Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

THE EVALUATION OF ROLE-PLAYING IN THE CONTEXT OF TEACHING CLIMATE CHANGE

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

Role-plays are a common pedagogical tool in the Social Sciences. As an imitation of societal practices, role-plays are thought to support the development of argumentation and decision-making skills among learners. However, argumentation and decision making are also goals in science education in general and in socioscientific issues-oriented science teaching in particular. This paper discusses a grounded theory (GT) approach to evaluating students’ performance within role-playing exercises. The context is climate change. Data come from 4 different role-playing scenarios covering climate change which were developed in parallel for Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Politics education. Role-plays in 20 different learning groups were videotaped (5 per subject). An evaluation pattern was developed step by step according to GT. Finally, graphic representations of all the role-plays were derived. The representations enable a quick overview of the role-plays and allow the identification of four basic types of role-playing: role-plays that are (1) completely directed by a group of student moderators, or (2) by the teacher, (3) medium-quality role-plays with a certain amount of interactivity and free argumentation, and (4) real, spirited debates. Implications for the use of role-playing exercises in science education are derived, including the induction of such role-plays through the use of role cards and the influence exhibited by teacher behavior.

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

  • 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, 352–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, V. M. & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40, 133–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duveen, J. & Solomon, J. (1994). The great evolution trial: Use of role play in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 575–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eilks, I., Feierabend, T., Hößle, C., Höttecke, D., Menthe, J., Mrochen, M. & Oelgeklaus, H. (2011a). Bewerten Lernen und der Klimawandel in vier Fächern—Einblicke in das Projekt “Der Klimawandel vor Gericht” (Teil 1). Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, 64, 7–11–71–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eilks, I., Feierabend, T., Hößle, C., Höttecke, D., Menthe, J., Mrochen, M. & Oelgeklaus, H. (2011b). Der Klimawandel vor Gericht. Halbergmoos: Aulis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eilks, I., Prins, G. T. & Lazarowitz, R. (2013). How to organize the classroom in a student-active mode. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching chemistry—a studybook (pp. 183–212). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eilks, I., Nielsen, J. A., & Hofstein, A. (2014). Learning about the role of science in public debate as an essential component of scientific literacy. In C. Bruguière, P. Clément, A. Tiberghien (Eds.), 9th ESERA Conference Contributions: Topics and trends in current science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer (in press)

  • Eilks, I. & Ralle, B. (2002). Participatory action research within chemical education. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (2002) (Eds.), Research in chemical education—what does it mean? (pp. 87–98). Aachen, Germany: Shaker.

  • Erduran, S. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in science education. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feierabend, T. & Eilks, I. (2010). Raising students’ perception of the relevance of science teaching and promoting communication and evaluation capabilities using authentic and controversial socio-scientific issues in the framework of climate change. Science Education International, 21, 176–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feierabend, T. & Eilks, I. (2011). Innovating science teaching by participatory action research—reflections from an interdisciplinary project on curriculum development in the field of climate change. Centre for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 1, 93–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feierabend, T., Stuckey, M., Nienaber, S. & Eilks, I. (2012). Two approaches for analyzing students’ competence of ‘evaluation’ in group discussions about climate change. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7, 581–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., Eilks, I. & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education: A pedagogical justification and the state of the art in Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1459–1483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, J. & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1347–1362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingworth, P. M. & Hoover, K. H. (1991). Elementary teaching methods. Boston: Allin and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Killen, R. (2009). Effective teaching strategies. Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1689–1716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kslafki, W. (2000). The significance of classical theories of Bildung for a contemporary concept of Allgemeinbildung. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as reflective practice. The German Didaktik Tradition (pp. 85–107). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mamlok-Naaman, R. & Eilks, I. (2012). Action research to promote chemistry teachers’ professional development—cases and experiences from Israel and Germany. International Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 10, 581–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, R., Bertram, S. & Eilks, I. (2008). Learning chemistry and beyond with a lesson plan on potato crisps, which follows a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry lessons—a case study. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 267–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, R. & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting scientific literacy using a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching: Concept, examples, experiences. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4, 131–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, R. & Eilks, I. (2010). Research-based development of a lesson plan on shower gels and musk fragrances following a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McSharry, G. & Jones, S. (2000). Role play in science teaching and learning. School Science Review, 82(298), 73–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, S. (1996). Improving the quality of argument in higher education interim report. London: Middlesex University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. A. (2009). Structuring students’ critical discussions through processes of decision-making on socio-scientific controversies. Revista de Estudos Universitários, 35, 139–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. A. (2011). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43, 371–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. A. (2012). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96(3), 428–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ødegaard, M. (2003). Dramatic science. A critical review of drama in science education. Studies in Science Education, 39, 75–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oulton, C., Dillon, J. & Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    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, 112–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, D., Percival, F. & Vartiainen, M. (1996). The simulation and gaming yearbook. Vol. 4. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmoneaux, M. (2001). Role play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 903–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmoneaux, M. (2002). Analysis of classroom debating strategies in the field of biotechnology. Journal of Biological Education, 37, 9–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31, 277–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöström, J. (2011). Towards Bildung-oriented chemistry education. Science & Education, 22, 1873–1890. doi:10.1007/s11191-011-9401-0.

  • Solomon, J. (1992). The classroom discussion of science-based social issues presented on television: Knowledge, attitudes and values. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 431–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanborn, P. G. (1996). A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and qualitative research. Quality and Quantity, 30, 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Duggan, S. & Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 815–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Ments, M. (1999). The effective use of role play. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm, J. (2002). Action strategies for deepening comprehension. New York: Scholastic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, F.-Y. & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 221–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Achett, W. A. & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology and Chemistry, Institute of Science Education (IDN)—Didactics of Chemistry, University of Bremen, Leobener Straße NW2, 28334, Bremen, Germany

    Nadja Belova, Ingo Eilks & Timo Feierabend

Authors
  1. Nadja Belova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ingo Eilks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timo Feierabend
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadja Belova.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Belova, N., Eilks, I. & Feierabend, T. THE EVALUATION OF ROLE-PLAYING IN THE CONTEXT OF TEACHING CLIMATE CHANGE. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 13 (Suppl 1), 165–190 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9477-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9477-x

Key words

Search

Navigation