Does the discussion of socio‐scientific issues require a paradigm shift in science teachers' thinking?

Stephen P. Day, Tom G. K. Bryce

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to characterise secondary school science teachers' conceptual models of discussion, against the background that a number of researchers have found that discussion of socio‐scientific issues in science classrooms is rare, somewhat discomforting for teachers and its purpose unclear. Recent research indicates that when science teachers do engage in socio‐scientific discussion, the quality is poor and is teacher‐centred where pupils' views do not figure prominently (far less be clarified and integrated with their scientific learning). This has led to calls for such dialogue to be conducted by humanities teachers. The question arising from such thinking is: Do science teachers hold different conceptual models of discussion from their humanities colleagues? Using semi‐structured interviews, three groups each of six teachers (experienced science teachers, experienced humanities teachers, and newly qualified science teachers) were interviewed in‐depth in order to characterise their conceptual understanding of discussion as a teaching strategy. Analysis of the interview transcripts utilised the constant comparison approach of grounded theory. Five conceptual models of discussion emerged from an analysis of the data—discussion: (1) as a teacher‐mediated discourse; (2) as open‐ended inquiry; (3) for the development of reasoning skills; (4) as mediated transfer of knowledge to real‐life contexts; and (5) as practice for democratic citizenship. The results confirmed that the science teachers' emphasis tended to stress practice for democratic citizenship whereas the humanities teachers' emphasis was more towards open‐ended inquiry and for the development of reasoning skills.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1675-1702
Number of pages28
JournalInternational Journal of Science Education
Volume33
Issue number12
Early online date9 Nov 2010
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

paradigm
teacher
science
citizenship
teaching strategy
interview
grounded theory
pupil
secondary school
dialogue
classroom
discourse
knowledge
learning
Group

Keywords

  • Discussion
  • In‐depth teacher interviews
  • Socio‐scientific issues
  • Scientific literacy
  • Citizenship

Cite this

@article{f21ccb43a04b47a08ef189b7c89d656a,
title = "Does the discussion of socio‐scientific issues require a paradigm shift in science teachers' thinking?",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to characterise secondary school science teachers' conceptual models of discussion, against the background that a number of researchers have found that discussion of socio‐scientific issues in science classrooms is rare, somewhat discomforting for teachers and its purpose unclear. Recent research indicates that when science teachers do engage in socio‐scientific discussion, the quality is poor and is teacher‐centred where pupils' views do not figure prominently (far less be clarified and integrated with their scientific learning). This has led to calls for such dialogue to be conducted by humanities teachers. The question arising from such thinking is: Do science teachers hold different conceptual models of discussion from their humanities colleagues? Using semi‐structured interviews, three groups each of six teachers (experienced science teachers, experienced humanities teachers, and newly qualified science teachers) were interviewed in‐depth in order to characterise their conceptual understanding of discussion as a teaching strategy. Analysis of the interview transcripts utilised the constant comparison approach of grounded theory. Five conceptual models of discussion emerged from an analysis of the data—discussion: (1) as a teacher‐mediated discourse; (2) as open‐ended inquiry; (3) for the development of reasoning skills; (4) as mediated transfer of knowledge to real‐life contexts; and (5) as practice for democratic citizenship. The results confirmed that the science teachers' emphasis tended to stress practice for democratic citizenship whereas the humanities teachers' emphasis was more towards open‐ended inquiry and for the development of reasoning skills.",
keywords = "Discussion, In‐depth teacher interviews, Socio‐scientific issues, Scientific literacy, Citizenship",
author = "Day, {Stephen P.} and Bryce, {Tom G. K.}",
year = "2011",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/09500693.2010.519804",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "1675--1702",
journal = "International Journal of Science Education",
issn = "0950-0693",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "12",

}

Does the discussion of socio‐scientific issues require a paradigm shift in science teachers' thinking? / Day, Stephen P.; Bryce, Tom G. K.

In: International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 33, No. 12, 01.08.2011, p. 1675-1702.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does the discussion of socio‐scientific issues require a paradigm shift in science teachers' thinking?

AU - Day, Stephen P.

AU - Bryce, Tom G. K.

PY - 2011/8/1

Y1 - 2011/8/1

N2 - The purpose of this study was to characterise secondary school science teachers' conceptual models of discussion, against the background that a number of researchers have found that discussion of socio‐scientific issues in science classrooms is rare, somewhat discomforting for teachers and its purpose unclear. Recent research indicates that when science teachers do engage in socio‐scientific discussion, the quality is poor and is teacher‐centred where pupils' views do not figure prominently (far less be clarified and integrated with their scientific learning). This has led to calls for such dialogue to be conducted by humanities teachers. The question arising from such thinking is: Do science teachers hold different conceptual models of discussion from their humanities colleagues? Using semi‐structured interviews, three groups each of six teachers (experienced science teachers, experienced humanities teachers, and newly qualified science teachers) were interviewed in‐depth in order to characterise their conceptual understanding of discussion as a teaching strategy. Analysis of the interview transcripts utilised the constant comparison approach of grounded theory. Five conceptual models of discussion emerged from an analysis of the data—discussion: (1) as a teacher‐mediated discourse; (2) as open‐ended inquiry; (3) for the development of reasoning skills; (4) as mediated transfer of knowledge to real‐life contexts; and (5) as practice for democratic citizenship. The results confirmed that the science teachers' emphasis tended to stress practice for democratic citizenship whereas the humanities teachers' emphasis was more towards open‐ended inquiry and for the development of reasoning skills.

AB - The purpose of this study was to characterise secondary school science teachers' conceptual models of discussion, against the background that a number of researchers have found that discussion of socio‐scientific issues in science classrooms is rare, somewhat discomforting for teachers and its purpose unclear. Recent research indicates that when science teachers do engage in socio‐scientific discussion, the quality is poor and is teacher‐centred where pupils' views do not figure prominently (far less be clarified and integrated with their scientific learning). This has led to calls for such dialogue to be conducted by humanities teachers. The question arising from such thinking is: Do science teachers hold different conceptual models of discussion from their humanities colleagues? Using semi‐structured interviews, three groups each of six teachers (experienced science teachers, experienced humanities teachers, and newly qualified science teachers) were interviewed in‐depth in order to characterise their conceptual understanding of discussion as a teaching strategy. Analysis of the interview transcripts utilised the constant comparison approach of grounded theory. Five conceptual models of discussion emerged from an analysis of the data—discussion: (1) as a teacher‐mediated discourse; (2) as open‐ended inquiry; (3) for the development of reasoning skills; (4) as mediated transfer of knowledge to real‐life contexts; and (5) as practice for democratic citizenship. The results confirmed that the science teachers' emphasis tended to stress practice for democratic citizenship whereas the humanities teachers' emphasis was more towards open‐ended inquiry and for the development of reasoning skills.

KW - Discussion

KW - In‐depth teacher interviews

KW - Socio‐scientific issues

KW - Scientific literacy

KW - Citizenship

U2 - 10.1080/09500693.2010.519804

DO - 10.1080/09500693.2010.519804

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 1675

EP - 1702

JO - International Journal of Science Education

JF - International Journal of Science Education

SN - 0950-0693

IS - 12

ER -