Analyzing Students' Learning in Classroom Discussions about Socioscientific Issues

Science Education

Volumn 97, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 594-620

  Rudsberg, Karin ^a   ÖHman, Johan ^b   ÖStman, Leif ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879291888     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21065     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Almqvist, J., & Ö Stman, L. (2006). Privileging and artefacts. On the use of information technology in science education. Interchange, 37, 225 - 250.
2. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwartz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog. Cognitive Science, 33(2009), 374 - 400.
3. 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(3), 352 - 377.
4. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797 - 818.
5. Berkowitz, M.W., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character education: The role of peer discussion. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
6. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009).Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26 - 55.
7. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities' adaptation of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191 - 216.
8. Biesta, G., & Burbules N. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.
9. Bravo, B., & Jiḿenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2011). A learning progression for using evidence in argumentation: an initial framework. Paper presented at European Science Education Research Association conference, Lyon, France, September 5 - 9, 2011.
10. Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1929)
11. Dewey, J. (1983). The influence of Darwinism on philosophy. In J. A. Boydston (Ed), The Middle Works, 1899 -1924 (Vol. 4: 1907 - 1909, pp. 3 - 14). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published1909)
12. Dewey, J. (1985). Ethics. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works, 1925 - 1953 (Vol. 7: 1932, pp. 1 - 536). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1932)
13. Dewey, J. (1988). Human nature and conduct an introduction to social psychology. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works, 1899 - 1924 (Vol. 14: 1922). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1922)
14. Dewey, J., & Bentley A. F. (1991). Knowing and the known. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works, 1925 - 1953 (Vol. 16: 1949 - 1952). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1949)
15. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education, 84, 287 - 312.
16. Duschl, R. A. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiḿenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 159 - 175). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
17. Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999). Understanding dialogic argumentation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
18. 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.
19. Ford,M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404 - 423.
20. Garrison, J. (1995). Deweyan pragmatism and the epistemology of contemporary social constructivism. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 716 - 740.
21. Garrison, J. (2001). An introduction to Dewey's theory of functional "trans-action": An alternative paradigm for activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8, 275 - 296.
22. Hodkinson, P., Biesta, G., & James, D. (2007). Understanding learning cultures. Educational Review, 59(4), 415 - 427.
23. Jiḿenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodŕiguez, A., and Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757 - 792.
24. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849 - 871.
25. Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314 - 342.
26. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). "To trust or not to trust," . . . - pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877 - 901.
27. Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., & Mathiassen, K. (2006). Science students' critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632 - 655.
28. Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: the role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267 - 1288.
29. Lidar,M., Lundquist, E., and Ö Stman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom. Science Education, 90, 148 - 163.
30. McNeill, K. L., & Vaughn, M. H. (2010). Urban high school students' critical science agency: Conceptual understandings and environmental actions around climate change. Research in science education, 42(2), 373 - 399.
31. Newton, P. N., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553 - 576.
32. Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students' argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 371 - 393.
33. Ö Hman, J. (2008). Environmental ethics and democratic responsibility: Apluralistic approach to ESD. In J.Ö Hman (Ed.), Values and democracy in education for sustainable development: Contributions from Swedish research (pp. 17 - 32). Malm̈o, Sweden: Liber.
34. Ö Hman, J., & Ö Stman, L. (2007). Continuity and change in moral meaning-making - a transactional approach. Journal of Moral Education, 36(2), 151 - 168.
35. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994 - 1020.
36. Ö Stman, L., & Wickman, P.-O. (2001). Practical epistemology, learning and socialization. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, April 2001.
37. Ratcliffe,M., and Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues.Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
38. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (p.729 - 780). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V.Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp.139 - 164). New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Rorty, R. (1990). Pragmatism as anti-representationalism. In J. P. Murphy (Ed.), Pragmatism. From Peirce to Davidson (pp. 1 - 6). Oxford, England: Westview Press.
41. Roth, W.-M., & Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: Routledge.
42. Rudsberg, K., & Ö Stman, J. (2010). Pluralism in practice. Experiences from Swedish evaluation, school development and research. Environmental Education Research, 16(1), 95 - 111.
43. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513 - 536.
44. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371 - 391.
45. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447 - 472.
46. Sampson,V.,and Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448 - 484.
47. Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217 - 257.
48. Tavares, M., Jiḿenez-Aleixandre, M.-P., & Mortimer, E. F. (2010). Articulation of conceptual knowledge and argumentation practices by high school students in evolution problems. Science Education, 19, 573 - 598.
49. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1958)
50. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101 - 131.
51. Walker, K., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387 - 1410.
52. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
53. Wickman, P.-O. (2004). The practical epistemologies of the classroom: a study of laboratory work. Science Education, 88, 325 - 344.
54. Wickman, P.-O. (2006). Aesthetic experience in science education: Learning and meaning-making as situated talk and action. London: Erlbaum.
55. Wickman, P.-O., & Ö Stman, L. (2001). University students during practical work: can we make the learning process intelligible? In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gr̈aber, M. Komorek, A. Kross, & P. Reiska (Eds.), Research in science education-Past, present, and future (pp. 319 - 324). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
56. Wickman, P.-O., & Ö Stman, L. (2002a). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86, 601 - 623.
57. Wickman, P.-O., & Ö Stman, L. (2002b). Induction as an empirical problem: how students generalize during practical work. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 465 - 486.
58. Wittgenstein, L. (1997). On certainty. Oxford, England: Blackwell. (Original work published 1969)
59. Wittgenstein, L. (1997). Philosophical investigations. Oxford, England: Blackwell. (Original work published 1953)
60. Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). High school students' informal reasoning on a socio-scientific Issue: qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163 - 1187.
61. 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). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
62. Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument and fallacies during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97 - 116). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
63. 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, 357 - 377.
64. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35 - 62.