Meaningmaking from a socio scientific debate on gene modified food

Nina E. Arnesen,

Dept of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo, Norway

Background, Aims and Framework

According to Vygotsky, all learning originates in social situations, and is a process of internalization; a passage from meeting new concepts in social contexts to individual understanding of the concepts (Vygotsky, 1978, 2001). Learning science should, according to this, include meeting new scientific ideas, internalizing them and learning to apply them. Teaching science is, accordingly, a question of introducing scientific ideas and making them available for the students to internalize (Mortimer & Scott, 2003; Scott et al., 2007). In addition, situations should be created, where students are given the opportunity to make use of their knowledge in new situations. During this process the teacher has to be aware of students' existing notions of the concept in question, how the notions develops, how the students use their new knowledge during the lessons and take this as points of departure when developing a convincing scientific story for the students to grasp (Mortimer & Scott, 2003).

During the last decades science educators and others have become aware of the tension in science education between teaching in science, i.e. teaching science matters and the products and processes of science, and teaching about science, i.e. teaching science-related issues in which scientific knowledge is of importance (Roberts, 2007). Traditionally, science teaching has been rooted in the first of the two; teaching scientific facts, but an increasing number of science educators are emphasizing the importance of usingeveryday and actual situations, preferably a controversy, where scientific knowledge is used as point of departure in instruction(e.g. Millar & Osborne, 1998). The use of socio scientific issues is one way of doing this, for instance through debates on controversies.This has become an increasingly important part of science instruction in many countries including Norwayalthough it seems to be some barriers for science teachers to include this kind of activities in their teaching repertoire (Jimenez-Aleixandre et al., 2000; Mork, 2005b; Tal & Kedmi, 2006).

Socio scientific debates are supposed to give students opportunity to develop their ability to use scientific evidence in new situations when making their arguments, as well as a chance to use and strengthen their factual knowledge about a certain scientific issue(e.g. Driver et al., 1996; Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). To use knowledge in new situations is, however, a form of higher order thinking skill and will, as such, potentially make learning science a more challenging endeavour. Also, teachers may not be familiar with teaching science this way, and lack teaching repertoires for these kinds of activities (e.g. Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Mork, 2005a; Simon, 2006).

Theanalysispresented here takes as point of departuredata froman instruction sequence built up around a role play debate on a socio scientific issue; genetically modified food.

Research questions asked in this particular analysis are

-Is there evidence for meaning making during the instruction sequence?

-How is meaning making framed and scaffolded during the instruction sequence?

Methods and Samples

The data material used is from a Norwegian study called PISA+. This projectis anin-depth classroom video study aimed at studying offered learning activities (actions) and experienced learning activities (meaning) in mathematics, science and language arts classrooms.This particular analysis is of the meaning making of two students, aged 14, during an instruction sequence that includes a role play debate on gene modified food held in a mixed age group of students 13 to 15 years old from grade 8, 9 and 10 in lower secondary school. Prior to the debate the students have been introduced to the issue by working through a net based resource on The debate is arranged as a TV debate. Some of the students play roles in the debate, andthe rest of the group acts as audience. The teacher has a withdrawn role during the debate. After the debate she sums up important points through a sequence of dialogical instruction.After the sequence two students are interviewed.

All parts of the instruction sequence have been video taped, including the student interview. The debate, the interview and the summing up have been transcribed as have important parts of the teamwork in front of the computers. The instruction sequence is analysed when it comes to how the students' factual knowledge develop during the sequence,how the teacher guides them in their meaning making and how the students make use of their knowledge in the debate and in the interview afterwards.

Results

The students interviewed make meaning of new information that comes up during the instruction sequence. Towards the end of the day they know how gene modification in an organism is done. This knowledge exists, however, parallel to and at the same time as previous, alternative conceptions seenthrough the preparations in front of the computer. It seems that there is no conscious connection between the conceptions, and the students do not seem to reflect upon the fact that they use different explanations in different situations. During the debate students use sound arguments as well as arguments partly based on alternative conceptions. This might strengthen alternative conceptions held by other students. Most of the students use only one piece of information to support their claims.

The teacher listens to the students when guiding them, explains gene modification in different ways and does a very conscientious job. She focuses, however,almost solelyon traditional factual knowledge rather than on how to use knowledge in new settings, e.g. in order to underline an argument during a debate. Neither the students nor the teacher do comment much upon the art of debating when the debate is over.

Conclusions and Implications

It seems like instruction sequences where socio scientific issues and debates are used give teachers and students challenges they are not familiar with. Teachers may not know how best to guide and evaluate students' development and use of new knowledge when using these kinds of learning activities. Students are not explicitly trained to apply scientific knowledge in new situations. These challenges might make meaning making more difficult.

It seems as though the teacher lacks tools when it comes to teaching science through using socio scientific issues. Usually, teachers' experience is based upon teaching the products of science, e.g. what DNA is, and how genes are modified. This is important knowledge, and the students need it when discussing genetically modified food. The problem seems to be that the students get the knowledge all right, but they do not manage to use it properly in practical situations. This means that the gap between the factual knowledge and the practical use has to be bridged.

One way to do this is by making the gap explicit by talking about it. Another possibility could be to video tape the lesson (debate) in question, and then comment upon situations where alternative conceptions are brought up or situations where knowledge is used in ways that can serve as models.

Bibliography

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.

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.

Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. In R. O. Millar, J. (Ed.), Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: School of Education, Kings College.

Mork, S. M. (2005a). Argumentation in science lessons: Focusing on the teacher role. Nordic Studies in Science Education (NorDiNa), 1(1), 16-29.

Mork, S. M. (2005b). A dual approach to analysing student argumentation in classroom debates. University of Oslo, Oslo.

Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Ledermann (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Ledermann (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Simon, S., Erduran, Sibel, Osborne, Jonathan. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.

Tal, T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socioscientific issues: Classroom culture and students' performances. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(4), 615-644.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (2001). Tenkning og tale. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk.

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.

1