Diskussioner om användandet av embryonala stamceller är exempel på ett område där naturvetenskapliga teorier möter en diskussion i samhällshällsdebatten. Värderingar med t ex etiska utgångspunkter påverkar hur naturvetenskaplig forskning bedrivs och hur resultaten från denna forskning tillämpas. När sådana frågor, samhällsfrågor med naturvetenskapligt innehåll, SNI (socioscientific issues, SSI), tas upp i undervisningen är det angeläget att belysa att det i samhällsdebatten förekommer en diskussion där företrädare för ståndpunkter för fram olika argument i frågan. Ett sätt att möta detta behov är att designa en undervisningssekvens som innehåller en rollspelsdiskussion kring en dagordning. Ytterligare bidrag till utvecklingen av argument kan användandet av skrivramar ge. I denna undersökning har ett levande rollspel om embryonala stamceller designats, och några av komponenterna i denna undervisningssekvens har undersökts i en designbaserad studie vid fyra gymnasieskolor. Ett analysverktyg har satts samman av befintliga analysverktyg ur forskningslitteraturen med en del med vars hjälp man kan studera argumentstruktur baserat på Toulmins argument patterns (T), en annan del som tar fasta på inslaget av specifika biologiska kunskaper (K) och en tredje del som belyser den epistemiska nivån (E). TKE- analys av argument kan ge ett underlag som kan användas till att belysa betydelsen av hur undervisningen i SSI läggs upp för elevernas möjligheter att utveckla naturvetenskapliga argument av hög kvalitet. Med analysverktyget TKE kan man se hur olika delar av en undervisningssekvens påverkar utvecklingen av argumentens kvalitet. Eftersom de tre delarna av TKE innehåller olika kvalitativt beskrivna och rangordningsbara nivåer så är det möjligt att koda argumentens kvalitet och därefter genomföra en hypotesprövning. Vid en sådan hypotesprövning bör man beakta att de kodade resultaten är parade ordinaldata och att hypotesprövning kan ske med Wilcoxons teckenrangtest. Genom analys av argument med analysverktyget TKE kan man belysa kvaliteter på olika nivåer hos argument. De kvaliteter som syns i TKE-analys av argument är också kvaliteter som ger belägg vid bedömning enligt skolverkets kunskapskrav aspekt fyra för biologikurserna i gymnasieskolan. TKE - analys visar i att argumentens kvalitet är god efter förberedelserna med skrivramarna som stöd. Rollspelsdiskussioner med konsensuskrav verkar påverka argumentens kvalitet i kvalitetsklassen E men i övrigt kan det inte påvisas att rollspelsdiskussionen bidrar till att argumenten av högre kvalitet kan uttryckas. Men argumentens kvalitet kan förbättras signifikant genom aktiviteter efter rollspelsdiskussionen som att man efter denna erbjuder skriftlig återkoppling på skrivna argument. / Discussions about the use of embryonic stem cells is an example of a socioscientific issue (SSI) where the use of scientific progresses meets the social debate where values with for example ethic points of view affect the discussion. When such topics, socioscientific issues, are included in educational instructions, is it important to illustrate that a discussion takes place in the social debate where arguments based on different points of view are presented. One way to meet this need is to design a teaching sequence, which contains a live role play with a discussion, where students are given the opportunity to exchange arguments with scientific grounds and to listen to others. The use of writing frames is a further contribution to the development of argumentation instruction for an SSI. In this study, a live role play is designed on the socioscientific issue embryonic stem cells. Parts of these teaching sequences have been analyzed in a design based study in four upper secondary schools. An analysis tool has been developed based on the didactic literature with one part that shows the structure of arguments based on Toulmin’s argument patterns (T), a second part that focus on the specific biology knowledge (K) and a third part that makes it possible to analyze the epistemic level (E) of the argument. TKE-analysis could be useful when studying the quality of arguments to show the importance of how instructions for teaching in SSI are structured in order to give the students opportunity to develop scientific arguments of high quality.  When analyzing arguments with TKE it is possible to see how different parts of teaching sequences are affecting the development of the quality of arguments with a focus on the structural and conceptual qualities. Since it is possible to rank the quality levels of the three parts of TKE it is possible to test hypotheses. In such a hypothesis-testing it is important to notice that the results from the TKE analysis are paired ordinal data and that hypothesis-testing could be done with Wilcoxon’s sign rank test. By using TKE–analysis it is possible to get information about the quality of arguments of different levels. The qualities of arguments that are illustrated in TKE-analysis are qualities that also are important in assessment with the grade criteria aspect four for the scientific courses from the Swedish national agency for education. TKE-analyses of shows that the qualities of arguments are good after the arguments are prepared supported by the writing frames. The role play discussion affects only the epistemic level of arguments only in the consensus discussion. In the other quality categories, T and K there were no significant increase of the argument quality after the role play discussions. But according to TKE-analysis, the quality of arguments could be increased significantly by offering activities after the role play discussion such as written feed back on written arguments.

This dissertation is an empirical study of the scientific literacy of 28 young adults (aged 18-26 years) in the context of their decision making about the health risks of mobile phones. The issue of possible health effects is one of a number of socioscientific issues now confronting adults in the 'knowledge/risk' society where scientific knowledge plays an increasingly significant role in people's lives. The focus of interest is the young people's responses to the uncertain science of 'science in the making' (Latour, 1987) and their positioning of this scientific knowledge in their risk assessments. The study is based on an interactive model of the public understanding of science and applies a critical realist and moderate social constructionist methodology. Data construction included focus groups and semi-structured individual interviews. The stimulus for discussion in the focus groups was a recent television news report presenting contradictory scientific research findings about whether mobile phones pose significant health risks. In the individual interviews understanding of the nature of science and risk judgments were explored. Data analysis involved a coding of the discourse in terms of themes and issues and interpretation of these in terms of the theoretical framework of the thesis. A major finding was that these young people interpreted the uncertainty of the scientific knowledge mainly in social terms and with limited understanding of the role of theory in interpreting data. They talked spontaneously of risk but did not draw on scientific knowledge or risk estimates in their judgment about mobile phone safety. Findings have important implications for science education and suggest a broadened conception of scientific literacy which includes critical dimensions and risk literacy. It is argued that this functional scientific literacy is essential for effective citizenship in contemporary society.

In this thesis the focus is on upper secondary school students’ meaning-making in sustainability in science civic education. The aim is to study how meaning is created, if/how natural science is used and how democratic participation is constructed in students’ group discussions. The thesis also aims to create an awareness of the role science has in both the creation of meaning and the construction of democratic participation. The study is based on audio-recorded group discussions arising from two different sustainability tasks. Discursive psychology is used as an analytical framework, through the concepts of interpretative repertoires, ideological dilemmas and subject positions. The students use different interpretative repertoires that draw on different conceptions of the “world” (discourses) in their meaning-making. These different conceptions create ideological dilemmas that recur several times during the discussions and are therefore negotiated in different ways. The students then use strategies where these dilemmas are solved in a relatively simple manner. They construct the sustainability issue they discuss so that their ways to live and act/not act are portrayed as acceptable in the current situation. The students use their knowledge in and about science in their meaning-making. Science is used to make the "world" more understandable and raise questions; to evaluate, decide and act; to give authority to arguments; and to solve societal problems. The students’ science-making process contains various kinds of use of scientific knowledge, for example, clarify the conditions, identify consequences, scrutinize information, compare, assess, evaluate and use scientific methods. The discussions increase the students’ experience of using scientific knowledge and which functions scientific knowledge can have. The students construct democratic participation in various ways: trust in science and technology are expressed and awareness of what is considered as actions that are “good” for the environment; different perspectives are expressed and ideological dilemmas discussed; students use their scientific knowledge in socioscientific reasoning to create a deeper understanding of the issues discussed; scientific knowledge is also used for evaluating actions in relation to sustainability issues. However, the students see themselves having a major responsibility to act “good”, but without power to influence the development of society as a whole. The students have two projects going on during their discussions: to discuss and learn about the sustainability issue and make their own existence acceptable.

No description available.