Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Introducing Argumentation About Climate Change Socioscientific Issues in a Disadvantaged School

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Improving the ability of young people to construct arguments about controversial science topics is a desired outcome of science education. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the impact of an argumentation intervention on the socioscientific issue of climate change with Year 10 students in a disadvantaged Australian school. After participation in a professional development workshop on climate change science, socioscientific issues and argumentation, an early career teacher explicitly taught argumentation over four non-consecutive lessons as part of a 4 week (16 lesson) topic on Earth science. Thirty students completed a pre- and post-test questionnaire to determine their understanding of climate change science and their ability to construct an argument about a climate change socioscientific issue. Students’ understanding of climate change improved significantly (p < .001) with a large effect size. There was also a significant increase (p < .05) in the number of categories provided in written arguments about a climate change issue. Qualitative data, comprising classroom observation field notes, lesson transcripts, work samples, and teacher and student interviews, were analysed for the extent to which the students’ argumentation skills improved. At the end of the intervention, students became aware of the need to justify their decisions with scientific evidence. It is concluded that introducing argumentation about climate change socioscientific issues to students in a disadvantaged school can improve their argumentation skills.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2017). Australian curriculum: science. Version 8.2. Retrieved 29 Oct 2017 from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au.

  • Ben-David, A., & Zohar, A. (2009). Contribution of meta-strategic knowledge to scientific inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 31(12), 1657–1682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bravo-Torija, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2012). Progression in complexity: contextualizing sustainable marine resources management in a 10th grade classroom. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryce, T., & Day, S. (2014). Scepticism and doubt in science and science education: the complexity of global warming as a socio-scientific issue. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9, 599–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, K., & Dawson, V. M. (2016). A teacher professional development model for teaching socioscientific issues. Teaching Science, 62(1), 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students' questions and discursive interaction: their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883–908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christenson, N., Rundgren, S. N. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2014). The relationship of discipline background to upper secondary students’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 581–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, V. M. (2015). Western Australian high school students’ understandings about the socioscientific issue of climate change. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1024–1043.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, V. M., & Carson, K. (2017). Using climate change scenarios to assess high school students’ argumentation skills. Research in Science and Technological Education, 35(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. J. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(6), 767–793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47–69). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021–1035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, P. J. K. (2010). Knowledge about the greenhouse effect and the effects of the ozone layer among Norwegian pupils finishing compulsory education in 1989, 1993, and 2005—What now? International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 397–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2013). Don't be nervous, don't be flustered, don't be scared. Be prepared. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 313–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C., Tolmie, A., & Rodgers, C. (1992). The acquisition of conceptual knowledge in science by primary school children: group interaction and the understanding of motion down an incline. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10(2), 113–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: an effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974–1016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017–1043.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klosterman, M. L., Sadler, T. D., & Brown, J. (2012). Science teachers’ use of mass media to address socio-scientific and sustainability issues. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 51–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, S., Jackson, J., Walstab, A., & Huo, S. (2015). Educational opportunity in Australia 2015: who succeeds and who misses out. Melbourne: Mitchell Institute: Centre for International Research on Education Systems, Victoria University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, J. L., Lindgren, J., & Bleicher, R. (2012). Assessing elementary science methods students' understanding about global climate change. International Journal of Science Education, 34(8), 1167–1187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leitao, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marin, L. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137–1164.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V., & Heck, D. (2012). How do we teach argumentation in the new Australian curriculum? Secondary science teachers' experiences in an argumentation-based professional development program. Teaching Science, 58(3), 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: the role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Vaughn, M. H. (2012). Urban high school students’ critical science agency: conceptual understandings and environmental actions around climate change. Research in Science Education, 42, 373–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molinatti, G., Girault, Y., & Hammond, C. (2010). High school students debate the use of embryonic stem cells: the influence of context on decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2235–2251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: a study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88(2), 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Dawson, V. M. (2012). Socioscientific issues in science education: Contexts for the promotion of key learning outcomes. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds), The second international handbook of science education (pp. 799–809). Dordrecht: The Netherlands: Springer.

  • Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: the effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepardson, D. P., Niyogi, D., Choi, S., & Charusombat, U. (2009). Seventh grade students' conceptions of global warming and climate change. Environmental Education Research, 15(5), 549–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., & Amos, R. (2011). Decision making and use of evidence in a socio-scientific problem on air quality. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: teaching, learning and research (pp. 167–192). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(9), 903–927.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Buckley, S. (2013). PISA 2012: how Australia measures up. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomas, L., & Ritchie, S. M. (2012). Positive emotional responses to hybridised writing about a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 25–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (updated ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Tytler, R., & Symington, D. (2015). Science learning in rural Australia: not necessarily the poor cousin. Teaching Science, 61(3), 19–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warburton, E., & Torff, B. (2005). The effect of perceived learner advantages on teachers’ beliefs about critical thinking activities. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 24–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weldon, P. (2016). Out-of-field teaching in Australian secondary schools. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163–1187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: students’ learning and teachers’ professional development. Springer Science & Business Media: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Ben-David, A. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 59–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., Degani, A., & Vaaknin, E. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low achieving students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 469–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, 6009, Australia

    Vaille Dawson & Katherine Carson

Authors
  1. Vaille Dawson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine Carson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vaille Dawson.

Appendix Hydrogen fuel bus

Appendix Hydrogen fuel bus

Between 2004 and 2007, Transperth trialled three EcoBuses in Perth which ran on hydrogen fuel cells as their fuel source. The benefit of using a hydrogen fuel cell is that the only waste emissions produced are water and heat. At the conclusion of the trial, the three buses had travelled 258,000 km and carried over 320,000 passengers. Three hundred tCO2eq were saved by not using regular diesel buses. Although the trial was deemed a success by Transperth, the WA government has decided not to proceed any further with the EcoBuses, claiming the cost to maintain that each bus was too high a price to pay compared to a regular bus.

Do you think the WA government made the right decision?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dawson, V., Carson, K. Introducing Argumentation About Climate Change Socioscientific Issues in a Disadvantaged School. Res Sci Educ 50, 863–883 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9715-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9715-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation