Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 489-514

  Khishfe, Rola ^a  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT   (Lebanon)

Author keywords

argumentation; high school; nature of science; socioscientific issues

Indexed keywords

ARGUMENTATION; BEIRUT , LEBANON; CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS; CONTENT KNOWLEDGE; CONTEXTUAL FACTORS; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; GEOGRAPHICAL AREA; HIGH SCHOOL; HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS; MIXED METHOD; NATURE OF SCIENCE; QUALITATIVE DATA; SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES; STRONG CORRELATION;

SURVEYS;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84858154649     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21012     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science course: Abandoning scientism, butâ∥ Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 215-233.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., (2002, April). The development of conceptions of the nature of scientific knowledge and knowing in the middle and high school years: A cross-sectional study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), New Orleans, LA.
3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., &, Akerson, V. L., (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers' views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785-810. (Pubitemid 39288875)
4. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., &, Lederman, N. G., (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82 (4), 417-436.
5. Aikenhead, G. S., (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69, 453-475.
6. Akerson, V., Abd-El-Khalick, F., &, Lederman, N. G., (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (4), 295-317.
7. Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., &, Schulze, S. K., (1994). The influence of topic knowledge, domain knowledge, and interest on the comprehension of scientific exposition. Learning and Individual Differences, 6, 379-397.
8. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
10. Baker, D. R., Lewis, E. B., Purzer, S., Watts, N. B., Perkins, G., Uysal, S., â∥, Lang, M., (2009). The Communication in Science Inquiry Project (CISIP): A project to enhance scientific literacy through the creation of science classroom discourse communities. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4 (3), 259-274.
11. Bell, P., &, Linn, M., (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifaBTs: Designing for learning on the Web in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (8), 797-817.
12. Bentley, M. L., &, Fleury, S. C., (1998). Of starting points and destinations: teacher education and the nature of science. In, W. F. McComas, (Ed.), The nature of science and science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 277-291). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
13. Berland, L. K., &, McNeill, K. L., (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94 (5), 765-793.
14. Bogdan, R., &, Biklen, S. K., (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
15. Boix Mansilla, V., (2001). The pursuit of understanding: A study of exemplary high school students' conceptions of knowledge validation in science and history (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
16. Boscolo, P., &, Mason, L., (2003). Topic knowledge, text coherence, and interest. How they interact in learning from instructional texts. Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 126-148. (Pubitemid 36224642)
17. BouJaoude, S., (1996). Epistemology and sociology of science according to Lebanese educators and students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Saint Louise, Missouri.
18. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., &, Unger, C., (1989). An experiment is when you try it and see if it works: A study of grade 7 students' understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education 11 (Special issue), 514-529.
19. Cavagnetto, A., (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80 (3), 336-371.
20. Chami, S., Chahine, B., El-Masri, M., El-Rifai, M., Kaoukabani, E., &, Sleiman, H., (1998). Chemistry, secondary education, first year. Dikwaneh, Lebanon: National Center for Educational Research and Development.
21. Clark, D., &, Sampson, V., (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29 (3), 253-277.
22. Coll, R. K., &, Taylor, N., (2009). Exploring international perspectives of scientific literacy: An overview of the special issue. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4 (3), 197-200.
23. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., &, Scott, P., (1996). Young people's images of science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
24. Driver, R., Newton, P., &, Osborne, J., (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
25. Duschl, R., &, Osborne, J., (2002). Argumentation and discourse processes in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
26. Fleming, R., (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689-698.
27. Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., (2010, March). College students' use of science content during socioscientific issues negotiation: Evolution as a prevailing concept. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
28. Fullinwider, R. K., (1987). Technological literacy and citizenship. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 7, 320-324.
29. Griffiths, A. K., &, Barman, C. R., (1995). High school students' views about the NOS: Results from three countries. School Science and Mathematics, 95 (5), 248-255.
30. Hanuscin, D. L., Akerson, V. L., &, Phillipson-Mower, T., (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90, 912-935. (Pubitemid 44298292)
31. Hodson, D., (2009). Putting your money where your mouth is: Towards an action-oriented science curriculum. Journal of Activist Science & Technology Education, 1 (1), 1-15. Retrieved from
32. Hofer, B. K., (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378-405.
33. Hofer, B. K., (2006). Domain specificity of personal epistemology: Resolved questions, persistent issues, new models. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 85-95. (Pubitemid 44688871)
34. Hofer, B. K., &, Pintrich, P. R., (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140.
35. Horner, J. K., &, Rubba, P. A., (1978). The myth of absolute truth. The Science Teacher, 45 (1), 29-30.
36. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., &, Erduran, S., (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In, S. Erduran, &, M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre, (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3-28). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
37. Kenyon, L., Kuhn, L., &, Reiser, B. J., (2006). Using students' epistemologies of science to guide the practice of argumentation. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp 321-327). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38. Khishfe, R., (2008). The development of seventh graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (4), 470-496. (Pubitemid 351584440)
39. Khishfe, R., &, Abd-El-Khalick, F., (2002). The influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (7), 551-578.
40. Kolsto, S. D., (2001a). Science literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310.
41. Kolsto, S. D., (2001b). " To trust or not to trust, â∥"-pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (9), 877-901. (Pubitemid 33595824)
42. Kuhn, D., (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94 (5), 810-824.
43. Kuhn, D., (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
44. Kuhn, D., (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62 (2), 155-178.
45. Kuhn, D., (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46. Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., &, Weinstock, M., (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15 (3), 309-328.
47. Kuhn, L., Reiser, B. J., (2006, April). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco CA.
48. Lederman, N. G., (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the Research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29 (4), 331-359.
49. Lederman, N. G., (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In, Abell S. K., &, Lederman N. G., (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Science Education. New Jersey: Erlbaum Publishers.
50. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., &, Schwartz, R. S., (2002). Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire: Toward Valid and Meaningful Assessment of Learners' Conceptions of Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (6), 497-521.
51. Lederman, N. G., &, O'Malley, M., (1990). Students' perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225-239.
52. Lewis, J., &, Leach, J., (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (11), 1267-1287. (Pubitemid 44446556)
53. Mason, L., (2000). Role of anomalous data and epistemological beliefs in middle school students' theory change about two controversial topics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15 (30), 329-346.
54. Mason, L., &, Boscolo, P., (2004). Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 103-128. (Pubitemid 38482769)
55. Mason, L., &, Scirica, F., (2006). Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and instruction, 16, 492-509. (Pubitemid 44661054)
56. McDonald, C. V., (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (9), 1137-1164.
57. Means, M. L., &, Voss, J. F., (1996). Who reason well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139-178. (Pubitemid 126315309)
58. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
59. Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., &, Poliquin, A., (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (15), 1977-1999.
60. Ogunniyi, M. B., (2006, April). Using an argumentation-instrumental reasoning discourse to facilitate teachers' understanding of the nature of science. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco, CA.
61. Oh, S., &, Jonassent, D. H., (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 95-110.
62. Patronis, T., Potari, D., &, Spiliotopoulou, V., (1999). Students' argumentation in decision making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745-754.
63. Popper, K. R., (1962). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
64. Sadler, T. D., (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45 (1), 1-42.
65. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F., Zeidler, D., (2002, April). Investigating the crossroads of socioscientific issues, the nature of science, and critical thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED466401).
66. Sadler, T. D., &, Fowler, S. R., (2006). A Threshold Model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90 (6), 986-1004. (Pubitemid 44701333)
67. Sadler, T. D., &, Zeidler, D. L., (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88 (1), 4-27. (Pubitemid 38544887)
68. Sadler, T. D., &, Zeidler, D. L., (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (1), 112-138. (Pubitemid 40146567)
69. Sadler, T. D., &, Zeidler, D. L., (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 85, 71-93. (Pubitemid 40132029)
70. Sampson, V., &, Clark, D., (2007). Incorporating scientific argumentation into inquiry-based activities with online personally-seeded discussions. The Science Scope, 30 (6), 43-47.
71. Sandoval, W. A., &, Milwood, K. A., (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In, S. Erduran, &, M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre, (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 71-88). Dordrecht: Springer.
72. Schwartz, R. S., &, Lederman, N. G., (2002). " It's the nature of the beast": The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (3), 205-236.
73. Simonneaux, L., (2008). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In, S. Erduran, &, M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre, (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 179-199). Dordrecht: Springer.
74. Sinatra, G. M., Sountherland, S. A., McConaughy, F., &, Demastes, J. W., (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students' understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (5), 510-528.
75. Smith, C. L., &, Wenk, L., (2006). Relations among three aspects of first-year college students' epistemologies of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43 (8), 747-785. (Pubitemid 44598710)
76. Spector, B., Strong, P., &, La Porta, T., (1998). Teaching the nature of science as an element of science, technology and society. In, W. F. McComas, (Ed.), The nature of science and science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 267-276). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
77. Toulmin, S., (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
78. Walker, A., &, Zeidler, D. L., (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29 (11), 1387-1410.
79. Weinstock, M., &, Cronin, M. A., (2003). The everyday production of knowledge: Individual differences in epistemological understanding and juror-reasoning skill. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 161-181. (Pubitemid 39517244)
80. Yerrick, R. K., (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (8), 807-838.
81. Zeidler D. L., (Ed.). (2003). The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
82. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., &, Simmons, M. L., (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343-367. (Pubitemid 37230323)
83. Zohar, A., &, Nemet, F., (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (1), 35-62.
84. Zoller, U., (1982). Decision-making in future science and technology curricula. European Journal of Science Education, 4 (1), 11-17.