{"title":"Using Socioscientific Issues to Teach Argumentation to Year 7 Science Students in a low Socioeconomic Rural Australian School","authors":"Vaille Dawson","doi":"10.1007/s11165-024-10224-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Australian science curriculum is intended to enable school students to develop an understanding and curiosity about the way that science can assist them in making sense of the physical and technological world. In addition to understanding and communicating scientific knowledge and using inquiry processes, students also need to develop the skills to make evidence-based decisions about socio-ecological challenges. Today’s school students will need to be able to use their scientific literacy to construct arguments and make decisions about multifaceted ill-structured scientific problems (called socioscientific issues (SSI)). The aim of this research was to examine whether Year 7 (aged 11–12 years) science students located in a rural region of Australia could improve their argumentation skills following instruction in the context of water-based SSI. An experienced science teacher and her two classes of Year 7 students (<i>n</i> = 39) participated in the research. Using an interpretive paradigm and a case study method, quantitative (pre- and post-instruction questionnaires) and qualitative (classroom observations, lesson plans, student work samples and teacher interview) data were collected. After two consecutive lessons on argumentation about water-based SSI, it was found that the complexity of students’ arguments improved significantly. Teacher strategies that contributed to the improvement included (1) creating a safe environment for students to take risks with their thinking; (2) providing multiple opportunities for students to learn and practice the language of argumentation; (3) constantly encouraging students to write down their arguments: (4) and differentiating instruction to cater for varying student abilities. It is concluded that, with extensive scaffolded teacher support, this group of students were able to understand the purpose and components of an argument and improve their written arguments.</p>","PeriodicalId":47988,"journal":{"name":"Research in Science Education","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10224-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Australian science curriculum is intended to enable school students to develop an understanding and curiosity about the way that science can assist them in making sense of the physical and technological world. In addition to understanding and communicating scientific knowledge and using inquiry processes, students also need to develop the skills to make evidence-based decisions about socio-ecological challenges. Today’s school students will need to be able to use their scientific literacy to construct arguments and make decisions about multifaceted ill-structured scientific problems (called socioscientific issues (SSI)). The aim of this research was to examine whether Year 7 (aged 11–12 years) science students located in a rural region of Australia could improve their argumentation skills following instruction in the context of water-based SSI. An experienced science teacher and her two classes of Year 7 students (n = 39) participated in the research. Using an interpretive paradigm and a case study method, quantitative (pre- and post-instruction questionnaires) and qualitative (classroom observations, lesson plans, student work samples and teacher interview) data were collected. After two consecutive lessons on argumentation about water-based SSI, it was found that the complexity of students’ arguments improved significantly. Teacher strategies that contributed to the improvement included (1) creating a safe environment for students to take risks with their thinking; (2) providing multiple opportunities for students to learn and practice the language of argumentation; (3) constantly encouraging students to write down their arguments: (4) and differentiating instruction to cater for varying student abilities. It is concluded that, with extensive scaffolded teacher support, this group of students were able to understand the purpose and components of an argument and improve their written arguments.
期刊介绍：
2020 Five-Year Impact Factor: 4.021
2020 Impact Factor: 5.439
Ranking: 107/1319 (Education) – Scopus
2020 CiteScore 34.7 – Scopus
Research in Science Education (RISE ) is highly regarded and widely recognised as a leading international journal for the promotion of scholarly science education research that is of interest to a wide readership.
RISE publishes scholarly work that promotes science education research in all contexts and at all levels of education. This intention is aligned with the goals of Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA), the association connected with the journal.
You should consider submitting your manscript to RISE if your research:
Examines contexts such as early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary, workplace, and informal learning as they relate to science education; and
Advances our knowledge in science education research rather than reproducing what we already know.
RISE will consider scholarly works that explore areas such as STEM, health, environment, cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology and higher education where science education is forefronted.
The scholarly works of interest published within RISE reflect and speak to a diversity of opinions, approaches and contexts. Additionally, the journal’s editorial team welcomes a diversity of form in relation to science education-focused submissions. With this in mind, RISE seeks to publish empirical research papers.
Empircal contributions are:
Theoretically or conceptually grounded;
Relevant to science education theory and practice;
Highlight limitations of the study; and
Identify possible future research opportunities.
From time to time, we commission independent reviewers to undertake book reviews of recent monographs, edited collections and/or textbooks.
Before you submit your manuscript to RISE, please consider the following checklist. Your paper is:
No longer than 6000 words, including references.
Sufficiently proof read to ensure strong grammar, syntax, coherence and good readability;
Explicitly stating the significant and/or innovative contribution to the body of knowledge in your field in science education;
Internationalised in the sense that your work has relevance beyond your context to a broader audience; and
Making a contribution to the ongoing conversation by engaging substantively with prior research published in RISE.
While we encourage authors to submit papers to a maximum length of 6000 words, in rare cases where the authors make a persuasive case that a work makes a highly significant original contribution to knowledge in science education, the editors may choose to publish longer works.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
