[SSI Learning] 社会性科学议题学习中的“议”与“论”研讨纪要（2022-04-13）
Minutes of the seminar on the “issue” and “discussion” in SSI Learning (04/13/2022)

2022年4月13日晚，北京师范大学中国基础教育质量监测协同创新中心如期开展了社会性科学议题学习项目系列讲座之社会性科学议题学习中的“议”与“论”。本次讲座由全国小学年段的负责人、北京市通州区教研中心科学学科特级教师——曹春浩主讲，北师大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主持。会议主要包含曹春浩老师的讲座分享、大家的研讨议论两个部分。现将会议主要内容纪要如下：

会议的第一个议程是由曹春浩老师抛出话题——社会性科学议题学习中的“议”与“论”。首先，会议明确了“议”和“论”的含义。“议”包括议题、观点、主张，“论”包括论述、论据以及论证，明确这两个概念的含义是本次会议研讨的前提。其次，会议概括了社会性科学议题在实施中的三个主要环节，背景（产生议题）、开展活动（搜集证据与回答问题）、交流（根据证据阐述理由与说明观点）。会议通过“校门口商店的小食品能不能吃”和“海洋塑料垃圾污染”两个具体案例对SSI-L的三个主要环节进行了阐释和说明。在此基础上，会议将以上三个环节进而概括为“议”和“论”两个方面，并指出在阐述观点，有理有据的论证过程中，能够落实核心素养的培养。再次，在明确分析社会性科学议题中议和论的重要地位的基础上，会议重点讨论了“议”与“论”的实施。会议以山西省大同市平城区文慧小学提出的“校门口商店的食品能不能吃”议题为例进行了分析，分析主要围绕如何将核心议题一步步转化为可以老师可以实施，学生可以卷入参与的过程。对此，会议提出了“三个意识”，即问题聚焦与分解意识、证据契合和可靠意识、论证有序合力意识。会议通过案例对以上三个意识的内涵进行了逐个分析与解释。以上是会议的第一个部分，主要就已有的学校实施情况的问题结构这一方面，阐释了“议”和“论”。

会议的第二个议程是大家就曹春浩老师提出的话题进行研讨议论，即怎么让学生有比较深入的思考，议起来、论起来，让学生更好的卷入进去，让SSI-L项目真正实施起来，寻找并解决这些方面疑难点和困难点。在会上SSI-L项目学科指导专家组组长彭梦华老师、威海世昌中学崔文浩老师、杭州市余杭区仁和中学高敏娜老师等人都就这一问题发表了自己的看法。林静老师进一步总结指出如下几个要点。

1.将核心议题或问题逐步细化分解成问题串，并没有具体的、一般性的方法，教无定法。比如说，可以先仔细分析研究议题的背景，找到矛盾的两个主体，再分别对矛盾的两个主体进行各个方面的具体分析。也可以从社会性科学议题的各个维度的星形设计图开始分析，再逐步聚焦，再修改星形图，如此往复，最后聚焦明确，设计问题串。

2.教师要觉醒并敏感地意识到新时期立德树人教育目标对教师角色的新需求，努力变成研究型教师。教师要认真明确地定位学生的思维和实践，坚持社会性科学议题学习中的科学性、社会性、伦理性、开放性的特性，努力给予学生跨学科融合学习的锻炼，在思考和反思过程中实践，努力凸显社会性科学议题学习的益处。

3.社会性科学议题学习要真正落实在学生身上。真正带动学生，真正发动学生思维，要在联系现实的具体问题中倡导学生有更多思维碰撞，促使学生不断向高阶思维发生转变。这样才能彰显SSI-L在复杂性、开放性问题上凸显出来的育人效果。

4.要进一步认识到，社会性科学议题学习不是开放性的研究性学习，而是有规定的设计和以学生为中心的具体的一种教学探索，是一种让学生参与进去、动起来、思维卷入并追求证据和合理性的具体的教学探索。只有教师不断琢磨、朝着这个方向和目标不断持之以恒的探索，才有可能前进。在探索过程中，可以参考一些成熟的教学模式如5E教学模式，也可以完全从我们身边追求社会性科学议题的社会性、科学性、开放性、伦理性入手开始探索。

5.在社会性科学议题学习的开展中，教师角色要有所“退让”，让学生成为研究问题的主体，不要变成教师的一言堂。教师不是对错的判断者，而是帮助学生创设氛围，激发学生头脑风暴，引导学生思维卷入、论证推理、情感投入的引导者。要关注怎么让学生无障碍的一步一步地探索研究下去以达成认识，而不是讲授给学生。

6.要学会否定自己，寻求自我改变，尽量做更多的思考和反思，而不是着急地开发新内容。学会在原有成果和认识的基础上再钻研、探索、提出问题，而不是盲目前进或是原地拓展，否则很难达成原定的预期目标。

会议也对之前讨论的一些重点内容进行了回顾和重新认识，指明了接下来工作的方向和主要内容。林静老师建议还没有研制合适议题的学校可以试着寻找一些共性的话题，例如平衡膳食、人和病毒的斗争、垃圾分类等。已经研发较好议题的合作学校，要做好校本团队研讨活动，在原有基础上深入，不急于更多方面拓展，努力在社会性科学议题学习上有新的进展。

最后会议强调了社会性科学议题学习项目的使命和责任，各校要明确研究的方向，努力蜕变，持续思考，努力迈向新的台阶。

---

On the evening of April 13, 2022, the Collaborative Innovation Center of Assessment for Basic Education Quality at Beijing Normal University held one of the SSI Learning project series lectures on the “issue” and “discussion” in SSI Learning. This lecture was given by Cao Chunhao, head of the national SSI-L project in primary schools and a special-ranked teacher in the science discipline of Tongzhou District Teaching and Research Center in Beijing, and presided over by Lin Jing,director of Science Development Department of Collaborative Innovation Center of Assessment for Basic Education Quality at Beijing Normal University. The seminar included two parts: Cao Chunhao’s public lecture and discussion among all participants. The content of the meeting is summarized as follows.

The first agenda of the meeting was a topic raised by Mr. Cao Chunhao — the “issue” and “discussion” in SSI Learning. At first, the lecture clarified the meaning of “issue” and “discussion”. “Issue” covers topics, viewpoints, and propositions, and “discussion” includes arguments, evidence, and verification. The premise of this seminar was to clarify the meaning of these two concepts. Secondly, the lecture outlined three main steps of SSI-L implementation: background (generating issues), activities (collecting evidence and answering questions), and communication (elaborating on reasons and opinions based on evidence). Cao explained and illustrated these three steps with two specific cases — “Is snack food in the store at the school gate edible?” and “Marine plastic waste pollution”. On such basis, he further summarized the three steps into two aspects — “issue” and “discussion”. It was pointed out that core literacy development can be realized in the process of idea demonstration and evidence-based argumentation. Thirdly, after a detailed analysis of the importance of “issue” and “discussion” in SSI-L, the lecture focused on the implementation of “issue” and “discussion”. To take the issue of “Is snack food in the store at the school gate edible?” as an example, proposed by Wenhui Primary School in Pingcheng District, Datong City, Shanxi Province, the lecture analyzed how to translate SSI issue into a process which teachers can implement and students can engage and participate. In this regard, the meeting put forward “three awareness”, namely, the awareness of problem and decomposition, the awareness of evidence conjunction and reliability, the awareness of orderly argumentation and the synergy of argument and evidence. Through case studies, the meeting analyzed and explained the connotations of the three awareness one by one. The above is the first part of the meeting, mainly an explanation the “issue” and “discussion” in SSI-L based on the existing problems and structures in school project implementation.

The second agenda was a discussion around the topic raised by Cao Chunhao, that is, how to motivate students to think more deeply, to discuss and debate, to be better engaged, and how to truly implement the SSI-L project, find and resolve the problems and difficulties in these aspects. At the meeting, Peng Menghua, the leader of the SSI-L project subject guidance expert team, Cui Wenhao from Weihai Shichang Middle School, and Gao Minna from Renhe Middle School in Yuhang District, Hangzhou City, and others, all expressed their views.  Lin Jing further summarized and pinpointed the following.

1.There is no specific and general method, or fixed teaching approach to break down the core issues or problems step by step into a series of questions. For instance, teachers can first carefully analyze the issue background, find two contradictory subjects, and then carry out a detailed analysis of each of the two contradictory subjects. It is also possible to start the analysis from the various dimensions of SSI based on designing the star map, then gradually narrow down the focus, modify the star map, repeat for a few times, and finally find out a clear focus and design a series of questions.

2.Teachers should be aware of and realize the new demands on teachers’ role required by the new era educational goals of fostering virtue through education, and make efforts to become research-oriented teachers. They should carefully and clearly orient towards students’ thinking and practice, adhere to the scientific, social, ethical, and open characteristics of SSI-L, strive to provide students interdisciplinary integrated learning exercise, and practice through the process of thinking and reflection and try to highlight the benefits of SSI Learning.

3.SSI Learning should be truly implemented onto students. It should motivate students and truly stimulate their thinking. Teachers must advocate more collisions of thinking through specific issues that are closely related to reality, and encourage students to continuously develop to higher-level thinking. Only in this way can the educational effect of SSI-L be highlighted within complex and open issues.

4.It is necessary to realize SSI Learning is not an open research study, but a specific teaching exploration with a prescribed design and a student-centered approach, a teaching inquiry that motivates students to participate, mobilize, and engage in thinking, and pursues evidence and rationality. It is possible to move forward only if teachers keep pondering and perseveringly exploring in this direction and goal. In the process of exploration, teachers can refer to some mature teaching models such as the 5E teaching model, or they can start their exploration from the pursuit of the social, scientific, open, and ethical characteristics of SSI issues around us.

5.In the development of SSI Learning, the role of teachers should be “compromised”, so that students could become the main actor of the research issues. It should not turn out to be the teacher’s solo voice. Teachers are not supposed to be judges of what is right or wrong, but guides who help students create learning atmosphere, stimulate students’ brainstorming, and lead students to engage in thinking, reasoning, and emotional investment. It is necessary to focus on how to facilitate students’ investigation and research step by step to achieve better understanding, rather than lecture students.

6.Teachers should learn to question themselves, seek self-change, and try to do more thinking and reflection instead of rushing to develop new content. They should learn to dig in, explore, and raise questions based on the existing results and knowledge, rather than blindly move forward or extend on the same issue. Otherwise it will be difficult to achieve the original expected goals.

The meeting also reviewed and re-evaluated some of the key points discussed earlier, and pointed out the direction and main content of the coming work.  Lin Jing suggested that schools that have not yet developed suitable issues could try to find some general topics, such as balanced diet, the struggle between people and viruses, and garbage sorting. Those partner schools that have developed their topics should implement the school-based team research activities, further dive in on the original basis, but not rush to multi-aspect expansion, and strive to make new progress in SSI Learning.

In the end, the meeting emphasized the mission and responsibility of SSI Learning project. Each school should clarify their research direction, make efforts to transform, think continuously, and work hard into a new stage.