Advertisement

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

  • Chi-Chin ChinEmail author
  • Wei-Cheng Yang
  • Hsiao-Lin Tuan
Article

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).

Keywords

Argumentation Derived literacy Fundamental literacy Reading–writing activities 

Notes

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.

References

  1. Balgopal, M. & Wallace, A. (2013). Writing-to-learn, writing-to-communicate, & scientific literacy. The American Biology Teacher, 75(3), 170–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fleener, C. E. & Bucher, K. T. (2004). Linking reading, science, and fiction books. Childhood Education, 80(2), 76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Norris, S. P. & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nussbaum, M. E. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 93(3), 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Saddler, B. & Andrade, H. (2004). The writing rubric. Educational Leadership, 10, 48–52.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wellington, J. & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ziman, J. (2000). Are debatable scientific questions debatable? Social Epistemology, 14, 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science Education and ApplicationNational Taichung University of EducationTaiwanRepublic of China
  2. 2.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Changhua University of EducationTaiwanRepublic of China

Personalised recommendations