A US-China Interview Study: Biology Students’ Argumentation and Explanation About Energy Consumption Issues
- First Online:
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.
KeywordsArgumentation Comparative study Energy consumption Explanation
- American Association for the Advancement of Science (2009). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC: AAAS.Google Scholar
- Inagaki, K. & Hatano, G. (2002). Young children’s naive thinking about the biological world. Brighton, England: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- International Energy Agency (2013). CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion: Highlights. Paris, France: OECD-IEA Publishing.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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 http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_177/201407/171904.html.
- Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2003a). High school biology curriculum standards. Beijing, China: People’s Education Press.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2003b). High school chemistry curriculum standards. Beijing, China: People’s Education Press.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2003c). High school physics curriculum standards. Beijing, China: People’s Education Press.Google Scholar
- National Environmental Education & Training Foundation (2002). Americans’ low “energy IQ:” A risk to our energy future. Washington, DC: NEETF & Roper ASW.Google Scholar
- National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Next Generation Science Standards Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: Achieve.Google Scholar
- Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought. New York, NY: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
- Swackhamer, G. (2005). Cognitive resources for understanding energy. Tempe, AZ: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
- Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 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