Socio-scientific reasoning influenced by identities

Abstract

Based on the comments by Lopez-Facal and Jiménez-Aleixandre, we consider that the cultural identities within Europe interfere with the question of the re-introduction of the Slovenian bear, generating a kind of ''discrimination.'' When the SAQs under debate run against the students' systems of value, it seems that the closer the connection between the SAQs (socially acute questions) and the territorial and cultural identity, the more deeply the associated systems of values are affected; and the more the evidence is denied, the weaker the socio-scientific reasoning becomes. This result shows the importance of attempting to get the students to clarify the values underlying their socio-scientific reasoning. As Sadler observed, there was no transfer of socio-scientific reasoning on the three questions considered; each SAQ, as they are deeply related to social representations and identity, generated a specific line of reasoning balancing more or less each operation. Among various methods of teaching SAQs-problematizing, genetic, doctrinal and praxeological methods--socioscientific reasoning may be a complex activity of problematization fostering the development of critical thinking. Confronted with the refusal to analyse the evidence in the case of the bear, and because of the nature of SAQs, we explore the notion of tangible proof. We think it relevant to study, together with the students, the processes of investigation used by the actors to establish or disestablish tangible proof on SAQs by analysing the intermediary states of the systems of proof, and possibly the ''weak signals'' which result in calling for the implementation of the precautionary principle.

Investigating the Intertwinement of Knowledge, Value, and Experience of Upper Secondary Students’ Argumentation Concerning Socioscientific Issues

“…These authors also conclude that students' decisions were based on their ability to identify with actors associated with the issue and their pre-existing preferences (if any) for those actors. This result was consistent with previous studies on SSI argumentation (e.g., López-Facal and Jiménez-Aleixandre 2008; Simonneaux and Simonneaux 2009). In keeping with these observations, Zeidler (1997) has concluded that students tend to use information that aligns with their convictions and ignore contradictory evidence, which is also in line with the results of Chang and Chiu (2008), indicating that negative heuristics were often ignored in students' informal argumentation on SSI.…”

‘Should We Kill the Grey Squirrels?’ A Study Exploring Students’ Justifications and Decision-Making

“…This is consistent with previous studies in argumentation (e.g. Kuhn, 1991) but also in socioscientific issues (Author, 2008;Simonneaux & Simonneaux, 2009) who examined how students' personal and cultural identities can affect their discussions of an SSI. These researchers concluded that students project their identities, either personal or cultural, onto the actors in the SSI, and in that way making it is more difficult for them to reason about an issue without their own belief systems influencing their decisions.…”

“…Even though we know that students' cultural experiences and personal narratives influence their decisions (e.g. Author, 2009;Levinson, 2008;Simonneaux & Simonneaux, 2009), and some studies in argumentation have been conducted across different cultures (i.e. Author, 2010; Kuhn, Wang & Li, 2011), not much is yet known about how students decide about a socioscientific issue they are studying and how different those decisions and justifications might be when comparing diverse populations (e.g.…”

Evolution of a Model for Socio-Scientific Issue Teaching and Learning

“…Earlier versions of the model called for opportunities for students to consider the "social connections" of issues as they engage in SSI learning (see Figure 1), but this is one of the more challenging aspects of the approach for many science teachers (Hughes, 2000;Sadler et al, 2006). By referencing "socio-scientific reasoning" which has been unpacked by researchers and practitioners (Herman, 2015;Sadler, Klosterman & Topcu, 2011;Simonneaux & Simonneaux, 2009), we intended to add detail and depth to the suggestion for incorporating social dimensions of issues.…”