Socio-scientific Argumentation Research Articles

The potential for reconciling pedagogical tradition and innovation: the case of socioscientific argumentation

The potential for reconciling pedagogical tradition and innovation: the case of socioscientific argumentation

Preservice Biology Teachers’ Socioscientific Argumentation: Analyzing Structural and Content Complexity in the Context of a Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination

The present study analyzed the structural and the content complexity of 76 preservice science teachers’ socioscientific argumentation in the context of a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. Data were analyzed within the methodological frame of qualitative content analysis. Concerning the structural complexity, the participants’ socioscientific argumentation reached a relatively high level (i.e., justifications with elaborated grounds). Concerning the complexity of content, the sample referred to science-, ethics-, society-, and politics-related arguments (i.e., almost the full range of content areas); however, on an individual level, participants referred to merely an average of two content areas. Regarding the relationship between structural and content complexity, a significant positive correlation was found. In sum, the results of this study suggest that preservice science teachers’ socioscientific argumentation is on a promisingly high level in terms of structural and on a medium level regarding content complexity. The findings are discussed and implications for science teacher education and assessment in science education are proposed.

Drama as a Powerful Tool to Enrich Socio-scientific Argumentation.

Socio-scientific argumentation (SSA) is increasingly being recognized as a key aspect of scientific literacy. Much of the reason for this is that this skill is crucial for helping students to become active participants in twenty-first-century democratic societies in which the construction of informed and critical views of socio-scientific issues (e.g. climate change, COVID-19 vaccination, genetic testing) plays a fundamental role. The problem is that instructors rarely give students explicit and research-based opportunities to enrich their SSA skills. Therefore, the aim of this study was to provide evidence that drama can be used as a platform to enrich argumentation in genetic testing. The data were derived from the written responses and the audio recordings of seventy-six university students (37 females and 39 males, 16–29 years old) in Colombia during a complete drama-based teaching–learning sequence (TLS) supervised by the same instructor. The outcomes suggest that the sequence can be used to enrich argumentation in genetic testing as it effectively provided participants with explicit opportunities to produce both arguments and counterarguments about the controversy whether the use of genetic tests among people should be encouraged. This study contributes to the literature on SSA in science education by demonstrating that drama is a promising tool to enhance argumentation about science-based social issues.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10763-022-10320-3.

Using Critical Integrative Argumentation to Assess Socioscientific Argumentation across Decision-Making Contexts

Socioscientific issues (SSI) are often used to facilitate students’ engagement in multiple scientific practices such as decision-making and argumentation, both of which are goals of STEM literacy, science literacy, and integrated STEM education. Literature often emphasizes scientific argumentation over socioscientific argumentation, which involves considering social factors in addition to scientific frameworks. Analyzing students’ socioscientific arguments may reveal how students construct such arguments and evaluate pedagogical tools supporting these skills. In this study, we examined students’ socioscientific arguments regarding three SSI on pre- and post-assessments in the context of a course emphasizing SSI-based structured decision-making. We employed critical integrative argumentation (CIA) as a theoretical and analytical framework, which integrates arguments and counterarguments with stronger arguments characterized by identifying and refuting counterarguments. We hypothesized that engaging in structured decision-making, in which students integrate multidisciplinary perspectives and consider tradeoffs of various solutions based upon valued criteria, may facilitate students’ development of integrated socioscientific arguments. Findings suggest that students’ arguments vary among SSI contexts and may relate to students’ identities and perspectives regarding the SSI. We conclude that engaging in structured decision-making regarding personally relevant SSI may foster more integrated argumentation skills, which are critical to engaging in information-laden democratic societies.

Sosyobilimsel argümantasyona yönelik pedagojik alan bilgisi (PAB) bileşenlerinin etkileşimindeki değişimin incelenmesi: Deneyimlerin etkisi

The purpose of this research is to examine how elementary teachers' learning and teaching experiences and seniority change pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) integrations for socioscientific argumentation. PCK Mapping, which is a pictorial methodology approach, was used to achieve these aims. This research is a multiple case study, which is one of the qualitative research patterns. In this study, which lasted for a total of 10 weeks, five elementary teachers were included in the learning and teaching process related to socioscientific argumentation and PCK. The data were collected from all participants through the lesson plan and PCK interview protocol at the beginning and end of the course. Data from these applications have been appropriately integrated and subcategorized according to PCK components. These data were analysed through in-depth analysis of explicit PCK, inductive method, enumerative approach, PCK mapping and the constant comparative method. The results revealed that experiences contributed in different ways to the integration of PCK for socioscientific argumentation. Experiences increased the importance of the knowledge of students’ understanding. Furthermore, it was determined that while this course less affected the elementary teachers with little professional experience, it more affected the elementary teachers with more professional experience. In view of socioscientific argumentation processes, seniority threshold can be mentioned in the change of the integration of PCK which has an idiosyncratic nature. The educational implications of these results, which have been discussed in the light of the existing literature, have been also mentioned.

Developing Pre-service Teachers’ Competence in Assessing Socioscientific Argumentation

ABSTRACT Research has revealed that teachers find teaching and assessing socioscientific argumentation (SSA) to be challenging. In this study, ten pre-service science teachers (PSTs) tested a new Practical Assessment of Socioscientific Argumentation Model (PASM) that was developed to enhance skills in assessing SSA. The models’ design is based on the Teacher oriented Assessment Framework. Here, we present the characteristics of PASM and examine how PSTs perceive that the use of PASM effects competences in assessing SSA. PASM is divided into multiple phases and requires PSTs to perform three roles: arguing for and against a given socioscientific issue, and assessing other PSTs’ argumentation. It also includes group discussion and individual reflection phases. Two cycles of the model were performed, focusing on different issues (GMOs and nuclear power). Data were collected in the form of audio-recordings of group discussions, field notes from whole class discussions and the PSTs’ written individual reflections. Thematic data analysis revealed that the PSTs discussed and reflected on four main themes: the focus of the assessment, the tools in PASM, the nature of PASM, and coping strategies. The nature of PASM, with iterative cycles and repeated reflections, expanded their views on assessing this kind of argumentation, making PSTs aware of quality criteria that should be included in assessment of SSA. We conclude that it is important to include training on assessing SSA in teacher education and that PASM could be a valuable tool for this purpose.

‘I wouldn’t want to be the animal in use nor the patient in need’ – the role of issue familiarity in students’ socioscientific argumentation

ABSTRACT Students’ argumentation skills are considered a central tool to contribute to scientific controversies in the science classroom. Scientific controversies of social relevance (socioscientific issues; SSI) are subject to multiple viewpoints that are often rooted in diverse disciplines. However, the relationship between issue familiarity and students’ multidisciplinary argumentation is still a matter under discussion. This study: (1) explores whether the selection of a particular issue (animal testing) enables students’ engagement in multidisciplinary argumentation without additional issue familiarisation, i.e., using only their existing knowledge; and (2) clarifies the relationship between increased issue familiarity and students’ multidisciplinary argumentation. One hundred and sixty three ninth and tenth graders participated in this study, of whom one hundred and six took part in a teaching unit to familiarise themselves with the issue of animal testing. The study’s results demonstrate that animal testing constitutes an effective issue to engage students with the complexity of SSI without requiring more than basic familiarity prior to engagement. The results further demonstrate that increased issue familiarity can enhance the overall diversity of discipline-related arguments amongst students; however, not all disciplines were enhanced equally. The findings suggest that more instructional guidance seems to be needed to assist students in broadening their arguments.

An investigation of elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for socioscientific argumentation: The effect of a learning and teaching experience

AbstractThe aim of this study was to determine how a learning and teaching experience, which related to socioscientific argumentation and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), changed elementary teachers' views of teaching with socioscientific argumentation, as well as the change in their PCK and instructional practices. Five teachers studying for the classroom‐teaching master's degree program of a foundation university in Turkey were included in the study, which lasted for a total of 10 weeks. Interviews to determine the PCK of these elementary teachers were first conducted, and their instructional practices were observed. Then, teachers attended a course related to socioscientific argumentation and PCK. Finally, PCK interviews were conducted for a second time with all the teachers and their instructional practices were observed again. The qualitative data collected from the study were analyzed by inductive content analysis, based on the constant comparative method. Classroom observations were evaluated with an analytical evaluation rubric. The results revealed that the learning and teaching experience undergone by the participating teachers improved the following components of their PCK: orientations (OTS), students' understanding (KSU), instructional strategies (KISR), and knowledge of assessment (KAS). After the course, strong interactions occurred among all the components, with the exceptions of knowledge of curriculum and knowledge of assessment. Furthermore, teacher efficacy, which is an effective element of PCK, is embedded in the components of KSU and KISR of the PCK for socioscientific argumentation. Therefore, it was concluded that the PCK for socioscientific argumentation of the participating elementary teachers improved while both learning and teaching.

The Effect of Socio-Scientific Argumentation Method on Students' Entrepreneurship Perceptions

Aim of this research is to examine the effect of the use of the socio-scientific argumentation method on students’ entrepreneurial perceptions in the middle school science course. In the study, quasi-experimental design with pretest-posttest control group, as one of the quantitative research, was used. Experiment and control groups were formed from students who were studying in four classes in a determined middle school in the 2017-2018 academic year. In this study, lessons were taught with the socio-scientific argumentation method in the experiment group while Turkish Science Education Program activities and application continued to be used in the control group. The Entrepreneurship Perception in Science Education Scale was used as the data collection tool in the study. The scale was developed in order to determine secondary school students’ entrepreneurship perceptions. The scale consists of 5 factors and 28 items. Findings of research indicated a significant score difference in favor of the experiment group. In addition, findings of sub-factor scores also indicated significant score differences in favor of the experiment group According to the results of the study, socio-scientific argumentation method positively affected the students’ entrepreneurship perception. Furthermore, results show that socio-scientific argumentation method positively affected the students’ self-esteem, innovation perception and creativity, leadership and tendency to stand out, social skills and group work, and risk taking tendency. Socio-scientific argumentation method might also have influenced the entrepreneurship characteristics which is a learning outcome for students according to the 2013 and 2018 Turkish Science Education Program.

Studying the effectiveness of an online argumentation model for improving undergraduate students' argumentation ability

AbstractThis research develops a web‐based model, entitled the “intuitive claim, peer‐assessment, discussion, and elaborate claim argumentation training” (IPadE) model, and embeds with a Web‐based Interactive Argumentation System to enhance undergraduate students' socioscientific argumentation abilities. This research adopts a quasi‐experimental research design; the sample comprised 131 undergraduate students from two classes (69 in the experimental group and 62 in the control group). The socioscientific issue discussed were related to global health. This study collected and analysed quantitative and qualitative data, including the pretest and posttest of students' knowledge test scores and argumentation abilities questionnaire. The results generally confirmed the effectiveness of the IPadE model. First, in a comparison of the content knowledge and argumentation skills, the experimental group have statistically significantly improved than the control group. Second, regarding the number of reasoning modes proposed, the experimental group could propose multiple reasoning modes and reasoning levels on rebuttals increased after training.

Examination of the Evidences Used by the Secondary School Students in the Process of Socio-Scientific Argumentation: Example of Global Climate Change

The aim of this study was to determine the functions of the evidence used by the sixth, seventh and eighth grade students during the whole group and small group socio-scientific argumentation, and to determine the differences with respect to grade level. In this single case study conducted with the participation of a totally 70 secondary school students studying in the sixth, seventh and eighth grades of a public school firstly, an knowledge test with three open-ended questions was applied to determine the students' conceptions about global climate change. Then, the students were included in small and whole group discussion through two different socio-scientific scenarios in the context of global climate change. The whole and small group discussions among the students of each class level were recorded with the voice recorder. The evidences that students used during their small and whole group discussion were analyzed with the analytical evidence assessment tool that includes different categories of evidence Analysis of collected data; found out that the eighth grade students who were better in terms of their level of knowledge compared to the other students were leading the use of total evidence. Besides, it is also among the important results that students tend to refute the counter-claims predominantly and use evidence to support their own claims. The results were discussed on the basis of relevant literature and specific recommendations were given.

Pre-service Science Teachers’ Nature of Science Understandings’ Influence on Their Socioscientific Argumentation Quality

The purpose of this study is to investigate pre-service science teachers’ (PSTs’) nature of science (NOS) understandings’ influence on their socioscientific argumentation quality. This study was conducted with 12 participants whom were chosen with maximum variation sampling method among 27 PSTs. The class of the participants was chosen by basic random sampling method. This study, which contains both qualitative and quantitative processes, is an explanatory mixed method in which quantitative data are used in more detail than qualitative data. For this study, which lasted 11 weeks in total, three groups with four participants in each were formed. Presentations, whole-class discussions and small group discussions were made for participants to learn fundamental knowledge about the NOS and socioscientific argumentation; and to have them basic argumentation formation skills. Qualitative and quantitative data analyses indicate that understanding (low, medium, high) of the NOS impacts socioscientific argumentation quality. Our results also indicate that superior understanding of the NOS also predicts socioscientific argumentation quality.

Socioscientific Argumentation of Pre-Service Teachers about Genetically Modified Organisms

This study aims to investigate socioscientific argumentation of pre-service teachers of science and non-science major regarding Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) issue. We used descriptive study and involved second-year pre-service teachers from two major, 28 pre-service science teachers (PSTs) and 28 pre-service non-science teachers (PNSTs) as participants. Paper and pencil test was administered in order to obtain the data of PSTs’ and PNSTs’ argument about GMOs. All of the data were analyzed by descriptive analysis. We applied Toulmin Argumentation Pattern (TAP) as a basic framework to identify the argumentation component. The result showed that both PSTs and PNSTs were able to propose an argument with a claim, data, and/or warrant.. Most of their argument contain data which provided in the text, without any further reasoning or relevant scientific knowledge. So, the coherency between argumentation component in both PSTs and PNSTs was limited. However, PSTs are more able to propose coherent arguments than PNSTs. These findings indicated that educational background and learning experiences may influence to pre-service teacher argumentation in the context of GMOs. Beside that, teaching and learning process which focused on the socioscientific issues is necessary to develop pre-service teachers’ argumentation

An investigation of prospective science teachers' socio-scientific argumentation processes in terms of metacognition: A causal-comparative study

This study attempts to investigate through causal-comparative research whether socio-scientific argumentation processes of prospective science teachers (PSTs) who had high and low socio-scientific argumentation skills differed from each other in terms of metacognition. The research was conducted with a total of 45 PSTs, 24of whom had high socio-scientific argumentation skills, and 21 had low socio-scientific argumentation skills. Data were gathered using qualitative and quantitative methods. Research results indicated that the PSTs with high socio-scientific argumentation skills displayed more metacognitive behaviors when compared to the PSTs with low socio-scientific argumentation skills and that they used more metacognitive strategies with regard to many components such as planning, decision-making, evaluation, monitoring, and organizing. Furthermore, a statistically significant difference was detected between the scores of the PSTs' metacognitive awareness skills in favor of the PSTs with high socio-scientific argumentation skills. These results demonstrated that the two groups with different socio-scientific argumentation skills differed from each other in terms of metacognition and that the PSTs with high socio-scientific argumentation skills were better in regard with metacognition.

Changes in Pre-service Science Teachers’ Understandings After Being Involved in Explicit Nature of Science and Socioscientific Argumentation Processes

The study explored the changes in pre-service science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and their opinions about the nature of science, science teaching and argumentation after their participation in explicit nature of science (NOS) and socioscientific argumentation processes. The participants were 56 third-grade pre-service science teachers studying in a state university in Turkey. The treatment group comprised 27 participants, and there were 29 participants in the comparison group. The comparison group participants were involved in a student-centred science-teaching process, and the participants of the treatment group were involved in explicit NOS and socioscientific argumentation processes. In the study, which lasted a total of 11 weeks, a NOS-as-argumentation questionnaire was administered to all the participants to determine their understanding of NOS at the beginning and end of the data collection process, and six random participants of the treatment group participated in semi-structured interview questions in order to further understand their views regarding NOS, science teaching and argumentation. Qualitative and quantitative data analysis revealed that the explicit NOS and socioscientific argumentation processes had a significant effect on pre-service science teachers’ NOS understandings. Furthermore, NOS, argumentation and science teaching views of the participants in the treatment group showed a positive change. The results of this study are discussed in light of the related literature, and suggestions are made within the context of contribution to science-teaching literature, improvement of education quality and education of pre-service teachers.

Student performance on argumentation task in the Swedish National Assessment in science

ABSTRACTThe aim of this study is to investigate the influence of content knowledge on students’ socio-scientific argumentation in the Swedish National Assessment in biology, chemistry and physics for 12-year-olds. In Sweden, the assessment of socio-scientific argumentation has been a major part of the National Assessment during three consecutive years and this study utilizes data on student performance to investigate (a) the relationship between tasks primarily addressing argumentation and tasks addressing primarily content knowledge as well as (b) students’ performance on argumentation tasks, which differ in relation to content, subject, aspect of argumentation and assessment criteria. Findings suggest a strong and positive relationship between content knowledge and students’ performance on argumentation tasks. The analysis also provides some hypotheses about the task difficulty of argumentation tasks that may be pursued in future investigations.

Balancing the pros and cons of GMOs: socio-scientific argumentation in pre-service teacher education

ABSTRACTThis study investigates the role of the discursive process in the act of scientific knowledge building. Specifically, it links scientific knowledge building to risk perception of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). To this end, this study designed and implemented a three-stage argumentation programme giving pre-service teachers (PSTs) the opportunity to consider, discuss and construct shared decisions about GMOs. The study involved 101 third-year PSTs from two different classes, randomly divided into control and experimental groups. The study utilised both quantitative and qualitative methods. During the quantitative phase, researchers administered a pre- and post-intervention scale to measure both groups’ risk perception of GMOs. During the qualitative phase, data were collected from the experimental group alone through individual and group reports and an open-ended questionnaire. T-test results showed a statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups’ risk perception of GMOs. Qualitative analysis also revealed differences, for example, in PSTs’ weighing of the pros and cons of scientific research demonstrating positive results of GMOs. In addition, PSTs’ acceptance of GMOs increased. Consequently, this study suggests that developing familiarity with scientific enterprise may play an effective role in adopting a scientific perspective as well as a more balanced risk perception of GMOs.

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.

The Quality of Pre-service Science Teachers’ Argumentation: Influence of Content Knowledge

Research exploring the possible link between quality of argumentation and content knowledge is not straightforward. Some studies suggest a positive relationship (e.g. Dawson & Schibeci in J Biol Educ 38(1):7–12, 2003) while others do not (e.g. Zohar & Nemet in J Res Sci Teach 39:35–62, 2002). This study examined the possible relationship between pre-service science teachers’ (PSTs) lines of argument regarding genetic cloning issues and their knowledge of the related content. In the research, pre-service teachers were divided into groups according to the results of a conceptual understanding test on genetic cloning, and were categorized as high, middle and low achievers. After introducing three socio-scientific scenarios (relating to genetic cloning) with the intention of prompting lines of argumentation, the PSTs then participated in semi-structured interviews with the research team. It was revealed that there is not a significant relationship between the quality of socio-scientific argumentation among PSTs and their knowledge of content in the domain of cloning. Explanations for these results are discussed in light of the related literature and with reference to the interviews.

Improving students' argumentation skills through a product life-cycle analysis project in chemistry education

The aim of the study discussed in this paper was to link existing research about the argumentation skills of students to the teaching of life-cycle analysis (LCA) in order to promote an evidence-based approach to the teaching of and learning about materials used in consumer products. This case-study is part of a larger design research project that focuses on improving education for sustainable development (ESD) in chemistry teaching by means of combining a socio-scientific issue (SSI) and life-cycle analysis with inquiry-based learning. The research question was: How do students (N= 8) use scientific, ecological, socio-economical and ethical argumentation in the life-cycle analysis of a product? The research method for this study was content analysis performed on written student answers and an audio recording of a debate. The results show that the students' scientific and ecological argumentation skills with regard to the life-cycles of products were improved during the life-cycle analysis project. The studying also affected, to a lesser extent, the students' ability to form socio-economical and ethical arguments. The type of student-centred and cross-curricular product life-cycle analysis project discussed in this paper is a suitable new method for teaching socio-scientific argumentation to chemistry students at the secondary school level.