade levels in necessary to ensure common goals for students.

2012 science education framework

According to a report from the National Academy of Sciences, the fields of science, technology, and education hold a paramount place in the modern world, but there are not enough workers in the United States entering the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) professions. In 2012 the National Academy of Sciences Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards developed a guiding framework to standardize K-12 science education with the goal of organizing science education systematically across the K-12 years. Titled A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, the publication promotes standardizing K-12 science education in the United States. It emphasizes science educators to focus on a "limited number of disciplinary core ideas and crosscutting concepts, be designed so that students continually build on and revise their knowledge and abilities over multiple years, and support the integration of such knowledge and abilities with the practices needed to engage in scientific inquiry and engineering design."

The report says that in the 21st century Americans need science education in order to engage in and "systematically investigate issues related to their personal and community priorities," as well as to reason scientifically and know how to apply science knowledge. The committee that designed this new framework sees this imperative as a matter of educational equity to the diverse set of schoolchildren. Getting more diverse students into STEM education is a matter of social justice as seen by the committee.

2013 Next Generation Science Standards

In 2013 a new standards for science education were released that update the national standards released in 1996. Developed by 26 state governments and national organizations of scientists and science teachers, the guidelines, called the Next Generation Science Standards, are intended to "combat widespread scientific ignorance, to standardize teaching among states, and to raise the number of high school graduates who choose scientific and technical majors in college...." Included are guidelines for teaching students about topics such as climate change and evolution. An emphasis is teaching the scientific process so that students have a better understanding of the methods of science and can critically evaluate scientific evidence. Organizations that contributed to developing the standards include the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Research Council, and Achieve, a nonprofit organization that was also involved in developing math and English standards.

Informal science education

Young women participate in a conference at the Argonne National Laboratory.

 

Young students use a microscope for the first time, as they examine bacteria a "Discovery Day" organized by Big Brother Mouse, a literacy and education project in Laos.

 

Informal science education is the science teaching and learning that occurs outside of the formal school curriculum in places such as museums, the media, and community-based programs. The National Science Teachers Association has created a position statement on Informal Science Education to define and encourage science learning in many contexts and throughout the lifespan. Research in informal science education is funded in the United States by the National Science Foundation. The Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE) provides resources for the informal science education community.

Examples of informal science education include science centers, science museums, and new digital learning environments (e.g. Global Challenge Award), many of which are members of the Association of Science and Technology Centers (ASTC). The Exploratorium in San Francisco and The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia are the oldest of this type of museum in the United States. Media include TV programs such as NOVA, Newton's Apple, "Bill Nye the Science Guy","Beakman's World", The Magic School Bus, and Dragonfly TV. Early examples of science education on American television included programs by Daniel Q. Posin, such as "Dr. Posin's Universe", "The Universe Around Us", "On the Shoulders of Giants", and "Out of This World". Examples of community-based programs are 4-H Youth Development programs, Hands On Science Outreach, NASA and After school Programs^[53] and Girls at the Center. Home education is encouraged through educational products such as the former (1940-1989) Things of Science subscription service.

In 2010, the National Academies released Surrounded by Science: Learning Science in Informal Environments, based on the National Research Council study, Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Surrounded by Science is a resource book that shows how current research on learning science across informal science settings can guide the thinking, the work, and the discussions among informal science practitioners. This book makes valuable research accessible to those working in informal science: educators, museum professionals, university faculty, youth leaders, media specialists, publishers, broadcast journalists, and many others.

Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities (DHDR) was written for reinforcing the implementation of human rights under the auspices of the UNESCO and the interest of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights and was proclaimed in 1998 "to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"(UDHR) in the city of Valencia. Therefore, it is also known as the Valencia Declaration. 

 

Considering that the major challenge for this new century is the effective and efficient realisation of human rights for all people, and that at the same time is needed that all members of the human family strive for its fulfilment, the DHDR formulates related duties and responsibilities for our current interdependence. Its preamble states categorically: The effective enjoyment and implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms is inextricably linked to the assumption of the duties and responsibilities implicit in those rights.....

After fifty years of the adoption of the UDHR and following human rights instruments, the point of departure of the DHDR Preamble is the shared concern regarding the lack of political will for enforcing globally human rights. Moreover, the DHDR takes into account the new challenges of the global scenario for translating semantically rights into duties and responsibilities. “Recognising the changes that new technologies, scientific development and the process of Mondialisation have brought about, and aware of the need to address their impact upon and potential consequences for human rights and fundamental freedoms“, states in its Preamble.

Its 12 chapters and 41 articles can be compared with the human rights such as formulated in the UDHR and recent initiatives that reflect a similar preoccupation for the formulation of duties and responsibilities, such as the United Nations Millennium Declaration, the Statute of Rome, the Global Compact, The Earth Charter, the Kyoto Protocol, and UNESCO declarations and conventions.

History

The drafting of the declaration has been the result of the committed and disinterested work of a group of experts integrated by Nobel laureates - Joseph Rotblat, Wole Soyinka and Dario Fo -, scientists, artists and philosophers representing all the regions of the world –among them, Federico Mayor Zaragoza, Richard Falk, Ruud Lubbers, Lord Frank Judd, Sergey Kapitsa, Jakob von Uexküll, Fernando Savater-, and the judicious chairmanship of Richard Goldstone from South Africa and among its members. This process was inspired by the need –in words of Justice Goldstone- of the transition from a “formal equality” to a “substantial equality, with a shared concern of the situation of millions of ignored and marginalised people in our globalised world: “the recognition of human rights is insufficient, … if such so rights are to be realized it is necessary that they are enforceable... There must be a duty on all relevant authorities and individuals to enforce those rights.” With a convergent perspective, Norberto Bobbio has entirely supported the initiative and the text of the DHDR, in particular taking into account the main concern for humanity of reinforcing the international systems. In that context he has established an interesting comparison between the transition from “moral rights” to “legal rights” and the need to transform “moral duties” into “legal duties” (See: Norberto Bobbio, Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities, page 98).

This Declaration proposes comprehensively the implicit system of duties and responsibilities contained in our human rights systems, in particular that enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and in subsequent international human rights instruments and establishes consequently their bearers.

The DHDR Chapter I: The General Provisions

In the DHDR Article 1 “duty” and “responsibility” are defined for the purpose of the declaration: "duty" means an ethical or moral obligation; and "responsibility", an obligation that is legally binding under existing international law. The DHDR explains in details the complexity of the exercise of responsibilities. The bearers are the members of the global community that have collective, as well as individual duties and responsibilities, to promote universal observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. “Global community" means both States and non-States actors: international, regional and sub-regional intergovernmental organisations, non-governmental organisations, public and private sector (trans)national corporations, other entities of civil society, peoples, communities and individuals taken as a collective.

The DHDR reflects the gamma of both states and non-states actors that have to be mutual supportive bearers of duties and responsibilities. On the contrary, the UN Millennium Declaration (MD), recent international document of the governments, is focused primarily on the States responsibilities that is shared and collective: “We /heads of State and Government / recognize that, in addition to our separate responsibilities to our individual societies, we have a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level. As leaders we have a duty therefore to all the world’s people…”

The DHDR Article 2 is dedicated to postulate exhaustively the bearers of duties and responsibilities: “Members of the global community have collective, as well as individual duties and responsibilities, to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.…” This declaration considers the existence of collective responsibilities inside the limits traced by the universally recognized rights, with the implicit consequences of accountability that would be fairly distributed. The DHDR addresses simultaneously the responsibilities of individuals and groups. It states: “As the holders of human rights and fundamental freedoms, all individuals, peoples and communities in the exercise of their rights and freedoms, have the duty and responsibility to respect those of others, and a duty to strive for the promotion and observance thereof”. This statement continues appropriately the way initiated by the UDHR in Article 29 and reiterates the interaction of duties, responsibilities and rights of the International Covenants on Human Rights of 1966.

DHDR Chapter 2: The right to life and human security

Most of the titles of the DHDR chapters enunciate a right or fundamental freedom that will be the thematic focus of the related duties and responsibilities. Chapter 2 begins the list of duties and responsibilities with the right to life and human security, rights to be secure for the present and also future generations in the awareness that for the first time in human history the humankind survival is in peril due to human action. Following the UDHR Article 3 “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”; this chapter draws our attention to the intergenerational responsibility.

The DHDR Article 3 is dedicated to the duty and responsibility to protect the life of every member of the human family and ensure the survival of both present and future generations. That means “to take reasonable steps to help others whose lives are threatened, or who are in extreme distress or need”. A key element of the formulation of the DHDR has been the present duty and responsibility for the potential consequences of our actions for the future generations. “The rights of these future generations are the duties of present generations” summarises correctly Federico Mayor, the then Director General UNESCO. Therefore, the right to peace and the right to live in a balanced ecological environment have to be recognized and guaranteed. In a broader sense, the Earth Charter, a declaration of principles for a sustainable world, emphasises the urgency of sharing responsibility for caring for the community of life, including the well-being of human family.

The DHDR Article 4 enunciates the duty and responsibility to promote collective security and a culture of peace of all members of the global community. War and conflict prevention, fostering international peace, global security and cooperation are needed for this purpose. The responsibility of States, according to UN Chapter 7, is underlined and also their duty strengthening mediation, conflict prevention and post-conflict peace-building mechanisms and peace-keeping capacities.

The DHDR Article 5 is dedicated to the duty and responsibility to promote rapid and effective disarmament in the interests of peace. Primarily the States are in charge of reducing military expenditure in favour of human development, and together with no-States actors to carry our nuclear disarmament, to cease any production or use of all chemical and biological weapons, and use of landmines.

The Duty to intervene to prevent gross human rights violations is stated in the DHDR Article 6 that means the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other gross or systematic human rights abuses in all circumstances. States are mainly in charge of preventing and also punishing such violations, and there is also a collective duty of the States to intervene in the case where individual State fails to prevent such abuses. UN Chapter 7 remains general framework for this responsibility. For defining gross human rights violations and the need of prevention and punishment this chapter has been inspired by the Rome Statute that was adopted some months before this Declaration was finalised.

The DHDR Article 7 enunciates the duty and responsibility unconditionally and in all circumstances to respect international humanitarian law during times of armed conflict. This law, commonly infringed, means for the government forces and insurgents, military or paramilitary forces the obligation to refrain from committing acts of genocide; crimes against humanity, and war crimes, as mass killing, torture or rape.

The focus of DHDR Article 8 is the duty and responsibility of humanitarian assistance and intervention to those in need. In a globalised world with millions of displaced people, it is claimed for the adequate provision of food, shelter, health care and other essential requirements for survival to ensure the right to life for everyone on the world.

The DHDR Article 9 finishes this chapter with the duty and responsibility to protect and promote a safe, stable and healthy environment, promoting respect, protection and preservation of the uniqueness and diversity of all forms of life. An adequate use of resources avoiding excessive exploitation and consumption, and a collaborative scientific research and exchange of information are required. This article promotes similarly to the Kyoto Protocol, an international and legally binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gases emissions worldwide, an urgent change of attitude towards the environment. This duty for the present and future generations has already been confirmed by a broad scientific consensus on the existence of climate change and the human responsibility.

DHDR Chapter 3: Human security and an equitable international order

The DHDR Article 10 emphasises the duty and responsibility to promote an equitable international order for the universal enjoyment of sustainable human, economic, social, cultural, political, scientific and technological development and equitably participation in the decision-making processes for an interdependent and technologically well equipped world, providing an extensive vision of the general formulation of the UDHR Article 28: “Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized”. The DHDR statements are categorical: “Economic policies and development should not be pursued at the expense of human rights or social development” (6), “Economic and social development shall not be pursued at the expense of the environment and natural resources” (7), and “As sovereign and equal members of the international community, all States have the right to participate fully, equitably and effectively in international and global institutions and decision-making processes…(8)” Coincidentally to the DHDR proposals the “millennium development goals” of the MD set an influential agenda for a global partnership to fight poverty, establishing shared goals for a better world by 2015. Their fulfilment is measurable indicated by a progress at quantitative level.

Following the previous article, the DHDR Article 11 enunciates the duty to alleviate usurious debt that would endanger human lives and impede economic and social development.

This Chapter continues with the DHDR Article 12 dedicated to the duty and responsibility to promote safe, responsible and equitable scientific and technological development for the benefit of all humankind. The UNESCO spirit of encouraging universally intellectual and moral solidarity is emphasised, in particular taking into account the condition of the lesser scientifically advanced States. In particular this article has received a good reception by several scientists and related people. Neutrality of science appears today as an illusion, in particular considering formerly scientific advances such as in genetics or cybernetics. This DHDR approach reinforces fully the importance of the recent UNESCO ethical documents for biosciences, and also other efforts for codifying ethical principles for the use of science.

The DHDR Article 13 enunciates duties and responsibilities of public and private sector corporations, indicating as common criteria the respect for sovereignty of host countries and simultaneously fully respect and promotion of universal human rights and international labour standards. For having an ethical code of the corporations and for promoting a more sustainable and inclusive global economy, the then UN General Secretary, Kofi Annan, has proposed the Global Compact, an international initiative bringing companies together with UN agencies, labour and civil society to support universal environmental and social principles, that was finally launched in 2000.

The DHDR Article 14 enunciates the duty and responsibility to prevent and punish international and organised crime as a shared task of the members of the global community. This article also has the innovative approach of global cooperation of the Statute of Rome, for combating of international crimes, transnational crimes and organised crime and assisting international criminal tribunals.

The focus of the DHDR Article 15 is the duty and responsibility to eradicate corruption and build an ethical society in both the public and private sectors, implementing codes of conduct and training programmes, and promoting accountability, transparency public awareness of the harm caused by corruption. This emphasis in code of ethics was also encouraged by the Global Compact, in particular for the private sector.

DHDR Chapter 4: Meaningful participation in public affairs

The DHDR Article 16 expresses the duty and responsibility to ensure meaningful participation in public affairs, for ensuring that the authority of government is based upon the will of the people and the rule of law. This promoted participation reiterates the universal right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives of the UDHR Article 21 at different levels, in local, national and global governance.

DHDR Chapter 5: Freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and religion

Following the content of the UDHR Article 19 on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the DHDR Article 17 reformulates the duty and responsibility to respect and ensure freedom of opinion, expression, and the media, providing concrete measures for the world today, affirming the pursuit of truth as unhindered, and condemning any degrading treatment of individuals and the presentation of violence as entertainment. And Article 17 also insists that "the media and journalists have a duty to report honestly and accurately to avoid incitement of racial, ethnic or religious violence or hatred.

The DHDR Article 18 establishes duties and responsibilities concerning information and communications technologies with the aim of ensuring universal access to basic communication and information infrastructure and services. Similarly, UNESCO has already made a recommendation on information promoting universal access to cyberspace.

Complementing the UDHR Article 20 on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association the DHDR Article 19 enunciates the duty and responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure the substantive realisation of the rights to free assembly and freedom of association.

Finally, the DHDR Article 20, following the UDHR Article 18 on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, formulates the related duty and responsibility to respect and ensure freedom of religion, belief and conscience, and of having or not having a religion or belief.

DHDR Chapter 6: The right to personal and physical integrity

The DHDR Article 21 focused on formulating the duty and responsibility to respect and ensure the physical, psychological and personal integrity of all members of the human family in all circumstances, including in situations of armed conflict, reformulate the UDHR articles 10-12 dedicated to the rights to personal integrity and respect for privacy.

The DHDR Article 22 enunciates the duty and responsibility to take all necessary measures to respect and ensure the right to personal liberty and physical security, in first place by the States, preventing arbitrary arrest and detention and ensuring that all arrests and detentions are carried out in accordance with universally recognised standards of fairness and due process.

The DHDR Article 23 emphasises today the duty and responsibility to prohibit and prevent slavery and institutions and practices similar to slavery and slave-like practices including child prostitution, child exploitation, enforced prostitution, debt bondage, serfdom, and other forms of enforced labour inconsistent with international law, punishing such practices; instituting effective controls to prevent the illegal trafficking of persons; creating greater public awareness through education of the human rights abuses associated with such practices. The UDHR Article 4 states that “no one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms”. Today slavery is still not eradicated from the world, although universally condemned.

The DHDR Article 24 enunciates the duty and responsibility to condemn torture and to take all necessary measures to prevent torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, declaring criminal and punishing all acts of torture, cruel and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, enforcing strict controls over places and conditions of custody of persons deprived of their liberty. This enunciation specifies the duty for achieving the content of UDHR Article 5: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

DHDR Article 25: The duty and responsibility to condemn and to prevent and eradicate enforced disappearances declaring criminal and punishing all acts of forced disappearances, ensuring that persons deprived of their liberty are only held in officially recognised places of detention, and that they have adequate access to judicial officers, legal representation, medical personnel and family members during the course of their detention.

DHDR Chapter 7: Equality

After trying to meet the major global challenges of our interdependent world, that are affecting today humankind as a whole. The DHDR Chapter 7 rethinks the principle of equality, such as states in the first UDHR articles. With a similar approach the UNESCO has already approved two meaningful documents promoting cultural diversity, the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001) and the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005). The DHDR Article 26 enunciates in general the duty to respect, ensure and promote the right to equal treatment and to eradicate discrimination in all its forms.

The DHDR Article 27 states the duty and responsibility for the States, in primary place, to respect and ensure the substantive equality of every member of human family, not only ensuring equality before the law, but also taking positive action to prevent direct or indirect discrimination.

In the DHDR Article 28 is enunciated the duty and responsibility to ensure substantive racial and religious equality, that means to ensure the effective enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity, and to condemn all forms of racial and religious discrimination and respect racial, ethnic and religious diversity; promoting equal opportunities for all.

The DHDR Article 29 formulates the duty and responsibility to ensure sex and gender equality and the recognition of women's rights as human rights. In particular the States have to ensure the effective enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination on the basis of sex or gender, promoting the equality in the representation and participation of women in the public and political life, the eradication of cultural, religious and social practices which discriminate against women; the economic empowerment of women and the recognition of the full legal capacity of women.

The DHDR Article 30 is dedicated to the duty and responsibility to ensure the substantive equality of persons with a disability, and to ensure the enjoyment and exercise of all human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination on the basis of disability.

Some progress towards the accomplishment of this duty can be observed at international level. In March 2006, the UN Programme on Disability has been consolidated into the Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

DHDR Chapter 8: Protection of minorities and indigenous peoples

Reinforcing the fulfilment of equality, the aim of the Chapter 8 is to emphasise the need for protection of minorities and indigenous peoples. Both the global community and the States are considered by this Declaration as the major responsible, collectively and individually for ensuring the rights of these vulnerable groups.

The DHDR Article 31 formulates the duty and responsibility to respect and protect the existence, identity and rights of national, ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, having the States a primary duty and responsibility to take adequate measures. The above referred efforts of the UNESCO for protecting the value of cultural diversity and cultural expressions are a reflection of this obligation.

The DHDR Article 32 enunciates the duty and responsibility to respect, protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples, in particular their right to preserve, maintain and develop their identities and to protect their means of livelihood, in a general context of respect of universal human rights. Indigenous rights are diversely protected at national level, but it is much needed that the international community assumes collectively their responsibility. It is also expected that the proposed declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples will be again considered for approval in September 2007 by the UN General Assembly in order to protect these rights universally.

DHDR Chapter 9: Rights of the child and the elderly

The chapter 9 deals also with the implementation of the principle of equality taking into account the primary responsibilities of the States for the children and elderly rights.

The DHDR Article 33 emphasises the duty and responsibility to respect, protect and promote the rights of the child, following the content of the almost universally ratified UN Convention on the Right of the Child (1989) and aware, that although this excellent document is shared broadly by the international community, today million of children are still innocent victims of armed conflict, extreme poverty and hunger.

The DHDR Article 34 is dedicated to the formulation of the duty and responsibility to promote and enforce the rights and wellbeing of the elderly, trying to ensure the full and effective enjoyment by elderly people of all human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination on the basis of age, and to respect the well-being, dignity and physical and personal integrity of the elderly. Although major efforts are being made by the United Nations, such as the International Year of Older Persons (1999) and the formulation UN Principles addressing the independence, participation, care, self-fulfillment and dignity of older persons, and regional and national efforts, it does not exist by now a recognised framework for securing their rights. Therefore, the DHDR constitutes a very interesting contribution for enforcing the rights of the elderly.

DHDR Chapter 10: Work, quality of life and standard of living

The DHDR Chapter 10 complements the system of duties and responsibilities related to the right to work, quality of life and standard of living. For doing that, the DHDR take into account at the same time, the responsibility of the States and the shared responsibility of the world community in the context of the global interdependence.

The DHDR Article 35 formulates the duty and responsibility to promote the right to justly remunerated work, following considerately the UDHR Article 23. Measures such adopting policies designed to promote productive work; ensuring employment security, in particular protection against arbitrary or unfair dismissal; and ensuring equality of opportunity and conditions of work, are proposed by the DHDR.

The DHDR Article 36 emphasises the postponed duty and responsibility to promote quality of life and an adequate standard of living for all. Although in the UDHR Article 22 it states the States obligation of fulfilling “the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality”, today our interdependent world is not free from hunger and there is not universal access to adequate food and clean water for everyone. The DHDR reiterates the shared responsibility for eradicating extreme poverty from the world, in particular if we consider the sufficiency of material resources for meeting this challenge. Similarly, but with a more pragmatic approach, the Millennium Development Goals (2000) establishes an intergovernmental agreement for realising globally human rights. These transitional goals indicate indubitably the correct course for implementing human rights in a continuous process with measurable criteria. However, it would be positive to promote a dialogue on the achievement and evolution of the achievement of those goals with the help of this systematised view on universal duties and responsibilities.

DHDR Chapter 11: Education, arts and culture

The DHDR Chapter 11 is dedicated to formulate duties and responsibilities on the promotion of education, arts and culture, major topics of the UNESCO, such as the programmes “education for all” and its various instruments for securing adequate conditions for education and artistic and cultural activities.

The DHDR Article 37 enunciates the duty and responsibility to promote and enforce the right to education, taking into account that illiteracy still affects millions of people in the developing countries and that is coincident with the already referred Millennium Development Goals.

The DHDR Article 38 emphasises the duty and responsibility to foster arts and culture by the States and the global community in general, similarly to the UNESCO statements.

Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities Chapter 12: Right to a remedy

The DHDR finishes with the Chapter 12 dedicated to the right to a remedy where a human right or fundamental freedom is threatened or has been violated.

The DHDR Article 39 enunciates the duty and responsibility, primarily of the States, to provide for and enforce effective national judicial, administrative, legislative and other remedies for these cases, in similarity with the UDHR Article 8.

This Chapter proposes, finally, in article 40 the duty to monitor and implement the Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities, by establishing tripartite councils composed of State, civil society and private sector representatives in cooperation with States, relevant civil society organisations, national, regional and international inter-governmental organisations,.

The DHDR Article 41 with a non-derogation clause where it states: “Nothing in this Declaration shall be interpreted as impairing or restricting the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international and regional human rights instruments.”