• No results found

Working with socio-scientific issues . Students’ and teachers’ experiences

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Working with socio-scientific issues . Students’ and teachers’ experiences"

Copied!
11
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

WORKING WITH SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC ISSUES –

STUDENTS‟ AND TEACHERS‟ EXPERIENCES

Margareta Ekborg Malmö University Margareta.ekborg@mah.se Christina Ottander Umeå University Christina.ottander@matnv.umu.se

The project is funded by the Swedish Research Council. The research group is called SISC (Science in Social Contexts) consists of Britt Lindahl and Maria Rosberg at Kristianstad University, Margareta Ekborg, Christina Ottander, Eva Silfver and Mikael Winberg at Umeå University, and Malin Ideland, Claes Malmberg and Agneta Rehn at Malmö University (www.sisc.se).

ABSTRACT

We present a research project aiming at investigating how teachers and students in lower secondary school experience work with socio-scientific issues (SSIs). Our interest concerns the importance the actual content has for the students‘ interest and learning and how students‘ gender and attitudes towards science, affect their experience. Another interest is how the teachers describe their work with the cases, the students‘ learning and what difficulties they encounter in the work. We have compared students‘ and teachers‘ experiences of the SSI work. Data have been collected by questionnaires with students and teachers and interviews with teachers. The teachers confirm results from this and other studies that students are interested in working with socio-scientific issues. However some of results are contradictory. The teachers felt safe with content and work forms but they still arranged SSI as something special and even if they were comfortable with group work they generally did not seem to know how to facilitate the students‘ work. Both students and teachers found the work interesting and the teachers but not the students judged that the students learnt as much science as usual. Both students and teachers perceived critical thinking, search for information, and ability in argumentation as learning outcomes that were developed during the work with the case

Keywords: Socio-scientific issues, secondary school, teachers, students, authentic cases

INTRODUCTION

In this paper we report the results from a study of how students and teachers experience work with a number of socio-scientific cases constructed for this research project.

There are several arguments for making changes in secondary school science. Firstly, students often express interest in science but they find science in school difficult and without relevance for them (Lindahl, 2003). They are critical about both the content of the school subject and to how it is taught. The students feel that the content is set and that there is nothing to discuss, unlike other school subjects such as history and religious education. During the later years of compulsory school the interest decreases. For a long time this has been most obvious for girls but now it is becoming more common among boys as well

(2)

(Lindahl, 2003) At the same time, the students feel that they are not doing well in science - even if they have good marks. This is not the case for other school subjects (Lindahl, 2003; Osborne, Simon, & Collins, 2003). Results from the ROSE project – Relevance of Science Education indicate that there is a gap between what students are interested in learning about and what is taught in school (Oscarsson, Jidesjö, Karlsson & Strömdahl, 2009). It is also most obvious for chemistry and physics. New strategies for increasing young peoples‘ interest and knowledge in science and their ability to use science outside school are needed (Osborne & Dillon, 2008) to provide students with the knowledge they need for life in a modern society.

Secondly, the Swedish curriculum and syllabuses for science state that students should develop knowledge not only in scientific content but also in knowledge concerning scientific activity and knowledge concerning the use of knowledge (Skolverket, 2000). However, according to the latest national evaluation (NU03), these last two aspects seem to be taught to a lesser extent in school (Skolverket, 2005). Also, international studies show that many teachers teach the scientific content in preference to the nature of science (Sadler, Amirshokoohi, Kazempour & Allspaw, 2006). Unfortunately NU03 also shows that many students do not reach the goals for conceptual understanding, as described in the national course syllabuses in science for school year nine (Skolverket, 2005). In other words, students in general find science boring and difficult, they are not taught what is stated in the curriculum and they do not reach a satisfactory level in what they actually are taught.

Work with SSIs can be a means of overcoming some problems with school science: to raise interest in science, to cover all aspects of the curriculum, and to involve a more interactive and dialogic pedagogy. Some general characteristics of SSIs are: they are important for society, have a basis in science, involve forming opinions, are frequently media-reported, address local, national and global dimensions with attendant political and societal frameworks, involve values and ethical reasoning, may involve consideration of sustainable development and may require some understanding of probability and risks, and there are no ‖right‖ answers (Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003). To work with SSI means to work with content both in science and about science, as stated in the Swedish curriculum. SSI are said to be vehicles for strengthening generic skills as team-work, problem-solving and media literacy (Ratcliffe and Grace, 2003). Decision-making and argumentation are also important in work with SSI. Research has revealed that such issues challenge students‘ rational, social and emotional skills (Sadler, 2004) and other studies show that students are interested in working with issues with a more humanistic perspective (Aikenhead, 2006). However, several problematic factors are identified, such as that the students can easily be distracted when they are working with complex issues where the outcome often is not clear (Zeidler, Sadler & Simmons, 2005). Aikenhead (2006) argues that issues with a humanistic perspective are often complex, and therefore difficult to understand. Sadler, Barab and Scott (2007) state that significant work remains in order to ascertain the link between SSI curricula and the learning of science content.

Research shows that teachers find it difficult to teach SSI as well as argumentation. The problem does not seem to be the content in itself, but rather to teach ideas about science and to conduct teaching which includes decision-making and argumentation (Gray & Bryce, 2006). Newton, Driver and Osborne (1999) report, that teachers often do not have faith in their ability to conduct teaching in which the students engage in argumentation. Teachers also feel insecure in to what extent they should be involved themselves in the classroom discussions and to handle the anxiety or emotions caused by, for example, work with gene technology (Bryce & Gray, 2004). Teachers also experience tension between educational arguments for devoting time to developing students‘ understanding of scientific processes and the classroom reality (Bartholomew, Osborne & Ratcliffe, 2004). Most teachers have inadequate ideas about science and there is a complex relationship between teachers‘ stated

(3)

beliefs about science and how they actually present science in their classrooms (Abd-El-Khalic & Lederman, 2000).

Aim

We present a research project aiming at investigating how teachers and students in lower secondary school experience work with socio-scientific issues (SSIs). Our interest concerns the importance the actual content has for the students‘ interest and learning and how students‘ gender and attitudes towards science, affect their experience. Another interest is how the teachers describe their work with the cases, the students‘ learning and what difficulties they encounter in the work. We have compared students‘ and teachers‘ experiences of the SSI work.

The aim is operationalized in the following research questions:

 What cases did the teachers select?

 How interesting do boys and girls find the different cases?

 What are the teachers‘ and the students‘ opinions about the cases and how do the cases differ concerning how students judge currency, relevance of the task, and how difficult or easy the content and the task is?

 How do teachers describe their work with SSI cases in terms of students‘ work and learning?

 To what extent do SSIs provide opportunities for learning as perceived by students?

 What similarities and differences are there between teachers and students?

METHODOLOGY

In Ekborg, Ideland, and Malmberg (2009), we describe a conceptual framework consisting of six components chosen to describe the characteristics of SSIs. The components are: starting point; school subject; nature of scientific evidence; social content; use of scientific knowledge and level of conflict. The purpose is to use it as a research tool for the analysis of different dimensions in pupils‘ work with socio-scientific issues. The intention is to connect outcomes in learning and interest to the different components. We constructed six cases in which these components vary. All cases were current and authentic: that is, we have used real situations and neither rewritten nor adapted the original starting points of the case. In Sweden, school science is defined as the following subjects; biology, chemistry and physics. As issues related to health or the environment are usually of interest to the general public (Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003), the six cases were chosen so that the subject content is a combination of a doorway into an interdisciplinary topic, and traditional school science. The scientific content includes concepts, theories and processes that are found in most science syllabuses all over the world. However, the framework does not contain information about specific science content such as concepts and processes or suggests content about science. A teacher‘s guide was then developed (www.sisc.se)

The Swedish syllabuses are goal-driven and not very detailed, which has the consequence that teachers are free to choose content and teaching methods as long as their students reach the goals (Skolverket, 2000). It also means that it is almost impossible to give detailed instructions to Swedish teachers and expect them to be followed, as teachers are used to organize the work as they find appropriate themselves.

Sample

70 teachers with approximately 1500 students in Sweden volunteered to work with our SSI cases and each teacher chose one case. A questionnaire was used to measure students‘ attitudes towards and interest in science before starting to work with the case and a second

(4)

questionnaire (N=1100) after finishing a case. 55 teachers answered a questionnaire after the work and seven of them were then interviewed.

Questionnaires

This study is part of a larger study and therefore the questionnaires for students as well as for teachers include a rather large number of items. Here we only describe those that are relevant for this paper. The first student questionnaire aimed at describing the pupils‘ personal characteristics from several aspects. It included questions about gender, learning goals, attitudes toward science in school and society and beliefs about learning. The second student questionnaire, measured the situational characteristics of the SSI work and its perceived cognitive and affective outcomes and it was completed immediately after an SSI activity.

The teachers‘ questionnaire included questions about background information and there were three open-ended questions about students‘ reports, assessment and one question in which the respondents were free to write comments. The statements were chosen to get a brief overview of how different teachers organized the work and what their experiences were. The questions were organized in the following groups: Information about the teacher, the class and choice of case, The teachers‘ opinions about the case, How the classroom work was organized, Opinions about the students when working with the case, Opinions of different aspects of the students‘ learning, Reporting on what the students based their arguments on, Resources used by the students and The teachers‘ personal experience. All questions (except gender) in the student questionnaires and most questions in the teacher questionnaire used Likert scales with five steps where 1 is disagree or not at all and 5 is fully agree or to a great extent, depending on the statement. Likert scale are arbitrary in the sense that we do not know the exact amount of interest or agreement but we assume that the respondents interpret the distances between each of the categories as equal sized intervals. One advantage of consider the scale as an interval scale is that it can be used in the most common statistical procedures (Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh, 1996). The data from the questionnaires were exported to an SPSSTM file. Descriptive statistics - frequencies, mean values, median and cross tabs were used. To test the statistical significance chi-square distribution were calculated. We have also done a Kruskal-Wallis test by comparing the answers for attitude, interest and sex as an analysis of significance.

Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with one teacher at a time. In the interviews the teachers were asked about: choice of case - why and alternatives; work with the case – detailed discussions about planning the work, about reasons for different choices and about outcome; personal reflections about the case - possible development of cases and influence on teaching. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Firstly, we identified some basic information about the teachers. Then the transcripts were read through several times. The analysis was performed in several steps. We started by coding what the teachers said about the case – content, both in and about science, work forms and outcome and what teachers said about science teaching in general. Based on this coding, we described how each one of teachers worked with the case and how they motivated their choices. We then saw some patterns which we further investigated by coding the transcripts according to beliefs about SSI, school science and how students learn.

(5)

RESULTS

In almost all classes the teacher chose which case to work with. Only in a few classes the students were involved in choosing case. Most chosen, with more than 350 students, were the cases Me, my family and global change and You are what you eat followed by Are mobiles hazardous with 200 students and Laser treatment and nearsightedness with 100 students. Two classes worked with the case To hear or not to hear and only one class with Climate friendly food.

The majority of students in this study is positive to school and describe themselves as be doing well at school. Less than 50 percent of the students describe themselves as interested in science, with boys and girls expressing a similar view. Approximately 20 % find school science difficult and again there is no significant difference between the sexes.

According to the students, all cases except one were interesting (table 1). There was a significant difference between how interesting the students found the different cases. The most interesting case was Are mobile telephones hazardous. Both boys and girls found that case interesting. It was followed by Laser treatment and nearsightedness and You are what you eat. In each of these cases, half of the student group agreed to the statement that the case was interesting and approximately 20 % disagreed. The only case that was not interesting was To hear or not to hear where approximately 25 % of the students found it interesting and almost 40 % disagreed. The case You are what you eat was more interesting according to the girls. Both Chi-square and the Kruskal-Wallis test show a significant difference between how girls and boys judge that case. The Pearson Chi-Square has a value of 18.123 (at 4 degrees of freedom) and a p-value of 0.001. All other cases were gender neutral.

(6)

Table 1. Girls‘ and boys‘ judgment of how interesting the cases were. The questionnaire used a Likert scale with

five steps between disagree and agree. In this table steps 1+2 and 4+5 are merged together and instead of actual number of students the percentage is reported. The percentages are shown to facilitate comparison, however, the Pearson Chi-Square value is calculated from the frequencies on the five steps in the Likert-scale. The p-value is a measure of the statistical significance.

Case Sex N

The case was interesting Pearson Chi2 and p-value Disagree % Midway % Agree % You are what

you eat Girls 178 17.4 25.3 57.3 18.123 0.001 Boys 182 28.6 31.9 39.6 Laser treatment and nearsightedness Girls 64 17.2 32.8 50.0 0.056 0.973 Boys 53 18.9 32.1 49.1

To hear or not to hear?

Girls 14 35.7 35.7 28.6 0.221

0.896

Boys 23 39.1 39.1 21.7

Me, my family and global warning

Girls 202 27.2 29.7 43.1 1.006 0.909 Boys 172 26.2 26.7 47.1 Are mobiles hazardous? Girls 106 19.8 21.7 58.5 8.466 0.076 Boys 101 21.8 26.7 51.5 Climate friendly food Girls 11 27.3 45.5 27.3 2.369 0.306 Boys 5 0 40.0 60.0

Both the students and the teachers found the SSIs to be current topics with interesting content and relevant tasks (table 2 and 3). According to the students all but one case had an average value above 3 in the aspect of how interesting the case was, and all had an average value above 3 in the aspects of currency. Furthermore the statistical test, i.e. Pearson Chi-Square values (X) and the p-values (*), show a significant difference between how the different cases were judged by the students (table 2). The cases differ concerning how students judge currency, relevance of the task, and how difficult or easy the content and the task are. The case Me, my family and global warming was considered the most up-to-date followed by Are mobile phones hazardous. The case Climate friendly food and To hear or not to hear were not so current according to the students. There was also a significant difference in how easy the students experienced the tasks of the different cases (table 2). The case You are what you eat was considered to be the easiest task and Me, my family and global warning the most difficult task. Overall the students considered the assignments easy to solve with no significant difference between boys and girls in aspects of how easy or current the case was. The teachers considered the content appropriate in relation to the syllabuses, but what is interesting is that they teachers did not, to the same extent, find them appropriate in relation to the students‘ prior knowledge (mean value 3.1).

(7)

Table 2. Students‘ judgment of the cases; how they value the content and the task in each case. The figures are

mean values (average scores) from the 1-5 Likert scale used in the questionnaire where 1 is disagree and 5 is agree. X= the Pearson Chi-Square value and * represents a p-value of p<0.05 and ** a p-value of p<0.01

Case N The case was interes-ting X= 18.59* Assign-ment related to a current issue X= 63.46** It was fun to discuss the question X= 32.44* The assign-ment was easy X= 48.96** The assign-ment was boring X=22.94

You are what you eat 364 3.32 3.63 3.21 3.43 2.81

Laser treatment and nearsightedness 117 3.40 3.52 3.59 3.21 2.7

To hear or not to hear? 37 2.81 3.33 2.86 3.22 3.51

Me, my family and global warning 379 3.28 4.04 3.27 3.09 2.9

Are mobiles hazardous? 209 3.46 3.71 3.53 3.22 2.78

Climate friendly food 16 3.31 3.24 3.29 3.41 2.75

Table 3. How the teachers value the introduction of the case, the content and the task in each case. The figures

are mean values on a scale 1-5 where 5 is agree to the different statements.

Case Introduction Mean value Content Mean value Task Mean value 1. You are what you eat 4.5 (0.6) 4.5 (0.6) 3.8 (0.7) 2. Laser treatment and

nearsightedness 3.8 (0.5) 4.3 (0.5) 3.8 (1.3)

3. To hear or not to hear? 4.0 (1.4) 4.0 (1.4) 4.5 (0.7) 4. Me, my family and

global warming 3.7 (1.4) 3.7 (0.8) 3.6 (0.9)

5. Are mobile phones

hazardous? 2.8 (0.5) 3.8 (0.5) 3.8 (0.5)

The teachers felt confident with the work with the cases. Most common was that the students worked in groups (mean value 4.2). Notable is that lab work was not common when working with the cases (mean value 1.8). Some teachers commented on the lack of lab work, e.g. ―It was difficult to find appropriate labs so that it became more theoretical than usual science classes‖ (teacher number 9). Another reason for not doing lab work was that many teachers worked with the case outside regular science lessons, for example in a special week set aside for thematic work and without access to laboratories. Approximately 40% of the

(8)

teachers taught part of the topic before introducing the case, which means that they did not use the case to teach new science content. More than half of the teachers chose to present goals from the teacher‘s guide to the students in the beginning of the work.

Even though SSI cases are about current topics debated and written about in media, the students did not use traditional media for information search to a great extent (mean value 2.6). The most common source was the Internet (mean value 4.1). They also used textbooks (mean value 3.9) and to less extent resources outside school, such as study visits or interviews (mean value 1.3). The teachers‘ answers also indicate some problems e.g. the students did not easily formulate questions, critically examine arguments or use media for more information about the task. The students did not find it difficult to search for information about the cases. Also, in all cases the students were satisfied with what the different students accomplished during the group work. They found the discussion and each other‘s standpoints important and perceived that the outcome of working with case had relevance for them. The average score for the girls was somewhat higher on the statement: it was fun to discuss the questions in the assignment. Similar to the teachers‘ opinion the students also report that the work forms used were quite similar to their regular teaching. The major difference is that in very few classes laboratory work was included when working with SSI. Learning

We also wanted to know to what extent SSI provide opportunities for learning. Most teachers based their assessment of learning outcome on the presentations, which meant that they assessed oral group discussions and presentations. Few teachers did individual assessment. Even if the work was not assessed individually the teachers found that the students developed critical thinking, learnt to search for information, learnt scientific facts, learnt to apply scientific knowledge, developed understanding of science, and developed ability in argumentation (Table 4). Even if the seven teachers talked differently about teaching and learning, the object for teaching and learning is learning facts. All interviewed teachers, explicitly or implicitly, talked about knowledge as a set of facts which should be taken in by the students.

Table 4. Teachers‘ responses to statements about students‘ learning

The students learnt/developed Mean value

critical thinking 3.7 (1.2)

to search for information 3.6 (1.2)

scientific facts 3.6 (1.3)

to apply scientific knowledge 3.6 (1.3)

ability to argue 3.4 (1.3)

understanding in science 3.5 (1.3)

Almost all students claimed that they learnt new facts during the work (table 5). The case Laser treatment and nearsightedness was considered to be the case in which the students developed most new knowledge according to their own judgment. The students reported that they learnt to argue for their standpoint and to search for and scrutinize information. Noteworthy is that the average value of the students self-reported learning outcome is higher for the statement ‗learning new facts‘ than for ‗learning science‘, even though the case was

(9)

dealt with during science class. Neither did the students claim that they learnt more science than during regular lessons. There was a significant difference between the cases when it comes to how students perceived ‗learning facts‘, ‗deal with information‘ and ‗argue for an opinion‘ but there was no significant difference between the cases when it comes to learning science. The students considered the case Laser treatment of nearsightedness as developing most new knowledge, also in science, and also in developing their argumentation skills. It was the case Are mobiles hazardous? that developed searching for and scrutinizing information most. The case To hear or not to hear were perceived as giving lower learning outcomes on all aspects.

Interpretation of SSI

All the teachers have ideas about connecting school science to reality, but they have not encountered the concept of SSI before. This raises the question of how they interpret the meaning of socio-scientific issues. It was most common that the teacher choose a case that fitted with content that was already planned to be taught. When working with the case the teacher uses the starting point to introduce the content, but does not introduce much new content. It is supported by the result that media and resources outside school are not used to find information. However, they did not automatically fit all the regular school content in these cases, e.g. few included common school labs. The fact that only one of the seven interviewed teachers included lab work can be interpreted as if it is not common to answer questions by doing experiments.

Table 5. Students self-reported learning outcome. The figures are mean values (average scores) from the 1-5

Likert scale used in the questionnaire where 1 is disagree and 5 is agree. X= the Pearson Chi-Square value and * represents a p-value of p<0.05 and ** a p-value of p<0.01

Case I have learnt new facts X=45.54** I have learnt to search information X=35.86* I have learnt to scrutinize information X=32.99* I have learnt to argue for my opinion X41.14** I have learnt science X=24.23 I have learnt more than in regular classes X=21.40 You are what

you eat 4.0 3.3 3.4 3.7 3.5 2.8 Laser treatment nearsightedness 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.1 3.7 2.7 To hear or not to hear? 4.0 3.0 3.2 3.7 3.3 2.3 Me, my family and global warning 4.0 3.4 3.2 3.7 3.5 2.8 Are mobiles hazardous? 4.2 3.7 3.6 4.0 3.5 2.7

The teachers do not express anything which can be interpreted as evaluating or discussing observations and results. However, there are some indications that the teachers reflect on some of these aspects. One teacher for example, discovers that different websites give different results when calculating amounts of carbon dioxide emissions. When he thinks about it again, he thinks this is a good thing because then he can talk with his students about these differences and why they occur. Another teacher dares to choose Are mobile telephones hazardous? and she is well aware of the fact that the information about radiation and health is contradictory. Several teachers talk in general terms about the importance of

(10)

learning how to use and apply scientific knowledge, but they are vague and they do not give any examples.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This study confirms results from other studies that students are interested in working with socio-scientific issues (Sadler, 2004; Aikenhead, 2006). However the teachers in this study do not seem to be as concerned as the teachers in Bryce and Grays study (2004) about teaching argumentation and decision making. They did not feel the tension between devoting time to developing students‘ understanding of scientific processes and the classroom reality (Bartholomew et al., 2004). Instead they found the cases interesting and felt safe with work forms such as group work as well as with the content. They answered that the students learnt as much as during ordinary teaching.

The students did not learn as much science as in ordinary lessons according to their own judgement and they found cases interesting, however they did not find them as interesting as the teachers did. Taking into account that the teachers commented in the questionnaires and talked more elaborated in the interviews about problems with the students‘ questioning and ability to critically examine media it is reasonable to believe that the work has been rather inefficient. Probably the students have not been properly facilitated, which explains the perceived learning by the students. Another reason for that the students do not find the work as interesting as the teachers do might be that almost none of the teachers included lab work. Even if the students did not learn more science than usual they perceived that they learnt some aspects of science e.g. more facts and to argue. This is in line with our interpretation of the teachers‘ understanding of knowledge. The idea is to deliver a set of facts to be taken in by the students.

Both teachers and students indicated that group work had been common and that there had been lots of discussion. Especially the girls appreciated the discussions. Reflecting these results with the students‘ perceived learning it is interesting to note that the students indicate that they learnt to argue but they did not learn more science. So what is their idea of what learning science is about? Maybe it takes some time to get discussions, argumentation etc. to work in way that feels rewarding and is understood as learning opportunities by the students. We believe that teachers need to develop strategies for facilitating group discussions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abd-El-Khalic, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Improving science teachers‘ conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665-701. Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science Education for Everyday Life: Evidence-Based Practice. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C. & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to Research in Education. Forth Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publisher.

Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching Students "Ideas-about-Science": Five Dimensions of Effective Practice. Science Education, 88, 655-682.

Bryce, T., & Gray, D. (2004). Tough Acts to Follow: The Challenges to Science Teachers Presented by Biotechnological Progress. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 717-722.

Ekborg, M., Ideland, M., & Malmberg, C.(2009). SCIENCE FOR LIFE – a conceptual framework for construction and analysis of socio-scientific cases. NorDiNa, 5, 35-46.

Gray, S.D., & Bryce, T. (2006). Socio-scientific issues in science education: implications for the professional development of teachers. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, 171-192.

Lindahl, B. (2003). Lust att lära naturvetenskap och teknik? En longitudinell studie om vägen till

(11)

Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553-576.

Oscarsson, M,, Jidesjö, A., Karlsson, K.G., & Strömdahl, H. (2009). Science in society or science in school: Swedish secondary school science teachers‘ beliefs about science and science lessons compare to what their students want to learn. NorDiNa 5, 18-34.

Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: review of the literature and its implication. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049-79.

Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008) Science Education in Europe: Critical reflections. A report to the Nuffield foundation .

http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/fileLibrary/pdf/Sci_Ed_in_Europe_Report_Final.pdf [2008, 03-08] Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science Education for Citizenship. Teaching Socio-Scientific Issues.

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Sadler, T. (2004) Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.

Sadler, T., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K.M. (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 Teaching. 37, 371-391.

Skolverket, The national agency for education. (2000). Syllabuses for the compulsory school. Available: http://www.skolverket.se/sb/d/493/a/1303 [2008, 10-17].

Skolverket, The national agency for education. (2005). Naturorienterande ämnen. NU03.

Zeidler, D., Sadler, T., Simmons, M., & Howes, E. (2005). Beyond STS: A research based framework for socio-scientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357-377.

Figure

Table 1. Girls‘ and boys‘ judgment of how interesting the cases were. The questionnaire used a Likert scale with  five steps between disagree and agree
Table 3. How the teachers value the introduction of the case, the content and the task in each case
Table 4. Teachers‘ responses to statements about students‘ learning
Table  5.  Students  self-reported  learning  outcome.  The  figures  are  mean  values  (average  scores)  from  the  1-5  Likert scale used in the questionnaire where 1 is disagree and 5 is agree

References

Related documents

The three studies comprising this thesis investigate: teachers’ vocal health and well-being in relation to classroom acoustics (Study I), the effects of the in-service training on

46 Konkreta exempel skulle kunna vara främjandeinsatser för affärsänglar/affärsängelnätverk, skapa arenor där aktörer från utbuds- och efterfrågesidan kan mötas eller

Both Brazil and Sweden have made bilateral cooperation in areas of technology and innovation a top priority. It has been formalized in a series of agreements and made explicit

Generella styrmedel kan ha varit mindre verksamma än man har trott De generella styrmedlen, till skillnad från de specifika styrmedlen, har kommit att användas i större

Parallellmarknader innebär dock inte en drivkraft för en grön omställning Ökad andel direktförsäljning räddar många lokala producenter och kan tyckas utgöra en drivkraft

I dag uppgår denna del av befolkningen till knappt 4 200 personer och år 2030 beräknas det finnas drygt 4 800 personer i Gällivare kommun som är 65 år eller äldre i

Industrial Emissions Directive, supplemented by horizontal legislation (e.g., Framework Directives on Waste and Water, Emissions Trading System, etc) and guidance on operating

The purpose of this study was to explore (a) to what extent male and female science teachers pose different types of questions and (b) if the type of science question posed