![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
This quasi-experimental study uses a pre-/post-intervention approach to investigate the quality of undergraduate students’ arguments in the context of socioscientific issues (SSI) based on experiencing a semester of traditional ‘cookbook' instruction (N = 79) or a semester of argument-based instruction (N = 73) in the context of an undergraduate science laboratory course. Findings from this study indicate that the students experiencing the argument-based instruction generated significantly better arguments than students in the traditional course after the intervention. Specifically, the students in the treatment group were better able to include rationales in their arguments supporting their stance on the SSI task. Implications for instruction in undergraduate science laboratory courses, including the use of scientific argumentation as a means of enhancing science proficiency and science literacy, are discussed.
Notes
1. Repower America commercial downloaded from http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GlQc9Kj15NM.
2. American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity commercial downloaded from http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SHxykaAoTvc.
3. American Beverage Association commercial downloaded from http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Uz5TOMUhnPg.
4. Alliance for a Healthier New York commercial downloaded from http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2sLAnBAUNp0.
5. Level 0 and 1 pair-wise follow-up comparison: Pearson χ2 (1, N = 55) = 0.19, p = .66; level 2 and 3/4 pair-wise follow-up comparison: Pearson χ2 (1, N = 18) = 3.18, p = .07 (Cramer's V = 0.42).
6. Level 1 and 2 pair-wise follow-up comparison: Pearson χ2 (1, N = 40) = 0.09, p = .76; level 2 and 3/4 pair-wise follow-up comparison: Pearson χ2 (1, N = 24) = 2.58, p = .11.