From Ideal to Practical—A Design of Teacher Professional Development on Socioscientific Issues
Abstract
:1. Introduction
SSI PD
2. Theoretical Framework—Research and PD Design
2.1. Research Design
2.2. PD Design
2.2.1. Part 1: Introduction to SSI
2.2.2. Part 2: Argumentation Content
2.2.3. Part 3: SSI Operationalization
- Modeling implementation of an SSI lesson
- Experiencing and identifying types of discourse conducive to SSI implementation
- Using the British parliamentary (BP) debate
2.2.4. Part 4: Science communication (SC)
3. PD Context
3.1. Research Population
3.2. PD Timeline
4. Research Questions
- What impact did the PD program have on teachers’ attitudes, self-efficacy, and enactment of SSI?
- Which activities and settings best supported teachers in SSI implementation as informed by the iterative PD design process?
5. Research Instruments
5.1. Teachers Perceptions Questionnaire
5.2. Retention Questionnaire
5.3. Teacher Interviews
6. Results
6.1. RQ1—What Impact Did the PD Program Have on Teachers’ Attitudes, Self-Efficacy and Enactment of SSI?
6.1.1. Affective Outcomes
EY: “The discussions over SSI established the fact and made me aware that there is a lack of implementation of SSI in science teaching and the need to cultivate civil awareness and activism among my students became much clearer.”
TI: “During my years of teaching, I have always been drawn to everyday-life issues. Usually, these issues are broad and touch many different disciplines. The PD made the importance of implementing such issues in the science class much clearer and provided the tools for doing that, so I am more aware of it.”
JN: “After a very tough year at school, when I seriously thought about quitting teaching, I took this PD course which reminded me why I had been attracted to teaching in the first place—to shape and change the environmental perception of the next generation.”
LL: “I learned about the debate, how to conduct a debate and set goals for an SSI lesson…I think that the debate can support the students gain a better and deeper understanding of the learning material…I am sure I will implement the debate and spread the word to others.”
RV: “After the PD course, I listened to the radio, I was listening to the arguments and it felt completely different…I got to assess and name students’ arguments, a thing I didn’t know how to do before the PD.”
YU: “Modeling a six-week lesson plan that showed an integration of SSI with the scientific curriculum helped me thinking about ways I can pull off such a thing.”
JN: “Having a demonstration of how SSI is integrated into an existing curriculum, made me think this is something I can do, this is something I can adopt in my own class.”
6.1.2. Knowledge and Skills Outcomes
LM: “On my way to the interview, I was listening to a political show on the radio, and because of the PD I noticed the fallacies in the interviewee’s arguments. It made a difference in my personal life, and I am excited to take it into the class. I think it will be an invaluable skill for my students.”
6.1.3. Collaboration Outcome
JE: “The discussions were nice, and I really liked collaborating with other teachers. However, more attention should have been paid to mixing groups more often, as mixing of groups took place at the end of the third day, which limited the opportunities of meeting and working with more teachers.”
MA: “I would like to collaborate with someone and not only implementing SSI on my own. For example, I can collaborate on SSI with the Geography teacher as we did last year on another issue. I already have some ideas about collaborating with my colleague who teaches cinema. Those are the types of collaborations I believe can make the implementation of SSI meaningful.”
6.1.4. The Effect of the PD on SSI Implementation
RN: “When I think about the next year and the classes I will teach, I see myself implementing the debate in stages, so students get to practice the skill. First, I will teach my students what an argument is, and about logical fallacies. Next, I will let students write arguments about whatever they wish to argue about, and to think about the other side’s responses and plan their rebuttal, so they can practice their writing and won’t have to stand in front of an audience with no counter argument. After that, we can conduct SSI debates and competitions.”
- Reason 1—Low expectation of students’ ability.
MC: “The students are inattentive...it depends on the students, the students I teach are not at a stage where they can handle complex issues like SSI.”
MP: “The students are very difficult, so you hardly manage to cover the curriculum and prepare them for the MEITZAV (national standardized test for the junior high level). In such circumstances SSI is not something I would consider getting into.”
- Reason 2—Lack of preparation time.
HD: “I didn’t have specific ideas for how to integrate SSI in the curriculum. When you are in a race, it is very difficult to design new lesson materials. There are regular tests and national tests, that you are always in a race to cover the topics for those tests. Had I had specific examples of how to implement SSI into each topic in the curriculum, I might have used it more.”
YS: “There are not enough practical materials that do not require preparation in order to implement what we learned in the PD course.”
- Reason 3—Prior commitments.
AN: “Whenever I have extra time, it means extra preparation for the matriculation exam.”
OB: “No, I don’t have time for SSI lessons, I teach 11th-grade for the matriculation exams and the 12th-grade for the lab enquiry exam...there is a part in which it is recommended to discusses the pros and cons of fire retardants, but actually there is no real time to discuss it—it is not the essence of the work (teaching chemistry).”
6.2. RQ2—What Activities and Settings Best Supported Teachers in SSI Implementation as Informed by the Iterative PD Design Process?
6.2.1. Changes between Cycle One and Two
6.2.2. Changes between Year 2 and Year 3
VD: “It was nice that I had the time to write a lesson plan for my class. The fact that we were not sent with homework, but all the work was within the PD schedule, is very much appreciated. It sends a message that our time is valuable. In addition, I was able to ask the facilitator and other teachers for suggestions, which really helped me.”
7. Discussion
7.1. PD Impact
7.1.1. Attitudes
7.1.2. Self-Efficacy
7.1.3. Knowledge and Skills
7.1.4. Barriers to Implementing SSI
7.2. Research Implications
7.3. Research Limitations
8. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. Open Questionnaire (Translated from Hebrew)
- It is important to integrate socioscientific issues in general studies (science for all programs).
- I am concerned that there are issues I will not know how to handle during a socioscientific discussion.
- I can assess students’ arguments over socioscientific issues in real time during a class discussion with a relative ease
- I feel confident to discuss and teach socioscientific issues that are up to date with current events.
- I do not tend to address other aspects but the scientific ones in my class (e.g., economical, social, historical, political, etc.)
- I do not think argumentation skill should be taught explicitly.
- It is important to incorporate socioscientific issues in the teaching of students in scientific disciplines such as physics, chemistry, and biology.
- I am able to address controversial issues in oral argumentation.
- In a discussion on social issues, I find myself in a problem when I do not have enough knowledge to answer students’ questions.
- Teaching science content alone is sufficient to prepare students as scientifically literate citizens.
- I explicitly teach my students argumentation skills.
- I facilitate classroom discussions on socioscientific Issues.
- I incorporate current issues in science into the classroom.
- The acquisition of argumentation skills is of great importance in the context of socioscientific issues
- I am capable of developing a written argument on controversial topics in the context of socioscientific issues.
- I do not know how to provide students with tools for analyzing and evaluating argumentation skills in the context of science and society.
- I feel that I have sufficient pedagogical tools to analyze the validity of students’ arguments in the context of socioscientific issues.
- I provide a learning environment that encourages the acquisition of argumentation skills, such as group discussions, debates, mock trials, and more.
- I would like to focus more on imparting argumentation skills to my students, but I feel that I have not received enough pedagogical tools to do so effectively in various contexts.
- I struggle to analyze and evaluate my students’ arguments in oral discussions.
- I tend to rely on intuition when evaluating my students’ arguments in socioscientific issues.
- I am capable of constructing oral arguments on controversial topics in socioscientific issues.
Appendix A.2. SSI and Argumentation Pre- and Post-Open-Questions (Translated from Hebrew)
- Please state two strengths of the discussions you conduct in the classroom and two areas you would like to improve; please provide details as possible.
- What are the main sources of information from which you draw information about science and society issues? Please provide detailed references to the sources of information, such as citing the names of specific sources, including online newspapers, various websites, printed newspapers, individuals, etc.
- Please list as many current socioscientific issues that interest you as possible.
- Please list at least three relevant current socioscientific issues relevant to Israel.
- Please write down three key criteria that, in your opinion, constitute conditions for socioscientific issues suitable for classroom instruction.
- Indicate whether the professional development provided you with tools for conducting discussions in your classroom. Please specify.
- Did the professional development make you consider the primary sources from which you gather information on science and society issues? Please elaborate.
- Did the professional development contribute to expanding the range of science and society issues that you believe you can teach to your students? Please specify.
- Did engaging with formal and informal logic as methods for judging and evaluating arguments benefit you? If so, please specify in what way.
- Do you think that after the professional development, you will be able to conduct debates in your classroom? Please elaborate.
- Please provide comments and suggestions. What would you improve in the PD? Were the assignments reasonable? Would you like more practice or more theoretical foundation? Were there any unnecessary parts in the course? Which content or activities did you enjoy the most?
Appendix A.3. Retention Questionnaire
- Can you talk about your experience from the professional development in retrospect?
- Did the professional development change anything in your thinking about the following topics: teaching socioscientific issues, argumentation, and discourse?, If so please elaborate how so.
- Have you implemented anything practical from the professional development? Can you provide details?
- Have you taught socioscientific issues lessons since the professional development? If you did, please answer to the following questions: How many lessons did you have during the year? How many academic hours did each lesson last? How long have you prepared for the lesson? What was the lesson about?
- If you did not implement SSI during the year that followed the PD, can you explain why?
- Is there anything else you feel is lacking in order to incorporate socioscientific issues in your classroom? Can you provide details?
- Have you used any of the content uploaded to the professional development website since then?
Appendix A.4. Interview Protocol (Translated from Hebrew)
- Tell me what you think about integrating science and society issues in science education. Has anything changed after the professional development?
- In your opinion, who should be responsible for teaching science and society issues? Can anyone besides the science teacher do it?
- Do you currently teach such issues in your classroom? Can you describe your experience and how it has been for you?
- What knowledge should a teacher possess in order to teach such issues effectively?
- What learning strategies should a teacher employ to teach such issues? Will you use these strategies in the future?
- How do moral and ethical values manifest in current science education in the country?
- Tell me about the professional development you attended during the summer.
- Are there any topics that you connected with more strongly?
- What would you like to see in a professional development program that focuses on such topics?
- What is your opinion about humanities subjects in schools? Literature, history, civics, music, etc.? Have you once collaborated with a teacher from the humanities?
- What do you think about the curriculum in the subject you teach?
References
- National Academies Press. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Strategic Visioning Expert Group. PISA 2024 Strategic Vision and Direction for Science. Report; OCDE: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Roberts, D.A.; Bybee, R.W. Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In Handbook of Research on Science Education; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2014; Volume II, pp. 559–572. [Google Scholar]
- Zeidler, D.L.; Nichols, B.H. Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. J. Elem. Sci. Educ. 2009, 21, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levinson, R. Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2006, 28, 1201–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeidler, D.L.; Sadler, T.D.; Simmons, M.L.; Howes, E.V. Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Sci. Educ. 2005, 89, 357–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tal, T.; Kedmi, Y. Teaching socioscientific issues: Classroom culture and students’ performances. Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2006, 1, 615–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zangori, L.; Peel, A.; Kinslow, A.; Friedrichsen, P.; Sadler, T.D. Student development of model-based reasoning about carbon cycling and climate change in a socio-scientific issues unit. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2017, 54, 1249–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dori, Y.J.; Tal, R.T.; Tsaushu, M. Teaching biotechnology through case studies—Can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Sci. Educ. 2003, 87, 767–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klosterman, M.L.; Sadler, T.D. Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2010, 32, 1017–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albe, V. When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Res. Sci. Educ. 2008, 38, 67–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.; Chang, H.; Choi, K.; Kim, S.-W.; Zeidler, D.L. Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2012, 34, 925–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levinson, R. Promoting the role of the personal narrative in teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. Sci. Educ. 2008, 17, 855–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitiporntapin, S.; Yutakom, N.; Sadler, T.D. Thai pre-service science teachers’ struggles in using Socio-scientific Issues (SSIs) during practicum. In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching; The Education University of Hong Kong: Hong Kong, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kilinc, A.; Demiral, U.; Kartal, T. Resistance to dialogic discourse in SSI teaching: The effects of an argumentation-based workshop, teaching practicum, and induction on a preservice science teacher. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2017, 54, 764–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tidemand, S.; Nielsen, J.A. The role of socioscientific issues in biology teaching: From the perspective of teachers. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2017, 39, 44–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekborg, M.; Ottander, C.; Silfver, E.; Simon, S. Teachers’ experience of working with socio-scientific issues: A large scale and in depth study. Res. Sci. Educ. 2013, 43, 599–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadler, T.D.; Foulk, J.A.; Friedrichsen, P.J. Evolution of a model for socio-scientific issue teaching and learning. Int. J. Educ. Math. Sci. Technol. 2017, 5, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saunders, K.J.; Rennie, L.J. A pedagogical model for ethical inquiry into socioscientific issues in science. Res. Sci. Educ. 2013, 43, 253–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadler, T.D. Situating Socio-scientific Issues in Classrooms as a Means of Achieving Goals of Science Education. In Socio-Scientific Issues in the Classroom: Teaching, Learning and Research; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, H.; Abd-El-Khalick, F.; Choi, K. Korean science teachers’ perceptions of the introduction of socio-scientific issues into the science curriculum. Can. J. Math Sci. Technol. Educ. 2006, 6, 97–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tytler, R. Socio-scientific issues, sustainability and science education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2012, 42, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Erduran, S.; Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. Argumentation in Science Education; Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Schwarz, B.B.; Resnick, L.B.; Baker, M.J. Dialogue, Argumentation and Education: History, Theory and Practice; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, H.; Witz, K.G. Science teachers’ inspiration for teaching socio-scientific issues: Disconnection with reform efforts. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2009, 31, 931–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avalos, B. Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2011, 27, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garet, M.S.; Porter, A.C.; Desimone, L.; Birman, B.F.; Yoon, K.S. What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2001, 38, 915–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thompson, C.L.; Zeuli, J.S. The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice; Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1999; p. 464. [Google Scholar]
- Alkaher, I.; Carmi, N. Is population growth an environmental problem? Teachers’ perceptions and attitudes towards including it in their teaching. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cohen, R.; Zafrani, E.; Yarden, A. Science teachers as proponents of socio-scientific inquiry-based learning: From professional development to classroom enactment. In Science Teacher Education for Responsible Citizenship; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 117–132. [Google Scholar]
- Peel, A.; Sadler, T.D.; Friedrichsen, P.; Kinslow, A.; Foulk, J. Rigorous investigations of relevant issues: A professional development program for supporting teacher design of socio-scientific issue units. Innov. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2018, 3, 3. [Google Scholar]
- Romine, W.L.; Sadler, T.D.; Kinslow, A.T. Assessment of scientific literacy: Development and validation of the Quantitative Assessment of Socio-Scientific Reasoning (QuASSR). J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2017, 54, 274–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayram-Jacobs, D.; Henze, I.; Evagorou, M.; Shwartz, Y.; Aschim, E.L.; Alcaraz-Dominguez, S.; Barajas, M.; Dagan, E. Science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge development during enactment of socioscientific curriculum materials. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2019, 56, 1207–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ha, M.; Baldwin, B.C.; Nehm, R.H. The long-term impacts of short-term professional development: Science teachers and evolution. Evol. Educ. Outreach 2015, 8, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lauer, P.A.; Christopher, D.E.; Firpo-Triplett, R.; Buchting, F. The impact of short-term professional development on participant outcomes: A review of the literature. Prof. Dev. Educ. 2014, 40, 207–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kennedy, M.M. How does professional development improve teaching? Rev. Educ. Res. 2016, 86, 945–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKenney, S.; Reeves, T.C. Conducting Educational Design Research; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Voogt, J.; Laferrière, T.; Breuleux, A.; Itow, R.C.; Hickey, D.T.; McKenney, S. Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instr. Sci. 2015, 43, 259–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gynther, K. Design Framework for an Adaptive MOOC Enhanced by Blended Learning: Supplementary Training and Personalized Learning for Teacher Professional Development. Electron. J. e-Learn. 2016, 14, 15–30. [Google Scholar]
- Mosteller, F.; Boruch, R.F. Evidence Matters: Randomized Trials in Education Research; Brookings Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Rhodes, C.; Nevill, A.; Allan, J. Valuing and supporting teachers: A survey of teacher satisfaction, dissatisfaction, morale and retention in an English local education authority. Res. Educ. 2004, 71, 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desimone, L.M. Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educ. Res. 2009, 38, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- King, F. Evaluating the impact of teacher professional development: An evidence-based framework. Prof. Dev. Educ. 2014, 40, 89–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bandura, A.; Freeman, W.H.; Lightsey, R. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Usher, E.L.; Pajares, F. Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Rev. Educ. Res. 2008, 78, 751–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dawson, V.M.; Venville, G. Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Res. Sci. Educ. 2010, 40, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granziera, H.; Perera, H.N. Relations among teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, engagement, and work satisfaction: A social cognitive view. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2019, 58, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klassen, R.M.; Bong, M.; Usher, E.L.; Chong, W.H.; Huan, V.S.; Wong, I.Y.; Georgiou, T. Exploring the validity of a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2009, 34, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rutherford, T.; Long, J.J.; Farkas, G. Teacher value for professional development, self-efficacy, and student outcomes within a digital mathematics intervention. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2017, 51, 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tschannen-Moran, M.; McMaster, P. Sources of self-efficacy: Four professional development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a new teaching strategy. Elem. Sch. J. 2009, 110, 228–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagly, A.; Chaiken, S. Attitude structure. In Handbook of Social Psychology; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1998; Volume 1, pp. 269–322. [Google Scholar]
- Guskey, T.R. Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teach. Teach. Educ. 1988, 4, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Aalderen-Smeets, S.I.; Walma van der Molen, J.H. Improving primary teachers’ attitudes toward science by attitude-focused professional development. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2015, 52, 710–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albarracín, D.; Vargas, P. Attitudes and persuasion. In Handbook of Social Psychology; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2010; Volume 1, pp. 394–427. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, T.M.; Desimone, L.M.; Rumyantseva, N.L.; Zeidner, T.L.; Dunn, A.C.; Bhatt, M. Inquiry-oriented instruction in science: Who teaches that way? Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 2007, 29, 169–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Supovitz, J.A.; Turner, H.M. The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. J. Res. Sci. Teach. Off. J. Natl. Assoc. Res. Sci. Teach. 2000, 37, 963–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hargreaves, A. Teacher collaboration: 30 years of research on its nature, forms, limitations and effects. Teach. Teach. 2019, 25, 603–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kafyulilo, A.C. Professional development through teacher collaboration: An approach to enhance teaching and learning in science and mathematics in Tanzania. Afr. Educ. Rev. 2013, 10, 671–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eun, B. Making connections: Grounding professional development in the developmental theories of Vygotsky. Teach. Educ. 2008, 43, 134–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitsoe, V.J.; Maila, W.M. Towards constructivist teacher professional development. J. Soc. Sci. 2012, 8, 318–324. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, E.A.; Krajcik, J.S. Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educ. Res. 2005, 34, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fortus, D.; Dershimer, R.C.; Krajcik, J.; Marx, R.W.; Mamlok-Naaman, R. Design-based science and student learning. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41, 1081–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ENGAGE. Engage—Equipping the Next Generation to Participate in Scientific Issues. 2014. Available online: http://www.engagingscience.eu/en (accessed on 1 January 2014).
- Okada, A.; Bayram-Jacobs, D. Opportunities and challenges for equipping the next generation for responsible citizenship through the ENGAGE HUB. In Proceedings of the 2016 LSME International Conference on Responsible Research in Education and Management and Its Impact, London, UK, 13–15 January 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Sherborne, T.; Bullough, A. Engage—Equipping the Next Generation for Active Engagement in Science; Periodic Report Number 2; Engage: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Sadler, T.D. Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2009, 45, 603–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawson, V.; Carson, K. Introducing argumentation about climate change socioscientific issues in a disadvantaged school. Res. Sci. Educ. 2020, 50, 863–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadler, T.D. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. J. Res. Sci. Teach. Off. J. Natl. Assoc. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41, 513–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erduran, S.S. Simon, and J.; Osborne, TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88, 915–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simon, S.; Erduran, S.; Osborne, J. Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2006, 28, 235–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sampson, V.; Clark, D. Assessment of Argument in Science Education: A Critical Review of the Literature; ISLS: Montréal, QC, Canada, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Duschl, R.A. Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In Argumentation in Science Education; Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 159–175. [Google Scholar]
- Nielsen, J.A. Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2013, 43, 371–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, R.H.; Blair, J.A. Logical Self-Defense; CEU Press: Budapest, Hungary, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Walton, D.N. Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argument; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Tindale, C.W. Fallacies and Argument Appraisal; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Symeonidou, S.; Phtiaka, H. Using teachers’ prior knowledge, attitudes and beliefs to develop in-service teacher education courses for inclusion. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2009, 25, 543–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teig, N.; Scherer, R. Bringing formal and informal reasoning together—A new era of assessment? Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Toulmin, S.E. The Uses of Argument; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- McNeill, K.L.; Lizotte, D.J.; Krajcik, J.; Marx, R.W. Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. J. Learn. Sci. 2006, 15, 153–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Neuman, Y. Go ahead, prove that God does not exist! On high school students’ ability to deal with fallacious arguments. Learn. Instr. 2003, 13, 367–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zohar, A.; Nemet, F. Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. J. Res. Sci. Teach. Off. J. Natl. Assoc. Res. Sci. Teach. 2002, 39, 35–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simonneaux, L.; Simonneaux, J. Students’ socio-scientific reasoning on controversies from the viewpoint of education for sustainable development. Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2009, 4, 657–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Johnson, R.H. The Rise of Informal Logic: Essays on Argumentation, Critical Thinking, Reasoning and Politics; University of Windsor: Windsor, ON, USA, 2014; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Kuhn, D. Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Q. 1993, 39, 74–103. [Google Scholar]
- Walton, D. Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Britner, S.L.; Pajares, F. Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. J. Res. Sci. Teach. Off. J. Natl. Assoc. Res. Sci. Teach. 2006, 43, 485–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.; Yang, J.-E. Science teachers taking their first steps toward teaching socioscientific issues through collaborative action research. Res. Sci. Educ. 2019, 49, 51–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leden, L.; Hansson, L.; Redfors, A. From black and white to shades of grey: A longitudinal study of teachers’ perspectives on teaching sociocultural and subjective aspects of science. Sci. Educ. 2017, 26, 483–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shwartz, Y.; Weizman, A. Talking science. Sci. Teach. 2009, 76, 44. [Google Scholar]
- Day, S.P.; Bryce, T.G. Does the discussion of socio-scientific issues require a paradigm shift in science teachers’ thinking? Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2011, 33, 1675–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eckstein, J.; Bartanen, M. British parliamentary debate and the twenty-first-century student. Commun. Stud. 2015, 66, 458–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aclan, E.M.; Aziz, N.H.A. Exploring parliamentary debate as a pedagogical tool to develop English communication skills in EFL/ESL classrooms. Int. J. Appl. Linguist. Engl. Lit. 2015, 4, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Burns, T.W.; O’Connor, D.J.; Stocklmayer, S.M. Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Underst. Sci. 2003, 12, 183–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sinatra, G.M.; Hofer, B.K. Science Denial: Why it Happens and What to Do about It; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Brossard, D.; Shanahan, J. Do they know what they read? Building a scientific literacy measurement instrument based on science media coverage. Sci. Commun. 2006, 28, 47–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarman, R.; McClune, B. Developing Scientific Literacy: Using News Media in the Classroom: Using News Media in the Classroom; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Klosterman, M.L.; Sadler, T.D.; Brown, J. Science teachers’ use of mass media to address socio-scientific and sustainability issues. Res. Sci. Educ. 2012, 42, 51–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbett, J.B.; Durfee, J.L. Testing public (un) certainty of science: Media representations of global warming. Sci. Commun. 2004, 26, 129–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laslo, E.; Baram-Tsabari, A.; Lewenstein, B.V. A growth medium for the message: Online science journalism affordances for exploring public discourse of science and ethics. Journalism 2011, 12, 847–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Posner, D. What’s Wrong with Teaching to the Test? Phi Delta Kappan 2004, 85, 749–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shepard, L.A. Inflated test score gains: Is the problem old norms or teaching the test? Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 1990, 9, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadler, T.D.; Dawson, V. Socio-scientific issues in science education: Contexts for the promotion of key learning outcomes. In Second International Handbook of Science Education; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 799–809. [Google Scholar]
- Bossér, U.; Lundin, M.; Lindahl, M.; Linder, C. Challenges Faced by Teachers Implementing Socio-Scientific Issues as Core Elements in Their Classroom Practices. Eur. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2015, 3, 159–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Josselson, R. Interviewing for Qualitative Inquiry: A Relational Approach; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Hwang, S. Utilizing Qualitative Data Analysis Software: A Review of Atlas. ti. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2008, 26, 519–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shkedi, A. Words of Meaning: Qualitative Research-Theory and Practice; Tel-Aviv University Ramot: Tel-Aviv, Israel, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Magnusson, S.; Krajcik, J.; Borko, H. Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and Its Implications for Science Education; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1999; pp. 95–132. [Google Scholar]
- Deleuze, G. Empiricism and Subjectivity: An Essay on Hume’s Theory of Human Nature; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Milgram, S. Behavioral study of obedience. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1963, 67, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sadler, T.D.; Amirshokoohi, A.; Kazempour, M.; Allspaw, K.M. Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. J. Res. Sci. Teach. Off. J. Natl. Assoc. Res. Sci. Teach. 2006, 43, 353–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derevensky, J.L.; St-Pierre, R.A.; Temcheff, C.E.; Gupta, R. Teacher awareness and attitudes regarding adolescent risky behaviours: Is adolescent gambling perceived to be a problem? J. Gambl. Stud. 2014, 30, 435–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marton, F.; Booth, S. Learning and Awareness; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Özden, M. Environmental awareness and attitudes of student teachers: An empirical research. Int. Res. Geogr. Environ. Educ. 2008, 17, 40–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Roehrig, G.; Bhattacharya, D.; Varma, K. In-Service Teachers’ Attitudes, Knowledge and Classroom Teaching of Global Climate Change; University of Nebraska: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Adler, I.; Karam, C. Djaji Mahsheye, Moghrabeye, and Labaneh: Making science relevant. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2023, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darling-Hammond, L.; Hyler, M.; Gardner, M. Effective Teacher Professional Development; Learning Policy Institute: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Maniatakou, A.; Papassideri, I.; Georgiou, M. Role-play activities as a framework for developing argumentation skills on biological issues in secondary education. Am. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 8, 7–15. [Google Scholar]
- Simonneaux, L. Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2001, 23, 903–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tschannen-Moran, M.; Hoy, A.W. The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2007, 23, 944–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagen, K.M.; Gutkin, T.B.; Wilson, C.P.; Oats, R.G. Using vicarious experience and verbal persuasion to enhance self-efficacy in pre-service teachers: “Priming the pump” for consultation. Sch. Psychol. Q. 1998, 13, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofman, R.H.; Dijkstra, B.J. Effective teacher professionalization in networks? Teach. Teach. Educ. 2010, 26, 1031–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingvarson, L.; Meiers, M.; Beavis, A. Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes & efficacy. Educ. Policy Anal. Arch. 2005, 13, 10. [Google Scholar]
- Carson, K.; Dawson, V. A teacher professional development model for teaching socioscientific issues. Teach. Sci. 2016, 62, 28–35. [Google Scholar]
- Gray, D.S.; Bryce, T. Socio-scientific issues in science education: Implications for the professional development of teachers. Camb. J. Educ. 2006, 36, 171–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ross, J.; Bruce, C. Professional development effects on teacher efficacy: Results of randomized field trial. J. Educ. Res. 2007, 101, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herman, J.L.; Golan, S. The effects of standardized testing on teaching and schools. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 1993, 12, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McNeil, L. Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. NASSP Bull. 2001, 85, 81–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tamir, Y. Staying in control; or, what do we really want public education to achieve? Educ. Theory 2011, 61, 395–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Science Education & Experiential Learning (SEEL) Team. Teaching Materiasls. 2023. Available online: https://tarheels.live/seel/teaching-materials/curriculum/ (accessed on 4 July 2023).
- McGregor, D. Chronicling innovative learning in primary classrooms: Conceptualizing a theatrical pedagogy to successfully engage young children learning science. Pedagog. Int. J. 2014, 9, 216–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McSharry, G.; Jones, S. Role-play in science teaching and learning. Sch. Sci. Rev. 2000, 82, 73–82. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, C.-H.; Rusli, E. Using debate as a pedagogical tool in enhancing pre-service teachers learning and critical thinking. J. Int. Educ. Res. 2012, 8, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saab, M.; Shaaban, E. The Impact of Modeling and Role Play on Grade Eleven Students’ Achievement and Motivation while Teaching Krebs Cycle in Biology. Int. J. Res. Educ. Sci. 2022, 8, 219–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levy, R.E. Social media, news consumption, and polarization: Evidence from a field experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 2021, 111, 831–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Etta, G.; Cinelli, M.; Galeazzi, A.; Valensise, C.M.; Quattrociocchi, W.; Conti, M. Comparing the impact of social media regulations on news consumption. IEEE Trans. Comput. Soc. Syst. 2022, 10, 1252–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beach, R.; Doerr-Stevens, C. Using social networking for online role-plays to develop students’ argumentative strategies. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2011, 45, 165–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsovaltzi, D.; Judele, R.; Puhl, T.; Weinberger, A. Leveraging social networking sites for knowledge co-construction: Positive effects of argumentation structure, but premature knowledge consolidation after individual preparation. Learn. Instr. 2017, 52, 161–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cohorts Number | Registered Teachers | Completion | Teacher Population | Cycles and Number of Cohorts |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 40 | 4 | MUTAL—science for all | Cycle one—three cohorts |
2 | 24 | 21 | Junior and high school teachers | |
3 | 25 | 4 | Junior high and one biotechnology teacher | |
4 | 23 | 16 | Junior and high school teachers | Cycle two—three cohorts |
5 | 47 | 26 | Junior and high school teachers | |
6 | 6 | 6 | High school chemistry teachers | |
7 | 28 | 28 | Junior and high school teachers | Cycle three—two cohorts |
8 | 32 | 32 | Junior and high school teachers | |
Total | 225 | 137 |
Category (n Stands for No. of Items in Each Category | Example Items | Reliability (Cronbach’s α) |
---|---|---|
SSI attitudes (n = 3) (Attitudes) | It is important to implement SSI in science teaching. | 0.715 |
SSI Implementation (n = 3) (Knowledge and skills) | I conduct discussions about SSI in my classroom. | 0.796 |
Attitudes to argumentation (n = 2) (Attitudes) | Argumentation skills are important in the SSI context. | 0.742 |
SSI and argumentation (n = 8) (Self-efficacy) | I feel confident in discussing and teaching SSI in my classroom. | 0.797 |
SSI and argumentation pedagogical tools (n = 6) (Knowledge and skills) | I believe that I have enough pedagogical tools to analyze the soundness of arguments about SSI. | 0.771 |
Research Tool | Number of Participants |
---|---|
Pre- and post-questionnaires | N = 61 |
In-depth interviews | N = 27 |
Retention questionnaire | N = 40 |
Categories | Mean Change from Pre-Course Score | Mean Pre-Course Score (SD) | Mean Post-Course Score (SD) | ρ-Value | PD Commitment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SSI importance | 0.227 | 4.385 (0.652) | 4.612 (0.476) | 0.0066 | SSI introduction |
SSI practice | 0.276 | 3.236 (0.640) | 3.512 (0.674) | 0.0003 | SSI pedagogy |
Argumentation importance | 0.233 | 4.133 (0.838) | 4.367 (0.650) | 0.0246 | Argumentation |
SSI and argumentation self-efficacy | 0.242 | 3.573 (0.735) | 3.815 0.657) | 0.0073 | Argumentation |
Argumentation pedagogical tools | 0.445 | 2.749 (0.630) | 3.193 (0.715) | 0.0001 | Argumentation—debate, informal fallacies |
SSI Introduction | Argumentation | SSI Operationalization | Science Communication | Enrichment Lecture | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year 1 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 2 | 2 |
Year 2 | 6 | 11 | 11 | 2 | 0 |
Year 3 | 6 | 8 | 14 | 2 | 0 |
PD Component | Suggested Activities/Practices (Takeaways and Recommendations for the Future) |
---|---|
Introduction to SSI | Evoke discussion over SSI, present clear criteria for SSI, examine and analyze ready-to-use materials, provide teachers appropriate time to modify and adapt materials for their needs, and allow time for reflection. |
Argumentation | Present an SSI discussion (it can be a video from a class) and ask each group of teachers to assess the arguments and discuss them. Allow teachers time to reflect on their challenges while assessing the SSI discussion. Introduce informal logic as an alternative for assessing arguments in a live discussion. Provide examples of fundamental informal fallacies; if possible, use interviews, speeches, social media posts, etc. Let each pair of teachers write a dialogue between two opposing interlocutors arguing over a controversial socioscientific topic and ask them to embed informal fallacies in their argument intentionally. If teachers are interested, allow role-playing of their dialogue. |
SSI operationalization | From day one, allocate time for teachers to plan their own SSI lessons. Model an example of SSI implementation. If possible, invite teachers who can share their experience of teaching that implementation. Provide opportunities for teachers to experience engaging ways to evoke a class discussion about SSI. Examples can be found in the ENGAGE materials. Conduct a British parliamentary debate concerning a socioscientific issue in which teachers participate as speakers and judges. If time allows, it is preferable to conduct small debates throughout the PD with 2–4 participants and end the PD with debates that include at least four speakers from each group. |
Science communication | Introduce teachers to contemporary research regarding public scientific literacy. Provide examples for how media items can be leveraged for SSI implementation. For example, have teachers compare two articles or posts on social media about the same issue. Those can serve as other opportunities to exercise the identification of informal fallacies. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Eidin, E.; Shwartz, Y. From Ideal to Practical—A Design of Teacher Professional Development on Socioscientific Issues. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11394. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411394
Eidin E, Shwartz Y. From Ideal to Practical—A Design of Teacher Professional Development on Socioscientific Issues. Sustainability. 2023; 15(14):11394. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411394
Chicago/Turabian StyleEidin, Emil, and Yael Shwartz. 2023. "From Ideal to Practical—A Design of Teacher Professional Development on Socioscientific Issues" Sustainability 15, no. 14: 11394. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411394