Examining Reasoning Practices and Epistemic Actions to Explore Students’ Understanding of Genetics and Evolution
- 43 Downloads
This article focuses on students’ discursive moves and reasoning practices while engaged in a task that requires making explanatory links between sickle cell disease and malaria. Both diseases pertain to key areas of the biology curriculum, namely, genetic variability and natural selection, and are connected to the theory of evolution of living organisms. Specifically, this study examines the intersections among rhetoric, argumentation and epistemic actions in supporting students’ understanding of complex biological dynamics, which are interlinked across time and space, but are often addressed separately in the curriculum. Data were collected over the course of two school years (2014–2016) with a group of 20 15–17-year-old students and their biology teacher. The findings indicate that while rhetorical moves helped students mobilize data, the use of evidence to support claims remained limited. Conversely, the type of epistemic actions enacted by the students appears to be directly related to the type of data being analysed. Hence, rhetorical moves in combination with argumentation practices appear to account for students’ differential performances in building more complex explanations of evolutionary topics. We conclude that further understanding of reasoning practices and how these are shaped by discursive moves is required in biology education, in order to help students view biological processes in a wider context, and thus gain a better understanding of evolutionary phenomena.
This work was supported by FEDER Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities-National Agency of Research/Project Code: PGC2018-096581-B-C22; and by FEDER and the State Innovation Agency of Research Project code EDU2015-66643-C2-2-P.
This study was developed under the ESERA Travel Awards for Doctoral Students and Post-doctoral Researchers 2016. The authors gratefully acknowledge María Pilar Jiménez Aleixandre for her valuable insights and helpful comments on drafts of this manuscript and also thank the anonymous referees for their valuable contributions to improve this paper. The authors thank the teachers and students for their participation.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Achieve. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Washington, DC: The National Accademies Press.Google Scholar
- Ageitos, N., & Puig, B. (2019). Argumentation as a tool to explain the evolutionary links between human diseases: A case study. Journal of Biological Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2019.1667409.
- Alanazi, F.H. (2019). The perception of students in secondary school in regard to evolution-based teaching: Acceptance and evolution learning experiences—The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Research in Science Education, advanced on line publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9827-y.
- Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Trans. Vern W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
- Biggs, A., Gregg, K., Crispin Hagins, W., Kapicka, C., Lundgren, L., Rillero, P., & The National Geographic Society. (2002). Biology: The dynamics of life. New York: Glencoe McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Brown, T. (2008). Making truth. Metaphor in science. University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
- Edwards, J. A. (2001). The transcription of discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 321–348). Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
- Evagorou, M., & Puig, B. (2017). Engaging elementary school pre-service teachers in modeling a socioscientific issue as a way to help them appreciate the social aspects of science. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 113–123.Google Scholar
- Ferrari, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (1998). The nature of naive explanations of natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1231–1256.Google Scholar
- Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (1995). Epigenetic inheritance and evolution: The Lamarkian dimension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Keller, E. F. (2001). The century of the gene. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Kirschner, M. W., & Gerhart, J. C. (2005). The plausibility of life: Resolving Darwin’s dilemma. The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
- Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
- Lemke, J. L. (1992). Interpersonal meaning in discourse: Value orientations. In M. Davies & L. Ravelli (Eds.), Advances in Systemic Linguistics (pp. 82–104). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
- Lemke, J. (1998). Teaching all the languages of science: Words, symbols, images and actions [Web Site]. Available: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/barcelon.htm.
- Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance—Do students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 177–195.Google Scholar
- Martins, I., Mortimer, E., Osborne, J., Tsatsarelis, C. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2001). Rhetoric and science education. In Behrendt, H., Dahncke, H., Duit, R., Gräber, W., Komorek, M., Kross, A., Reiska, P. (eds.) Research in science education–Past, present, and future (pp. 188–198).Google Scholar
- Mayr, E. (2002). What evolution is. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
- Nehm, R. H., Poole, T. M., Lyford, M. E., Hoskins, S. G., Carruth, L., Ewers, B. E., & Colberg, P. (2009). Does the segregation of evolution in biology textbooks and introductory courses reinforce students’ faulty mental models of biology and evolution? Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(3), 527–532.Google Scholar
- Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2017). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework science, reading, mathematic, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281820-en.
- Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. (2015). The influence of group dynamics on collaborative scientific argumentation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(2), 335–351.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.Google Scholar
- Smith, M. U., & Gericke, N.M. (2015). Mendel in the modern classroom. Science & Education., 24, 151–172.Google Scholar
- Stone, D. (1988). Policy paradox and political reason. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
- Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. New York: Cambridge Applied linguistics.Google Scholar
- Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 561–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar