A US-China Interview Study: Biology Students’ Argumentation and Explanation About Energy Consumption Issues

  • Hui JinEmail author
  • Hayat Hokayem
  • Sasha Wang
  • Xin Wei


As China and the United States become the top two carbon emitters in the world, it is crucial for citizens in both countries to construct a sophisticated understanding of energy consumption issues. This interview study examines how U.S. and Chinese students compare in explaining and arguing about two critical energy consumption issues: burning fossil fuels and using electricity. In particular, we focused on using scientific knowledge to explain and argue about these issues. Based on relevant literature and our previous research, we developed a model to guide separate assessment and evaluation of students’ argumentation and explanation. We conducted clinical interviews with 40 biology majors, including 20 U.S. students and 20 Chinese students. This study generated several important findings. First, Chinese students tended to be less consistent across explanations and argumentation, and their levels of argumentation were lower than their levels of explanation. Second, in comparison to their Chinese counterparts, U.S. students provided more scientific arguments but many fewer scientific explanations. Finally, although all participants were college students and had completed at least one introductory level science course before the interviews, some of their explanations and arguments were based on informal ideas rather than matter and energy. We discuss the possible interpretations of these findings and their implications for teaching and learning of scientific explanation and argumentation in both countries.


Argumentation Comparative study Energy consumption Explanation 


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2009). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC: AAAS.Google Scholar
  2. Attari, S. Z., DeKay, M. L., Davidson, C. I. & de Bruin, W. B. (2010). Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 16054–16059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berland, L. K. & McNeill, K. L. (2012). For whom is argument and explanation a necessary distinction? A response to Osborne and Patterson. Science Education, 96, 808–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braaten, M. & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95, 639–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Science, 14, 161–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gopnik, A. & Wellman, H. M. (1994). The theory theory. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 257–293). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Inagaki, K. & Hatano, G. (2002). Young children’s naive thinking about the biological world. Brighton, England: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  10. International Energy Agency (2013). CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion: Highlights. Paris, France: OECD-IEA Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Jin, H. & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1149–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jin, H. & Wei, X. (2014). Using ideas from the history of science and linguistics to develop a learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. In R. F. Chen, A. Eisenkraft, D. Fortus, J. Krajcik, K. Neumann, J. C. Nordine & A. Scheff (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 157–174). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jin, H., Wei, X., Peng, Q. & Hokayem, H. (2015a). An investigation of Chinese teachers’ inquiry-oriented classroom discourse. Paper presented at the conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  14. Jin, H., Mehl, C. E. & Lan, D. H. (2015b). Developing an analytical framework for argumentation on energy consumption issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. doi: 10.1002/tea.21237.
  15. Johnson, P. (1998). Progression in children’s understanding of a basic particle theory: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 393–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lai, H.-L. & Chiang, S.-M. (2003). Intrapsychological force-dynamic interaction: Verbs of refraining graining in HAKKA. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 1, 35–64.Google Scholar
  17. Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’ views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 793–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ministry of Education of People’s Republic of China (2010) Mid- and long-term plan for educational reform and development: 2010–2020. Beijing, China: Ministry of Education, Retrieved from
  20. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2003a). High school biology curriculum standards. Beijing, China: People’s Education Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2003b). High school chemistry curriculum standards. Beijing, China: People’s Education Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2003c). High school physics curriculum standards. Beijing, China: People’s Education Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mohan, L., Chen, J. & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 675–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. National Environmental Education & Training Foundation (2002). Americans’ low “energy IQ:” A risk to our energy future. Washington, DC: NEETF & Roper ASW.Google Scholar
  25. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  26. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  27. Next Generation Science Standards Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: Achieve.Google Scholar
  28. Opfer, J. E., Nehm, R. H. & Ha, M. (2012). Cognitive foundations for science assessment design: Knowing what students know about evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 744–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Osborne, J. & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95, 627–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought. New York, NY: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  32. Roth, K., Garnier, H., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K. & Wickler, N. (2011). Video-based lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 117–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Swackhamer, G. (2005). Cognitive resources for understanding energy. Tempe, AZ: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  34. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Zhang, B., Krajcik, J. S., Sutherland, L. M., Wang, L., Wu, J. & Qian, Y. (2003). Opportunities and challenges of China’s inquiry-based education reform in middle and high schools: Perspectives of science teachers and teacher educators. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(4), 477–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhao, Y. & Qiu, W. (2010). China as a case study of systemic educational reform. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second International handbook of educational change (pp. 349–362). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning and Cognitive SciencesEducational Testing ServicePrincetonUSA
  2. 2.Andrews Institute of Mathematics and Science Education, College of EducationTexas Christian UniversityFort WorthUSA
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA
  4. 4.Physics Editorial DepartmentPeople’s Education PressBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations