Impact of Primary Education Students Worldview on the Development of Scientific Reasoning through a Case-Based Discussion.

Author(s):

Hannah James(presenting / submitting)Stephen Day

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

10. Teacher Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

10 SES 14 C, The Role of Teaching Theories and Worldviews

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-26

15:30-17:00

Room:

NM-C214

Chair:

Susann Hofbauer

Contribution

To facilitate the development of young peoples ‘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). The practice of science can be viewed as a human endeavour but it is the social dimension of science [the need for academics to publish; the peer-review process; publication bias; project funding and which projects receives funding] that is rarely acknowledged within science classrooms. In addition, the human dimension of science is often absent from the science curriculum. Prominent science educators have argued that it is time to move the school science curriculum away from its traditional canonical knowledge base [Vision I-like] towards a more humanistic science curriculum [Vision II-like] (Aikenhead, 2006; Bryce, 2010) with the aim of providing students with a more rounded conceptual understanding (i.e. more than purely factual knowledge or practical skills but includes the social element) required to base their decision-making upon when they negotiate controversial socio-scientific issues.

Research suggests that discussion of a socio-scientific issue facilitates students’ development towards functional scientific literacy (Zeidler & Keefer, 2003; Bryce & Day, 2013). Socio-scientific issues are used to involve students in decision-making on global topical issues, (e.g. stem cell research), with the aim of developing the students’ character, moral reasoning, and ability to consider ethically. Understandably, scientific literacy promotes the development of reasoning skills, cognitive abilities, scientific communication skills, and contribute to science as a social endeavour (Hand & Prain, 2006).

Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) has addressed the argument, by incorporating a humanistic science curriculum whilst retaining a traditional canonical scientific knowledge base. Under the CfE science education aims to (i) develop scientifically literate citizens; and (ii) prepare the next generation of scientists. As policy changes so does the interpretation of the policy vision and image (Day and Bryce, 2013). A vision describes the ideal version of the phenomenon, merging and summarising several similar definitions into one vision, and can in some cases be considered to be the extreme version of the phenomenon. A vision is a guide to aid the understanding of a phenomenon, and as such is not a definition per se. The literature currently describes three visions of scientific literacy. Vision I, generally favoured by academic scientists orientates school science towards developing future scientists. Vision II, favoured by others, orientates school science towards having students engage with a variety of science-related situations that confront the general public. More recently, Vision III has made an appearance in the literature; Vision III can be described as active participation in global topical issues, which is termed as science engagement. Although, the terminology science engagement is present in both Vision I and Vision II. In Vision III science engagement refers to the specific aim of developing critical thinking, consensus building and science communication for all (Liu, 2013).

This research aims to investigate how the Science in Society module at The University of the West of Scotland promotes the development of primary education students’ development towards functional scientific literacy. The module is in a unique position as it endeavours to approach science education through a socio-scientific inquiry approach to learning (one not strongly espoused in the policy document). The part of science teaching that is considered to be Vision II, and it is from this unique position that we want to examine how primary education students negotiate a case-based socio-scientific discussion, and what impact students’ worldviews has on how they negotiate a case-based socio-scientific discussion.

Method

Sixteen primary education students studying a second year option module, Science in Society as part of their initial teacher education programme consented to being observed during class time. Twelve of the sixteen students took part in a semi-structured interview which lasted on average 26 minutes. The Science in Society module focuses solely on one part of the CfE science policy, Topical Science. The module was structured around 3 socio-scientific discussions (i) climate change and global warming, ii) embryonic stem cell research iii) the use of animals in medical research. This study focuses on embryonic stem cell research, because of its central position in the module and the emotive nature of the topic. Students explored this topic using a case-based scenario that presented students with a hypothetical case which contextualised the science behind embryonic stem cell research within a case history of a young boy named Douglas with beta-thalassaemia. Students were asked to consider how Douglas’s illness should be treated. Interviews focused on the case-based issue of embryonic stem cell research, an example of an interview question ‘Following on from what was raised in class, do you think Douglas’s parents should go abroad to create a saviour sibling?’. This study is ongoing, round 1 of data collection was completed last year and round 2 of data collection will commence in early 2016. Seven classroom observations were made and data from the observation together with the interview transcripts were analysed using the constant comparative approach from grounded theory, whereby the analysis of data consisted of three stages. In the first stage categories were generated by reading the interview transcripts and observation notes, while listening to the audiotapes from the interviews to identify common themes. In the second stage categories were integrated by comparing similarities and differences between the categories generated in the first stage. In the third stage, data was integrated around fewer, more encompassing categories which meant new categories had to be created, and these in turn refined and elaborated existing categories. This process was not linear; rather the steps formed an iterative process of coding, comparing, and refining (Glaser, 1978) to form a rich description of what these students’ experience of the discussion was.

Expected Outcomes

All sixteen students displayed socio-scientific reasoning as part of functional scientific literacy, (meeting the four criteria defined by Sadler, Barab and Scott (2007)). Students relied on practical reasoning to negotiate the discussion on embryonic stem cell research. Their reliance facilitated the incorporation of ethical, moral and political perspectives into the students’ negotiation of the discussion. Student’s practical reasoning consisted of students using both personal and social values; including religious beliefs, social beliefs and politics. Student’s values had an impact on their view of the case; indeed two students changed their mind when they realised that their faith suggested an alternative view to their own. During the discussion, all three socio-scientific reasoning patterns were exhibited (rationalistic, emotive and intuitive reasoning). But at no point did any of the students share the same reasoning pattern on the same issue within the discussion. This suggests that the issues discussed, did not promote students to use any particular reasoning pattern. Students did not use the science knowledge that they had gained in previous learning (83% of students at least one or more Higher in Biology/Chemistry/Physics). Nor did students consider the discussion to be scientific, and believed they should reason using their ‘feelings’ and opinions. Two thirds of interviewed students stated that they were not aware of learning science during the module. This suggests that the development of scientific literacy was not dominant in students thinking, and that explicit awareness was not critical in the development of the ability to reason about a socio-scientific issue from multiple perspectives. Students’ enactment of practical reasoning altered their perception towards science, from an objective universal knowledge, to a perception of science that is more aligned with Vision II; for example, science can be value laden, and information that they can have an opinion on.

References

Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. Teachers College Press. Bryce, T. (2010). Sardonic Science? The resistance to more humanistic forms of science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5, 591-621. Bryce, T. & Day, S.P. (2013). 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. & Bryce, T. (2013). Curriculum for Excellence Science: Vision or Confusion? Scottish Educational Review, 45 (1), 53-66. EACEA/Eurydice (2011). Science Education in Europe: National Policies, Practices and Research. Brussels: Education Audio-visual and Culture Executive Agency P9 Eurydice. Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA. Hand, B. & Prain, V. (2006). Moving from border crossing to convergence of perspectives in language and science literacy research and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 101-107. Liu, X. (2013). Expanding Notions of Scientific Literacy: A reconceptualization of aims of science education in the knowledge society. Science Education for Diversity: Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8, 23-39. 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. 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

Hannah James (presenting / submitting)

UWS, United Kingdom

Stephen Day