An Argumentative Tool for Facilitating Critical Evaluation

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to explore pre-service elementary teachers’ evaluations of the evidence and models and their positions on a socio-scientific topic, namely genetically modified organisms (GMOs), after evaluating them through Model Evidence Link (MEL) diagrams. The findings of this study show that the participants mostly constructed accurate evidence-model links. However, they mostly generated inaccurate relationships between the model and the evidence when the evidence had nothing to do with the model. The results also show that the participants mostly evaluated the model-evidence relationships at the descriptive and relational levels. The participants were able to construct accurate links; however, they could not critically evaluate the model-evidence links. Finally, although the participants read supportive, opposing and irrelevant evidence about the benefits of GMOs, and discussed them with their group mates, most of them still thought that GMOs are not beneficial to society. Furthermore, none of them stated the belief that GMOs are beneficial to society.