Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation Instruction in the Context of Socioscientific Issues: An effect on student learning and transfer

The purpose of the study was two-fold: to (a) investigate the influence of explicit nature of science (NOS) and explicit argumentation instruction in the context of a socioscientific issue on the argumentation skills and NOS understandings of students, and (b) explore the transfer of students' NOS understandings and argumentation skills learned in one socioscientific context into other similar contexts (familiar and unfamiliar). Participants were a total of 121 seventh grade students from two schools. The treatment involved an eight-week unit about the water usage and safety, which was taught by two teachers for two intact groups (Treatments I and II). Explicit NOS instruction was integrated for all groups. However, only the Treatment I groups had the additional explicit argumentation instruction. Participants were pre- and post-tested using an open-ended questionnaire and interviews about two socioscientific issues to assess their learning and transfer of argumentation skills and NOS understandings. Results showed improvements in the learning of argumentation practice and NOS understandings for Treatment I group participants. Similarly, there were improvements in the learning and transfer of NOS understandings for Treatment II group participants with only some improvements for the argumentation practice. Further, some of the Treatment I group participants made connections to argumentation when explicating their NOS understandings by the end of the study. Findings were discussed in light of classroom practice that utilizes an explicit approach, contextual approach, as well as an approach that integrates NOS and argumentation simultaneously.     

Disconnections Between Teacher Expectations and Student Confidence in Bioethics

This study examines how student practice of scientific argumentation using socioscientific bioethics issues affects both teacher expectations of students’ general performance and student confidence in their own work. When teachers use bioethical issues in the classroom students can gain not only biology content knowledge but also important decision-making skills. Learning bioethics through scientific argumentation gives students opportunities to express their ideas, formulate educated opinions and value others’ viewpoints. Research has shown that science teachers’ expectations of student success and knowledge directly influence student achievement and confidence levels. Our study analyzes pre-course and post-course surveys completed by students enrolled in a university level bioethics course (n = 111) and by faculty in the College of Biology and Agriculture faculty (n = 34) based on their perceptions of student confidence. Additionally, student data were collected from classroom observations and interviews. Data analysis showed a disconnect between faculty and students perceptions of confidence for both knowledge and the use of science argumentation. Student reports of their confidence levels regarding various bioethical issues were higher than faculty reports. A further disconnect showed up between students’ preferred learning styles and the general faculty’s common teaching methods; students learned more by practicing scientific argumentation than listening to traditional lectures. Students who completed a bioethics course that included practice in scientific argumentation, significantly increased their confidence levels. This study suggests that professors’ expectations and teaching styles influence student confidence levels in both knowledge and scientific argumentation.     

The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills,informal reasoning,and conceptual understanding of science

The literature provides confounding information with regard to questions about whether students in high school can engage in meaningful argumentation about socio‐scientific issues and whether this process improves their conceptual understanding of science. The purpose of this research was to explore the impact of classroom‐based argumentation on high school students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of genetics. The research was conducted as a case study in one school with an embedded quasi‐experimental design with two Grade 10 classes (n = 46) forming the argumentation group and two Grade 10 classes (n = 46) forming the comparison group. The teacher of the argumentation group participated in professional learning and explicitly taught argumentation skills to the students in his classes during one, 50‐minute lesson and involved them in whole‐class argumentation about socio‐scientific issues in a further two lessons. Data were generated through a detailed, written pre‐ and post‐instruction student survey. The findings showed that the argumentation group, but not the comparison group, improved significantly in the complexity and quality of their arguments and gave more explanations showing rational informal reasoning. Both groups improved significantly in their genetics understanding, but the improvement of the argumentation group was significantly better than the comparison group. The importance of the findings are that after only a short intervention of three lessons, improvements in the structure and complexity of students' arguments, the degree of rational informal reasoning, and students' conceptual understanding of science can occur. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47: 952–977, 2010     

SCIENCE AND NON-SCIENCE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ CRITICAL THINKING AND ARGUMENTATION PERFORMANCE IN READING A SCIENCE NEWS REPORT

A scientifically literate person should be able to engage and critique science news reports about socioscientific issues from a variety of information sources. Such engagement involves critical thinking and argumentation skills to determine if claims made are justified by evidence and explained by reasonable explanations. This study explored university students’ critical thinking performance when they read science news reports. Undergraduate science/applied science (n??=??52) and non-science (n??=??52) majors were asked to select a science news report from Internet sources and then to read, critique, and make comments about its contents. The science and non-science majors’ comments and their quality were identified and assessed in terms of analyzing the argument elements—claims and warrants, counterclaims and warrants, rebuttals, qualifiers, and evidence. The results indicated there is significant difference in identifying and formulating evidence favoring science/applied science over non-science majors (p??p??相似文献   

The Relationship of Discipline Background to Upper Secondary Students’ Argumentation on Socioscientific Issues

In the present STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics)-driven society, socioscientific issues (SSI) have become a focus globally and SSI research has grown into an important area of study in science education. Since students attending the social and science programs have a different focus in their studies and research has shown that students attending a science program are less familiar with argumentation practice, we make a comparison of the supporting reasons social science and science majors use in arguing different SSI with the goal to provide important information for pedagogical decisions about curriculum and instruction. As an analytical framework, a model termed SEE-SEP covering three aspects (of knowledge, value, and experiences) and six subject areas (of sociology/culture, economy, environment/ecology, science, ethics/morality, and policy) was adopted to analyze students’ justifications. A total of 208 upper secondary students (105 social science majors and 103 science majors) from Sweden were invited to justify and expound their arguments on four SSI including global warming, genetically modified organisms (GMO), nuclear power, and consumer consumption. The results showed that the social science majors generated more justifications than the science majors, the aspect of value was used most in students’ argumentation regardless of students’ discipline background, and justifications from the subject area of science were most often presented in nuclear power and GMO issues. We conclude by arguing that engaging teachers from different subjects to cooperate when teaching argumentation on SSI could be of great value and provide students from both social science and science programs the best possible conditions in which to develop argumentation skills.     

Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research

Socioscientific issues encompass social dilemmas with conceptual or technological links to science. The process of resolving these issues is best characterized by informal reasoning which describes the generation and evaluation of positions in response to complex situations. This article presents a critical review of research related to informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues. The findings reviewed address (a) socioscientific argumentation; (b) relationships between nature of science conceptualizations and socioscientific decision making; (c) the evaluation of information pertaining to socioscientific issues, including student ideas about what counts as evidence; and (d) the influence of an individual's conceptual understanding on his or her informal reasoning. This synthesis of the current state of socioscientific issue research provides a comprehensive framework from which future research can be motivated and decisions about the design and implementation of socioscientific curricula can be made. The implications for future research and classroom applications are discussed. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 41: 513–536, 2004     

Using climate change scenarios to assess high school students’ argumentation skills

Background: Many international science curriculum documents mandate that students should be able to participate in argument, debate and decision-making about contemporary science issues affecting society. Termed socioscientific issues, these topics provide students with opportunities to use their scientific knowledge to discuss, debate and defend their decisions and to evaluate the arguments of their peers.

Purpose: This study describes the development and trialling of scenarios based on the socioscientific issue of climate change. The scenarios required students to make and justify a decision and were designed to assess students’ argumentation skills.

Sample: A sample of 162 Year 10 students from five schools in Perth, Western Australia participated in this study.

Design and methods: Recent media articles were reviewed to identify relevant contexts for scenarios related to climate change that could be used to develop and assess students’ argumentation skills. In the first phase, students trialled scenarios about wind farms and hydrogen fuel buses using writing frames with scaffolding questions to generate as many reasons as possible to justify their decision. The responses were categorised into themes which were used to prepare a scoring rubric. In the second phase, students generated written arguments about the scenarios to support their decision. The arguments were analysed using both the scoring rubric developed from the first phase and Toulmin’s argumentation pattern of claim, data, backing, qualifier and rebuttal.

Results: Students’ responses to the scaffolded questions were categorised into themes of agriculture, economy, energy, environment, human impact and ethical factors. The themes of economy and the environment predominated with ethical justifications cited infrequently. An analysis of the arguments generated revealed a majority of students’ responses consisted of a claim and data with backings, qualifiers and rebuttals rarely provided.

Conclusions: Scenarios about climate change socioscientific issues can be used by teachers to both develop and assess students’ argumentation skills in classroom settings.     

Students’ communication, argumentation and knowledge in a citizens’ conference on global warming

An empirical study on 12th-grade students?? engagement on a global warming debate as a citizens?? conference is reported. Within the design-based research methodology, an interdisciplinary teaching sequence integrating an initiation to non-violent communication was developed. Students?? debates were analyzed according to three dimensions: communication, argumentation, and knowledge. Students regulated their oral contributions to the debate by identifying judgments in their discussions. Rhetorical processes developed by students were mainly related to the identity of debate protagonists with interest attributions, authority, and positions. Students?? arguments also relied on empirical data. The students?? knowledge focused on energy choices, economic, political, and science development issues. Implications for socioscientific issues integration in class are discussed.     

Science and Language Teachers’ Assessment of Upper Secondary Students’ Socioscientific Argumentation

Researchers and policy-makers have recognized the importance of including and promoting socioscientific argumentation in science education worldwide. The Swedish curriculum focuses more than ever on socioscientific issues (SSI) as well. However, teaching socioscientific argumentation is not an easy task for science teachers and one of the more distinguished difficulties is the assessment of students’ performance. In this study, we investigate and compare how science and Swedish language teachers, participating in an SSI-driven project, assessed students’ written argumentation about global warming. Swedish language teachers have a long history of teaching and assessing argumentation and therefore it was of interest to identify possible gaps between the two groups of teachers’ assessment practices. The results showed that the science teachers focused on students’ content knowledge within their subjects, whereas the Swedish language teachers included students’ abilities to select and use content knowledge from reliable reference resources, the structure of the argumentation and the form of language used. Since the Swedish language teachers’ assessment correlated more with previous research about quality in socioscientific argumentation, we suggest that a closer co-operation between the two groups could be beneficial in terms of enhancing the quality of assessment. Moreover, SSI teaching and learning as well as assessment of socioscientific argumentation ought to be included in teacher training programs for both pre- and in-service science teachers.     

Teaching socioscientific issues: classroom culture and students’ performances

The “Treasures in the Sea: Use and Abuse” unit that deals with authentic socioscientific issues related to the Mediterranean was developed as part of a national effort to increase scientific literacy. The unit aimed to enhance active participation of the learners and encourage higher order thinking in class by applying teaching methods that reduce the unfamiliarity felt by students. This was expected through an explicit use of a variety of teaching and assessment-for-learning methods, suitable for Science for All students. Our main goal was to examine the culture of Science for All classes in which the unit was enacted. In order to address the main learning objectives, we monitored students’ performances in tasks that required the higher order thinking skills of argumentation and value judgment, which are central constituents of decision-making processes. We show that while socioscientific issues were discussed in whole class and small group sessions, and students’ argumentation improved, there is still a long way to go in applying a thinking culture in non-science major classes. We suggest that science teachers should shift from traditional content-based and value-free approach, to a sociocultural approach that views science as a community practice and the students as active participants in decision-making processes.     

Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors

The study investigated the relationship of high school students' understandings about nature of science (NOS) aspects and their argumentation skills in relation to two controversial socioscientific issues. The study was conducted in five schools selected from different geographical areas in Beirut, Lebanon. Participants were 219 grade 11 students. Students in all the schools were administered a survey that consisted of two scenarios that addressed the controversial socioscientific issues about genetically modified food and water fluoridation. The two scenarios were followed by questions relating to argumentation and NOS. The study used a mixed methods approach where quantitative and qualitative measures were employed. Analysis involved participants' views of the target NOS aspects (subjective, tentative, and empirical) and their argumentation components (argument, counterargument, and rebuttal). The Pearson analyses showed strong correlations between the counterargument, compared to argument and rebuttal, and the three NOS aspects. Further, the chi‐square analyses showed significant differences in participants' argumentation skills and NOS understandings between the two scenarios. Qualitative data from questionnaires and interviews further confirmed these findings. Two central implications for the teaching of NOS and argumentation skills were discussed in terms of highlighting the role of counterarguments and considering contextual factors that involve issue exposure and familiarity, prior content knowledge, and personal relevance. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 489–514, 2012     

Using the SEE-SEP Model to Analyze Upper Secondary Students’ Use of Supporting Reasons in Arguing Socioscientific Issues

To achieve the goal of scientific literacy, the skills of argumentation have been emphasized in science education during the past decades. But the extent to which students can apply scientific knowledge to their argumentation is still unclear. The purpose of this study was to analyse 80 Swedish upper secondary students’ informal argumentation on four socioscientific issues (SSIs) to explore students’ use of supporting reasons and to what extent students used scientific knowledge in their arguments. Eighty upper secondary students were asked to express their opinions on one SSI topic they chose through written reports. The four SSIs in this study include global warming, genetically modified organisms (GMO), nuclear power, and consumption. To analyse students’ supporting reasons from a holistic view, we used the SEE-SEP model, which links the six subject areas of sociology/culture (So), environment (En), economy (Ec), science (Sc), ethics/morality (Et) and policy (Po) connecting with three aspects, knowledge, value and personal experience (KVP). The results showed that students used value to a greater extent (67%) than they did scientific knowledge (27%) for all four SSI topics. According to the SEE-SEP model, the distribution of supporting reasons generated by students differed among the SSI topics. Also, some alternative concepts were disclosed in students’ arguments. The implications for research and education are discussed.     

Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics

This study examined the outcomes of a unit that integrates explicit teaching of general reasoning patterns into the teaching of a specific science content. Specifically, this article examined the teaching of argumentation skills in the context of dilemmas in human genetics. Before instruction only a minority (16.2%) of the students referred to correct, specific biological knowledge in constructing arguments in the context of dilemmas in genetics. Approximately 90% of the students were successful in formulating simple arguments. An assessment that took place following instruction supported the conclusion that integrating explicit teaching of argumentation into the teaching of dilemmas in human genetics enhances performance in both biological knowledge and argumentation. An increase was found in the frequency of students who referred to correct, specific biological knowledge in constructing arguments. Students in the experimental group scored significantly higher than students in the comparison group in a test of genetics knowledge. An increase was also found in the quality of students' argumentation. Students were able to transfer the reasoning abilities taught in the context of genetics to the context of dilemmas taken from everyday life. The effects of metacognitive thinking and of changing students' thinking dispositions by modifying what is considered valuable in the class culture are discussed. © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 35–62, 2002     

The Effects of Socio-scientific Instruction on Pre-Service Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy for Learning and Teaching Controversial Family Health Issues

This research investigates the effects of socioscientific instruction on pre-service teachers’ sense of efficacy in the teaching and learning of controversial family health issues. For this purpose, a total of 251 students from two teacher training colleges participated in the study and were randomly assigned as experimental and control groups. The experimental group was taught the contents of the controversial family health issues using socioscientific instruction approach and the control group was taught the same content using a more traditional approach. Quantitative data were obtained from both groups after responding to the ‘Teacher sense of Efficacy Scale’ as instrument used for data collection before and after the treatments. Analysis of covariance was used in data analysis of which the pre-treatment scores were used as covariates. Qualitative interviews were conducted with ten participants randomly selected from the experimental group before and after the treatment to deepen and elaborate the quantitative data. The quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that the integration of the socioscientific instruction have significantly affected the pre-service teachers’ sense of efficacy in favour of the experimental group that shows a more stronger sense of efficacy. It was concluded that the socioscientific instruction is significantly effective in changing the pre-service teachers’ weaker sense of efficacy to a stronger one in the controversial family health issues.

     

Validation of Automated Scoring for a Formative Assessment that Employs Scientific Argumentation

Scientific argumentation is one of the core practices for teachers to implement in science classrooms. We developed a computer-based formative assessment to support students’ construction and revision of scientific arguments. The assessment is built upon automated scoring of students’ arguments and provides feedback to students and teachers. Preliminary validity evidence was collected in this study to support the use of automated scoring in this formative assessment. The results showed satisfactory psychometric properties related to this formative assessment. The automated scores showed satisfactory agreement with human scores, but small discrepancies still existed. Automated scores and feedback encouraged students to revise their answers. Students’ scientific argumentation skills improved during the revision process. These findings provided preliminary evident to support the use of automated scoring in the formative assessment to diagnose and enhance students’ argumentation skills in the context of climate change in secondary school science classrooms.     

The Effects of Socio-scientific Instruction on Pre-Service Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy for Learning and Teaching Controversial Family Health Issues

This research investigates the effects of socioscientific instruction on pre-service teachers’ sense of efficacy in the teaching and learning of controversial family health issues. For this purpose, a total of 251 students from two teacher training colleges participated in the study and were randomly assigned as experimental and control groups. The experimental group was taught the contents of the controversial family health issues using socioscientific instruction approach and the control group was taught the same content using a more traditional approach. Quantitative data were obtained from both groups after responding to the ‘Teacher sense of Efficacy Scale’ as instrument used for data collection before and after the treatments. Analysis of covariance was used in data analysis of which the pre-treatment scores were used as covariates. Qualitative interviews were conducted with ten participants randomly selected from the experimental group before and after the treatment to deepen and elaborate the quantitative data. The quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that the integration of the socioscientific instruction have significantly affected the pre-service teachers’ sense of efficacy in favour of the experimental group that shows a more stronger sense of efficacy. It was concluded that the socioscientific instruction is significantly effective in changing the pre-service teachers’ weaker sense of efficacy to a stronger one in the controversial family health issues.     

The role of socioscientific issues in biology teaching: from the perspective of teachers

ABSTRACT

Previous research has documented that students who engage with socioscientific issues can acquire some of the complex competences and skills typically related to scientific literacy. But an emerging field of research on science teachers’ understanding and use of socioscientific issues, has documented that a range of challenges hinders the uptake of socioscientific issues. In this study, we investigated the interpretation and implementation of socioscientific issues among Danish biology teachers. We conducted five in-depth group interviews and validated the emergent themes from the teachers’ talk-in-interaction by distributing a questionnaire. Our findings suggest that the participating teachers generally harbour a content-centred interpretation of socioscientific issues which manifests itself in at least three separate ways. First, the teachers generally use socioscientific issues as a vehicle to teach factual biological content. Second, the teachers emphasised mastery of factual content in their assessment. Third, the teachers tended to reduce socioscientific issues to specific biological contents in a way may preclude students from engaging with the real socioscientific issue. Our findings are particularly significant for science educators, policy-makers and curriculum designers, as we argue that key aspects of this content-centred interpretation may be a coping strategy used to navigate a divided curriculum.     

Who Benefits From a Foundational Logic Course? Effects on Undergraduate Course Performance

Being able to understand and evaluate arguments in different modalities and in different disciplines is thought to be a key component of students’ academic success in college. However, many students do not receive explicit instruction in the basic concepts and rules of argumentation. Using a difference-in-differences approach with a multicohort longitudinal data set of almost 15,000 undergraduates beginning in health and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-related fields at a research university, we examined changes in relative performance of students after enrolling in an introductory logic course. We find that students improved their grade point average (GPA) after taking the course, especially if they begin college with low academic achievement (Cohen’s d?=?0.18). Our results are consistent with the idea that acquiring foundational skills, in particular general skills in argumentation, prepares STEM students for future learning.