SCIENCE AND NON-SCIENCE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ CRITICAL THINKING AND ARGUMENTATION PERFORMANCE IN READING A SCIENCE NEWS REPORT
- 847 Downloads
A scientifically literate person should be able to engage and critique science news reports about socioscientific issues from a variety of information sources. Such engagement involves critical thinking and argumentation skills to determine if claims made are justified by evidence and explained by reasonable explanations. This study explored university students’ critical thinking performance when they read science news reports. Undergraduate science/applied science (n = 52) and non-science (n = 52) majors were asked to select a science news report from Internet sources and then to read, critique, and make comments about its contents. The science and non-science majors’ comments and their quality were identified and assessed in terms of analyzing the argument elements—claims and warrants, counterclaims and warrants, rebuttals, qualifiers, and evidence. The results indicated there is significant difference in identifying and formulating evidence favoring science/applied science over non-science majors (p < .01). Quality of critical thinking associated with the strength of the arguments made indicated that science/applied science majors demonstrate significantly (p < 0.05) more advanced patterns than non-science majors. The results suggest that further studies into improving undergraduates’ concepts of evidence in the context of reading and critiquing science news reports are needed.
Key wordsargumentation skills critical thinking science news reports university students
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Author. (2010). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
- Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical thinking skills: Developing effective analysis and argument. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Finocchiaro, M. A. (2005). Arguments about arguments: Systematic, critical and historical essays in logical theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Fisher, A. (2001). Critical thinking. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Ford, C. L. & Yore, L. D. (2012). Toward convergence of metacognition, reflection, and critical thinking: Illustrations from natural and social sciences teacher education and classroom practice. In A. Zohar & J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 251–271). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Inch, E. S. & Warnick, B. (2010). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument (6th ed.). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- Jarman, R. & McClune, B. (2007). Developing scientific literacy: Using news media in the classroom. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Moon, J. (2008). Critical thinking: An exploration of theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Norris, S. P. (Ed.). (2012). Reading for evidence and interpreting visualizations in mathematics and science education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
- O’Rourke, M. (2005). UI critical thinking handbook. Retrieved from http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/crit_think/.
- Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006). PISA report (Chinese version). Retrieved from http://www.dorise.info/DER/03_PISA-2006_html/pisa_04_download.html.
- Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- United States National Research Council (2012). In H. Quinn, H. A. Schweingruber & T. Keller (Eds.), A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 31(2), 8–19.Google Scholar
- Yore, L. D. (2011). Foundations of scientific, mathematical, and technological literacies—Common themes and theoretical frameworks. In L. D. Yore, E. Van der Flier-Keller, D. W. Blades, T. W. Pelton & D. B. Zandvliet (Eds.), Pacific CRYSTAL centre for science, mathematics, and technology literacy: Lessons learned (pp. 23–44). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L. & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science, 25(6), 698–725.Google Scholar
- Yore, L. D., Pimm, D. & Tuan, H.-L. (2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics, 5(4), 559–589.Google Scholar
- Yu, S.-M. & Yore, L. D. (2012). Quality, evolution, and positional change of university students’ argumentation patterns about organic agriculture during an argument–critique–argument experience. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763-012-9373-9. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
- Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S. & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97–116). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar