socio-scientific discussions as a way to improve the comprehension of science and the understanding...

Socio-Scientific Discussions as a Way to Improvethe Comprehension of Science and the Understandingof the Interrelation between Species and the Environment

Carolina Castano

Published online: 23 October 2007# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract This article reports on a qualitative and quantitative study that explored whethera constructivist Science learning environment, in which 9 to 10-year old Colombian girlshad the opportunity to discuss scientific concepts and socio-scientific dilemmas in groups,improved their understanding of the concepts and the complex relations that exists betweenspecies and the environment. Data were collected from two fourth grade groups in a privatebilingual school, a treatment and a comparison group. Pre and post tests on the understandingof scientific concepts and the possible consequences of human action on living things,transcriptions of the discussions of dilemmas, and pre and post tests of empathy showed thatstudents who had the opportunity to discuss socio-scientific dilemmas gave better definitionsfor scientific concepts and made better connections between them, their lives and Nature thanstudents who did not. It is argued that Science learning should occur in constructivist learningenvironments and go beyond the construction of scientific concepts, to discussions anddecision-making related to the social and moral implications of the application of Science inthe real world. It is also argued that this type of pedagogical interventions and research onthem should be carried out in different sociocultural contexts to confirm their impact onScience learning in diverse conditions.

Keywords Science education . Constructivist learning environments . Empathy .

Environmental interconnectedness . Scientific concepts . Socio-scientific discussions

Introduction

During the past years Science education has been changing from an emphasis on theacquisitions of factual knowledge to an emphasis on active learning, the social constructionof scientific concepts, the development of professional skills, and decision-making relatedto the interaction between humans and the natural world (Hodson 2003). This contrastswith the traditional emphasis in Science classes on the memorization of concepts, facts and

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587DOI 10.1007/s11165-007-9064-7

DO9064; No of Pages

C. Castano (*)Carrera 14a # 127a-81 (Apto 502), Bogota, Colombiae-mail: [email protected]

principles (Hodson 2003; Jacobson and Spiro 1995; Rennie et al. 2001), and on relations ofcause and effect that rarely show the complexity of real problems and exclude controversyand ethics, by presenting knowledge as conclusive and unchangeable (Hodson 2003). Manyauthors now agree that traditional Science classes result in lack of interest for Science andlow understanding of the importance of caring about the environment and all livingorganisms (Noddings 1992; Thompson and Windschitl 2002). But despite the efforts madeto recognize these problems, the traditional way of designing Science classes is still presentin many schools (Hodson 2003; Rennie et al. 2001).

Also many discussions have been taking place in the past years about what peopleshould know about Science and what Science education should aim at promoting. Forexample one of the purposes of Science education should be that students not onlyunderstand scientific concepts but also how the living world functions and how technologyand human actions have had an impact in our life and the natural world (MinisterioNacional de Educación 2004; OECD 1998; Rennie et al. 2001). For Millar and Osborne(1998), Science classes should allow students to express their opinions about social andethical issues that they will have to confront in the future. Hodson (2003) agrees with Millarand Osborne, and goes beyond this by proposing that the central goal of Science educationshould be “to equip students with the capacity and commitment to take appropriate,responsible and effective action on matters of social, economic, environmental, and moral–ethical concern” (p. 653). He believes that while scientific and technological decisions anddevelopment benefit some, they also cause problems to others. This last consideration isrelated to what some psychologists have called “cognitive empathy” and others “role-taking” or “perspective taking,” the ability to put oneself in a position to understand what isaffecting others or to take the role of another in order to understand his experiences (Davis1996; Feshbach 1978; Hoffman 2002; Kohler 1929; Mead 1934; Wispè 1992). Empathy, inthis sense, might be developed through adhering to the purposes of Science education thatthese authors propose. But this new emphasis in Science education goes beyond the meredevelopment of empathy, to involve the understanding of social, cultural, and environmen-tal issues.

The relation between Science and social and cultural contexts has long been identifiedby different authors. For Gibson, for example, people select some information from theinvariant properties of the environment to form meanings he calls affordances, which arepersonal, cultural, and related to specific understandings of the natural environment, soallowing for different interpretations of a situation depending on the context and the personthat perceives it (Windsor 2004). So in the words of Windsor about Gibson’s affordances,“rather than ask what the word ‘freedom’ means, we should ask what it affords to aparticular individual” (Windsor 2004, p. 183).

Similarly but in broader terms of human learning, not just centred in Science,constructuvism theory suggests that children construct their knowledge and advance intheir cognitive development through the active exploration of their physical and socialworld (National Research Council 2000; Piaget 1972), an idea expanded by Vygotsky(1962), who indicates that the development of complex mental functions in children occursfrom the learning that they do in interaction with others and with their cultural context. Soeven though Piaget has been misunderstood to consider the individual only, both Piaget andVygotsky ideas deal with the interdependence of the organisms and the environment(Rogoff 1990).

Some other authors have also considered that learning is situated in a social context. ForRogoff (1990), constructivism offers advances in understanding cognitive development butsome of its approaches “limit considerations of context to the structure or features of the

566 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587

task or to the domain of knowledge” (p. 6). This author suggests that actions and activitiesare goal oriented, and these goals have a particular social and cultural meaning. Thereforeproblems that humans have to handle, the knowledge they acquire and the way theyapproach and solve them, are more or less effective depending on the social context. BothRogoff and Gibson stress the mutuality of individual and context and the active role ofhumans in perceiving and understanding (Rogoff 1990). Moreover Rogoff proposes thatsome situations involve understanding but others also involve a shift in perspective, whichshe defines as “giving up an understanding of a phenomenon to take another viewcontrasting with the original perspective” (p. 142), therefore she considers that it isnecessary to identify that there are other perspectives that can also be adequate.

The increasing recognition of the interrelation between Science learning andsociocultural issues has led the suggestion that in order to understand Science in socialcontext students need to identify its relations to their everyday life and to the solution ofreal problems. In this way, concepts will be more meaningfully understood and reflexiveand analytical thinking will be promoted (e.g. Gil-Pérez 1996; Perrone 1998). Moreover,Science educators have been directed to “ground content in socially and personally relevantcontexts” for their students (Hodson 2003, p. 654). Accordingly, teachers are directed toinclude in their curricula cases about historical and current issues and active participation in“real world issues that have a scientific, technological or environmental dimension”(Hodson 2003, p. 654) through active and collaborative learning. In addition, Hodson(1996) suggest that even though students should be active learners, teachers shouldcarefully design, before including in their classes, such common practices as laboratorywork since giving children the space to be active explorers of the world will develop skillsof inquiry but not always develop a comprehension of science and its interdependence withthe world. He considers that any activity, including those that involve hands-on activities,should be done in association with theoretical understanding and the recognition of thedependence of scientific knowledge on social and cultural concerns.

Other specific constructivist ideas about educational practice, based on Vygotsky’stheory, emphasize learning conducted with more skilled partners and suggest that learningpartners of children should guide their participation by creating collaborative environments(Rogoff 1990). This idea has been further advanced by social constructivists based on theidea that knowledge is constructed by communities that discuss and agree upon newknowledge (Duit and Confrey 1996). Their proposal is that classes should promote thedebate, exchange, and negotiation of ideas; the work of groups should involve sharedunderstanding, problem solving and the consideration of different answers and solutions tothe same questions and problems, so that students can change their perspective and acceptalternative views (Duit and Confrey 1996; Rogoff 1990).

The present study explores the impact that a constructivist pedagogical environment inScience classes can have in the construction of scientific concepts and the understanding ofhow human action impacts human communities, non-human species and the physicalenvironment. I will call this kind of understanding “environmental interconnectedness”,based on Hodson’s (2003) definition of the appreciation of interconnectedness as“recognizing that all human actions have consequences that will affect a complex globalsystem that includes also human and non-humans species” (p. 663).

Related Research

There is a broad line of research on constructivist pedagogical practice in Science. Some ofthis research focuses on the construction of scientific concepts (Margel et al. 2001; Van Zee

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587 567

and Minstrell 1997) and reports mainly that in order to achieve this purpose Science classeshave to be student-centred and involve their active learning, by using their previousexperiences and group discussions. In this kind of environment teachers should act asguides of the students’ processes rather than as possessors of knowledge.

Margel et al. (2001), for example, conducted longitudinal research with 1,302 highschool students in Israel, to compare the comprehension of the structure of matter between atraditional class and a class based on a constructivist curriculum. The class was centred onstudents’ discussions and projects like laboratory experiments, which encouraged studentsto construct their knowledge with others, to understand scientific concepts and models, andto develop inquiry skills. Questionnaires were given to students in five moments during3 years, in which they had to describe with words and drawings the structure of differentmaterials. Results showed that the students from the class based on constructivist principlesgave more complete answers than students from the traditional class.

Similarly Van Zee and Minstrell (1997) analysed the learning process that occurred inhigh school students in a Physics class when the discussions were student-centred and theteacher acted as a guide that generated more discussions through questioning. Theseresearchers collected data from oral discussions, observations, and interviews and foundthat when discussions were student-centred, the youngsters clarified processes, constructednew concepts and applied the Physics concepts to their daily life. In this type ofconstructivist learning environment, Ritchie (1998) also found evidence of the importanceof the teacher’s role in transforming students’ understanding of scientific concepts. Hecollected data from a group of sixth year students in Australia by recording groupdiscussions in class during 4 weeks and interviewing students. He observed that the teacherencouraged students in different ways to actively interact amongst themselves, thuspromoting an environment in which they transformed their ideas about electrical circuits.

Other authors have suggested that Science has to be learned in social context, so thatstudents identify its relations to their everyday life and to the solution of real problems (e.g.Gil-Pérez 1996; Perrone 1998). This has been supported by research that has shown that theinterest of students toward Science is higher when teachers allow them to interact withnature outside the classroom and show connections between Science lessons and everydaylife (Aldridge et al. 2000). After a large scale study to investigate the quality of the scienceeducation in Australian schools using national and international reports, research literatureand data from a total of 505 school teachers, 4,023 students from primary and secondaryschools, and other stakeholders in science education, Rennie et al. (2001) also suggest thatthe ideal science education should promote the students’ deep understanding of their worldand impact their everyday life. They found that many science classes, mainly in secondaryschools, were teacher-centred and covered too much content, resulting in lack of interest,excitement, and curiosity among students and their perception that science learning isirrelevant for their lives. These authors propose that classes should be student-centred andmore inquiry based, in order to enable young people to make informed decisions about theenvironment and their own well being. This they call developing “scientific literacy”.

Another field of study within Science education has been that of moral development. Someauthors have observed that when Science lessons are learned without reference to social contextthey do not generate moral dilemmas (Clarkeburn et al. 2002; Settelmaier 2003; Tirri andPehkonen 2002; Walker et al. 2000). These authors report that in order to promote moraldevelopment in students, Science classes should include discussions related to ethical aspectsof Science relevant to the students. They have suggested moral topics based on dilemmas,which they call “socio-scientific”. Sadler and Zeidler (2003), for example, did qualitativeresearch with 20 women and 20 men from a public University in the United States. They

568 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587

interviewed them to find out whether they identified ethical dilemmas in two readings aboutGenetic Engineering and how they had been solved. Results showed that Science topicswithin a social context generate moral dilemmas.

Tirri and Pehkonen (2002) support what Sadler and Zeidler (2003) suggest. Theyobserved that students with the highest scientific skills were not always the ones with thehighest moral reasoning skills. For this research Tirri and Pehkonen used the DIT1 test toidentify the level of moral development in 31 high school students with high Scienceachievement and analysed the level of scientific reasoning with the Raven test.2 Theycompared and complemented these data with interviews and written essays from studentsand concluded that discussions about ethical aspects of Science should be promoted inScience classes if moral development is to be promoted.

As Tirri and Pehkonen (2002), Walker et al. (2000) observed that moral dilemmas presentin Science do not only relate with the scientific knowledge of students but also with their socialand cultural backgrounds. They collected data from interviews, observations and questionnairesabout ethical dilemmas in Science given to high school and first semester university studentsand found that students gave different interpretations and solutions to ethical dilemmas inScience according to their different beliefs, experiences and social contexts.

None of these investigations have produced clear evidence supporting pedagogicalpractices that not only improve the learning of scientific concepts but also enhance theunderstanding of the connections of Science to real life. Specifically little is known aboutpractices, which help students effectively understand the importance of taking care of theenvironment because of its relationship to all living organisms. My research evaluates theimpact of a student-centred fourth grade Science class on both aspects of children’slearning: the understanding of scientific concepts and environmental interconnectedness. Itcompares two groups of fourth grade girls in classes based on group discussions of Sciencetopics, one of them including discussions about socio-scientific issues.

Method

Sample and the Learning Environment Design

I designed a learning environment for a Science class for fourth graders (9 to 10 years old)from a private bilingual school serving a population of medium–high socio-economic levelin Bogotá, Colombia. Before the beginning of the school year I randomly selected twofourth grade groups of girls from a total of six I was going to teach, to conduct research ontheir learning. I randomly assigned the labels treatment group and comparison group toeach of my two target groups, in order to teach each in a partially different learningenvironment. The design was basically the same, except for five sessions out of 40 at theend of each of the four 2-month units. There were 25 girls in the treatment group and 23 inthe comparison group.

Following school regulations, Science classes were given in English, the secondlanguage for the native Colombian children. In both classes students worked in permanentgroups of five students with varied levels of skills and interests. Based on Vygotsky’s

1 Test for moral reasoning that measures the importance given to moral considerations to take a decision(Rest 1986).2 Test used to measure the general intellectual ability, problem resolution and reasoning skills, when facingnew information (Raven et al. 1983).

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587 569

(1978) ideas that there should be interaction with more capable partners, I organized thegroups in the third week of school, based on the girls’ social and second language abilitiesand their interest in Science. Both classes participated in 1-h Science sessions five times aweek, during one whole school year.

I acted as a guide in a process of learning where students actively observed theirenvironment, looked for information to answer their own questions and participated indiscussions about Science-related subjects, making constant connections between new ideasand their own personal experience. This was based on the ideas of Piaget (1972) about theconstruction of knowledge through the active exploration of the world and Hodson’s (2003)ideas about learning in individually relevant contexts and with active participation on thepart of the learner.

During the year we studied four 2-month content units: “Mixtures and their importancein the environment and our bodies”, “characteristics of the Solar System”, “the needs ofliving organisms” and “food chains and balance in the ecosystems”. At the beginning ofeach unit, I always started with discussions between the students about their previousexperiences or conceptions about the science concepts we were going to talk about. Afterthat, activities were done in order to connect Science concepts with their lives. For example,for the unit on basic needs they listed the activities they had done since waking up. Thenthey had to identify what they thought would happen if these activities were not done. Fromthat they had to give arguments about which are the basic needs of people and contrast andcompare their opinions with the rest of the class. Finally they had to compare the basicneeds of humans with those of non human-species.

Also students had the chance, during each unit, to design and conduct one experiment totest their beliefs and hypotheses. These experiments were not based on books or designedby me; they were designed by the students in order to test or clarify something they wereunderstanding. For example in the unit about food chains one group of students decided tobring and live underground for several days a piece of meat to observe how decomposersact and what they mean. After they did each experiment, they shared and contrasted theirfindings with all the class and analysed if the results helped them better understand thescientific concepts they were constructing.

After approximately 4 weeks of working in this way in a unit, the students had to readtheir text books and other sources of information, like internet and other Science books, tocompare their constructions and conclusions. In all the classes I gave the students theopportunity to present their experiences, opinions, arguments and conclusions, theirexisting conceptions and changes in their conceptions, to the whole class. This was doneorally and in different written forms (like for example posters and lab reports) with thepurpose of contrasting their ideas with the ones from other groups, so that the studentscould improve their comprehension of Science concepts and processes by recognizing otherways to consider the same topics and problems (Rogoff 1990; Windsor 2004).

Finally during the last five classes of a unit, the treatment group had the opportunity toorganize, plan, and participate in a role-play discussion of a real socio-scientific dilemmathat I presented in a text. These readings presented a conflict between two interest groups ortwo possible solutions presented to a situation, without presenting the alternatives as goodor bad or presenting all the possible consequences of or solutions to the conflict. As theteacher and researcher I never revealed to the students my own positions on the dilemmas.

The four dilemmas discussed in the treatment group were the following:

1. The impact of a new transportation system created in Bogotá on the lives of former busdrivers and on air pollution in the city;

570 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587

2. The possibility of populating new planets found by NASA in its project on findinghabitable places in space as a solution for the environmental problems on our planet;

3. The control of illegal national and international commercialization of Colombian exoticanimals and its impact on the life of peasants who sell them and on the survival of thespecies and their habitats;

4. The impact of the introduction of the rabbits to Australia and of the solutions applied tothe problem of rabbit overpopulation, on the animal itself, on the Australianenvironment and economy and on other Australian species.

The students read the corresponding articles in groups and then had to answer somequestions that helped them comprehend the situation and that of the parties in conflict. Theneach of the group members had to represent one of these parties and one student had to bethe moderator of the discussion. The students had 4 hours to read the article, answer thequestions, search in the internet, books and magazines, and discuss the situation with otherScience teachers to comprehend it better, develop good arguments, and propose differentsolutions for the conflict during the role-play. In the last class they staged the role-play, atthe end of which they had to come to an agreement on one solution to the problem, takinginto account the arguments of each group in conflict. The purpose here was to take intoaccount Gibson’s concept of affordances (Windsor 2004) and Rogoff’s ideas (1990) abouthow interpretations of the same problem differ and are more or less effective depending onthe context surrounding it, therefore recognizing that different actions and decisions mighthave different consequences at different levels.

The comparison group, during these five classes, just continued reading and discussingScience topics in groups, designing and conducting another experiment or doing research totest their beliefs and hypothesis. In Fig. 1 I present a summary of the activities done inclass, highlighting the differences between the comparison and treatment groups:

Data Collection and Analysis

In order to explore the impact of the intervention on the learning of my students, I assessedqualitatively and measured quantitatively two types of learning achievements: advances inthe construction of scientific concepts and advances in the understanding of how humanactions can have consequences in humans, other species and the environment (“environ-mental interconnectedness”); I also compared these achievements in the treatment andcomparison groups. Data collection for the study took place during the second semester ofthe intervention, during the last two content units on “the needs of living organisms” (unit a)and “food chains” (unit b). The first two content units (first 6 months of the school year) wereused as a piloting stage were all the data collection instruments were designed and tested withsome students in other fourth grade groups for comprehensibility and analysed, discussed andrevised with an evaluation team of three people: another Science teacher of fourth grade, thehead of the Science Department of the school, and a researcher in education from a privateColombian university.

For exploring the impact of my class on both the students’ construction of scientificconcepts and the understanding of environmental interconnectedness, I designed an open-question test for each content unit (test a for unit a and test b for unit b) and gave it to bothgroups at the beginning of the school year and at the end of each 2-month period of study(see the Appendix A for an example of this test). Three questions in each test related toconcept definitions (i.e., What is an ecosystem?) and were used to get data on theunderstanding of scientific concepts. Other three questions related to the understanding of

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587 571

possible consequences in specific situations (i.e. What would happen if a new species isintroduced to a Colombian habitat?) and were used to get data on the understanding ofenvironmental interconnectedness. The questions were exactly the same in the initial andfinal tests of a unit, so that I could compare the answers given by students.

For analysing the definitions of scientific concepts the students gave, I designed andtested, during the pilot phase, an assessment rubric for each scientific concept learned. Itidentified different levels of quality in the definition of a concept and made themcorrespond to numeric scores in a continuous scale from 1 to 5. In its final version, therubric included four levels of quality: excellent (4.1 to 5.0), meaning that the definitionsstudents constructed were correct, complete and expressed in scientific terms; acceptable(3.1 to 4.0), meaning that the definitions constructed were simple and not very rigorous interms; insufficient (2.6 to 3.0), indicating incomplete definitions that lacked scientificlanguage; and deficient (1.5 to 2.5), indicating wrong definitions.

For the questions on environmental interconnectedness, I evaluated the answers thestudents gave classifying them in five qualitative categories, after discussing them with theevaluation team:

Level 5 (4.6 to 5.0) Students gave answers in which they connected scientific concepts withtheir life and with the life of other living organisms, humans and non humans, byidentifying what might affect them; they supported their answers with strong arguments andreal examples of what might affect humans and other species.

The learning environment designed for the treatmentgroup

The learning environment designed for thecomparison group

In groups, students discuss what they know about thetopic and concepts that will be learned in the unit.

Same as in the treatment group

Each group presents, compares, and contrasts theirconceptions with other groups.


In groups, students do an activity in which they have toconnect Science concepts with their lives.


Each group designs and conducts an experiment inorder to test their beliefs and conclusions.


The groups share and discuss their observations andfindings from the experiment and how it helps themunderstand concepts and processes better.


Each group does bibliographic research on the topic togain a better understanding of it.


Groups share their research and discuss what they haveunderstood of the Science concepts until now.


In groups students read Science books and other sourcesand compare their definitions and understandings ofScience concepts, to decide on final ones.


Each group reads an article on a socio-scientificdilemma and does research on it in different sources, toprepare for role-play.

Each group designs and conducts an experiment ordoes research on something they have learned tounderstand it better or on questions they still have.

Each group stages a role-play about the dilemma anddecide on a possible solution to the problem, whichthey share with all the class.

Each group presents the experiments or research tothe rest of the class.

Fig. 1 Summary of activities highlighting differences between groups

572 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587

Level 4 (4.1 to 4.5) Students gave answers in which they connected scientific concepts withtheir life or with the life of other living organisms by identifying what might affect them;they supported their answers with strong arguments or real examples of how this might alsoaffect other humans or species.

Level 3 (3.1 to 4.0) Students gave answers in which they connected scientific concepts withtheir life or with the life of other living organisms by identifying what might affect them,but they did not give an opinion or real examples of how this can affect other livingorganisms.

Level 2 (2.1 to 3.0) Students used Science concepts but did not connect them with their lifeor the life of others; they did not identify what might affect living organisms.

Level 1 (1.0 to 2.0) Students did not use scientific concepts nor gave arguments about whatwould happen if we do not take care of the environment and living organisms.

In the treatment group I triangulated the qualitative analysis of the test questions onenvironmental interconnectedness with the qualitative analysis of the recordings of fivegroups of girls in the last two role-play sessions. I recorded and completely transcribedthese 10 discussions, each lasting an average of 40 min, and analysed them looking for thesame qualitative categories.

Finally, I also designed an empathy test in order to complement findings from the qualitativeanalysis with some quantitative data. This test was discussed with two more researchers ineducation before it was given to both the treatment and the comparison groups at the beginningand at the end of the second semester of the school year. The test uses a 1 to 4 scale from “never”to “all the time” to ask for answers to 33 items about emotions related to the suffering of animalsand human beings, like “I worry about the suffering of the animals that are killed for humanconsumption”; or “I worry about the animals that live in trees that are going to be cut down”(see more examples from the items of this test in the Appendix B). The Cronbach alphareliability coefficient for the test during piloting was 0.8.

I applied statistical analysis3 to all quantitative data from tests to identify statisticallysignificant differences between the means of initial and final tests in each group and betweenthe means of tests from the comparison and treatment groups. The normality of thedistribution of the different sets of data was verified with the Shapiro Wilk test (Shapiro andWilk 1965). In the case of data with normal distributions, Student’s t-tests for dependentsamples were applied between pre and post tests and Student’s t-tests for independent samplesbetween the tests of the comparison and treatment groups. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests wereapplied for dependent samples and Wilcoxon rank-sum test for independent samples, for thesame purposes, in the case of not normal distributions. In the results that follow I complementquantitative analysis with qualitative analysis, from which some examples are presented.

Results

Construction of Concepts: General Improvement

The statistical analysis of the questions from the open-question test that related to theconstruction of scientific concepts shows that both the comparison and the treatment groups

3 Statistix for Windows, version 7.0; Analytical Software, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587 573

improved significantly, on average, in their definitions (see Table 1). Both groups producedbetter scientific definitions, independently of having had the opportunity to discuss socio-scientific dilemmas. Standard deviation increased, which indicates that as children learnedScience, in both groups individual differences also increased.

The qualitative analysis illustrates this improvement, which actually occurs in thedefinitions provided by all the girls in both classes. Students with some of the lowest scoresin test a in the comparison and treatment groups, for example, define an ecosystem inimprecise and mistaken terms, before the unit begins: “A ecosystem can be a process like awater cycle”4 (st. #14); and “a ecosystem is the relationship between the man and thenatural” (st. #4). After the unit the same girls define an ecosystem precisely and richly: “Anecosystem is a place where living things live. This places are not equal because of theirspecial characteristics, and animals can find their needs [there]” (st. #14); and “Anecosystem is where the living organism can find shelter, food, temperatures, water, climatewith oxygen and the interaction with other organisms they need” (st. #4).

Examples from students with the highest scores in both groups also give evidence ofthis general improvement. One of the students from the comparison group that got thehighest scores in the final test b defines decomposers in the initial test saying simply thatthey “are things that decompose” (st. #2). In the final test she gives a lot of accuratedetails: “Decomposers are the ones that eat fecal matter and death organisms. If thedecomposers disappear, it would be land pollution, it would be many fecal matter inthe land, less oxygen because the decomposers decompose and give the nutrients to theplants for growing healthy, but because the decomposers desappear, the plants won’thave the nutrients they need to grow healthy to make oxygen”. For the same questionone of the students with highest scores in the treatment group is equally plain at thebeginning: “Decomposers are the ones that decompose things” (st. #5). Then in final testb she expands her definition, relating decomposers to other living things: “Thedecomposers are the ones that take the energy from the wastes and death things. Notonly the decomposers help us the animals; the decomposers help the plants too, they forexample decompose the leaves of the trees and the fruits, and then they give nutrients tothe soil. If the decomposers disapir the plants are not going to grow so good and its lifewill be shorter, and that will affect us because the trees are the ones that gives us oxygenand we (animals) are the ones that give them CO2”.

4 All examples cited in the text are exactly as they were given by students; mistakes were not corrected.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon tests or t-tests comparing initial and final means of tests on theconstruction of concepts in each group (n=25 in treatment group and n=23 in comparison group)

Group Means test aa t or W SD test aa Means test ba t or W SD test ba

C 1.86–2.64 W=4.27**** 0.14–0.6 1.63–3.31 W=4.45**** 0.00–0.58E 1.90–3.08 t=9.12**** 0.22–0.67 1.62–3.75 W=4.27**** 0.00–0.58

W: refers to the results of this test, C: refers to the comparison group, E: refers to the treatment group*p<.10**p<.05***p<.01****p<.005a Initial test vs final test

574 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587

Construction of Concepts: Better Concepts in the Treatment Group

Even though all the students in both groups improved in the construction of scientificconcepts, the students from the treatment group improved more. Table 2 shows that whilethe means of initial tests a and b do not show a statistically significant difference betweenthe treatment and the comparison groups, the means of both final tests (p<0.05 for test-aand p<0.01 for test-b) are significantly different, with the advantage for the treatment group(2.64 vs 3.08 for test-a and 3.31 vs 3.75 for test-b).

The qualitative analysis shows that even in the case of the students with the lowestscores in their tests, the ones from the treatment group gave better definitions for scientificconcepts at the end of each content unit. For example for a question in test a about allecosystems being the same or not, students with the lowest scores in both classes answeredtheir initial test comparatively as poorly:

Comparison group (st. #15) Treatment group (st. #4)“I think not all the ecosystems are the same because someones have many but many nature and others just havenature.”

“No, because some groups of this living thingsare larger, smaller or with different shapes.”

Comparison group (st. #14) Treatment group (st. #6)“No, I think there are a lot, I think maybe the ecosystemsare the five kingdoms.”

“No, some are plants, some land.”

At the end, even though all the students improved and gave correct definitions, studentsfrom the treatment group gave more complete answers to the same questions, whichshowed a better understanding of what an ecosystem is.

Comparison group (st. #15) Treatment group (st. #4)“No each ecosystem is according what need tosurvive the living things.”

“No, because each one have different characteristicslike temperature and some of them don’t have treesand are some animals that need trees or don’t havemany water and also some animals need a lot ofwater, so also the animals are different that’s why allthe ecosystems are not the same.”

Comparison group (st. #14) Treatment group (st. #6)“No. They are not the same because each one hasspecific characteristics for each kind of animal. If wetake one animal to other ecosystem [sic] it wouldn’tbe the same because it wouldn’t have the samecharacteristics.”

“No, all the ecosystems are not the same because ofthat many different animals live there. They have allwater, food, shelter but this things are not in the sameplaces as in others. Every animal that lives there isadapt to it characteristics and resources. No in all theecosystems the climate, the oxygen, the temperatureis the same, and the places where they can find water,food and shelter.”

All students at the end agreed that ecosystems are different because of the differentneeds of living organisms, but students from the treatment group also identified these needs(living or not with trees around, need a lot amount of water or specific species) andrecognized that even though there are similarities among ecosystems, each species isadapted to a different place.

Students that got results in their tests close to the mean of the group are also goodexamples to illustrate the higher level of improvement of the treatment group in the

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587 575

construction of scientific concepts. For the question in which they had to define a foodchain these students gave similarly poor information in their initial test-b:

Comparison group, Ss # 10 Treatment group, Ss # 22“Really I don’t know” “I don’t understand”Comparison group, Ss #19 Treatment group, Ss # 23“A food chain is something we can eat because it contains vitamins, mineralsand give us things to be strong.”

“Food chain is a specimenof food.”

In their final test-b the same students improved a lot:

Comparison group, Ss # 10 Treatment group, Ss # 22“A food chain shows how theyget energy.”

“A food chain is the passing of energy from one organism to otherbeginning from the sunlight”

Comparison group, Ss # 19 Treatment group, Ss # 23“It is a sequence for livingthing get energy.”

“A food chain is a process when the organisms take the energy from otherorganisms or the sun. There exist 3 levels that are the parts of the foodchain.”

In initial test-b neither of these students knew what a food chain was. In the final test, allthese students recognized that food chains are related to obtaining energy; but only thestudents in the treatment group recognized, in addition, that this energy passes from oneorganism to the other and that it can come from the sun.

Understanding of Environmental Interconnectedness: General Improvement, Advantagefor the Treatment Group

The quantitative analysis of the results obtained from the tests about connections betweenscientific concepts and their applications to real life situations (see Table 3) show that boththe comparison and treatment groups significantly improved their answers, on average, inboth tests (p<0.005), a and b.

Table 4 shows that there was not a statistically significant difference between thetreatment and comparison groups in the means of the initial tests, students did not use thescientific concepts correctly nor did they connect them with life, while there was a significantdifference between the means of both groups in the final tests, with an advantage of thetreatment group (2.90 vs 3.39 for test-a and 2.80 vs 4.10 for test-b; p<0.01 for test-a and p<0.005 for test-b).

Table 2 Mean comparison between groups for initial and final tests a and b

Initial test a Initial test b Final test a Final test b

Means: C vs E 1.86 vs 1.90 1.63 vs 1.62 2.64 vs 3.08 3.31 vs 3.75Wilcoxon test 0.43 0.28 2.30** 2.7***

C: refers to the comparison group, E: refers to the treatment group*p<.10**p<.05***p<.01****p<.005

576 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587

While the means of the final tests from the comparison group (2.90 and 2.80) show thatat the end of units a and b the majority of the students from this group got to use thescientific concepts correctly but without connecting them with their lives, the lives of othersand the environment, the higher means of the final tests from the treatment group (3.39 and4.10) show that at the end these students got to connect scientific concepts with real lifesituations. Besides this, the lower standard deviation of the initial tests from both groupswith respect to the final tests shows that the individual differences increased with a highercomplexity of what is learnt, in this case with better connections between Science and life.

The qualitative analysis of the answers to these tests supports and illustrates thequantitative analysis. In the initial tests all the answers from students of both groups weregrouped at Levels 1 and 2, none of them at Levels 5, 4 or 3. In the final tests answers fromstudents from the comparison and treatment groups were associated with Level 3, but onlysome answers from students from the treatment group were associated with Levels 5 and 4(see Table 5).

As Table 5 shows in initial test-a, 17 (65.4%) of the students from the comparison groupand 17 (70.8%) from the treatment group gave answers associated with Level 1, in whichthey do not use Science concepts nor give opinions related with what might happen if wedo not take care of the living organisms and the environment. In final test-a only 3 (11.5%)students from the comparison group and 1 (4.2%) from the treatment group gave this kindof answers. With test-b something similar happens: at the beginning 100% of the studentsfrom the comparison group and 23 (95.8%) from the treatment group gave answersassociated with Level 1, while at the end just 2 (7.7%) of the students from comparison

Table 4 t-test or Wilcoxon test for mean comparison between groups for initial and final tests aboutenvironmental interconnectedness

Initial test a Initial test b Final test a Final test b

Means: C vs E 2.04 vs 1.98 1.65 vs 1.66 2.90 vs 3.39 2.80 vs 4.10Wilcoxon test or t-test W=0.02 W=0.10 t=2.81*** W=5.08****

W: refers to the results of this test, C: refers to the comparison group, E: refers to the treatment group*p<.10**p<.05***p<.01****p<.005

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and t-tests comparing initial and final means of tests about Environmentalinterconnectedness in each group (n=25 in treatment group and n=23 in comparison group)

Group Means test aa t SD test aa Means test ba t SD test ba

C 2.04–2.90 7.28**** 0.41–0.55 1.65–2.80 12.21**** 0.10–0.48E 1.98–3.39 11.67**** 0.26–0.66 1.66–4.10 16.1**** 0.14–0.71

C: refers to the comparison group, E: refers to the treatment group*p<.10**p<.05***p<.01****p<.005a Initial test vs final test

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587 577

group give this kind of answer. The following are some examples to illustrate this kind ofanswers from Level 1:

Comparison group, Ss #11, final test-b: What wouldhappen if a new species is introduced to a Colombianhabitat?

Treatment group, Ss #9, final test-a: What can affectan ecosystem?

“I think it wouldn’t happen nothing.” “The things that can affect an ecosystem can be forthe animals the predator that eat them and destroythem.”

These students do not use scientific concepts related to the questions, like introducedspecies or ecosystem, and it is not even clear whether they know what these concepts mean.Student #11 does not identify what might happen to native species or ecosystems if aspecies is introduced, and st. #9 does not recognize that predators are a natural element ofan ecosystem; because of this, in normal conditions predators do not affect any populations.

At Level 2, using the scientific concepts but not relating them to real life, 9 (34.6%)students from the comparison group and 7 (29.2%) from the treatment group gave answersin their initial tests-a, and 12 (46.2%) students from the comparison group and 5 (20.8%)from the treatment showed this kind of answers in the final test. In a similar way, for initialtest-b neither of the students from the comparison group and just 1 (4.2%) from thetreatment group gave answers associated with this category. In final test-b, 10 (53.8%)students from the comparison group and 8 (8.3%) from the treatment group gave them.Answers given by st. #9 from the comparison group and #4 from the treatment groupillustrate this category:

Comparison group, Ss # 9, final test: What wouldhappen if a new species is introduced to a Colombianhabitat?

Treatment group, # 4, test final-a: What can affect anecosystem?

“For example if you introduce a koala to a Colombiahabitat wouldn’t resist many time so he would die.”

“People can throw garbage into an ecosystem that canpollute the air and the ecosystem would start to smellvery bad.”

These students use scientific concepts, like introduced species and ecosystem, correctlyto give their answers. Student #9 identifies a good example of a species that does not live inColombia. Student #4 recognizes that trash thrown by humans can pollute air from

Table 5 Frequency of students that presented answers classified in each category identified from ofenvironmental interconnectedness test (n=25 in treatment group and n=23 in comparison group)

Test Group Level 5(4.6–5.0)

Level 4(4.5–4.1)

Level 3(4.0–3.1)

Level 2(3.0–2.1)

Level 1(2.0–1.0)

Initial test a C 0 0 0 9 17E 0 0 0 7 17

Initial test b C 0 0 0 0 26E 0 0 0 1 23

Final test a C 0 0 11 12 3E 1 2 15 5 1

Final test b C 0 0 10 14 2E 6 8 8 2 0

C: refers to the comparison group, E: refers to the treatment group

578 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587

ecosystems. But neither of them recognizes what can affect living organisms: Why Koalaswill die in Colombia or how what they describe can affect other species including humans.

Only answers from the final tests can be classified at Level 3, identifying how humanactions can affect another species or the environment: 11 (42.3%) students from thecomparison group and 15 (62.5%) from the treatment group in final test-a, and 10 (38.5%)from the comparison group and 8 (33.3%) from the treatment group in final test-b. Thefollowing are examples of this category:

Comparison group, #26, test final-b: What wouldhappen if a new species is introduced to a Colombianhabitat?

Treatment group, #12, test final-a: What can affect anecosystem?

“I think, if for example the koala, if we introduce it to aColombia habitat it will absolutely die because forexample if the koala live in Cartagena it will none havethe same things to eat or to survive because the habitatchange in all things and the koala is not adapted to thehabitat of Cartagena but the habitat of Australia.”

“Drive boats: because it makes water pollution,affects because the water will be so dirty with boutsgasoline so animals on water wold get sick and die.”

These answers show connections between scientific concepts like introduced species andecosystems and at least one real problem related to them. Student #26 also uses Koalas asan example, but besides this she explains that these animals will die if they are introducedto Colombia because of the different characteristics of Colombian habitats from the onesthey are adapted to in Australia. Student #12 recognizes ecosystems and the fact thatanimals that live in the water can get sick or die because of the gasoline from boats, whichpollute water. Nevertheless, neither of these students make connections between theproblems that they refer to and their consequences in other living organisms, includinghumans; they do not identify what might happen to other living organisms because of anintroduced species or if some species that live in the water would die because of pollution.

In the higher categories, Level 4 (from 4.1 to 4.5) and Level 5 (from 4.6 to 5.0), greaterdifference between both groups can be seen. While answers in these categories from studentsfrom the comparison group were not found in either of the tests, in the treatment group 2students (8.3%) in final test-a and 8 (33.3%) in final test-b gave answers at Level 4; similarly,one student (4.2%) in final test-a and 6 in final-b (25%) gave answers associated with Level 5.Answers from st. #1 and #18 are examples of Level 4, which refers to connections betweenscientific concepts and the life of humans or other living organisms by identifying a morecomplex relation that just a cause an effect; recognizing that affecting one species or theenvironment may affect also humans or other species:

Treatment group, #1, test final-b: What would happenif a new species is introduced to a Colombian habitat?

Treatment group, #18, test final a: What can affect anecosystem?

“If someone introduce a species maybe it has avarious [virus] it could pass to us and that various[virus] can make bad things to humans. And otherposivility can be that the species don’t adapt to theplace or also don’t know where to find the things heneed so it dies.”

“One thing that is affecting the ecosystems, is thatpeople is cutting trees that are living things wheremany animals live, if they continue doing this thetrees are going to disapear and the animal’s havitat donot exist more and that animal would extint too. Alsothis animals can be food for other animals so otheranimals can die too.”

In these answers not only connections between the concepts of introduced species orecosystems and a living organism are present, but also connections with other living organisms,through the identification of how affecting one species can have consequences on humans or

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587 579

other species. Student #1 recognizes that if a new species is introduced, not only could it die butit could also bring other viruses that can affect humans. Student #18 recognizes that cutting treescan affect animals that live there and also other animals that need them.

Finally, answers at Level 5 in some of the students in the treatment group show that theyconnect scientific concepts with human life and the life of other living organisms,recognizing different consequences in humans, other organisms and the environment thathumans’ actions may have, as do st. #5 and #2:

Treatment group, #5, test final-b: What would happenif a new species is introduced to a Colombian habitat?

Treatment group, # 2, test final a: What can affect anecosystem?

“If you introduce a new organism to Colombia, it candie or be sick cause it is not adapted to the food,temperature, the shelters, predators etc. The nativeanimals of Colombia can start to be sick or disappearingcause non-native can eat them, can take a lot of space forits shelter or a lot of food, so food chains will beaffected. Also if the animal has an infection it can pass itto colombian animals, and they will pass it to us, so allthe “ciudadanos” and animals will be affected and weare going to have less of our species.”

“Cut trees: because one tree can be the shelter, foodand the water of many animals so some animals thatlive in there need them like the Sloth bear becausetheir muscles aren’t for walk. If we cut many treesthey can extint because they are a living thing so ifthe trees disapear the predators can eat the sloth bearsfor example. Also the trees need CO2 to dophotosynthesis and changed into oxygen for us, so iftrees die we will die too.”

Both students connect scientific concepts with living organisms. Student #5 recognizesthat a new introduced species could not adapt to food, temperature, shelters and predators in anew environment, so it could die. Student #2 identifies that trees are living organisms, whichare part of an ecosystem and that if we cut them they will die and can become extinct. Alsoboth students recognize what can happen to humans and other living organisms if thesespecies are affected. Student #5 recognizes that native species can disappear and food chainsbe affected because of the introduced species; also that humans and other Colombian speciescan be affected with infections that introduced species could bring. Student #2 recognizes thathumans will die if trees disappear because they give us the oxygen. She also understands thatother animals that need trees to survive, like the sloth bear, will be affected.

The qualitative analysis of the discussions role-played in the treatment group produceevidence that gives an idea of how and why the better construction of concepts and theunderstanding of how human actions can affect humans, non human species and theenvironment. For example, during the role-play about the illegal sale of sloth bears that wascarried out at the end of unit-a, students from the five groups can be heard connectingscientific concepts with living organisms, including humans. They can also be heard puttingthemselves in the place of animals and humans and identifying what might affect them andhow. The following parts of the discussions conduced in groups three and four, wherestudents took the role of the protectors of sloth bears or peasants that sell sloth bears tosurvive illustrate this:

GROUP 3:Student 4: Does you see that the sloth bears need a habitat?Student 14: Yes because they need a habitat because they have to survive, to have a

place where they can live, and we have to protect that habitat because in that placethey have their basic needs.

Student 2: And if we don’t protect [it] the basic needs can disappear so they can extinct...Student 14: One of the basic needs are the food; if you put a sloth bear in a desert it

can’t survive, why? They eat things like leaves and in the desert do you have leaves?

580 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587

Student 2: There are only cactus and the cactus don’t have [normal] leaves.Student 4: What will you do if the Cecropian trees, the Cecropian trees are that

there live the sloth bears, what would you do if that trees disappear? They extinct.Student 21: Why?Student 14: Because they live there, if they don’t have where to live...Student 2: The sloths will get extinct because in that trees they are hanging

and they can’t walk because their muscles are not made for that, [so] the predatorscan eat them. So if that tree get disappear the sloths will die.

GROUP 4:Student 22: Protectors of sloths, what you think of this?Student 5: That yes, for they is very hard to get a job but you can do another thing, I

don’t know, to sell things that are not of animals because to kill animals is very bad andyou can find another way to go the university to study or something like that.

Student 22: Protectors of sloths, why is it bad that peasants take the sloths likepets?

Student 13: Because the sloths are exotic animals so if they use it as pets theywill die

Student 5: Yes, and look, if they take them out of their habitat the people who buythem won’t have it long time because the sloths can’t survive without his mom, so...

Student 22: Peasants?Student 3: So what you are saying is that you care more about sloths that are

endangered that we, peasants die. Because we don’t have money to eat, we don’thave money to our houses and no water.

Student 24: But is that the sloths are also living organisms. I know that for you isvery hard because you need money and we can not let you die, but also that the slothsdie because it is unfair that the sloths die because you want. And it is also unfair thatyou die because the sloths.

In these discussions students continually connected the concepts of ecosystem and basicneeds with different living organisms: Sloth bears, predators, humans and plants. Theydiscussed the basic needs of living organisms and how humans can affect sloth bears, andthe fact that some humans depend on them to survive. Also they put themselves in the placeof humans that depend on the sale of this animal and in the place of the sloth bearsthemselves; they recognized that sloth bears are living organisms and that we should respectthem, and gave real examples of what might happen to this animal if we do not protect itsecosystem or to the ecosystem if we remove this bear from it.

Again during the role-play about the overpopulation of rabbits introduced to Australiathat took place at the end of unit-b, the five groups can be heard connecting scientificconcepts with living organisms and not only putting themselves in the place of the speciesdirectly involved in the dilemma, but also in the position of other species. They identifiedwhat could happen to humans and other living organisms if a particular species is affected.The following extract of the discussion that took place in group five illustrates this:

Student 1: I think that the National Scientific agency and the Victorian Landcare groupare been unfair with the animals. First because they feel; they are also mammals, so theyare like humans. Is like if we kill, begin to kill, with 1080 people here. It has no sense andthey also [feel] pain. Also these things can have consequences, to kill the rabbits.

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587 581

Student 18: Our problem is that the rabbits reproduce so fast and they arebecoming a pest and if they still reproduce they [will] take the food of otheranimals and ours, so that is a problem.

Student 1: First I think we must not kill them. Maybe to find another place toput them, but not to kill them; they are living organisms that feel pain. So I thinkthat the problem is that they affect our food chain, do you understand me? I wantto know what you think about this. What do you think would be another solutionwithout killing the rabbits that could help us?

Student 18: Other thing is that if we take them out we will not affect anythingin Australia because the rabbits are introduce of Australia, they are not fromAustralia. If we take out them it would be much better because they will not takethe food from other animals and from us.

Student 1: But I...I think you have the reason, they are an introduced species.But why to kill them? Why do you have to kill them? It is not fair. You can make[pause] there is other solutions and you are killing them in a horrible way. Is likeif we give you to drink 1080. I agree with you but we must not kill them. Wemust make something but not kill them.

Student 18: I don’t think a solution is to kill them. We need a solution that canhelp you and can help us... For us a good solution is to take the rabbits, to take themto a place where they can find their needs and they can live without affecting theothers.

Student 15: Yes I [pause] but we are not going to llevar them to a place wherethere are many rabbits. We are going to llevar them to a place where there are fewrabbits so there is not going to happen what is happening in Australia.

Student 20: But how you are thinking that you are going to take so a bigpopulation of rabbits to another place?...

Student 15: Ok we have another solutionStudent 1: Our solution is that we take out the organs that the rabbits have to

reproduce so that they won’t reproduce because that organs don’t let that theyreproduce so they won’t be as many rabbits as they are now.

Student 20: but they are also [pause] yes we can do that but that is also cruel...Student 1: No! it would be like the same way as we do with humans, that

humans operate to cut some parts inside them so they can’t have more kids so itwould be a solution. Or, also I had think if we can put in one place of the countrythe females and in another the males. Because with that they wouldn’t feel painand they wouldn’t have the opportunity to reproduce.

Student 20: We were thinking about this and we think that your last idea is verygood.

At the beginning of the discussion one student put herself in the place of the rabbits bysaying that these animals also feel pain. Besides this she also associated rabbits with humans bysaying that rabbits are also mammals with a nervous system, therefore comparing poisoningrabbits to poisoning humans. Other students make other interesting connections with theconcept of introduced species and pests, in this case the rabbits, with other living organisms andthe physical environment. In this respect they recognize that rabbits needed a place where theycould find their basic needs, but because they were introduced and reproduced so fast they wereaffecting Australian food chains of other animals and humans. This means that they were alsoputting themselves in the place of other animals, besides rabbits.

582 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587

Development of Empathy: Better Attitudes in Students of the Treatment Group

The quantitative analysis of the empathy tests shows results consistent with the otheranalyses. The final empathy test shows a significant improvement in the means of bothgroups (p<0.005). This also suggests that, at the end of the course, students from bothgroups showed more empathic attitudes toward living organisms (see Table 6).

Even though at the beginning there were no significant differences between the means ofempathy tests in both groups, at the end the difference was significant (p<0.10) with anadvantage for the treatment group. This shows that at the end the students of the treatmentgroup showed significantly more empathy attitudes toward living organisms than studentsin the comparison group (Table 7).

Discussion

This study explored the impact of a Science class consistent with constructivist principleson the learning of fourth grade girls. All the students worked for a whole year in structuredgroups, participating in open discussions about Science subjects, and one group also hadthe opportunity to adopt roles in discussions about socio-scientific dilemmas. Impact wasanalysed in the construction of scientific concepts and in what I called EnvironmentalInterconnectedness. The evidence from data analysis, both quantitative and qualitative,supports that a learning environment that promotes group discussions and the connection ofscientific concepts with the day to day life of the children has a positive impact in theunderstanding of scientific concepts. This impact seems to be further enhanced in anenvironment where students have the opportunity to discuss cases where the application ofScience implies making decisions that affect people and other living organisms and their

Table 6 Descriptive statistics and t-tests comparing initial and final means of empathy tests in each group (n=25 in treatment group and n=23 in comparison group)

Groups Means initial SD Means final SD ta

C 2.83 0.26 2.88 0.28 5.09****E 2.86 0.23 3.10 0.32 5.7****

C: refers to the comparison group, E: refers to the treatment group*p<.10**p<.05***p<.01****p<.005a Initial test vs final test

Table 7 Mean comparison between groups for initial and final empathy tests

Means for initial test Means for final test

Comparison vs treatment groups 2.83 vs 2.86 2.88 vs 3.10t-test 0.27 0.51**

*p<.10**p<.05***p<.01****p<.005

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587 583

environment. These results support findings from other studies that suggest thatcollaborative, active learning improves the understanding of scientific concepts (Margelet al. 2001; Ritchie 1998; Van Zee and Minstrell 1997). It is also a pioneer study in theexploration of the impact of Science teaching in the development of social and moral skillsand the comprehension of the complex connections that exist between Science, humans,non human species and the environment.

Results presented suggest, more specifically, that students construct more rigorous andstructured scientific concepts when the constructivist learning environment promotesdiscussions of real problems involving the use of Science and the understanding of theconsequences that might result from the decisions that people make. This finding is consistentwith the ideas of different authors who have agreed on the importance of presenting scientifictopics in association with real social problems in order for students to understand the impact ofScience in their own life and of the relationships between Science, human beings, other livingorganisms and the environment (Clarkeburn et al. 2002; Hodson 2003; Noddings 1992;Settelmaier 2003; Tirri and Pehkonen 2002; Walker et al. 2000).

Findings from the quantitative and qualitative analyses show that most of the students inthe group involved in socio-scientific topics got to connect scientific concepts with theirpersonal lives and other living organisms, when they put themselves in someone else’s orsome other organism’s place. As this was not observed in the comparison group, it ispossible to consider these results new evidence to support that promoting socio-scientificgroup discussions contributes to the understanding of how human actions can affect otherhumans, animals and the environment. When connecting scientific knowledge with one’ssurroundings and things that affect others, a better understanding of needs, situations andinteractions between these elements may occur, which appears to give learners anadvantage in the understanding of the situation of other living organisms.

A final empathy test also showed significantly more empathic attitudes toward theenvironment and living organisms in the treatment than in the comparison group. The results ofthis test, even though they are statistically significant, are very close (2.88 for the comparisongroup vs 3.1 for the treatment group), therefore alone these results can not suggest a significantdifference between comparison and treatment groups from an educational point of view. Buttogether with the results from other tests and the recordings of the role-plays support Noddings’(1992) suggestions that the identification of interactions and necessities of other livingorganisms may contribute to developing attitudes of commitment and care towards otherhuman beings, living organisms, and the environment. They are also consistent with whatEisenberg and Strayer (1992) and Feshbach (1978) maintain that empathy can promotesympathetic attitudes, or at least the planning of positive actions.

All this research, as well as mine, strongly supports the pedagogic need to explicitly includepolemic social and environmental topics in Science classes, not only for better constructionand understanding of scientific concepts, but also for the acquisition of a sense of social andenvironmental commitment towards actions that people more knowledgeable in Scienceshould show (Ministerio Nacional de Educación 2004). Science content alone does not makeevident to students that their actions can affect their lives, the lives of others and theenvironment. But Science teaching that focuses on these connections and the development ofthese empathic attitudes explicitly can produce this effect in children as young as those thatparticipated in this study (9 to 10 years of age). This seems to be clearly developed throughconstructivist pedagogic practices that promote collaborative work and present opportunitiesto freely analyse and discuss scientific topics. This analysis and discussion should be donewithin a framework of connections between personal and social experience and withopportunities for organized and creative thinking about socio-scientific dilemmas.

584 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587

Since the school where this intervention was carried out and the subsequent researchcompleted serves students of a high socio-economic level in Bogotá, it would be interesting toextend this study to more diverse groups of students. Evaluation of whether the present findingshold at different socio-economic and age levels and in male or mixed groups is important.

Another issue that should be further explored relates to the fact that students whoparticipated in my study were limited in their communication skills because they attendScience classes in a foreign language. This is shown in the many grammar and spellingmistakes and in the inefficient translations from Spanish to English in the examples used toillustrate the results. In the type of pedagogical practice I used, based on constructivistprinciples, students must naturally and permanently communicate orally with their peersand with their teacher, and express themselves openly in writing. It seems reasonable towonder if this communication limitation can also limit Science learning in this kind oflearning environment. Much further research seems valuable.

Appendix A

Science Test about the Construction of Scientific Concepts and the Understandingof Environmental Interconnectedness for Unit A

The purpose of the following exam is to identify how much you know about the topics youwill study during this term in science. Use all the time you need and try to answer all thequestions even if you are not sure of the answers.

1. What is a food chain?2. What is a producer?3. What is a decomposer?4. What would happen if the decomposers disappeared?5. What would happen if a new species were introduced to a Colombian habitat?6. Why do some species become pests?

Appendix B

Empathy Test (some examples from the 33 items used)

Table 8 Read every statement carefully and mark with an ‘X’ the option with the answer that is closest towhat you think, feel or do in each situation

All thetime

Almost allthe time

Almostnever

Never

1. I worry about the animals that are taken away from theirhabitats to be sold.2. I feel bad about the animals that live in and fromcontaminated rivers.3. I worry about the consequences that air pollution can havefor animals.

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587 585

References

Aldridge, J., Fraser, B., & Taylor, P. (2000). Constructivist learning environments in a cross-national study inTaiwan and Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 37–55.

Clarkeburn, H., Downie, R., & Matthew, B. (2002). Impact of an ethics program in a life sciencescurriculum. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(1), 65–79.

Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Duit, R., & Confrey, J. (1996). Reorganizing the curriculum and teaching to improve learning in science and

mathematics. In D. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in scienceand mathematics (pp. 79–93). New York: Teachers College Press.

Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. (1992). Cuestiones fundamentales en el estudio de la empatía (empathy). In N.Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), La empatía y su desarrollo (development) (pp. 13–24). (I. Aizpurua,Trans.) Bilbao, España: Descleé de Broker S. A. (Original work published in 1987).

Feshbach, N. D. (1978). Studies of empathic behaviour in children. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress inexperimental personality research (Vol. 8, pp. 1–47). New York: Academic.

Gil-Pérez, D. (1996). New trends in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 18(8),889–901.

Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115–135.

Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal ofScience Education, 25(6), 645–670.

Hoffman, M. L. (2002). Desarrollo moral y empatía (empathy). (F. Gonzáles, Trans.). Barcelona, España:Ideas Books. (Original work published in 2000).

Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and thetransfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational ComputingResearch, 12(4), 301–303.

Kohler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.Margel, H., Eylon, B., & Scherz, Z. (2001). A longitudinal study of junior high school students’ perceptions

of the particulate nature of matter. In N. Valanides (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st IOSTE Symposium inSouthern Europe. Nikosia, Cyprus: Imprinta (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED466372).

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.) (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s

College London.Ministerio Nacional de Educación. (2004). Estándares Básicos de Competencias en Ciencias Naturales

(Natural). Colombia: Publicaciones del MEN.

Table 8 (continued)

All thetime

Almost allthe time

Almostnever

Never

4. I worry about the suffering of animals that are abandoned inthe streets5. I believe that we should not use animals in the experimentswe do in Science class.6. I believe that bullfights should be prohibited.7. I feel bad when I see animals in cages.8. I feel bad when I think of a pet alone in an apartment orhouse.9. I worry about the consequences that air pollution can havein the animals.10. I worry about the animals that live in forests that are beingdestroyed.11. I feel bad when an animal is used in an experiment in myscience class.

Be honest in your answers; remember that this test will not be taken into account for the final grade of thiscourse.

586 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587

National Research Council. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York:

Teachers College Press.Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1998). Instrument design: A

framework for assessing scientific literacy. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Programme for InternationalStudent Assessment (PISA).

Perrone, V. (1998). Why do we need a pedagogy of understanding?. In M. Stone-Wiske (Ed.), Teaching forunderstanding: Linking research with practice (pp. 13–38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Piaget, J. (1972). Psicología de la inteligencia (intelligence) (J. C. Foix, Trans.). Maza; Buenos Aires:Editorial PSIQUE (Original work published in 1947).

Raven, J. C., Court, J., & Raven, J. (1983). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales.London: H. K. Lewis.

Rennie, L. J., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in Australian schools:Results of a national study. Research in Science Education, 31, 455–498.

Rest, J. R. (1986). DIT: Manual for the defining issues test. Center for the study of ethical development.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Ritchie, S. M. (1998). The teacher’s role in the transformation of students’ understanding. Research inScience Education, 28(2), 169–185.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Sadler, T., & Zeidler, D. (2003, March). Weighing in on genetic engineering and morality: Students revealtheir ideas, expectations, and reservations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the nationalassociation for research in Science teaching, Philadelphia, USA.

Settelmaier, E. (2003, March). Dilemas with dilemas...Exploring the suitability of dilemma stories as a wayof addressing ethical issues in science education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the nationalassociation for research in Science teaching, Philadelphia, USA.

Shapiro, S., & Wilk, M. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality. Biometrika, 52(3), 591–599.Thompson, J., & Windschitl, M. (2002). Engagement in science learning among academically at-risk girls:

Sense of self and motivation to learn across learning contexts. New Orleans, LA: American EducationResearch Association.

Tirri, K., & Pehkonen, L. (2002). The moral reasoning and scientific argumentation of gifted adolescents.Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13(3), 120–129.

Van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the LearningSciences, 6(2), 227–269.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.Walker, K., Zeidler, D., Simmons, M., & Ackett, W. (2000, April). Multiple views of the nature of science

and socio-scientific issues. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, New Orleans.

Windsor, W. L. (2004). An ecological approach to semiotics. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 34(2), 179–198.

Wispé, L. (1992). Historia del Concepto de Empatía (Empathy). In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Laempatía y su desarrollo (development) (pp. 27–49). (I. Aizpurua, Trans.) Bilbao, España: Descleé deBroker S. A. (Original work published in 1987).

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:565–587 587

socio-scientific discussions as a way to improve the comprehension of science and the understanding...

Documents