Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The potential for reconciling pedagogical tradition and innovation: the case of socioscientific argumentation

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Classroom interactions emerging from socioscientific argumentation may be incompatible with the traditional definitions of learning, thus creating tension and potentially undermining its implementation. Leveraging existing literature, we identify argumentative talk that shifts away from scientific content and toward subjective claims, as well as instances of unproductive argumentation as the points of incompatibility. We contend that attention to the degree of compatibility of enactments of socioscientific argumentation with traditional schooling practices may be necessary for substantive implementation. The role of teachers’ and students’ interactional moves in relation to this compatibility is qualitatively examined using two analytical frameworks related to the content and form of the students’ arguments. To generate practical implications with empirical foundations, compatibility is examined in teacher-led and peer-led argumentation. In teacher-led argumentation, we show that the degree of incompatibility can be managed when teachers extend their elicitation of responses with follow-up interrogative questioning, leading students to rely more on scientific knowledge. In peer-led argumentation, incompatibility can be identified when the argumentation collapses into confrontational disagreement or uncritical agreement, obscuring instances in which students rely on scientific knowledge. We discuss the significance of productive talk moves as a way to advance from incompatibility with traditional schooling toward integrating socioscientific argumentation as a core instructional practice.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term “focus days” is similar to the term “climax days”, which was used in a previous publication of the project team (Koichu et al., 2022).

References

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

  • Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albe, V., Barrué, C., Bencze, L., Byhring, A. K., Carter, L., Grace, M., & Sperling, E. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs, classroom practices and professional development towards socio-scientific issues. Topics and Trends in Current Science Education (pp. 55–69). Springer.

  • Arvola, A. O., & Lundegård, I. (2012). It’s her body’. When students’ argumentation shows displacement of content in a Science Classroom. Research in Science Education, 42(6), 1121–1145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balgopal, M. M., Wallace, A. M., & Dahlberg, S. (2017). Writing from different cultural contexts: How college students frame an environmental SSI through written arguments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 195–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bathgate, M., Crowell, A., Schunn, C., Cannady, M., & Dorph, R. (2015). The learning benefits of being willing and able to engage in scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1590–1612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bencze, L., Sperling, E., & Carter, L. (2012). Students’ research-informed socio-scientific activism: Re/visions for a sustainable future. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 129–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bencze, L., Pouliot, C., Pedretti, E., Simonneaux, L., Simonneaux, J., & Zeidler, D. (2020). SAQ, SSI and STSE education: Defending and extending science-in-context. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15(3), 825–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, A. J., & Burch, P. (2019). Reimagining complexity: Exploring organizational ambidexterity as a lens for policy research. Policy Futures in Education, 17(3), 402–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxenbaum, E. (2008). The process of legitimation. The anatomy of change: A neo-institutionalist perspective (pp. 237–262). Copenhagen Business School Press.

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2018). Comparison of 20th Century Annual Morbidity and Current Morbidity: Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. Retrieved from https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58586/cdc_58586_DS1.

  • Christenson, N., Rundgren, S. N. C., & Höglund, H. O. (2012). Using the SEE-SEP model to analyze upper secondary students’ use of supporting reasons in arguing socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(3), 342–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christodoulou, A., Levinson, R., Davies, P., Grace, M., Nicholl, J., & Rietdijk, W. (2021). The use of cartography of controversy within socioscientific issues-based education: Students’ mapping of the badger-cattle controversy in England. International Journal of Science Education, 43(15), 2479–2500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. K., & Mehta, J. (2017). Why reform sometimes succeeds: Understanding the conditions that produce reforms that last. American Educational Research Journal, 54(4), 644–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R., Zafrani, E., & Yarden, A. (2020). Science teachers as proponents of socio-scientific inquiry-based learning: From professional development to classroom enactment. Science Teacher Education for Responsible Citizenship, 117–132.

  • Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2009). High-school students’ Informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421–1445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duff, P. A. (2007). Qualitative approaches to classroom research with English language learners. International Handbook of English Language Teaching, 973–986.

  • Ekborg, M., Ottander, C., Silfver, E., & Simon, S. (2013). Teachers’ experience of working with socio-scientific issues: A large scale and in depth study. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 599–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enderle, P., Grooms, J., Sampson, V., Sengul, O., & Koulagna, Y. (2022). How the co-design, use, and refinement of an instructional model emphasizing argumentation relates to changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices. International Journal of Science Education, 44(14), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eryasar, A. S., & Kilinc, A. (2022). The coherence between Epistemologies and SSI Teaching. Science & Education, 31(1), 123–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evagorou, M., Nielsen, J. A., & Dillon, J. (2020). Science Teacher Education for responsible citizenship: Towards a Pedagogy for Relevance through Socioscientific Issues (52 vol.). Springer Nature.

  • Felton, M., Crowell, A., Garcia-Mila, M., & Villarroel, C. (2022). Capturing deliberative argument: An analytic coding scheme for studying argumentative dialogue and its benefits for learning. Learning Culture and Social Interaction, 36, 100350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishman, E. J., Borko, H., Osborne, J., Gomez, F., Rafanelli, S., Reigh, E., & Berson, E. (2017). A practice-based professional development program to support scientific argumentation from evidence in the elementary classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(3), 222–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furberg, A., & Silseth, K. (2022). Invoking student resources in whole-class conversations in science education: A sociocultural perspective. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 31(2), 278–316. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1954521.

  • González-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. L. (2019). Teachers’ framing of argumentation goals: Working together to develop individual versus communal understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(6), 821–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. L. (2020). Acting with epistemic agency: Characterizing student critique during argumentation discussions. Science Education, 104(6), 953–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallett, T. (2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75(1), 52–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, K. L., & Weber, K. (2016). Toward organizational pluralism: Institutional intrapreneurship in integrative medicine. Organization Science, 27(1), 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., & Wheatley, L. (2019). Teacher–student dialogue during classroom teaching: Does it really impact on student outcomes? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4–5), 462–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M., & Mercer, N. (2019). Using sociocultural discourse analysis to analyse professional discourse. Learning Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 267–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J., Macalalag, A. Z., & Dunphy, J. (2020). Incorporating socioscientific issues into a STEM education course: Exploring teacher use of argumentation in SSI and plans for classroom implementation. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 2(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilinc, A., Demiral, U., & Kartal, T. (2017). Resistance to dialogic discourse in SSI teaching: The effects of an argumentation-based workshop, teaching practicum, and induction on a preservice science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(6), 764–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer, L. E., & Aikenhead, G. S. (2022). Humanistic science education: The history of science and other relevant contexts. Science Education, 106(3), 490–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koichu, B., Schwarz, B. B., Heyd-Metzuyanim, E., Tabach, M., & Yarden, A. (2022). Design practices and principles for promoting dialogic argumentation via interdisciplinarity. Learning Culture and Social Interaction, 37, 100657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovalainen, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2005). The discursive practice of participation in an elementary classroom community. Instructional Science, 33(3), 213–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, J. S. C. (2022). Shifting the teaching beliefs of preservice science teachers about socioscientific issues in a teacher education course. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(4), 659–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowell, B. R., Cherbow, K., & McNeill, K. L. (2022). Considering discussion types to support collective sensemaking during a storyline unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(2), 195–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, N., Zietsma, C., Morris, T., & Smets, M. (2021). Handling resistance to change when societal and workplace logics conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(2), 475–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2017). Moving beyond pseudoargumentation: Teachers’ enactments of an Educative Science Curriculum focused on Argumentation. Science Education, 101(3), 426–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, J., & Fine, S. (2019). In search of deeper learning: Inside the effort to Remake the American High School. Harvard University Press.

  • Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Namdar, B., & Shen, J. (2016). Intersection of argumentation and the use of multiple representations in the context of socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 38(7), 1100–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. A. (2012). Co-opting Science: A preliminary study of how students invoke science in value-laden discussions. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 275–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F., Borko, H., Fishman, E., Gomez Zaccarelli, F., Berson, E., Busch, K., & Tseng, A. (2019). Impacts of a practice-based professional development program on elementary teachers’ facilitation of and student engagement with scientific argumentation. American Educational Research Journal, 56(4), 1067–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottander, K., & Simon, S. (2021). Learning democratic participation? Meaning-making in discussion of socioscientific issues in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 43(12), 1895–1925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., Petitt, D. N., & Forbes, C. T. (2022). Exploring undergraduates’ breadth of socio-scientific reasoning through domains of knowledge. Research in Science Education, 52(6), 1643–1658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., McKelvey, M., & Phillips, N. (2019). Protecting scientists from Gordon Gekko: How organizations use hybrid spaces to engage with multiple institutional logics. Organization Science, 30(2), 298–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in secondary science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rojas-Drummond, S., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudsberg, K., & Öhman, J. (2015). The role of knowledge in participatory and pluralistic approaches to ESE. Environmental Education Research, 21(7), 955–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rundgren, C. J., Eriksson, M., & Rundgren, S. N. C. (2016). Investigating the intertwinement of knowledge, value, and experience of upper secondary students’ argumentation concerning socioscientific issues. Science & Education, 25(9), 1049–1071.

    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. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonenshein, S. (2016). How corporations overcome issue illegitimacy and issue equivocality to address social welfare: The role of the social change agent. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 349–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, O. G., & Jordan, M. E. (2017). Some explanation here: A case study of learning opportunities and tensions in an informal science learning environment. Instructional Science, 45(2), 137–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teo, P. (2019). Teaching for the 21st century: A case for dialogic pedagogy. Learning Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 170–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tidemand, S., & Nielsen, J. A. (2017). The role of socioscientific issues in biology teaching: From the perspective of teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 44–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Der Zande, P., Brekelmans, M., Vermunt, J. D., & Waarlo, A. J. (2009). Moral reasoning in genetics education: Educational research. Journal of Biological Education, 44(1), 31–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Y. T. (2013). University students’ knowledge structures and informal reasoning on the use of genetically modified foods: Multidimensional analyses. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1873–1890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yurkofsky, M. M. (2021). From compliance to improvement: How School leaders make sense of Institutional and Technical demands when implementing a continuous improvement process. Educational Administration Quarterly, 58(5), 300–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zafrani, E., & Yarden, A. (2017). Becoming a Science Activist: A case study of students’ Engagement in a Socioscientific Project. Sisyphus-Journal of Education, 5(3), 44–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zafrani, E., & Yarden, A. (2022). Dialog-constraining institutional logics and their interactional manifestation in the science classroom. Science Education, 106(1), 142–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2007). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. Argumentation in science education (pp. 201–216). Springer.

  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (ISF) grant number 2699/17.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, 234 Herzl St, Rehovot, 76100, Israel

    Eran Zafrani & Anat Yarden

Authors
  1. Eran Zafrani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anat Yarden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eran Zafrani.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zafrani, E., Yarden, A. The potential for reconciling pedagogical tradition and innovation: the case of socioscientific argumentation. Instr Sci 52, 385–415 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09650-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09650-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation