Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Argumentation in a Socioscientific Context and its Influence on Fundamental and Derived Science Literacies

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

Abstract

This study explored the effects of arguing to learn in a socioscientific context on the fundamental and derived components of reading, writing, and science understanding as integral parts of science literacy. We adopted mixed-methods in which the 1-group pretest–posttest design with supplemental interviews and questionnaires. The pretest evaluated the dependent variables (reading and writing scores), the treatment was arguing to learn about the global climate change issue, the posttest evaluated the dependent variables, and follow-up questionnaires and interviews informed the quantitative results. An intact grade six class (N = 28) at an urban elementary school located in central Taiwan was the participants. Analyses of the pretest–posttest gain scores and correlations between these outcomes revealed significant (p < 0.05) improvements in writing and associations among reading, writing, and arguing to learn. Interpretation of the qualitative data (interview and questionnaire responses) supported that argumentation as an instructional treatment focused on fundamental literacy could play a positive role in facilitating students’ enhanced science understanding (derived literacy).

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Balgopal, M. & Wallace, A. (2013). Writing-to-learn, writing-to-communicate, & scientific literacy. The American Biology Teacher, 75(3), 170–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C.-C., Yang, W. C. & Tuan, H.-L. (2010). Exploring the impact of guided TAPping scientific reading-writing activity on sixth graders. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 18(5), 443–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S. & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, H. & Yarden, A. (2009). “Here the scientists explain what I said”. Coordination practices elicited during the enactment of the results and discussion sections of adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 39, 349–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleener, C. E. & Bucher, K. T. (2004). Linking reading, science, and fiction books. Childhood Education, 80(2), 76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florence, M. K. & Yore, L. D. (2004). Learning to write like a scientist: coauthoring as an enculturation task. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 637–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunel, M., Hand, B. & Prain, V. (2007). Writing for learning in science: a secondary analysis of six studies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 615–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B. & Prain, V. (2006). Moving from border crossing to convergence of perspectives in language and science literacy research and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 101–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: an overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

  • Norris, S. P. & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. E. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 93(3), 79–84.

    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 

  • Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. B. & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: each in the service of the other [Special Issue]. Science, 328(5977), 459–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. M. & Norris, S. P. (2009). Bridging the gap between the language of science and the language of school science through the use of adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 39, 313–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 179–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romance, N. R. & Vitale, M. R. (1992). A curriculum strategy that expands time for in-depth elementary science instruction by using science-based reading strategies: effects of a year-long study in grade four. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 545–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saddler, B. & Andrade, H. (2004). The writing rubric. Educational Leadership, 10, 48–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., Erduran, S. & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

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

  • Wallace, C. S. (2004). An illumination of the roles of hands-on activities, discussion, text reading, and writing in constructing biology knowledge in seventh grade. School Science and Mathematics, 104, 70–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J. & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D. (2012). Science literacy for all—more than a slogan, logo, or rally flag! In K. C. D. Tan, M. Kim & S. Hwang (Eds.), Issues and challenges in science education research: moving forward (pp. 5–23). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

  • Yore, L. D., Pimm, D. & Tuan, H.-L. (2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 559–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D. & Tippett, C. D. (2015). Reading Science. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Science Education (pp. tba). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6165-0_130-2.

  • Yore, L. D. & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: language and science literacy—empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 291–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, S.-M. & Yore, L. D. (2013). Quality, evolution, and positional change of university students’ argumentation about organic agriculture during an argument-critique-argument experience. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(5), 1233–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L. & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: a research based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (2000). Are debatable scientific questions debatable? Social Epistemology, 14, 187–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would express our thanks to the grant sponsor: Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan (NSC96-2511-S-142-003-MY3), and Professor Larry Yore and Ms. Shari Yore for their kind and helpful advice in preparing this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science Education and Application, National Taichung University of Education, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Chi-Chin Chin

  2. Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Wei-Cheng Yang & Hsiao-Lin Tuan

Authors
  1. Chi-Chin Chin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wei-Cheng Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hsiao-Lin Tuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chi-Chin Chin.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 3

Table 3 The writing rubric for essay scoring (Saddler & Andrade, 2004)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chin, CC., Yang, WC. & Tuan, HL. Argumentation in a Socioscientific Context and its Influence on Fundamental and Derived Science Literacies. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 14, 603–617 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9606-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9606-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation