Using Critical Integrative Argumentation to Assess Socioscientific Argumentation across Decision-Making Contexts

Bibliographic Data

ID22048841
AuthorsRachel A Sparks (0000-0002-8494-0387, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, corresponding author), P Citlally Jimenez (0000-0002-1665-2607, Codon Learning, Golden, CO 80401, USA), Caitlin K Kirby (0000-0003-4784-123X, Michigan State University), Jenny M Dauer (0000-0002-1373-8851, University of Nebraska–Lincoln)
Year2022
Volume12
Issue10
Pages644
Publication date2022-09-23
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueEducation Sciences (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2227-7102 • E-ISSN: 2227-7102
PublisherMDPI AG (PUBLISHER • IT)
DOI10.3390/educsci12100644
OpenAlexW4297192908
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited60

Socioscientific issues (SSI) are often used to facilitate students’ engagement in multiple scientific practices such as decision-making and argumentation, both of which are goals of STEM literacy, science literacy, and integrated STEM education. Literature often emphasizes scientific argumentation over socioscientific argumentation, which involves considering social factors in addition to scientific frameworks. Analyzing students’ socioscientific arguments may reveal how students construct such arguments and evaluate pedagogical tools supporting these skills. In this study, we examined students’ socioscientific arguments regarding three SSI on pre- and post-assessments in the context of a course emphasizing SSI-based structured decision-making. We employed critical integrative argumentation (CIA) as a theoretical and analytical framework, which integrates arguments and counterarguments with stronger arguments characterized by identifying and refuting counterarguments. We hypothesized that engaging in structured decision-making, in which students integrate multidisciplinary perspectives and consider tradeoffs of various solutions based upon valued criteria, may facilitate students’ development of integrated socioscientific arguments. Findings suggest that students’ arguments vary among SSI contexts and may relate to students’ identities and perspectives regarding the SSI. We conclude that engaging in structured decision-making regarding personally relevant SSI may foster more integrated argumentation skills, which are critical to engaging in information-laden democratic societies

Argumentation theory · Biology · Critical thinking · Epistemology · Mathematics education · Pedagogy · Science education · Scientific Literacy · Sociology · Computer Science · Education and Critical Thinking Development · Educational Strategies and Epistemologies · Psychology · Science Education and Pedagogy

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access