Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

SCIENCE AND NON-SCIENCE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ CRITICAL THINKING AND ARGUMENTATION PERFORMANCE IN READING A SCIENCE NEWS REPORT

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 11 April 2014

Abstract

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Author. (2010). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.

  • Barker, S. & Julien, H. (2012). Reading for evidence. In S. P. Norris (Ed.), Reading for evidence and interpreting visualization in mathematics and science education (pp. 19–40). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brand-Gruwel, S. & Stadtler, M. (2011). Solving information-based problems: Evaluating sources and information. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 175–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I. & Salmerón, L. (2011). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 180–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.

    Article  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, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.

    Article  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Zwiep, S. (2008). Elementary teachers’ understanding of students’ science misconceptions: Implications for practice and teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(5), 437–454.

    Article  Google 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 

  • Kolsto, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., Ulvik, M., et al (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korpan, C. A., Bisanz, G. L. & Bisanz, J. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: Evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education, 81(5), 525–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(2), 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubben, F., Sadeck, M., Scholtz, Z. & Braund, M. (2010). Gauging students’ untutored ability in argumentation about experimental data: A South Africa case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2143–2166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClune, B. & Jarman, R. (2012). Encouraging and equipping students to engage critically with science in the news: What can we learn from the literature? Studies in Science Education, 48(1), 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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 

  • Norris, S. P. & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 947–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P. & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P. & Phillips, L. M. (2012). Reading science: How naïve view of reading hinders so much else. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 37–56). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., Smith, M. L., Gilbert, S. M., Stange, D. M., Baker, J. J. & Weber, A. C. (2008). Learning to read scientific text: Do elementary school commercial reading programs help? Science Education, 92(5), 765–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M. & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 443–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M. & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument–counterargument integration in students’ writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92.

    Article  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.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. M. & Norris, S. P. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the reader’s world meets the world on paper? International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 317–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, M. (1999). Evaluation of abilities in interpreting media reports of scientific research. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1085–1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schalk, H. H., van der Schee, J. A. & Boersma, K. T. (2013). The development of understanding of evidence in pre-university biology education in The Netherlands. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 551–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholtz, Z., Braund, M., Hodges, M., Koopman, R. & Lubben, F. (2008). South African teachers’ ability to argue: The emergence of inclusive argumentation. International Journal of Educational Development, 28(1), 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Duggan, S. & Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 815–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. & Peterson, S. (2004). From “try it and see” to strategic explanation: Charactering young children’s scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 94–118.

    Article  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 

  • Weinberger, A. & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95.

    Article  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D. (2012). Science literacy for all—More than a slogan, logo, or rally flag! In K. C. D. Tan & M. Kim (Eds.), Issues and challenges in science education research: Moving forward (pp. 5–23). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google 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., Hand, B. M. & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338–369.

    Article  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Chiayi University, Chiayi, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Shu-Sheng Lin

Authors
  1. Shu-Sheng Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shu-Sheng Lin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lin, SS. SCIENCE AND NON-SCIENCE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ CRITICAL THINKING AND ARGUMENTATION PERFORMANCE IN READING A SCIENCE NEWS REPORT. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 12, 1023–1046 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9451-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9451-7

Key words

Search

Navigation