Research Article

Promoting Socioscientific Issue-based Science Education – Finding Opportunities in Assessment

Meenakshi Kaushik 1 * , Sugra Chunawala 1 , Deepa Chari 1
More Detail
1 Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, TIFR, Mumbai, INDIA* Corresponding Author
Eurasian Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 2(2), December 2022, 51-61, https://doi.org/10.30935/ejsee/12703
Submitted: 30 June 2022, Published: 11 December 2022
OPEN ACCESS   1075 Views   937 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

There have been attempts to integrate assessment with teaching to enhance learning. In this study, we have attempted to use assessment as a strategy to foster socioscientific issue (SSI)-based learning. The available research suggests that teachers have a positive attitude towards the incorporation of SSI-based discussions in their classrooms simultaneously stating challenges like limited time, rigid syllabus, exam pressure, unavailability of related resource material, and intellectual demand on the part of the teacher as well as students, etc. We argue that ‘guided assessment’ as a pro-learning assessment approach could be used to promote SSI-based learning in the face of challenges. This paper describes and explores the efficacy of the ‘guided assessment’ task included in an SSI-based learning module developed on issues related to groundwater. This module was trialled with thirty secondary science students belonging to the lower socioeconomic background. The data related to the ‘guided assessment’ task was analyzed qualitatively using socioscientific sustainability reasoning framework developed by Morin et al. (2014) and we found that the ‘guided assessment’ strategy facilitated students through questioning and provided opportunities to reflect on themes crucial to decision-making. The findings also revealed the impact of peer interactions on decision-making skills of students. Based on this intervention, we propose that teachers can use such an assessment strategy to make their SSI-based instruction more efficient and effective.
Keywords: Guided assessment, pro-learning assessment, socioscientific issue-based instruction, student reflection

CITATION (APA)

Kaushik, M., Chunawala, S., & Chari, D. (2022). Promoting Socioscientific Issue-based Science Education – Finding Opportunities in Assessment. Eurasian Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 2(2), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.30935/ejsee/12703

REFERENCES

  1. Allal, L., & Ducrey, G. P. (2000). Assessment of–or in–the zone of proximal development. Learning and Instruction, 10(2), 137-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00025-0
  2. Barton, A. C. (2003). Teaching science for social justice. Teachers College Press. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.41-4789
  3. Bencze, L., Sperling, E., & Carter, L. (2012). Students’ research-informed socio-scientific activism: Re/visions for a sustainable future. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 129-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9260-3
  4. Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B., & Robinson, A. (2010). Talking science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 69-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802713507
  5. Black, P., &Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
  6. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., &Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170408600105
  7. Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (2012). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms. John Wiley & Sons. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&publication_year=1999&author=S.+D.+Brookfield&author=S.+Preskill&title=+Discussion+as+a+way+of+teaching.+
  8. Butler, K. G. (1997). Dynamic and authentic assessment of spoken and written language disorders [Plenary Lecture]. The 5th International Society of Applied Psycholinguistics. https://ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/8402.pdf
  9. Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In S. Clayton, & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 45-65). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3644.001.0001
  10. Cotrus, A., & Stanciu, C. (2014). A study on dynamic assessment techniques, as a method of obtaining a high level of learning potential, untapped by conventional assessment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2616-2619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.622
  11. Dani, D., Wan, G., & Henning, J. E. (2010). A case for media literacy in the context of socioscientific issues. New Horizons in Education, 58(3), 85-98. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ966662.pdf
  12. Eilks, I. (2015). Science education and education for sustainable development–justifications, models, practices, and perspectives. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(1), 149-158. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1313a
  13. Evagorou, M., & Dillon J. (2020) Introduction: Socio-scientific issues as promoting responsible citizenship and the relevance of science. In M. Evagorou, J. Nielsen, & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science teacher education for responsible citizenship (pp. 1-11). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40229-7_1
  14. Fensham, P. J. (2016). The future curriculum for school science: What can be learnt from the past? Research in Science Education, 46(2), 165-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9511-9
  15. Feuerstein, R., Klein, P. S., & Tannenbaum, A. J. (Eds.). (1991). Mediated learning experience (MLE): Theoretical, psychosocial, and learning implications. Freund Publishing House Ltd. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&publication_year=1991&pages=213-240&author=R.+Feuerstein&author=S.+Feuerstein&title=+Mediated+learning+experience+
  16. Feuerstein, R., Miller, R., Rand, Y., & Jensen, M. R. (1981). Can evolving techniques better measure cognitive change? The Journal of Special Education, 15(2), 201-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698101500209
  17. Herman, B. C., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., & Newton, M. H. (2018). A socioscientific issues approach to environmental education. In G. Reis, & J. Scott (Eds.), International perspectives on the theory and practice of environmental education: A reader (pp. 145-161). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67732-3_11
  18. Herman, J. L. (2013). Formative assessment for next generation science standards: A proposed model. National Center for Research on Evaluation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED558469
  19. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645-670. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305021
  20. Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087905071
  21. Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2019). A conceptual analysis of perspective taking in support of socioscientific reasoning. Science & Education, 28(6), 605-638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00044-2
  22. Kaushik, M. (2020). Analysing water-related topics in science textbooks from sustainability and social justice perspectives. In K. K. Mashood, T. Sengupta, C. Ursekar, H. Raval, & S. Dutta (Eds.), Proceedings of epiSTEME-8: International Conference to Review Research on Science, Technology and Mathematics Education (pp. 52-60). Gaurang Publishing Globalize Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, India. https://episteme8.hbcse.tifr.res.in/proceedings/ANALYSING%20WATER-RELATED%20TOPICS%20IN%20SCIENCE%20TEXTBOOKS%20FROM%20SUSTAINABILITY%20AND%20SOCIAL%20JUSTICE%20PERSPECTIVES.pdf
  23. Kumar, K. (1986). Textbooks and educational culture. Economic and Political Weekly, 21(30), 1309-1311. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4375939
  24. Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio‐scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201-1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560753
  25. Millar, R. (2014). Designing a science curriculum fit for purpose. School Science Review, 95(352), 15-20. http://www.physics.smu.edu/sdalley/quarknet/2015/2015QuarkNet_files/Physics%20Curriculum%20Constructs/ASE%20Designing%20Science%20Curriculum.pdf
  26. Morin, O., Simonneaux, L., Simonneaux, J., Tytler, R., & Barraza, L. (2014). Developing and using an S3R model to analyze reasoning in web‐based cross‐national exchanges on sustainability. Science Education, 98(3), 517-542. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21113
  27. NCERT. (2005). National curriculum framework 2005. National Council for Education Research and Training. https://ncert.nic.in/nc-framework.php?ln=
  28. NEP. (2020). National education policy. Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf
  29. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. The Nuffield Foundation. http://efepereth.wdfiles.com/local--files/science-education/Sci_Ed_in_Europe_Report_Final.pdf
  30. Pitpiorntapin, S., & Topcu, M. S. (2016). Teaching based on socioscientific issues in science classrooms: A review study. KKU International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(1), 119-136. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/KKUIJ/article/download/59481/48898
  31. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. McGraw-Hill Education. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uBbQrFt33DMC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Science+education+for+citizenship:+Teaching+socio-scientific+issues&ots=m5w3xO17zg&sig=yQLxYjCNLKXZHjw7uiWg_wM6Myk
  32. Raveendran, A., & Chunawala, S. (2015). Reproducing values: A feminist critique of a higher secondary biology textbook chapter on reproductive health. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 22(2), 194-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971521515578244
  33. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717
  34. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
  35. Schenkel, K., Barton, A. C., Tan, E., Nazar, C. R., & Flores, M. D. G. D. (2019). Framing equity through a closer examination of critical science agency. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14(2), 309-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09914-1
  36. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Socio-cultural theory. Mind in Society, 6, 52-58. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Socio-cultural%20theory.%20Mind%20in%20society&publication_year=1978&author=Vygotsky%2CLS
  37. Yan, Z., & Brown, G. T. (2021). Assessment for learning in the Hong Kong assessment reform: A case of policy borrowing. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 68, 100985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100985
  38. Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). New directions in socioscientific issues research. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7
  39. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research‐based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
  40. Zembylas, M. (2005). Science education: For citizenship and/or for social justice? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(6), 709-722. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500158707