Word count (without abstract): 8118 THE ROLE OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES AbstractPrevious research has documented that students who engage with socioscientific issues can acquire some of the complex competences and skills typically related to scientific literacy. But an emerging field of research on science teachers' understanding and use of socioscientific issues, has documented that a range of challenges hinders the uptake of socioscientific issues. In this study we investigated the interpretation and implementation of socioscientific issues among Danish biology teachers -who teach in a curriculum that, on paper, is permeated by socioscientific issues. We conducted five in-depth group interviews (with a total of 11 teachers) and sought to validate and expand on the emergent themes from the teachers' talk-in-interaction by distributing a wider, primarily open-ended questionnaire (100 responding teachers). Our findings suggest that the participating teachers generally harbour a content-centred interpretation of socioscientific issues which manifests itself in at least three separate ways. First, the teachers generally use socioscientific issues as a means to an end of teaching factual biological content. Second, the teachers had a clear emphasis on mastery of factual content in their assessment practices. Third, the teachers tended to reduce socioscientific issues (e.g. should we allow GMOs) to specific biological contents (DNA) in a way that does not seem to allow students to engage with the real socioscientific issue. Our findings are particularly significant for science educators, policy-makers and curriculum designers, as we argue that key aspects of this content-centred interpretation may be a coping strategy used in order to navigate a divided curriculum.

This paper presents a normative pragmatics analysis of students' use of science content in eight socioscientific group discussions about human gene therapy. The specific focus of the paper is on the argumentative role that invocations of science had in the dialectics of the discussions. The analysis suggests that science content occasionally played an informative role in attempts to establish the factual background of parts of the deliberations, but that speakers often invoked science content creatively and selectively in argumentative strategies that aligned with an attempt to frame the issue of the discussion in ways that were favorable for the speaker. The paper aims at explaining how strategies that contained invocations of science worked pragmatically in the dialectical context of the discussions. The findings are discussed in relation to previous findings in the science education community as well as to more general questions pertaining to how science fits into socioscientific discussions in which the arguers deliberate about what to do, not just what is true. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 96:428–456, 2012

This paper explores the challenges of using the Toulmin model to analyze students' dialogical argumentation. The paper presents a theoretical exposition of what is involved in an empirical study of real dialogic argumentation. Dialogic argumentation embodies dialectical features -i.e. the features that are operative when students collaboratively manage disagreement by providing arguments and engaging critically with the arguments provided by others. The paper argues that while dialectical features cannot readily be understood from a Toulminian perspective, it appears that an investigation of them is a prerequisite for conducting Toulminian analysis. This claim is substantiated by a detailed review of five of the ten most significant papers on students' argumentation in science education. This leads to the surprising notion that empirical studies in the argumentation strand -even those studies that have employed non-dialectical frameworks such as the Toulmin model -have implicitly struggled to come to terms with the dialectical features of students' discourse. The paper finally explores how some scholars have worked to attend directly to these dialectical features; and it presents five key issues that need to be addressed in a continued scholarly discussion.

No abstract