DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations

Barbro GUSTAFSSON, (Department of Education, Linnaeus University, SE-351 95 Vâxjö, Sweden,)
Johan ÖHMAN (School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Örebro University, SE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden)
International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik)
1 0
Yıl: 2013 Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 319 - 338 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations

Öz:
School is assumed to equip students with subject knowledge and contribute to their development as human beings and democratic citizens as well. In this article, the democratic dimension of the teaching assignment is brought to the fore, and an analysis tool for investigating students’ conversations on socioscientific issues that emphasises democratic aspects is presented. The DEQUAL-tool, where the acronyms stand for DEliberative QUALities, comprises both the content-related and formal aspects of the conversations, with a specific emphasis on the collective expressions of democratic qualities like questioning, consideration for others and conveying different dimensions and arguments. DEQUAL is based on an intersubjective and communicative understanding of democracy and meaning-making, and is theoretically inspired by John Dewey’s and Jürgen Habermas’ views on these matters. The development and function of DEQUAL is clarified using excerpts from upper secondary school students talking about how living in a certain place influences the greenhouse effect. By pointing out characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of students’ group-conversations, this methodological proposal can provide further guidance for an integrative understanding of the teacher’s assignment in science education
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Alexander, T. M. (1994). Educating the democratic heart: Pluralism, traditions and the humanities. Studies in Philosophy Education, 13(3—4), 243—260.
  • Bailin, S. (2002). Critical thinking and science education. Science Education, (4), 361—375.
  • Berkowitz, M. W., Simmons, P. (2003).
  • Integrating science education and character education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 17—1 8). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
  • Biesta, G. J. J., Burbules, N. C. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Lanham, MD: Rowman Littlefield.
  • Biesta, G. J. J. (1994). Education as practical intersubjectivity: Towards critical— pragmatic understanding of education. Educational Theory, 44(3), 299—3 18. Bingle, W. H., Gaskell, P. J. (1994).
  • Scientific literacy for decisionmaking and the social construction. Science Education, 78(2), 185—202.
  • Bravo, B. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2011). learning progression for using evidence in argumentation: an initial framework. Presentation on the European Science Education Research Association conference, September 5th—9th 2011, Lyon, France.
  • Carleheden, M. (2006). Towards democratic foundations: Habermasian perspective on the politics of education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(5), 521—544.
  • Dewey, J. (1916/1999). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Free Press.
  • Dewey, J. (1922/2007). Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. New York: Holt.
  • Dewey, J. (1927/1988). The public and its problems. In J.-A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey. The later works 1925—1953.
  • Volume 2. (pp. 235—372). Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. Dewey, J. (1929/1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover.
  • Dewey, J. (1938/1998). Experience and education (60th anniversary ed.). West Lafayette, Ind.: Kappa Delta Pi.
  • Dewey, J., Childs, J. L. (1933/1986). The underlying philosophy of education. In J.— A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey. The later works 1925—1953. Volume 8. (pp. 77—103). Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.
  • Ekborg, M. (2005). Is heat generated from crematorium an appropriate source for district heating? Student teachers, reasoning about complex environmental issue. Environmental Education Research, (5), 557—574.
  • Englund, T. (2000). Rethinking democracy and education: Towards an education of deliberative citizens. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 305-313.
  • Englund, T. (2006). Deliberative communication: pragmatist proposal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(5), 503— 520.
  • Englund, T., Öhman, J., Östman, L. (2008). Deliberative communication for sustainability. In S. Gough A. Stables (Eds.), Sustainability and security within liberal societies. Learning to live with the future. New York: Routledge.
  • Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179—186.
  • Erduran, S., Jimenez—Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroombased research. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., Osborne, J. (2004). TAP—ping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915—933.
  • Eriksen, E. O., Weigârd, J. (2003). Understanding Habermas: Communicative action and deliberative democracy. London: Continuum.
  • Fearon, J. D. (1998). Deliberation as discussion. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 44—68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 677—687.
  • Garrison, J. (1995). Deweyan pragmatism and the epistemology of contemporary social constructivism. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 716—740.
  • Gerrevall, P. (2003). Assessment of democratic competence pedagogical challenge [publ. in Swedish: Bedömning av demokratisk kompetens en pedagogisk utmaning] Utbildning och demokrati, 12(3), 41-66.
  • Goodin, R. E. (2003). Democratic deliberation within. In J. S. Fishkin P. Laslett (Eds.), Debating deliberative democracy (pp. 54— 79). Malden, MA.: Blackwell.
  • Grace, M., Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal ofScience Education, 24(1 l), 1157—1169.
  • Gutmann, A. (1999). Democratic education. Princeton, N.] .: Princeton University Press. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
  • Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. Vol 2: Lifeworld and system. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Habermas, J. (1993). Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics [Erla'uterungen zur Diskursethik] Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Contributions to discourse theory of law and democracy: Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Hickman, L. A. (2009). Pragmatism, constructivism, and the philosophy of technology. In L. A. Hickman, S. Neubert K. Reich (Eds.), John Dewey between pragmatism and constructivism (pp. 143— 161). New York: Fordham University Press.
  • Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645—671.
  • Kolst¢, S. D. (2000). Consensus projects: Teaching science for citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 654—664.
  • Kolst¢, S. D. (2001a). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291—310.
  • Kolsto, S. D. (2001b). ‘To trust or not to trust,...’ pupils) ways of judging information encountered in socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877—901.
  • Kolstgz), S. D. (2006). Patterns in students, argumentation confronted with riskfocused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689—1717.
  • Kolsto, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., et al. (2006). Science students, critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632—655.
  • Kolsto, S. D., Ratcliffe, M. (2007). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (Chapt. 6). Dordrecht: Springer. Kuhn, D., Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking Reasoning, 13(2), 90—105.
  • Levinson, R. (2006). Towards theoretical framework for teaching controversial socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201-1225.
  • Lewis, J., Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio—scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267—1288.
  • Linder, C., Östman, L., Roberts, D. R, Wickman, P.—O. Erickson, G. L. (Eds.) (2010). Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy. London: Routledge. Lundegârd, I., Wickman, P.—O. (2007).
  • Conflicts of interest: an indispensable element of education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 13(1), 1—16.
  • Lundegârd, I., Wickman, P.—O. (2009). Identity transformation in education for sustainable development: question of location. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(5), 461-479.
  • Millar, R., Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. report with ten recommendations. Retrieved 2013- 04-03 from http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/beyond2000-science-education-future
  • Nielsen, J. A. (2011). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, DOI: 10.1007/s1 165-01 l-9266-X
  • OECD (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework Mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Retrieved 2013 —04—03from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/29/33707 226.pdf
  • Osborne, J., Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe. Critical reflections. Retrieved 2013—04—03 from http://WWW.nuffieldfoundation.org/science— education—europe
  • Öhman, J. Ohman, M. (2012). Participatory approach in practice: an analysis of student discussions about climate change. Environmental Education Research, DOI:10.1080/13504622.2012.695012
  • Ohman, J., Östman, L. (2007). Continuity and change in moral meaning—making transactional approach. Journal of Moral Education, 36(2), 151—169.
  • Östman, L. (2010). Education for sustainable development and normativity: transactional analysis of moral meaningmaking and companion meanings in classroom communication. Environmental Education Research, 16(1), 75—93.
  • Pappas, G. F. (2008). John Dewey’s ethics: Democracy as experience. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  • Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision—making about socio—scientifıc issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167—182.
  • Ratcliffe, M., Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socioscientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  • Roberts, D. A. (2007a). Linné scientific literacy symposium opening remarks. In C. Linder, L. Ostman P.-O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: science education research in transaction (pp 9— 17). Retrieved 2013 -04-03 from http://www.did.uu.se/carolineliberg/docum ents/070528ProceedingsScientificLiteracy_ 000.pdf
  • Roberts, D. A. (2007b). Scientific literacy/ science literacy. In S. K. Abell N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729—780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Roth, W.—M., Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: Routledge. Rudsberg, K. Öhman, J. (2010). Pluralism in practice experiences from Swedish evaluation, school development and research. Environmental Education Research, 16(1), 115—131.
  • Sadler, T., Chambers, W., Zeidler, D. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387—409.
  • Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371—391.
  • Sadler, T. D., Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463—1489.
  • Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4—27.
  • Shapiro, I. (2003). Optimal deliberation? In J. S. Fishkin P. Laslett (Eds.), Debating deliberative democracy (pp. 121-137). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Simosi, M. (2003). UsingToulmin’s framework for the analysis of everyday argumentation: Some methodological considerations. Argumentation, 7(2), 185—202.
  • Sjoberg, S., Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project. An overview and key findings. Retrieved 2013-04-03 from http://roseproject.no./network/countries/nor way/eng/nor—Sjoberg—Schreiner—overview— 2010.pdf
  • Sunstein, C. R. (2003). The law of group polarization. In J. S. Fishkin P. Laslett (Eds.), Debating deliberative democracy (pp. 80—101). Malden, MA.: Blackwell. Toulmin, S. (1958/2003). The uses of argument. London: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • Tytler, R., Duggan, S., Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 815—832.
  • Webster, S. (2008). How Deweyan science education further enables ethics education. Science Education, 7(8), 903—919.
  • Wickman, P.—O. (2006). Aesthetic experience in science education: learning and meaningmaking as situated talk and action. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Winch, C. (2006). Education, autonomy, and critical thinking. London: Routledge.
  • von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, ., Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students, argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101—131.
  • Wu, Y.-T., Tsai, C.-C. (2007). High school students, informal reasoning on socioscientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163—1187.
  • Young, I. M. (2003). Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. In J. S. Fishkin P. Laslett (Eds.), Debating deliberative democracy (pp. 102—120). Malden, MA.: Blackwell.
  • Zeidler, D. Nichols, B. (2009). Socioscientific issues: theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49— 58.
  • Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, ., Erduran, S., Simon, S., Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97—116). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357—377.
  • Zohar, A., Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students, knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35—62.
APA GUSTAFSSON B, ÖHMAN J (2013). DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations. , 319 - 338.
Chicago GUSTAFSSON Barbro,ÖHMAN Johan DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations. (2013): 319 - 338.
MLA GUSTAFSSON Barbro,ÖHMAN Johan DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations. , 2013, ss.319 - 338.
AMA GUSTAFSSON B,ÖHMAN J DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations. . 2013; 319 - 338.
Vancouver GUSTAFSSON B,ÖHMAN J DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations. . 2013; 319 - 338.
IEEE GUSTAFSSON B,ÖHMAN J "DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations." , ss.319 - 338, 2013.
ISNAD GUSTAFSSON, Barbro - ÖHMAN, Johan. "DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations". (2013), 319-338.
APA GUSTAFSSON B, ÖHMAN J (2013). DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik), 8(2), 319 - 338.
Chicago GUSTAFSSON Barbro,ÖHMAN Johan DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik) 8, no.2 (2013): 319 - 338.
MLA GUSTAFSSON Barbro,ÖHMAN Johan DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik), vol.8, no.2, 2013, ss.319 - 338.
AMA GUSTAFSSON B,ÖHMAN J DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik). 2013; 8(2): 319 - 338.
Vancouver GUSTAFSSON B,ÖHMAN J DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik). 2013; 8(2): 319 - 338.
IEEE GUSTAFSSON B,ÖHMAN J "DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations." International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik), 8, ss.319 - 338, 2013.
ISNAD GUSTAFSSON, Barbro - ÖHMAN, Johan. "DEQUAL: A Tool for Investigating Deliberative Qualities in Students’ Socioscientific Conversations". International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik) 8/2 (2013), 319-338.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 3:57

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları