Abstract
ABSTRACT This study explores the intersection of gender, sociocultural background, and argumentative socioscientific writing. It focuses on Jewish Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) men and women who were educated in gender-segregated schools separated from the public education (PE) system in Israel. We compared argumentative essays written by these two groups to argumentative essays written by both genders of PE graduates who studied in coed schools. The methodology and analysis were based on both the cognitive and sociocultural perspectives, and relied on both preexisting (‘top down’) and data-derived (‘bottom up’) criteria to compare the argumentative essays of the four groups in 20 different aspects. The analysis revealed that gender differences in argumentation patterns and quality are culturally bound. While PE women and men share similar argumentative patterns and quality, in the Haredi group two distinct argumentative patterns and differences in quality were found. The findings demonstrate the complex intersections of gender, sociocultural background, and argumentation. We discuss these findings and present implications for research and teaching of argumentation and of socioscientific reasoning.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
