Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Socio-Scientific Discussions as a Way to Improve the Comprehension of Science and the Understanding of the Interrelation between Species and the Environment

  • Research Report
  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article reports on a qualitative and quantitative study that explored whether a constructivist Science learning environment, in which 9 to 10-year old Colombian girls had the opportunity to discuss scientific concepts and socio-scientific dilemmas in groups, improved their understanding of the concepts and the complex relations that exists between species and the environment. Data were collected from two fourth grade groups in a private bilingual school, a treatment and a comparison group. Pre and post tests on the understanding of scientific concepts and the possible consequences of human action on living things, transcriptions of the discussions of dilemmas, and pre and post tests of empathy showed that students who had the opportunity to discuss socio-scientific dilemmas gave better definitions for scientific concepts and made better connections between them, their lives and Nature than students who did not. It is argued that Science learning should occur in constructivist learning environments and go beyond the construction of scientific concepts, to discussions and decision-making related to the social and moral implications of the application of Science in the real world. It is also argued that this type of pedagogical interventions and research on them should be carried out in different sociocultural contexts to confirm their impact on Science learning in diverse conditions.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Test for moral reasoning that measures the importance given to moral considerations to take a decision (Rest 1986).

  2. Test used to measure the general intellectual ability, problem resolution and reasoning skills, when facing new information (Raven et al. 1983).

  3. Statistix for Windows, version 7.0; Analytical Software, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.

  4. All examples cited in the text are exactly as they were given by students; mistakes were not corrected.

References

  • Aldridge, J., Fraser, B., & Taylor, P. (2000). Constructivist learning environments in a cross-national study in Taiwan and Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkeburn, H., Downie, R., & Matthew, B. (2002). Impact of an ethics program in a life sciences curriculum. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(1), 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R., & Confrey, J. (1996). Reorganizing the curriculum and teaching to improve learning in science and mathematics. In D. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 79–93). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. (1992). Cuestiones fundamentales en el estudio de la empatía (empathy). In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), La empatía y su desarrollo (development) (pp. 13–24). (I. Aizpurua, Trans.) Bilbao, España: Descleé de Broker S. A. (Original work published in 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Feshbach, N. D. (1978). Studies of empathic behaviour in children. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research (Vol. 8, pp. 1–47). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Pérez, D. (1996). New trends in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 18(8), 889–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, M. L. (2002). Desarrollo moral y empatía (empathy). (F. Gonzáles, Trans.). Barcelona, España: Ideas Books. (Original work published in 2000).

  • Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(4), 301–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margel, H., Eylon, B., & Scherz, Z. (2001). A longitudinal study of junior high school students’ perceptions of the particulate nature of matter. In N. Valanides (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st IOSTE Symposium in Southern Europe. Nikosia, Cyprus: Imprinta (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED466372).

  • Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.) (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College London.

  • Ministerio Nacional de Educación. (2004). Estándares Básicos de Competencias en Ciencias Naturales (Natural). Colombia: Publicaciones del MEN.

  • National Research Council. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1998). Instrument design: A framework for assessing scientific literacy. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrone, V. (1998). Why do we need a pedagogy of understanding?. In M. Stone-Wiske (Ed.), Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice (pp. 13–38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1972). Psicología de la inteligencia (intelligence) (J. C. Foix, Trans.). Maza; Buenos Aires: Editorial PSIQUE (Original work published in 1947).

  • Raven, J. C., Court, J., & Raven, J. (1983). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. London: H. K. Lewis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L. J., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in Australian schools: Results of a national study. Research in Science Education, 31, 455–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. R. (1986). DIT: Manual for the defining issues test. Center for the study of ethical development. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, S. M. (1998). The teacher’s role in the transformation of students’ understanding. Research in Science Education, 28(2), 169–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T., & Zeidler, D. (2003, March). Weighing in on genetic engineering and morality: Students reveal their ideas, expectations, and reservations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national association for research in Science teaching, Philadelphia, USA.

  • Settelmaier, E. (2003, March). Dilemas with dilemas...Exploring the suitability of dilemma stories as a way of addressing ethical issues in science education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national association for research in Science teaching, Philadelphia, USA.

  • Shapiro, S., & Wilk, M. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality. Biometrika, 52(3), 591–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J., & Windschitl, M. (2002). Engagement in science learning among academically at-risk girls: Sense of self and motivation to learn across learning contexts. New Orleans, LA: American Education Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirri, K., & Pehkonen, L. (2002). The moral reasoning and scientific argumentation of gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13(3), 120–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(2), 227–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K., Zeidler, D., Simmons, M., & Ackett, W. (2000, April). Multiple views of the nature of science and socio-scientific issues. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

  • Windsor, W. L. (2004). An ecological approach to semiotics. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 34(2), 179–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wispé, L. (1992). Historia del Concepto de Empatía (Empathy). In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), La empatía y su desarrollo (development) (pp. 27–49). (I. Aizpurua, Trans.) Bilbao, España: Descleé de Broker S. A. (Original work published in 1987).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carrera 14a # 127a-81 (Apto 502), Bogota, Colombia

    Carolina Castano

Authors
  1. Carolina Castano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolina Castano.

Appendices

Appendix A

Science Test about the Construction of Scientific Concepts and the Understanding of Environmental Interconnectedness for Unit A

The purpose of the following exam is to identify how much you know about the topics you will study during this term in science. Use all the time you need and try to answer all the questions even if you are not sure of the answers.

  1. 1.

    What is a food chain?

  2. 2.

    What is a producer?

  3. 3.

    What is a decomposer?

  4. 4.

    What would happen if the decomposers disappeared?

  5. 5.

    What would happen if a new species were introduced to a Colombian habitat?

  6. 6.

    Why do some species become pests?

Appendix B

Empathy Test (some examples from the 33 items used)

Table 8 Read every statement carefully and mark with an ‘X’ the option with the answer that is closest to what you think, feel or do in each situation
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Castano, C. Socio-Scientific Discussions as a Way to Improve the Comprehension of Science and the Understanding of the Interrelation between Species and the Environment. Res Sci Educ 38, 565–587 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9064-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9064-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation