Vargfrågan - Gymnasieelevers argumentation kring ett sociovetenskapligt dilemma. "The Wolf Issue - Upper Secondary Students’ Argumentation about a Socio-Scientific Issue."

Abstract

The focus of this study is the attitudes towards wolves in Sweden among upper secondary students. This socio-scientific issue (SSI) involves many aspects, such as ethical, political and biological aspects, and provides a context to study students' informal argumentation. The different arguments used by the students were analyzed using the framework of the SEE-SEP-model. A questionnaire probing attitudes to the existence of wolves in the neighbourhood was distributed to 352 upper secondary students. 18 students were interviewed in focused group-interviews (in pairs). The results showed that 55% of the students showed a negative attitude towards the existence of wolves in the neighbourhood. The analysis of the different aspects of arguments used by the students in the interviews showed that arguments based on value were more dominant (60%) than arguments based on knowledge (30%), and arguments based on personal experiences (10%). InledningI denna artikel studeras gymnasieelevers argumentation kring förekomst av varg i Sverige ur ett SSI-perspektiv. SSI står för Socio-Scientific Issues (Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons & Howes, 2005), vilket innebär aktuella samhällsfrågor som relaterar till naturvetenskaplig kunskap men som också inbegriper etiska och andra aspekter och där givna lösningar med rätta svar saknas. Vi använder här sociovetenskapliga dilemman som svensk beteckning för SSI. STS, SSI och naturvetenskap som allmänbildningUnder senare delen av 1970-talet och början av 1980-talet startades fler och fler forskningsprojekt som handlade om att koppla skolans naturvetenskap till teknologi och samhälle. Inom forskningen växte det fram en gemensam betoning på att elever skulle uppfatta undervisningen i naturvetenskap som mer relevant och meningsfylld om den visade hur naturvetenskapen påverkar utvecklingen av ny teknologi, och hur teknologin sen i sin tur påverkar samhället. Denna betoning

Using Q Methodology to Explore Science Teachers’ Socioscientific Decision-Making

“…The other teacher holding this perspective, on the other hand, stated that personal experience is important in decision-making processes, as similar to the teachers in the traditional perspective. As observed in the findings of the current study, findings of previous studies show that the intellectual baggage interacts to drive students" decision-making on SSIs (Chang Rundgren & Rundgren 2010;Rundgren et al, 2016;Christenson et al 2012;Eriksson & Rundgren 2012;Eş & Öztürk, 2021;Kolstø 2006).…”

“…Both Sadler and Zeidler (2005) and KolstØ (2001) found that students generally used combinations of the reasoning patterns as they resolve the SSIs in concern. The SEE-SEP model was also used as an analytical framework in a number of studies that examine participants" justifications about SSIs (Christenson et al, 2012;Christenson et al, 2014;Eriksson & Rundgren, 2012). Christenson et al (2012), for example, studied with high school students on the SSIs of global warming, genetically modified organisms, nuclear power and consumption, and found that in all the four SSIs, students applied more reasons from the dimensions of environment and science and least from the dimensions of economy and policy in their arguments.…”

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

“…Based on the results of previous studies (Chang and Chiu 2008;Chang Rundgren and Rundgren 2010;Christenson et al 2012;Eriksson and Rundgren 2012;Christenson et al 2014;Kolstø 2006;Zeidler 1997), we assume that the decisive knowledge, values, and experiences interact to drive students' decision-making on SSI. Based on the decisive values and/or experiences, students select information (the decisive knowledge) to support their decisions and then construct informal arguments concerning the SSI in question (Kolstø 2006).…”

“…Drawing on Dewey's (1916) pragmatic philosophy and the instrumental value of science as something that serves societal needs rather than an intellectual edifice in its own right, Rudolph has emphasized the importance of using social issues as a starting point for discussion in science teaching. Several recent studies on informal reasoning and argumentation skills in the context of SSI have adopted a different emphasis: instead of focusing on scientific knowledge (e.g., Fleming 1986), they have investigated how individuals' values and experiences contribute to their decision-making concerning SSI (Chang and Chiu 2008;Christenson et al 2012;Kolstø 2006;Sadler and Zeidler 2005;Eriksson and Rundgren 2012), as well as the role of multi-disciplinary viewpoints in argumentation concerning SSI (e.g., Chang Rundgren and Rundgren 2010;Morris 2014). Notably, Chang Rundgren and Rundgren (2010) have emphasized the importance of considering SSI holistically.…”

Student impulses and teacher feedback The relevance of teacher feedback for the classroom discourse and students’ meaning making in teaching on socio-scientific issues

“…Ett sätt att skapa en intresseväckande och relevant undervisning är välja stoff som kopplar det naturvetenskapliga kunskapsfältet till aktuella omvärldsfrågor som berör eleverna (Ekborg et al, 2012;Eriksson & Rundgren, 2012). Detta går i linje med det Roberts (2007) identifierat som ett vision II-perspektiv.…”