[SSI Learning] 专题研讨纪要：社会性科学议题学习如何融入科学思维（2022-04-27）
Seminar minutes: How to incorporate scientific thinking into SSI Learning (04/27/2022)

2022年4月27日晚19:00-20:40，北京师范大学社会性科学议题学习项目组在腾讯会议室举行主题为“社会性科学议题学习如何融入科学思维”的在线研讨会议。湖南省株洲市九方中学的范小凤老师作为主讲人，分享了学校在项目实践过程中的经验与思考。SSI-L项目负责人、中国基础教育质量监测协同创新中心科学提升部主任林静、人民教育出版社生物室主任谭永平、北京市昌平区第一中学特级教师周有祥出席会议并进行指导。

范小凤老师介绍了项目背景并以智轨与城市交通问题这一议题为例，分享了株洲九方中学在社会性科学议题学习中融入科学思维的实践。这一议题被分解为三个驱动性问题：株洲市政府为什么要建智轨、株洲智轨在实际运行的过程中遇到了哪些困难、株洲智轨的实际使用是治堵还是添堵。学生需要表达自己的立场，寻找论据进行论证以及反驳。随着议题的深入，学生需要进一步明确自己的观点，开展多轮次论证。范老师总结了在社会性科学议题学习中融入科学思维的几点经验：1.驱动性问题本身要科学，具有可探究性和可操作性；2.驱动性问题贴近学生生活，贴近实际，能达到理论与实践的统一；3.驱动性问题的设问要有思辨性，开放性；4.引导学生运用科学的手段，方式（比如问卷调查，数据统计，访谈，查阅资料等）进行科学论证；5.思维交锋过程中，引导学生全面，辩证地看待问题，形成观点。此外，范老师也基于学校实践情况提出了两个疑问：1.是否每一个社会性科学议题的学习都要兼顾科学性与社会性的统一？2.在课题活动结束后，是另外开启新的课题研究还是继续深入挖掘研究本课题？

谭永平点评道，在社会性科学议题学习中融入科学思维是一个很好的切入点，因为思维可以把分属于不同学科的内容或规律揉合起来。科学思维的核心是理性思维，理性思维的核心是逻辑，应当先让学生从他们提出的观点中区分出论点和论据，然后对论据进行层次区分，找到论据之间的关系和逻辑。接着在不同立场的论据之间进行对照、支持和反驳，从而进行再判断。最后求同存异，在基于科学思维基本原则的前提下，进行平权的争论，多元的思考。总之，建议进一步梳理工作，使得科学思维的外显度更高。而针对第二个疑问，建议就某一个值得做的议题迭代设计，从而挖掘出更多的科学思维含量，使得议题能够更加深入和开拓。

周有祥指出，九方中学课题的准备、团队的组建以及课程实施当中，规划思路明晰。智轨交通的选题具有地域特色，在活动设计上如果能够带着学生根据所了解的情况，建立一个局部的模型，可以将学生的科学思维外显。在这一点上，可以借鉴论证式教学，如果学生能有自己的主张，并且列举相当的证据来阐明自己的主张，来驳斥其他人反面的主张，便有了科学性和科学思维。当一个课题结束后，建议还是要重新开始。在议题设计的不断改进过程中，学生的收获可能会更大。

林静分享了PISA、NGSS、我国中小学生科学素养监测指标以及中小学生科学素养提升规划项目中的科学素养维度与内涵，通过前沿理论的介绍，引导教师进一步思考如何在社会性科学议题学习中融入科学思维，拓展现有思路。林静首先指出思维与科学思维的异同，指出科学思维在科学教育中的独特价值；再指出科学思维与科学知识两者是密不可分的，抽离了科学思维，学生获得的科学知识容易是静止的，难以迁移和运用。因此在SSI-L教学中，要不断反思、突破、追问提供学生科学思维训练的深度、力度有多少。同时，林老师也谈到了SSI-L整合科学思维的主渠道是以学生为中心的科学实践活动，以议题驱动小组合作探究的开展，在科学探究的各个环节都设计特定的科学思维训练。

林静进一步指出，优质的社会性科学议题学习一定发展学生科学思维，所以项目团队要积极朝着这个方向去探索，大家要敢于质疑、改革和创新。为此，项目团队的研讨需要相互反思、相互质疑，相互探讨、相互支撑，从而更有效地提升项目设计与实施质量，发展自己实施素养教育能力。

From 19:00 to 20:40 pm, April 27, 2022, the SSI Learning Project Team of Beijing Normal University held an online seminar themed “How to incorporate scientific thinking into SSI Learning” via Tencent Rooms. The keynote speaker, Fan Xiaofeng from Zhuzhou Gofront Middle School of Hunan Province, shared the school’s experience and thinking in project practice. Lin Jing, director of Science Development Department of Collaborative Innovation Center of Assessment for Basic Education Quality at Beijing Normal University, Tan Yongping, director of the Biology Office of the People’s Education Press, and Zhou Youxiang, a Speical-Rank Teacher of the No. 1 Middle School in Changping District of Beijing, attended the meeting and offered suggestions.

Fan Xiaofeng introduced the project background and took the issue of Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit System (ART) and urban transportation as an example to share the practice of integrating scientific thinking in SSI Learning in Zhuzhou Gofront Middle School. This issue is broken down into three motivating questions: why the Zhuzhou Municipal Government needs ART, what difficulties has Zhuzhou ART come across in the actual operation, and whether the utilization of ART is to solve or aggravate traffic congestion. Students are required to express their positions, find evidence to support their arguments and make refutations. As they delve into the research issue, students need to further clarify their views and have multiple rounds of debate. Fan summed up the experience of integrating scientific thinking in SSI Learning into a few points: 1. The motivating questions themselves must be scientific, explorable and operable; 2. The motiving questions must be close to student’s life and real situation, and achieve the unity between theory and practice; 3. The design of motivating questions should have critical thinking and openness; 4. Guiding students to use scientific means and methods (such as questionnaires, statistics, interviews, data inquiry, etc.) to conduct scientific verification; 5. During the confrontation of ideas, guiding students to look at problems comprehensively and dialectically and develop their opinions. Fan also raised two questions based on school practice: 1. Does each of the SSI Learning projects need to consider the unity of science and society? 2. When the project activities are completed, should we start a new project or continue to delve further into the same one?

Tan Yongping commented that integrating scientific thinking in SSI Learning is a good point to start with, because thinking can combine different disciplinary content or laws. The core of scientific thinking is rational thinking, and the core of rational thinking is logic. Students should first distinguish arguments and evidence from the viewpoints they come up with, and differentiate their arguments at various levels to find the relationship and logic between evidence. Then they should compare, support and refute the arguments from different positions, so as to remake their judgements. In the end, they should seek common ground while reserving differences, debate on equal foots, and think in multiple ways in accordance with the basic principles of scientific thinking. In short, it is recommended to further sort out the work to make scientific thinking more explicit. For the second question, it is recommended to iteratively design a certain topic worth doing, so as to explore more scientific thinking content and have a further development and extension of the topic.

Zhou Youxiang pointed out that Gofront Middle School has a clear plan throughout project preparation, team formation and curriculum implementation. The issue selection of ART has regional characteristics. In activity design, if students can establish a local model according to the situation they have understood, it can explicate their scientific thinking. On this point, it’s recommended to learn from argumentative teaching. If students have their own claims, list correspondent evidence to clarify their claims and refute other opposite claims, they will have scientificity and scientific thinking. When a project is completed, it is recommended to start a new one. Students may gain even more in the process of continuous improvement of issue design.

Lin Jing shared the scientific literacy dimensions and connotations of PISA, NGSS, the scientific literacy monitoring indicators of primary and secondary school students, and the plan to improve scientific literacy for primary and secondary school students. Through the introduction of cutting-edge theories, Lin offered guidance to further think about how to integrate scientific thinking into SSI Learning and expand the existing ideas. Lin Jing first pointed out the similarities and differences between thinking and scientific thinking, as well as the unique value of scientific thinking in science education. She then illustrated that scientific thinking and scientific knowledge are inseparable, in a way that without scientific thinking, the scientific knowledge obtained by students can easily be static, difficult to transfer and use. Therefore, in SSI-L teaching, it is necessary to constantly reflect, make breakthroughs, and ask questions about the depth and strength of scientific thinking training provided to students. At the same time, Lin also mentioned that the main channel for SSI-L to integrate scientific thinking is the student-centered science practice activities, by means of the group cooperative inquiry driven by the SSI-L issue, and the design of specific scientific thinking training in each step of scientific inquiry.

Lin Jing further pointed out that the high-quality SSI learning will develop students’ scientific thinking, so the project team must proactively explore in this direction. Everyone must dare to question, reform, and innovate. For this reason, the project team discussion needs to reflect, question, discuss and support each other, so as to more effectively improve the quality of project design and implementation, and develop their ability to implement literacy education.