Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A US-China Interview Study: Biology Students’ Argumentation and Explanation About Energy Consumption Issues

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braaten, M. & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95, 639–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Science, 14, 161–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Inagaki, K. & Hatano, G. (2002). Young children’s naive thinking about the biological world. Brighton, England: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Energy Agency (2013). CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion: Highlights. Paris, France: OECD-IEA Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, H. & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1149–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, H.-L. & Chiang, S.-M. (2003). Intrapsychological force-dynamic interaction: Verbs of refraining graining in HAKKA. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 1, 35–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2003b). High school chemistry curriculum standards. Beijing, China: People’s Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2003c). High school physics curriculum standards. Beijing, China: People’s Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Environmental Education & Training Foundation (2002). Americans’ low “energy IQ:” A risk to our energy future. Washington, DC: NEETF & Roper ASW.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Next Generation Science Standards Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: Achieve.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95, 627–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swackhamer, G. (2005). Cognitive resources for understanding energy. Tempe, AZ: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Arizona State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hui Jin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9651-4

Keywords

Navigation