Abstract
During the last few decades it has become usual, and crucial, to learn science not only as the traditionally taught products of the science communities, but also as a way of thinking and as a tool for citizenship in today’s society. One way of learning science is through socio-scientific issues which often are societal questions related to health or environment, where decision making is informed by scientific knowledge as well as knowledge from other areas. In Norwegian science teaching it has become quite usual to do this by, for example, arranging debates in class focusing on a controversy. The past decade has also seen a change towards more student-centred active teaching methods such as use of self-instructing computer programs and debates, as mentioned. This change in ways of working in science lessons creates new possibilities for applying science knowledge, but at the same time it brings new challenges for the learners. It appears that students focus on aspects of activities other than science, and the meaning making of science content sometimes seems to be forgotten.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aikenhead, G. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 1–52.
Cobern, W. W. (2000). The nature of science and the role of knowledge and belief. Science & Education, 9(3), 219–246.
Costa, V. B. (1995). When science is “another world”: Relationships between worlds of family, friends, school, and science. Science Education, 79(3), 313–333.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodrigues, M., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314–342.
Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871.
Knain, E., Bjonness, B., & Kolsto, S. D. (2011). Rammer og støttestrukturer i utforskende arbeidsmåter. In E. Knain & S. D. Kolsto (Eds.), Elever som forskere i naturfag. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: School of Education, Kings College.
Mork, S. M. (2005). A dual approach to analysing student argumentation in classroom debates. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Mortimer, E. F. (1995). Conceptual change or conceptual profile change? Science & Education, 4(3), 267–285.
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Sadler, T. D. (2011). Situating socio-scientific issues in classrooms as a means of achieving goals of science education. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio scientific issues in the classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sampson, V. D., & Clark, D. B. (2006). Assessment of argument in science education: A critical review of the literature. Paper presented at the 7th international conference on learning sciences, Bloomington.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanation. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument – Updated edition. Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2001). Tenkning og tale. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk.
Wallace, C. (2004). Framing the new research in science literacy and language use: Authenticity, multiple discourses, and the “third space”. Science Education, 88(6), 901–914.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Arnesen, N.E. (2016). How Students Make Meaning from a Teaching Sequence on a Socio-scientific Issue. In: Klette, K., Bergem, O., Roe, A. (eds) Teaching and Learning in Lower Secondary Schools in the Era of PISA and TIMSS. Professional Learning and Development in Schools and Higher Education, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17302-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17302-3_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17301-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17302-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)