{"title":"Does Topic Matter? Investigating Students’ Interest, Emotions and Learning when Writing Stories About Socioscientific Issues","authors":"Senka Henderson, Louisa Tomas, Donna King","doi":"10.1007/s11165-025-10239-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This case study of a Year 8 science class in South-East Queensland investigated the affective and cognitive experiences of engaging students in a science-writing project. Building on the work of Tomas, Rigano and Ritchie (2016), students wrote a series of short stories across two school terms about the socio-scientific issues (SSIs) of coal seam gas (CSG) mining and skin grafting. Data were collected using an emotion diary (in which students self-reported their interest and emotions at the end of each lesson), written thinking prompts (designed to elicit students’ evolving understanding of each SSI) and semi-structured, end-of-project student interviews. Three main assertions emerged from analysis of these data. First, students’ self-reported interest was statistically higher in relation to skin grafting compared to CSG. Second, interest and positive emotions reported by students in the skin grafting unit were associated mostly with the topic, while in the CSG mining unit, they were related mostly to pedagogical approaches. Thirdly, students could explain the scientific, social, moral and ethical dimensions of each SSI and an evidence-informed position at the end of both units. These assertions support our thesis that topic <i>does matter</i> when engaging students in writing stories about SSIs. At the same time, while the results of this study support the learning affordances of SSIs, they suggest that the teacher’s pedagogical decisions <i>also matter</i> in keeping students cognitively and affectively engaged when learning about a less interesting or relatable topic.</p>","PeriodicalId":47988,"journal":{"name":"Research in Science Education","volume":"67 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-025-10239-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This case study of a Year 8 science class in South-East Queensland investigated the affective and cognitive experiences of engaging students in a science-writing project. Building on the work of Tomas, Rigano and Ritchie (2016), students wrote a series of short stories across two school terms about the socio-scientific issues (SSIs) of coal seam gas (CSG) mining and skin grafting. Data were collected using an emotion diary (in which students self-reported their interest and emotions at the end of each lesson), written thinking prompts (designed to elicit students’ evolving understanding of each SSI) and semi-structured, end-of-project student interviews. Three main assertions emerged from analysis of these data. First, students’ self-reported interest was statistically higher in relation to skin grafting compared to CSG. Second, interest and positive emotions reported by students in the skin grafting unit were associated mostly with the topic, while in the CSG mining unit, they were related mostly to pedagogical approaches. Thirdly, students could explain the scientific, social, moral and ethical dimensions of each SSI and an evidence-informed position at the end of both units. These assertions support our thesis that topic does matter when engaging students in writing stories about SSIs. At the same time, while the results of this study support the learning affordances of SSIs, they suggest that the teacher’s pedagogical decisions also matter in keeping students cognitively and affectively engaged when learning about a less interesting or relatable topic.
期刊介绍:
2020 Five-Year Impact Factor: 4.021
2020 Impact Factor: 5.439
Ranking: 107/1319 (Education) – Scopus
2020 CiteScore 34.7 – Scopus
Research in Science Education (RISE ) is highly regarded and widely recognised as a leading international journal for the promotion of scholarly science education research that is of interest to a wide readership.
RISE publishes scholarly work that promotes science education research in all contexts and at all levels of education. This intention is aligned with the goals of Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA), the association connected with the journal.
You should consider submitting your manscript to RISE if your research:
Examines contexts such as early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary, workplace, and informal learning as they relate to science education; and
Advances our knowledge in science education research rather than reproducing what we already know.
RISE will consider scholarly works that explore areas such as STEM, health, environment, cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology and higher education where science education is forefronted.
The scholarly works of interest published within RISE reflect and speak to a diversity of opinions, approaches and contexts. Additionally, the journal’s editorial team welcomes a diversity of form in relation to science education-focused submissions. With this in mind, RISE seeks to publish empirical research papers.
Empircal contributions are:
Theoretically or conceptually grounded;
Relevant to science education theory and practice;
Highlight limitations of the study; and
Identify possible future research opportunities.
From time to time, we commission independent reviewers to undertake book reviews of recent monographs, edited collections and/or textbooks.
Before you submit your manuscript to RISE, please consider the following checklist. Your paper is:
No longer than 6000 words, including references.
Sufficiently proof read to ensure strong grammar, syntax, coherence and good readability;
Explicitly stating the significant and/or innovative contribution to the body of knowledge in your field in science education;
Internationalised in the sense that your work has relevance beyond your context to a broader audience; and
Making a contribution to the ongoing conversation by engaging substantively with prior research published in RISE.
While we encourage authors to submit papers to a maximum length of 6000 words, in rare cases where the authors make a persuasive case that a work makes a highly significant original contribution to knowledge in science education, the editors may choose to publish longer works.