Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

‘It’s Her Body’. When Students’ Argumentation Shows Displacement of Content in a Science Classroom

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrews, R. (2005). Models of argumentation in educational discourse. Text, 25(1), 107–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R., & Hertzberg, F. Y. (2009). Introduction: Special issue on argumentation in education in Scandinavia and England. Argumentation, 23(4), 433–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berner, B., & Nyborg, M. (2004). Ifrågasättanden: Forskning om genus, teknik och naturvetenskap. Linköping: Tema Teknik och social förändring, Linköpings universitet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (1994). Pragmatism as a pedagogy of communicative action. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 13(3/4), 273.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2004). The community of those who have nothing in common: Education and the language of responsibility. Interchange, 35(3), 307–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. (2006). Beyond learning: Democratic education for a human future. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G., & Burbules, N. C. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. J. J., & Egéa-Kuehne, D. (2001). Derrida & education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 282–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englund, T. (2006). Deliberative communication: A pragmatist proposal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(5), 503–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosselin, C. (2003). In a different voice and the transformative experience: A Deweyan perspective. Educational Theory, 53(1), 91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. G. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge?: Thinking from women’s lives. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson, B., & Wickman, P.-O. (2007). Transformation through language use: Childrens spontaneous metaphors in elementary school science. Science & Education, 16(3–5), 267–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krupnick, M. (1983). Displacement: Derrida and after. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Westport: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundegård, I., & Wickman, P.-O. (2007). Conflicts of interest: An indispensable element of education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 13(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundin, M. (2007). Questions as a tool for bridging science and everyday language games. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundström, M. (2005). Organdonation och transplantation—ett ämne för skolan? [Organ donation and transplantation-a subject in school?]. Malmö: Malmö högskola.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Östman, L. (2008). Analys av utbildningens diskursivitet. Utbildning & Demokrati, 17(3), 113–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. A. (1982). The place of qualitative research in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(4), 277–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. (1991). Philosophical papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36(1), 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjøberg, S. (2005). Naturvetenskap som allmänbildning: en kritisk ämnesdidaktik (2., rev. uppl./ed.). Lund: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, S. (2001). Living across and through skins: Transactional bodies, pragmatism and feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedish Research Council, V. (2002). Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd, S. (2003). Learning from the other: Levinas, psychoanalysis, and ethical possibilities in education. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickman, P. O. (2004). The practical epistemologies of the classroom: A study of laboratory work. Science Education, 88(3), 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickman, P. O. (2006). Aesthetic experience in science education: Learning and meaning-making as situated talk and action. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickman, P. O. & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Eduction, 86(5), 601–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1992a). Filosofiska undersökningar [Philosphische Untersuchungen/Philosofical Investigations] (A. Wedberg, Trans. Ny uppl./ed.). Stockholm: Thales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1992b). Om visshet [Über gewissheit/On Certainty] (L. Hertzberg, Trans. [Ny utg.] ed.). Stockholm: Thales.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University, SE-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden

    Auli Orlander Arvola & Iann Lundegård

Authors
  1. Auli Orlander Arvola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Iann Lundegård
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Auli Orlander Arvola.

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

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9237-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation