• norsk
    • English
  • English 
    • norsk
    • English
  • Login
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Norges miljø- og biovitenskapelige universitet
  • Faculty of Science and Technology (RealTek)
  • Doctoral theses (RealTek)
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Norges miljø- og biovitenskapelige universitet
  • Faculty of Science and Technology (RealTek)
  • Doctoral theses (RealTek)
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Complexity and deliberation in collaborative socioscientific issues (SSI) inquiry discourse

Byhring, Anne Kristine
Doctoral thesis
Thumbnail
View/Open
2014-AKByhring-PhD.pdf (3.332Mb)
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/11250/222787
Date
2014
Metadata
Show full item record
Collections
  • Doctoral theses (RealTek) [82]
Abstract
Argumentation in science classrooms may be modeled on the practices of ‘science proper’, as

in experimental work and inquiry learning. Consequentially, argumentation is oriented around

matters of truth, or at least on matters of probability. Regarding less clear cut matters of

opinion and of priorities of action, as is often the case when deliberating on socioscientific

issues (SSI), neither science knowledge alone nor empirical evidence are able to provide

sufficient grounds for solving the question at hand.

This Ph.D. study explores 11th grade students’ oral use of textual and contextual resources:

how do students handle complexity, how do they deliberate, and what happens over time in

the students’ collaborative sense making? The exploration of complexity and student

deliberation takes as its point of departure an understanding of the multifaceted character of

socioscientific issues (SSI). The framing of student argumentation in science, concerning SSI,

is studied at the classroom level. The study consists of two case studies which have been

reported in three articles.

In the three articles, the educational challenges of SSI are addressed. The empirical material

originates from an open-inquiry student project with 11th grade students. Students chose an

issue from the main curriculum area of sustainable development and conducted a related

investigation in their local community. Finally, students submitted their group report on a

wiki platform. Among the chosen topics were: hunting in Norway, transport and CO2

emission, and forestry in Brazil.

Oral deliberation on task solving is pertinent during oral group activity. Scientific

argumentation, as it is defined in this study, was scarce in these students’ oral activity. Further

research on teaching and student argumentation is suggested, to meet the need for supporting

students’ scientific argumentation, as well as argumentation and deliberation in general. It is

further suggested that SSI learning situations can simulate the complexity of civic discourse,

involving specific topical and more general levels of complexity. The role and potential of

science education in civic education, however, is beyond the scope of this thesis.

This study provides a conceptualization of low and high complexity. The study also suggests a

macro structure of students’ deliberation, interwoven with three alternating patterns of

reasoning focusing on the content, the collaboration, and the composition of oral and written

deliberative argumentation. These components are also found to be the driving forces for

sustaining complexity, inquiry, and meaning making in SSI activity. The conceptualizations

of complexity and deliberation are the most important contributions of this Ph.D. study.

In Part two the three articles from the case studies are provided in full text in chapters 6, 7

and 8. In the first article, A1, the interplay between three levels of meaning are used to trace

intertextuality and complexity in the students’ collaborative reasoning. The second article,

A2, further explores students’ initiatives and responses within extended dialogues and

identifies characteristics and functions of students’ deliberation on task solving. The third article, A3, suggests that the common ground is negotiated in the process of meaning making

in the situated activity, and that it is driven by a need for decision making.

In Part one, the extended abstract, theoretical perspectives, the empirical material, research

design and method are presented along with summaries of the articles. Finally, three issues

are discussed, a theoretical issue, a design issue and an analytical issue. Theory on

argumentation and deliberation, including Toulmin’s argumentation pattern (TAP) formed the

starting point for analysis. Analytical tools are further based on theories on language use:

social functional linguistics (SFL), conversation analysis, and rhetoric.
Has parts
Intertextuality for handling complex environmental issues IN: Research in Science Education 2015 s. 1-19 DOI: 10.1007/s11165-014-9454-6 ; Characteristics and functions of sixteen-year-old students’ collaborative deliberation when working with socioscientific inquiry assignments IN: Journal of Argumentation in Context 4:2 (2015) s. 200–231 DOI: 10.1075/jaic.4.2.03byh ; Framing student dialogue and argumentation: Content knowledge development and procedural knowing in SSI inquiry group work IN: NORDINA 10(2), 2014
Publisher
Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås
Series
PhD Thesis;2014:63

Contact Us | Send Feedback

Privacy policy
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Service from  Unit
 

 

Browse

ArchiveCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDocument TypesJournalsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDocument TypesJournals

My Account

Login

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

Contact Us | Send Feedback

Privacy policy
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Service from  Unit