Decision Making Through Dialogue: a Case Study of Analyzing Preservice Teachers’ Argumentation on Socioscientific Issues
- 763 Downloads
Members of contemporary society are regularly confronted by claims in the public media about scientific discoveries that have important consequences for every level of life, from the global scale of planetary warming to local issues such as selecting “eco-friendly” lawn care products. Whatever the scope of the issue, the public is often faced with conflicting claims, each offering evidence to support their view. In order to disentangle competing views whether at the broad scale of public discussion of policy and regulation, or the local level of selecting a product to purchase, it is imperative that citizens develop habits of mind to critically evaluate and make decisions on such issues.
Most arguments in life are not characterized by the rules of formal logic in order to determine the truth or falseness of a proposition. Rather, most are informal arguments that exhibit a more fluid exchange of ideas where those involved attempt to appeal to one another in a variety of...
KeywordsDialogical argumentation Preservice teachers Socioscientific issues
The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and acknowledge with gratitude the funding support for the research reported in this paper from Constructivist Education Resources Network (CER-Net), Faculty of Education, University of Victoria.
- Eggert, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Students’ use of decision-making strategies with regard to socioscientific issues: an application of the Rasch partial credit model. Science Education, 94, 230–258.Google Scholar
- Hmielowski, J., Feldman, L., Myers, T., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2013). An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science. doi: 10.1177/0963662513480091
- Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: language, learning and values. New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
- Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17, 159–176.Google Scholar
- Toulmin, S. (1958/2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. A., Krabbe, E. C. W., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Walton, D. (2001). Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic, 21(2), 141–169.Google Scholar
- Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Zierhofer, W., & Burger, P. (2007). Disentangling transdisciplinarity: an analysis of knowledge integration in problem-oriented research. Science Studies, 20(1), 51–74.Google Scholar