Maria Evagorou

‘Should We Kill the Grey Squirrels?’ A Study Exploring Students’ Justifications and Decision-Making

A problem that is still unexplored in the field of socioscientific issues (SSI) and that was explored in this study is how different students decide upon a SSI they are discussing, how their justifications change during the instruction and how they use (or not) the evidence from the learning environment to support their justifications. For the purposes of this study, two classes (12–13-year-old students) with diverse characteristics were selected from two different schools in the UK. Class A students, considered high achievers come from a white-British background. Class B students considered average achievers come from an Asian British background. The students engaged in discussions regarding a SSI (Should we kill the grey squirrel to save the red?), supported by an online learning environment. Students’ written arguments, classroom discussions, and classroom observations were collected and analysed. The findings suggest that even though the two classes engaged with the same learning environment, the decisions and justifications provided by the pairs in the two classes were quite distinct. The students used the evidence from the learning environment in ways which supported their decision, and tended to ignore evidence if these contradicted their decision. Furthermore, students’ justifications support the hypothesis that their decision was based on whether they identified with the actors of the issue. Implications for research include exploring how students identify with the actors of a SSI to enable us to support them overcoming their personal narratives and becoming critical evaluators of scientific knowledge.

Discussing a Socioscientific Issue in a Primary School Classroom: The Case of Using a Technology-Supported Environment in Formal and Nonformal Settings

Recent educational reports in the USA (Duschl, Schweingruber, & Shouse, 2007), the UK (Osborne, 2007), and elsewhere in Europe have called for a science education that places an emphasis on scientific literacy, and makes the connection between science and everyday life. The focus of this approach is on the social aspects of science, aiming to prepare young people for life beyond school. Aikenhead (2006) has attempted to define the term by explaining scientific literacy as acquiring knowledge for science—that is, both knowledge of the content and knowledge about science, which he sees as the social processes of science. Likewise, in national reform documents, the core of scientific literacy is related to understanding knowledge and processes of science, and the application of this knowledge (AAAS, 1993; National Research Council, 1996).

Argumentation in the Teaching of Science

Argumentation is a fundamental discourse of science, a part of the practice of science for evaluating, refining and establishing new theories. It is therefore considered a core element of the scientific enterprise, one which can engage students in the social practices of science. Argumentation has been the emphasis of many science education studies during the last decades and general questions about argumentation and how students and adults argue have been addressed. A central question that still remains unanswered however is “Why do some students engage in argumentation whilst others do not, and what is the teacher’s role in this process?” This chapter provides an overview of argumentation, explains the importance of argumentation in the teaching of science, and reviews studies that explore how pre- and in-service teachers approach argumentation in their teaching. Then, in the second part of the chapter, we explore some of these issues through two case studies of teachers implementing the same curriculum in their classes, and conclude with implications for research and practice.

Pre-service Science Teacher Preparation in Europe: Comparing Pre-service Teacher Preparation Programs in England, France, Finland and Cyprus

A number of reports recently identify that the quality of science education in a number of European countries is lower than expected. One of the reasons for the apparent underachievement in this generally economically prosperous continent might be a pedagogy of science that lacks variety, or a pedagogy that is less engaging than other subjects. Given the diversity of European education systems, the purpose of this paper is to present aspects of four pre-service teacher preparation programs illustrating the similarities and differences that emerge. Specifically, we present the teacher preparation programs in England, Finland, France and Cyprus.

Argumentation in Science Teacher Education: The simulated jury as a resource for teaching and learning

In this article, we focus on the contributions that a simulated jury-based activity might have for pre-service teachers, especially for their active participation and learning in teacher education. We observed a teacher educator using a series of simulated juries as teaching resources to help pre-service teachers develop their pedagogical knowledge and their argumentation abilities in a physics teacher methods course. For the purposes of this article, we have selected one simulated jury-based activity, comprising two opposed groups of pre-service teachers that presented aspects that hinder the teachers development of professional knowledge (against group) and aspects that allow this development (favor group). After the groups’ presentations, a group of judges was formed to evaluate the discussion. We applied a multi-level method for discourse analysis and the results showed that (1) the simulated jury afforded the pre-service teachers to position themselves as active knowledge producers; (2) the teacher acted as ‘animator of the pre-service teachers actions, showing responsiveness to the emergence of circumstantial teaching and learning opportunities and (3) the simulated jury culminated in the judges’ identification of the pattern ‘concrete/obstacles–ideological/possibilities in the groups’ responses, which was elaborated by the teacher for the whole class. Implications from this study include using simulated juries for teaching and learning and for the development of the pre-service teachers’ argumentative abilities. The potential of simulated juries to improve teaching and learning needs to be further explored in order to inform the uses and reflections of this resource in science education.

Metalogue: Assessment, Audience, and Authenticity for Teaching SSI and Argumentation

Sadler: This chapter raises several interesting issues associated with the assessment of argumentation. There is obviously a great deal of support throughout the science education community for featuring argumentation as a fundamental scientific practice that ought to be featured in science learning experiences. However, the tools available for assessing argumentation both for research and teaching purposes remain somewhat limited. Toulmin has had an enormous impact on how science educators think about argumentation and the assessment of arguments, and modifications of the Toulmin argument pattern have been used extensively for assessment purposes (Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004). As discussed in the chapter, Toulmin’s model can be useful but it has a number of drawbacks.

Metalogue: Engaging Students in Scientific and Socio-scientific Argumentation

Evagorou: In this chapter, Shirley and Ruth raise several interesting issues related to (socio-scientific issues) SSI, argumentation, and decision-making. A major question in this study was the quality of students’ arguments, and if there is a link between the nature of the evidence (e.g., scientific, environmental, financial) and the quality of the arguments. The results are not conclusive as to this point, and the authors suggest that more evidence is necessary.

A Modelling Perspective in Designing Teacher Professional Learning Communities

The chapter addresses a professional learning community development approach, namely, a multi-tiered research design which involves a modelling approach to learning. The chapter describes how a models and modelling perspective was employed in developing a teacher learning community and how it was used to better understand, analyse, and support the nature and development of teacher knowledge. Results have revealed that teachers improved their knowledge and pedagogical approaches to modelling. Changes in their attitudes, self-confidence, and motivation, and in their collaboration with other teachers, were also evident. We conclude that such an approach, although very demanding both in skills and competences, might serve in establishing and supporting a teacher learning community.