Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discussing a Socioscientific Issue in a Primary School Classroom: The Case of Using a Technology-Supported Environment in Formal and Nonformal Settings

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom

Part of the book series: Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education ((CTISE,volume 39))

Abstract

Recent educational reports in the USA (Duschl, Schweingruber, & Shouse, 2007), the UK (Osborne, 2007), and elsewhere in Europe have called for a science education that places an emphasis on scientific literacy, and makes the connection between science and everyday life. The focus of this approach is on the social aspects of science, aiming to prepare young people for life beyond school. Aikenhead (2006) has attempted to define the term by explaining scientific literacy as acquiring knowledge for science—that is, both knowledge of the content and knowledge about science, which he sees as the social processes of science. Likewise, in national reform documents, the core of scientific literacy is related to understanding knowledge and processes of science, and the application of this knowledge (AAAS, 1993; National Research Council, 1996).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting gognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P. (2004). The educational opportunities of contemporary controversies in science. In M. Linn, E. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Kepler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 575–488). New York: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: the contribution of out-of-school learning, International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1373–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science & Education, 92(3), 473–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. (1985). Are children fundamentally different thinkers and learners from adults? In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (2nd ed., pp. 485–517). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. (2002). The affects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 1042–1629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in on-line environments to relate structure, grounds and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuthbert, A., & Slotta, J. (2004). Designing a web-based design curriculum for middle school science: the WISE “Houses in the desert” project. International Journal of Science Education, 26(7), 821–844.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D., Pea, R., & Gomez, L. (1996). The collaboratory notebook. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 32–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies in K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335–354). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science & Education, 88(6), 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evagorou, M., & Avraamidou, L. (2008). The role of technology in supporting the process of argument construction in science learning. Educational Media International, 45(1), 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evagorou, M., Korfiati, K., Nicolaou, C., & Constantinou, C. (2009). An investigation of the potential of interactive simulations for developing system thinking skills in elementary school: A case study with fifth-graders and sixth-graders. International Journal of Science Education, 31(5), 655–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2007). Argue-WISE: Using technology to support argumentation in science. School Science Review, 89, 103–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evagorou, M. (2008). Technoskepsi project report (in Greek). Cyprus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2008). Identifying features of young students’ construction of arguments in the science classroom. New York: Annual American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (1997). Science. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., Mortimer, F. E., Silva, C., & Diaz, J. (2008). Epistemic practices: An analytical framework for science classrooms. New York: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the Lesson” or “Doing Science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science & Education, 84(6), 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers?Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., & Fredricks, J. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lampert, M., & Rittenhouse, P. (1996). Agreeing to disagree: Developing sociable mathematical discourse. In N. Torrance (Ed.), The handbook of education and human development (pp. 731–764). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M., Eylon, B., & Davis, E. (2004). The knowledge integration perspective on learning. In M. Linn, E. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 29–46). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2006). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 17–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaou, C., Korfiati, K., Evagorou, M., & Constantinou, C. P. (2009). Development of decision-making skills and environmental concern through computer-based, scaffolded learning activities. Environmental Education Research, 15(1), 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Reasearch Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 173–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004a). Ideas, evidence and argumentation in science (IDEAS) project. London: King’s College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004b). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patronis, T., Potari, E., & Spiliotopoulou, S. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science & Education, 88(3), 345–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge forum (Advances beyond CSILE). Journal of Distance Education, 17, 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2005). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soloway, E., Norris, C., Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B.J., & Marx, R. (2001). Devices are ready-at-hand. Communications of the ACM, 44(6), 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D. (1999). Effects of alternate representations of evidential relations on collaborative learning discourse. Third Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1996). Defining science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). A constructivist mobile learning environment supported by a wireless handheld network. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 235–243.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of Nicosia (UNic), Nicosia, Cyprus

    Maria Evagorou

Authors
  1. Maria Evagorou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Evagorou .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611, Florida, USA

    Troy D. Sadler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Evagorou, M. (2011). Discussing a Socioscientific Issue in a Primary School Classroom: The Case of Using a Technology-Supported Environment in Formal and Nonformal Settings. In: Sadler, T. (eds) Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 39. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation