New Perspectives in Science Education

First introduced by the National Research Council (NRC) [1], science as practice has been a major reform initiative in American science education over the last decade that has gained attention in other regions too (e.g. Korea, Singapore). In this framework, there are eight scientific and engineering practices (SEP) that reflect authentic ways of thinking and doing science and engineering. While admittedly a simplification of the everyday work of scientists/engineers, the SEP captured the essence of the iterative nature of research and problem-solving and more importantly, its procedural and epistemic work that was latent in the earlier emphasis on learning via scientific inquiry [2]. However, to reach its potential as well as being true to what it really means to “do” science, SEP-based instruction calls for activities that extend beyond a traditional linear process of the scientific method, or of mere transfer of facts from teacher to students. These are not trivial concerns for teachers everywhere have long been accustomed to conducting confirmatory or guided practical work to achieve mandated learning objectives [3]. Therefore, to support Singapore teachers as they engage in unfamiliar ways of teaching science as practice, our research team designed and tested an integrative science activity based on the vital practice of argumentation. Our target population were middle school learners; specifically on the topic of lactose intolerance, which was something we felt was a novel yet interesting biological phenomenon. In this paper, we outline the process of developing the integrative science activity using the productive disciplinary engagement (PDE) framework [4]; we will demonstrate how our activity maps into the four principles of PDE (i.e. Problematizing; Learner Authority; Accountability to peers &/or disciplianry norms; Resource provisioning) and describe the challenges faced by two science teachers during its pilot implementation. It was found that due to the teachers’ lack of familiarity in argumentation, erroneous problematising was common and had a detrimental effect on the task. However, as designers, we had balance such concerns to enable students to face adequate cognitive struggle so as to be productively engaged.