Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rhetorical Use of Inscriptions in Students’ Written Arguments About Socioscientific Issues

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Educators expect that students be able to make informed decisions about science-related problems in their everyday lives. Engaging science in such problems often entails evaluating available evidence for given arguments. This study explores how students use inscriptions as evidence to argue about socioscientific issues. Fifth- and sixth-grade students (N = 102) in two intact classrooms completed written argument tasks in which they were asked to cite given inscriptions to support their decisions about energy use or genetically modified organisms. Qualitative content analyses of these written arguments, which focused on the coordination between inscriptions and claims, show three patterns of rhetorical use of inscriptions: seeing is believing, believing is seeing, and asserting is inferring. What counts as evidence was not the inscriptions per se, but the rhetorical functions they performed in particular arguments. These findings suggest that justifying socioscientific decisions is functionally different from explaining scientific phenomena. Linking these two activities in school may help students more productively engage with science in their everyday lives.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amann, K., & Knorr-Cetina, K. (1988). The fixation of (visual) evidence. Human Studies, 11(2/3), 133–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arsenault, D. J., Smith, L. D., & Beauchamp, E. A. (2006). Visual inscriptions in the scientific hierarchy: Mapping the “treasures of science”. Science Communication, 27(3), 376–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazzul, J. (2012). Neoliberal ideology, global capitalism, and science education: engaging the question of subjectivity. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(4), 1001–1020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaulieu, A. (2002). Images are not the (only) truth: brain mapping, visual knowledge, and iconoclasm. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27(1), 53–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bencze, L., Sperling, E., & Carter, L. (2012). Students’ research-informed socio-scientific activism: Re/visions for a sustainable future. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 129–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, J. A. (2004). The rhetoric of visual arguments. In C. A. Hill & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics (pp. 41–61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W. M. (2002). Why students may not learn to interpret scientific inscriptions. Research in Science Education, 32(3), 303–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, P. R., & Ley, B. L. (2013). Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Science Communication, 35(1), 115–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bricker, L. A., Reeve, S., & Bell, P. (2014). ‘She has to drink blood of the snake’: culture and prior knowledge in science|health education. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1457–1475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., Richter, T., & Rouet, J.-F. (2014). Scientific literacy: the role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 104–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, M., & Saracino, B. (2016). “Visual science literacy”: images and public understanding of science in the digital age. Science Communication, 38(6), 812–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, L. (1995). Screening the body: tracing medicine’s visual culture. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christenson, N., Rundgren, S.-N. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2014). The relationship of discipline background to upper secondary students’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 581–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: a case study of a teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Critchley, C. R. (2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 309–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daston, L., & Galison, P. (1992). The image of objectivity. Representations, 40(Autumn), 81–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahnestock, J. (1999). Rhetorical figures in science. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahnestock, J. (2011). Rhetorical style: the uses of language in persuasion. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein, N. W. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein, N. W. (2014). Making sense of autism: progressive engagement with science among parents of young, recently diagnosed autistic children. Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 592–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frow, E. K. (2012). Drawing a line: setting guidelines for digital image processing in scientific journal articles. Social Studies of Science, 42(3), 369–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gore, A. (2006). An inconvenient truth: The planetary emergency of global warming and what we can do about it. Emmaus: Rodale Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace, M., Lee, Y. C., Asshoff, R., & Wallin, A. (2015). Student decision-making about a globally familiar socioscientific issue: the value of sharing and comparing views with international counterparts. International Journal of Science Education, 37(11), 1855–1874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, D., & Dickerson, J. A. (2012). Persuasive images in popular science: testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility. Public Understanding of Science, 21(8), 938–948.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halkia, K., & Mantzouridis, D. (2005). Students’ views and attitudes towards the communication code used in press articles about science. International Journal of Science Education, 27(12), 1395–1411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P. L. (2012). Trusting what you’re told: how children learn from others. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, N., & Menzel, S. (2013). Threat perception and attitudes of adolescents towards re-introduced wild animals: a qualitative study of young learners from affected regions in Germany. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3062–3094.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höijer, B. (2010). Emotional anchoring and objectification in the media reporting on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 19(6), 717–731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horlick-Jones, T., Prades, A., & Espluga, J. (2012). Investigating the degree of “stigma” associated with nuclear energy technologies: a cross-cultural examination of the case of fusion power. Public Understanding of Science, 21(5), 514–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A., Dale, A., & Smith, D. (1996). Science and Hell’s kitchen: the local understanding of hazard issues. In A. Irwin & B. Wynne (Eds.), Misunderstanding science?: the public reconstruction of science and technology (pp. 47–64). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimmerle, J., Flemming, D., Feinkohl, I., & Cress, U. (2015). How laypeople understand the tentativeness of medical research news in the media: an experimental study on the perception of information about deep brain stimulation. Science Communication, 37(2), 173–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjeldsen, J. E. (2013). Strategies of visual argumentation in slideshow presentations: the role of the visuals in an Al Gore presentation on climate change. Argumentation, 27(4), 425–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). “To trust or not to trust,…’-pupils” ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877–901.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korpan, C. A., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., & Henderson, J. M. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education, 81(5), 515–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: the grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of arguments. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Moore, W. (2015). Argumentation as core curriculum. Learning: Research and Practice, 1(1), 66–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representations in scientific practice (pp. 19–68). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meanings: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87–113). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • León, B., & Erviti, M. C. (2015). Science in pictures: visual representation of climate change in Spain’s television news. Public Understanding of Science, 24(2), 183–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (1988). The externalized retina: selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. Human Studies, 11(2–3), 201–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 492–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medina, R., & Suthers, D. (2013). Inscriptions becoming representations in representational practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(1), 33–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mielby, H., Sandøe, P., & Lassen, J. (2013). The role of scientific knowledge in shaping public attitudes to GM technologies. Public Understanding of Science, 22(2), 155–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson-Cole, S. A. (2005). Representing climate change futures: a critique on the use of images for visual communication. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29(3), 255–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. A. (2012a). Co-opting science: a preliminary study of how students invoke science in value-laden discussions. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 275–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. A. (2012b). Science in discussions: an analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96(3), 428–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Delusions about evidence: on why scientific evidence should not be the main concern in socioscientific decision making. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 373–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveras, B., Márquez, C., & Sanmartí, N. (2014). Students’ attitudes to information in the press: critical reading of a newspaper article with scientific content. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 603–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). “Fear won’t do it” promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadouris, N. (2012). Optimization as a reasoning strategy for dealing with socioscientific decision-making situations. Science Education, 96(4), 600–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwels, L. (2006). A theoretical framework for assessing visual representational practices in knowledge building and science communications. In L. Pauwels (Ed.), Visual cultures of science: rethinking representational practices in knowledge building and science communication (pp. 1–25). Lebanon: Dartmouth College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitrelli, N., Manzoli, F., & Montolli, B. (2006). Science in advertising: uses and consumptions in the Italian press. Public Understanding of Science, 15(2), 207–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pozzer, L., & Roth, W.-M. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1089–1114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pozzer-Ardenghi, L., & Roth, W.-M. (2010). Toward a social practice perspective on the work of reading inscriptions in science texts. Reading Psychology, 31(3), 228–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (2001). Gestures: their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 365–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2014). Science education’s need for a theory of epistemological development. Science Education, 98(3), 383–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., Sodian, B., Koerber, S., & Wong, J. (2014). Developing children’s early competencies to engage with science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 139–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütz, H., & Wiedemann, P. M. (2008). Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 369–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz-Plaschg, C. (2018). Nanotechnology is like … the rhetorical roles of analogies in public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 27(2), 153–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simosi, M. (2003). Using Toulmin’s framework for the analysis of everyday argumentation: some methodological considerations. Argumentation, 17(2), 185–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 123–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. D., Best, L. A., Stubbs, D. A., Johnston, J., & Archibald, A. B. (2000). Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences: a Latourian survey of inscription practices. Social Studies of Science, 30(1), 73–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 815–832.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H.-K., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Exploring middle school students’ use of inscriptions in project-based science classrooms. Science Education, 90(5), 852–873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (2014). Further disorientation in the hall of mirrors. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 60–70.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by Peak Discipline Construction Project of Education at East China Normal University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Curriculum and Instruction, East China Normal University, 3663 North Zhongshan Rd., Shanghai, 200062, China

    Sihan Xiao

  2. Classroom Analysis Lab, Faculty of Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China

    Sihan Xiao

Authors
  1. Sihan Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sihan Xiao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xiao, S. Rhetorical Use of Inscriptions in Students’ Written Arguments About Socioscientific Issues. Res Sci Educ 50, 1233–1249 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9730-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9730-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation