Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Using the SEE-SEP model to analyse upper secondary students' use of supporting reasons in arguing socioscientific issues
Karlstad University, Faculty of Social and Life Sciences, Department of Biology.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4306-8278
Swedish National Graduate School in Science, Technology and Mathematics Education Research, Linköping Univeristy .
Karlstad University, Faculty of Social and Life Sciences, Department of Biology.
2012 (English)In: Journal of Science Education and Technology, ISSN 1059-0145, E-ISSN 1573-1839, Vol. 21, no 3, 342-352 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

To achieve the goal of scientific literacy, the skills of argumentation have been emphasized in science education during the past decades. But the extent to which students can apply scientific knowledge to their argumentation is still unclear. The purpose of this study was to analyse 80 Swedish upper secondary students' informal argumentation on four socioscientific issues (SSIs) to explore students' use of supporting reasons and to what extent students used scientific knowledge in their arguments. Eighty upper secondary students were asked to express their opinions on one SSI topic they chose through written reports. The four SSIs in this study include global warming, genetically modified organisms (GMO), nuclear power, and consumption. To analyse students' supporting reasons from a holistic view, we used the SEE-SEP model, which links the six subject areas of sociology/culture (So), environment (En), economy (Ec), science (Sc), ethics/morality (Et) and policy (Po) connecting with three aspects, and (KVP). The results showed that students used value to a greater extent (67%) than they did scientific knowledge (27%) for all four SSI topics. According to the SEE-SEP model, the distribution of supporting reasons generated by students differed among the SSI topics. Also, some alternative concepts were disclosed in students' arguments. The implications for research and education are discussed.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2012. Vol. 21, no 3, 342-352 p.
Keyword [en]
Socioscientific issues; Informal argumentation; Scientific literacy; Scientific knowledge; The SEE-SEP model; Holistic view
National Category
Biological Sciences
Research subject
Biology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-7091DOI: 10.1007/s10956-011-9328-xISI: 000303866300003OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kau-7091DiVA: diva2:399093
Available from: 2011-02-21 Created: 2011-02-21 Last updated: 2016-04-26Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Knowledge, Value and Personal experience: Upper secondary students' resources of supporting reasons when arguing socioscientific issues
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Knowledge, Value and Personal experience: Upper secondary students' resources of supporting reasons when arguing socioscientific issues
2011 (English)Licentiate thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

This thesis focuses on upper secondary students’ use of resources in their supporting reasons when arguing socioscientific issues (SSIs). The skills of argumentation have been emphasized in science education during the past decades and SSIs are proven a good context for learners to enhance skills of argumentation and achieve the goal of scientific literacy. Research has shown that supporting reasons from various resources are embedded in students’ argumentation on SSIs, and also that multi-perspective involvement in reasoning is important for the quality of argumentation. To explore the reasons used by students in arguing about SSIs in this thesis, the SEE-SEP model was adopted as an analytical framework. The SEE-SEP model covers the six subject areas of sociology/culture, economy, environment/ecology, science, ethics/morality and policy, which are connected to the three aspects of knowledge, value and personal experience. Two studies covering four SSIs (global warming, GMO, nuclear power and consumption) explore how students construct arguments on one SSI topic chosen by them. In paper I, I investigated students’ use of resources in their informal argumentation and to what extent students made use of knowledge. The results showed that students used value to a larger extent (67%) than knowledge (27%). I also found that the distribution of supporting reasons generated by students varied from the different SSIs. In paper II, I explored students’ use of resources in relation to students’ study background (science majors and social-science majors) and gender. The results showed that social-science majors and females generated more numbers of reasons and also showed a larger amount of multi-disciplinary resources in their supporting reasons. From the findings of this thesis, the SEE-SEP model was established as a suitable model used to analyze students’ resources of supporting reasons while arguing about SSIs. Furthermore, the potential for applying the SEE-SEP model in teachers’ SSI-teaching and students’ SSI-learning is suggested. The implications to research and teaching are also discussed.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Karlstad: Karlstads universitet, 2011. 36 p.
Series
Karlstad University Studies, ISSN 1403-8099 ; 2011:8
Series
Studies in Science and Technology Education, ISSN 1652-5051 ; 34
Keyword
socioscientific issues, informal agumentation, SEE-SEP model
National Category
Didactics
Research subject
Biology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-6815 (URN)978-91-7063-340-9 (ISBN)
Presentation
2011-03-11, 11D 227, Karlstads universitet, Universitetsgatan 1, Karlstad, 10:15 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2011-02-22 Created: 2011-01-26 Last updated: 2015-04-17Bibliographically approved
2. Socioscientific argumentation: Aspects of content and structure
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Socioscientific argumentation: Aspects of content and structure
2015 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Socioscientific argumentation has shown to be a feasible educational framework for promoting citizenship and for cultivating scientific literacy. However, there are several aspects of this educational framework that have been shown to be problematic. Consequently, in this thesis I investigated various aspects of quality of socioscientific argumentation from both an upper secondary student and a teacher perspective. By using students’ written argumentation on socioscientific issues (SSI) I studied how they justified their claims. The results showed that different SSI led students to use different subject areas in their justifications. I also compared science majors with social science majors and found that the number of justifications provided by the students is related to their discipline background. In these two studies, a new content focused analytical framework for analyzing content aspects of socioscientific argumentation, the SEE-SEP model, was used and shown to be suitable for this purpose. However, to ensure that students are able to produce high-quality arguments I suggest that both content and structural aspects need to be considered. As a result of this, I have presented a framework based on research literature and the Swedish curriculum, for analyzing and assessing both these aspects of socioscientific argumentation. Moreover, I investigated how science and language teachers assess students’ socioscientific argumentation and found that the science teachers focused on students’ ability to reproduce content knowledge, whereas language teachers focused on students’ ability to use content knowledge from references, and the structural and linguistic aspects of argumentation.

 

The complexity of teaching socioscientific argumentation makes it difficult to teach and assess comprehensively. In order to promote quality and include both content and structural aspects, I suggest that a co-operation among teachers of different disciplines is beneficial.

Abstract [en]

Socioscientific argumentation has shown to be a feasible educational framework for promoting citizenship and scientific literacy. In this thesis I investigated various aspects of quality of students socioscientific argumentation and how teachers assess this. The results showed that different SSI led students to use different subject areas in their justifications and that the number of justifications provided by the students is related to their discipline background. Moreover, to promote students high-quality arguments I have presented a framework for analyzing and assessing both content and structural aspects. I also investigated how science and language teachers assess students’ socioscientific argumentation and found that the science teachers focused on students’ ability to reproduce content knowledge, whereas language teachers focused on students’ ability to use content knowledge from references, and the structural and linguistic aspects of argumentation. The complexity of teaching socioscientific argumentation makes it difficult to teach and assess comprehensively. In order to promote quality and include both content and structural aspects, I suggest that a co-operation among teachers of different disciplines is beneficial.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Karlstad: Karlstads universitet, 2015. 73 p.
Series
Karlstad University Studies, ISSN 1403-8099 ; 2015:26
Keyword
Socioscientific argumentation, socioscientific issues, argumentation
National Category
Other Biological Topics Didactics Pedagogical Work
Research subject
Biology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-35869 (URN)978-91-7063-641-7 (ISBN)
Public defence
2015-06-05, 9C203, Nyquistsalen, Karlstads universitet, Karlstad, 10:15 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Note

Article IV was in manuscript form at the time of the thesis defense and has been published afterwards.

Available from: 2015-05-20 Created: 2015-04-17 Last updated: 2017-08-21Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Christenson, NinaChang Rundgren, Shu-NuHöglund, Hans-Olof

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Christenson, NinaChang Rundgren, Shu-NuHöglund, Hans-Olof
By organisation
Department of Biology
In the same journal
Journal of Science Education and Technology
Biological Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 258 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf