Abstract
As China and the United States become the top two carbon emitters in the world, it is crucial for citizens in both countries to construct a sophisticated understanding of energy consumption issues. This interview study examines how U.S. and Chinese students compare in explaining and arguing about two critical energy consumption issues: burning fossil fuels and using electricity. In particular, we focused on using scientific knowledge to explain and argue about these issues. Based on relevant literature and our previous research, we developed a model to guide separate assessment and evaluation of students’ argumentation and explanation. We conducted clinical interviews with 40 biology majors, including 20 U.S. students and 20 Chinese students. This study generated several important findings. First, Chinese students tended to be less consistent across explanations and argumentation, and their levels of argumentation were lower than their levels of explanation. Second, in comparison to their Chinese counterparts, U.S. students provided more scientific arguments but many fewer scientific explanations. Finally, although all participants were college students and had completed at least one introductory level science course before the interviews, some of their explanations and arguments were based on informal ideas rather than matter and energy. We discuss the possible interpretations of these findings and their implications for teaching and learning of scientific explanation and argumentation in both countries.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2009). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC: AAAS.
Attari, S. Z., DeKay, M. L., Davidson, C. I. & de Bruin, W. B. (2010). Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 16054–16059.
Berland, L. K. & McNeill, K. L. (2012). For whom is argument and explanation a necessary distinction? A response to Osborne and Patterson. Science Education, 96, 808–813.
Braaten, M. & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95, 639–669.
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315.
Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Science, 14, 161–199.
Diver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
Gopnik, A. & Wellman, H. M. (1994). The theory theory. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 257–293). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Inagaki, K. & Hatano, G. (2002). Young children’s naive thinking about the biological world. Brighton, England: Psychology Press.
International Energy Agency (2013). CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion: Highlights. Paris, France: OECD-IEA Publishing.
Jin, H. & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1149–1180.
Jin, H. & Wei, X. (2014). Using ideas from the history of science and linguistics to develop a learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. In R. F. Chen, A. Eisenkraft, D. Fortus, J. Krajcik, K. Neumann, J. C. Nordine & A. Scheff (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 157–174). New York, NY: Springer.
Jin, H., Wei, X., Peng, Q. & Hokayem, H. (2015a). An investigation of Chinese teachers’ inquiry-oriented classroom discourse. Paper presented at the conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Chicago, IL.
Jin, H., Mehl, C. E. & Lan, D. H. (2015b). Developing an analytical framework for argumentation on energy consumption issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. doi:10.1002/tea.21237.
Johnson, P. (1998). Progression in children’s understanding of a basic particle theory: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 393–412.
Lai, H.-L. & Chiang, S.-M. (2003). Intrapsychological force-dynamic interaction: Verbs of refraining graining in HAKKA. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 1, 35–64.
Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’ views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 793–823.
Ministry of Education of People’s Republic of China (2010) Mid- and long-term plan for educational reform and development: 2010–2020. Beijing, China: Ministry of Education, Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_177/201407/171904.html.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2003a). High school biology curriculum standards. Beijing, China: People’s Education Press.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2003b). High school chemistry curriculum standards. Beijing, China: People’s Education Press.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2003c). High school physics curriculum standards. Beijing, China: People’s Education Press.
Mohan, L., Chen, J. & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 675–698.
National Environmental Education & Training Foundation (2002). Americans’ low “energy IQ:” A risk to our energy future. Washington, DC: NEETF & Roper ASW.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: Achieve.
Opfer, J. E., Nehm, R. H. & Ha, M. (2012). Cognitive foundations for science assessment design: Knowing what students know about evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 744–777.
Osborne, J. & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95, 627–638.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.
Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Roth, K., Garnier, H., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K. & Wickler, N. (2011). Video-based lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 117–148.
Swackhamer, G. (2005). Cognitive resources for understanding energy. Tempe, AZ: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Arizona State University.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zhang, B., Krajcik, J. S., Sutherland, L. M., Wang, L., Wu, J. & Qian, Y. (2003). Opportunities and challenges of China’s inquiry-based education reform in middle and high schools: Perspectives of science teachers and teacher educators. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(4), 477–503.
Zhao, Y. & Qiu, W. (2010). China as a case study of systemic educational reform. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second International handbook of educational change (pp. 349–362). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jin, H., Hokayem, H., Wang, S. et al. A US-China Interview Study: Biology Students’ Argumentation and Explanation About Energy Consumption Issues. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 14, 1037–1057 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9651-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9651-4