Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics

Abstract

This study examined the outcomes of a unit that integrates explicit teaching of general reasoning patterns into the teaching of a specific science content. Specifically, this article examined the teaching of argumentation skills in the context of dilemmas in human genetics. Before instruction only a minority (16.2%) of the students referred to correct, specific biological knowledge in constructing arguments in the context of dilemmas in genetics. Approximately 90% of the students were successful in formulating simple arguments. An assessment that took place following instruction supported the conclusion that integrating explicit teaching of argumentation into the teaching of dilemmas in human genetics enhances performance in both biological knowledge and argumentation. An increase was found in the frequency of students who referred to correct, specific biological knowledge in constructing arguments. Students in the experimental group scored significantly higher than students in the comparison group in a test of genetics knowledge. An increase was also found in the quality of students' argumentation. Students were able to transfer the reasoning abilities taught in the context of genetics to the context of dilemmas taken from everyday life. The effects of metacognitive thinking and of changing students' thinking dispositions by modifying what is considered valuable in the class culture are discussed. © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 35–62, 2002

Argumentación en Enseñanza en Clase Completa y Aprendizaje de Ciencias

“…Results from the study reported in Mercer et al (2004) suggest that exploratory talk, or the discursive practice in which students express and collaboratively explore their opinions through a systematic and joint reasoning, has an impact on secondary students' science learning and reasoning skills. In addition, results from four studies with primary (Che & She, 2012) and secondary students (Venville & Dawson, 2010;Wilson et al, 2010;Zohar & Nemet, 2002) support this conclusion. However, there are uncertainties about how these results should be interpreted.…”

“…Although there is scarce research testing these benefits, some empirical evidence on peer interactions partially supports it (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2007Howe et al, 2007). Some studies have tested the effect of the argumentative type of whole-class talk on learning, but they are only partially conclusive and do not prove the effect of the discussion of contradictory ideas (Che & She, 2012;Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif, & Sams, 2004;Venville & Dawson, 2010;Wilson, Taylor, Kowalski, & Carlson, 2010;Zohar & Nemet, 2002). Considering that whole-class interactions are the most frequent ones in classrooms around the world (Howe, 2010), it is relevant to investigate the effect of whole-class discussion on learning.…”

Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education

“…Recent studies involving example cases of genetically modified foods (Walker & Zeidler, 2003), human genetic engineering Zohar & Nemet, 2002), animal experimentation (Simonneaux, 2001;Zeidler et al, 2002), and environmental dilemmas (Hogan, 2002;Kolstø, 2001b) provide strong support for the efficacy of using controversial socioscientific case studies to foster critical thinking skills and moral and ethical development. These studies strongly suggest that curricula using such issues provide an environment where students become engaged in discourse and reflection that affect cognitive and moral development.…”

Enhancing Pre-service Physics Teachers’ Perceived Self-efficacy of Argumentation-based Pedagogy through Modelling and Mastery Experiences

“…Argumentation refers to the process of proposing, supporting, criticizing, evaluating, and competing ideas using evidence, critical thinking and rationality (Kuhn, 1993). Proponents of argumentation maintain that argumentation based instruction is effective in promoting students' understanding of the nature of science (Sandoval & Millwood, 2005;Simon et al, 2006) and their conceptual understanding of core scientific ideas (Duschl & Osborne, 2002;Erduran & Jimenez-Aleixandre, 2008;Jimenez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez, & Duschl, 2000;Sampson & Clark, 2008;von Aufschnaiter, Erduran, Osborne & Simon, 2008;Zohar & Nemet, 2002). These scholars maintain that © 2013 iSER, Eurasia J.…”

“…As a result, research on argumentation in science education has intensified exponentially within the last decade (Bricker & Bell, 2008;Duschl & Osborne, 2002;Erduran & Jimenez-Aleixandre, 2008;Kelly & Chen, 1999;Sandoval & Millwood, 2008;2005;Sampson & Clark, 2008;Simon, Erduran & Osborne, 2006;Zohar & Nemet, 2002). Argumentation refers to the process of proposing, supporting, criticizing, evaluating, and competing ideas using evidence, critical thinking and rationality (Kuhn, 1993).…”