Endre søk
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Science and language teachers' assessment of upper secondary students' socioscientific argumentation
Karlstads universitet, Fakulteten för humaniora och samhällsvetenskap (from 2013), Institutionen för geografi, medier och kommunikation (from 2013). (SMEER)ORCID-id: 0000-0003-4306-8278
Karlstads universitet, Fakulteten för hälsa, natur- och teknikvetenskap (from 2013), Institutionen för miljö- och livsvetenskaper (from 2013). (SMEER)ORCID-id: 0000-0001-8735-2102
Stockholm Univ, Dept Educ, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden. (SMEER)ORCID-id: 0000-0002-9521-1737
2017 (engelsk)Inngår i: International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, ISSN 1571-0068, E-ISSN 1573-1774, Vol. 15, nr 8, s. 1403-1422Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Abstract [en]

Researchers and policy-makers have recognized the importance of including and promoting socioscientific argumentation in science education worldwide. The Swedish curriculum focuses more than ever on socioscientific issues (SSI) as well. However, teaching socioscientific argumentation is not an easy task for science teachers and one of the more distinguished difficulties is the assessment of students’ performance. In this study, we investigate and compare how science and Swedish language teachers, participating in an SSI-driven project, assessed students’ written argumentation about global warming. Swedish language teachers have a long history of teaching and assessing argumentation and therefore it was of interest to identify possible gaps between the two groups of teachers’ assessment practices. The results showed that the science teachers focused on students’ content knowledge within their subjects, whereas the Swedish language teachers included students’ abilities to select and use content knowledge from reliable reference resources, the structure of the argumentation and the form of language used. Since the Swedish language teachers’ assessment correlated more with previous research about quality in socioscientific argumentation, we suggest that a closer co-operation between the two groups could be beneficial in terms of enhancing the quality of assessment. Moreover, SSI teaching and learning as well as assessment of socioscientific argumentation ought to be included in teacher training programs for both pre- and in-service science teachers.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Springer, 2017. Vol. 15, nr 8, s. 1403-1422
Emneord [en]
Assessment, Socioscientific argumentation, Socioscientific issues, Upper secondary teachers
HSV kategori
Forskningsprogram
Biologi
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-45719DOI: 10.1007/s10763-016-9746-6ISI: 000415821100002OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kau-45719DiVA, id: diva2:957989
Tilgjengelig fra: 2016-09-05 Laget: 2016-09-05 Sist oppdatert: 2018-08-20bibliografisk kontrollert
Inngår i avhandling
1. Socioscientific argumentation: Aspects of content and structure
Åpne denne publikasjonen i ny fane eller vindu >>Socioscientific argumentation: Aspects of content and structure
2015 (engelsk)Doktoravhandling, med artikler (Annet vitenskapelig)
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.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Karlstad: Karlstads universitet, 2015. s. 73
Serie
Karlstad University Studies, ISSN 1403-8099 ; 2015:26
Emneord
Socioscientific argumentation, socioscientific issues, argumentation
HSV kategori
Forskningsprogram
Biologi
Identifikatorer
urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-35869 (URN)978-91-7063-641-7 (ISBN)
Disputas
2015-06-05, 9C203, Nyquistsalen, Karlstads universitet, Karlstad, 10:15 (engelsk)
Opponent
Veileder
Merknad

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

Tilgjengelig fra: 2015-05-20 Laget: 2015-04-17 Sist oppdatert: 2017-08-21bibliografisk kontrollert

Open Access i DiVA

Fulltekst mangler i DiVA

Andre lenker

Forlagets fullteksthttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10763-016-9746-6

Søk i DiVA

Av forfatter/redaktør
Christenson, NinaGericke, NiklasChang Rundgren, Shu-Nu
Av organisasjonen
I samme tidsskrift
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Søk utenfor DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric

doi
urn-nbn
Totalt: 270 treff
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf