Teaching socioscientific issues: classroom culture

Cult Scie Edu DOI 10.1007/s11422-006-9026-9 ORIGINAL PAPER

Teaching socioscientific issues: classroom culture and students’ performances Tali Tal Æ Yarden Kedmi

Received: 4 July 2006 / Accepted: 4 July 2006 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Abstract The ‘‘Treasures in the Sea: Use and Abuse’’ unit that deals with authentic socioscientific issues related to the Mediterranean was developed as part of a national effort to increase scientific literacy. The unit aimed to enhance active participation of the learners and encourage higher order thinking in class by applying teaching methods that reduce the unfamiliarity felt by students. This was expected through an explicit use of a variety of teaching and assessment-for-learning methods, suitable for Science for All students. Our main goal was to examine the culture of Science for All classes in which the unit was enacted. In order to address the main learning objectives, we monitored students’ performances in tasks that required the higher order thinking skills of argumentation and value judgment, which are central constituents of decision-making processes. We show that while socioscientific issues were discussed in whole class and small group sessions, and students’ argumentation improved, there is still a long way to go in applying a thinking culture in non-science major classes. We suggest that science teachers should shift from traditional content-based and valuefree approach, to a sociocultural approach that views science as a community practice and the students as active participants in decision-making processes. Keywords Science for all Æ STS Æ Socioscientific issues Æ Citizen science Æ Assessment for learning A tenth grade class in a comprehensive urban high school is engaged in discussing a current scientific-environmental-economic controversy about a fish farming facility. The issue under debate is whether this facility causes a crucial environmental hazard that damages the coral reef and therefore ought to be removed into land fish ponds. Various groups of scientists do not agree on this issue, and besides the scientists who are affiliated with various institutions, other stakeholders are the tourism industry, the local municipality and environmental organizations.The students read the information presented, respond to written questions and discuss their opinions in small groups. They look forward enthusiastically to presenting their conclusions to the whole class (segments from observation protocol in Class 4).

T. Tal (&) Æ Y. Kedmi Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion, Haifa 32000, USA e-mail: [email protected]

123

Tail Tal and Yarden Kedmi

The ‘‘Science for All’’ reform in Israel was expected to increase the number and the diversity of students who learn science in the high school. Traditionally in Israel, students select their major disciplines at the end of the ninth or tenth grade. As a consequence, most of the students do not learn science beyond grade nine or ten, either because of low interest or because of low achievement. A National Committee, that examined the status of science education recommended, in 1992, that every student in the country learn science in the high school, as a major subject, or as part of new curriculum, designed for non-science majors (Harari, 1994). Following this recommendation, a variety of un-sequenced learning units was developed to address the goals of the new curriculum. The new ‘‘Science and Technology in Society’’ (STiS) curriculum (MUTAV—in Hebrew) was designed in order to address a diverse student population and to increase the scientific literacy of non-science majors. The STiS curriculum materials were developed based on science-technologysociety (STS) ideas, following a great body of literature that emphasizes the importance of employing STS ideas in science education. Although STS programs are well established worldwide, there is not sufficient data of students’ performances in programs that deliberately addressed cultural boundaries of non-science major students who are engaged in learning controversial socioscientific issues. In addition, the information about how social and cultural factors mediate the teaching and learning in typical Science for All classes is limited (Tobin, 2005). The ‘‘Treasures in the Sea: Use and Abuse’’ unit was developed to address the new STiS curriculum. The unit aims to express social sensitivity, to apply teaching methods that reduce the unfamiliarity felt by students, and to encourage higher order thinking in class. This was expected through an explicit use of a variety of teaching and assessment-for-learning methods, suitable for Science for All students. Previous studies that dealt with positive outcomes of teaching higher order thinking skills to low achievers (Zohar & Dori, 2003) directed us in our effort to discuss complex socioscientific issues in low achieving classes. The basic assumption that led this study was that by creating a supportive atmosphere in class and through teaching that focuses on thinking in the classroom, students who participate in a STiS course would become active participants in scientific discourse, and substantially improve their higher order thinking. With all of this in the background, our main goal was to examine the culture of Science for All classes in which the ‘‘Treasures of the Sea: Use and Abuse’’ unit is enacted. In order to address the main learning objectives, we monitored students’ performances in tasks that require the higher order thinking skills of argumentation and value judgment, which are central constituents of any decision-making processes. By using the term classroom culture we address two aspects: the culture of thinking classroom (Tishman, Perkins, & Jay, 1995), and assessment for learning culture (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2004). Both aspects are interrelated and create complex learning environments. It is our belief that these learning environments better reflect what Aikenhead and Jejede (1999) call life-world culture, which considers ones own norms, values, beliefs, expectations, and conventional actions. The study has a twofold contribution: in science education—creating a framework and developing means for enhancing Science for All students’ engagement in science. It fosters ways to encourage the learners to actively participate in decision-

123

Teaching socioscientific issues

making; and supports the use of higher order thinking in heterogeneous classes; in the field of assessment—promoting the use of an assessment-for-learning culture that encourages students to reflect upon the learning process in class and become mindful learners. Figure 1 indicates how in thinking about the development of the ‘‘Treasures in the Sea: Use and Abuse’’ unit that deals with various aspects of exploitation versus conservation of the sea, we ultimately arrived at a framework that integrates scientific literacy, thinking classroom culture and assessment-for-learning culture into a sociocultural view of learning. According to a sociocultural perspective, individuals and groups communicate and collaborate to construct knowledge, and discursively develop understanding through critical thinking and mutual meaning making. Through active participation, learners become prepared for later involvement in related events (Rogoff, 1990). We begin setting the framework of this study with our basic perception that scientific literacy means practicing science in an everyday context as part of community life. Then, we examine the concept of scientific literacy for all students. We stress that this does not mean teaching the same science for all students and we suggest using everyday relevant issues as organizers for curricula that engage the students in decision-making processes. In order to participate in decision-making processes students need to actively interact with social partners, share and communicate in identifying problems, asking questions, constructing and analyzing arguments, judging credibility of sources, interpreting data, hypothesizing, concluding, making value judgments and so forth—all which were identified as critical thinking or higher order thinking. However, the mere teaching of skills could easily shift to traditional exercising. But here we refer to a deeper incorporation of those skills within a relevant everyday context that enables teaching for citizenship and scientific literacy. We refer to the above as a culture of thinking classroom. Finally, we address the question of how to assess thinking skills, developed in order to promote scientific literacy, and suggest using an assessment culture that employs ideas of authentic assessment of team products.

Fig. 1 The research framework

123


‘‘Scientific literacy for all’’ How to define scientific literacy, and who defines it, is a crucial political and cultural issue. Traditionally, school science aimed at introducing the scientific thinking to every student. However, when only a minority of students succeeded, all the others were excluded from science courses. In this study, we adopted the framework for scientific literacy suggested by Roth and colleagues, who perceive science as social and community practice rather than an accumulation of knowledge, concepts, skills and representations. As Roth and Calabrese Barton (2004) claim: ‘‘Scientific literacy in everyday community life means to be competent in finding whatever one needs to know at the moment one needs to know it’’ (p. 10). Scientific literacy is not merely about knowing scientific ideas and facts or being able to participate in any form of inquiry. It is more about wanting to and being able to make decisions and perform actions in routine life by every community member. According to this perception, science education should be accessible to all, interesting, relevant and useful, non-sexist, multicultural, humanized and value laden (Hodson, 1998). In other words, science education should become part of community life, occur in a variety of settings and engage school students and community members in meaningful activities to their own lives. Calls for scientific and technological literacy are often based on the idea that current technological societies need sufficient numbers of qualified professionals who can participate in the modern scientific-technological endeavor. Therefore, scientific literacy should become the goal for science education for all (AAAS, 1989). Despite such calls worldwide, school science is still more about covering content, meeting standards, and preparing students to national and international comparative exams. This reality is preventing science teachers from dealing with local problems, unless they provide just the framework story for standards-based curriculum, and avoid deep investigation and involvement of the students within their community. The alternative of science for all is not simple at all. It is based on the idea of changing the traditional hegemony of science as elite expertise and shifting into an alternative idea of science as everyday’s and everyone’s activity. Scientific literacy is not perceived as an individual property, and science, according to this alternative, is not a coherent, objective, and unproblematic body of knowledge and practices. Alternatively, science for all is more about emphasizing problematic ideas that science, in its traditional form, cannot solve without considering other fields or aspects in our society. An important characteristic of the approach to scientific literacy, which we employed here, is one that focuses on communities rather than on individuals and on teams rather than on individual practice. Focusing on communities instead of individuals is a fundamental idea in viewing science-as-culture. A science curriculum, which is a product of this view of science, involves the society in determining a variety of opportunities and contexts for learning and doing science. It Involves the community in the actual enactment of the curriculum as well by asking community members to share their knowledge, consulting with them and inviting them to participate in a variety forms of mutual school-community projects. As we showed elsewhere, it allows community members involvement in carrying out educational programs that benefit from their various capabilities, and encourages schools to

123


adopt a whole range of learning situations that promote involvement in community life and employ diverse forms of teamwork (Tal, 2004). The majority of curricula that addressed characteristics of humanistic science curriculum, community aspects, and social interactions within the scientific community and between this community and the broader public are based on STS ideas, or are within the domain of environmental education. Yet, environmental education in most countries is not mandatory and is not included in the core curriculum, and the STS movement is being criticized for avoiding a substantial discussion of moral development. In the next section, we examine how STS ideas, despite of criticism, suggest suitable context for developing our curriculum. STS and SSI For more than two decades proponents of the STS movement advocate the integration of science, technology, environment and societal issues in science curricula claiming that there is no such thing as ‘‘pure science’’ and that science education should follow the way scientific investigation is subject to social, environmental and political considerations. Therefore, a major objective of a STS curriculum is to give students knowledge about the science/society interface and the ability to make decisions about science-related social issues. To many STS advocates, the highest goal of STS education is social action or encouraging activism. Students should be able to identify science-related social issues, analyze the context in which the issues are played out in society, know the key individuals and groups involved in making decisions, develop their own attitudes and then be ready to act. The STS movement is not only aimed at providing the future citizens with authentic real-world issues, which enhance meaningful learning and address heterogeneous student population. It intends to challenge students’ engagement in science and technology by learning socioscientific issues and by participating in making informed, responsible decisions, based on scientific knowledge (Solomon, 1993). However, recently, various scholars criticize STS programs for ignoring debates over relevant socioscientific issues in what became mainstream STS curricula. Hughes (2000), for example, who discussed gender influence, claimed that ‘‘teachers fear that extensive coverage of socioscience devalues the curriculum, alienates traditional science students and jeopardizes their own status as gatekeepers of scientific knowledge’’ (p. 426). Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, and Howes (2005) suggested that Socioscientific Issue (SSI) movement should replace STS, claiming that while STS education typically stresses the impact of decisions in science and technology on society, it avoids deep engagement with ethical issues and does not consider the moral development of students: traditional STS(E) education as currently practiced only ‘‘points out’’ ethical dilemmas or controversies, but does not necessarily exploit the inherent pedagogical power of discourse, reasoned argumentation, explicit NOS considerations, emotive, developmental, cultural or epistemological connections within the issues themselves. (p. 359)

123


We believe that this criticism is more about the application of STS ideas than about basic perceptions, and continue using the terms STS or STSE for curricula that incorporate environmental and scientific key issues and prepare students for taking action. Various studies we and our colleagues conducted in the last decade intended to learn about students’ attitudes, tendencies and actions related to STS topics and about questioning, critical thinking, and reasoning conducted by students. In a study of high school students who learned about air quality in a cooperative Jigsaw method, and analyzed local case studies of air pollution, Dori and Herscovitz (1999) found that students who were non-science majors, significantly improved in asking complex multi-aspect questions. In a later study, of non-science majors who were engaged in learning about biotechnology and genetic engineering, we revealed that students’ questions, arguments and value judgments became more sophisticated as they analyzed highly complex and controversial case studies. It appeared as well that non-science majors improved better than their science-majors counterparts (Dori, Tal, & Tsaushu, 2003). In all these programs students were engaged in meaningful analyses of controversial socioscientific issues, and were asked to make decisions and give reasons for their decisions. Although weighing of and debating about values occur in schools, and value judgment is an emphasized skill in many STiS units, there are teachers who feel that dealing with moral issues should occur in the social studies or as part of extracurricular social activities, and not in science classes. However, teaching everyday relevant topics within the wider framework for scientific literacy that was presented earlier requires developing ones own views and value positions especially in science class. This means that teachers are advised to discuss controversies and moral issues in class and are requested to depart from the belief that the teacher should remain neutral. Currently, we have evidence for pre- and in-service programs that challenge teachers’ discomforts and suggest means for teaching controversial issues. Participants in these programs are exposed to relevant reading materials, discuss science education goals, collaborate in writing learning materials and practice issue-based teaching while focusing on argumentation, decision-making, moral reasoning and other thinking skills. Teachers must acknowledge that in order for students to develop scientific literacy that is founded on open debates of controversial issues, they need to adopt a more realistic view of science and its potential for resolving conflicts than is currently common. In addition, they must practice different approach in class that encourages thinking and enables discussions of problems that would not necessarily have solutions, and even if they have ones, these solutions are quite often not within the domain of science. This approach that encourages critical thinking as routine feature is elaborated in the next paragraphs.

The thinking classroom culture and higher order thinking skills A main goal of STiS curriculum development is to foster students’ higher order thinking in general, and with regard to our study—improving students’ argumentation and encouraging value-based decision-making. Teaching higher order thinking skills became a popular objective worldwide, even in reform-based guidelines. In

123


Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy, Project 2061 states that preparing students to become effective problem solvers is a major purpose of schooling, and that the interaction between science and society create the context for experiencing socioscientific issues (AAAS, 1993). The term ‘‘higher order thinking skills’’ refers mainly to cognitive abilities, which are beyond the stages of recall knowledge, understanding and lower levels of application according to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Although it is difficult to define higher order thinking skills, Resnick (1987) characterized them as complex, not algorithmic, apply many criteria, allow uncertainty, often yield different solutions to problems and encourage self regulation of the learner. Ennis (1987) preferred the term critical thinking for it is ‘‘less vague’’ than ‘‘higher order thinking,’’ and because it emphasizes the practical dimension and refers to dispositions and not only to a list of skills. Already earlier studies stressed the importance of teaching more demanding cognitive skills, and the ways instruction should provide students with opportunities to engage in tasks that require higher cognitive level objectives. However, unlike in past decades, when higher order thinking skills were taught mainly in advanced classes, and often apart from any relevant context, nowadays, we see learning as a complex idiosyncratic process that engages all students in all ages. One step further in incorporating thinking skills into teaching for all students is employing a ‘‘thinking culture’’ in class. By ‘‘thinking culture’’ we mean that we do not teach or practice a list of standards-based skills. It is more like encompassing several elements such as using a language of thinking, encouraging whole class or small group discussions and inviting students to make, explain and justify decisions (Tishman et al., 1995). In a thinking classroom, the teacher presses the students to do thoughtful work by asking for reasons, evidence, positions and so forth. In these classes going between whole class to small group discussions is common. Students feel free to justify their ideas, based on evidence and values, and are not criticized for ‘‘making mistakes’’ while shaping their understanding. We believe that learning materials, which are based on socioscientific issues, could develop skills that enhance critical analysis of information, problem solving, argumentation, reflective thinking and value judgment. Zohar and Nemet (2002) who examined the development of argumentation in the context of dilemmas in human genetics for high school students found that the students improved their reasoning patterns as well as the incorporation of valid scientific knowledge in their arguments. Similarly, middle school students from varied communities who studied about Malaria through the WISE project and additional materials developed by teachers, improved their knowledge-based reasoning. These students were engaged in a project that brought together Jewish and Arab students from urban and small community schools to discuss science, health, environmental and social issues (Tal & Hochberg, 2003). The project was a unique opportunity for these students to meet and exchange ideas in a conference like meeting. The thinking skills studied here and emphasized throughout the ‘‘Treasures of the Sea’’ unit are argumentation and value judgment, both crucial in the cultural process of decision-making. The development of these skills is mainly through a collective practice while students discuss, argue and shape their ideas in small group and whole class discussions. The importance we attribute to small group discussions is congruent with sociocultural views and with studies that found that discussing controversial

123


issues in small groups promotes students’ collaborative reasoning. We believe that when science for all students are engaged in peer discussions, they are more vocal, and feel freer to express ideas while they have the opportunity to interrelate values with complex conceptual issues. In this way, they learn to build qualified arguments. The discussions are more varied, generative and exploratory, even when the task is demanding. In order for students to communicate effectively with others in the process of decision-making in the context of socioscientific issues, they need to learn to ask questions, obtain evidence, understand characteristics and limitations of scientific evidence, identify value positions or ideologies of both sides and have access to appropriate social criteria for judging credibility of scientists. Due to the fact that values are a constant feature of decision-making, there is much evidence that students give higher priority to values, common sense and personal experience than to scientific knowledge and evidence (Aikenhead, 2005). Following previous studies that leaned on Toulmin’s (1958) ideas, we addressed argumentation as the ability to formulate an assertion or a conclusion, supported by at least one justification, to offer an alternative argument (counter-argument) and then to rebut this argument. A recommended means for fostering reasoning and argumentation is by encouraging students to deeply discuss socioscientific issues in class (Duschl & Osborne, 2002), and to allow them enough time and opportunities to understand the meaning of the issues they learn (Tobin et al., 1988). In the process of decision-making, people often consider their own values. Value judgment is clear when a person makes a clear statement about basic ethical principles held by an individual, or by stating what good and bad are, or what ought to be done. An argument that contains a value-based consideration responds to the problem of the right behavior in a conflict situation. Although one cannot avoid discussing values when making a decision, even with regard to science-based conflicts, value judgment is traditionally strange to science teaching in schools. Science teachers avoid addressing values because they see them as belonging to a domain outside of science (Allchin, 1999). Although the diverse culture of our societies reflects a variety of moral stands, teachers’ statements such as ‘‘it’s not my job to discuss values’’ or ‘‘teaching about values contradicts principles of the scientific process’’ are common. However, this perception is being replaced with a more tolerant approach that acknowledges the role of values in the development of science, and the role of values in controversial decision-making processes. Science teachers can no longer avoid dealing with such controversies because ‘‘Controversy is part of life. It arises because people hold different values and have different priorities and interpretations for the same values’’ (Poole, 1995, p. 29). Furthermore, teachers who discuss moral dilemmas can benefit from their students’ higher engagement and motivation. If we expect teachers to promote higher order thinking and teach authentic socioscientific issues by using various sources and applying a variety of teaching methods in class, then in what ways can they assess their students’ learning? Is it by traditional outcomes such as lab-reports, essays and exams that mirror mainly the content learned in class, or through other channels that expand the range of learning such as portfolios documenting the whole range of learning, analyzing updated case studies, participating in public debates or in community organizations’ activities? According to our view, common assessments are not satisfying for monitoring

123


learning SSI in a variety of modes and a more comprehensive and coherent approach for assessment is required. In the following section we point out to the need for assessment culture that suits the call for scientific literacy that is based on ideas of citizen-science, and emphasizes teaching relevant and controversial issues.

Assessment for learning culture Although the debate over scientific literacy has been long and ongoing, there remains at least one fundamental assumption that has never been questioned: Scientific literacy is a property of individuals and can therefore be measured by means of traditional forms of individual assessment. (Roth & Lee, 2004, p. 265) Despite the above quote, it is long and well accepted that alternative modes of assessment allow direct assessment of students on the basis of active performance while creatively using knowledge in order to solve authentic everyday problems. In their ‘‘Inside the Black Box,’’ Black and Wiliam (1998) demonstrated that improving formative assessment not only contributes to students’ meaningful learning. It raises student achievement, which is an important concern of governments worldwide. The follow-up, 2004 article ‘‘Working Inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom’’ (Black et al., 2004) shows how teachers changed their practice and students changed their behavior so that everyone shares responsibility for the students’ learning. Our own experience shows that different patterns of questioning, providing constant feedback and students’ reflection of their work became part of a new classroom culture that encourages learning. Students got used to consulting with peers about their own work and revise it as a result of the feedback they received from their peers and the teachers. Employing an assessment culture at which authentic performance tasks were used in real or simulated situations, enabled teaching and assessing higher order thinking skills, while increasing students’ interest. This became even more evident when assessing students who analyze complex environmental and ethical issues in form of performance tasks (Dori et al., 2003). Classroom assessment has contributed to an appreciation of the role that assessment can play in enhancing student learning and achievement. It provides better understanding of the link between learning and assessment and allows viewing learning more as a social than as an individual process (Cowie, 2005). Classroom assessment should be employed throughout the learning process, and it consists of various modes such as open-ended questions, artifacts the students create individually or collaboratively, performance tasks and so forth. Performance tasks, such as the ones we used in this study include (1) a reading section that is carefully designed to meet the curriculum principles, and be relevant; and (2) questions of various types that require the expression of different thinking skills. These tasks usually present a complex, authentic problem, which refers to interdisciplinary content and has more than one possible solution. When used with students with highly varying abilities, performance tasks that enable multiple correct solutions can take maximum advantage of judging student abilities. Recent studies indicate that quite often low achievers make better improvement on performance tasks or case studies that involve relevant-authentic issues (Zohar & Dori, 2003).

123


Our study is the first attempt to look at Science for All reform in Israel by adopting cultural lenses while looking at issue-based curriculum, methods of teaching that enhance thinking in the classroom, and supported by a coherent assessment for learning framework, as one complex entity. Figure 1 presents the framework of this study that enabled developing the ‘‘Treasures of the Sea: Use and Abuse’’ curriculum unit.

The Science and technology in society (STiS) and ‘‘Treasures of the Sea: Use and Abuse’’ unit Developing learning materials, designed for non-science majors is rather new. Unlike traditional curricula that provided a great deal of scientific conceptual knowledge, and consisted of hierarchical scientific ideas, these curricula aim at increasing the scientific literacy of the students by focusing on personal-relevant topics that are not hierarchical and do not require structured prior knowledge. The STiS learning materials were expected to engage as many students as possible in the citizen-science discourse. While in science major classes, the curriculum provides a great deal of scientific knowledge and it is based on the structure of the disciplines, the STiS program is expected to develop the students’ critical thinking and their ability and tendency to participate in decision-making processes. A few of the units that were developed as part of this effort deal with air quality, ionizing radiation, biotechnology, forensic science and drugs and the brain. Each school or teacher is invited to choose a few of the units according to the teachers’ knowledge background, the teacher’s and the students’ interest, and the school’s environment or agenda. The curriculum unit ‘‘Treasures of the Sea: Use and Abuse,’’ which was developed as part of the STiS effort, was designed for Science for All students who do not elect science as a major subject at the high school level. The unit consists of five sub-units (chapters). Three introductory sub-units present physical, chemical and biological aspects of the sea, and the two main subunits focus on marine agriculture, its promise and challenges, and on environmental problems of the local coasts and waters. The environmental sub-unit was at the center of the study described here. It presents current local conflicts that draw much public awareness in Israel in recent years such as fish farming in a marine environment, spilling industrial waste water into the Mediterranean; nature preservation and intensive urban development along the coastline. The learning assignments are presented as case studies of socioscientific issues. The teaching methods were designed to foster class discourse and to enhance higher order thinking skills. By focusing on the Mediterranean and its unique characteristics and problems, we employed place-based pedagogy, which is required for developing citizens’ awareness of the well being of the social and ecological places people inhabit. By analyzing relevant socioscientific-environmental issues of the Mediterranean coasts, the learners are expected to develop a solid understanding of the ecosystem, human needs and the conflicts arise from various interactions between humans and the natural marine habitat. Through small group and whole class discussions, the students are expected to critically analyze a variety of dilemma-based case studies, make decisions by expressing their positions and

123


provide justified arguments for their decisions. The design principles of the unit include: • Active learning through searching for information, collecting data and doing hands on lab-activities. • Social interaction by participating in small group work, whole class discussions and games and by creating artifacts. • The use of authentic learning materials derived from professional magazines, daily newspapers and the Internet. • Problem-based learning through analyzing real cases, some of which were already resolved and others, which are still under public dispute. • Incorporating the outdoors through field trips to various sites such as a coastline nature reserve, a polluted marine site and an advanced facility for breeding and growing marine invertebrates for commercial purposes such as food and pharmacology.

Settings and participants The STiS program is not mandatory in Israel and the schools that teach the program commonly assign it to lower track classes. Table 1 presents the six classes (grade 10– 11) that completed the unit and participated in the study. Three of the classes, from the central and southern part of the country (1, 4, 5) were identified by the teachers as composed of students with low academic performances who are typical in the STiS program. The other classes were from the northern part of the country. The academic level of the two environmental sciences classes (2, 3) was identified as ‘‘fair’’ by their teacher, and one class (6) was composed of mediocre to high achievers, from a Kibbutz high school, who studied the unit as part of an elective course. Due to teacher and school cooperation level, we were able to collect complete classroom-based data and students’ work from only three classes (1–3). In the other classes, the teachers did not insist that all the students submit their work for

Table 1 Class descriptions Class

Description

Grade

N

Groups

1

A class of low achievers, non-science majors in a large comprehensive urban school Environmental sciences majors in a regional country high school; mediocre achievements Environmental sciences majors in a regional country high school; mediocre achievements A class of low achievers, non-science majors in a large comprehensive urban school Low socio-economic status school at the south part of the country; low achievers; many students have learning disabilities; the majority were identified as highly motivated students Mediocre-high achievers who took an elective course at a Kibbutz high school

11

22

7

10

23

9

11

26

10

11

23

11

22

10

12

2 3 4 5

6

123


assessment, or did not keep the original teams, a factor that prevented a consistent comparison. Two of the participating classes (2, 3) from which we have a complete set of data were environmental sciences classes. Students, who join these classed, are usually dropped from the more prestigious science disciplines such as physics, chemistry and biology. The third class was typical to the low achievement ‘‘Science for All’’ track. Classroom data were collected by observing all six classes and by interviewing the four teachers and 20 students from all the classes. All the teachers were experienced science teachers who had at least 1–2 years of experience in teaching STiS nonscience major classes. Prior to teaching the unit, the teachers were guided by the co-author who provided in-class support as well. A major goal for this support was to encourage the teachers to enhance open discussions in forms of small-group and whole class sessions. Co-teaching occurred in several occasions, especially for modeling strategies for enhancing higher order thinking. Although this was not planned earlier, we based this collaboration on field evidence derived from ‘‘teaching at the elbow of others’’ (Roth & Tobin, 2002) showing that co-teaching was a powerful context that provided new opportunities for improving teaching and learning science in heterogeneous classes. Eventually, co-teaching occurred only if and when the teachers requested, and mainly when they felt uncomfortable with discussing moral issues and personal values in class. In these sessions, the co-author encouraged pressing the students to justify their decisions and express their thoughts and values. He provided constant feedback, and invited the student to freely criticize his own views demonstrating how to challenge authoritative perception of science and scientists. Following our design principles, the students worked in small groups, and submitted only group work. This is congruent with the basic principles of authentic assessment that ensemble the learning situations in class: if students are to work collaboratively in small groups and create mutual artifacts, then they are to be assessed in small groups as well. In order to keep the data as clean as possible, all the groups of two to four students were kept constant throughout the study. Details of number of groups are presented in Table 1; only for classes 1–3 from which we collected complete data of students’ work. Overall, the students were engaged in learning the environmental sub-unit for about 1 month.

Data collection A unique feature of this study has to do with the analysis unit—the group. Previous studies of students engaged in learning STiS units looked at individual and class differences. However, two reasons led us to study groups rather than individuals. The first, already mentioned is associated with ideas of authentic assessment. Our belief that learning and assessment should reflect real-life situations, made us construct and enact learning activities based on sociocultural ideas that emphasize processes of groups and communities. Assessment, according to these ideas should be designed to promote learning in its authentic form. In our case this means that we should assess teams’ work. The second reason is related to the heterogenic student population. Focusing on groups’ performances allowed ignoring individual differences in academic levels within and

123


between classes. Behind these reasons, lies the basic belief that science should be taught as a community practice. The data were collected using the following instruments: Observations were conducted in six classes during the school years of 2003–2004 and 2004–2005. We documented a variety of class sessions, and were able to track the main teaching methods used in each class, which included whole class discussions, small group work, instances of teachers prompting the students to ask questions and so forth. Very often, we informally interviewed the teachers, and documented their responses to the observation data. Formal (structured) interviews with the four teachers and 20 students contributed to understanding the observed classroom culture. Both students and teachers were asked about their views regarding learning and discussing local controversial socioscientific issues in class. The students were asked about their preferred classroom environment, and both students and teachers were requested to describe the teaching methods applied in class. Special attention was given to the teachers’ and the students’ feedback to the performance tasks (case studies). Tasks. An initial content analysis of the assignments presented in the unit was conducted in order to identify the more emphasized thinking skills. The most required skills in the environmental chapter were found to be argumentation and value judgment. This analysis was then re-judged by four other science educators who achieved above 90% agreement in the classification of the thinking skills required in each task. At the next stage, five similar performance tasks were written in order to gradually develop the students’ argumentation and value judgment. With the intention of keeping the tasks authentic, we constructed them based on assignments presented in the ‘‘Treasures in the Sea: Use and Abuse’’ unit, and made changes only for the purpose of keeping the structure and requirements identical in all the tasks. These five tasks were then embedded in the original teaching sequence of the unit. Task 1—‘‘The Mercury Spill in the Bay’’ and task 5—‘‘The Fish Farming’’ were used as pre- and post-test sources for data. The other similar three tasks (‘‘Kishon River Sewage Bypass’’; ‘‘Fishing and Marine Environment’’; ‘‘Do not Take Our Beaches’’) were enacted so that the students would get used to the genre, structure and requirements. As indicated earlier, the post-test task was administered about one month after the pre-test. The scoring rubrics were developed based on initial categories obtained from the literature as described in the fore. These categories were refined by emerging themes through an inductive analysis enacted in a pilot study. The classification and scoring were conducted separately by the two authors. In cases of disagreement, the responses were discussed until reaching an agreement. Data analysis The observation and interview data were classified using evidence for: instances of- and statements addressing discussions (small group and whole class), debates, press for understanding, application of a variety of teaching methods, addressing everyday’s issues, personal values, and teachers’ explaining characteristics of their students. This classification served while providing the interpretative description of the classrooms.

123


Argumentation was assessed according to: (a) the number of justifications; (b) the extent of using scientific knowledge in the arguments; (c) the number of aspects incorporated; and (d) synthesis of counterarguments and rebuttals (Tal & Hochberg, 2003; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). The analysis rubric and the score range from 1 to 12 are presented in Table 2. Following Dori and colleagues (2003), we considered an argument to be valuebased if it contained any moral judgment. Applied to our study, this included any attempt to make a normative judgment of decisions that affect marine environment. Although other studies pointed to moral-based decisions, existence of value judgment and different domains of values (Dori et al., 2003), the simple statements we obtained in our study do not allow using previous schemes that enabled classifying moral-based decisions to different levels. Nevertheless, given that awareness to a conflict appears as a basic condition for judging an issue (Keefer & Ashley, 2001), we used it as the initial criteria. The pattern of the decision was the second criteria. A simple pattern of judgment was defined as composed of only one value: either social or environmental. A complex pattern was composed of at least two conflicting values that the students considered in order to make a decision: an example of a simple pattern that is based only on environmental values is: We do not want to harm the environment...nature works for us and we only harm nature’’ (pretest, group 3, 7), and an example of a complex pattern that considers environmental, legal and social aspects is: ‘‘We support transferring the fish cages to land because in this way, the sea, organisms and tourists would not damaged. Unlike now it (the cages) will be legal. The ponds will provide jobs as well as the sea-based facility, so the argument of ‘jobs’ is not strong. (post-test, group 2, 8)

Teaching skills or content? STiS classes in Israel are rather small, and are taught by devoted teachers who usually volunteered for the job. Three of the teachers (K¢, E¢, S¢) participated in a professional development program (PD) that focused on scientific literacy for non-science majors. This PD focused on how to deal with interdisciplinary everyday’s contents in science class, the importance of teaching skills and on learning about and getting experience Table 2 Assessment rubrics: reasoning (min = 1; max = 12) Criteria

Degree and score

Number of justifications Use of scientific knowledge Number of aspects Synthesis: Counterarguments and rebuttals

None [0]

One [1] None

[0]

123

One [1] Superficial [1] Two [2] Two counter ideas coexist separately, but are not rebutted [1]

Two [2] General [2] Three [3] A counter argument exists and rebutted yielding a complex, coherent idea [2]

‡Three [3] Specific [3] Four [4]


with modes of alternative assessment. The fourth teacher (A¢—classes 2, 3) was a beginning PhD student in science education, who taught environmental sciences for many years, She was experienced with conducting extended inquiry projects, and participated in designing environmental learning materials. Students, in all the classes, were enthusiastic about the unit, and quite often expressed their interest and indicated that learning about the Mediterranean and the environment is important. Our assumption was that in order for a unique classroom culture to appear, integration of issue-based curriculum materials designed for Science for All students and teaching that addresses (1) the unique characteristics of the unit and (2) the different goals for teaching Science for All students, should affect class discourse. If such discourse exists, then teachers as well as students would talk about its characteristics in comparison with what they experience in other science or non-science classes. Despite the ideas emphasized in the unit, the teacher’s guide and by the researchers’ support, our observations indicate that the teachers were very much focused on transmitting the scientific knowledge associated with the environmental chapter. A¢, the teacher of classes 2, 3 made this clear by stating that ‘‘it was important that they (the students) acquire sufficient knowledge’’. Addressing thinking skills in all classes was a minor concern. Most of the teachers did not allocate more than one class period for discussing or exercising any thinking skill with their students. In this one class period they spoke about decision-making and attempted to explain how to make an argument, but rarely modeled, or gave examples of good versus bad argumentation—an activity, which is time consuming. Up until the point at which we pressed for discussing the issue of how to express values in science class, the issue was not mentioned, and even then, the teachers asked for support, in form of co-teaching. As indicated earlier, all the teachers participated in a PD or had some experience with non-traditional teaching, and still, giving up content was difficult. Although the teachers were exposed to ideas of citizens’ science, and discussed what scientific literacy for non-science majors means, in class, they were concerned about covering enough content. The importance the teachers attributed to covering the content needs further attention. These teachers teach elite science classes as well, and they appreciate conceptual scientific knowledge instead of valuing students for their abilities to contribute to, critique, and contribute to a just society (Lazarowitz & bloch, 2005; Roth & Calabrese Barton, 2004). Teachers’ loyalty to ‘‘pure science’’ is challenged by issue-based STS programs. They struggle with ethical, economic and political issues in the classroom and often go back to traditional knowledge transmitting methods (Aikenhead, 2005). The previous experience we had with a group of teaches who collaboratively developed STiS unit indicated that even teachers who developed issue-based learning material felt like ‘‘gate keepers’’ who struggle for the inclusion of any ‘‘very important scientific content’’ (Tal, Dori, Keiny, & Zoller, 2001). A variety of teaching methods Compared with traditional science teaching, a humanistic approach demands a wider repertoire of strategies such as divergent thinking, small-group work for cooperative learning, student-centered class discussions of scientific or social issues, use of daily media resources...role playing and decision-making. (Aikenhead, 2005, p. 73)

123


Was Aikenhead’s expectation met in our classes? In the more advanced classes (2, 3, 6), the teachers tended to approach the whole class, use traditional lecture type teaching, while inviting the students to ask questions, and employing whole class discussions. To the contrary, in the other classes the teachers rarely lectured and avoided whole class sessions, explaining that whole class discussions do not work well in low achieving classes. K¢ the teacher of classes 1, 4 emphasized that the students find it hard to concentrate in whole-class sessions and that she always looks for other ways to engage them. The opposite picture is obtained while looking on small group collaborative learning. K¢ the teacher of classes 1, 4 used many small group discussions claiming that only in STiS classes the students work in small groups. This is although she thought that this form of teaching is most suitable for the students for it is increasing their responsibility and motivation toward learning. In the other classes the teachers allowed small group work only for doing a task. These teachers were concerned with ‘‘social interaction that limits learning’’ They are not used to small group work. Either they are too social, and then they are working as only to ‘do a favor’, or they are so well organized (cynically), so they split the work...‘you do question 1, and I do question 2’, and so forth. (A¢ teacher of classes 2, 3) The students in all six classes enjoyed working in small groups, and indicated that their motivation increased, and referred to the fact that getting friends’ help reduces difficulty. In the group, we have many opinions ... it’s fun learning with friends, and it helps understanding and doing the assignment. (A¢ class 1) Sometimes, my friend helps me understand things I did not get. (E¢ class 2) If you work in groups you learn to listen to others and know about their opinions. (R¢ class 1) Sometimes we argue in the group, and find it difficult to come to a conclusion. (R¢, class 1) The above quotes indicate that the students not only had fun and got each other’s help, they reflected about listening to friends and sharing different opinions, a whole idea the teachers missed by addressing only competence and management issues. It appears that most of the teachers perceived small-group work only as another optional teaching method to enrich the overall methods arsenal used in class. The idea of doing science as part of community life that requires all sorts of interactions that might be noisy and disrupt the students from doing ‘‘real work’’, was only partially addressed. The teachers that allowed sitting in groups only to do the assignments did so mainly to please us, the researchers, who collected group products. Unfortunately, we believe that they did not fully capture ideas of science as personal, communal and social endeavor that allows diverse forms of participation as suggested by Roth and Lee (2004). Whole class discussions were a common means the teachers used while dealing with socioscientific issues. The teachers of classes 2, 3, 6 enhanced these discussions by encouraging the students’ awareness of updated environmental issues. S¢ (teacher of class 6) indicated that the students were actively participating in the debates and extremely involved. He remembered them telling their friends about an article they

123


read in the newspaper, or about a movie they watched in the National Geographic Channel. ‘‘There were classroom discussions. For example, we discussed having commercial festivals in public beaches, for which they close the beach. I think it’s relevant, because everyone heard about Coca Cola Festival in Nitzanim beach, but hardly thought about any environmental damage of this festival’’ (Y, student, class 3). The teachers of classes 1, 4, 5 explained the rare occurrence of such discussions by referring to the low academic level of the students, who hardly participate in such discussions. K¢ (teacher of classes 1, 4) who preferred small group discussions indicated that she tried classroom discussions, but unfortunately, except for very few students, she had no one to speak with. Whole class discussions allow students to experience science-as-culture praxis, and create scientific discourse in class. Teachers can use whole class discussion for implementing thinking language, which is a fundamental constituent of thinking classrooms. They can press students to do thoughtful work while asking them to provide evidence for claims, identify conflicting values, suggest alternatives and critique each other’s ideas. Teacher-guided discussions can be more efficient in attaining higher levels of reasoning and higher quality explanations. The observations and interview data indicate that the teachers looked for better ways to engage the students, while deciding on whether to employ whole-class or small-group sessions. However, classroom management was the major factor in their decision, and we did not document any argument that supported one method over another that was based on a wider perception of these methods that is connected to ideology or beliefs about science teaching. Incorporating socioscientific case studies The environmental sub-unit of ‘‘Treasures in the Sea Use and Abuse’’ is based on socioscientific case studies that the students are introduced to and are requested to analyze. The following example from a class session taught by Yarden, the co-author illustrates the potential that exists in the learning material. Unfortunately, teacherled discussions that press the students to challenge their views were not observed. Teacher (Yarden): Although all the groups got the same information about the fish farming facilities, there were groups that made different decisions. How do you explain this? After a few seconds of silence a student responses: Student: because each group has its own beliefs. Teacher: Very nice, so information wasn’t the only crucial thing in making decisions. There were your beliefs and values as well. What did you think about when making a decision? What were the values that directed you? Student: That the sea would not get polluted! Teacher: Were there other values of different groups? Student: That people on the beach would have jobs and decent income. Teacher: So, we can say that different values direct people in making decisions. The students referred to the potential of socioscientific issues in enhancing critical thinking and functioning in everyday life. They claimed that dealing with socioscientific

123


issues helps students to think alone while talking to others. Through arguing with each other and having to convince they learned how to make decisions. The teachers addressed the difficulties of the students with regard to working with and analyzing case studies that require higher order thinking. E¢ (teacher of class 5) explained that her students had difficulties in reading comprehension and in following cause effect relationships. She even concluded that they struggle with applying critical thinking. K¢ (teacher of classes 1, 4) suggested that highlighting the considerations that guided the students in making a decision regarding a problem was very challenging. When K¢ was asked about how she helped the students, she responded that she guided them by asking to address various stakeholders. As already mentioned, most of the teachers rarely explicitly address thinking skills in class. Except for the co-teaching sessions, at which the co-author modeled writing an argument and gave immediate feedback, only one teacher reported about exercising argumentation. Another teacher was observed reminding the students ‘‘to address the reasoning principles that were previously learned’’ and asked the students to write ‘‘good arguments’’ (K¢, class 4). Unfortunately, we did not have any evidence for feedback given to the students by looking together on their work. Potentially, the teachers could use the students’ work at each of the five tasks, to improve the work in the following task by discussing good, fair and low performances. This never happened. Except for grading the papers and writing a few comments, no such discussion was observed in class. This missed opportunity reinforces what we already know about teachers who avoid dealing with values in science class. However, our awareness is insufficient to cope with this challenge. The sessions at which Yarden was co-teaching allowed the students for the first time, to challenge values in class. At first, we did not attempt to co-teach. But, the initial observations in class led us to adopt Roth and colleagues’ (Roth, Tobin, Zimmermann, Bryant, & Davis, 2002) principle for co-teaching, which is: do not blame another teacher about a classroom situation if you have done nothing to change it, but take part in the collective responsibility for maximizing learning. (p. 255) Following this line, we believe that co-teaching not only improved learning and teaching. It reinforced the idea of science as community praxis, and contributed to our own learning of classroom practice. As Roth and Tobin (2002) indicated, co-teaching contributes not only to prospective or beginning teachers. It helps experienced teachers and university staff who are involved in professional development as well. Up to this point, it is clear that the teachers were aware of the potential of the learning materials in enhancing small group and whole class discussions over controversial issues. One of the teachers emphasized the opportunities low achievers have while being engaged in socioscientific issues. The question remains, whether the teachers used the opportunity to facilitate or encourage a unique classroom culture that stems from the combination of content (learning materials), general approach to teaching science, and using specific strategies for Science for All students. The observations, as well as the interview data, give some evidence as to different approaches used by the teachers, but not enough to convince that a whole new culture was developed in these classes. Although we observed whole class and small group discussions while learning relevant and controversial issues, the general impression was that the teachers were concerned about covering the content and completing the tasks, and felt less comfortable with creating thinking class culture by

123


constant modeling and pressing the students to express thinking and understanding. By avoiding giving constant feedback to the students and very little discussion of their work, the teachers missed the main idea of assessment-for-learning culture. Students’ reflection The vast majority of the interviewed students stated that they enjoyed learning the whole unit, but especially—the environmental chapter. They referred to personal experience, and to the importance of these topics: Personally, I do not pollute, but this (learning) turned on a red light for me. Now I really understand the danger in polluting. (R¢ class 1) Nowadays, more and more people are interested in their environment. I think that we ought to protect our country and world ... I also think that what I do today would affect my children and grandchildren, like we do not need to think only of ourselves. (N¢, class 2) The students addressed their interest in dealing with real conflicts claiming that learning about interests and conflicts between people who want to exploit sea resources and others, who are more concerned with conservation was very interesting. Many positive reflections addressed learning in small groups and the well-suited assessment. Unlike some of the teachers, who addressed management issues as well, the students referred only to positive outcomes. They referred to the idea that leaning in small groups should lead to assessing group’s products, and that working in groups yields harder and more meaningful work. The interview data once again give the impression that the students understand the potential of the unit by addressing environmental contents, the socioscientific conflicts and the teaching method. This understanding is supported by what scholars called citizen science that allows a more complex interaction between learners, scientific knowledge and organizers for science education. Citizen science allows focusing on local topics such as water problems. It encourages complex relationships with the community and enables a variety of learning outcomes which are not necessarily task-oriented (Tal, Dori, & Lazarowitz, 2000).

Students’ performances The students who learned the ‘‘Treasures in the Sea’’ unit participated in field trips, manufactured algae products such as agar and carotene in the school lab, watched movies, and conducted ‘‘public hearings’’ and role played around one of the controversial issue they learned. Formative and summative assessment covered this range of learning. Here, we report about argumentation and value judgment skills that were assessed through performance tasks, at which the students analyzed socioscientific issues. As indicated earlier, following principles of citizen science and authentic assessment that were applied throughout the learning process, we deliberately assessed group products and ignored individual differences amongst students. The students worked in small groups that were kept constant the entire period at which they studied the unit. Altogether, 26 groups (in classes 1, 2, 3) submitted all the tasks.

123


Argumentation/decision-making The groups’ performance was analyzed using the following criteria: (a) the number of justifications; (b) the level of embedding scientific knowledge in the argument; (c) the number of aspects incorporated in the answer; and (d) the extent of synthesizing and rebutting counterclaims while making an argument. Figure 2 displays the number of justifications in the pre- and post-tests. The number of justifications provided by the students at the completion of the module was increased. Wilcoxon test for dependant variables shows a significant improvement [Pre-test mean (SD) = 1.42 (0.81); post-test mean (SD) = 2.38 (0.64); Z = –3.504, p £ 0.001]. Table 3 presents a few examples for pre- and post-test responses. Each group was coded for the class and the group number: group (3, 9) for example stands for class 3, group 9.

Fig. 2 Groups’ justifications in the pre- and post-test

Table 3 Justifications in the pre- and post-tests Assignment (group)

Argument

Justifications

Pre (3, 9)

We think the factory should be built because many people would be employed, but they have to find a solution for the pollution We support the transfer of the fish cages to land because this way the coral riff would not be polluted and so is the sea water. In addition, more tourists will come, and other businesses such as restaurants and packing facilities will continue working and employees would not loose their jobs. Our position is that if they open the factory, they should avoid doing it next to population, so their life would not be endangered We support the second possibility: moving the fish cages into land...this would resolve the coral pollution issue, as well as the danger of contaminating wild fish with diseases, avoiding escape of strange fish to the wild, and ending the accumulation of organic matter on the ground. We believe that growing the fish in land ponds is no different than in sea cages.

1

Post (3, 9)

Pre (2, 5) Post (2, 5)

123

3

1 5


Scientific knowledge was better incorporated in the post-tests responses compared with the pre-test. The answers were classified into three levels: (1) knowledge superficially/trivially incorporated; (2) knowledge generally incorporated; (3) knowledge correctly and specifically incorporated. Figure 3 presents the pre- and post-test scores in this category. It is apparent that the groups improved the support for their claims by referring to the science they learned. Wilcoxon test shows a significant improvement [Pre-test mean (SD) = 1.19 (0.4); post-test mean (SD) = 2.04 (0.6); Z = –3.704; p £ 0.001]. Table 4 presents a few examples of the groups’ arguments. We found as well a significant improvement in the number of different aspects the groups addressed in their arguments [Pre-test mean (SD) = 2.23 (0.65); post-test mean (SD) = 3 (0.75); Z = –3.285; p £ 0.001]. It is clear that while only nine groups addressed three aspects in the pre-test, 21 groups mentioned three or four aspects in the post-test. Figure 4 presents the number of aspects presented in the pre- and post assignments. In the Mercury assignment (pre-test) the groups presented mainly environmental and economical aspects, while at the post-test they addressed social, value and legislative aspects as well.

Fig. 3 Incorporating scientific knowledge

Table 4 Incorporating scientific knowledge in the pre- and post-assignments Assignment (group)

Argument

Level

Pre (3, 3)

Personally, we’re against that factory. It is better to have less people employed than polluting the public and sea environments The cages harm the fish, the water quality has deteriorated. The fish food is rich with nitrogen and phosphor, the food leftover, the fish secreting and chemicals used as medicine does not reach the sea Waste from the factory would be let into the sea Fish secretions, extra-unused food and medicine pollute the sea. They have to build cyclic system (such as the one we saw at ...) that allows only clean water to go back into the sea

1

Post (3, 3)

Pre (2, 10) Post (2, 10)

3

1 3

123


Fig. 4 Incorporating different aspects in the arguments

The last criterion for analyzing arguments was whether the students have synthesized counterclaims and rebuttals. As indicated earlier, to level 1 we classified statements that did not include any counterclaim; Level 2 consisted of statements that incorporated counterclaims; however, these claims were not contradicted; Level 3 included statements at which the students made an attempt to contradict possible counterclaims. Figure 5 demonstrates the classification into these three levels. Although more groups moved from level 2 to level 3, the improvement was not significant [Pre-test mean (SD) = 0.65 (0.80); post-test mean (SD) = 0.85 (0.93); Z = –0.885]. Unlike the other constituents of the arguments we examined, the improvement in this very demanding characteristic of an argument was smaller compare with the other constituents. Value judgment The groups’ expressed values while presenting a resolution were analyzed according to two criteria: (1) awareness to the conflict, and (2) the pattern of the value-based resolution. In the pre-test, nine groups did not express any awareness to conflicts, whereas only one group did not express such awareness in the post-test (v2 = 7.92;

Fig. 5 Distribution of counterarguments

123


p £ 0.01**). This is in spite of the fact that the level of difficulty increased. In the pretest, the students were supported by a direct prompt: asking for possible conflicts between the considerations they addressed, while in the post-test they were asked simply about ‘‘considerations’’. The values expressed in the groups’ resolutions were then classified into two patterns: (1) simple—one consideration—either environmental (i.e., concerns about environmental hazards and nature preservation) or social (i.e., concerns about employment, people’s welfare etc.); and (2) complex socio-environmental consideration (i.e., concerns about environmental as well as social issues). Although Fig. 6 shows a considerable shift from the simple to the more complex pattern, this shift was not significant. An example for moving from simple to complex resolution pattern is presented in the work of group (2, 6): Pre-test: Since the factory pollutes the sea, it is better they would not spill mercury compounds, and find other places to get rid of it. If the waste goes to the sea they should avoid opening the factory. Post-test: We support moving the fish to land-ponds for a few reasons: (a) the ponds do not pollute the bay and do not harm any creature; (b) the ponds would provide jobs for many people in Eilat; (c) the coral reefs would recover because of pollution decrease. The two-thinking skills we attempted to assess, argumentation and value judgment, were considerably improved. This is regardless of the insufficient modeling and press for understanding, as observed in class. This is to say that even with this limitation, using curriculum that focuses on teaching socioscientific controversies to students who are not typical science students, improved their argumentation abilities, developed more complex patterns of reasoning, based on scientific evidence and even challenged the traditional perception of science as neutral activity by encouraging open discussions about values in science classes.

Fig. 6 Resolution patterns

123


What is required for teaching socioscientific issues? The observation excerpt at the beginning of this paper is a good example for students’ strong engagement with analyzing real and relevant controversies as part of routine teaching. Studying students of various abilities and tracks, who were engaged in learning socioscientific issues, provides us with better understanding of the idea of scientific literacy. In setting the framework of this study we suggested that scientific literacy in the context of citizen and humanistic science is expressed by students’ engagement in learning relevant real world topics in ways that enhance activism in community contexts. These topics are often controversial socioscientific issues that involve many interests and groups of stakeholders that emphasize different problems and suggest conflicting solutions. In order to allow students to cope with complex and often unresolved problems, it is not enough to practice a variety of thinking skills via curriculum materials and tasks. What is needed is creating a whole classroom culture that encourages thinking by using a language of thinking, providing constant feedback and encouraging reflection. These ideas are in line with views that see learning as strongly connected to prior knowledge and experience, social and cultural context and to ideas of assessment-for-learning. In the study, we found that the teachers employed a variety of teaching methods in class in accordance with the learning material. Whole class discussions were employed more often in the classes of better academic achievements, whereas smallgroup work was predominant in the lower achieving classes. The teachers explained this difference by the academic level of the class and not, as we expected by the opportunity to experience various modes of discourse as happen in real life. Although the tasks required reasoning, which is based on scientific knowledge, knowledge of the environment, understanding the nature of a controversy and involving personal values, very little attempt to model argumentation and value judgment was observed in class. In a few classes, Yarden, the co-author was co-teaching, and had the opportunity to exemplify how values affect decisions, and how previous students’ work can be discussed to promote learning by providing formative assessment in form of constant feedback. Both teachers and researchers found that this unplanned intervention helped to focus the students’ work and encouraged them to express their value positions in science class. This finding is well supported by Roth and Tobin (2002) who suggested that co-teaching should be considered as a means for learning in various levels: the students’ level, beginning and experienced teachers’ level, and finally, at the researchers’ level. We now assume that planned co-teaching in all our classes could better support the teachers in their own journey from traditional science teaching to developing scientific literacy in citizen science framework, and allow us better understanding of the challenges the teachers face. Argumentation and value judgment We found that the groups’ arguments improved by providing more justifications to claims and assertions; incorporating more accurate and specific scientific knowledge in their justifications, and by supporting their claims in the course of referring to and rejecting counterarguments. Informal reasoning, which is a meaningful process in science education for citizens, is based on learning real-world socioscientific issues that include both scientific and social aspects, which often raise dilemmas. Most of the

123


issues presented in the environment chapter of the ‘‘Treasures in the Sea—Use and Abuse’’ unit are controversial in the sense that various stakeholders hold different positions with regard to the best solutions to the issues at stake. The Fish Farming controversy, for example, which was used as the post-assessment task, is still under debate in Israel, and a final resolution has not been made yet. Various groups such as farmers, agronomists, zoologists, tourist organizations, environmental organizations and municipal councils are involved in this problem that attracts the general public awareness as well. Drawing on the framework of scientific literacy for all students that is based on the idea that science is a product of communities rather than individuals, we claim that topics such as the one described above bring about the opportunity to experience science as a real-world citizen praxis. Science education for all, but mainly for students who traditionally have been marginalized from science, should express better the real relationships between science and society, as proposed years ago by the STS movement, but should not ignore the political consequences of dealing with real issues and should not ignore the main goal of education for activism. The insignificant improvement in incorporating scientific knowledge into the groups’ arguments might be explained by the claim that in order to produce complex knowledgeable arguments, one has to have solid subject matter knowledge. According to the infusion approach, instruction of thinking skills is integrated with the topics that constitute the real curriculum. These topics are studied in depth while students engage in tasks requiring problem solving, inquiry and argumentation. Our students neither had previous learning experience with the topics of the unit, nor had practiced thinking skills prior to this study. Even while engaged in this curriculum unit, only in some of the classes the students had enough opportunities to practice thinking skills, get teacher feedback and reshape their responses. Although we found a small improvement in value judgment as well, statements about beliefs, guiding principles or values were quite rare. Two possible explanations for that might be (a) the experience these students had with controversies was not sufficient for allowing incorporating moral issues in their arguments; and (b) the emphasis on arguments and justifications might have interfered with expressing opinions about what is good or bad. A few statements of the students in which they proudly stated that they based their claims ‘‘only on scientific evidence’’ imply that they perceived scientific evidence as unquestionable and they assumed that value-based decisions might not be considered as part of a proper argument. It might be that the teachers’ encouragement to give arguments, which are supported by evidence, affected the students’ expressions in a way, which caused them to hesitate in reporting about their beliefs and moral judgment. This is supported by Oulton, Dillon, and Grace (2004) who argued that the teacher plays an important role in modeling possible value-based statements and by doing so he or she encourages the students to express their value judgment. Considering the various skills one has to develop in order to participate in decision-making processes we suggest that just a few experiences are certainly insufficient. Only after a substantive experience with STiS curriculum materials, in various ways that increase scientific literacy, and as a result of changing the whole culture of teaching science, we might expect a clear difference in students’ thinking. Students’ views of learning and assessment Most of the students who studied the Treasures in the Sea unit were non-science majors. Their first experience with learning socioscientific controversies was positive,

123


and most of them indicated that the issues were interesting, and relevant to their lives. They enjoyed working in small groups and appreciated the type of learning assignments and assessments they experienced. This is congruent with Dori and colleagues’ (Dori & Herscovitz, 1999; Dori et al., 2003) studies of non-science majors, who were engaged in learning about air quality and genetic engineering. They found that non-science majors perceived socioscientific issues as more relevant to their lives as citizens, and pointed out to the learning environment that supports discussions and encourages decision-making as means for increasing motivation for learning science. Since it is well accepted that the cognitive nature of a task is only part of the variables that influence learning and that personal concerns and feelings influence learning as well, we believe that the students’ positive attitudes towards learning socioscientific issues is a major variable in affecting their learning.

Scientific literacy and community practice In this study, we added a new dimension to the assessment culture of Science for All students by looking at groups rather than on the individual student. Although much of the literature discussed here supports small-group work for it is expresses better real-world practice, we did not find many studies that looked at group performance as the major variable in the assessment process in class. Our own experience with studying six grade students who were involved in studying environmental considerations in industry, in form of a community project, allowed us to conclude that the most substantial assessment element in the project was the group product (Tal et al., 2000). Likewise, pre-service teachers who participated in an environmental education course indicated that the most effective assessment element was a group investigation into a local environmental problem (Tal, 2005). Our findings from these projects support one of the basic assumptions of this study that groups of people who pose questions, share ideas, debate, examine solutions and make decisions reflect the very essence of the scientific enterprise.

Concluding remarks To wrap up this article we go beyond students’ performances. The answer to the question whether a new teaching and assessment culture affected the students’ scientific literacy is not fully portrayed yet. The learning materials and the tasks we employed in this study aimed at helping the students to decrease the cross-cultural effect that negatively affects success in science. The use of relevant and authentic topics that encourage and allow open discussions within and between communities reinforces the idea of citizens-science. It highlights, as well, the goal of science education as and for participation in community life. However, in order to fully address these ideas in class, the teachers ought to help students to build positive experiences and communities of learners. Therefore, the teaching practices should become part of classroom culture that expands the possibilities for all students to participate. Was this the case in our study? The answer is positive to some extent. The teachers employed small group work and whole class discussions, but attributed their preferences mainly to the students’ academic level, rather than to basic ideas of

123


sociocultural perception of learning and the way it addresses collaboration and sharing knowledge to promote scientific literacy through citizen science. The teachers administered all the issue-based tasks, but rarely gave feedback to the students, or modeled how to write a good argument or value-based statement. To overcome this obstacle, we employed co-teaching to some extent in a few classes. Thus, were the teachers primarily concerned about covering the content? The interview and observation data convinces us that they aimed at thoroughly teaching the unit, and yet their previous practice interfered with adopting alternative goals for science teaching. Our positive unintended experience makes us suggest the opportunity of co-teaching in order to address the new challenges that the teachers face in teaching scientific literacy for all. We agree, as well, with the claim that STS approach is not merely about teaching interdisciplinary contents. It is much more than that, as Aikenhead (2004) explains the production of STS conceptual framework: It (STS) requires the integration of two broad academic fields, (1) the interaction of science and scientists with social issues and institutions external to the scientific community, and (2) the social interactions of scientists and their communal, epistemic, and ontological values internal to the scientific community. (p. 9) Taking all these into the teaching arena implies that teachers cannot dramatically change their practice unless they go through a longer process of reviewing their own perceptions of science and teaching philosophy, and gradually practicing different teaching and assessment culture in class. Our study indicates that the teachers carry this potential. This and the advantages both teachers and students found in the ‘‘Treasures in the Sea: Use and Abuse’’ STiS unit, should encourage teachers, administrators and science educators to pursue more diverse perception of scientific literacy, for all students. This would hopefully lead to empowering students who are critical thinkers and are capable and willing to participate in science and society related decision-making.

Appendix 1 (Pre-test) Mercury in the Bay Between the years 1932 and 1968, 111 cases of severe poisoning occurred and reported in Manimata Coast, in Japan. In many cases people’s neural system was injured. This resulted in mental retardation of babies, paralysis and death of 45 citizens. Most of the people in the area were fishermen, who made their living from the fish in the bay. Please answer the following questions 1. What is the problem raised in the paragraph you read? 2. Scientist have measured the concentration of mercury in some organisms of the bay; the test showed a low concentration of mercury in algae, moderate concentration of mercury in small crabs and high levels in fish. How this information could help in explaining the poisoning of people?

123


In a later stage, it was discovered that a nearby factory, has spilled its waste water, which contained 27 million tons of mercury compounds into the bay. 3. As you already learned, the sea is an ecosystem of many organisms. It also provides many human needs. With regards to Manimata Bay: which people (organizations or individuals) might be concerned with the pollution of the bay? What might their interests be? Explain. The ‘‘Electro-chemical Industries’’ company near Akko beach, which produces raw materials for the PVC industry, intends to establish a new factory Haifa Bay. This factory could employ hundreds of people in the region. The production processes in the factory use sea water as a raw material and might cause mercury pollution when the water is being returned to sea. 4. What is your opinion regarding the construction of the new plant? In your answer, incorporate as many justifications as you can; please address possible counterarguments to your claim and contradict them.

Appendix 2 (Post-test) The fish farming cages in Eilat The students are requested to read a newspaper article, which deals with the controversy about operating the fish farming cages in Eilat bay in the Red Sea, which is an ecosystem that provides a unique coral reef. The fish cages are accused by scientists, environmental organizations, and the tourism industry of polluting the water with organic waste and chemical that caused a massive death of corals in the reefs, and reduced their growth rate. The fish farming companies, supported by other scientists claim that the data are mispresented and that the fish industry does not pollute the bay. The Israeli government has postponed its resolution as to whether or not the cages would be removed from the sea, and fish ponds would be constructed on land. After you read the article please discuss the issue in your group and answer the following questions: 1. What is the problem raised in the article? 2. Explain what might be the environmental effects of the fish cages on the bay? 3. Many groups have interests in these cages (many stakeholders). (a)

Please indicate at least three groups (or organizations) that are concerned with the fish cages. Explain what might be the interest of each group (stakeholder). (b) Could you identify groups that have opposite or different agenda? 4. What are the values or ideas that should be considered while making a decision? (i.e., environmental, economical, social legal)

123


5. If you were a member of the Regional Planning Committee that has to make a decision as to whether to leave the fish cages in sea or to remove them into land ponds, what would be your decision? Try to use as many justifications as you can to convince the public.

References AAAS: (1989). Science for All Americans. Washington, D.C: American Association for the Advancement of Science. AAAS: (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Aikenhead, G. S. (2004). The humanistic and cultural aspects of science & technology education. Paper presented at the 11th international organization for science and technology education (IOSTE) symposium, Lublin, Poland. Aikenhead, G. (2005). Science education for everyday life: Evidence based practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Aikenhead, G. S., & Jegede, O. J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 269–287. Allchin, D. (1999). Values in science: an educational perspective. Science & Education, 8, 1–12. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139–144. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 8. Cowie, B. (2005). Student commentary on classroom assessment in science: A sociocultural interpretation. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 199–214. Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 411–430. Dori, Y. J., Tal, R. T., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Learning and assessing biotechnology topics through case studies with built-in dilemmas. Science Education, 87, 767–793. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72. Ennis, R. H. (1987). A Taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. Boykoff Baron, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. (pp. 9–26) New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Harari, H. (1994). Tomorrow 98: Report of the superior committee on science, mathematics and technology education of Israel. Jerusalem: State of Israel, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport. Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Buckingham: Open University Press. Hughes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific material in science-technology-society science curricula: Some implication for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 426–440. Keefer, M., & Ashley, K. D. (2001). Case-based approaches to professional ethics: A systematic comparison of students’ moral reasoning. Journal of Moral Education, 30, 377–398. Lazarowitz, R., & Bloch, I. (2005). Awareness of societal issues among high school biology teachers teaching genetics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 437–457 Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 411–423. Poole, M. (1995). Beliefs and values in science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New-York: Oxford University Press. Roth, W. M., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Roth, W. M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88, 263–291. Roth, W. M., & Tobin, K. G. (2002). At the elbow of another: Learning to teach by coteaching. New York: Peter Lang.

123

Tail Tal and Yarden Kedmi Roth, W. M., Tobin, K., Zimmermann, A., Bryant, N., & Davis, C. (2002). Lessons on and from the dihybrid cross: An activity-theoretical study of learning in coteaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 253–282. Solomon, J. (1993). Teaching science technology and society. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Tal, R. T. (2004). Community-based environmental education—a case study of teacher-parent collaboration. Environmental Education Research, 10, 523–543. Tal, R. T. (2005). Implementing multiple assessment modes in an interdisciplinary environmental education course. Environmental Education Research, 11, 575–601. Tal, R. T., & Hochberg, N. (2003). Reasoning, problem-solving and reflections: Participating in WISE project in Israel. Science Education International, 14, 3–19. Tal, R. T., Dori, Y. J., Keiny, S., & Zoller, U. (2001). Assessing conceptual change of teachers involved in STES education and curriculum development—the STEMS project approach. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 247–261. Tal, R. T., Dori, Y. J., & Lazarowitz, R. (2000). A project-based alternative assessment system. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26, 171–191. Tishman, S., Perkins, D., & Jay, E. (1995). The thinking classroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Tobin, K. (2005). Building enacted science curricula on the capital of learners. Science Education, 89, 577–594. Tobin, K., Capie, W., & Bettencourt, A. (1988). Active teaching for higher cognitive learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 17–27. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of an argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 145–181. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.

Tali Tal is a senior lecturer in the Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology. After teaching middle and high school science and biology, and a long career as an informal educator in nature centers, she received her Ph.D. from the Technion in 1998 and began her university career focusing on learning and assessment of science and environmental education in complex learning environments such as in- and out-of-school project-based learning. Her current interest is in multi-faceted perceptions of scientific literacy as it develops in the interface of school and out-of school learning experiences. Yarden Kedmi is a high school chemistry teacher. He has bachelor’s degrees in environmental engineering and chemistry teaching, and masters in science education. During his studies he realized the importance of developing curricula that aim at constructing scientific literacy for students who do not major in the sciences. His recent interests are in environmental education and in incorporating socioscientific issues, discussing values and developing higher order thinking in science courses.

123