Abstract
The integration of socioscientific issues (SSI) into science teaching requires that teachers manage classroom discussions in which various perspectives are considered and students’ contributions are recognized. The present study aimed to provide knowledge of how classroom discussions on SSI can be structured and implemented to pursue specific teaching purposes. In this study, two secondary science teachers’ employment of communicative approaches during four discussions on SSI was analysed. In the studied context, communicative approaches can be described as involving various or only a single perspective on SSI and as being either interactive or non-interactive. The results elucidate how teachers can make purposeful use of different communicative approaches to facilitate students’ decision-making while promoting complexity in their reasoning. The results also show how teachers can promote cumulativity, in terms of their recognition of students’ contributions to discussions. It is proposed that teachers can use the concept of communicative approaches as an analytical tool to reflect on and develop aspects of teaching practice in relation to the goals that they wish to achieve.
Highlights
An aim of science education is for students to develop scientific literacy that includes knowledge and skills vital to decision-making on socioscientific issues (SSI), that is, U
From the perspective of dialogism, any discourse intrinsically is dialogic in nature because each utterance in some way responds to past utterances and anticipates potential responses (Wertsch, 1991), and because any discourse is structured by the interaction among participants’ diverse perspectives (Nystrand, 1997)
The teachers’ use of different communicative approaches that may facilitate students’ decision-making on SSI will be presented as belonging to two major themes
Summary
An aim of science education is for students to develop scientific literacy that includes knowledge and skills vital to decision-making on socioscientific issues (SSI), that is, U. SSI-based teaching requires that teachers be skilled in managing open-ended discussions in which various perspectives, alongside scientific knowledge, are considered, and students’ contributions are recognized. It has been reported that teachers often lack skills or feel ill-prepared to moderate discussions on contentious issues (Bryce & Gray, 2004; Lee, Abd-ElKhalick, & Choi, 2006; Oulton, Day, Dillon, & Grace, 2004) This may prevent teachers from implementing discussions on SSI in their teaching. An increasing number of studies has focussed on how different perspectives are taken into account in the science classroom These studies have characterized teacher-student interactions along a continuum between dialogic and authoritative by drawing on concepts from dialogism (Bakhtin, 1935). Discourses differ in “their openness to counter positions” (Wells, 2007, p. 255). Bakhtin (1935) distinguished between authoritative discourse, which demands acceptance and in which meaning is not negotiable, and internally persuasive discourse, in which meaning is negotiable (Wells, 2007; Wertsch, 1991) implying that the discourse is open to alternative perspectives and interpretations
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
