Investigating the Impact of the Duration of Engagement in Socioscientific Issues in Developing Greek Students’ Argumentation and Informal Reasoning Skills

Martha Georgiou^1, , Evangelia Mavrikaki², Krystallia Halkia² and Issidora Papassideri¹

¹Section of Cell Biology & Biophysics, Department of Biology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

²Department of Primary Education, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

Cite this paper:
Martha Georgiou, Evangelia Mavrikaki, Krystallia Halkia and Issidora Papassideri. Investigating the Impact of the Duration of Engagement in Socioscientific Issues in Developing Greek Students’ Argumentation and Informal Reasoning Skills. American Journal of Educational Research. 2020; 8(1):16-23. doi: 10.12691/education-8-1-3

Abstract

Argumentation seems to play a central role in science education. Among other factors that could affect students’ argumentation skills, the duration of their engagement in appropriate teaching environments or teaching interventions have been studied, yielding opposing results. Thus, the aim of this research was to shed light in this direction. For this purpose, we worked with 10th grade Greek state school students divided into two groups. Both groups attended a course called “Research Project” (RP), which aimed to approach the teaching of Biotechnology through socioscientific issues. The first group attended the course for two hours weekly for twenty weeks (long research project group – LRP), whereas the second attended the same course with exactly the same designing for three hours per week for 13 weeks (short research project group – SRP). At the end of the interventions, all students completed a questionnaire of eight open-ended questions on Biotechnology. Students were asked to express their opinion providing arguments which later were assessed using Toulmin’s model. Simultaneously, we estimated the informal reasoning they used to express their arguments, based on the classification: rationalistic, intuitive and emotive. The results revealed that students of the LRP group produced stronger arguments using rationalistic informal reasoning that is arguments of higher level supported by scientific data and multifaceted consideration of each issue of question, compared to the SRP group. Moreover, the intuitive informal reasoning was found to be significantly reduced statistically in the LRP group compared to the SRP group. Consequently, we concluded that the distribution of RP teaching periods throughout the school year was crucial to enhancing both students’ argumentation skills and their informal reasoning when expressing arguments. In other words, an intervention of longer duration can help students formulate more elaborate arguments based on scientific data.

Keywords:
argumentation informal reasoning socioscientific issues Biotechnology duration of intervention Research Project

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Zohar, A., and Nemet, F., “Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics”, Journal of research in science teaching, 39 (1), 35-62, 2002.
[2]	Osborne, J., Erduran, S., and Simon, S., Ideas, Evidence and Argument in Science: CPD Training Pack, King's College London, 2004.
[3]	Dawson, V., and Venville, G. J., “High‐school Students’ Informal Reasoning and Argumentation about Biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy?’, International Journal of Science Education, 31 (11), 1421-1445, 2009.
[4]	Georgiou, M. and Mavrikaki, E., Constantinou, CP, “Is teaching Biology through socioscientific issues enough for the development of argumentation skills?” In Abstracts Book of 12th Conference of European Researchers in Didactics of Biology (ERIDOB), p. 92, Zaragosa Spain, 2018.
[5]	Georgiou, M. and Mavrikaki, E., “Greek students’ ability in argumentation and informal reasoning about socioscientific issues related to biotechnology. In C.P. Constantinou, N Papadouris, & A Hadjigeogiou (ed.), Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), pp. 1158-1166, Nicosia Cyprus. 2013.
[6]	Simonneaux, L., “Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis”, International Journal of Science Education, 23 (9), 903-927, 2001.
[7]	Simon, S., Erduran, S., and Osborne, J., “Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom”, International Journal of Science Education, 28 (2-3), 235-260, 2006.
[8]	Dawson, V.M., and Venville, G., “Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics”, Research in Science Education, 40 (2), 133-148, 2010.
[9]	Duschl, R. A., Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development, Teachers College Press, 1990.
[10]	Evagorou, M., and Osborne, J. “Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50 (2), 209-237, 2013.
[11]	Patronis, T., Potari, D., and Spiliotopoulou, V., “Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: implications for teaching”, International Journal of Science Education, 21 (7), 745-754, 1999.
[12]	Osborne, J., Erduran, S., and Simon, S., “Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science”, Journal of research in science teaching, 41 (10), 994-1020, 2004.
[13]	Driver, R., Newton, P., and Osborne, J., “Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms”, Science education, 84 (3), 287-312, 2000.
[14]	Kuhn, D., and Udell, W., “The development of argument skills”, Child development, 74 (5), 1245-1260, 2003.
[15]	Toulmin, S. E., The uses of argument, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[16]	Erduran, S. J., and Jiménez-Aleixandre, MP, “Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview”, S. Erduran, J. and MP Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research, 3-28, 2007.
[17]	Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A., “Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality”, International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488, 2006.
[18]	Sadler, T. D., “Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research”, Journal of research in science teaching, 41 (5), 513-536, 2004.
[19]	Sadler, T. D., and Zeidler, D. L., “Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making”, Journal of research in science teaching, 42 (1), 112-138, 2005a.
[20]	Kuhn, D., The skills of argument, Cambridge University Press, 1991.
[21]	Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., and Bushey, B., “Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence”, In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, and J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991.
[22]	Means, M. L., and Voss, J. F., “Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels”, Cognition and instruction, 14 (2), 139-178, 1996.
[23]	Sadler, T. D., and Zeidler, D. L., “The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues”, Science Education, 89 (1), 71-93, 2005b.
[24]	Newton, P., Driver, R., and Osborne, J., “The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science”, International Journal of Science Education, 21 (5), 553-576, 1999.
[25]	Basel, N., Harms, U., and Prechtl, H., “Analysis of students’ arguments on evolutionary theory”, Journal of Biological Education, 47 (4), 192-199, 2013.
[26]	Sampson, V., Grooms, J., and Walker, J. P., “Argument‐Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study”, Science Education, 95 (2), 217-257, 2011.
[27]	Zoller, U., “Algorithmic, LOCS and HOCS (chemistry) exam questions: Performance and attitudes of college students”, International Journal of Science Education, 24 (2), 185-203, 2002.
[28]	Hefter, M. H., Berthold, K., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S., & Fries, S. “Effects of a training intervention to foster argumentation skills while processing conflicting scientific positions”, Instructional Science, 42(6), 929-947, 2014.
[29]	Gaskell, G., Stares, S., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Castro, P., Esmer, Y., Fischler et al., EUR 24537 – Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010 Winds of change?, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010.
[30]	Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., and Duschl, R. A. “"Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics”, Science Education, 84 (6), 757-792, 2000.
[31]	Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., and Simon, S., “Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (1), 101-131, 2008.
[32]	Georgiou, M. and Mavrikaki, E., “Do greek students argument? The case of socio-scientific issues from the field of biotechnology, Themes in Science and Technology Education, 9 (3), 137-149. 2017. (in greek)
[33]	Vlachos, D., Daglis, I., Giagazoglou, S. and Vavouraki, A., “Ποιότητα και εκπαίδευση: Σύνοψη της μελέτης, συμπεράσματα και προτάσεις” [Quality and Education: Summary of the study, conclusions and recommendations], Αθήνα, Ελλάδα: εκδόσεις Παιδαγωγικού Ινστιτούτου, 2008. Available (in greek): "http://www.pi-schools.gr/download/programs/erevnes/ax_poiot_xar_prot_deft_e kp/poiot_ekp_erevn/s_535_602.pdf"http://www.pi- schools.gr/download/programs/erevnes/ax_poiot_xar_prot_deft_e kp/poiot_ekp_erevn/s_535_602.pdf.
[34]	Tytler, R., “Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education”, International Journal of Science Education, 23 (8), 815-832, 2001.
[35]	Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., “Designing argumentation learning environments”, In Argumentation in science education, (pp. 91-115), Springer Netherlands, 2007.
[36]	Lewis, J., “Bringing the real world into the biology curriculum”, Journal of Biological education, 40 (3), 101-106, 2006.
[37]	Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M., “The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (8), 952-977, 2010.