Discussing a Socioscientific Issue in a Primary School Classroom: The Case of Using a Technology-Supported Environment in Formal and Nonformal Settings

Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 39)

Abstract

Recent educational reports in the USA (Duschl, Schweingruber, & Shouse, 2007), the UK (Osborne, 2007), and elsewhere in Europe have called for a science education that places an emphasis on scientific literacy, and makes the connection between science and everyday life. The focus of this approach is on the social aspects of science, aiming to prepare young people for life beyond school. Aikenhead (2006) has attempted to define the term by explaining scientific literacy as acquiring knowledge for science—that is, both knowledge of the content and knowledge about science, which he sees as the social processes of science. Likewise, in national reform documents, the core of scientific literacy is related to understanding knowledge and processes of science, and the application of this knowledge (AAAS, 1993; National Research Council, 1996).

References

  1. AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  3. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting gognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, P. (2004). The educational opportunities of contemporary controversies in science. In M. Linn, E. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blumenfeld, P. C., Kepler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 575–488). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  8. Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: the contribution of out-of-school learning, International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1373–88.Google Scholar
  9. Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science & Education, 92(3), 473–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carey, S. (1985). Are children fundamentally different thinkers and learners from adults? In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (2nd ed., pp. 485–517). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. (2002). The affects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 1042–1629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in on-line environments to relate structure, grounds and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Cuthbert, A., & Slotta, J. (2004). Designing a web-based design curriculum for middle school science: the WISE “Houses in the desert” project. International Journal of Science Education, 26(7), 821–844.Google Scholar
  15. Duschl, R. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  17. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  18. Edelson, D., Pea, R., & Gomez, L. (1996). The collaboratory notebook. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 32–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies in K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335–354). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science & Education, 88(6), 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Evagorou, M., & Avraamidou, L. (2008). The role of technology in supporting the process of argument construction in science learning. Educational Media International, 45(1), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Evagorou, M., Korfiati, K., Nicolaou, C., & Constantinou, C. (2009). An investigation of the potential of interactive simulations for developing system thinking skills in elementary school: A case study with fifth-graders and sixth-graders. International Journal of Science Education, 31(5), 655–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2007). Argue-WISE: Using technology to support argumentation in science. School Science Review, 89, 103–110.Google Scholar
  25. Evagorou, M. (2008). Technoskepsi project report (in Greek). Cyprus.Google Scholar
  26. Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2008). Identifying features of young students’ construction of arguments in the science classroom. New York: Annual American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  27. Fuller, S. (1997). Science. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  29. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., Mortimer, F. E., Silva, C., & Diaz, J. (2008). Epistemic practices: An analytical framework for science classrooms. New York: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  31. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the Lesson” or “Doing Science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science & Education, 84(6), 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers?Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., & Fredricks, J. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lampert, M., & Rittenhouse, P. (1996). Agreeing to disagree: Developing sociable mathematical discourse. In N. Torrance (Ed.), The handbook of education and human development (pp. 731–764). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Linn, M., Eylon, B., & Davis, E. (2004). The knowledge integration perspective on learning. In M. Linn, E. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 29–46). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  38. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  39. Neylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2006). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nicolaou, C., Korfiati, K., Evagorou, M., & Constantinou, C. P. (2009). Development of decision-making skills and environmental concern through computer-based, scaffolded learning activities. Environmental Education Research, 15(1), 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. National Reasearch Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  42. Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 173–184.Google Scholar
  43. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.Google Scholar
  44. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004a). Ideas, evidence and argumentation in science (IDEAS) project. London: King’s College London.Google Scholar
  45. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004b). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Patronis, T., Potari, E., & Spiliotopoulou, S. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.Google Scholar
  49. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science & Education, 88(3), 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge forum (Advances beyond CSILE). Journal of Distance Education, 17, 23–28.Google Scholar
  51. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2005). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.Google Scholar
  52. Soloway, E., Norris, C., Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B.J., & Marx, R. (2001). Devices are ready-at-hand. Communications of the ACM, 44(6), 15–20.Google Scholar
  53. Suthers, D. D. (1999). Effects of alternate representations of evidential relations on collaborative learning discourse. Third Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Stanford.Google Scholar
  54. Taylor, C. (1996). Defining science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  55. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). A constructivist mobile learning environment supported by a wireless handheld network. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 235–243.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V.  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of Nicosia (UNic)NicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations