[SSI Learning]全国初中学段研讨纪要（2020-11-25）
Minutes of the online meeting for SSI Learning project in middle schools (11/25/2020)

为对SSI-L项目组各校的教学实践提供切实指导，助推各校之间的交流合作，2020年11月25日晚7:00-9:30，SSI-L项目初中组在腾讯会议室举行第三次在线研讨活动。为促进各基地校之间的交流研讨，本次会议在山东省威海市望海园中学、威海市高新区一中世昌校区和山西省太原市尖草坪区实验中学校三所学校项目进展汇报的基础上，加入了汇报学校和其他各基地校之间的交流环节。会议由初中学段负责人，山东省威海市教育教学研究中心初中教研室张涛主任主持，初中学段基地校的骨干教师、其他学段负责人及骨干教师等30余人参与了本次研讨。

威海市望海园中学的乔然洁老师汇报了本校议题“草木染与化工染料染制衣物孰优孰劣？”的实施情况。望海园中学在课程中开展了熬制燃料、染制传统图案等形式多样的科学实践活动，并鼓励学生不断进行过程性反思。在课程开展过程中，参加SSI学习的学生体现出了认真、踏实的特质。此外，望海园中学还分别介绍了他们今后计划开展的其他三个议题“沿海地区不宜吃加碘盐，是真还是假？”、“填海造地建造的海景房，是最美的家吗？”、“威海共享单车的前世今生”的设计情况。针对望海园中学的汇报，杭州市三墩中学卢特老师对该项目“家校结合”的开展形式表示了肯定，并认为学生在SSI学习中发生了开放积极的转变。贵州师范大学的杨珺老师就具体的草木染内容提出了建议，提议可以将少数民族文化融入教学，以提升学生对民族团结的认识，并认为SSI本身是开放性问题，并非需要得出一个确定答案。威海市南海新区实验中学的于东升老师与望海园中学于莲花校长针对该议题的争议性问题进行了深入交流，并提出了“SSI学习的深度和广度如何确定”的问题。张涛老师对各位老师的意见表示肯定，并提议建立不同区域校际之间的交流和联合，以取长补短，发挥优势，提升议题的开展效果，该提议受到了各校老师的广泛认可和支持。此外，张老师也对望海园中学的议题提出了两条建议。其一是辩论赛形式会限制学生的视角和学习客观性，需要谨慎使用；其二是加碘盐议题科学性有余而争议性不足，而共享单车议题则科学性不足，还需进一步斟酌。

随后，威海市高新区一中世昌校区的崔文浩老师对本校议题“威海小石岛是否有必要填海造陆”的内容进行汇报。该议题与学生生活联系紧密，具有较高的开展价值。崔老师介绍了该议题的星型图顶层设计，并呈现了在星型图指导下实地考察、核算成本收益等各项活动实施计划，整个方案具有较高的结构性。威海市南海新区实验中学的于东升老师就该议题的具体内容提出“小石岛目前是否有填海造陆的措施”，与崔文浩老师进行了对填海造陆问题的探讨。此外，于老师提出了“社会性议题虽然不必得出确定答案，但是否需要能够为社会的决策提供建议？”、“在SSI课程中，学生的能力是怎样得到体现的？”、“SSI课程的课程模式是怎样的？”三个切实的SSI学习取向问题，具有较高的讨论价值。张涛老师对于东升老师的问题做出了回应。针对第二个问题，张老师提出SSI学习并不以解决问题为导向，其价值更多地体现在开展过程中学生对议题的不断肯定与否定，在此过程中学生以事实为依据，运用科学思维提出主观见解。针对第四个问题，张老师认为SSI学习本身不存在固定模式，但是基本都以议题的提出和星形图所有方面的探讨结束为起点与终点，以学生针对议题内容的探究和不断选择为路径。

最后，山西省太原市尖草坪区实验中学校的杨淑芳老师对本校议题“塑胶跑道的未来将走向何方”的进展情况进行了详细汇报。在已开展的活动中，学生利用数学知识对塑胶跑道的经济投入进行计算，并运用生物调查知识对操场内的生物多样性进行实地调研，取得了丰富的成果。杨老师也对目前项目开展中存在问题进行了报告：其一是七、八年级学生的知识储备相对薄弱，而九年级学生可用于调研的时间不足，出现了学段选择的矛盾；其二是学生学业和第二课堂开展存在时间冲突。针对问题，张涛老师认为SSI课程将涉及专业且广博的知识，远超出了学生的先前知识储备，因此对学生先前知识储备的考虑可以适当减少，并建议学生已掌握的知识可以直接使用，未掌握的知识可以采取直接告知的方法，没有必要都进行探究。杨珺老师认为SSI学习与STEM教学等科学教育在培养目标上有所不同，教师需要进行观念转变，重视SSI学习提升学生科学素养和道德水平的独特定位。北京师范大学邴杰老师认为，教师需要提升对SSI学习的认识，将教学的最终目的回归到落实科学教育目标中，并强调需要进一步清晰化科学课程的教学目标，明确SSI为课程提供具体情境的辅助作用，使SSI成为开展科学教育的强大助力。

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老师对今晚研讨进行了整体总结。首先，林老师对今晚各校的汇报交流情况和所提出的关于SSI教学定位的问题表示肯定。随后，林老师对研讨中提出的几个重要问题做出解答：第一，针对SSI课程是否有统一模式问题——虽然教无定法，但教师们需要在实践中探索SSI学习的良好模式，以有助于课程的推广；第二，针对SSI是否需要存在争议的问题——议题必须是真实发生的问题，需要考虑课程希望学生达成的学习目标，以定位议题教育价值；第三，针对SSI学习的深度和广度问题——需要在议题价值定位后，结合学段和具体课标来准确定位议题学习的深度和广度，视野要广，具体活动要有深度；第四，针对SSI学习后学生是否需要提出解决方案的问题——在SSI学习后，学生自身应该在“相互理解，达成共识”的基础上得出答案；SSI本身存在多种解决方式的性质使得学生之间需要进行妥协和理解，这一过程中的关键在于对驱动性问题及一系列子问题的准确定位。最后，林老师对今后的工作做出展望，希望在目标定位清晰的基础上，在今后的课程开展中落实对学生非形式推理、科学论证、道德推理等能力的培养和评价。

本次初中组研讨对各校SSI-L实施过程中的问题进行了进一步探讨，着重对SSI的本质性问题进行了交流，并确定了今后课程设计和开展的大方向。此外，本次研讨也增进了初中学段各校之间的交流，为后续开展中各校取长补短、增进合作奠定了基础。

图1  威海市望海园中学汇报星形图设计

图2  威海市高新区一中世昌校区汇报星形图设计

图3  太原市尖草坪区实验中学校汇报星形图设计

图4  参会人员剪影

To provide practical guidance for the teaching practice of schools in SSI-L project and promote exchanges and cooperation between them,  the middle school group of SSI-L project held the third online seminar via TencentMeeting from 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on November 25th, 2020. Three schools gave reports on their project progress, including Wanghaiyuan Middle School in the Weihai City of Shandong Province, Shichang Branch School of Weihai Hi-tech Zone No.1 Middle School, and Experimental Middle School of Jiancaoping District, Taiyuan City of Shanxi Province. Based on their reports, this meeting also encouraged other partner schools to get involved and share their ideas. Presided by Zhang Tao, Head of the Middle School Section of SSI-L project and Director of Middle School Teaching and Research Office of Weihai Education and Teaching Research Center of Shandong Province, this meeting was attended by more than 30 people, including backbone teachers from partner schools of the middle school section, as well as heads and leading teachers from other sections.

Qiao Ranjie, a teacher from Wanghaiyuan Middle School in Weihai, reported on the implementation of their school research about the relative merits of vegetation dyes and chemical dyes for clothes dyeing. The school carried out various forms of scientific activities in the curriculum, like decocting dyes and dyeing in traditional patterns, and encouraged students to keep reflecting throughout the whole process. As the courses carried forwards, students who participated in the SSI-L project began to show serious and practical characteristics. In addition, Qiao also introduced the course designs of other three issues they are going to research: is it true or not that people in coastal areas better not eat iodized salt? Is the sea-view house built on reclaimed land the most beautiful one? And last, the past and present of shared bikes in Weihai.

In response to the report of Wanghaiyun Middle School, Lu Te, a teacher from Sandun Middle School of Hangzhou gave her comments. She affirmed the“home-school collaboration” in this project and believed that students had become more open-minded and positive in SSI Learning. Teacher Yang Jun from Guizhou Normal University put forward her advice on what to teach about vegetation dyeing and thought it’s good to introduce ethnic minority culture to enhance students’ awareness of national unity. She also said that as SSI in essence is an open question itself, there’s no need to find a definite answer. Yu Dongsheng, the teacher from the Experimental Middle School of Nanhai New District in Weihai had an in-depth disccussion with Yu Lianhua, pricinpal of Wanghaiyuan Middle School over the controversial aspects of this issue, and rasied the question about “how to determine the depth and breadth of SSI Learning.”

Afterward, Mr. Cui Wenhao from Shichang Branch School of Weihai Hi-tech Zone No.1 Middle School, reported on the issue of “whether it’s necessary to reclaim land from the sea for Xiaoshi Island in Weihai”. This issue is closely related to student life and is quite worthwhile to investigate. Mr. Cui introduced the top-level design for this issue in a star chart and presented how to put it into practice in terms of activities like field trips or cost-benefit calculations under the guidance of this chart. The whole plan is highly structured.

Mr. Yu Dongsheng from the Experimental Middle School of Nanhai New District in Weihai raised the question of “whether Xiaoshi Island, for now, is taking any measures for sea reclamation” and had a thorough discussion with Mr. Cui. Besides, Mr. Yu also asked three practical and SSI-Learning-oriented questions: 1) though social issues don’t have to give definite answers, should they be able to give suggestions for social decisions? 2) How are students’ abilities reflected in SSI courses? 3) What’s the model of SSI courses? These questions have high disscussion value. Mr. Zhang Tao responded to Mr. Yu’s questions. For the second question, Mr. Zhang said that SSI Learning is not targeted at problem-solving, but has its value in encouraging students to stand by or against a certain issue, therefore, based on facts, to develop their own ideas by scientific thinking. For the fourth question, Mr. Zhang thought that there’s no fixed models for SSI-Learning, but basically, it starts with a proposal for one issue, ends with a wrap-up discussion on this issue from all aspects in the star chart, and develops in students’ unceasing exploration and swinging attitudes for this issue.

Finally, Yang Shufang, a teacher from the Experimental School of Jiancaoping District in Taiyuan, Shanxi, gave a detailed report on their research of “the future of plastic track”. In the activities carried out, students used their math knowledge to calculate the economic investment of plastic track and conducted a field investigation on the biodiversity of the playground, making rich achievements. Ms. Yang also shared the problems they had met: first of all, the seventh and eighth grade students are relatively weak in knowledge reserve while the ninth grade students don’t have sufficient time to do the research, so it’s hard for them to decide which section to learn; secondly, there‘s a time conflict between students’ schoolwork and their second classroom activities.

For this problem, Mr. Zhang Tao advised that SSI courses involve professional and extensive knowledge, which is far beyond students’ previous knowledge reserve, therefore, we should consider less about how much they know, but instead, encourage students to use directly the knowledge they’ve already mastered and further equip them with the knowledge they haven’t gotten. There’s no need to go deep into all of them. Ms. Yang Jun said that SSI Learning has different training goals from STEM-Teaching or other scientific education methods, so teachers need to change their views and pay more attention to the unique target of SSI Learning to improve students’ scientific literacy and moral standards. Bing Jie, a teacher from Beijing Normal University, thought that teachers should strengthen their understanding of SSI Learning, making the ultimate goal of teaching return to the goal-achieving of scientific education. She also emphasized that teachers need to further clarify the teaching goals of scientific courses and know the supplementary role SSI plays in providing contexts, therefore to make SSI a powerful engine in boosting the development of scientific education.

Lin Jing,  SSI-L project leader and director of the Science Education Quality Development Department of China Collaborative Innovation Center of Assessment for Basic Education Quality, concluded tonight’ seminar from the following aspects. Firstly, for the question of whether SSI courses should have a unified model, she pointed out that though there are no fixed methods for teaching, it’s still necessary for teachers to explore the good models of SSI-L in practice to help the promotion of courses. Secondly, regarding the question of whether SSI is controversial, she said that the issue proposed should tackle a real problem, and it should be considered what kind of learning goals students need to achieve in the course in order to assess the educational value of the issue. Thirdly, to address the question of SSI-L’s depth and breadth, she thought that deciding the issue value should come first, then comes to the accurate decision of the learning depth and breadth of SSI, in the combination with learning sections and specific curriculum standards. The vision should be broad and the activities should be profound. Last of all, in response to whether students need to propose solutions, she stressed that after SSI-L, students should come up with their own answers based on “mutual understanding and common consensus”. SSI, in nature, is not restricted to one definite answer, so students have to understand and compromise with each other, the key to which process lies in the accurate positioning of the driving problem and it series sub-problems.

This middle school group seminar further explored the problems occurring in the implementation of SSI-L of each partner school, focused on the essence of SSI, and determined the general direction of curriculum design and development. Moreover, it enhanced the exchanges between schools in the middle school section, laying a solid foundation for them to learn from and cooperate with each other in the future.