Using information technology
and controversy to promote
discourse in science teaching
Sonja M. Mork & Doris Jorde
University of Oslo
http://viten.no
s.m.mork@ils.uio.no
Discourse and controversy in
science teaching
• Thought and language
• Community of learners
• Talking science
• The nature of science - science as a process
• Participation in a democracy
http://viten.no
s.m.mork@ils.uio.no
The Viten web-site
http://viten.no
• Learning Management Content System (LMCS)
• Consists of:
– Teaching programs in science and mathematics for
grade 8-12
– Teacher guidance implemented in programs
– Electronic workbook for students
– Teacher-access to evaluate and comment students’
workbooks
http://viten.no
s.m.mork@ils.uio.no
Viten teaching programs:
•
Are connected to the Norwegian national curriculum
•
Provide a knowledge-base with a variety of student activities
•
Focus on the importance of a closing activity
•
Encourage discourse
•
Combine online and offline activities
•
Teach about:
– Scientific issues and the nature of science
– Scientific literacy
– Education for citizenship in a scientific context
– Decision-making on scientific issues
– Evaluating the presentation of science in the media
http://viten.no
s.m.mork@ils.uio.no
The wolf program consists of:
1 Introduction
2 Wolves and humans
3 Facts about wolves
4 Wolves and other species
5 Solutions to the conflict
6 Attitudes towards wolves
• Closing activity: offline debate
http://viten.no
s.m.mork@ils.uio.no
Aims for the wolf program
• Engage students to talk science and construct
arguments in pairs and in a debate context.
• Let students learn about fundamental ecological
ideas including food chains and webs, predatorprey relations and ecological management.
• Let students learn about different viewpoints in
a socio-scientific controversy in the Norwegian
society.
http://viten.no
s.m.mork@ils.uio.no
Research questions
• What is the nature of students’ argumentation
on a controversial issue in an offline classroom
debate?
• What is the nature of the teacher’s role in the
offline debates?
http://viten.no
s.m.mork@ils.uio.no
Sample and procedure
• 23 students from a Norwegian class, age 14-15
• 4 lessons on the web-based part of the wolf program
• 1 lessons for preparation of debate
• 1 lesson for actual debate
• Individual pre-tests, post-tests and follow ups
• Video recordings from offline classroom debates
http://viten.no
s.m.mork@ils.uio.no
Offline classroom debates
“Should we have wolves in the Norwegian wilderness or not?”
• Role plays where student groups represented different
organisations
• Three groups for wolves and three groups against
• Each debate organised as a panel with two opposing
groups. Students in audience had permission to ask
questions and give comments
• The teacher had an active role as a moderator
http://viten.no
s.m.mork@ils.uio.no
Arguments were categorised as:
1 Biological arguments
2 Social arguments
3 Economic arguments
4 Political arguments
• Comments
http://viten.no
s.m.mork@ils.uio.no
Different types of arguments used in
the debates
Number of arguments
25
20
Biological
15
Social
Economic
10
Political
Comments
5
0
http://viten.no
Debate 1
Debate 2
Debate 3
s.m.mork@ils.uio.no
Example of biological arguments used
in the debate
• “The wolves are in danger of going extinct, and the
sheep are not.”
• “Yes, the so-called wolf zones, I think they will fail.
Because it is a fact that wolves wander, and then they
will wander to the old places wouldn’t they? But of
course, they have territories, I know that, but then
there are these ”vagabond”-wolves that part from the
flock and wander freely. Then it creates a family with
another wolf that it meets, you know? And then you
have another flock. And this is not in the same territory
and not in the wolf zone. It can move to another place
can’t it?”
http://viten.no
s.m.mork@ils.uio.no
Example of social arguments used in
the debate
• “Wolves might bite our dogs, and we don’t like that.”
• “Yes, the Norwegian Association for farmers; why…… the
Swedish farmers they make an effort to avoid that wolves kill
sheep. But Norwegian farmers do not, for instance they (the
Swedish farmers) have big areas that they fence with electric
wires, so when the wolves try to get over, they can’t, and then
the wolves get respect (for the fence) and stay away. Why
shouldn’t Norwegian farmers do something? They just let their
sheep out and expect that they are coming back. It is obvious
that predators will catch another animal that isn’t very good at
running etc. Why shouldn’t Norwegian farmers try to do
something about wolves killing their sheep? You only sit on your
asses and want the wolves shot…….”
http://viten.no
s.m.mork@ils.uio.no
Use of arguments from the wolf
program in the debates
12
Number of
arguments
10
Not used in debates
8
Introduced by
teacher in debates
Introduced by
students in debates
6
4
2
0
ic
lit
Po
al
om
on
Ec
ic
l
cia
So
al
ic
og
ol
Bi
http://viten.no
s.m.mork@ils.uio.no
Teacher contributions
• Teacher: “To interrupt you a bit here, how many wolves
do you mean that we should have in Norway? How many
wolves do you (N-group) mean that we should have?
Realistically?”
• Student N4: “Between 1000 and 500, because we must
have about 500 animals to get a viable flock in a way….”
• Teacher: “What do you actually mean by viable flock?”
• Student N4: “Yes, not flock, but in a way the whole.…”
• Teacher: “Stock?”
• Student N4: “Yes”
http://viten.no
s.m.mork@ils.uio.no
Conclusions
• The Viten program about wolves was successful in
meeting its aims of getting students to construct
arguments and engage in socio-scientific issues in an
argumentative style
• The teacher plays an important role in management of
the debate, and guiding the students in the social
construction of knowledge
http://viten.no
s.m.mork@ils.uio.no