AISL科学素养提升联盟

2022年6月29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培养学生科学态度与责任”在线研讨会议。北京市八一学校SSI-L项目核心成员陈春翔分享案例。首都师范大学科学教育研究中心主任丁邦平教授、北京师范大学第二附属中学特级教师彭梦华、北京市海淀区教育科学研究院课程中心主任宋世云，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

陈春翔指出了SSI-L课程与学科核心素养的关系，通过对《燃油汽车和电动汽车哪个更值得买》这一案例设计与实施过程的分享，提出了在社会性科学议题学习中培养学生科学态度与责任具体要做到以下几点：第一，精选议题，创设两难处境。选择的议题要有真实的社会情境，要贴近学生的生活，包含核心知识、指向核心素养培养；第二，确定争论的论点。教师要注重身份的转变，以学生为主体，采用多种教学策略，让学生成为主角来思辨问题解决；第三，寻找利弊，权衡利弊，通过云端辩论赛来促进学生辩论、做出决策。

◆评议引领

宋世云首先指出社会性科学议题为学生构建了一种生动的、有效的、特色鲜明的学习载体。北京八一学校SSI-L课程的设计意图是运用学科的理论知识来解决生活中的实际问题，为育人创设了一种具体的、巧妙的、润物无声的德育途径，为学生埋下了理想、信念、自信教育的种子。宋世云建议，应构建SSI-L特色课程群支撑普通高中多样化改革、特色学校建设。其次，要把握学科的核心素养来落实科学态度与社会责任教育，并且教师要为学生创设学习的情景和机会，不能靠说教，而要学生自主建构形成。再者，社会性科学议题学习为落实立德树人根本任务提供了一种小处着手、大处着眼的价值观、世界观和人生观。普通高中的培养目标是培养有理想、有本领、有担当的时代新人，可解读为学生具有理想信念和社会责任感、具有科学文化素养和终身学习能力、具有自主发展能力和沟通合作能力的时代新人。在本案例中，以一件事例如到底买什么样的车来思考大道理，体现其价值引领作用。

彭梦华肯定了北京八一学校课题对提高学生素质的有效性，并认为，在议题的选择方面，学生对电瓶车、燃油车的话题感受不深，难以亲身体会与深入理解；在学科知识方面，该课题设计物理、化学、生物、政治等学科学习，教师要考虑社会性科学议题学习活动是否已深入各个学科并要注重各学科的综合运用；电池的拆解存在危险，学生也无法通过拆解碳电池、原电池来理解锂电池；教师不宜过多地让学生查阅资料、总结、辩论，也应该给学生更多动手操作、实践探究的机会；电瓶车电机的制作比锂电池的制作过程环保，但电瓶车与燃油车相比存在可能爆炸、充电时间长、冬天开暖风能耗高等的缺陷；另外，现实中燃油车和电瓶车都值得选，不必从中二选一。彭梦华也针对该案例实施过程中的具体细节提出改进意见，燃油汽车和电动汽车都值得买，买燃油汽车还是电瓶车并不算是一种两难情境，教师要考虑“两难情境”的合理性；教师要考虑讨论时的“国家层面”、“个人层面”等词归为“谈论角色”是否恰当；教师要考虑比较汽车加油站和电动汽车充电桩数量这一活动是否意义；教师要确定“有效效率”、“火力发电更便宜”、“电车更经济”这些说法的正确性。

丁邦平从科学教育的视角对该案例进行评析。丁邦平首先指出，教师应不仅将SSI-L视为一种教学策略，更应该关注其背后的教学理念。其次，有关SSI-L中的科学态度与责任培养，在这个议题中可侧重培养学生对科学技术的理性态度，而实验不是社会性科学议题学习活动的重点。通过SSI-L来提高学生的科学素养、培养学生的思辨能力有利于培养学生对科学的兴趣、对科学本质的理解。科学态度既包括科学本身所蕴含的求真、求实品质，也包括学生对科学的一种态度。培养学生的责任与培养学生的态度密切相关，学生表现出科学的态度也是一种负责任的表现。再者，教师应具体分解这个议题可承载的科学态度与责任目标，并将教师教的目标转化为学生学的目标，将目标清晰地告知学生以促进学生反思。教师评价学生时要注意细节，在学生辩论、学习过程中要留心收集证据来判断是否达到教学目标。最后，丁邦平教授肯定SSI-L项目在促进变革培养学生科学素养的教与学方式上的意义，建议教师一定要多反思自己在SSI-L中的探索与实践。

林静感谢专家团队的评议与指导，并首先指出，在本案例的教学中，教师可围绕科学态度与责任目标，深入考虑、进一步设计并评价各学科的哪些活动可落实哪些具体目标。例如，哪些细节可对学生进行伦理道德教育、哪些可促使学生理解科学本质、哪些可提高学生的批判性思维能力等等。教师可进一步梳理议题中关于科学态度与责任的目标，例如培养学生对现象的好奇、探究的热情等。在此议题中，其重点应让学生思考科学、技术与社会、环境之间的关系，形成自己的判断。其次，在本案例中，各学科教师合作更偏向于一种学科拼盘的方式，这在项目工作的初期是可行的，建议接下来各学科教师进一步交流研讨，设计跨学科融合的教学内容与活动。再者，林静进一步提醒，教师不宜将社会性科学议题学习作为一种开放性的研究性学习任务交代给学生，“翻转”学生作为方案设计者、资料调查者等。将过多任务交给学生，不仅让学生花费大量的时间，且学生难以提出深入的研究问题，学习收获反而下降。教师应该承担设计的任务，为学生提供更多的脚手架，以供学生进入到高阶思维碰撞、情感态度价值观体验的学习过程。最后，林静也呼应丁邦平的建议，再次呼吁教师走出自己的舒适地带，勇于反思质疑自己的教学设计与教学实施，以SSI-L项目研究来不断提升自己以素养为本、指向学生核心素养发展的教学水平与能力。

On the evening of June 29, 2022, from 19:00 to 20:30, the Beijing Normal University SSI Learning Project Team held a webinar via Tencent Rooms, themed “Developing Students’ Scientific Attitude and Responsibility in SSI Learning”. Chen Chunxiang, a key member of the SSI-L project of Beijing Bayi School, shared the school’s case. Professor Ding Bangping, director of the Research Center of Science Education of Capital Normal University, Peng Menghua, a Speical-Rank Teacher of the Second Affiliated Middle School of Beijing Normal University, Song Shiyun, director of the Curriculum Center of 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

Chen Chunxiang illustrated the relationship between SSI-L courses and the disciplinary core literacy. By sharing the design and implementation process of the issue “Which is better to purchase — petrol-powered vehicles or electric ones?” she proposed to do the following points to develop students’ scientific attitude and responsibility in SSI learning. The first is to carefully select an issue and create a dilemma. The issue selected should fit into a real social situation, be close to the students’ life, cover core knowledge, and point to the cultivation of core literacy. The second is to pinpoint the propositions for discussion. Teachers should pay attention to the change of roles, take students as the main actors, adopt a variety of teaching strategies, and allow students to become the protagonists to think critically and solve problems. The third is to find out and balance the pros and cons, and encourage students to discuss and make decisions through cloud debate competitions.

Comments

Song Shiyun first pointed out that SSI Learning has provided a vivid, effective and distinctive learning platform for students. The design purpose of the SSI-L activities of Beijing Bayi School is to use disciplinary theoretical knowledge to solve practical problems in daily life, thus creating a specific, subtle and unnoticeably conducive moral education approach and laying seeds of ideals, beliefs and self-confidence education for students. Song suggested that the SSI-L project team should be established to support diverse reform of general high schools and the construction of characteristic schools. Secondly, it is necessary to grasp the disciplinary core literacy to implement the education of scientific attitude and social responsibility. Teachers should create learning scenarios and opportunities for students, which cannot rely on teachers’ lecturing, but rather be formed and constructed by students themselves independently. Furthermore, SSI learning provides a “starting small and thinking big picture” sort of value, world view, and view of life, for implementing the fundamental educational task of fostering integrity and promoting rounded development of people. The goal of general high school training is to cultivate new-era talents with ideals, abilities, and responsibilities, which can be interpreted as those with ideals and beliefs, social responsibility, scientific and cultural literacy, lifelong learning ability, independent development ability, as well as communication and cooperation ability. The case shared considers broad knowledge with one specific topic such as what kind of car to buy, which reflects the value leading role of this case.

Peng Menghua affirmed the effectiveness of the school’s project in improving students’ quality. He believed that in respect of issue selection, students might not feel much related to the topic of electric vehicles and petrol-powered ones, and thus find it difficult to truly experience and deeply understand the issue. In terms of disciplinary knowledge, the issue involves subjects learning such as physics, chemistry, biology, politics, and others. Teachers should consider whether the SSI learning activities have delved into each subject and pay attention to the comprehensive application of all subjects. It is dangerous to disassemble batteries. Students cannot learn about lithium batteries by disassembling carbon batteries or galvanic ones. Therefore, it is not suitable for teachers to ask students to do too much on information search, summary, and debate. They should also offer more opportunities to students for hands-on practice and practical inquiry. The production of electric vehicle motors is more environmentally friendly than that of lithium batteries. But compared with petrol-powered vehicles, electric ones have the disadvantages of possible explosion, long charging time, and high energy consumption for heating in winter. In fact, both petrol-powered vehicles and electric ones are worth purchasing. It doesn’t have to be an either-or matter. In regard with the implementation process of this case, Peng also gave suggestions for improving certain specific details. For instance, since both petrol-powered vehicles and electric ones are worth purchasing, to choose between them is not a dilemma. Teachers should think about the rationality of the “dilemma”. They should also consider whether it is appropriate to classify expressions like “national level” and “personal level” in discussion as “discussing about roles”. They should take into account whether the activity of comparing the number of gas stations and electric vehicle charging stations makes sense. They should ensure the accuracy of such claims as “effective efficiency”, “thermal power is cheaper”, “electric vehicles are more economical”.

Ding Bangping commented on the case from the perspective of science education. First of all, he pointed out that teachers should not only take SSI-L as a teaching strategy, but also pay attention to the teaching philosophy behind it. Secondly, regarding the development of scientific attitude and responsibility in SSI-L, this case could focus on cultivating students’ rational attitude towards science and technology. Experiment is not the key focus of SSI learning activities. Improving students’ scientific literacy and developing their critical thinking ability through SSI-L is conducive to cultivating their interest in science and their understanding of the nature of science. Scientific attitude includes not only qualities of truth-seeking and being practical that science has in itself, but also students’ attitude towards science. Developing students’ responsibility is closely related to cultivating their attitude. Students demonstrating their scientific attitude also represents that they have responsibility. Furthermore, teachers should specifically decompose the goals of scientific attitude and responsibility that this case can carry out, translate teachers’ teaching goals into students’ learning goals, and clearly inform students of such goals to encourage them to self-examine. Teachers should pay attention to details when evaluating students, and also keep an eye on collecting evidence in students’ debate and learning process so as to determine whether the teaching objectives are achieved. Finally, Professor Ding Bangping affirmed the significance of the SSI-L project in promoting the evolvement of the teaching and learning methods to developing students’ scientific literacy, and suggested that teachers reflect more on their own exploration and practice in SSI-L.

Lin Jing expressed gratitude to the expert team for their comments and guidance. She first pointed out that in the teaching of this case, teachers could focus on the goals of scientific attitude and responsibility, then further think about, design and evaluate what specific goals could be implemented through which activities of each discipline. For example, what details could educate students about ethics and morality, what could help students understand the nature of science, what could improve students’ critical thinking skills, so and so forth. Teachers can further clarify the goals of scientific attitude and responsibility, such as developing students’ curiosity about certain phenomena and enthusiasm for inquiry. Within this issue, the focus should be on encouraging students to think about the relationship between science, technology, society, and the environment, and then develop their own judgments. Secondly, in this case, the cooperation between teachers of various disciplines looks more like a platter of disciplines, which is feasible in the early stage of this project. It is recommended that teachers of various disciplines make further efforts to communicate and discuss, and design cross-disciplinary integrative teaching content and activities. Meanwhile, Lin Jing reminded that teachers should not assign SSI learning onto students as an open research task, and “flip over” students’ role into program designers and data investigators. Giving too many tasks to students would take them a great amount of time, making it difficult for them to raise in-depth research questions, and thus reducing students’ learning benefits. Teachers should undertake the designing task and provide students with more scaffolding to enter the learning process of higher-rank idea collision and experiencing emotional attitudes and values. In the end, Lin Jing also echoed Ding Bangping’s suggestions, and once again called on teachers to step out of their comfort zone, dare to reflect on and question their own teaching design and teaching implementation, and use the SSI-L project research to continuously improve their teaching level and ability that is literacy oriented and points towards the development of students’ core literacy.