The propensity for regular and repeated physical exercise to induce and maintain ahormesic effect upon health parameters over a broad range of disorder conditions through the progression of resilience to neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, stroke, sarcopenia, osteopenia, immunosenescence, and metabolic syndrome has been examined. Beyond the alleviation fragility, fatigue, stress-distress and selective vulnerability perturbations induced by different forms of physical exercise may induce hormesis and/or autophagy, through the disruption of homeostasis and manifestation of adaptive responses, to instigate multi-layered resilience. The hormesis challenges, accomplished through daily exercise, the promotion of resilience at molecular, cellular, tissue, e.g. muscle, and organ, e.g. brain, immune-functioning, bone material, physiological and behaviour-expressive levels, have been observed both from pathophysiological and etiogenetic dimensions. Regular exercise over extended periods (optimally years and decades, preferably lifelong) is expected to shift the inverted-U shaped hormesis curve to the right thereby conferred resistance to disease and ill-being and ensuring strength and health advantages. It seems likely that chronic, regular exercise, consisting of suitable proportions of endurance and resistance type, performed daily over months, years or decades ought to instigate some manner of ‘behavioural sensitization’ whereby the health benefits of equivalent levels of exercise escalate incrementally.

Olika typer av klassrumsdiskussioner lyfts ofta fram som ett sätt att främja elevers resonemangsförmåga och kritiska tänkande. Det behövs dock mer kunskap om vilka specifika kvaliteter i diskussioner mellan elever som kan främja sådana förmågor.

Detta konferensbidrag presenterar en studie där vi har undersökt kvaliteter i elevers resonemang om SNI, dels under utforskande gruppdiskussioner och dels under en debatt i form av ett rollspel. Vi undersökte också hur dessa kvaliteter sedan fick betydelse för elevers skriftliga resonemang, genom att analysera elevers argumenterande texter efter respektive aktivitet. I studien deltog 35 elever från två klasser som läste kursen Naturkunskap 1b. De två SNI som eleverna arbetade med berörde vargfrågan i Sverige respektive genmanipulerade grödor.

Kvaliteter i elevernas muntliga och skriftliga resonemang om SNI beskrevs i termer av attityd (öppenhet för eller avfärdande av olika perspektiv) och sociolingvistisk kod (huruvida eleverna inkluderar förklaringar och motiveringar i sina resonemang eller inte). Dessa kvalitativa data analyserades därefter vidare med statistiska metoder.

Resultaten visar att eleverna under gruppdiskussionerna i högre grad än under debatten nyanserat resonerade om ett flertal olika perspektiv, till exempel naturvetenskapliga, etiska, politiska och personliga. Ett annat resultat var att eleverna i den här studien förklarade och motiverade sina resultat i högre grad under debatten än i gruppdiskussionerna. Under presentationen kommer dessa resultat att diskuteras i relation till syftet med respektive typ av aktivitet.

Ingen signifikant skillnad kunde visas mellan gruppdiskussioner och debatt när det gäller vilken betydelse de fick för kvaliteter i elevernas argumenterande texter. Vad gäller kvaliteter i elevernas diskussioner indikerar däremot resultaten att en attityd med öppenhet för olika perspektiv tillsammans med resonemang som inkluderar förklaringar och motiv främjar öppenhet för olika perspektiv i elevernas texter. Pedagogiska implikationer av resultaten kommer att diskuteras under presentationen.

Undervisning kring samhällsfrågor med naturvetenskapligt innehåll, SNI, kännetecknas av att beaktande av en rad olika perspektiv, till exempel etiska och sociala, är viktiga vid sidan av kunskaper i och om naturvetenskap. Genom att ge eleverna möjligheter att diskutera och argumentera kring sina och andras perspektiv, kan de utveckla förståelse för frågornas komplexitet och bilda sig en personlig uppfattning i frågan. Tidigare forskning har visat att undervisning kring SNI med öppenhet för olika perspektiv och betydande inslag av elevdeltagande kan innebära stora utmaningar för lärare i naturvetenskap. Syftet med denna studie var att få kunskap om hur klassrumsdiskussioner om SNI kan utformas och genomföras för att främja målen med undervisningen. I studien deltog två gymnasielärare som undervisar i kursen Naturkunskap 1b i årskurs 1 på det Samhällsvetenskapliga programmet. Datamaterialet utgjordes av ljudinspelningar från fyra lektioner som innehöll diskussioner om SNI. Lärarnas användning av olika kommunikativa ansatser under lektionerna analyserades. De kommunikativa ansatserna kan beskrivas som interaktiva respektive icke-interaktiva samt inkluderande flera eller endast ett perspektiv på SNI-frågan. Resultaten synliggör på vilket sätt lärares användning av olika kommunikativa ansatser kan främja eller begränsa utrymmet för elevernas perspektiv i diskussioner om SNI och möjligheten att belysa komplexiteten i en SNI. Studien bidrar därmed med kunskap som kan användas vid överväganden om utformning och genomförande av undervisning kring SNI för att främja olika mål. Vidare föreslås att kommunikativa ansatser kan användas av lärare som ett analytiskt redskap för att reflektera kring och utveckla aspekter av undervisningspraktiken i relation till de mål de vill uppnå.

Dealing with socio-scientific issues, SSI, entails emphasizing classroom practices in which multiple sources of knowledge and diverse perspectives on the issues, including the students’ views, are explored. Such classroom practices aim to empower students to participate in decision-making on SSI. This can be accomplished by enhancing the students’ independence as learners and positioning them as legitimate participants in societal discussions on SSI. At the same time, it has been reported that teachers find it difficult to interact with students in ways that promote the students’ independence as learners and encourages them to voice their perspectives, while pursuing intended learning goals in terms of a predefined body of content knowledge. However, detailed studies on teachers’ interactions with students when dealing with SSI are scarce. The present study aims at providing knowledge of characteristics of teachers’ interactions with students that are relevant to the positioning of students in the SSI classroom. Data consisted of transcripts of audio-recorded interactions between an upper secondary school science teacher and six student groups dealing with a SSI on climate change. Positioning theory was used as a lens to analyze the transcripts with respect to the following research questions: 1) How are the students positioned as participants in the classroom? 2) How are the students positioned in relation to the issue under consideration? The results show that the teacher-student interactions supported or undermined students’ empowerment by making available or delimiting different positions for the students as participants in the classroom and in discussion and decision-making on SSI. The different positions sometimes align with disparate educational aims. Consequently, knowledge of how the teacher-student interactions functioned to position the students is suggested to support teachers to promote students’ pursuit of intended educational outcomes when dealing with SSI.

The integration of socioscientific issues (SSI) in science education calls for emphasizing dialogic classroom practices that include students’ views together with multiple sources of knowledge and diverse perspectives on the issues. Such classroom practices aim to empower students to participate in decision-making on SSI. This can be accomplished by enhancing their independence as learners and positioning them as legitimate participants in societal discussions. However, this is a complex task for science teachers. In this study, we introduce positioning theory as a lens to analyse classroom discourse on SSI in order to enhance our knowledge of the manners by which teachers’ interactions with students make available or promote different positions for the students, that is, different parts for the students to play as participants, when dealing with SSI in the classroom. Transcripts of interactions between one teacher and six student groups, recorded during two lessons, were analysed with respect to the positioning of the students as participants in the classroom, and in relation to the SSI under consideration. The results show that the teacher-student interactions made available contrasting student positions. The students were positioned by the teacher or positioned themselves as independent learners or as dependent on the teacher. Furthermore, the students were positioned as affected by the issue but as spectators to public negotiations of the issue. Knowledge about the manner in which teacher-student interactions can function to position students seems important for dialogic classroom practices and the promotion of student positions that sustain the pursuit of intended educational outcomes.

Student-active science teaching that includes interactions among students is suggested to support students’ reasoning skills. However, little is known about what are the beneficial modes of interaction to support learning. In the present study, we investigated how different types of classroom discussion on socioscientific issues can encourage students’ reasoning skills as expressed in argumentative essays. Qualities of students’ talk and reasoning skills were described in terms of attitudes, drawing on Dewey, and sociolinguistic codes, drawn from Bernstein. Qualitative data consisting of transcribed classroom discussions and student argumentative essays were analysed by means of statistical methods. The results describe how specific qualities in students’ talk influence qualities of students’ argumentative texts. The results indicate that teachers by promoting elaborate talk among students can stimulate more nuanced and elaborate student texts.

The integration of socioscientific issues (SSI) into science teaching requires that teachers manage classroom discussions in which various perspectives are considered and students’ contributions are recognized. The present study aimed to provide knowledge of how classroom discussions on SSI can be structured and implemented to pursue specific teaching purposes. In this study, two secondary science teachers’ employment of communicative approaches during four discussions on SSI was analysed. In the studied context, communicative approaches can be described as involving various or only a single perspective on SSI and as being either interactive or non-interactive. The results elucidate how teachers can make purposeful use of different communicative approaches to facilitate students’ decision-making while promoting complexity in their reasoning. The results also show how teachers can promote cumulativity, in terms of their recognition of students’ contributions to discussions. It is proposed that teachers can use the concept of communicative approaches as an analytical tool to reflect on and develop aspects of teaching practice in relation to the goals that they wish to achieve.

The integration of socioscientific issues (SSI) in science education requires teachers to manage open-ended discussions in which multiple perspectives, including students’ personal viewpoints, are considered. While this is recognised as a complex task for science teachers, research on teachers’ management of classroom discourse regarding SSI is scarce. This study aims at providing knowledge significant for the advancement of classroom practices suitable for dealing with multiple perspectives, including students’ contributions. The concept of communicative approach and the concept of position were used as tools to analyse transcripts of two teachers’ management of whole class discussions on four different SSI. The teachers’ use of different communicative approaches for different purposes was analysed. How certain features of the discourse, such as the types of questions used, functioned to position the students as contributors to the discussions was also examined. The results show that multiple perspectives, including students’ contributions, were recognized through a complex interplay between communicative approaches that made available contrasting student positions. The results indicate that strategies to build instruction on students’ contributions are particularly important to promote students’ participation in classroom discussions on SSI. The results also show that the interplay between questions that request students’ personal viewpoints and questions that are targeted towards decision-making is important to consider in relation to the aims of SSI-based education.

Teachers may face considerable challenges when implementing socio‐scientific issues (SSI) in their classroom practices, such as incorporating student‐centred teaching practices and exploring knowledge and values in the context of socio-scientific issues. This year‐long study explores teachers’ reflections on the process of developing their classroom practices when implementing SSI. Video‐recorded discussions between two upper secondary school science teachers and an educational researcher, grounded in the teachers’ reflections on their classroom practices, provided data for the analysis. The results show that during the course of the implementation the teachers enhanced their awareness of the importance of promoting students’ participation and supporting their independence as learners. However, the results also suggest a conflict between the enactment of a student‐centred classroom practice and the achievement of intended learning goals. In order to accept the challenge of implementing SSI in the classroom, it is suggested that it is essential for teachers to build strategies, which integrate dialogue about learning goals.

A new methodology is proposed for qualitative discourse analysis (QDA) aimed at gaining enhanced insights into learning possibilities and indicators that arise during classroom group discussions. The constitution of this new methodology has two principle components: a discourse analysis approach that aims to identify the relationships between content and group dynamics; and a network analysis (NA) approach that uses the same data to identify meaning-related structural dynamics found in the data. The proposed methodology pairs these two components to create a supplementary iterative interchange that facilitates the attainment of greater analytic insights than are achievable by either of the two components individually. The critical aspects of the methodology are illustrated and discussed using real classroom data in ways that provide a procedural exemplar. The strengths and limitations of the proposed methodology are also discussed.

To make meaning of scientific knowledge in such a way that concepts and values of the life-world are not threatened is difficult for students and laymen. Ethics and morals pertaining to the use of genetic tests for hereditary diseases have been investigated and discussed by educators, anthropologists, medical doctors and philosophers giving, at least in part, diverging results. This study investigates how students explain and understand their argumentation about dilemmas concerning gene testing for the purpose to reduce hereditary diseases. Thirteen students were interviewed about their views on this issue. Qualitative analysis was done primarily by relating students' argumentation to their movements between ethics and morals as opposing poles. Students used either objective or subjective knowledge but had difficulties to integrate them. They tried to negotiate ethic arguments using utilitarian motives and medical knowledge with sympathy or irrational and personal arguments. They discussed the embryo's moral status to decide if it was replaceable in a social group or not. The educational implications of the students' use of knowledge in personal arguments are discussed.

Education has a role in society to provide students with knowledge for their democratic participation in society as well as for a future profession. In science education, students encounter values that may be in conflict with their worldview. Such conflicts may for example lead to constructive reflections as well as rejection of scientific knowledge and technology. Students' ways of reasoning are important starting points for discussing problematic issues and may be crucial for constructive dialogues in the classroom. This study investigates students' reasoning about conflicting values concerning the human-animal relationship exemplified with the use of genetically modified pigs as organ donors for xenotransplantation. Students’ reasoning is analyzed using Giddens’ concepts of disembedded and embedded practices in parallel with moral philosophical theories in a framework based on human-animal relationships. Thirteen students were interviewed and their stances categorized. Kantian deontological and classical utilitarian ethics were found within the patronage and the partnership models. These students appreciated expert knowledge but those using the partnership model could not accept xenotransplantation if pigs were to be killed. Students using care ethics did not appreciate expert knowledge since it threatened naturalness. The results suggest that stances against the use of scientific knowledge are more problematic than knowledge per se, and that conflicting stances have similarities that present opportunities for understanding and development of students’ argumentation skills for future participation in societal discourse on utilizing expert knowledge. Furthermore it is suggested that science education could benefit from a higher awareness of the presence of different morals.

The present study aims at identifying predisposing and protective factors for the purpose of showing their respective contribution and interaction for adolescents’ stress disorders and depressive states, and to find key attributes for the identification of pupils at risk in a normal population of adolescents. The study was performed with 211 high-school pupils over a period of 18 months. The results are reported from the pupils participating in 4 consecutive administrations of the instruments (N = 115). The following instruments were used: “Kutcher Adolescent Depression Scale”, “Stress”, “Helplessness”, “Hopelessness”, “Uppsala Sleep inventory”, “Barratt’s Impulsiveness Scale”, “Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale”, “Life Orientation Test”, “General Self-Efficacy”, “Locus of Control”, “Situational Intrinsic Motivational Scale”. The Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale were also used to categorize participants into four affective profiles: “self-fulfilling”, high affective”, “low affective” and “self-destructive”. Linear regression analyses showed that situational depression (hopelessness) was predicted by depressive. Negative affect predicted stress, which in turn predicted general and situational depressiveness. General self-efficacy, positive affect and Identified regulation were found to be protective factors to both general and situational depressiveness. Depressiveness was found to be linked to the “self-destructive” affective personality type. “Negative affect” and distractiveness are suggested as markers for pupils at risk, whereas positive affect, self-efficacy and identified regulation appear to have protecting roles.

We use a combination of network analysis (NA), text-mining (TM) techniques, and thematic discourse  analysis  (TDA)  to  characterise  and compare  student  discussions  about sustainable development. Three student groups at three different times were analysed. The analysis entails an iterative design where NA, TM, and TDA continuously inform each other to produce a rich and coherent picture of the discussions. The output of such an analysis is a  set  of  maps  of  these  discussions,  which  have both  qualitative  and  quantitative  uses. Qualitatively, the maps show how thematic patterns in the discussions are related for each group,  and  we can  see  how  discourses  differ  between  groups  as  well  as  over  time. Quantitatively,  we  use  network  motif  analysis,  entropy  based measures,  and  degree distributions to distinguish between discussions.

The use of Socio-scientific Issues (SSI) in science education aiming at fostering critical thinking and decision-making capacities is known to develop the quality of students’ socio-scientific arguments. Teachers scaffolding has been shown to be important for the quality of students’ reasoning. Although students’ untutored socio-scientific discussions are recognized as important for reasoning quality, little is known about these interactions among peers. Such information is crucial for further development of teachers’ scaffolding. The aim of this study is to explore the underpinnings of student discussions on SSI in order to develop understanding for key aspects with importance for the faith of students’ decision-making conversation. Data were transcribed discussions from 4 groups of Swedish high-school students discussing “Wolves in Sweden and biodiversity”. Our theoretical framework builds on Dewey’s notion of Open-mindedness and Bernstein’s communication codes. Students’ inputs interrupting or re-vitalizing conversations were coded as Open-minded/Close-minded (OM/CM) and Elaborated/Restricted code (Ec/Rc) and their functions interpreted. In some utterances (Morals and Agitational talk) the use of Ec were found to interrupt or narrow the conversation. CM utterances (Morals and Opinions) typically interrupted conversation, something that has to be counteracted by teachers by encouraging students’ Open-mindedness in order to promote a multifaceted informal socio-scientific discussion.

The use of Socio-scientific Issues (SSI) in science education aiming at fostering critical thinking and decision-making capacities is known to develop the quality of students’ socio-scientific arguments. Teachers scaffolding has been shown to be important for the quality of students’ reasoning. Although students’ untutored socio-scientific discussions are recognized as important for reasoning quality, little is known about these interactions among peers. Such information is crucial for further development of teachers’ scaffolding. The aim of this study is to explore the underpinnings of student discussions on SSI in order to develop understanding for key aspects with importance for the faith of students’ decision-making conversation. Data were transcribed discussions from 4 groups of Swedish high-school students discussing “Wolves in Sweden and biodiversity”. Our theoretical framework builds on Dewey’s notion of Open-mindedness and Bernstein’s communication codes. Students’ inputs interrupting or re-vitalizing conversations were coded as Open-minded/Close-minded (OM/CM) and Elaborated/Restricted code (Ec/Rc) and their functions interpreted. In some utterances (Morals and Agitational talk) the use of Ec were found to interrupt or narrow the conversation. CM utterances (Morals and Opinions) typically interrupted conversation, something that has to be counteracted by teachers by encouraging students’ Open-mindedness in order to promote a multifaceted informal socio-scientific discussion.

The school systems of many countries have been pervaded by student-centred pedagogy making students’ small group discussion a common feature of the classroom practice. However, there is a lack of studies focussing different modes of discussion for the purpose of finding out whether some modes are more beneficial than others. Hence, the aim of this study is to explore the underpinnings of student small group conversations on Socio-scientific Issues in order to develop an understanding of the key aspects of what interrupts or revitalizes the conversation. We focus on the importance of attitudes and language use for the fate of students’ decision-making conversations. Our theoretical framework builds on Dewey’s notion of Open-mindedness and Bernstein’s communication codes. Students’ use of morals, opinions and agitational talk interrupted conversations, whereas new aspects and new perspectives revitalized the conversation. Students need guidance to avoid using justifications in conjunction with a Close-minded attitude.

The introduction of ICT into preschool practice is generally lagging. However, there is a variation regarding use of new technology. Hence, the aim of this study is to analyze which are the possibilities and difficulties to embed computers into preschool practice. Data consists of naturalistic texts from 31 preschool teacher students revealing their experiences from trying to embed computers into practice. Analysis of data was guided by a framework adapted from Giddens’ structuration theory, focussing on students’ drawing on tradition and on knowledge claims when justifying their stances. Results show ambivalence to computer use. However, two groups of students emerged. One group embraced the new technology, whereas the other group conceived new technology as a threat to tradition. Depending on how activities are interpreted to fit into preschool tradition, using computers can or cannot be justified. Understanding tradition, as partially values and partially routines, provides possibilities to modify preschool practice to include computer activities. Knowledge claims, for example pertaining to developmental stimulation, can also be used as justifications for embedding computers into preschool practice. If, however, values appear to be threatened, tradition as well as knowledge claims can be used to justify protection against using computers in preschool practice.

Societal change and prescriptions in curricula demand a change in educationalpractice. This can create conflicts between practitioners’ usual practices (norms)and those prescribed by curricula. One example is the introduction of Informationand Communication Technology (ICT) into preschool practice. Hence, our aim isto analyse how norms are used as arguments for or against using computers inpreschool practice. Data consist of naturalistic texts from 31 preschool teacherstudents revealing their experiences in attempting to embed computers intopractice. Results show ambivalence to computer use. Two lines of argumentsemerged: one embracing the new technology, the other rejecting this newtechnology. The following arguments were made to justify ICT in preschool: thechild as a citizen, the competent child and the active child. Concern wasexpressed between the teacher’s need for control and the child’s need forindependence and guidance.

Students’ learning is assumed to be promoted through peer-group discussion. Most studies show the presence of qualitative improvements in either oral or written reasoning as a result of such interactions. However, knowledge on the relationship between talk qualities and text qualities is scarce. We adopt an explorative design using statistical analyses of students’ talk and texts to estimate the relationships between theoretically-based concepts of attitude and sociolinguistic code. The operationalized concepts can be validated using statistical analyses. Linear regression shows that Elaborated code in students’ talk has no impact on students’ texts. Furthermore, Restricted code in talk is detrimental to students’ use of Elaborated code in texts. This relationship is also found at the group level. Students’ expression of open-mindedness in their texts depends on their use of Elaborated code. Teachers must support students in using Elaborated code in their texts and avoiding Restricted code in their talk.

Students’ difficulties in interpreting what counts as knowledge have been addressed in past educational research. As curricula have changed towards progressivist pedagogy the difficulties have deepened. The Socioscientific Issues framework exemplifies this development. It integrates different knowledges and discourses, implying diffuse boundaries between them, which in turn deepen students’ difficulties to interpret what is expected from them. Our aim is to explore students’ recognition of what meaning they are requested to produce in a context with weak boundaries between discourses. We use Bernstein’s concepts of recognition rules and classification to analyse how 15-16 year-old students develop their discussions in groups of 4-6 students. Students recognizing the educational demands integrate different discourses in their discussion and use both universalistic and particularistic meanings to produce new understandings. Students who do not understand the recognition rules keep discourses apart as in a traditional school task, answering questions or just exchanging personal opinions. And, by keeping universalistic and particularistic meanings apart the dynamics of an exploring SSI discussion is inhibited and the development of socioscientific reasoning is inhibited.

Students’ difficulties in interpreting what counts as knowledge have been addressed in past research on science education. The implementation of progressivist pedagogy in terms of more student-active classroom practice and the introduction of a variety of discourses into the science classroom deepens students’ difficulties.The integration of different forms and demands of knowledge and discourses typified by Science-in-Context initiatives, such as within the Socioscientific framework, exemplifies this development in science education. Here, the diffuse boundaries between school subjects and other silos of knowledge leads to considerable difficulties for students to interpret what is expected from them. Such contexts having diffuse boundaries between, for example, subject discourses and other fonts of knowledge, have been describes as contexts with weak classification. The present study aims to explore students’ interpretation of what knowledge or meaning they are requested to produce in contexts with weak classification, here exemplified withinan SSI-task. We use Bernstein’s concepts of recognition rulesand classificationto analyse how 15-16 year-old students develop their discussions in groups of 4-6 students. This study reports how students’ recognitionof the educational demands enabled integration of different discourses in their discussion, and that the use of both universalistic and particularistic meanings can produce new understandings. Students who had not acquired recognition ruleswere found to keep discourses apart, expressed either as rejection of the relevance of the task, answering questions as in a traditional school task, or just exchange of personal opinions. Furthermore, they included discourses irrelevant to the issue.An important outcome of the study was that socioscientific thinking was hampered when students kept universalistic and particularistic meanings apart. This hampering results from the inhibition of dynamic exploration during SSI discussions. The results provide new insights with relevance for teachers’ guiding students towards a fruitful SSI-discourse.

The present study investigates how students draw on norms, knowledge claims and authorities when reasoning about socioscientific issues. The aim of the study is to provide an image of students' sense of agency and how they handle trust and security issues by referring to the above mentioned modalities of the societal structures ‘Legitimation’ and ‘Domination’ (Giddens 1984). Examples from gene technology were used as the subject for interviews with 13 Swedish high-school students (year 11, age 17-18). At the time for interviews, the students had participated in and completed an introductory course in genetics which included a group discussion about genetic diseases and ethics. A grid based on modalities from the societal structures described by Giddens was used for analysis of interviews. Students were found to use both modalities for ‘Legitimation’ and ‘Domination’ to justify acceptance or rejection of new technology. By doing that, they showed how norms as well as knowledge claims can be used to justify opposing position as they were trying to build trust in either science and technology or in experts. It was found that students accepted or rejected the authority of experts based on their having or lacking appropriate knowledge. Students were also found to have difficulty in discerning between material risks (reduced safety) and immaterial risks (loss of norms). Attention is drawn to the problem of students' using knowledge claims (Domination) to support norms (Legitimation). Furthermore, students' sense of agency appears to be dependent on sharing norms with experts.

This paper reports on a study of how students’ reasoning about socioscientific issues is framed by three dynamics: societal structures, agency and how trust and security issues are handled. Examples from gene technology were used as the forum for interviews with 13 Swedish highschool students (year 11, age 17–18). A grid based on modalities from the societal structures described by Giddens was used to structure the analysis. The results illustrate how the participating students used both modalities for ‘Legitimation’ and ‘Domination’ to justify positions that accept or reject new technology. The analysis also showed how norms and knowledge can be used to justify opposing positions in relation to building trust in science and technology, or in democratic decisions expected to favour personal norms. Here, students accepted or rejected the authority of experts based on perceptions of the knowledge base that the authority was seen to be anchored in. Difficulty in discerning between material risks (reduced safety) and immaterial risks (loss of norms) was also found. These outcomes are used to draw attention to the educational challenges associated with students’ using knowledge claims (Domination) to support norms (Legitimation) and how this is related to the development of a sense of agency in terms of sharing norms with experts or with laymen.

The present study investigates how students' reasoning about socioscientific issues is framed by their notion of societal structures, for the purpose to provide an image of their sense of agency and how they handle trust and security issues. Examples from gene technology were used as the subject for interviews with 13 Swedish high-school students (year 11, age 17-18). A grid based on modalities from the societal structures described by Giddens was used for analysis. Students used both modalities for ‘Legitimation’ and ‘Domination’ to justify acceptance or rejection of new technology. Doing that, they showed how norms as well as knowledge can be used to justify opposing position as they were trying to build trust in either science and technology or in democratic decisions expected to favour their norms. It was found that students accepted or rejected the authority of experts based on their having or lacking appropriate knowledge. Students were also found to have difficulty in discerning between material risks (reduced safety) and immaterial risks (loss of norms). Attention is drawn to the problem of students' using knowledge claims (Domination) to support norms (Legitimation). Furthermore, students' sense of agency appears to be dependent on either sharing norms with experts or with laymen.

Through historical discourses the boundaries between the concepts “nature” and “nurture” have been blurred, thus hampering the understanding of conflicts in contemporary debates on, for example, medicine and gene technology. In education, such conflicts between nature and nurture are brought to the fore, and without promoting the understanding of the multiple meanings of these concepts and their roles in societal discourse the goals to develop students’ socioscientific decision-making seem unattainable. This study problematizes students’ use of “nature” and “naturalness” to further the development of the experience of science education in relation to the nature-nurture debate. We build on the social constructivism view that present conceptions of nature and naturalness emanate from historical and modern social constructions of nature. Data were collected from interviews with 33 upper secondary school students (16-19 years) from 4 classes. Students’ claims or explanations that actualized the control of human actions pertaining to treatments for hereditary diseases by making use of concepts of “nature” and “naturalness were analysed. Within the Enlightenment view and the Romantic view, the students suggested control of human activity on different levels of biological organisation. The Romantic concept of nature was described by referring to the balance in nature (population level), the purity of nature (organism and cellular levels), and the laws of nature (gene level). Students holding the Enlightenment view of nature presented the imperfection of nature (organism, cellular and gene levels) as a common phenomenon. Here, nurture was considered natural to overcome such imperfections. Apparently, the Enlightenment view allows the embedding of nurture into nature by use of knowledge, in contrast to the preserving and moral stance held within the Romantic view. These conflicting views should be addressed in biological education to promote students’ understanding of contemporary discourses dependent on the different concepts of nature and nurture.

The conflicts between nature and nurture are brought to the fore and challenges socio-scientific decision-making in science education. The multitude of meanings of these concepts and their roles in societal discourses can impede students’ development of understanding for different perspectives, e.g. on gene technology. This study problematizes students’ use of “nature” and “naturalness” to further the development of the experience of science education in relation to the nature-nurture debate. We build on the social constructivism view that present conceptions of nature and naturalness emanate from historical and modern social constructions of nature. Claims presented by upper secondary school students in interviews actualizing the control of human actions pertaining to treatments for hereditary diseases by making use of concepts of “nature” and “naturalness were analysed. The students suggested control of human activity on different levels of biological organisation, either from within the Romantic view or the Enlightenment view on nature. The Romantic view provided students with moral grounds for consistently preserve what is considered as nature and means to bolster their reasoning by referring to the balance in nature, the purity of nature, and the laws of nature. The Enlightenment view provided students with means to support gene technology by embedding “nurture” into the concept “nature” by using knowledge while implying that nurture is a natural way to overcome such imperfections of nature. We propose that these conflicting views should be addressed in biological education to promote students’ understanding of contemporary discourses dependent on the different concepts of nature and nurture.

In order to advance our understanding about the roles studentsassign to expert knowledge, the present study addresses how secondaryschool students use their knowledge of scientific disciplines in theirreasoning of socioscientific issues (SSI). Through group discussions, theresults show that students use science either as a sole justification orintegrated with other kinds of knowledge. Using expert knowledge to liftproblems out of the limited local contexts and find solutions, thestudents access the freedom to make personal choices. Thus, it wasconcluded that scientific knowledge provides possibilities for decisionsthat can support students' agency.

 This text addresses the problem of the discrepancy between teachers’ and students’ positions in negotiations about the authenticity and legitimacy of school science activities. The study focuses on the apparent conflicts concerning legitimacy and authenticity when teachers and students bring attention to safety, authenticity and accuracy during issues laboratory activities. The analysed data are excerpts made from video observations in two science classes. Analysis was made using epistemological moves describing how teachers and students make their activities relevant. The result indicates that in the classroom conversation about laboratory practice, teachers sometimes draw the attention to safety, procedures and accuracy to legitimize the activity and how they try to control it. Negotiations concerning the legitimacy and authenticity of activities seem inevitable. Unless understandable agreements are reached, the negotiations jeopardize a successful understanding of the Nature of Science (NOS). Misunderstanding of the authenticity of activities contributes to a reduction of their legitimacy, and undermining teaching of context independent knowledge.

Många elever har svårigheter i att skapa mening kring naturvetenskapliga koncept. Tidigare studier inom biologiämnet visar att elever har svårt för att beskriva och tolka hur näringsvävar och andra komplexa begrepp hänger samman. Undervisning och lärande inom naturvetenskapliga områden är beroende av en stor mängd representationer som illustrerar fenomen som är för små, stora, abstrakta eller komplexa för att kunna beskrivas enbart med ord. En förutsättning för att elever ska kunna skapa mening kring naturvetenskapliga begrepp är dels att de kan tolka de representationer som används i undervisningen, dels att de aktivt använder representationer. De möjligheter och utmaningar som elever upplever i sitt meningsskapande i samband med ett eget konstruerande av representationer har rönt alltmer intresse; dock saknas studier som specifikt rör ekologiundervisningen. Syftet med denna studie är att identifiera elevers olika syn på komplexa ekologiska koncept och illustrera på vilket sätt eleverna försöker kombinera dessa för en större helhetsförståelse. Insamlad data består av bilder som elever skapat under ett grupparbete och dessa tolkas ur ett socialsemiotiskt perspektiv. Resultaten indikerar att eleverna fokuserar på representationernas ytliga egenskaper, snarare än den underliggande strukturen, samt att strukturen och vetenskapligheten i elevers visuella beskrivningar av ekologiska koncept skiljer sig åt. Eleverna uppvisar svårigheter när de försöker kombinera faktorer kopplade till olika kretslopp. Vidare visar resultaten att eleverna behöver stöd i att skapa en helhetsbild av ekologiska processer och att analys av elevers representationer kan användas för att identifiera elevers svårigheter. Detta kan möjliggöra ett djupare och mer vetenskapligt resonerande i det naturvetenskapliga klassrummet.

Teaching and learning in biology and other science disciplines are highly dependent on representations illustrating phenomena too small, big, abstract or complex to be described by words only. Many students have difficulties learning scientific concepts and lack an idea of “the bigger picture”. Earlier research in biology implicate that students have difficulties describing and interpreting food webs and other concepts concerning ecological systems. One area that is attaining a greater interest is the learning possibilities when students’ actively construct representations. Very little attention has, however, been paid to this line of research in the area of ecology. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to identify students' different views on complex ecological concepts and illustrate the manners by which students attempt to link them together for a more holistic understanding. Data consists of students’ drawings and interviews, that together can give a better understanding of how students take advantage of actively constructing representations. Results indicate that students’ interpretations and ideas regarding ecological concepts differ widely. They describe biological concepts with different levels of abstraction and show difficulties combining abiotic and biotic factors in biological cycles. The results give further insights into how explicit focus on ecological process and concepts can be used to scaffold students’ construction of representations. Furthermore, teachers can employ such representations for formative assessment. A better understanding of how students' active construction of representations influences their opportunities for meaning making will increase the opportunities for a deeper, more scientific, reasoning in the science classroom.

UNESCO has identified education for sustainable development (ESD) as a key factor in the achievement of sustainable development goals (SDGs). Education is important in developing awareness of how to preserve natural ecosystems and promote the uptake of renewable energy sources. Ecology education in primary school aims to give students a scientific foundation to further their education in biology and develop environmentally literate citizens who will protect, restore and promote the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. This early education includes awareness of how human welfare depends on functional ecosystems to provide food, clean water and oxygen. However, previous studies have shown that young students face serious challenges when constructing a holistic view of complex ecological relationships. In this study, we interpret students’ written texts and drawings when, in small groups, they were asked collectively to describe necessary functions in an ecosystem, as a final task after a series of lessons on ecology. By focusing on students’ expressed ideas on the availability of energy and matter in the ecosystem, we construe four models. The students in our study propose, firstly, that energy flows or can circulate, and secondly, that matter circulates, is provided by the sun, or is created anew. Moreover, the students often express fragmented processes, combined in different ways. According to our results, we propose aspects that can inform the design of primary school teaching of ecology for sustainable development. 

The purpose of this paper is to examine how authenticity influences students' discussions of socio-scientific issues (SSI). The students were found to bridge school knowledge and everyday knowledge, i.e. enter a "third space", in their explorative discussions. When the SSI task changed into a decision-making discussion for communication with an authentic stakeholder, the students excluded many perspectives. In the process, authenticity caused a loss of relevance for one discourse and several figured worlds, including the students' emotional reasoning. While losing emotional aspects, students' reasoning became more precise when grounded in rational reasoning, supporting well-informed decisions.