Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Supporting Critical Thinking Through Engagement in Dialogic Argumentation: Taking Multiple Considerations into Account When Reasoning About Genetically Modified Food

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Critical Thinking in Biology and Environmental Education

Part of the book series: Contributions from Biology Education Research ((CBER))

Abstract

The present work examines the reasoning of 19 6th graders (12-year-old), who engaged in dialogic argumentation and reflective activities, on the topic of Genetically Modified Food. Results showed that participants considered more aspects of the socio scientific issue at the final assessment, as this was reflected in the greater diversity of arguments produced (e.g. social, ecological, ethical, economic, scientific), compared to the initial assessment. Participants also produced significantly more socio-scientific arguments, combing social and scientific issues in one argument rather than focusing on either the social or the scientific aspect of the issue, at the final assessment compared to the initial assessment. The present findings show that engagement in dialogic argumentation supported the development of students’ ability to consider alternatives, which is a fundamental skill for critical thinking. Finally, educational implications are discussed, and a case is made for the value of dialogic argumentation as a means for supporting critical thinking.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The data collection took place before the first cases of COVID-19 were reported.

References

  • Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36, 86–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baytelman, A., Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. (2020). Epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of the construction of different types of arguments on socio-scientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 57 (8), 1199–1227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J. F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 48–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Soufi, N., & See, B. H. (2019). Does explicit teaching of critical thinking improve critical thinking skills of English language learners in higher education? A critical review of causal evidence. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 60, 140–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum. Topoi, 37, 165–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, M., Knobe, J., Strickland, B., & Keil, F. C. (2017). The influence of social interaction on intuitions of objectivity and subjectivity. Cognitive Science, 41, 1119–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghebreyesus, T. A., & Swaminathan, S. (2020). Scientists are sprinting to outpace the novel coronavirus. The Lancet, 395(10226), 762–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock, D. (2015). The effectiveness of instruction in critical thinking. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iordanou, K. (2010). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development., 11(3), 293–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iordanou, K. (2016a). From theory of mind to epistemic cognition. A lifespan perspective. Frontline Learning Research, 4(5), 106–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iordanou, K. (2016b). Developing epistemological understanding through argumentation in scientific and social domains. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie., 30(2-3), 109–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iordanou, K. (2022). Supporting strategic and meta-strategic development of argument skill: The role of reflection. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09289-1

  • Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2015). Supporting use of evidence in argumentation through practice in argumentation and reflection in the context of SOCRATES learning environment. Science Education, 99, 282–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iordanou, K., Kendeou, P., & Michalinos, Z. (2020). Examining my-side bias during and after reading controversial historical accounts. Metacognition & Learning, 15(3), 319–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iordanou, K., Kuhn, D., Matos, F., Shi, Y., & Hemberger, L. (2019a). Learning by arguing. Learning and Instruction., 63, 101–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iordanou, K., Muis, K. R., & Kendeou, P. (2019b). Epistemic perspective and online epistemic processing of evidence: Developmental and domain differences. The Journal of Experimental Education, 87(4), 531–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical thinking. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Κατερίνα Σακελλαροπούλου: Να βάλουμε το «εμείς» πάνω από το «εγώ» [Katerina Sakellaropoulou: Putting ‘we’ over ‘I’] (2020, March 24). Έθνος [Ethnos]. Retrieved from https://www.ethnos.gr/politiki/96135_katerina-sakellaropoyloy-na-baloyme-emeis-pano-apo-ego

  • Kalypso, I., & Deanna, K. (2020). Contemplating the opposition: Does a personal touch matter? Discourse Processes, 57(4), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1701918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kienhues, D., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2011). Dealing with conflicting or consistent medical information on the web: When expert information breeds laypersons’ doubts about experts. Learning and Instruction, 21, 193–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational researcher, 28(2), 16–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2019). Critical thinking as discourse. Human Development, 62(3), 146–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Iordanou, K. (in press). Epistemology as a core dimension of cognitive development. In D. Dunning & N. Ballantyne (Eds.), Reason, bias, and inquiry: New perspectives from the crossroads of epistemology and psychology. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, 1245–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016). Argue with me: Argument as a path to developing students’ thinking and writing (2nd ed.). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development, 79, 1311–1329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition & Instruction, 31, 456–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lytzerinou, E., & Iordanou, K. (2020). Teachers’ ability to construct arguments, but not their perceived self-efficacy of teaching, predicts their ability to evaluate arguments. International Journal of Science Education. 42(4), 617–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. K., Rowe, M. L., Ramani, G., & Silverman, R. (2014). Promoting critical-analytic thinking in children and adolescents at home and in school. Educational Psychology Review, 26(4), 561–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., Clarke, S., & Schantz, F. (2018). Next generation research in dialogic learning. In G. E. Hall, L. F. Quinn, & D. M. Gollnick (Eds.), Wiley handbook of teaching and learning (pp. 323–338). Wiley-Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, Y. (2020). Talk about evidence during argumentation. Discourse Processes. 57(9), 770–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, T. (2008). Even our “best” schools are failing to prepare students for 21st-century careers and citizenship. Educational leadership, 66(2), 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, I. A. G., Murphy, P. K., & Binici, S. (2015). Dialogue-intensive pedagogies for promoting reading comprehension: What we know, what we need to know. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 37–50). American Educational Research Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zavala, J., & Kuhn, D. (2017). Solitary discourse is a productive activity. Psychological Science, 28, 578–586.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Central Lancashire, Larnaka, Cyprus

    Kalypso Iordanou

Authors
  1. Kalypso Iordanou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kalypso Iordanou .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Facultade Ciencias da Educación, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Blanca Puig

  2. Facultade Ciencias da Educación, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Iordanou, K. (2022). Supporting Critical Thinking Through Engagement in Dialogic Argumentation: Taking Multiple Considerations into Account When Reasoning About Genetically Modified Food. In: Puig, B., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (eds) Critical Thinking in Biology and Environmental Education. Contributions from Biology Education Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-92005-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-92006-7

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation