• Shu-Sheng LinEmail author
  • Joel J. Mintzes


This article describes an effort to explore and enhance argumentation skills of Taiwanese grade 6 students through instruction in socioscientific issues. An experienced elementary school teacher was given 8 months of personalized instruction on argumentation skills and socioscientific issues, then subsequently implemented a 17-h classroom unit on the establishment of Ma-Guo National Park. His students learned to establish claims and warrants, construct counterarguments, offer supportive arguments, and provide evidence for each one. Data consisted of student responses to questionnaires and individual follow-up interviews. A multiple regression analysis revealed that success in learning argumentation skills was not substantially related to pre-instruction argumentation skills, but significantly related to the student ability levels. High-ability students were significantly better than low-ability students at generating complete arguments. Most students elaborated their arguments, and more high-ability students offered rebuttals after instruction. However, even these high achievers did not completely understand the meaning of evidence and often misused supplementary warrants as evidence.

Key words

ability level argumentation skills elementary school students science instruction socioscientific issues 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2005). Science-based occupations and the science curriculum: Concepts of evidence. Science Education, 89, 242–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M., & Yi, H. (1997). On the logical integrity of children's arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 135–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brem, S. K., & Rips, L. J. (2000). Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive Science, 24, 573–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chan, G. Y.-Y., & Watkins, D. (1994). Classroom environment and approaches to learning: An investigation of the actual and preferred perceptions of Hong Kong secondary school students. Instructional Science, 22, 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dori, Y. J., Tal, R. T., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies—Can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 87, 767–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gow, L., Balla, J., Kember, D., & Hau, K. T. (1996). The learning approaches of Chinese people: A function of socialization processes and the context of learning. In M. H. Bound (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 109–123). Hong Kong: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  9. Hand, B., Prain, V., & Yore, L. D. (2001). Sequential writings tasks' influence on science learning. In P. Tynjala, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 105–129). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science’: Argumentation in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Kolsto, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, 1245–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1387–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levinson, R. (2006a). Teachers' perceptions of the role of evidence in teaching controversial socioscientific issues. The Curriculum Journal, 17, 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levinson, R. (2006b). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1201–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children's discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1817–1841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). Beyond 2000. London, UK: King's College London.Google Scholar
  22. Ministry of Education of ROC (2001). The grades 19 science and technology curriculum guidelines and competence indicators. Retrieved from [In Chinese]
  23. Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Oulton, C., Dillon, F., & Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science and Education, 26, 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rivard, L. P. (2004). Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers? Science Education, 88, 420–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal Science Education, 28, 1463–1488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students' argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 903–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socioscientific contexts. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 179–199). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies in individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Thomas, G. P. (2006). An investigation of the metacognitive orientation of Confucian-heritage culture and non-Confucian-heritage culture science classroom learning environments in Hong Kong. Research in Science Education, 36, 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. von Aufschnaiter, Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 101–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Voss, J. F., & van Dyke, J. A. (2001). Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes, 32, 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 1387–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wray, D., & Lewis, M. (1997). Extending literacy: Children reading and writing non-fiction. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Wu, Y-T., & Tsai, C-C. (2007). High school students' informal reasoning on a socioscientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1163–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Education, 37, 807–838.Google Scholar
  43. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97–116). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 145–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Chiayi UniversityChiayiTaiwan R.O.C.
  2. 2.Biological Sciences and Science Education, College of Natural SciencesCalifornia State UniversityChicoUSA

Personalised recommendations