Activating Students’ Argumentative Resources on Socioscientific Issues by Indirectly Instructed Reasoning and Negotiation Processes

Jafari, Maria; Meisert, Anke

doi:10.1007/s11165-019-09869-x

Cited by 15 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We assume that this could be accompanied by a lessening of the simplifying cut-off strategies of evaluation in the face of complex sustainability problems. In particular, the initiation of in-depth argumentation with a reduction of simple preference statements and a strengthening of factual and normative references has already been demonstrated in the context of an intervention study (see [58]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Two brief insights into a corresponding intervention study are given, which include the written justification and weighting as well as an extract of an oral negotiation process. The examples are taken from an intervention study (eighth grade students, N = 146) that focuses on the construction of a new amusement park in a forest area which-among the area's other functions-serves as a habitat for wildcats (see [58]). The data for the analysis of the written justification and weighting (Table 3) were directly transferred from the students' Target-Mat working sheets.…”

Section: Examples Demonstrate the Potential Of The Semi-structured Nementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The data for the analysis of the written justification and weighting (Table 3) were directly transferred from the students' Target-Mat working sheets. The reasoning is interpreted in terms of activated argumentative resources such as facts or norms [58] and changings comparing the individual reasoning before and after the group negotiation. The analysis of the oral group discussion ( Table 4) takes place in two steps: First, the students' contributions were divided in phases, categorized regarding their references to reasoning or weighting, their use of argumentative resources (see above), and-if identifiable-their explicit function (in the sense of Merciers' argumentative theory [56]), according to the other contributions such as "insisting" or "demanding for further reasoning".…”

Section: Examples Demonstrate the Potential Of The Semi-structured Nementioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to our interpretations, the effects of these experiences become apparent after negotiations with the Target-Mat, which explains the change from an aesthetic interest to an explicit superordinate norm. Therefore, we assume that semi-structured negotiation processes have the potential to activate individual connections to the topic (such as aesthetic or other preferences [58] and to initiate the transformation from individual interests to commonly shared norms.…”

Section: Interpreted Negotiation Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Towards a Discourse-Based Understanding of Sustainability Education and Decision Making

Meisert

Böttcher

2019

Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on the indeterminate character of the sustainability concept, a procedural and discursive understanding of sustainability decision making and corresponding approaches for education for sustainability (EFS) is proposed. A set of criteria for teaching strategies to promote sustainability decision making, taking into account the demands of deliberative democracy theory, are presented. These criteria (such as reason, complexity management, critical thinking, etc.) are used to argue for an educational approach that involves the development, justification, and weighting of arguments in combination with an instructional tool called Target-Mat. According to a consequent process orientation, structures for arguing or defining sustainability are not given as authorized standards. Suggestions from previous social discourse are only introduced as controversial pairings-for example, different definitions of sustainability. Examples of student decision-making processes are given to demonstrate the potential of the approach to encourage student reflection and cooperative negotiation that engenders a successive deepening of their argumentation. strengthen the general critical reflection of the process. This only takes place when diverse viewpoints of different interest groups (or representatives of such groups) are included in the process. Therefore, deliberation concerns values of participants, but as it is not always clear which concrete interests or arguments are connected to abstract values, these have to be made concrete during deliberation in order to make interests and arguments available for negotiation.Referring to Cohen [33], Chappell summarizes key features as background conditions for deliberative democracy, such as the process relying on a free and independent association for deliberation of equals, no necessary commitment to any belief structure, a transparent relation between the process and the outcome, and the recognition of participants as legitimate deliberators.Having given these conditions as the basis for deliberation, the procedure itself is characterized by the following aspects [37] (p. 25):"Freedom. Members of a deliberative democracy are bound only by the results of their own deliberation, and the fact that decisions are arrived at through deliberation is a sufficient reason to comply with them.Reason. The results of deliberation depend only on the reasons members of the group present for making, defending or opposing a proposal.Equality. Members of a deliberative democracy are both formally and substantively equal.Consensus. The aim of ideal deliberation is to arrive at a consensus. In the absence of a consensus, decisions may be made through voting".

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Examples Demonstrate the Potential Of The Semi-structured Nementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Examples Demonstrate the Potential Of The Semi-structured Nementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Interpreted Negotiation Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Towards a Discourse-Based Understanding of Sustainability Education and Decision Making

Meisert

Böttcher

2019

Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nussbaum (2011) and Nielsen (2013), for example, note that the dynamics of an argument, due to its dialogic nature, are lost when solely focusing on the structure of individual arguments. Sampson and Clark (2008) and Jafari and Meisert (2019) maintain that concentrating on the structural complexity of an argument largely overlooks its content and accuracy. As a result, recent studies have established analysis frameworks that give more emphasis to the content of an argument.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘I wouldn’t want to be the animal in use nor the patient in need’ – the role of issue familiarity in students’ socioscientific argumentation

Garrecht

Reiß

Harms

2021

International Journal of Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Drama as a Powerful Tool to Enrich Socio-scientific Argumentation

Archila

Restrepo

Mejía

et al. 2022

Int J of Sci and Math Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Socio-scientific argumentation (SSA) is increasingly being recognized as a key aspect of scientific literacy. Much of the reason for this is that this skill is crucial for helping students to become active participants in twenty-first-century democratic societies in which the construction of informed and critical views of socio-scientific issues (e.g. climate change, COVID-19 vaccination, genetic testing) plays a fundamental role. The problem is that instructors rarely give students explicit and research-based opportunities to enrich their SSA skills. Therefore, the aim of this study was to provide evidence that drama can be used as a platform to enrich argumentation in genetic testing. The data were derived from the written responses and the audio recordings of seventy-six university students (37 females and 39 males, 16–29 years old) in Colombia during a complete drama-based teaching–learning sequence (TLS) supervised by the same instructor. The outcomes suggest that the sequence can be used to enrich argumentation in genetic testing as it effectively provided participants with explicit opportunities to produce both arguments and counterarguments about the controversy whether the use of genetic tests among people should be encouraged. This study contributes to the literature on SSA in science education by demonstrating that drama is a promising tool to enhance argumentation about science-based social issues. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10763-022-10320-3.

show abstract

Activating Students’ Argumentative Resources on Socioscientific Issues by Indirectly Instructed Reasoning and Negotiation Processes

Cited by 15 publications

References 45 publications

Towards a Discourse-Based Understanding of Sustainability Education and Decision Making

Towards a Discourse-Based Understanding of Sustainability Education and Decision Making

‘I wouldn’t want to be the animal in use nor the patient in need’ – the role of issue familiarity in students’ socioscientific argumentation

Drama as a Powerful Tool to Enrich Socio-scientific Argumentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About