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

References

• Agell, L., Soria, V., & Carrió, M. (2015). Using role play to debate animal testing. Journal of Biological Education, 49(3), 309–321. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2014.943788
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basel, N., Harms, U., Prechtl, H., Weiß, T., & Rothgangel, M. (2014). Students’ arguments on the science and religion issue: The example of evolutionary theory and Genesis. Journal of Biological Education, 48(4), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.849286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baytelman, A., Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. (2020). Epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of the construction of different types of arguments on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(8), 1199–1227. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21627
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bencze, L., Pouliot, C., Pedretti, E., Simonneaux, L., Simonneaux, J., & Zeidler, D. L. (2020). SAQ, SSI & STSE education: Defending and extending “science-in-context”. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15(3), 825–851. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09962-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, S-N, & Chiu, M-H. (2008). Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753–1773. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701534582
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang Rundgren, S.-N., & Rundgren, C. (2010). SEE-SEP: From a separate to a holistic view of socioscientific issues. Asia-Parcific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Chinn, C. (2006). Learning to argue. In A. M. O’Donell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning and technology (pp. 355–383). Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Christenson, N., Chang Rundgren, S.-N., & Zeidler, D. L. (2014). The relationship of discipline background to upper secondary students’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 581–601. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9394-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2018). Introducing argumentation about climate change: Socioscientific issues in a disadvantaged school. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9715-x
   Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of toulmin's argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evagorou, M., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Osborne, J. (2012). ‘Should we kill the grey squirrels?’ – A study exploring students’ justifications and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401–428. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.619211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forbes, L., & Billet, S. (2012). Successful co-teaching in the science classroom. Science Scope, 36(1), 61–64.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551–570. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701744595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grooms, J., Sampson, V., & Enderle, P. (2018). How concept familiarity and experience with scientific argumentation are related to the way groups participate in an episode of argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(9), 1264–1286. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21451
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han, G., Chock, T. M., & Shoemaker, P. (2009). Issue familiarity and framing effects of online campaign coverage: Event perception, issue attitudes, and the 2004 presidential election in Taiwan. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(4), 739–755. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900908600402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haro, A., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2020). Argumentation competence: Students’ argumentation knowledge, behavior and attitude and their relationships with domain-specific knowledge acquisition. Journal of Constructivist Psychology. Advance online publication. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10720537.2020.1734995
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herman, B. C., Newton, M. H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2021). Impact of place-based socioscientific issues instruction on students’ contextualization of socioscientific orientation. Science Education. Advance online publication. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/sce.21618
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2016). Reflective argumentation: A cognitive function of arguing. Argumentation, 30(4), 365–397. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9388-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275–288.
   Google Scholar
• Howes, E. V., & Cruz, B. C. (2009). Role-playing in science education: An effective strategy for developing multiple perspectives. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 33–46. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174721
   Google Scholar
• Jafari, M., & Meisert, A. (2019). Activating students’ argumentative resources on socioscientific issues by indirectly instructed reasoning and negotiation processes. Research in Science Education. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11165-019-09869-x#citeas
   Google Scholar
• Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. (2017). A case for the use of conceptual analysis in science education research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(4), 538–551. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21376
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ke, L., Sadler, T., Zangori, L., & Friedrichsen, P. (2020). Students’ perceptions of socio-scientific issue-based learning and their appropriation of epistemic tools for system thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 42(8), 1339–1361. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1759843
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolstø, S. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689–1716. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560878
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (2018). A role for reasoning in a dialogic approach to critical thinking. Topoi, 37(1), 121–128. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9373-4
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00605
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK). (2005). Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss [Education Standards for Secondary School Biology]. https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2004/2004_12_16-Bildungsstandards-Biologie.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kutnick, P., & Roger, C. (1994). Groups in school. Cassell.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, H., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Choi, K. (2006). Korean science teachers’ perceptions of the introduction of socio-scientific issues into the science curriculum. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(2), 97–117. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150609556691
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267–1287. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500439348
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindahl, M., Folkesson, A., & Zeidler, D. (2019). Students’ recognition of educational demands in the context of a socioscientific issues curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(9), 1155–1182. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21548
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Means, M., & Voss, J. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–178. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., Boudry, M., Paglieri, F., & Trouche, E. (2017). Natural-born arguers: Teaching how to make the best of our reasoning abilities. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207537
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 371–393. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9266-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84–106. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 384–395. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00038-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Eskin, H. (2012). Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientific argumentation and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 1415–1443. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9346-z
   Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 821–846. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen, J., & Totten, S. (2001). Beliefs of science teachers toward the teaching of science/technology/social issues: Are we addressing national standards? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 21(5), 376–393. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/027046760102100507
   Google Scholar
• Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95(4), 601–626. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Presley, M. L., Sickel, A. J., Muslu, N., Merle-Johnson, D., Witzig, S. B., Izci, K., & Sadler, T. D. (2013). A framework for socio-scientific issues based education. Science Education, 22(1), 26–32.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 729–780). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, D., & Bybee, R. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education Vol II (pp. 697–726). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Romine, W., Sadler, T., & Kinslow, A. (2017). Assessment of scientific literacy: Development and validation of the quantitative assessment of socio-scientific reasoning (QuASSR). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 274–295. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D., Foulk, J. A., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2016). Evolution of a model for socio-scientific issue teaching and learning. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.55999
   Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2011). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41(1), 63–97. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9146-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, H., Rothgangel, M., & Grube, D. (2017). Does prior domain-specific content knowledge influence students’ recall of arguments surrounding interdisciplinary topics? Journal of Adolescence, 61(2017), 96–106. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.10.001
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schwarz, B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219–256. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonneaux, L. (2014). Questions socialement vives and socio-scientific issues: New trends of research to meet the training needs of postmodern society. In C. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien, & P. Clément (Eds.), Topics and trends in current science education. Contributions from science education research (pp. 37–54). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475–2495. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903524779
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of arguments. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walton , D. N. (1990). What is reasoning? What is an argument?. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(8), 399–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, Y-T, & Tsai, C-C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163–1187. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601083375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeidler, D. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research and practice. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education Vol II (pp. 697–726). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). New directions in socioscientific issues research. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(11), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7
   Google Scholar
• Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. (2007). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 201–216). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar