Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 342–352 | Cite as

Using the SEE-SEP Model to Analyze Upper Secondary Students’ Use of Supporting Reasons in Arguing Socioscientific Issues

  • Nina Christenson
  • Shu-Nu Chang RundgrenEmail author
  • Hans-Olof Höglund
Article

Abstract

To achieve the goal of scientific literacy, the skills of argumentation have been emphasized in science education during the past decades. But the extent to which students can apply scientific knowledge to their argumentation is still unclear. The purpose of this study was to analyse 80 Swedish upper secondary students’ informal argumentation on four socioscientific issues (SSIs) to explore students’ use of supporting reasons and to what extent students used scientific knowledge in their arguments. Eighty upper secondary students were asked to express their opinions on one SSI topic they chose through written reports. The four SSIs in this study include global warming, genetically modified organisms (GMO), nuclear power, and consumption. To analyse students’ supporting reasons from a holistic view, we used the SEE-SEP model, which links the six subject areas of sociology/culture (So), environment (En), economy (Ec), science (Sc), ethics/morality (Et) and policy (Po) connecting with three aspects, knowledge, value and personal experience (KVP). The results showed that students used value to a greater extent (67%) than they did scientific knowledge (27%) for all four SSI topics. According to the SEE-SEP model, the distribution of supporting reasons generated by students differed among the SSI topics. Also, some alternative concepts were disclosed in students’ arguments. The implications for research and education are discussed.

Keywords

Socioscientific issues Informal argumentation Scientific literacy Scientific knowledge The SEE-SEP model Holistic view 

References

  1. Aikenhead GS (1985) Collective decision making in the social context of science. Sci Educ 69(4):453–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albe V (2007) When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Res Sci Educ 38:67–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albe V (2008) Students’ positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Sci Educ 17:805–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) Science for all Americans. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang SN, Chiu MH (2008) Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. Int J Sci Educ 30:1753–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang Rundgren SN, Rundgren CJ (2010) SEE-SEP: from a separate to a holistic view of socioscientific issues. Asia-Pac Forum Sci Learn Teach 11(1), Article 2Google Scholar
  7. Chang SN, Yeung YY, Cheng MH (2009) Ninth graders’ learning interests, life experiences and attitudes towards science and technology. J Sci Educ Technol 18(5):447–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colucci-Gray L, Camino E, Barbiero G, Gray D (2006) From scientific literacy to sustainable literacy: an ecological framework for education. Sci Educ 90:227–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dickinson HD (1998) Evidence-based decision-making: an argumentative approach. Int J Med Inf 51:71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dos Santos WP (2009) Scientific literacy: a Freirean perspective as a radical view of humanistic science education. Sci Educ 93:361–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Driver R, Newton P, Osborne J (2000) Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Sci Educ 84:287–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ekborg M (2008) Opinion building on a socioscientific issue: the case of genetically modified plants. J Biol Educ 42(2):60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fensham PJ (2008) Complexity theory: its relevance to science education, ASERA Conference. BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  14. Fleming R (1986) Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: social cognition. J Res Sci Teach 23:677–687Google Scholar
  15. Grace MM, Ratcliffe M (2002) The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. Int J Sci Educ 24:1157–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jallinoja P, Aro AR (2000) Does knowledge make a difference? The association between knowledge about genes and attitudes. J Health Commun 5:29–39Google Scholar
  17. Jiménez-Aleixandre MP, Pereiro-Muñoz C (2002) Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. Int J Sci Educ 24:1171–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kelly G, Crawford T, Green J (2001) Common task and uncommon knowledge: dissenting voices in the discursive construction of physics across small laboratory groups. Linguist Educ 12:135–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keselman A, Kaufman DR, Patel VL (2004) “You can exercise your way out of HIV” and other stories: the role of biological knowledge in adolescents’ evaluation of myths. Sci Educ 88:548–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kolstø SD (2001) Scientific literacy for citizenship: tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Sci Educ 85:291–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kolstø SD (2006) Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. Int J Sci Educ 28:1689–1716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kortland K (1996) An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Sci Educ 80:673–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis J, Leach J (2006) Discussion on socio-scientific issues: the role of scientific knowledge. Int J Sci Educ 28:1267–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lpf 94 (1994) Curriculum for the non-compulsory school system, Lpf 94–english version. Utbildningsförlaget, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  25. Means ML, Voss JF (1996) Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognit Instruct 14:139–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Millar R, Osborne J (1998) Beyond 2000: science education for the future. King’s College School of Education, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. MOE (1998) 1–9 grades curriculum guidelines. Ministry of Education, TaipeiGoogle Scholar
  28. Newton P, Driver R, Osborne J (1999) The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. Int J Sci Educ 21:553–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Patronis PT, Potari D, Spiliotopoulou V (1999) Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. Int J Sci Educ 21:745–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ratcliffe M (2003) Science education for citizenship: teaching socio-scientific issues. McGrawHill Education, BerkshireGoogle Scholar
  31. Sadler T (2004) Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. J Res Sci Teach 41:513–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sadler TD (2009) Socioscientific issues in science education: labels, reasoning, and transfer. Cultural Stud Sci Educ 4:697–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sadler TD, Donnelly LA (2006) Socioscientific argumentation: the effects of content knowledge and morality. Int J Sci Educ 28(12):1463–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sadler TD, Fowler SR (2006) A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Sci Educ 90:986–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sadler TD, Zeidler DL (2005) Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. J Res Sci Teach 42:112–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sadler TD, Barab SA, Scott B (2007) What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Res Sci Educ 37:371–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simonneaux L (2001) Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. Int J Sci Educ 23(9):903–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simonneaux L, Simonneaux J (2009) Students’ socioscientific reasoning on controversies from the viewpoint of education for sustainable development. Cultural Stud Sci Educ 4:657–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Uebersax JS (1987) Diversity of decision-making models and the measurement of interrater agreement. Psychol Bull 101:140–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zeidler DL, Keefer M (2003) The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In: Zeidler DL (ed) The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Kluwer Academic Press, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  42. Zeidler DL, Walker KA, Ackett WA, Simmons ML (2002) Tangled up in views: beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Sci Educ 86:343–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zeidler DL, Sadler TD, Simmons ML, Howes EV (2005) Beyond STS: a research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Sci Educ 89:357–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zohar A, Nemet F (2002) Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. J Res Sci Teach 39:35–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nina Christenson
    • 1
  • Shu-Nu Chang Rundgren
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hans-Olof Höglund
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyKarlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden
  2. 2.Department of Chemistry and Biomedical SciencesKarlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden

Personalised recommendations