Advertisement

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

  • Nadja BelovaEmail author
  • Ingo Eilks
  • Timo Feierabend
Article

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.

Key words

argumentation climate change education decision making role-play socioscientific issues 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Duschl, R. A. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Eilks, I., Feierabend, T., Hößle, C., Höttecke, D., Menthe, J., Mrochen, M. & Oelgeklaus, H. (2011b). Der Klimawandel vor Gericht. Halbergmoos: Aulis.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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)Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Erduran, S. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in science education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holbrook, J. & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1347–1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hollingworth, P. M. & Hoover, K. H. (1991). Elementary teaching methods. Boston: Allin and Bacon.Google Scholar
  19. Killen, R. (2009). Effective teaching strategies. Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning Australia.Google Scholar
  20. Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1689–1716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McSharry, G. & Jones, S. (2000). Role play in science teaching and learning. School Science Review, 82(298), 73–82.Google Scholar
  27. Mitchell, S. (1996). Improving the quality of argument in higher education interim report. London: Middlesex University.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. Nielsen, J. A. (2012). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96(3), 428–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ødegaard, M. (2003). Dramatic science. A critical review of drama in science education. Studies in Science Education, 39, 75–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oulton, C., Dillon, J. & Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roth, W.-M. & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saunders, D., Percival, F. & Vartiainen, M. (1996). The simulation and gaming yearbook. Vol. 4. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simmoneaux, M. (2002). Analysis of classroom debating strategies in the field of biotechnology. Journal of Biological Education, 37, 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sjöström, J. (2011). Towards Bildung-oriented chemistry education. Science & Education, 22, 1873–1890. doi: 10.1007/s11191-011-9401-0.
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Swanborn, P. G. (1996). A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and qualitative research. Quality and Quantity, 30, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Ments, M. (1999). The effective use of role play. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  47. Wilhelm, J. (2002). Action strategies for deepening comprehension. New York: Scholastic.Google Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and Chemistry, Institute of Science Education (IDN)—Didactics of ChemistryUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations