Abstract
This paper approaches learning as a response instead of the acquisition of something previously expected. More specifically, it describes a process of argumentation on socioscientific issues in a classroom situation in school science amongst 15-year-old students in Sweden. The analysis of an argumentation on abortion in a science classroom highlights how science content becomes relevant to students’ experiences, but also how the students’ unique voices shift focus and cause displacement of the science content. The analysis demonstrates some of the tensions and possible conflicts that may lead to the exclusion of different voices. This paper argues that focusing the research or education on questions that argumentation brings to light creates interesting educational opportunities to identify and incorporate the students’ experiences in the classroom. The results indicate, however, that students’ spontaneous acts lead to some difficulties in finding a point of contact with the rational discourse of science education.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrews, R. (2005). Models of argumentation in educational discourse. Text, 25(1), 107–127.
Andrews, R., & Hertzberg, F. Y. (2009). Introduction: Special issue on argumentation in education in Scandinavia and England. Argumentation, 23(4), 433–436.
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352.
Berner, B., & Nyborg, M. (2004). Ifrågasättanden: Forskning om genus, teknik och naturvetenskap. Linköping: Tema Teknik och social förändring, Linköpings universitet.
Biesta, G. (1994). Pragmatism as a pedagogy of communicative action. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 13(3/4), 273.
Biesta, G. (2001). “Preparing for the incalculable”. Deconstruction, justice and the question of education. In G. J. J. Biesta & D. Egéa-Kuehne (Eds.), Derrida & education (pp. 32–54). London: Routledge.
Biesta, G. (2004). The community of those who have nothing in common: Education and the language of responsibility. Interchange, 35(3), 307–324.
Biesta, G. (2006). Beyond learning: Democratic education for a human future. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
Biesta, G., & Burbules, N. C. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Biesta, G. J. J., & Egéa-Kuehne, D. (2001). Derrida & education. London: Routledge.
Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 282–295.
Dewey, J. (1916/1999). Demokrati och utbildning [Democracy and Education] (N. Sjöden, Trans.). Göteborg: Daidalos.
Dewey, J. (1922/1996). Human Nature & Conduct in L. Hickman (Ed.), Collected works of John Dewey, 1882–1953: The electronic edition (Middle Works) (Vol. 14). Charlottenwille: InteLex Corporation.
Dewey, J. (1925/1996). Experience and Nature. In L. Hickman (Ed.), Collected works of John Dewey, 1882–1953: The electronic edition (Late Works) (Vol. 1): VA: InteLex Corporation.
Dewey, J. (1938/1996). Experience and education. In L. Hickman (Ed.), Collected works of John Dewey, 1882–1953: The electronic edition (Late Works) ([New ed., p. 91). New York: InteLex Corporation.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287.
Ekborg, M., Ideland, M., & Malmberg, C. (2009). Science for all—a conceptual framework for construction and analysis of socio-scientific cases. Nordina, 5(1), 35–46.
Englund, T. (2006). Deliberative communication: A pragmatist proposal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(5), 503–520.
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Foucault, M., Rabinow, P., & Faubion, J. D. (1998). Essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984 (Vol. 2, Aesthetics, method and epistemology. New York). London: New Press; Allen Lane.
Gosselin, C. (2003). In a different voice and the transformative experience: A Deweyan perspective. Educational Theory, 53(1), 91.
Grace, M. M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1157–1169.
Hamza, K. M., & Wickman, P.-O. (2008). Describing and analyzing learning in action: An empirical study of the importance of misconceptions in learning science. Science Education, 92(1), 141–164.
Harding, S. G. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge?: Thinking from women’s lives. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Hodkinson, P., Biesta, G., & James, D. (2008). Understanding learning culturally: Overcoming the dualism between social and individual views of learning. Vocations and Learning, 1(1), 27–47.
Hughes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific material in science-technology-society science curricula: Some implications for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 426–440.
Jakobson, B., & Wickman, P.-O. (2007). Transformation through language use: Childrens spontaneous metaphors in elementary school science. Science & Education, 16(3–5), 267–289.
Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., et al. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation Confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689–1716.
Krupnick, M. (1983). Displacement: Derrida and after. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.
Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387–1408.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Westport: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lundegård, I. (2008). Self, values and the world—Young people in dialogue on sustainable development. In J. Öhman (Ed.), Values and democracy in education for sustainable development: Contributions from Swedish research (pp. 123–144). Sweden: Liber.
Lundegård, I., & Wickman, P.-O. (2007). Conflicts of interest: An indispensable element of education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 13(1), 1–15.
Lundegård, I., & Wickman, P.-O. (2009). Identity transformation in education for sustainable development: A question of location. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(5), 461–479.
Lundin, M. (2007). Questions as a tool for bridging science and everyday language games. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 265–279.
Lundström, M. (2005). Organdonation och transplantation—ett ämne för skolan? [Organ donation and transplantation-a subject in school?]. Malmö: Malmö högskola.
National Agency for Education (2006). Curriculum for the compulsory school system, the pre-school class and the leisure-time centre. Lpo 94 Swedish ministry of education and science [Utbildningsdep.].
Nyström, E. (2007). Talking and taking positions. An encounter between action research and the gendered and racialised discourse of school science. Umeå: Umeå University.
Östman, L. (1998). How meanings are expressed by science education discourse. In D. A. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum. New York: Teacher College Press.
Östman, L. (2008). Analys av utbildningens diskursivitet. Utbildning & Demokrati, 17(3), 113–137.
Roberts, D. A. (1982). The place of qualitative research in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(4), 277–292.
Rorty, R. (1991). Philosophical papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36(1), 1–44.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.
Sadler, T., Chambers, W., & Zeidler, D. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387–409.
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.
Sandoval, W., & Millwood, K. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
Simon, S., & Richardson, K. (2009). Argumentation in school science: Breaking the tradition of authoritative exposition through a pedagogy that promotes discussion and reasoning. Argumentation, 23(4), 469–493.
Sjøberg, S. (2005). Naturvetenskap som allmänbildning: en kritisk ämnesdidaktik (2., rev. uppl./ed.). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Sullivan, S. (2001). Living across and through skins: Transactional bodies, pragmatism and feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Swedish Research Council, V. (2002). Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.
Tiberghien, A. (2008). Foreword in Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (Vol. Science & Technology Education Library; 35). Dordrecht: Springer.
Todd, S. (2003). Learning from the other: Levinas, psychoanalysis, and ethical possibilities in education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wickman, P. O. (2004). The practical epistemologies of the classroom: A study of laboratory work. Science Education, 88(3), 325–344.
Wickman, P. O. (2006). Aesthetic experience in science education: Learning and meaning-making as situated talk and action. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wickman, P. O. & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Eduction, 86(5), 601–603.
Wittgenstein, L. (1992a). Filosofiska undersökningar [Philosphische Untersuchungen/Philosofical Investigations] (A. Wedberg, Trans. Ny uppl./ed.). Stockholm: Thales.
Wittgenstein, L. (1992b). Om visshet [Über gewissheit/On Certainty] (L. Hertzberg, Trans. [Ny utg.] ed.). Stockholm: Thales.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Written criteria showing what is needed in students’ argumentation to reach different grading levels.
Pass
-
You can describe and explain from a scientific perspective.
-
You can express your thoughts and questions using scientific language in the conversations and discussions.
Pass with distinction
-
You can use the concepts, models and theories from science in new situations to describe and explain.
-
You can use scientific skills to examine and evaluate statements.
-
You contribute in discussions and arguments to improve them.
Pass with special distinction
-
You use concepts, models and terminology from science to create new questions and hypotheses.
-
You can review an argument and determine the consequences.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Orlander Arvola, A., Lundegård, I. ‘It’s Her Body’. When Students’ Argumentation Shows Displacement of Content in a Science Classroom. Res Sci Educ 42, 1121–1145 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9237-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9237-2