Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Argumentative Tool for Facilitating Critical Evaluation

Exploring Pre-service Teachers’ Evaluation Levels of a Socio-scientific Topic Through MEL Diagrams

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to explore pre-service elementary teachers’ evaluations of the evidence and models and their positions on a socio-scientific topic, namely genetically modified organisms (GMOs), after evaluating them through Model Evidence Link (MEL) diagrams. The findings of this study show that the participants mostly constructed accurate evidence-model links. However, they mostly generated inaccurate relationships between the model and the evidence when the evidence had nothing to do with the model. The results also show that the participants mostly evaluated the model-evidence relationships at the descriptive and relational levels. The participants were able to construct accurate links; however, they could not critically evaluate the model-evidence links. Finally, although the participants read supportive, opposing and irrelevant evidence about the benefits of GMOs, and discussed them with their group mates, most of them still thought that GMOs are not beneficial to society. Furthermore, none of them stated the belief that GMOs are beneficial to society.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, J. M., Girtain, C., & Lombardi, D. (2016). Understanding the formation of Earth’s moon. The Earth Scientist, 32(2), 11–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessin, R. (2003). Bt-corn: What it is and how it works. (Retrieved from https://entomology.ca.uky.edu/ef130). Accessed 9 Aug 2019.

  • Bickel, E. S., & Lombardi, D. (2016). Assessing students’ evaluation on the model-evidence link diagram. The Earth Scientist, 32(2), 31–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böttcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2011). Argumentation in science education: a model-based framework. Science & Education, 20(2), 103–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt, I. (2016). Why the difference between explanation and argument matters to science education. Science & Education, 25(3-4), 251–275.

  • Burrell, S., Lombardi, D., & Bailey, J. M. (2015). The effect of a student-centered academic intervention on teacher practice in high school Earth science classrooms: a mixed methods study. Presented at the 2015 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD.

  • Can, S. N. (2017). Using a model-evidence link diagram to explore nuclear energy: the effects on seventh graders’ risk perception and understanding of the issues. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Bogazici University, Social Sciences Institute, Istanbul.

  • Ceyhan, G., & Mugaloglu, E. Z. (2016). Teachers’ ideas about the benefits and challenges of teaching climate change through evidence-based thinking. ICEMST, Mugla, Turkey.

  • Chinn, C. A., & Buckland, L. A. (2012). Model-based instruction: fostering change in evolutionary conceptions and in epistemic practices. In K. S. Rosengren, E. M. Evans, S. Brem, & G. M. Sinatra (Ed.), Evolution challenges: integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution, (pp. 211–232). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Emery, K., Harlow, D., Whitmer, A., & Gaines, S. (2017). Compelling evidence: an influence on middle school students’ accounts that may impact decision-making about socioscientific issues. Environmental Education Research, 23(8), 1115–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Dotrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Federation of American Scientist. (2011). Retrieved from https://fas.org/biosecurity/education/dualuse-agriculture/2.-agricultural-biotechnology/bt-corn.html. Accessed 9 Aug 2019.

  • Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation science standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041–1048.

  • Holzer, M. A., Lombardi, D., & Bailey, J. M. (2016). Wetlands: good or bad? Evaluating competing models. The Earth Scientist, 32(2), 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, J. D., Crones, P., Burrell, S., Bailey, J. M., & Lombardi, D. (2016). Evaluating the connections between fracking and earthquakes. The Earth Scientist, 32(2), 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • KMK. (2005). Bildungsstandards der Kultusministerkonferenz. Erläuterungen zur Konzeption und Entwicklung. Bonn: Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

  • Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Lombardi, D. (2016). Beyond the controversy: instructional scaffolds to promote. The Earth Scientist, 32(2), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi, D., Sibley, B., & Carroll, K. (2013a). What’s the alternative?: Using model-evidence link diagrams to weigh alternative models in argumentation. The Science Teacher, 80(5), 36–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi, D., Sinatra, G. M., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2013b). Plausibility reappraisals and shifts in middle school students’ climate change conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 27, 50–62.

  • Lombardi, D., Brandt, C. B., Bickel, E. S., & Burg, C. (2016a). Students’ evaluations about climate change. International Journal of Science Education, 38(8), 1393–1414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi, D., Danielson, R. W., & Young, N. (2016b). A plausible connection: models examining the relations between evaluation, plausibility, and the refutation text effect. Learning and Instruction, 44, 74–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi, D., Bickel, E. S., Brandt, C. B., & Burg, C. (2017). Categorising students’ evaluations of evidence and explanations about climate change. International Journal of Global Warming, 12(3–4), 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi, D., Bailey, J. M., Bickel, E. S., & Burrell, S. (2018a). Scaffolding scientific thinking: students’ evaluations and judgments during earth science knowledge construction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54, 184–198.

  • Lombardi, D., Bickel, E. S., Bailey, J. M., & Burrell, S. (2018b). High school students’ evaluations, plausibility (re) appraisals, and knowledge about topics in earth science. Science Education, 102(1), 153–177.

  • McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of National Education (MoNE, 2013). (2013). Ilkogretim kurumları (Ilkokullar ve Ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Siniflar) ogretim programi [In Turkish], Ankara.

  • Ministry of National Education (MoNE, 2018). (2018). Science education teaching program. Ankara, Turkey. (online free website) Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325. Accessed 9 Aug 2019.

  • Mugaloglu, E. Z., Can, S. N., & Ceyhan, G. D. (2017). Kanita dayali fen egitimi: Model kanit iliski semasi [Evidence based science education: model-evidence link diagram]. Mutlu Pinar Demirci Güler (ed.) Fen Bilimleri Ögretimi: Kuram ve Uygulama Örnekleri. Pegem Atif Indeksi, 255–273.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2015). Public engagement in genetically modified organisms: when science and citizens connect: Workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states by states. Volume 1: The standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  • Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359.

  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagem: a frame-work for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 443–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qualification and Curriculum Authority (QCA, 1999). (1999). The National Curriculum for England. Key Stages 1 – 4. London: Crown.

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

  • Sadler, T. (2011). Situating socioscientific issues in classrooms as a means of achieving goals of science education. In T. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: teaching, learning and research (pp. 1–9). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.

  • Saribas, D., & Gonca Akdemir, Z. (2019). Using an innovative tool in science education: examining pre-service elementary teachers’ evaluation levels on the topic of wetlands. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., & Hofer, B. K. (2016). Public understanding of science: policy and educational implications. Policy Insights from Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiris, S. (2012). Archived issues of science dissected (retrieved from http://rpdp.net/adm/uploads.news/sciencedis/newsletter_322.pdf at 27 March 2019).

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge (et al.): Cambridge University Press.

  • Walton, D. (2007). Dialogue theory for critical argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Wunderlich, S., & Gatto, K. A. (2015). Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms and sources of information. Advances in Nutrition, 6(6), 842–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 357–377.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Gaye Defne Ceyhan for her feedback suggestions during the translation of the MEL diagram on wetlands into Turkish. Special thanks to Kivanc Yarangumeli and Nurdan Sözen for their analyses and judgement of the adapted diagram. We also would like to thank Oguz Ozdemir for his evaluations of the adapted MEL diagram. We appreciate their collaboration in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Sciences Department, Bogazici University, North Campus ETA-B 34342 Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey

    S. Nazli Can

  2. Preschool Education Department, Istanbul Aydin University, Besyol Mah. Inonu Cad. No: 38 34295 Sefakoy-Kucukcekmece, Istanbul, Turkey

    Deniz Saribas

Authors
  1. S. Nazli Can
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deniz Saribas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Nazli Can.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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

Can, S.N., Saribas, D. An Argumentative Tool for Facilitating Critical Evaluation. Sci & Educ 28, 669–687 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00068-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00068-8

Search

Navigation