Attitudes and Language Use in Group Discussions on Socio-Scientific Issues

Mats Gunnar Lindahl; Anne-Mari Folkesson

doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1214a

Full Text (PDF)

Mats Gunnar Lindahl ¹ ^* , Anne-Mari Folkesson ¹

More Detail

¹ Linnaeus University
^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

Background:
The school systems of many countries have been pervaded by student-centred pedagogy making students’ small group discussion a common feature of the classroom practice. However, there is a lack of studies focussing different modes of discussion for the purpose of finding out whether some modes are more beneficial than others. Hence, the aim of this study is to explore the underpinnings of student small group conversations on Socio-scientific Issues in order to develop an understanding of the key aspects of what interrupts or revitalizes the conversation.

Materials and methods:
We focus on the importance of attitudes and language use for the fate of students’ decision-making conversations. Our theoretical framework builds on Dewey’s notion of Open-mindedness and Bernstein’s communication codes.

Results:
Students’ use of morals, opinions and agitational talk interrupted conversations, whereas new aspects and new perspectives revitalized the conversation.

Conclusions:
Students need guidance to avoid using justifications in conjunction with a Close-minded attitude.

Keywords

attitude
critical thinking
elaborated code
group discussion
open-mindedness
Socio-Scientific Issues

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1214a

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2016 - Volume 12 Issue 2, pp. 283-301

Publication date: 01 Jul 2016

Article Views: 1686

Article Downloads: 1061

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Bernstein, B. (2nd edn)(1974). Class, codes and control (Vol. 1). Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London : Routledge.
Cheong, C. M., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Online discussion and critical thinking skills: A case study in a Singapore secondary school. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 556-573.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health and Company.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
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.
Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237.
Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision‐Making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551-570.
Grace, M. M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people drawupon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1157-1169.
Gustafsson, B., & Öhman, J. (2013). DEQUAL: A tool for investigating deliberative qualities in students’ socioscientific conversations. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 8(2), 319-338.
Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43, 325–356.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodrígez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017 - 1043.
Kolstø, S. D. (2000). Consensus projects: teaching science for citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 645-664.
Kolstø, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation. In Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (Science & Technology Education Library 35, pp. 114-133). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Lewis, J. & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287.
Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: an uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69 - 119.
Lin, H., Hong, Z. -R., & Lawrenz, F. (2012). Promoting and scaffolding argumentation through reflective asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 59, 378–384.
Lindahl, M. G., & Linder, C. (2013). Students’ ontological security and agency in science education - An example from reasoning about the use of gene technology. International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2299-2330.
Liu, C. -J., & Yang, S. C. (2012). Applying the practical inquiry model to investigate the quality of students’ online discourse in an information ethics course based on Bloom’s teaching goal and Bird’s 3C model. Computers & Education, 59, 466–480.
Lubben, F., Sadeck, M., Scholtz, Z., & Braund, M. (2010). Gauging students’ untutored ability in argumentation about experimental data: A South African case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 2143–2166.
Mork, S. M. (2006). ICT in science education. Exploring the digital learning materials at viten.no (Unpublished PhD-thesis). University of Oslo, Oslo.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182.
Sadler, T. D. (2004a). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
Sadler, T. D. (2004b). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socioscientific issues. Journal of Moral Education, 33, 339-358.
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: socio‐scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42.
Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 353–376.
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.
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects ofcontent knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004) The morality of socioscientific issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4-27.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 85, 71–93.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112–138.
Schalk, H. H., van der Schee, J. A., & Boersma, K. T. (2013). The development of understanding of evidence in pre-university biology education in the Netherlands. Journal of Research in Science Education, 43, 551–578.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wegerif, R., & Mercer, N. (1997). A Dialogical Framework for Researching Peer TalkIn Wegerif, R. & Scrimshaw, P. (Eds), Computers and Talk in the Primary Classroom (pp 49- 65). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
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.
Yeh, K. -H., & She, H. -C. (2010). On-line synchronous scientific argumentation learning: Nurturing students' argumentation ability and conceptual change in science context. Computers & Education 55, 586-602.
Zeidler, D. L. (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character and care. In S. Erduran, M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201-216). The Netherlands: Springer Press.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A researchbased framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357-377.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74–101.
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.

How to cite this article

APA

Lindahl, M. G., & Folkesson, A.-M. (2016). Attitudes and Language Use in Group Discussions on Socio-Scientific Issues. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(2), 283-301. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1214a

Vancouver

Lindahl MG, Folkesson AM. Attitudes and Language Use in Group Discussions on Socio-Scientific Issues. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2016;12(2):283-301. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1214a

AMA

Lindahl MG, Folkesson AM. Attitudes and Language Use in Group Discussions on Socio-Scientific Issues. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2016;12(2), 283-301. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1214a

Chicago

Lindahl, Mats Gunnar, and Anne-Mari Folkesson. "Attitudes and Language Use in Group Discussions on Socio-Scientific Issues". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2016 12 no. 2 (2016): 283-301. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1214a

Harvard

Lindahl, M. G., and Folkesson, A.-M. (2016). Attitudes and Language Use in Group Discussions on Socio-Scientific Issues. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(2), pp. 283-301. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1214a

MLA

Lindahl, Mats Gunnar et al. "Attitudes and Language Use in Group Discussions on Socio-Scientific Issues". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 12, no. 2, 2016, pp. 283-301. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1214a