Students’ Use of Open-Minded Attitude and Elaborate Talk in Group Discussion and Role-Playing Debate on Socioscientific Issues

Ulrika Bossér; Mats Gunnar Lindahl

doi:10.29333/ejmste/9127

Full Text (PDF)

Ulrika Bossér ¹ ^* , Mats Gunnar Lindahl ²

More Detail

¹ Department of Pedagogy and Learning, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, SWEDEN² Department of Chemistry and Biomedical Sciences, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, SWEDEN^* Corresponding Author

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.

Keywords

elaborated code
group discussion
open-mindedness
role-playing debate
socioscientific issues
writing

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

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 16, Issue 12, December 2020, Article No: em1910

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9127

Publication date: 03 Nov 2020

Article Views: 3803

Article Downloads: 2225

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

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/10.1080/00219266.2014.943788
Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. Teachers College Press.
Akerman, R., & Neale, I. (2011). Debating the evidence: An international review of current situation and perceptions. CfBT Education Trust and The English-Speaking Union.
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)1098-2736(199612)33:10<1099::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-N
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/40173313
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/10.1080/09500693.2017.1363925
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/educsci9020100
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/s10763-013-9477-x
Bernstein, B. (1974). Class, codes and control (Vol. 1). Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. (2^nd Ed.). Routledge.
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.21447
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. D.C. Health and Company.
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.21076
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.2012.04.002
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.edurev.2012.02.001
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/10.1080/09500690701744595
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/10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024
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/10.1080/09500690210134857
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/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
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.21376
Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44, 46-53. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15569530
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/10.1080/09500690500439348
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/eurasia.2016.1214a
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/eurasia.2016.1247a
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.21548
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/S0959-4752(96)00021-7
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/10.1080/01411920410001689689
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.
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/s11165-011-9266-x
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.20035
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Open University Press.
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.10101
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/s11165-006-9030-9
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.2017.07.001
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/10.1080/09500690010016076
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/s11422-006-9026-9
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
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/10.1080/09500782.2017.1326504
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.
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.1465-3435.2009.01422.x
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.
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.3660210102
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.20281
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.10008

How to cite this article

APA

Bossér, U., & Lindahl, M. G. (2020). Students’ Use of Open-Minded Attitude and Elaborate Talk in Group Discussion and Role-Playing Debate on Socioscientific Issues. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(12), em1910. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9127

Vancouver

Bossér U, Lindahl MG. Students’ Use of Open-Minded Attitude and Elaborate Talk in Group Discussion and Role-Playing Debate on Socioscientific Issues. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2020;16(12):em1910. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9127

AMA

Bossér U, Lindahl MG. Students’ Use of Open-Minded Attitude and Elaborate Talk in Group Discussion and Role-Playing Debate on Socioscientific Issues. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2020;16(12), em1910. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9127

Chicago

Bossér, Ulrika, and Mats Gunnar Lindahl. "Students’ Use of Open-Minded Attitude and Elaborate Talk in Group Discussion and Role-Playing Debate on Socioscientific Issues". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2020 16 no. 12 (2020): em1910. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9127

Harvard

Bossér, U., and Lindahl, M. G. (2020). Students’ Use of Open-Minded Attitude and Elaborate Talk in Group Discussion and Role-Playing Debate on Socioscientific Issues. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(12), em1910. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9127

MLA

Bossér, Ulrika et al. "Students’ Use of Open-Minded Attitude and Elaborate Talk in Group Discussion and Role-Playing Debate on Socioscientific Issues". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 16, no. 12, 2020, em1910. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9127