[SSI Learning] 专题研讨纪要：在社会性科学议题学习中开展科学论证教育——以《其他垃圾是填埋还是焚烧》个案为例（2022-06-15）
Seminar Minutes: Scientific Argumentation in SSI Learning — A Case Analysis of “The Disposal of Other Waste by Landfill or Incineration” (06/15/2022)

2022年6月15日晚19:00-20:30，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“在社会性科学议题学习中开展科学论证教育”在线研讨会议。首都师范大学附属育新学校老师李萍代表学校SSI-L项目团队分享了《其他垃圾是填埋还是焚烧》中开展科学论证的思考与实践。澳门大学唐小为、华东师范大学肖思汉、北京市海淀区教育科学研究院刘晓宇，以及SSI-L项目负责人、北京师范大学林静出席会议并进行指导。

◆案例分享

李萍以图尔敏论证模型为依据，帮助学生在SSI-L中提高科学论证能力。在《其他垃圾是填埋还是焚烧》的案例分享中，展现了如何为学生搭建脚手架让学生体会科学论证学习：一是基于真实的问题解决过程进行课程的顶层设计；二是利用认知冲突，引发科学论证的必要性；三是利用系统思维认知工具和论证模型问题清单；四是通过生物实验、化学实验、科学研读等方式，提高科学论证内容的科学性；五是创设论证情景，如辩论赛，规范科学论证的语言。

◆评议引领

刘晓宇认为分享的案例选题聚焦并且具有争议性，教学设计思路清晰，并提出：在资料的发放方面，论证前要给学生提供在相关性上有区分度的资料，学生通过鉴别这些资料是否能支持论证来提高鉴别信息的能力，同时可以向学生发放手册、任务单等将学习资料固化来防止学生遗忘。此外，教师应明确论证过程中学生回应别人的反驳不仅包括说服，也应包括对别人想法的思考和接纳。在教学过程中，教师要关注学生表述的逻辑性，对逻辑性目标的设置在不同年级要有进阶性。

肖思汉肯定了该案例选择的有效性，并指出以适宜的议题促进学生经历对议题的认知、推理、判断、行动的学习过程，对培养学生作为一位具备科学素养、有社会责任意识与担当的未来公民，非常重要。本案例能将学生的议题学习最后以行动落到实处，非常出彩。肖思汉认为社会性科学议题的学习过程并不在于强调提供实验情景的主场，而是要让学生体会在真实情境下如何对复杂问题做出自己的决策与判断，而是否易于开展实验不是该案例的关键。此外，肖思汉建议，本案例还可以将学习情境进一步日常化，密切联系学生的实际情况，例如关联北京现有垃圾场来议；不仅仅以辩论的形式开展教学活动，因为科学论证的目的在于协商，而不是说服他人，正如学生在日常生活中发生的交流对话一样，重在交流互动，传递发表自己的见解，同时也需要接收他人的信息，有时自己也需要被他人说服；另外，要让学生代入不同身份，注重要让学生识别自己的立场，从一定的立场出发来考虑面对谁、如何进行论证等事宜。

唐小为从论证的视角进行评析与建议。她提出，首先，不能窄化了论证的定义。论证包括论证的产品和论证的过程，从产品角度来看，论证包括论证出关于自己观点的证据、推理等；从过程角度看，论证还包括推动整个论证过程发展的各种要素，如提出问题也是一种论证，所以对于议题的辩论要关注过程性论证。其次，要区分辩论赛的目的、科学论证的目的、社会性科学议题中论证的目的。辩论赛是用证据来维护自己的观点；科学论证是一个批判性合作的过程，与辩论赛相比，它更强调协商与合作；社会性科学议题中的论证包含科学论证，例如判断证据的真伪，也包括与立场、价值观问题相关的论证，立场问题是社会性科学议题中的论证区别于一般论证的本质问题。

林静赞同肖思汉与唐小为提出的要注重论证中的立场、合作性协商等问题，指出明确科学论证的内涵的重要性。林静进一步指出，学生对议题基于自己的已知进行认知、着眼于议题解决方案开展推理与判断、进而付诸行动的过程，是学生对议题进行探究与实践的自主过程。就科学论证在议题学习中的运用而言，首先，教师要注重培养学生理清主张与证据之间的关系，并对不同年级学生有不同的要求。例如要让小学生意识到自己有无与主张相匹配的证据，区分这些证据的主观性与客观性；让初中生提升自己主张与证据的逻辑性，追求以客观证据来形成与支持自己的主张；让高中生进一步追求主张与证据的科学性，以科学、客观的证据来提出与论证自己科学合理的主张。其次，教师要锻炼学生以自己的主张与证据与他人开展交流与论证的能力，即如何参与合作性的协商过程。学生对议题的“议”，不在于追求标准答案，而是学会相互倾听、换位思考与理解，学会通过合理的协商来达成共识。由此，对于议题的命名不必追求一个是非判断式的命名。另外，围绕议题设置的系列问题与研究内容，还要进一步具体、贴近学生生活，要“下沉”至现实而非“上浮”向理念，要“聚焦”至真实具体问题而非“发散”向抽象概念或理论。林静进一步指出，社会性科学议题学习这一跨学科融合的学习活动，要注重培养学生面对科学技术带来的社会问题的思辨能力与责任担当。期待在各合作校的不断钻研与专家团队的专业引领之下，社会性科学议题学习为学生的核心素养发展能发挥更大的作用。

On the evening of June 15, 2022, from 19:00 to 20:30, the Beijing Normal University SSI Learning Project Team held a webinar via Tencent Rooms, themed “Scientific Argumentation in SSI Learning”. Li Ping, on behalf of the SSI-L project team of Yuxin School Attached to Capital Normal University, shared the thinking and practice of teaching scientific argumentation in the issue of “The Disposal of Other Waste by Landfill or Incineration”. Tang Xiaowei from the University of Macau, Xiao Sihan from East China Normal University, Liu Xiaoyu from the Haidian Institute of Education Sciences, and Lin Jing, head of the SSI-L Project Team from Beijing Normal University, attended the meeting and offered comments.

Case sharing

Li Ping took the Toulmin Model of Argumentation as framework to help students improve their scientific argumentation ability in SSI-L. With the issue of “The Disposal of Other Waste by Landfill or Incineration”, she demonstrated how to build scaffolding for students to experience scientific argumentation learning: first, the top-level course design based on the real problem-solving process; the second is to use cognitive conflict to trigger the necessity of scientific argumentation; the third is to use the cognitive tools of systematic thinking and the question lists of argumentation models; the fourth is to improve the scientific nature of the scientific argumentation content through biological experiments, chemical experiments, scientific research, etc.; the fifth is to create such argumentation scenarios as debate competition, and to standardise the language used in scientific argumentation.

Review and guidance

Liu Xiaoyu believed that the issue selection in the shared case is focused, featured with controversy, as well as a clear idea of teaching design. He proposed that: in the distribution of teaching materials, students should be provided with materials that differentiate various levels of relevance before scientific argumentation. Their ability to identify information could be improved by determining whether those sources provided could support their argument. At the same time, teachers could give out brochures, task lists and others to solidify the learning materials and prevent students from forgetting. Meanwhile teachers should clarify that in the process of argumentation, students’ responses to others’ rebuttals includes not only persuasion, but also thinking about and accepting other people’s ideas. In the teaching process, teachers should pay attention to the logic of students’ expressions, and the teaching goals of logics goals should be set as progressive in different grades.

Xiao Sihan affirmed the validity of the case selection. He pointed out that the use of appropriate issues to promote students’ experience in the learning process of awareness, reasoning, judgment, and action of the issue, which is significant to develop students to become scientifically literate, socially responsible and accountable future citizens. This case implements students’ SSI learning through actions in the final action stage, which is very brilliant. Xiao Sihan believed that SSI learning is not to emphasize the main field where experimental contexts are provided, but to allow students to experience how to make their own decisions and judgments on complex problems in real situations. Whether it is easy to carry out experiments is not essential to this case. In addition, he suggested that in this case, the learning context could be further normalized and closely related to the students’ real life, for instance, to discuss in association with the existing disposal areas in Beijing. Teaching activities should be carried out not merely in the form of debate. The purpose of scientific argumentation is negotiation, rather than persuasion. Just like the communication and dialogue that occur in students’ daily life, it focuses on communication and interaction, conveying and expressing their own opinions, and in the meantime receiving information from others. Sometimes students also need to be persuaded by others. Moreover, it is important to allow students to take on different identities, encourage them to identify their own positions, and consider whom to confront with and how to argue from a certain position.

Tang Xiaowei made comments and suggestions from the perspective of argumentation. First of all, she suggested that the definition of argumentation should not be too narrow. It consists of the product and process of argument-making. Product-wise, argumentation includes demonstrating evidence and reasoning about one’s own point of view; whereas process-wise, it also includes various elements that push forward the entire argumentation developing process. For instance, question raising is also one type of argumentation. So debates on the issue should pay attention to procedural argumentation. Secondly, it is necessary to distinguish the purpose of debate competition, the purpose of scientific argumentation, and the purpose of argumentation in SSI. Debate competition is to use evidence to defend one’s own point of view. Scientific argumentation is a process of critical cooperation. Compared with debate competition, scientific argumentation emphasizes more on negotiation and cooperation. Argumentation in SSI includes scientific argumentation, such as determining the authenticity of evidence. It also includes arguments related to standpoints and value issues. The essential issue that distinguishes argumentation in SSI from the general argumentation is the standpoint issue.

Lin Jing agreed with Xiao Sihan and Tang Xiaowei’s suggestions on the standpoint, cooperative negotiation, and other issues that should be paid attention to in argumentation. She pointed out the importance of clarifying connotations of scientific argumentation. Lin Jing further illustrated that the process in which students cognize the issue based on their own existing knowledge, carry on reasoning and make judgments of the issue in focus, and then put it into action, is an autonomous process for students to explore and practice regarding the issue. In terms of the application of scientific argumentation in SSI learning, first of all, teachers should pay attention to students’ training on sorting out the relationship between claims and evidence, and make different requirements for students of different grades. For example, primary school students should be made aware of whether they have evidence that matches their claims, and distinguish the subjectivity and objectivity of these evidences. Junior high school students should improve the logic between their claims and evidence, and seek to develop and support their claims based on objective evidence. High school students should further pursue the scientific nature of claims and evidence, propose and demonstrate their own scientific and reasonable claims based on scientific and objective evidence. Secondly, teachers should train students’ ability to exchange and demonstrate their own claims and evidence with others, that is, how to participate in the cooperative negotiation process. Students’ discussion on SSI is not about pursuing standard answers, but learning to listen to each other, think transpositionally and understand each other, learning to reach consensus through reasonable negotiation. Therefore, the title of the issue does not have to be the yes-or-no judgmental type. In addition, the series of questions and research content around issue setting should be more specific and closer to students’ life, “sinking” to reality rather than “up-floating” to concepts, “focusing” on real specific issues rather than “diverging” to abstract ideas or theories. Lin Jing further pointed out that SSI learning, as interdisciplinary learning activities, should focus on cultivating students’ ability of critical thinking and responsibility towards social problems brought about by science and technology. It is expected that with the continuous research of each partner school and the professional guidance of the expert team, SSI learning will play a greater role in the development of students’ core literacy.