Archives
Current issue
About
About us
Aims and Scope
Abstracting and Indexing
Editorial Office
Open Access Policy
Publication Ethics
Journal History
Publisher
Follow us: Twitter
Contact
For Authors
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
Copyright & Licencing
Publication Fees
Fee Waiver Policy for Doctoral Students
EJMSTE Language Editing Service
More
Statistics
Special Issues
Special Issue Announcements
Published Special Issues
RESEARCH PAPER
Students’ Use of Open-Minded Attitude and Elaborate Talk in Group Discussion and Role-Playing Debate on Socioscientific Issues
1
Department of Pedagogy and Learning, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, SWEDEN
2
Department of Chemistry and Biomedical Sciences, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, SWEDEN
Publication date: 2020-11-03
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2020;16(12):em1910
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Student-active science teaching that includes interactions among students is suggested to
support students’ reasoning skills. However, little is known about what are the beneficial modes
of interaction to support learning. In the present study, we investigated how different types of
classroom discussion on socioscientific issues can encourage students’ reasoning skills as
expressed in argumentative essays. Qualities of students’ talk and reasoning skills were described
in terms of attitudes, drawing on Dewey, and sociolinguistic codes, drawn from Bernstein.
Qualitative data consisting of transcribed classroom discussions and student argumentative
essays were analysed by means of statistical methods. The results describe how specific qualities
in students’ talk influence qualities of students’ argumentative texts. The results indicate that
teachers by promoting elaborate talk among students can stimulate more nuanced and elaborate
student texts.
REFERENCES (43)
1.
Agell, L., Soria, V., & Carrió, M. (2015). Using role play to debate animal testing. Journal of Biological Education, 49(3), 309-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/002192....
2.
Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. Teachers College Press.
3.
Akerman, R., & Neale, I. (2011). Debating the evidence: An international review of current situation and perceptions. CfBT Education Trust and The English-Speaking Union.
4.
Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099-1114. https://doi.org./10.1002/(SICI...<1099::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-N.
5.
Anagnostopoulos, D., Smith, E. R., & Nystrand, M. (2008). Creating dialogic spaces to support teachers’ discussion practices: An introduction. English Education, 41(1), 4-12. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4....
6.
Arthurs, L. A., & Kreager, B. Z. (2017). An integrative review of in-class activities that enable active learning in college science classroom settings. International Journal of Science Education, 39(15), 2073-2091. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
7.
Bayram-Jacobs, D., Wieske, G., & Henze, I. (2019). A chemistry lesson for citizenship: Students’ use of different perspectives in decision-making about the use and sale of laughing gas. Educational Sciences, 9(100), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsc....
8.
Belova, N., Eilks, I., & Feierabend, T. (2015). The evaluation of role-playing in the context of teaching climate change. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 165-190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763....
9.
Bernstein, B. (1974). Class, codes and control (Vol. 1). Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. (2nd Ed.). Routledge.
10.
Bungum, B., Bøe, M. V., & Henriksen, E. K. (2018). Quantum talk: How small‐group discussions may enhance students’ understanding in quantum physics. Science Education, 102(4), 856-877. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21....
12.
Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21....
13.
Fung, D., & Howe, C. (2012). Liberal studies in Hong Kong: A new perspective on critical thinking through group work. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.....
14.
Geboers, E., Geijsel, F., Wilfried Admiraal, W., & ten Dam, G. (2013). Review of the effects of citizenship education. Educational Research Review, 9, 158-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edur....
15.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
16.
Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43, 325-356. https://doi.org/10.1080/030576....
17.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171-1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
18.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodrígez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2...<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F.
19.
Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2017). A case for the use of conceptual analysis in science education research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54, 538-551. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21....
20.
Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44, 46-53. https://doi.org/10.3102/001318....
21.
Lewis, J. & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
22.
Lindahl, M. G., & Folkesson, A.-M. (2016a). Attitudes and language use in group discussions on socio-scientific issues. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(2). 283-301. https://doi.org/10.12973/euras....
23.
Lindahl, M. G., & Folkesson, A.-M. (2016b). On attitude and language in students’ talk and their impact on students’ texts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(8), 2199-2221. https://doi.org/10.12973/euras....
24.
Lindahl, M. G., Folkesson, A.-M., & Zeidler, D. L. (2019). Students’ recognition of educational demands in the context of a socioscientific issues curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56, 1155-1182. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21....
25.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-....
26.
Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1080/014119....
27.
Mezuk, B., Bondarenko, I., Smith, S., & Tucker, E. (2010). The influence of a policy debate program on achievement in a large urban public school system. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Hilton Atlanta and Atlanta Marriott Marquis, Atlanta, Georgia, August 14.
28.
Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43, 371-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165....
29.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20....
30.
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Open University Press.
31.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10....
32.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165....
33.
Sedlacek, M., & Sedova, K. (2017). How many are talking? The role of collectivity in dialogic teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 85, 99-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer....
34.
Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903-927. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
35.
Tal, T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socioscientific issues: Classroom culture and students’ performances. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 615-644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422....
37.
van Drie, J., & van de Ven, P. -H. (2017). Moving ideas: An exploration of students’ use of dialogue for writing in history. Language and Education, 31(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/095007....
38.
Wegerif, R., & Mercer, N. (1997). A Dialogical Framework for Researching Peer Talk. In R. Wegerif and P. Scrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and Talk in the Primary Classroom (pp. 49-65). Multilingual Matters Ltd.
39.
Whitty, G. (2010). Revisiting school knowledge: Some sociological perspectives on new school curricula. European Journal of Education, 45, 28-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465....
40.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character and care. In S. Erduran and M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201-216). Springer Press.
41.
Zeidler, D. L., & Schafer, L. E. (1984). Identifying mediating factors of moral reasoning in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.36....
42.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20....
43.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10....
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1305-8223 |
| ISSN: | 1305-8215 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
