Fostering Primary Education Students’ Socio-scientific reasoning through Dialogue within a Virtual Learning Environment.

Author(s):

Stephen Day(presenting / submitting)Hannah James

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

10. Teacher Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

10 SES 07 A, The Role of Digital Technology in Teacher Education

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-24

17:15-18:45

Room:

NM-G107

Chair:

Shosh Leshem

Contribution

Rapid advances in scientific knowledge and understanding present society with new, complex and often controversial socio-scientific issues (SSI). Socio-scientific issues exist at the interface between science and the broader social context in which the products and processes of science are situated (Day and Bryce 2011). Typically, they are part of public discourse, contentious in nature, and require certain skills and abilities from those engaged in reasoning about them. The ability of individuals to critically examine and make thoughtful decisions regarding such issues has been recognised as a major goal for science education across Europe for some time (OECD, 2001). In order to facilitate the development of ‘scientific literacy’, the European Commission has set an EU benchmark which states that ‘by 2020 the share of 15-year-olds with insufficient abilities in reading, mathematics and science should be less than 15 %’ (EACEA/Eurydice, 2011). However, the development of scientific literacy requires more than just ‘learning science’ or ‘learning to do science’. It also required ‘learning about science’ and how it interacts with other societal perspective. It is vital that our students’ develop and practise both the scientific knowledge and understanding and the required critical thinking, communication and decision-making skills to enable them, as citizens, to be sufficiently scientifically literate to make well-informed decisions about problematic socio-scientific issues (SSIs) (Saunders and Rennie, 2013).

Research indicates that socio-scientific discussion is central to the development of students’ functional scientific literacy (Zeidler and Keefer, 2003; Bryce and Day, 2014). In terms of socio-scientific reasoning (SSR), Sadler, Barab and Scott (2007) posit the concept of socio-scientific reasoning as operationalized in terms four constitutive practices involving (1) recognising the inherent complexity of SSIs, (2) examining issues from multiple perspectives, (3) appreciating that SSIs are subject to on-going inquiry, and (4) exhibiting scepticism when presented with potentially biased information. Recently Morin et al,. (2014) has extended Salder, Barab and Scott (2007) socio-scientific reasoning construct by adding two further dimension- Consideration of knowledge's provided by different producers and Exploration of governance modalities involving participation of concerned public. Morin et al., (2014) operationalise their extended SSR construct by suggesting that students reasoning can be assessed using six dimensions. (1)Problematisation: Are the disparate aspects (environmental, social, and economic) of the situation tackled from different perspectives? The graduation deals with the awareness of complexity in the construction of the problem.(2)Interactions: Are the dynamics of socio-ecosystems envisaged over different social, temporal, or spatial scales? The graduation deals with the awareness of complexity of interactions within dynamic systems. (3) Knowledge: How is different knowledge is mobilized? The graduation deals with the articulation of academic and other forms of knowledge. (4) Uncertainties: Are the conditions of validity of knowledge and the techno-scientific risks grasped? The graduation deals with the expression of epistemological doubt (scepticism) and the contextual nature of knowledge claims.(5)Values: Is there an awareness of the values involved in the issue? The graduation deals with the explication and clarification of value positions. (6) Governance: Are the relationships between private and collective interests considered across a variety of social institutions (family groups, peer groups, professional groups, associations, public institutions, nations)? The graduation deals with the extent of consideration for regulatory processes that enable citizen participation in balancing interests. Morin et al., (2014) call this the Socio-Scientific Sustainability (S³R) Model. The aim of this research is to evaluate the extent to which teacher-mediated dialogue through a virtual learning environment (VLE) supports the development of primary education students’ socio-scientific reasoning as they participate in a Science in Society module.

Method

Sixteen primary education students studying a second year optional module called Science in Society as part of their initial teacher education consented to their VLE discussion forum posts, their filmed classroom discussions and their summative assessment being analysed for research. The module was structured around the in-depth exploration of 3 socio-scientific issues using 3 different pedagogical approaches. For example, Climate change and global warming was explored using cooperative learning as the pedagogical approach to small group discussion; Embryonic Stem Cell research was explored through a case-based reasoning pedagogy that involved students being presented with a hypothetical case which contextualises the science behind embryonic stem cell research within a case history of a small boy suffering from β-thalassemia; and the use of animals in medical research involved the use of role-play to facilitate students’ inquiry into the issue to science, politics, the law and the moral and ethical perspectives which impinge on the issue. Twelve students’ agreed to take part in semi-structured interviews that were transcribed for subsequent analysis. The method of analysis of the interview data utilised the constant comparative approach from grounded theory where the analysis of the data consisted of three stages. In the first stage, categories were generated by reading the interview transcripts while listening to the taped interviews to identify common themes. This stage was the constructive phase of data analysis. The second stage involved the integration of the categories and their properties by comparing similarities and differences amongst the categories created in stage one. The third stage involved integrating the data around fewer, more encompassing categories which meant that new categories had to be created, these refined and sharpened, and existing categories further elaborated. This process was not linear; rather the steps formed an iterative process of coding, comparing, and refining (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to form a rich description of what these students’ experience of the module was. Also, the discussion fora posts and module written assessments were analysed against a theoretical framework focused on socio-scientific reasoning devised by Sadler, Barab and Scott (2007) and the S3R model suggested by Morin et al., (2013; 2014). The discussion form posts at the beginning and end of the embryonic stem cell case study and the use of animals in medical research role-play were analysed using the following scoring rubric derived from Morin et al., (2013).

Expected Outcomes

All 16 students indicated that the complexity of the socio-scientific issues (SSI) discussed was challenging with 11 suggesting that they found it difficult to think beyond their own perspective [lacked the ability to view the issues from multiple perspective]. Twelve students mentioned that the climate change debate was challenging, with all students indicated that prior to the climate change discussion they had a limited knowledge of the issue despite having studied a module in sustainable development prior to the start of the Science in Society module. Nine students exhibited a range of misconceptions regarding the role of the ozone layer in global warming. Twelve students also mentioned in their discussion forum posts that they now realised they had previously been unaware of the bias within some of the information presented by the media and in the school curriculum [they recognised their lack of scepticism]. Analysis of the teacher-mediated discussion fora indicate that students’ require most support handling the inherent complexity of the SSI, particularly when multiple and at time, opposing perspectives made negotiating the issue difficult. Five students mentioned that after studying this module they were more likely to closely question sources of evidence suggesting that students’ can develop scepticism towards socio-scientific issues with support, which suggests that online discussion fora provide a useful tool for supporting the development of primary education students’ SSR. Specifically, they facilitate the development and support of students’ critical thinking and their ability to cope with the inherent complexity and multiple perspectives that impact upon different SSIs. However, students’ prior science education experience together with their disposition towards open-mindedness impact heavily upon their interactions during discussions. The S3R model data indicates that SSR patterns are initially different for each issue being discussed but within each discussion students’ SSR grew over the course of the discussion.

References

Bryce, T.G.K., and Day, S.P. (2014). Scepticism and doubt in science and science education: the complexity of global warming as a socio-scientific issue. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9, (4) 599-632 Day, S.P., and Bryce, T.G.K. (2011) Does the Discussion of Socio‐Scientific Issues require a Paradigm Shift in Science Teachers' Thinking?, International Journal of Science Education, 33:12, 1675-1702. EACEA/Eurydice (2011) Science Education in Europe: National Policies, Practices and Research. Brussels: Education Audio-visual and Culture Executive Agency P9 Eurydice. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York. Aldine DeGryler. Morin, O., Simonneaux, L., Simonneaux, J., & Tytler, R. (2013). Digital technology to support students’ socioscientific reasoning about environmental issues. Journal of Biological Education, 47 (3), 157-165. Morin, O., Simonneaux, L., Simonneaux, J., Tytler, R., & Barraza, L. (2014). Developing and Using an S3R Model to Analyze Reasoning in Web‐Based Cross‐National Exchanges on Sustainability. Science Education, 98 (3), 517-542. Ratcliffe, M. & Grace, M. (2003). Science Education/or Citizenship. Teaching Socio-scientific Issues. Maidenhead.: Open University Press. Sadler, T., Barab S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socio-scientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391. Saunders, K and Rennie, L. J. (2013). A pedagogical model for ethical inquiry into socio-scientific issues in science. Research in Science Education, 43, 253-274. Zeidler, D.L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socio-scientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socio-scientific issues and discourse in science education. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

Author Information

Stephen Day (presenting / submitting)

University of the West of Scotland

School of Education

Motherwell

Hannah James

UWS

Education

Ayr

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.