Reinforcement of Scientific Literacy through Effective Argumentation on an Energy-related Environmental Issue
Shih-Yeh Chen 1,  
More details
Hide details
Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, TAIWAN
Online publish date: 2018-09-16
Publish date: 2018-09-16
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(12):em1625
This study designed a teaching unit in a chemistry course to engage students in discussing the complex issue of renewable energy development. In the 11-week learning activities, 66 ninth-grade students experienced individual exploration, group collaborative learning, and the operation of a web-based instant response system. Their learning outcomes were measured by the scientific conceptual test and the scientific literacy questionnaire, while their decision-making and argumentation processes were recorded using the instant response system. Results indicated statistically significant gains on the scientific concepts regarding solar cell and energy sources, as well as on the scores of scientific literacy. Likewise, students performed a substantial increase in argumentation skills, especially for those related to evidence-based arguments. Different science achievers showed a mixed pattern in proposing evidence to support their arguments. Using web technology in teaching argumentation on environmental issues is promised to raise students’ interest in acquiring scientific knowledge to deal with relevant issues.
1. Acar, O., Turkmen, L., & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in socio-scientific argumentation and decision-making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191-1206.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 1989). Project 2061― Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.
3. Balgopal, M. M., Wallace, A. M., & Dahlberg, S. (2017). Writing from different cultural contexts: How college students frame an environmental SSI through written arguments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 195-218.
4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
5. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation: testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 667-694.
6. Belland, B. R., Gu, J., Armbrust, S., & Cook, B. (2015). Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: A mixed-method study in a rural middle school. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 325-353.
7. Bodzin, A. (2012). Investigating urban eighth-grade students’ knowledge of energy resources. International Journal of Science Education, 34(8), 1255-1275.
8. Bybee, R. W. (1993). Reforming science education. Social perspectives & personal reflections. New York: Teachers College Press.
9. Bybee, R. W. (2008). Scientific literacy, environmental issues, and PISA 2006: The 2008 Paul F-Brandwein lecture. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 566-585.
10. Bybee, R., & McCrae, B. (2011). Scientific literacy and student attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006 science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7-26.
11. Bybee, R., McCrae, B., & Laurie, R. (2009). PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865-883.
12. 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.
13. Chang, H. P., Chen, C. C., Guo, G. J., Cheng, Y. J., Lin, C. Y., & Jen, T. H. (2011). The development of a competence scale for learning science: Inquiry and communication. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5), 1213-1233.
14. Chen, K. L., Huang, S. H., & Liu, S. Y. (2013). Devising a framework for energy education in Taiwan using the analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy, 55, 396-403.
15. Cheng, Y. J. (2011). Three-year curriculum block research project designed to promote students’ Competence, Cooperation and Confidence (3C) abilities (Report No. NSC 95-2522-S-003-015-MY3). Taipei: Ministry of Science and Technology.
16. Cheong, I. P. A., Johari, M., Said, H., & Treagust, D. F. (2015). What do you know about alternative energy? Development and use of a diagnostic instrument for upper secondary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 210-236.
17. Chien, Y. T., & Chang, C. Y. (2015). Supporting socio-scientific argumentation in the classroom through automatic group formation based on students’ real-time responses. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Science education in East Asia: Pedagogical innovations and research-informed practices. Springer.
18. Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670–697.
19. Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2009). High-school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421-1445.
20. Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2013). Introducing high school biology students to argumentation about socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 356-372.
21. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L.
22. DeWaters, J. E., & Powers, S. E. (2011). Energy literacy of secondary students in New York State (USA): A measure of knowledge, affect, and behavior. Energy Policy, 39(3), 1699-1710.
23. Drewes, A., Henderson, J., & Mouza, C. (2017). Professional development design considerations in climate change education: teacher enactment and student learning. International Journal of Science Education, 1-23.
24. Fives, H., Huebner, W., Birnbaum, A. S., & Nicolich, M. (2014). Developing a measure of scientific literacy for middle school students. Science Education, 98(4), 549-580.
25. Fouquet, R. (2017). Make low-carbon energy an integral part of the knowledge economy. Nature, 551(7682), S141.
26. Gambro, J. S., & Switzky, H. N. (1999). Variables associated with American high school students’ knowledge of environmental issues related to energy and pollution. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(2), 15–22.
27. Gesmann, M., & de Castillo, D. (2011). Using the Google visualisation API with R. The R Journal, 3(2), 40-44.
28. Hsieh, Y. F., Liu, S. Y., & Chen, K. L. (2013). Teaching environmental issues to improve Scientific Literacy-By the case of solar cell technology. Journal of Environmental Education Research, 10(1), 35-64. [In Chinese].
29. Jensen, B. B. (2002). Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 325-334.
30. Khishfe, R. (2014). A reconstructed vision of environmental science literacy: The case of Qatar. International Journal of Science Education, 36(18), 3067-3100.
31. Krajcik, J. S., & Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328(5977), 456-459.
32. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
33. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315.
34. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824.
35. Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 456-496.
36. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94.<71::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-C.
37. Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S.-W., Krajcik, J., Herman, B. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079-2113.
38. Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific Issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287.
39. Lin, S. S. (2014). Science and non-science undergraduate students’ critical thinking and argumentation performance in reading a science news report. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1023-1046.
40. Lin, S. S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993-1017.
41. Maslow, A. H. (2013). A theory of human motivation. NY: Start Publishing LLC.
42. Mun, K., Shin, N., Lee, H., Kim, S. W., Choi, K., Choi, S. Y., & Krajcik, J. S. (2015). Korean secondary students’ perception of scientific literacy as global citizens: Using global scientific literacy questionnaire. International Journal of Science Education, 37(11), 1739-1766.
43. 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.
44. Obama, B. (2017). The irreversible momentum of clean energy. Science, 355(6321), 126-129.
45. OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education, OECD Publishing, Paris.
46. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463-466.
47. Osborne, J., Donovan, B. M., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A. C., & Wild, A. (2016). Arguing From Evidence in Middle School Science: 24 Activities for Productive Talk and Deeper Learning. CA: Corwin Press.
48. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
49. Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566-593.<566::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-U.
50. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729 – 780). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. Roelle, J., & Berthold, K. (2013). The expertise reversal effect in prompting focused processing of instructional explanations. Instructional Science, 41(4), 635-656.
52. Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88(2), 263-291.
53. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
54. 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.
55. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004.
56. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93.
57. Santos, W. L. P. D. (2009). Scientific literacy: A Freirean perspective as a radical view of humanistic science education. Science Education, 93(2), 361-382.
58. Schusler, T. M., Krasny, M. E., & Decker, D. J. (2017). The autonomy-authority duality of shared decision-making in youth environmental action. Environmental Education Research, 23(4), 533-552.
59. Shen, B. S. (1975). Science literacy and the public understanding of science. In Communication of scientific information (pp. 44-52). Karger Publishers.
60. Tsai, C. Y. (2018). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientific issues on students’ scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Computers & Education, 116, 14-27.
61. 009.
62. Twidell, J., & Weir, T. (2015). Renewable energy resources (third edition). New York: Taylor & Francis.
63. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2010). International energy outlook 2010. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.
64. Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). 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.
65. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). 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.
66. Yeh, S. C., Huang, J. Y., & Yu, H. C. (2017). Analysis of energy literacy and misconceptions of junior high students in Taiwan. Sustainability, 9(3), 423.
67. Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis. Theory, research, and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, 2, 697-726.
68. Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S. M., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom (pp. 277-305). Dordrecht: Springer.
69. 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.
70. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145-181.