SSIs+and+science+classroom+discourse

=**SSI and Science Classroom Discourse **= Debbie Heck University of the Sunshine Coast dheck@usc.edu.au =Socioscientific issues (SSI) are controversial issues that have clear links to science (Sadler, 2004). They are controversial due to the degree of uncertainty involved resulting in different and competing views of the issue (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Simonneaux, 2008). Exploring SSI provides opportunities to investigate both the content and process of science. This raises a range of challenges and opportunities for classroom discourse in science education. =

A particular kind of classroom discourse is required to explore SSI in the classroom. The term “socioscientific Discourse” has been coined to represent this approach to classroom discourse (Sadler, 2009). This notion incorporates the types of practices and understandings that are used to engage with explore and resolve SSI. This process occurs within a community of practice where students engage with real world science that relates to them and their future engagement with science as citizens. This approach contrasts with what many experience as the “traditional” science classroom context. This shift has been described as a move from an authoritative approach to a more open and dialogic exchange in the classroom (Levinson, 2006). The development of a more open and dialogical processes within classrooms require a very different teacher student relationship and approach to teaching science. In this context the student voice needs have authority and communication needs to include the following characteristics: “patience, tolerance, respect for difference, attentive and thoughtful listening, openness, honest self-expression, adherence to agreed procedures, freedom of expression and equality” (Levinson, 2006). A variety of tools have been developed to support teachers to develop small group and whole class discussion that engages students in developing dialogue. Many of these have their basis in the development of argumentation. One of the challenges for teachers is to design appropriate tasks for students (Simon & Richardson, 2009). Some considerations for task design include: all members of the group need to have their voice heard, the whole group need to engage with the task and all positions put forward need to be recorded and it needs to be a challenge to current understandings (Howe et al., 2007). Reasons for the use of argumentation in science classrooms include: One of the key approaches to argumentation explored in science education is the model developed by Toulmin (1958). This approach unpacks for teachers and students the components of an argument including for example: The quality of the instruction provided to students has a huge impact on student ability to engage with argumentation as it relates to socioscientific issues (Dawson & Venville, 2010). The teacher in this study had extensive experience using whole class discussion in his teaching and this supported the development of quality argumentation in the lesson even after a very short introduction to the approach. The quality of the instruction was also supported by the use of writing frames as an approach to scaffold student learning through the use of question prompts that promote the development of all aspects of the argumentation. This study also asserted that argumentation and SSI success was dependent on the student exposure to processes such as: ability to question scientific knowledge and the ability to question the teacher and other students openly. Without some of these skills students may well be hesitant to engage in the process of argumentation. This will challenge us to explore the implications of the Blood Diamonds case as an example of an SSI in term of some of the possible challenges for students: And possible challenges for teachers:
 * Classroom Discourse**
 * Argumentation as an approach to classroom discourse and SSI**
 * 1) Develops student cognitive and metacognitive processes
 * 2) Develops critical thinking and communicative processes
 * 3) Develops scientific literacy allowing students to use the language of science
 * 4) Introduces students to the culture of science and the epistemic criteria for knowledge evaluation
 * 5) Supports the development of reasoning based on criteria (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2008).
 * Claims: Assertions about what exists or values that people hold.
 * Data: statements that are used as evidence to support the assertion
 * Warrants: statements that explain the relationship of the data to the claim.
 * Qualifiers: specific conditions under which the claim holds true
 * Backings: underlying assumptions which are often not made explicit
 * Rebuttals: statements which contradict either the data, warrant, backing or qualifier of an argument
 * Counter- claim: These are simply opposing assertions
 * Core beliefs
 * Scientific misconceptions
 * Lack of personal experience
 * Lack of content knowledge
 * Underutilised scientific reasoning skills (Zeidler, Applebaum, & Sadler, 2011).
 * Teachers beliefs about the purpose of science
 * Clearly articulated pedagogical goals for inclusion of SSI
 * Selecting appropriate learning activities
 * Timing the appropriate implementation of activities (Dawson, 2011).

**References** Dawson, V. (2011). A case study of the impact of introducing socio-scientific issues into a reproduction unit in a Catholic girl's school. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), //Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom// (pp. 313-345). London: Springer. Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students' arugmentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. //Research in Science Education, 40//, 133-148. Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Thurston, A., Topping, K., Christie, D., Livingston, K. (2007). Group work in elementary science: Towards organisational principles for supporting pupil learning. //Learning and Instruction, 17//, 549-563. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overivew. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), //Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research// (pp. 3-27). Dordrecht, London: Springer. Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. //International Journal of Science Education, 28//(10), 1201-1224. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. //Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41//(5), 513-536. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. //Studies in Science Education, 45//, 10-42. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. //Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42//(1), 112-138. Simon, S., & Richardson, K. (2009). Argumentation in school science: Breaking the tradition of authoritative exposition through a pedagogy that promotes discussion and reasoning. //Argumentation, 23//(4), 469-493. Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in soci-scientific contexts. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), //Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research// (pp. 179-199). Dordrecht, London: Springer. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). //The uses of argument//. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S. M., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), //Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom// (pp. 277-305). London: Springer.