This document summarizes the key components of a lesson plan for facilitating classroom conversations about socio-scientific issues. The lesson involves three steps: 1) creating background knowledge for students, 2) having students analyze concepts and evidence, and 3) constructing arguments. It provides examples and strategies for each step, such as using the "fishbowl" technique to structure class discussions. Overall, the goal is to help students develop argumentation and critical thinking skills through teacher-guided conversations about complex issues involving science, technology, and society.

1. Equipping the Next Generation for Active Engagement in Science
Online Course: EngagingScience.eu/en/mooc
Conversation

2. Definition
Conversation in ENGAGE context refers to a whole class debate regarding an
RRI (or socio-scientific dilemma) facilitated by the teacher.
It is based on three steps for supporting students to develop argumentation
and evidence based solutions:
1. Create a ‘need to know’ for students to review the scientific ideas
2. Students consider how the concepts build into evidence
3. Students construct and articulate arguments.
Lesson 1
Lesson 2

3. Why is discussion facilitated by a teacher important?
1. Help students develop their argumentation and critical thinking skills
through modelling, guiding and supporting.
2. Show the provisional nature of science knowledge and the
importance of evidence and argument in complex socio-scientific
issues by emphasising the controversy and drawing out a range of
views.
3. Help students reflect on their opinions, and become open to
changing their views in the light of other arguments or evidence.

4. Six rules for students’ active participation
1. Everyone is expected to participate at some point in the discussion.
2. Domination of the conversation by a few students is not acceptable.
3. Let people finish their contribution, do not interrupt.
4. Listen on what others are saying not thinking how you will respond.
5. Keep what you say relevant to the issue question.
6. You can challenge a view with evidence, but don’t make it personal.

5. Examples – e Cigarettes
• Teachers encourage students to bring questions to start a discussion
• For example: “Is vaping safe”? Why is smoking too risky?
• Teacher can also select questions designed to activate or provide students with the background knowledge

6. Lesson structure

7. Lesson 1

8. 1. Create a “need to know” for students to review the scientific ideas.
The overall question for lesson 1 is: “can nicotine from vaping affect people nearby?”.
Lesson 1

9. 1. Create a need to know for students to review the scientific ideas.
In stage 1, students review the details and concepts relating to the particle model as
they find out how e-cigarettes work.
Lesson 1

10. 2. Students consider how the concepts build into evidence
Students organise concepts (particles and vaping) and facts (nicotine’s effect) into evidence:
• They reflect on the arrangement and behaviour of the particles in e-cigs solution and in the exhaled aerosol
• They also think about how nicotine particles diffuse and represent this information as particle diagrams.
• In pairs they evaluate each others’ diagrams, suggesting improvements about high quality diagram
• They can discuss their results with teacher (whole class conversation) to reinforce their understanding
Lesson 1

11. Lesson 2

12. 3. Students use argumentation (claim, evidence and reasoning)
Lesson 2

13. The basic structure of an argument in science:
• Claim is a statement that represents your opinion an issue
• Evidence is the scientific data that supports the claim. It has to be sufficient,
accurate and reliable. There can be several pieces of evidence.
• Reasoning is the thinking that explains how the evidence supports the claim.
Example:
The population of the bees in decreasing because of pesticides (claim). We know that
pesticides are to be blamed because (reasoning) studies have shown that (evidence) when
we increase the use of specific pesticides in some areas the population of the bees
decreased.
An additional feature is called the ‘rebuttal.’ The rebuttal identifies an opposing opinion and
explains why it is wrong.

14. • Validity : Are the all pieces of evidence related to the claim?
• Reliability: Are the sources of information reliable?
• Balanced view: Is there any rebuttal considered and refuted?
• Enough evidence: Is there enough evidence for making conclusions?
• Coherence: Is there a good connection between claim and evidence through the reasoning?
Argumentation - Representation
Argumentation - Assessment

15. • Students learned about what the risks and benefits of vaping are, and need to weigh them up.
• Clearly, students may do this differently, leading to different viewpoints
• This difference - backed up by evidence and reasoning, is the basis for discussion.
3. Students use argumentation (claim, evidence and reasoning)
Lesson 2

16. Four Strategies for whole class debate:
1. Preparation activities: take students through the stages of building knowledge,
and using that to construct arguments.
2. The Fishbowl format: only half the class are discussing, and the other half listening
and analysing, acts as a transition between the easier small group discussions of
Dilemma lessons to the more challenging whole class debates.
3. Class participation: principles and strategies for securing student participation in
whole class discussion, using ground rules, clear roles for the teacher, and training
for students in the skills to contribute in different ways.
4. Management techniques: best practice advice for setting up, opening, closing and
dealing with tricky situations.

17. 1.Preparation activities: take students through the stages of
building knowledge, and using that to construct arguments.
• Students play a quiz-style game to learn how to quantify risks and weigh them up.
Individual students note their answers.
• Then the answer is revealed and students note their score plus the key point about what they have learned about risk.

18. 2.The Fishbowl format: part of the class are discussing,
and the other part listening and analysing.
• Groups judge risk to decide whether or not they support a ban on indoor vaping in public places,
• They share their views in class discussion through the Fishbowl Format.
• They then complete a written task to explain their decision.
• Two to five chairs are arranged in an inner circle. This is the fishbowl.
• The remaining chairs are arranged in concentric circles outside the fishbowl.
• A few participants (e.g. groups leaders) are selected to fill the fishbowl, while the
rest of the group sit on the chairs outside the fishbowl.
• Teacher introduces the topic and the participants start discussing the topic.
• The audience outside the fishbowl listen in on the discussion

19. 3.Class participation: using ground rules, clear roles
for the teacher, and training for students in the skills.
For example, choose some students to share their responses with the class, encouraging
them to give their reasoning. Then come to a class conclusion in answer to the question.

20. 4.Management techniques: best practice advice for setting
up, opening, closing and dealing with tricky situations.
Issues to be managed: Time, participation (engagement), knowledge understanding,
inquiry skills (e.g. argumentation) and learning outcomes through assessment.

21. What are tricky situations?
• Students are not engaged, speaking out of turn
• Having their own discussions but not sharing with the class
How to deal with tricky situations?
SEE OUR DISCUSSION FORUM

22. References
"Fishbowl: The art of active listening" (PDF). Office of the Commissioner, United
Nations Human Rights. Retrieved 2012-12-02.
Hamlin, Kaliya (July 12, 2006). "Unconference Methods: Fish Bowl Dialogue". Blog
post from a commercial enterprise.
Atlee, Tom. "Closed Fishbowl". The Co-intelligence Institute. Posting on the website of
a non-profit organization.
"Using Fishbowl for class discussions". Blog post, apparently unsigned.

23. ENGAGE CONSORTIUM includes 14
Institutions from 12 countries with
extensive experience in IBSE, RRI,
teacher training, and curriculum design

24. Online Course Team
Coordination: Alexandra Okada
CPD Framework: Yael Schwartz
EDX platform: Elisabetta Parodi
Learning Analytics: Mihai Bizoi
Collaborators : Maria Evagorou
Gemma Young
Consultant: John Wardle
Management: Andy Bullough
Evaluation: Dury Jacobs
Engaging.Science.eu
Contacts: Tony Sherborne (Project Coordinator)
tonysherborne@gmail.com