![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
Recently, the significance of learners’ informal reasoning on socio‐scientific issues has received increasing attention among science educators. To gain deeper insights into this important issue, an integrated analytic framework was developed in this study. With this framework, 71 Grade 10 students’ informal reasoning about nuclear energy usage was explored qualitatively and quantitatively. It was found that the students in this study tended to process reasoning from multiple perspectives, and most of them were prone to make evidence‐based decisions. However, less than 40% of the participants were able to construct rebuttals against counter‐arguments. It was also revealed that students’ abundant usage of supportive arguments did not guarantee for their counter‐argument construction as well as rebuttal construction, but their usage of counter‐arguments might act as precursors to their construction of rebuttals. In addition, learners’ usage of multiple reasoning modes might help them propose more arguments and, in particular, generate more counter‐arguments, which may act as precursors to their rebuttal construction. This study also showed evidence that students’ scientific knowledge that might be mainly acquired from school science instruction could be viewed as important foundation for better informal reasoning and decision‐making on socio‐scientific issues.
Acknowledgement
Funding of this research work is supported by National Science Council, Taiwan, under grant number NSC 94‐2511‐S‐009‐003.
Notes
1. It should be noted that, for some items in Tables –, there are very large standard deviations compared with the means (e.g., Table , first row entry on “Social‐oriented”, the mean of “female students” is 0.31 but the standard deviation of “female students” is 0.62). It seems that the non‐significant differences on some measures in these tables are probably due to the characteristics of the sample in this study. Therefore, caution must be taken when interpreting this part of results, and more studies with different samples are suggested to examine the robustness of this part of results in this study.