Equipping the Next Generation for Active Engagement in Science

Online Course: EngagingScience.eu/en/mooc

Problem Solving through conversation with whole class

• The concept of “problem solving” is grounded on problem-based learning, which is a student-centered approach.

• Students learn about a scientific issue through the experience of solving a problem.

• They practice both domain knowledge and inquiry skills.

Definition

• In ENGAGE a problem-solving lesson refers to provocative problem emerging from a real life issue. The requirements for the problem are similar to the six criteria for a ‘scientific dilemma’, but it includes also “Need to know”.

• It covers the whole inquiry process and science concepts for students to solve the problem.

• Students will gain insight into not only the skills, but also the science concepts and inquiry principles involved in carrying out the processes (e.g. data analysis).

Definition

Two lessons

Lesson 1 - SCIENCEEngage: focus students on learning after getting their interest Review: help them recall key concepts to apply in a new contextConsider: help them identify evidence about the issue in discussion

Lesson 2 - SKILLSRe-engage: remind them of the key points, e.g. question and conceptsPlay: decision making process inquiry following steps of a game Decide: justifying decision based on knowledge skills and values

Two lessons

Ethical thinking strategies (Fieser, 2002) refers to: • Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are

more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. • Rights and duties: equally rigid systems of moral rules.• Virtue ethics: less emphasis on learning rules, and instead stresses the

importance of developing good habits of character, such as benevolence.

Lesson 1 question focusses on a specific context, asthma drugs, which gives the opportunity for students to apply their understanding of breathing, to this new context.

Lesson 2 teaches three ethical thinking strategies: utilitarianism, rights and duties, and virtue ethics

Scientific Evidence (Sanna et al., 2005) is reliable information (e.g. study findings, views of experts and examples of good practice) that supports a claim.

Key Concept

Evidence is not restricted to the results of “hard” scientific research, but should be seen as the broader answer to the question regarding what works.

This definition also allows the use of other valuable information sources, including the views of experts and examples of good practice.

In this way, evidence can encompass data derived from several sources of research and practice, which can be combined and compared.

Key Concept

Reference: The European project GEP (Sanna et al., 2005)

Who is concerned about the safety of the test?

Who is making an ethical point?

Who is thinking about the economic effect on society?

Duncan finds out that he has the allele for Huntington’s disorder. His wife Sarah is pregnant.Sarah’s fetus can be tested. If it is positive then Sarah can have a termination. (Reiss , 2009)

It’s wrong to take ahuman life even if

they have adisability

There is a chance of having a

miscarriage after this test, so you

could lose a healthy baby

A person withHuntington’s disorderis healthy for most oftheir life before they

get any symptoms

Having a termination

after 15 weeks ofpregnancy is a very

hard decision tomake

People withdisabilities need a lotof support. Thissupport costs money.

NikkiRuth

Mark

William

Tony

Exercise: ethical decision

Conversation in ENGAGE context refers to a whole class debate regarding a RRI

(responsible decision on a socio-scientific dilemma) facilitated by the teacher.

It is based on three steps for supporting students to develop argumentation

and evidence based solutions:

1. Create a ‘need to know’ for students to review the scientific ideas

2. Students consider how the concepts build into evidence

3. Students construct and articulate arguments.

Lesson 1

Lesson 2

ENGAGE CONVERSATION

Why is “conversation” – discussion facilitated by a teacher – important?

1. Help students develop their argumentation and critical thinking skills through modelling, guiding and supporting.

2. Show the provisional nature of science knowledge and the importance of evidence and argument in complex socio-scientific issues by emphasising the controversy and drawing out a range of views.

3. Help students reflect on their opinions, and become open to changing their views in the light of other arguments or evidence.

ENGAGE CONVERSATION

1. Talk Tokens: everyone receive a set of token and is expected to participate at some point in the discussion using a token.

2. Group roles: allocating roles will avoid domination of the conversation by a few students, which is not acceptable.

3. Time remind cards: will help students be aware of time to finish their contribution, without being interrupted.

4. Dialogue Map: students will listen to their peers when they need select keywords to represent others’ opinions.

5. Argumentative template: might be useful for students keep what they say relevant to the issue question.

6. Question cards: for challenging peers to share a view with evidence, without making it personal.

CONVERSATION – 6 strategies and rules

Lesson 1

Create ENGAGEMENT: (1) use emotive images, (2) give an overview, (3) get students to articulate their first view and compare this with others. (4) Pose the key issue, set the objectives and clarify the lesson structure.

REVIEW the issue by applying science: (5) explore the scientific facts and ideas behind the issue. (6) Students apply existing knowledge to examine consequences.

CONSIDER the scientific evidence: (7) allows students to answer the issue by looking at the evidence and then (8) check findings to consider the relevance.

First Lesson: ENGAGE – REVIEW - CONSIDER

Examples – Animal Testing

• Set up the context for the issue • Use emotive images of how animals are used in drug development• List of reasons why scientists need animal testing.

1. Allow students to react to emotive images What could happen/how do you do it?

• Lead students towards the question or get them to suggest what the issue is. • Get them to commit to being for/against initially and ask for their reasons,

and look for a change of opinion later.

2. Students should think more rationally about their view

3. Get students to articulate and compare their view with peers

• You can make clear how the lessons are split to focus on one objective at a time - first to apply the science, and then to consider how to make a decision.

4. Pose the issue question, learning objectives and structure

• You can make clear how the lessons are split to focus on one objective at a time - first to apply the science, and then how to make a decision.

• The learning objectives are best presented when students already appreciate the issue, and have some motivation to resolve it.

5. Explore the scientific facts and ideas behind the issue

• In Animal Testing, the issue is specifically related to the topic of breathing, by looking at the issue of creating asthma drugs.

6. Students apply existing knowledge to examine consequences

• Students apply existing knowledge to how asthma affects breathing.

7. Allows students to answer by looking at the scientific evidence

• This stage allows students to answer the lesson 1 question, by look at the scientific evidence for the importance of animal testing.

• In Animal testing, it is presented as summaries of relevant research findings on cards, for students to consider the importance.

8. Encourage them to check summaries and findings

• Make clear how the lessons are split to focus on one objective at a time • First to apply the science, and then to consider how to make a decision.

Lesson 1EXAMPLE

Examples – e Cigarettes

• Encourage students to bring questions to start a discussion • “Is vaping safe”? Why is smoking too risky? • Select questions to activate or provide learners with the background knowledge

Lesson structure

1. Create a “need to know” for students to review the scientific ideas.

The overall question for lesson 1 is: “can nicotine from vaping affect people nearby?”.

Lesson 1

1. Create a need to know for students to review the scientific ideas.

In stage 1, students review the details and concepts relating to the particle model as they find out how e-cigarettes work.

Lesson 1

2. Students consider how the concepts build into evidence

Students organise concepts (particles and vaping) and facts (nicotine’s effect) into evidence:• They reflect on the arrangement and behaviour of the particles in e-cigs solution and in the exhaled aerosol• They also think about how nicotine particles diffuse and represent this information as particle diagrams.• In pairs they evaluate each others’ diagrams, suggesting improvements about high quality diagram • They can discuss their results with teacher (whole class conversation) to reinforce their understanding

Lesson 1

Lesson 2

Second Lesson: Engage – Play – Decide

Engage students’ interests • (1)Recap previous lesson to activate students’ existing knowledge.

Play a decision making game to develop inquiry skills• (2)Experience the decision making/inquiry process• (3)Reflect on how to use the process

Help students decide based on their inquiry skills• (4)Summarise process in a thinking guide• (5)Use the process to make a decision• (6)Further practice with the inquiry process

1. Recap previous lesson to activate students’ existing knowledge

• The issue and key points from lesson 1 are reviewed to activate students’ existing knowledge.

Will you sign the petition for a ban on all animal testing?

2. Experience the decision making/inquiry process

• We use games as an engaging teaching approach for introducing students to whichever aspect of decision making - ie inquiry process that we are trying to teach.

3. Reflect on how to use the process

• Introducing the skill and its concepts in a familiar context (rather than in a complex scientific context) makes it a lower demand and easier for students to grasp.

• A short plenary ensures that students think about the experience, and draw out the key parts of the process. In Animal testing, they reflect on 3 different thinking strategies they used for making a decision in the game.

4. Summarise process in a thinking guide

• Students are given a ‘thinking guide’ (see section below) which summarises the steps in the enquiry process visually.

5. Use the process to make a decision

• Students use the enquiry process to make a decision. For animal testing, it is to identify the ethical thinking strategies used in a range of opinions presented on cards.

6. Further practice with the inquiry process

• Ideally, students should get further practice in using the process. In Animal Testing, students are posed a follow up issue.

Lesson 2EXAMPLE

PROBLEM SOLVING Students use argumentation (claim, evidence and reasoning)

The basic structure has three components: • Claim is a statement that represents your opinion an issue• Evidence is the scientific data that supports the claim. It has to be sufficient,

accurate and reliable. There can be several pieces of evidence. • Reasoning is the thinking that explains how the evidence supports the claim.

Example:The population of the bees in decreasing because of pesticides (claim). We know that pesticides are to be blamed because (reasoning) studies have shown that (evidence) when we increase the use of specific pesticides in some areas the population of the bees decreased.

An additional feature is called the ‘rebuttal.’ The rebuttal identifies an opposing opinion and explains why it is wrong.

Argument in science

• Validity : Are the all pieces of evidence related to the claim?• Reliability: Are the sources of information reliable? • Balanced view: Is there any rebuttal considered and refuted?• Enough evidence: Is there enough evidence for making conclusions?• Coherence: Is there a good connection between claim and evidence through the reasoning?

Argumentation - Representation

Argumentation - Assessment

• Students learned about what the risks and benefits of vaping are, and need to weigh them up. • Clearly, students may do this differently, leading to different viewpoints • This difference - backed up by evidence and reasoning, is the basis for discussion.

Claim, evidence and reasoningStudents use argumentation

Four strategies for whole class debate: 1. Preparation activities: take students through the stages of building knowledge,

and using that to construct arguments.

2. Argumentative interaction• The Fishbowl format: First, only half the class are discussing, and the other half listening

and analysing. Second, the class discuss about what happened and change roles.

• Evidence dialogue mapping: Teacher capture the debate using a graphical mapping representation: questions claim argumentation data (statistics, facts, …)

3. Class participation: secure student participation in whole class discussion, through clear goals, roles, tasks, output and ways for collaboration.

4. Management techniques: set up grounding rules, opening and closing methods, manage time and dealing with tricky situations.

1. Preparation activities

• Students play a quiz-style game to learn how to quantify risks and weigh them up.• Individual students note their answers. • Then the answer is revealed and students note their score plus the key point about what

they have learned about risk.

Help students to activate their knowledge and using that to construct arguments.

Part of the class are discussing, and the others listening and analysing.

• Groups judge risk to decide if they support or not a ban on indoor vaping in public places

• They share their views in class discussion through the Fishbowl Format.

• They then complete a written task to explain their decision.

• Some chairs are arranged in an inner circle. This is the fishbowl.

• The remaining chairs are arranged in concentric circles outside the fishbowl.

• A few participants (e.g. groups leaders) are selected to fill the fishbowl, while the rest of the group sit on the chairs outside the fishbowl.

• Teacher introduces the topic and the participants start discussing the topic.

• The audience outside the fishbowl listen in on the discussion

2. Argumentative interaction – FISHBOWL FORMAT

Teacher is the facilitator, students use post-it or a digital tool (LiteMap)

• Teacher and the class share a key work to describe the key issue

• Students can use yellow post-it to include opinions on the map

• Green (pro) and Red ( cons) to represent their argumentation

• White cards can be used to link arguments with evidence

• The class can vote on strong and weak connections and use the visualisation to justify the best informed-based opinion

2. Argumentative interaction – DIALOGUE EVIDENCE MAP

FREE TOOL: Litemap.net

3.Class participation: Clear goals, roles, tasks, output and ways for collaboration.

• For example, choose some students to share their responses with the class.• Encouraging them to give their reasoning. • Then come to a class conclusion in answer to the question.

4.Management techniques:

Issues to be managed: Time, participation (engagement), knowledge understanding, inquiry skills (e.g. argumentation) and learning outcomes through assessment.

What are tricky situations? • Students are not engaged, speaking out of turn• Having their own discussions but not sharing with the class

How to deal with tricky situations?

References"Fishbowl: The art of active listening" (PDF). Office of the Commissioner, United Nations Human Rights. Retrieved 2012-12-02.

Hamlin, Kaliya (July 12, 2006). "Unconference Methods: Fish Bowl Dialogue". Blog post from a commercial enterprise.

Atlee, Tom. "Closed Fishbowl". The Co-intelligence Institute. Posting on the website of a non-profit organization.

"Using Fishbowl for class discussions". Blog post, apparently unsigned.

References• Fieser, J. (2002) Ethics. http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/

•Kirschner, Paul A.; Sweller, John; Clark, Richard E. (2006). "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching". Educational Psychologist 41 (2): 75. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.

•Merrill, M. David (2002). "A pebble-in-the-pond model for instructional design". Performance Improvement 41 (7): 41. doi:10.1002/pfi.4140410709.

•Reiss, M. (2009). Assessing Ethics in Secondary Science: a report of a seminar held at the Nuffield Foundation. http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Assessing_Ethics_in_Secondary_Science(1).pdf

•Sanna, R Anastasiya,R. *& Aro A. (2005) Getting Evidence into Practice (GEP) http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2003/action1/docs/2003_1_15_a02_en.pdf

•Schmidt, H. G. (1993). "Foundations of problem-based learning: Some explanatory notes". Medical Education 27 (5): 422–32. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1993.tb00296.x. PMID 8208146.

•Schmidt, H. G. (1983). "Problem-based learning: Rationale and description". Medical Education 17 (1): 11–6. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1983.tb01086.x. PMID 6823214.

ENGAGE CONSORTIUM includes 14 Institutions from 12 countries with

extensive experience in IBSE, RRI, teacher training, and curriculum design

Online Course TeamCoordination: Alexandra Okada

CPD Framework: Yael Schwartz

EDX platform: Elisabetta Parodi

Learning Analytics: Mihai Bizoi

Collaborators : Ignacio Monge

Andy Bullough

Gemma Young

Consultant: John Wardle

Management: Andy Bullough

Evaluation: Dury Jacobs

Engaging.Science.euContacts: Tony Sherborne (Project Coordinator) tonysherborne@gmail.com