Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Activating Students’ Argumentative Resources on Socioscientific Issues by Indirectly Instructed Reasoning and Negotiation Processes

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

Abstract

The present study analyses the impact of negotiation processes on activating argumentative resources for decision-making in a socioscientific issue (SSI) in biology classes. The research focuses on the potential of group-based negotiation processes to activate the use of relevant argumentative resources without any prescribed or explicit instructions on these resources and arguments. In the corresponding intervention with a pre-post-design, students are encouraged to reason and weight their own arguments, which are based on protecting local biodiversity. The students have to reason and weight individually (pre-phase) immediately before they discuss their own reasoning and weighting with others in groups (treatment). The students have to then, once again, reason and weight their arguments individually (post-phase). The students are instructed, during these three steps (pre-phase, treatment, post-phase), using an educational tool, target-mat, which structures the reasoning and weighting visually, but does not prescribe the way of argumentation. By analysing the students’ argumentative resources, normative and fact-based elements can be measured immediately before and after the negotiation process. In terms of the pre-phase, the use of differing and appropriate argumentative resources can be analysed in relation to different arguments. The pre- and post-comparison reveals relevant changes leading to a substantial increase of the quality of reasoning. Therefore, in a student-centred decision-making process with minimal guidance, students are encouraged to become aware of the appropriateness of different argumentative resources.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Affect is defined as a human emotional state (e.g. happiness, sadness) or the degree of value that people associate with a stimulus (e.g. goodness, badness) (Arvai et al. 2004).

References

  • Abd-El-Khalik, F. (2003). Socioscientific issues in pre-college science classrooms. In D. L. Zeidler (Hrsg.), The Role of Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education (pp. 41-61). Springer: Netherlands.

  • Acar, O., Turkmen, L., & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in socio-scientific argumentation and decision-making research findings: crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191–1206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Åkerblom, D., & Lindahl, M. (2017). Authenticity and the relevance of discourse and figured worlds in secondary students’ discussions of socioscientific issues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 205–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R. (2005). Models of argumentation in educational discourse. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 25(1), 107–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arvai, J. L., Campbell, V. E. A., Baird, A., & Rivers, L. (2004). Teaching students to make better decisions about the environment: lessons from the decision sciences. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36(1), 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvai, J. L., & Gregory, R. (2003). A decision focused approach for identifying cleanup priorities at contaminated sites. Environmental Science & Technology, 37, 1469–1476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, D. M., Bauman, C. W., Cushman, F. A., Pizarro, D. A., & McGraw, A. P. (2015). Moral judgment and decision making. In G. Keren & G. Wu (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bicchieri, C., Muldoon, R. and Sontuoso, A., (2018)"Social Norms", The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/social-norms/>. Accessed 05 February 2019

  • Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: a rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge University Press.

  • Bohnenblust, H., & Slovic, P. (1998). Integrating technical analysis and public values in risk-based decision making. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 59(1), 151–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bögeholz, S., Hößle, C., Langlet, J., Sander, E., & Schlüter, K. (2004). Bewerten – Urteilen – Entscheiden im biologischen Kontext: Modelle in der Biologiedidaktik (Evaluate - Judge - Decide in the biological context: Models in Biology Didactics). Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 10, 89–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böttcher, F., Hackmann, A., & Meisert, A. (2016). “Argumente entwickeln, prüfen und gewichten”. Bewertungskompetenz im Biologieunterricht kontextübergreifend fördern - Konzeptentwicklung ("developing, justifying and weighting arguments". Promoting decision-making competence in biology classes in all contexts - concept development). MNU Journal, 69(3), 150–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böttcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2013). Effects of direct and indirect instruction on fostering decision-making competence in socioscientific issues., 43(2), 479–506.

  • Byrne, J., Ideland, M., Malmberg, C., & Grace, M. (2014). Climate change and everyday life: Repertoires children use to negotiate a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1491–1509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2018). Introducing argumentation about climate change socioscientific issues in a disadvantaged school. Research in Science Education, 1–21.

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, Y., Yoo, J., Kim, S.-W., Lee, H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Enhancing students’ communication skills in the science classroom through socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eggert, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2006). Göttinger Modell der Bewertungskompetenz–Teilkompetenz, Bewerten, Entscheiden und Reflektieren für Gestaltungsaufgaben Nachhaltiger Entwicklung Göttingen model of the evaluation competence partial competence “assessment, decision-making and reflection” for tasks of sustainable development. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 12, 177–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, M., Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2009). What constitutes skilled argumentation and how does it develop? Informal Logic, 29(4), 379–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, J. (2001). Henry Johnstone, Jr.’s still-unacknowledged contributions to contemporary argumentation theory. Informal Logic, 21(1), 41–50.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1, reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, trans.). London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotinal dog and ist rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heimlich, J. E. (1992). Promoting a concern for the environment. Lanham, MD: Educational Resources Information Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and Learning about Science: Language, Theories, Methods, History, Traditions and Values. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

  • Hostenbach, J., Fischer, H. E., Kauertz, A., Mayer, J., Sumfleth, E., & Walpuski, M. (2011). Modellierung der Bewertungskompetenz in den Naturwissenschaften zur evaluation der Nationalen Bildungsstandards (modeling decision-making competence in science for the evaluation of national educational standards). Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften: ZfDN, 17, 261–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and Learning about Science: Language, Theories, Methods, History, Traditions and Values. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

  • Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Designing argumentation learning environments. In Argumentation in science education (pp. 91–115). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2018). A role for reasoning in a dialogic approach to critical thinking. Topoi, 37(1), 121–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting scientific literacy using a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching: concept, examples, experiences. International Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 4, 131–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse Grundlagen und Techniken. (qualitative content analysis. Principles and techniques). Weinheim: Beltz Deutscher Studien Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • McShane, T. O., Hirsch, P. D., Trung, T. C., Songorwa, A. N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., Mutekanga, D., Thang, H. V., Dammert, J. L., Pulgar-Vidal, M., Welch-Devine, M., Peter Brosius, J., Coppolillo, P., & O’Connor, S. (2011). Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation, 144(3), 966–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meisert, A. (2013). Bewerten. (decision-making). In U. Spörhase (Ed.), Biologiedidaktik. Praxishandbuch für die Sekundarstufe I und II (pp. 225–240). Berlin: Cornelsen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meisert, A. (2018). Mit der Zielmat bewerten (use a target mat to evaluate). In U. Spörhase & W. Ruppert (Eds.), Biologie Methodik (pp. 236–240). Berlin: Cornelsen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, H., Boudry, M., Paglieri, F., & Trouche, E. (2017). Natural-born arguers: teaching how to make the best of our reasoning abilities. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: a critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 371–393.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratner, B. (2004). “Sustainability” as a dialogue of values: challenges to the sociology of development. Sociological Inquiry, 74, 50–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(1), 112–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seethaler, S., & Linn, M. (2004). Genetically modified food in perspective: an inquiry-based curriculum to help middle school students make sense of tradeoffs. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1765–1785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 277–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. C. (1995). Towards a discursive logic: Gadamer and Toulmin on inquiry and argument. In L. K. Schmidt (Ed.), The specter of relativsm (pp. 159–177). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Black, J. S. (1985). Support for environmental protection: the role of moral norms. Population and Environment, 8(3–4), 204–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Argument. 1958. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Witzig, S. B., et al. (2013). The interface of opinion, understanding and evaluation while learning about a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2483–2507.

  • Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2007). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (pp. 201–216). Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. (2015). Socioscientific issues. In R. Gunstone (ed.), Encyclopedia of Science Education (pp. 998–1003). Springer Netherlands.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the working group Biology Didactics of the University of Hildesheim for the numerous discussions and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stiftung Universität Hildesheim, Hildesheim, Germany

    Maria Jafari & Anke Meisert

Authors
  1. Maria Jafari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anke Meisert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Jafari.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jafari, M., Meisert, A. Activating Students’ Argumentative Resources on Socioscientific Issues by Indirectly Instructed Reasoning and Negotiation Processes. Res Sci Educ 51 (Suppl 2), 913–934 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09869-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09869-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation