Analysing roleplay debates in biology teaching

1
Analysing role-play debates in biology teaching

• Structure and content of student argumentation,
  pivotal situations and teacher interventions
• Sonja M. Mork

2
Why argumentation?

• Central element in the learning of science
• Traditionally paid little attention to in science
  education
• Need for students to engage in construction and
  evaluation of scientific argument
• Argumentation improves student engagement and
  interest in science
• Few studies have focused on both structure and
  content of argumentation

3
Why teacher interventions?

• Tendency that science teachers hesitate to engage
  students in activities that support discourse and
  argumentation
• Suggested that science teachers lack strategies
  for handling classroom discussions (e.g. Driver
  et al 2000)
• Few studies of classroom debates in science that
  focus on teacher interventions

4
Wolves - a controversial issue

• Nature protection organizations and the
  government

• Farmers and hunters

VS
5
Context

• Wolf teaching program at http//viten.no
• Interactive learning environment with 6 sub units
  offline debate
• Aims
• Biology of wolves and ecological management
• Viewpoints in a socio-scientific controversy
• Participate in an actual debate construct,
  defend and evaluate arguments on either side of
  the issue

6
Research questions

• What is the structure and type of content in
  students argumentation?
• What kind of incidents limiting the quality of
  classroom debates might occur?
• What strategies are used by the teacher to handle
  pivotal incidents?

7
Sample and procedure

• 23 students, age 14-15
• The teacher is me
• 4 lessons on web-based part of the wolf program
• 2 lessons preparing and performing debates
• Transcripts of video recordings from classroom
  debates are the data sources

8
Classroom debates Should we have wolves in the
Norwegian wilderness or not?

• Three debates of 10-15 minutes in one class
  period
• Role plays of TV debates between politicians
• Students were given roles
• Organised as a panel with two opposing groups
• Audience had permission to ask questions
• The teacher had an active role as the moderator

9
Analyse structure of arguments

• Disputational talk
• Reasoned disputational talk
• Cumulative talk
• Exploratory talk

• Claim with reason
• Counterclaim with reason
• Mark Yes, of course, but they must definitively
  have permission to catch moose. Thats their diet
  isnt it? Just like other predators they must
  catch the prey they need to survive.

• Repeat
• Confirm
• Elaborate
• Anne They are a part of Norway then
• Tina The wolf is an endangered species, and we
  would like to protect the species we have in
  Norway.
• Mark The wolves are in danger og going extinct,
  and the sheep are not.

• Explain
• Reason
• Offer alternative solution
• Challenge backed up by evidence
• Comparison
• Adrian It is more than 200 years since wolves
  killed a human. If you drive your car into a
  moose you could die from that too.

• Claim
• Counterclaim
• Challenging question
• Avoids answering question
• Nora But wolves havent killed humans
• Nils No, but they are obviously very close (to
  killing humans)

Adjusted version of Neil Mercers (1995)
categories of talk in small group discussions
10
Analyse content of argument

• Out of context
• Incorrect
• Moderate
• Expected

Partly correct, but inaccurate use of information
from the program, partly correct additional
information
Incorrect use of information from the program or
brings in additional incorrect information
Correct use of information from the program.
Brings in additional correct information
Trivial content on the edges of the original
theme or non-finished sentences with no
particular content
Mark In the first place the wolf population is
still at a very low level, so I cant see that
you could have noticed any reduction in the moose
population. The wolf population is too small in
Norway.
Nora But wolves havent killed humans.
Adrian Yes, how long is it since the last time
you ate meat Mark?
Hannah Yes, of course, but the fact is that we
are getting very small amounts of money from the
government for support. So we cannot afford to
do something else. We cannot afford paying wages
to shepherds and things like that. So that is the
only solution if the animals are going to graze.
11
Results
12
Conclusions

• All types of talk represented
• Disputational and reasoned disputational most
  common (reflecting debate context)
• 83 of content is moderate or expected
• Expected content is found in all types of talk
• Exploratory talk associated with expected content
• Small proportion of incorrect and out of
  context content

13

• Pivotal incidents
• Accuracy of content
• Type of talk
• Focus of debate
• Level of participation
• Coming to a stop

• Teacher interventions
• Challenge correctness
• Encourage other types of talk
• Get debate on track
• Involve more students
• Keep debate alive

?
?
Incomplete information Student It is possible
to find an arrangement where there are wolf zones
that are more limited. Teacher What do you
mean by wolf zones? It might be someone that
doesnt know. Student Wolf zones are zones
where wolves live without many people, so that it
doesnt create problems.
?
?
Magnus Yes, you are saying that the wolves
move. Arent we moving also? We move just as much
as the wolves Mark Yes, of course, but there
are certain differences between humans and wolves
really Teacher To interrupt you a bit here,
how many wolves do you mean that we should have
in Norway? How many wolves do you (F-group) mean
that we should have? Realistically?
?
14
Conclusions

• The teacher influenced the debates when handling
  pivotal incidents
• Got the debate back on track when necessary
• Kept debate alive when it came to a stop
• Involved more students
• Challenged correctness of content
• Encouraged reasoning
• Probably parts of most teachers repertoire of
  teaching strategies lack of strategies for
  handling group discussions might not be the
  reason why teachers hesitate to practice
  activites involving argumentation in science
  lessons