The three-talk model. Getting both evidence and preferences into a pre-service teacher health workshop
2021-12-16, Zeyer, Albert, Arnold, Julia
We describe a pre-service teacher workshop about sustainable health decisions in school. This one-week workshop had two goals: to improve the ability of students to cope with health and illness as teachers in daily school life, and to improve scientific literacy in health contexts. In this way, the workshop aimed at creating a situation of mutual benefit between science education and health education, as it is suggested in the new science pedagogy called Science|Environment|Health. To reach this aim, the workshop was structured by the evidence-preference approach and the three-talk model, both originally developed for shared-decision making in medicine. In the evidence-preference approach, the experts (the physician, here the teacher) provide the best evidence available, while the laypersons (the patient, here the teacher students) bring in their preferences and, together with the experts, find their personal standpoint. This process is structured by the three-talk model, which is conceived as a characteristic succession of choice talk, option talk, and decision talk. We describe how the pre-service teacher workshop embraced this new approach, compare it to a scientific literacy point of view, and suggest how it could be applied in many other educational contexts, particularly in many issues of education for sustainability.
Gesundheitsbildung und -förderung als Aufgaben des Biologieunterrichts
2021, Arnold, Julia, Dannemann, Sarah, Gropengießer, Ilka, Heuckmann, Benedikt, Kahl, Lea, Schaal, Steffen, Schaal, Sonja, Schlüter, Kirsten, Simon, Uwe, Spörhase, Ulrike, Kapelari, Susanne, Möller, Andrea, Schmiemann, Philipp
Exploring core ideas of procedural understanding in scientific inquiry using educational data mining
2021-05-18, Arnold, Julia, Mühling, Andreas, Kremer, Kerstin
Background: Scientific thinking is an essential learning goal of science education and it can be fostered by inquiry learning. One important prerequisite for scientific thinking is procedural understanding. Procedural understanding is the knowledge about specific steps in scientific inquiry (e.g. formulating hypotheses, measuring dependent and varying independent variables, repeating measurements), and why they are essential (regarding objectivity, reliability, and validity). We present two studies exploring students’ ideas about procedural understanding in scientific inquiry using Concept Cartoons. Concept Cartoons are cartoon-like drawings of different characters who have different views about a concept. They are to activate students’ ideas about the specific concept and/or make them discuss them. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to survey students’ ideas of procedural understanding and identify core ideas of procedural understanding that are central for understanding scientific inquiry. Design and methods: In the first study, we asked 47 students about reasons for different steps in inquiry work via an open–ended questionnaire using eight Concept Cartoons as triggers (e.g. about the question why one would need hypotheses). The qualitative analysis of answers revealed 42 ideas of procedural understanding (3-8 per Cartoon). We used these ideas to formulate a closed-ended questionnaire that contained the same Concept Cartoons, followed by statements with Likert-scales to measure agreement. In a second study, 64 students answered the second questionnaire as well as a multiple-choice test on procedural understanding. Results: Using methods from educational data mining, we identified five central statements, all emphasizing the concept of confounding variables: (1) One needs alternative hypotheses, because there may be other variables worth considering as cause. (2) The planning helps to take into account confounding variables or external circumstances. (3) Confounding variables should be controlled since they influence the experiment/the dependent variable. (4) Confounding variables should be controlled since the omission may lead to inconclusive results. (5) Confounding variables should be controlled to ensure accurate measurement. Conclusions: We discuss these ideas in terms of functioning as core ideas of procedural understanding. We hypothesize that these core-ideas could facilitate the teaching and learning of procedural understanding about experiments, which should be investigated in further studies.
Prediction and Adaption in Science|Environment|Health Contexts
2021, Zeyer, Albert, Álvaro, Nuria, Arnold, Julia, Bauer, Deidre, Devetak, Iztok, Devetak, Sonja Posega, Gavidia, Valentin, Kremer, Kerstin, Mayoral, Olga, Tajnšek, Tina Vesel, Keselman, Alla, Levrini, Olivia, Tasquier, Giulia, Amin, Tamer G., Branchetti, Laura, Levin, Mariana
The term Science|Environment|Health (S|E|H) stands for a pedagogy of mutual benefit between science education, environmental education, and health education. Complexity is an important aspect of most S|E|H issues. In the natural sciences, and thus in science education, prediction plays a central role. Yet, complex systems usually do not allow for full prediction. “Don’t predict, adapt!” is a famous slogan in complexity talk. But what does adaption look like in complex systems and what role can scientific knowledge play in it? This paper features a symposium where three S|E|H examples were presented in which the relationship between prediction and adaption is important. The paper also includes a theoretical contribution that discusses the concept of dual-process theories as a potential theoretical framework. The main outcome of the symposium is that while understanding “as prediction” plays the central role in traditional science, understanding “as interpretation” is at least as equally important in S|E|H contexts. In terms of dual-process theories, the first is a type 2 process, while the second is type 1. Good decision-making in S|E|H contexts involves a complementary interplay between these two types of understanding science.