The role of knowledge in participatory and pluralistic approaches to ESE

Environmental Education Research

Volumn 21, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 955-974

  Rudsberg, Karin ^a   Öhman, Johan ^b  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

argumentation; knowledge; participatory ESE; practical epistemology; pragmatism

Indexed keywords

EID: 84941093760     PISSN: 13504622     EISSN: 14695871     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2014.971717     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. V.Albe, 2007. “Students’ Positions and Considerations of Scientific Evidence about a Controversial Socioscientific Issue.” Science & Education 17 (8–9): 805–827.
2. J.Almqvist,, and L.Östman. 2006. “Privileging and Artefacts. On the Use of Information Technology in Science Education.” Interchange 37: 225–250.
3. C.von Aufschnaiter,, S.Erduran, J.Osborne, and S.Simon. 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): 101–131.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
4. R.L.Bell,, and N.G.Lederman. 2003. “Understandings of the Nature of Science and Decision Making on Science and Technology Based Issues.” Science & Education 87 (3): 352–377.
5. M.W.Berkowitz,, and P.Simmons. 2003. “Integrating Science Education and Character Education: The Role of Peer Discussion.” In The Role of Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education, edited by D.L.Zeidler, 117–138. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
6. L.K.Berland,, and B.J.Reiser. 2009. “Making Sense of Argumentation and Explanation.” Science & Education 93 (1): 26–55.
7. L.K.Berland,, and B.J.Reiser. 2011. “Classroom Communities’ Adaption of the Practice of Scientific Argumentation.” Science & Education 95 (2): 191–216.
8. G.Biesta,, and N.Burbules. 2003. Pragmatism and Educational Research. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.
9. C.Borg,, N.Gericke, H.-O.Höglund, and E.Bergman. 2012. “The Barriers Encountered by Teachers Implementing Education for Sustainable Development: Discipline Bound Differences and Teaching Traditions.” Research in Science and Technological Education 30 (2): 185–207.10.1080/02635143.2012.699891
10. S.Breiting,, and P.Wickenberg. 2010. “The Progressive Development of Environmental Education in Sweden and Denmark.” Environmental Education Research 16 (1): 9–37.10.1080/13504620903533221
11. N.Christiansen,, S.-N.Chang Rundgren, and H.-O.Höglund. 2011. “Using the SEE-SEP Model to Analyse Upper Secondary Students’ Use of Supporting Reasons in Arguing Socioscientific Issues.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 21 (3): 342–352.
12. J.Dewey, [1929] 1958. Experience and Nature. New York: Dover publications.10.1037/13377-000
13. J.Dewey, [1938] 1997. Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone.
14. S.Erduran,, S.Simon, and J.Osborne. 2004. “TAPping into Argumentation: Developments in the Application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for Studying Science Discourse.” Science & Education 88: 915–933.
15. M.M.Grace,, and M.Ratcliffe. 2002. “The Science and Values That Young People Draw upon to Make Decisions about Biological Conservation Issues.” International Journal of Science Education 24 (11): 1157–1169.10.1080/09500690210134848
16. J.Huckle, 2008. “An Analysis of New Labour’s Policy on Education for Sustainable Development with Particular Reference to Socially Critical Approaches.” Environmental Education Research 14 (1): 65–75.10.1080/13504620701843392
17. M.P.Jiménez-Aleixandre,, A.Bugallo Rodríguez, and R.A.Duschl. 2000. “‘Doing the Lesson’ or ‘Doing Science’: Argument in High School Genetics.” Science & Education 84 (6): 757–792.
18. S.D.Kolstø, 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): 877–901.10.1080/09500690010016102
19. J.Læssøe, 2010. “Education for Sustainable Development, Participation and Socio‐cultural Change.” Environmental Education Research 16 (1): 39–57.10.1080/13504620903504016
20. J.Lewis,, and J.Leach. 2006. “Discussion of Socio‐scientific Issues: The Role of Science Knowledge.” International Journal of Science Education 28 (11): 1267–1287.10.1080/09500690500439348
21. M.Lidar,, E.Lundqvist, and L.Östman. 2006. “Teaching and Learning in the Science Classroom. The Interplay between Teachers’ Epistemological Moves and Students’ Practical Epistemology.” Science & Education 90: 148–163.
22. M.G.Lindahl, 2009. “Ethics or Morals: Understanding Students’ Values Related to Genetic Tests on Humans.” Science & Education 18 (10): 1285–1311.
23. J.A.Nielsen, 2012a. “Science in Discussions: An Analysis of the Use of Science Content in Socioscientific Discussions.” Science & Education 96: 428–456.
24. J.A.Nielsen, 2012b. “Co-opting Science: A Preliminary Study of How Students Invoke Science in Value-laden Discussions.” International Journal of Science Education 34 (2): 275–299.10.1080/09500693.2011.572305
25. J.Öhman, 2008. “Environmental Ethics and Democratic Responsibility: A Pluralistic Approach to ESD.” In Values and Democracy in Education for Sustainable Development: Contributions from Swedish Research, edited by J.Öhman, 17–32. Malmö: Liber.
26. J.Öhman,, and M.Öhman. 2013. “Participatory Approach in Practice: An Analysis of Student Discussions about Climate Change.” Environmental Education Research 19 (3): 324–341.
27. J.Öhman,, and L.Östman. 2007. “Continuity and Change in Moral Meaning-making – A Transactional Approach.” Journal of Moral Education 36 (2): 151–168.
28. A.Orlander Arvola,, and I.Lundegård. 2012. “‘It’s Her Body’. When Students’ Argumentation Shows Displacement of Content in a Science Classroom.” Research in Science Education 42 (6): 1121–1145.10.1007/s11165-011-9237-2
29. J.Osborne,, S.Erduran, and S.Simon. 2004. “Enhancing the Quality of Argumentation in School Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (10): 994–1020.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
30. L.Östman, 1996. “Discourses, Discursive Meanings and Socialization in Chemistry Education.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 28 (1): 37–55.10.1080/0022027980280102
31. L.Östman,, and Ö.J.Öhman. 2010. “A Transactional Approach to Learning.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO, April 2010.
32. L.Östman,, and P.-O.Wickman. 2001. “Practical Epistemology, Learning and Socialization.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, April 2001.
33. M.Quennerstedt,, Ö.J.Öhman, and M.Öhman. 2011. “Investigating Learning in Physical Education – A Transactional Approach.” Sport Education and Society 16 (2): 159–177.10.1080/13573322.2011.540423
34. M.Ratcliffe,, and M.Grace. 2003. Science Education for Citizenship: Teaching Socio-scientific Issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
35. R.Rorty, 1990. “Pragmatism as Anti-representationalism.” In Pragmatism. From Peirce to Davidson, edited by J.P.Murphy, 1–6. Oxford: Westview Press.
36. W.-M.Roth,, and A.Barton. 2004. Rethinking Scientific Literacy. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203463918
37. K.Rudsberg,, and J.Öhman. 2010. “Pluralism in Practice. Experiences from Swedish Evaluation, School Development and Research.” Environmental Education Research 16 (1): 95–111.
38. K.Rudsberg,, J.Öhman, and L.Östman. 2013. “Analysing Students’ Learning in Classroom Discussions about Socio-scientific Issues.” Science & Education 97 (4): 594–620.
39. T.D.Sadler, 2004. “Informal Reasoning Regarding Socioscientific Issues: A Critical Review of Research.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (5): 513–536.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
40. T.D.Sadler,, S.A.Barab, and B.Scott. 2007. “What Do Students Gain by Engaging in Socioscientific Inquiry?” Research in Science Education 37 (4): 371–391.10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
41. T.D.Sadler,, and L.Donnelly. 2006. “Socioscientific Argumentation: The Effects of Content Knowledge and Morality.” International Journal of Science Education 28 (12): 1463–1488.10.1080/09500690600708717
42. T.D.Sadler,, and D.L.Zeidler. 2003. “The Morality of Socioscientific Issues: Construal and Resolution of Genetic Engineering Dilemmas.” Science & Education 88 (1): 4–27.
43. T.D.Sadler,, and D.L.Zeidler. 2005. “The Significance of Content Knowledge for Informal Reasoning regarding Socioscientific Issues: Applying Genetics Knowledge to Genetic Engineering Issues.” Science & Education 89 (1): 71–93.
44. V.Sampson,, and D.Clark. 2008. “Assessment of the Ways Students Generate Arguments in Science Education: Current Perspectives and Recommendations for Future Directions.” Science & Education 92 (3): 447–472.
45. W.Scott,, and S.Gough. 2003. Sustainable Development and Learning: Framing the Issues. London: RoutledgeFalmer.10.4324/9780203464625
46. S.E.Toulmin, [1958] 2003. The Uses of Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
47. K.Walker,, and D.L.Zeidler. 2007. “Promoting Discourse about Socioscientific Issues through Scaffolded Inquiry.” International Journal of Science Education 29 (11): 1387–1410.10.1080/09500690601068095
48. P.-O.Wickman, 2004. “The Practical Epistemologies of the Classroom: A Study of Laboratory Work.” Science & Education 88: 325–344.
49. P.-O.Wickman, 2006. Aesthetic Experience in Science Education: Learning and Meaning-making as Situated Talk and Action. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50. P.-O.Wickman,, and L.Östman. 2001. “University Students during Practical Work: Can We Make the Learning Process Intelligible?” In Research in Science Education – Past, Present, and Future, edited by H.Behrendt, H.Dahncke, R.Duit, W.Gräber, M.Komorek, A.Kross, and P.Reiska, 319–324. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
51. P.-O.Wickman,, and L.Östman. 2002a. “Learning as Discourse Change: A Sociocultural Mechanism.” Science & Education 86: 601–623.
52. P.-O.Wickman,, and L.Östman. 2002b. “Induction as an Empirical Problem: How Students Generalize during Practical Work.” International Journal of Science Education 24: 465–486.10.1080/09500690110074756
53. Y.-T.Wu,, and C.-C.Tsai. 2007. “High School Students’ Informal Reasoning on a Socio‐scientific Issue: Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses.” International Journal of Science Education 29 (9): 1163–1187.10.1080/09500690601083375
54. D.L.Zeidler,, and M.Keefer. 2003. “The Role of Moral Reasoning and the Status of Socioscientific Issues in Science Education: Philosophical, Psychological and Pedagogical Considerations.” In The Role of Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education, edited by D.L.Zeidler, 7–38. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.10.1007/1-4020-4996-X
55. D.L.Zeidler,, J.Osborne, S.Erduran, S.Simon, and M.Monk. 2003. “The Role of Argument during Discourse about Socioscientific Issues.” In The Role of Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education, edited by D.L.Zeidler, 97–116. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.10.1007/1-4020-4996-X
56. D.L.Zeidler,, T.D.Sadler, M.L.Simmons, and E.V.Howes. 2005. “Beyond STS: A Research-based Framework for Socioscientific Issues Education.” Science & Education 89: 357–377.