The Relationship of Discipline Background to Upper Secondary Students’ Argumentation on Socioscientific Issues
- 1.1k Downloads
In the present STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics)-driven society, socioscientific issues (SSI) have become a focus globally and SSI research has grown into an important area of study in science education. Since students attending the social and science programs have a different focus in their studies and research has shown that students attending a science program are less familiar with argumentation practice, we make a comparison of the supporting reasons social science and science majors use in arguing different SSI with the goal to provide important information for pedagogical decisions about curriculum and instruction. As an analytical framework, a model termed SEE-SEP covering three aspects (of knowledge, value, and experiences) and six subject areas (of sociology/culture, economy, environment/ecology, science, ethics/morality, and policy) was adopted to analyze students’ justifications. A total of 208 upper secondary students (105 social science majors and 103 science majors) from Sweden were invited to justify and expound their arguments on four SSI including global warming, genetically modified organisms (GMO), nuclear power, and consumer consumption. The results showed that the social science majors generated more justifications than the science majors, the aspect of value was used most in students’ argumentation regardless of students’ discipline background, and justifications from the subject area of science were most often presented in nuclear power and GMO issues. We conclude by arguing that engaging teachers from different subjects to cooperate when teaching argumentation on SSI could be of great value and provide students from both social science and science programs the best possible conditions in which to develop argumentation skills.
KeywordsArgumentation Socioscientific issues Resources of justifications Discipline background The SEE-SEP model
- Borg, C. (2011). Utbildning för hållbar utveckling ur ett lärarperspektiv—ämnesbundna skillnader i gymnasieskolan (Karlstad University studies, nr. 2011:42). Licentiate thesis, Karlstad: Karlstad University.Google Scholar
- Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753–1773.Google Scholar
- Chang Rundgren, S. N., & Rundgren, C. J. (2010). SEE-SEP: from a separate to a holistic view of socioscientific issues. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), Article 2.Google Scholar
- Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. l., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Appelbaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289–2315.Google Scholar
- Eriksson, M., & Rundgren, C.-J. (2012). Vargfrågan—gymnasieelevers argumentation kring ett sociovetenskapligt dilemma. NorDiNa (Nordic Studies in Science Education), 8(1), 26–41.Google Scholar
- Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275–288.Google Scholar
- Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: an overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 3–28). Doetinchem: Springer.Google Scholar
- Levison, R. (2001). Should controversial issues in science be taught through the humanities? School Science Review, 82(300), 97–102.Google Scholar
- Levison, R., & Turner, S. (2001). The teaching of social and ethical issues in the school curriculum, arising from developments in biomedical research: a research study of teachers. London: Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
- Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
- Madsén, T. (1994). Lärares lärande. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
- Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education—a qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical overview. Daedalus, 112(2), 29–48.Google Scholar
- Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). Engaging students to perceive nature of science through socioscientific issues-based instruction. European Journal of Social Sciences, 13(1), 34–37.Google Scholar
- Osborne, J., Duschl, R., & Fairbrother, R. (2002). Breaking the mould? Teaching science for public understanding. http://www.nationalstemcentre.org.uk/dl/96efdbe136f52d0ac2c6baa53c61cc4fba966ede/4189-Breakingthemould1.pdf Accessed 22 Feb 2013.
- Reis, P., & Galvão, C. (2009). Teaching controversial socio-scientific issues in biology and geology classes: a case study. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 13(1).Google Scholar
- Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Sadler, T. D., & Klosterman, M. L. (2008). Exploring the sociopolitical dimensions of global warming. Science Activities, 45(4), 9–12.Google Scholar
- Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93.Google Scholar
- Stiernstedt, J. (2006). Lektion 1. Förlorarna segrade—svensk kärnkraft genom tiderna. DN.se. http://www.dn.se/nyheter/valet2010/forlorarna-segrade-svensk-karnkraft-genom-tiderna-1.1083330. Accessed 22 Feb 2013.
- The Swedish National Agency for Education. (2011). Curriculum for the non-compulsory school system—English version. Stockholm: Utbildningsförlaget.Google Scholar
- UNESCO (2010). UN decade of education of sustainable development. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/education-for-sustainable-development/. Accessed 22 Feb 2013.
- Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7–38). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58.Google Scholar
- Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, D. L. (2011). An Inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions of socioscientific reasoning. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, D. A. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 176–192). New York: Routhledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar