Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the effects of on-line argumentation on 37 university students’ informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific. In addition, such effects on students with different reasoning abilities were also explored. The students were asked to discuss the issue, “xenotransplantation,” anonymously in the on-line discussion forum in groups for a week (7 days). This study revealed significant effects of on-line discussion task on improving the students’ informal reasoning quality. More importantly, it was found that both the students achieving a “higher” reasoning level and those achieving a “lower” reasoning level benefited from the anonymous on-line discussion, but in different ways. Both the students in the two groups proposed significantly more arguments after on-line discussion task; but only the students achieving a “lower” reasoning level performed significantly better in their rebuttal construction and usage of different reasoning modes after the on-line discussion task.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 253–277.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 23, 689–698.
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, 915–933.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1996). Deciding before you think: Relevance and reasoning in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 223–240.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2002). Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 978–996.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 454–459.
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory for reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11, 382–389.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673–689.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 74–103.
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.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1024.
Randel, J. M., Pugh, H. L., & Reed, S. K. (1996). Differences in expert and novice situation awareness in naturalistic decision making. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 45, 579–597.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463–1488.
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.
Shaw, V. F. (1996). The cognitive processes in informal reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 2, 51–80.
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22.
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 46, 71–95.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1163–1187.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). High school students’ informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue, with relations to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education. Available online 3 March 2010. doi: 10.1080/09500690903505661.
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, 357–377.
Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437–465.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wu, Y.T., Tsai, CC. (2012). The Effects of University Students’ Argumentation on Socio-Scientific Issues via On-Line Discussion in Their Informal Reasoning Regarding This Issue. In: Khine, M. (eds) Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2469-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2470-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)