Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation Instruction in the Context of Socioscientific Issues:...

This article was downloaded by: [American University of Beirut]On: 02 September 2013, At: 13:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Explicit Nature of Science andArgumentation Instruction in theContext of Socioscientific Issues: Aneffect on student learning and transferRola Khishfea

a Department of Education, American University of Beirut, Beirut,11-0236, LebanonPublished online: 28 Aug 2013.

To cite this article: International Journal of Science Education (2013): Explicit Natureof Science and Argumentation Instruction in the Context of Socioscientific Issues: Aneffect on student learning and transfer, International Journal of Science Education, DOI:10.1080/09500693.2013.832004

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.832004

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.832004

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Explicit Nature of Science and

Argumentation Instruction in the

Context of Socioscientific Issues: An

effect on student learning and transfer

Rola Khishfe∗

Department of Education, American University of Beirut, Beirut 11-0236, Lebanon

The purpose of the study was two-fold: to (a) investigate the influence of explicit nature of science

(NOS) and explicit argumentation instruction in the context of a socioscientific issue on the

argumentation skills and NOS understandings of students, and (b) explore the transfer of

students’ NOS understandings and argumentation skills learned in one socioscientific context

into other similar contexts (familiar and unfamiliar). Participants were a total of 121 seventh

grade students from two schools. The treatment involved an eight-week unit about the water

usage and safety, which was taught by two teachers for two intact groups (Treatments I and II).

Explicit NOS instruction was integrated for all groups. However, only the Treatment I groups

had the additional explicit argumentation instruction. Participants were pre- and post-tested

using an open-ended questionnaire and interviews about two socioscientific issues to assess their

learning and transfer of argumentation skills and NOS understandings. Results showed

improvements in the learning of argumentation practice and NOS understandings for Treatment

I group participants. Similarly, there were improvements in the learning and transfer of NOS

understandings for Treatment II group participants with only some improvements for the

argumentation practice. Further, some of the Treatment I group participants made connections

to argumentation when explicating their NOS understandings by the end of the study. Findings

were discussed in light of classroom practice that utilizes an explicit approach, contextual

approach, as well as an approach that integrates NOS and argumentation simultaneously.

Keywords: Scientific literacy; Nature of science; Argumentation

Introduction

In a world dominated by science and technology, it is crucial to raise students who are

both scientifically and technologically literate so that they would not be alienated from

International Journal of Science Education, 2013

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.832004

∗American University of Beirut, Beirut 11-0236, Lebanon. Email: [email protected]

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

our modern society (BouJaoude, 2002). Helping students to understand nature of

science (NOS) is a central component for achieving scientific literacy for all students

(American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989, 1993;

Council of Ministers of Education Canada [CMEC] Pan-Canadian Science

Project, 1997; Curriculum Council, 1998; Michaels, Shouse, & Schweingruber,

2008; Millar & Osborne, 1998; National Research Council [NRC], 1996).

This study attempted to investigate more ‘influential’ ways to promote the under-

standings about NOS. In particular, the study examined the influence of explicit

NOS instruction and explicit argumentation instruction on the understandings of

NOS and the transfer of these understandings into similar contexts. Additionally,

this study looked at how that influenced students’ argumentation practice. Below,

we discuss and highlight the framework and rationale for this investigation.

Nature of Science

NOS does not have a universally agreed upon definition, but it is commonly defined as

the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing, or the values and beliefs

inherent to scientific knowledge and its development (Lederman, 1992). In view of

that, there are some generally accepted characteristics of the scientific enterprise

(Lederman, 2007) that are accessible and relevant to K-12 students’ everyday lives

(Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998). Three of these important aspects of

NOS were the target of the present study; these target NOS aspects have been empha-

sized in reform science education documents (AAAS, 1989, 1993; NRC, 1996).

Additionally, they have been underlined among the premises in the position statement

from National Science Teachers Association (NSTA, 2000), and were also among the

seven NOS aspects advanced by Abd-El-Khalick et al. (1998) as characterizing scien-

tific knowledge (Lederman, 2007). These aspects include understanding that (a)

scientific knowledge is tentative, where it is subject to change in light of new evidence

or reconceptualization of prior evidence and knowledge; (b) scientific knowledge is

empirical (based on observations of the natural world), and (c) scientific knowledge

is subjective, where it is partly influenced by scientists’ background knowledge,

experiences, and biases.

Science educators have researched for over 50 years about learners’ views of NOS

and the different ways to develop students’ views about NOS (Lederman, 1992).

Abd-El-Khalick et al. (1998) recommended that NOS instruction should be

planned for and employed as a fundamental element of science teaching rather

than an auxiliary learning product. According to Abd-El-Khalick et al. (1998),

NOS needs to be explicitly taught to learners by deliberately focusing on various

aspects of NOS during classroom instruction, discussions, and questioning

(Khishfe, 2002, 2006; McDonald, 2010). The effectiveness of an explicit approach

on students’ understandings of NOS has been examined in several contexts: (a) his-

torical (Klopfer & Cooley, 1963; Leach, Hind, & Ryder, 2003; Solomon, Duveen,

Scott, & McCarthy, 1992), (b) inquiry (Carey, Evans, Honda, Jay, & Unger, 1989;

Khishfe, 2002, 2008; Liu & Lederman, 2002), and recently (c) socioscientific

2 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

issues (Khishfe, 2006, 2012a; Walker & Zeidler, 2003), which are science-related

social open-ended dilemmas (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005).

Despite all focused efforts that utilize explicit NOS instructional approaches, there

is still limited success in improving the NOS views for all learners (Abd-El-Khalick &

Akerson, 2004; Carey et al., 1989; Khishfe, 2002). At the same time, some emerging

research in the field of argumentation has provided some evidence to suggest that

engaging learners in argumentation may aid in the development of more informed

understandings of NOS (Bell & Linn, 2000; Ogunniyi, 2006; Yerrick, 2000). In

fact, one of the arguments for the inclusion of NOS in school science curricula ident-

ified the importance of NOS in helping people participate in argumentation and

decision-making regarding socioscientific issues (Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott,

1996).

Argumentation

Engaging students in the process of argumentation (Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Kuhn,

1993), a key component of scientific literacy (NRC, 1996; Tytler, 2007), helps stu-

dents to participate in debates and make informed decisions about personal and

global issues. Although there has not been a precise definition in the literature for

the word ‘argument’ (McDonald, 2010), it is commonly defined as an assertion or

a claim and its accompanying justification (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000;

Toulmin, 1958). Osborne (2010) explained that the elements of an argument that

support the claim may be subject to rebuttal or counterargumentation and that by

itself requires the ability to compare, contrast, and distinguish different lines of

reasoning. Through the cognitive process of comparison and contrast (Osborne,

2010), argumentation would help students develop new understandings produced

by the interaction between the old ideas that they hold and the new ones that they

encounter. Thus, giving students a chance to justify their claims and generate counter-

arguments and rebuttals would help them construct and reconstruct their own knowl-

edge (Berland & McNeill, 2010) as well as test new meanings.

Jimenez-Aleixandre and Erduran (2008) discussed five different dimensions of

argumentation as (1) construction of scientific knowledge, (2) development of com-

municative competencies and critical thinking, (3) achievement of scientific literacy

with a focus on talking and writing science, (4) enculturation into scientific culture

in the sense of developing epistemic criteria, and (5) development of reasoning and

rational criteria. In this research article, we adopted the fourth dimension that

addresses the relationship between students’ argumentation and their epistemology

(particularly their NOS understandings). Research addressing argumentation in

science education has found that students generally have poor argumentation skills.

For example, they tend to ignore data and warrants, jump to conclusions, and are

unable to evaluate counter-evidence (Chinn & Brewer, 1998; Driver et al., 2000).

In addition, teachers generally do not possess adequate skills to teach argumentation

to their students (Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999) even with the many attempts

Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

undertaken to promote student discourse and argumentation in the classroom (Rat-

cliffe, 1996; Solomon, 1992) while providing teacher training and support.

Conceptually, there are two viewpoints in the literature about the teaching of argu-

mentation. According to one standpoint, there is an inclination and a need to incor-

porate explicit instruction of argumentation (Lin & Mintzes, 2010; Osborne,

Erduran, & Simon, 2004) to achieve student gains as shown in many research

studies (Chin & Osborne, 2010; McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik, & Marx, 2006; Nuss-

baum, Sinatra, & Poliquin, 2008; Sampson, Grooms, & Walker, 2011; Schworm &

Renkle, 2007; Simon, Erduran, & Osborne, 2006; Voss & Means, 1991). As indicated

by Osborne (2010), students need to be taught the norms of social interaction and

they need to comprehend that the aim of their discussion is to persuade each other

of the validity of their arguments. The other point of view considers the issue from

a socio-cultural perspective (Ryu & Sandoval, 2012), where the focus is on the

social context in which students do engage in argumentation. According to this per-

spective, students can argue better in a specific context, along with when and how

that context is experienced (Berland & Hammer, 2012; Berland & Reiser, 2009;

Bricker & Bell, 2007; Engle & Conant, 2002; Louca, Hammer, & Bell, 2002; May,

Hammer, & Pea, 2006; Naylor, Keogh, & Downing, 2007; Warren, Ballenger, Ogo-

nowski, Rosebery, & Hudicourt-Barnes, 2001).

In line with the two perspectives, some studies focused on the explicit instruction

while some others focused on the context. For example, some studies (Bell & Linn,

2000; Yerrick, 2000; Zohar & Nemet, 2002) showed improvements in learners’

skills and/or quality of argumentation when explicit argumentation instruction was

provided in scientific contexts. Osborne et al. (2004) claimed that the explicit argu-

mentation instruction should be extended over a period of time as part of the

science curriculum to achieve a significant improvement in students’ argumentation.

At another level, the effect of explicit argumentation instruction was investigated in a

socioscientific context as in the case with Venville and Dawson (2010). One group of

10th grade students was explicitly taught the argumentation skills in one session and

the participants were involved in whole-class argumentation about socioscientific

issues in the two following sessions. The other group of 10th graders did not

receive instruction about argumentation. Results showed that only the group partici-

pants with the explicit argumentation instruction significantly improved in the quality

of their arguments. The importance of this study, according to the authors, is that stu-

dents demonstrated an improvement in their argumentation in a short period of time

due to the explicit argumentation instruction. We further argue that it is also related to

the nature of the context being socioscientific. Along these lines, McDonald (2010)

noted improvements in learners’ skills and/or quality of argumentation (Jimenez-

Aleixandre & Pereiro-Munoz, 2002; Patronis, Potari, & Spiliotopoulou, 1999)

without the addition of explicit argumentation when the context of instruction was

socioscientific. As such, the present study has utilized a socioscientific context as

well as explicit argumentation instruction, which aligns with the two perspectives

related to the teaching of argumentation.

4 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Relationship between NOS and Argumentation

The claimed relationship between NOS and argumentation is based on recent emer-

ging research along two lines. The first line rests on the idea that engaging students in

the understanding and practicing of argumentation would lead to the development of

their NOS understandings (Bell & Linn, 2000; McDonald, 2010; Ogunniyi, 2006) or

their epistemological understandings (Sandoval & Milwood, 2008; Simonneaux,

2008). The second line is based on the notion that learners’ NOS understandings

have some bearing on their engagement in argumentation (Nussbaum et al., 2008;

Sandoval & Milwood, 2008; Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002). Further

support for the relationship between argumentation and NOS comes from few

studies that explored the relationships and/or possible influence of argumentation

on NOS. Bell and Linn (2000) found that middle school students with more informed

views of NOS constructed more complex arguments.

The claim that understanding and engaging in scientific argumentation might lead

students to comprehend the epistemological bases of scientific practice (Sandoval &

Milwood, 2008; Simonneaux, 2008) also has theoretical basis. The theoretical argu-

ment behind this relationship is based on the coordination of claims and evidence

(Sandoval & Milwood, 2008). Argumentation helps students to construct and/or

reconstruct their own knowledge (Berland & McNeill, 2010). When students

engage in argumentation, it is required that students understand, generate, and

reply to multiple perspectives (Oh & Jonassent, 2007) on the basis of evidence.

Sandoval and Milwood (2008) proposed that the contextualized epistemological

ideas held by students as a result of their practical experiences partly drive their

efforts in trying to understand and explain new situations they encounter. Therefore,

one’s attempts to create explanations can be influenced by one’s ideas about what

counts as a satisfactory explanation, what one already knows, and one’s standards

of evidence. Along the same lines, Khishfe (2012b) related counterarguments to

the empirical, tentative, and subjective aspects of NOS. First, when students con-

struct counterarguments, they take into consideration and become more attentive

to alternative views. Being aware of alternative views would help students to under-

stand the subjective aspect of NOS. Second, students’ generation of counterargu-

ments as based on evidence would help them to understand the empirical aspect of

NOS. Third, teaching students to generate counterarguments allow them to have cog-

nitive flexibility (Kuhn, 1991), which makes them more accepting of the idea that

scientific knowledge is subject to change (tentative aspect of NOS). In that study,

Khishfe (2012b) found a relationship between high school students’ understandings

about NOS aspects and their argumentation skills in relation to two controversial

socioscientific issues. As noted earlier, this relationship was manifested as strong cor-

relations between the students’ counterarguments and their understandings of three

emphasized NOS aspects (subjective, tentative, and empirical). It is important to

note that the participating students received no instruction about NOS or argumenta-

tion. On the other hand, two studies (McDonald, 2010; Ogunniyi, 2006) included

explicit instruction about both argumentation and NOS and investigated the effect


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

on teachers’ understandings of NOS. Both studies showed improvements in teachers’

views of NOS, and hence both authors recommended the inclusion of explicit NOS

and argumentation instruction as a context for learning about NOS. However, the

absence of a comparison group in both studies would restrict the conclusions

especially in relation to the influence of argumentation on NOS. It is therefore difficult

to infer that the explicit argumentation, added to the explicit NOS instruction, led to

the enhancement of teachers’ NOS understandings. Alternatively, the development of

NOS views would most probably be due to the explicit NOS instruction by itself.

More recently, McDonald (2011) found that learners did not improve their NOS

understandings when explicit argumentation instruction was given with no explicit

NOS instruction.

Transfer of NOS Understandings and Argumentation Skills

Given the important objectives of helping students develop their understandings of

NOS as well as their argumentation skills, it is also critical to help them transfer

their acquired NOS understandings and argumentation skills into contexts different

than the context of learning. Although transfer has been defined in different ways

by different researchers, it is generally considered as the means by which learners

apply their previous knowledge or skill in new contexts or situations (Bransford &

Schwartz, 1999). In this study, transfer is deemed as the way students deliver or trans-

mit their acquired understandings, learned in a particular context, to other contexts

that vary along a continuum of similarity and divergence (Khishfe, 2012c).

Research has shown a lot of controversy when it comes to transfer. On the one hand,

there is the view that the knowledge/skills are only confined to the context in which

they were learned (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave, 1988; Lave & Wenger,

1991). Therefore, transfer of knowledge/skills to different contexts is hard to

achieve. On the other hand, there is the view that the knowledge/skills can be trans-

ferred to other tasks or contexts (Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996). The literature

has many examples that witnessed success of transfer. Larkin and Reif (1976)

found that students were able to transfer the specific skill of learning from a scientific

text, which was learned in the context of physics, and apply it into other subjects.

Similarly, Zohar (1996) found that students were able to transfer their newly acquired

reasoning strategies, which were learned within one biology problem, to a new biology

problem. In the same way, Chen and Klahr (1999) found that students were able to

transfer their acquired skill of controlling variables acquired in the context of one

scientific task into another new task.

Research about the transfer of NOS understandings and argumentation skills is

underdeveloped. Recently, Khishfe (2012c) explored whether high school students

are able to transfer their acquired NOS understandings learned in the context of

genetic engineering and apply them into two similar contexts. One of the application

contexts was familiar to students as it addressed the issue about genetically modified

food, while the second context was unfamiliar to students and focused on the issue

about water fluoridation. In that case, familiarity of the socioscientific issue was

6 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

considered in relation to the learning context, which refers to the content knowledge

acquired through formal instruction. Results showed that students who received

explicit NOS instruction showed general improvement in their NOS understandings

in relation to both contexts. Author concluded that participants were able to transfer

their acquired NOS understandings into the familiar context about genetically modi-

fied food and unfamiliar context of water fluoridation. In light of that finding, it is

important to look into the consistency of the findings and therefore examine in the

present study whether students’ understandings of NOS would transfer into the

context of water fluoridation (familiar in the case of the present study) and

the context of genetic engineering (unfamiliar in the case of the present study)

when formal NOS instruction is integrated in the context of water usage and chlori-

nation. Such was another focus of the present study.

Summary and Purposes of the Study

Implications drawn after examining the literature point out to few insightful issues

that were considered in the present study: (1) a relationship exists between students’

NOS understandings and their argumentation skills. Therefore, it is important to look

at the influence of the explicit instruction of NOS and argumentation on the develop-

ment of argumentation skills; (2) engaging pre-service teachers in explicit instruction

about argumentation and NOS has shown improvement in their understandings

about NOS as was evidenced in two studies (McDonald, 2010; Ogunniyi, 2006).

Yet one cannot evaluate the effectiveness of the argumentation instruction along

with the NOS instruction on the NOS understandings of pre-service teachers with

the absence of a comparison group. Therefore, it is important to study this relation-

ship between NOS and argumentation during instruction while addressing the limit-

ation of a comparison group, and that was done in the present study; and (3) the

influence of the explicit instruction of NOS and argumentation has not been explored

before at the student level. As such, the lack of strong empirical evidence regarding

this approach makes this study an important contribution to the field in addressing

an area about the relationship between NOS and argumentation that has not been

adequately explored especially at the student level. Moreover, there is the issue

about (4) the scarceness of research studies along the lines of transfer in the areas

of NOS understandings and argumentation skills, which makes it important to inves-

tigate the transfer of students’ acquired NOS understandings and their argumentation

skills learned in one context into other similar contexts. Therefore, the purpose of the

study was two-fold: to (a) investigate the influence of explicit NOS and explicit argu-

mentation instruction in the context of a socioscientific issue on seventh graders’ argu-

mentation skills and understandings of NOS, and (b) explore the transfer of seventh

graders’ acquired understandings of NOS and their argumentation skills learned in

the context of one socioscientific into other similar contexts (familiar and unfamiliar).

The four research questions that guided this study were:

(1) What is the influence of explicit NOS and explicit argumentation instruction in


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

the context of a socioscientific issue on the argumentation skills of seventh

graders?

(2) What is the influence of explicit NOS and explicit argumentation instruction in

the context of a socioscientific issue on the NOS understandings of seventh

graders?

(3) Do seventh graders transfer their acquired argumentation skills learned in the

context of water issues into (a) the familiar context of water fluoridation and

(b) the unfamiliar context of genetically modified food?

(4) Do seventh graders transfer their acquired understandings of NOS learned in the

context of water issues into (a) the familiar context of water fluoridation and (b)

the unfamiliar context of genetically modified food?

Method

The research design utilized a mixed-methods approach where quantitative and quali-

tative measures were employed. Specifically, a variety of qualitative data were used to

provide descriptions of participants’ views prior to and following the intervention.

The qualitative analyses were further based on mapping out individual categorized

responses of participants for the NOS aspects with their responses for the argumenta-

tion components. The quantitative analysis involved comparing the percentage gains

of participants who exhibited informed understandings of the NOS aspects and the

argumentation components from pre- to post-instruction and between Treatments I

and II in order to compare the effects of the treatments in a manner that would

explain the variation in participants’ initial views between the treatment groups.

Participants

Student participants came from two public schools in the city of Chicago in the USA

and were a total of 121 seventh grade students. There were 61 seventh graders at one

school and 60 at a second school. Two teachers were involved in this investigation and

they were in the same graduate program at the time of the study. They had both taken

a methods course with the researcher/author and had learned about NOS and argu-

mentation as part of the course. NOS and argumentations were embedded in the

course in order to develop teachers’ NOS views and their argumentation skills. By

the end of the course, those two were among the teachers who showed informed

understandings of NOS and argumentation, as evidenced in their responses to the

two open-ended scenarios (Appendix 1). In addition, they both showed intention to

teach NOS and argumentation in their own classrooms and volunteered for the

study. As such, the selection of the two teachers was based on the improvement in

their understandings/skills as well as their intentions to explicitly teach NOS and argu-

mentation. It is important to note that the two teachers had comparable academic

backgrounds and experience. Following is a discussion of their background and

school information.

8 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

The teacher in the first school, Dorothy, was 27 years old and had been teaching

general middle school science for four years prior to the investigation. She had com-

pleted an undergraduate major in elementary education and a minor in social science,

and was pursuing a Masters in science education at the time of the study. The school

has an enrollment of 405 students in grades K-8 in Chicago Public Schools district. A

majority of the student population (72.6%) fell in the low socioeconomic status and

those students were receiving free and reduced lunches. As of 2009–2010, the

largest demographic at the school was Hispanic, which made up 49.9% of the

student population. The second greatest demographic was White at 26.7%.

Alan, the teacher at the second school, was 33 years old and had been teaching

general middle school science for three years prior to the investigation. Alan had a

BA degree in elementary education and was pursuing a Masters in science education

at the time of the study. The school serves approximately 530 students in grades K-8

in Chicago Public Schools district. Of these, 31.4% were low-income students who

were receiving free and reduced lunches. As of 2009–2010, the largest demographic

at the school was White, which made up 45.9% of the student population. The second

greatest demographic was Hispanic at 37.2%.

The seventh grade classes were randomly assigned (flip of a coin) to the two treat-

ments: (a) explicit NOS instruction and explicit argumentation instruction (Treat-

ment I group), and (b) explicit NOS instruction with no argumentation instruction

(Treatment II group). Table 1 gives an overview of the assignment of treatments.

Procedure

Three months prior to the study, the researcher and the two teachers jointly selected

the environmental unit, Water Usage and Safety, from the Issues Evidence and You

(SEPUP, 2000) and outlined the content that was to be used in the study. Then,

the researcher and the two teachers worked collaboratively to integrate explicit

NOS and explicit argumentation instruction into the unit. That resulted in guided

lesson plans focusing on the Water Usage and Safety unit that were to be followed

throughout the treatment. The explicit instructional strategies and implementation

were discussed at length and were modeled by the researcher at many instances so

the two teachers can present the content consistently and in a similar format.

The SEPUP curriculum and the Water Usage and Safety unit were selected for three

reasons: (a) it was used by Dorothy, the teacher at School 1, as the regular science

Table 1. Overview of participants and group assignments

School Treatment Grade Size Male/female Average age

1 Explicit NOS and argumentation (I) 7 31 16/15 12.6

1 Explicit NOS with no argumentation (II) 7 30 18/12 12.4

2 Explicit NOS and argumentation (I) 7 31 14/17 12.3

2 Explicit NOS with no argumentation (II) 7 29 15/14 12.5


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

curriculum at the time of the study; (b) the curriculum covers concepts, processes,

and techniques of science relevant to the real-world experiences of students and are

important to the students as individuals and as members of their local communities;

and (c) the unit addresses a socioscientific issue, favored by many researchers (Bentley

& Fleury, 1998; Matkins & Bell, 2007; Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2002; Spector,

Strong, & La Porta, 1998) as a context for integrating NOS since it illustrates science-

in-the-making and allows students to be in direct contact with the values and assump-

tions that compromise NOS (Matkins & Bell, 2007). The NOS aspects that were

emphasized in the unit were the empirical, tentative, and subjective. The selection

of these NOS aspects was based on the notion that these aspects have been shared

by the different researchers, Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, and Schwartz

(2002), McComas and Olson (2002), and Osborne, Ratcliffe, Collins, Millar, and

Duschl (2003), each of whom identified what knowledge about NOS should be

taught in schools. Another base for selection was the belief that these NOS aspects

are closely related to the realm of socioscientific issues (Khishfe, 2012b, 2012c;

Zeidler et al., 2002). Table 2 gives an overview of the topics addressed in the unit.

At the beginning of the study, student participants were administered a question-

naire (Appendix 1) to assess their NOS understanding as well as their argumentation

skills in relation to two controversial issues: genetic engineering and water fluori-

dation. Five randomly selected participants from each class were interviewed to

compare their questionnaire responses to their interview responses. The treatment

spanned eight weeks. At the conclusion of the study, all students were administered

the same questionnaire and five randomly selected participants from each of the

classes were interviewed.

Questionnaire. The questionnaire (Appendix 1) had already been used in a previous

study (Khishfe, 2012c). Its content validity was established by the input of experts

(two science educators, three biologists, two ethics professors, and three high

school biology teachers). Based on the suggestions by experts, the scenarios were

modified accordingly. Pilot-testing of the scenarios was also done with two groups

of grades 7 and 8 students who did not participate in the study. The two open-

ended scenarios addressed controversial socioscientific issues about water fluoridation

and genetically modified food. One of the scenarios addressed content about water

fluoridation, which would be ‘familiar’ to the students since the issues of water

quality would be emphasized during the treatment (context of learning). The other

scenario addressed content about genetically modified food, which would be ‘unfami-

liar’ to the students since the content would not be addressed during the treatment

(context of learning). Each of the scenarios was followed by two sets of questions relat-

ing to argumentation and NOS. First, respondents were asked to generate an argu-

ment about the field testing of genetically modified rice, as well as justify their

argument. Then, they were asked to generate and justify a counterargument and a

rebuttal. The second part asked respondents about their views of the three NOS

aspects (tentative, empirical, and subjective).

10 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Table 2. Overview of the unit

Week Key concept(s) Activity Activity summary

NOS

instruction

(Treatments

I and II)

Argumentation

instruction (Treatments

I and II)

Argumentation instruction

(Treatment I)

1 and 2 NOS Mystery bag Students make

observations to infer

the contents of the bag

Subjective,

empirical, and

tentative

NOS Tube Students make

observations and

inferences to

determine how the

tube works

Subjective,

empirical, and

tentative

Introduce students to

arguments,

counterarguments, and

rebuttals by examples

NOS Hole picture Students make

observations to figure

out the shapes inside

the hole-punched

folder

Subjective,

empirical, and

tentative

3 Chemical detection

by use of human

senses

Drinking water

quality

Students taste bottle

water samples to

determine their quality

and preference

Subjective,

empirical, and

tentative

Students engage in

argumentation in

relation to the quality of

drinking water

Students engage in

discussions following the

argumentation practice

4 Sensory thresholds Exploring sensory

thresholds

Students determine

their taste threshold

for a powdered drink

mix

Subjective,

empirical, and

tentative

(Continued)

Explicit

Natu

reof

Scien

ceand

Argu

men

tation

11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Table 2. Continued

Week Key concept(s) Activity Activity summary

NOS

instruction

(Treatments

I and II)

Argumentation

instruction (Treatments

I and II)

Argumentation instruction

(Treatment I)

5 Concentration and

serial dilution

Concentration Students prepare a

serial dilution of food

color to understand

concentration

6 Cholera: an

epidemic disease

Mapping death Students plot cholera

deaths in 1840s

London

Subjective,

empirical, and

tentative

Cholera and

epidemiology

The search for

evidence

Students learn about

epidemiology

Subjective,

empirical, and

tentative

7 Microorganisms

and serial dilution

How much of

chlorination is

just enough?

Students explore the

use of chlorine to kill

bacteria

Students engage in

argumentation in

relation to the

chlorination of water

Students engage in



8 Chlorine testing:

managing public

health

The Peru story Students learn about

risk management and

human judgment in a

water quality context

Subjective,

empirical, and

tentative

Students engage in

argumentation in

relation to water quality

and risk management

Students engage in



12

R.

Khish

fe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Interviews. Following the administration of the pre-questionnaire, five randomly

selected participants from each group were individually interviewed. During the

interviews, the participants were given their written questionnaires and they were

asked about each issue to further probe their understandings and encourage them

to explicate their responses and give additional examples. Comparing participants’

written responses to their verbal responses would advance the face validity of the

questionnaire. Similarly, five randomly selected participants from each group were

interviewed at the conclusion of the study. All interviews were conducted by the

author. Interviews lasted between 30 and 45 minutes, and were transcribed

verbatim.

The treatments. The treatments lasted for eight weeks. Participants in all treatment

groups (Treatments I and II) engaged in the same content about water usage and

safety and they also learned about the three NOS aspects (tentative, empirical, and

subjective). Two weeks were dedicated to the teaching of NOS aspects to all groups

through several NOS activities. The remaining six weeks were devoted to the seven

lessons about water usage and safety with the integration of NOS aspects within

that content. The treatment I groups had the additional explicit instruction on argu-

mentation. Similar to the explicit NOS instruction, the same strategy was used for

explicit argumentation instruction. The argumentation components (arguments,

counterarguments, and rebuttals) were introduced at the beginning of the unit and

then experienced as integrated within the unit lessons. To equalize instruction time

between the Treatment I and II groups, the Treatment II groups engaged in more dis-

cussions relevant to the content of the unit lessons.

NOS instruction. At the beginning of the unit, participants engaged in three NOS

activities: the Mystery Bag (Schwartz, Lederman, & Smith, 1999), the Tube, and the

Hole Picture (Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick, 1998). The rationale to start with the

NOS instruction prior to introducing the content lessons was to establish a framework

for the emphasized NOS aspects and continuously refer to them throughout the

content discussions and activities in the unit. That would combine a nonintegrated

and an integrated approach to teach about NOS (Khishfe, 2006).

It is important to note that the NOS instruction was distributed across the unit to

generate multiple reflective exposures and experiences for students to reflect on NOS

aspects in relation to the different lessons in the unit about water usage and safety

(Khishfe, 2006). The discussion of the emphasized NOS aspects within the unit

was facilitated by guiding questions (oral and written) in relation to the lessons. For

example, consideration about the empirical aspect was initiated by questions as,

‘What was your conclusion based on? Would your claim be considered as valid?

How did scientists reach their conclusion about the quality of water?’ Thoughts

about the tentative aspect of NOS were introduced through questions as, ‘Do you

think scientists might change their conclusions about the cholera deaths in the

future? If yes, how and why would that happen?’ The ideas about the subjective

aspect were brought about by asking questions as, ‘Is it possible to reach different


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

conclusions about the quality of water when you were all making the same obser-

vations? Do you think scientists face similar issues? Why or why not?’

Argumentation instruction. For the Treatment I group participants, argumentation

skills were explicitly addressed through two ways as nonintegrated and integrated

within the content. First, participants were introduced to the different components

of arguments in one session that was entirely devoted to explicit instruction about

argumentation. Arguments were defined and their structure was explicated. That

was followed by a discussion of what would distinguish between an informed and a

naı̈ve argumentation component (argument, counterargument, and rebuttal) on the

basis of valid and multiple justifications. Hence, students were given examples of

both naı̈ve, intermediary, and more informed argumentation components, enabling

discussion about the quality of an argument. Students were also encouraged to con-

sider the ideas of others by referring to counterarguments to refine their arguments.

Then, these ideas were applied and practiced through several contextualized

examples in the different contexts within the unit. There were three different sessions

addressing the argumentation components as integrated within the content of the

unit. These sessions were experienced by both Treatment I and II group participants.

Participants were asked to formulate arguments and to justify them and then to for-

mulate alternative arguments and rebuttals and to justify them as well. For

example, one session addressed the issue about the chlorination of water in the com-

munity. For that issue, students worked in small groups of three and they practiced the

generation of arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals by experiencing three situ-

ations. For situation 1, the first student would generate an argument, the second

would construct a counterargument, and the third a rebuttal. For situation 2, the

second student would generate an argument and the rest follows. Similarly for situ-

ation 3, the third member would generate an argument. In this way, each member

experienced the generation of an argument, a counterargument, and a rebuttal for

the same issue in different situations. For the Treatment I group participants, there

were additional discussions at the end of the sessions where the teacher would

select examples from two of the groups to discuss them with the whole class.

During these discussions, the teacher would distinguish between arguments, counter-

arguments, and rebuttals. Further, the teacher would relate the argumentation com-

ponents to issues of evidence, justification, alignment, and others. Furthermore, the

teacher would support and facilitate the generation of argumentation through scaf-

folding with the use of a set of argumentation prompts as open-ended questions

designed to help students support and initiate the construction of an argument,

such as: ‘Why do you think that?’, ‘Can you think of another argument for your

view?’, ‘What is the evidence for your view?’, ‘What are your reasons?’, ‘Can you

think of an argument against your view or idea?’, ‘How would you convince somebody

who is against your view?’, and ‘What is the evidence that would support the idea

against your view?’

For two of the sessions for the Treatment I group participants, the explicit instruc-

tion of NOS took place along with the explicit instruction of argumentation. When

addressing the topic about chemical detection by human senses, the teachers

14 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

allowed the students to generate argumentation components, which were followed by

discussions about the NOS aspects. Similarly, NOS and argumentation instruction

were addressed simultaneously for the topic about chlorine testing and managing

public health. This may have resulted in interactions between NOS understandings

and argumentation skills.

Monitoring plan. The researcher held regular weekly meetings with both teachers

throughout the duration of the study with the purpose of monitoring the consistent

and faithful implementation of the treatment and its progress. During these meetings,

some of the videotaped lessons of both teachers were watched and discussed. Feed-

back was continuously provided by the researcher in addition to the feedback given

by the teachers to one another, which created an additional learning opportunity

for the teachers to develop their pedagogical content knowledge about NOS and argu-

mentation. At many times, the meetings were a platform for the two teachers to share

their struggles and concerns. The meetings were also used to discuss the implemen-

tation of the next planned lessons.

Variations and/or deviations in implementation. For the purposes of the study, both tea-

chers simultaneously taught the unit about water usage and safety. When teaching the

activities in the unit, the two teachers followed the prepared lesson plans as closely as

possible. During the weekly meetings, the videotaped lessons implemented by the tea-

chers were checked against the written planned lessons. As noted earlier, discussions

about the videotaped lessons were conducted during the meetings. However, it should

be noted that some of the lessons were not addressed in the same manner by the two

teachers and as was originally planned. For example, some of the planned questions

were omitted by Dorothy (the teacher at School 1) at the discretion of her professional

judgment. Another difference was related to the implementation of the lesson plans.

Dorothy followed the lesson plans in a ‘literal’ manner, whereas Alan (the teacher at

School 2) drifted away from the lesson plans with his discussions and he brought in

more examples related to the students’ everyday lives. However, those differences

should not have disrupted the fidelity of the treatment since (a) the overall treatment

was still respected and guidelines were followed, and (b) the differences would have

been experienced by participants in both treatment groups given that each of the

two teachers was giving Treatments I and II. Other variations and deviations from

the planned unit were a result of the availability of materials and modification of sche-

dules and plans as required.

Data Analysis

As noted earlier, student NOS and argumentation were assessed in a pre/post admin-

istration of the two open-ended scenarios that address the controversial socioscientific

issues about water fluoridation and genetically modified food. The first phase of data

analysis entailed comparing the two profiles of the interviewed participants, which


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

were separately generated based on the interviews and the questionnaires. The same

process was repeated for the post-questionnaires and interview transcripts. Finding no

discrepancies between the questionnaire and interview profiles confirmed the face val-

idity of the open-ended scenarios. The second phase focused on the analysis of par-

ticipants’ views of the target NOS aspects by categorization of participants’

responses followed by comparisons of the two groups.

Categorization of responses. All the data were analyzed by the author. For the coding

of participants’ views, a blind sample (50%) from the questionnaires and interviews

was categorized by another science education researcher with previous experience

in NOS issues and argumentation in order to check for inter-rater reliability. The

science education researcher was unaware to whether the questionnaires and inter-

views belonged to the pre- or post-instruction data, whether they addressed the Treat-

ment I or II groups, whether they were from School 1 or School 2. Consensus between

the two researchers was reached across all three NOS aspects and argumentation

components through discussions and further consultation of the data.

Argumentation. Again, each participant questionnaire was analyzed to categorize

his/her argumentation components into naı̈ve, intermediary, or informed. The

development of participants’ responses for each of the three components of argu-

mentation (argument, counterargument, and rebuttals) was evaluated according

to a rubric adapted from Mason and Scirica (2006) and used in a recent study

by Khishfe (2012b). Table 3 presents the categorization of student responses in

relation to the three argumentation components at three different levels in response

to the first scenario about genetically modified food. A response was categorized

as naı̈ve when no justification or an invalid justification was given. For example,

this participant did not support his claim with any reason when responding to

scenario I:

I argue for the genetically modified rice because it is the solution.

A response was categorized as intermediary when the participant gave a valid justi-

fication supported by only one reason. For example, this participant based his

decision on financial considerations in his response to scenario I:

We need to support production of genetic rice since it is cheaper to make that than to have

the balanced diet for all these people.

A response was categorized as informed when the participant gave a valid justifica-

tion supported by more than one reason. As shown in the example below, the partici-

pant gave the reason about cancer and the absence of approval from the Food and

Drug Administration (FDA) when responding to scenario II about water fluoridation:

I say no because of these reasons ’cause you could get cancer. Fluoridation also does not

have Food and Drug Administration approval.

16 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

This analysis considers each argumentation component independently by looking

at the ways in which students support their claims and provide justifications. To get

a measure of the overall argumentation skill of an individual, we need to look at the

Table 3. Categorization of responses to scenario I about genetically modified food related to

argumentation skills

Argumentation

component

No justification or

invalid justification

Valid justification

supported by one

reason

Valid justification

supported by more than

one reason

Argument Yes [The golden rice

should be produced

and marketed], I argue

for the genetically

modified rice because it

is the solution

We need to support

production of genetic

rice since it is cheaper

to make that than to

have the balanced diet

for all these people

I do think that golden rice

should be produced and

marketed because this

rice deals with vitamin A

deficiency. Also, scientists

believe that eating the

genetically modified rice

can help prevent

blindness by improving

vitamin A intake during

digestion. Preventing

blindness can also be

caused by the two extra

genes. This would be very

important because

childhood blindness

affects 500,000 children

worldwide each year,

which especially happens

in developing countries in

Asia. Even though the rice

might cause

contamination to other

rice if it is grown in the

same area there could be

new ways to take away the

contamination

Counterargument Professor Ponso might

think that I am right

Professor Ponso can

tell me that there is not

enough studies to

make sure it is safe

We do not know how this

genetically altered rice

can affect us in our health.

This rice can also

contaminate other rice

Rebuttal I can tell the Professor

that he did not

convince me

One thing is that the

studies do not show

harm done from this

genetically rice

Instead of genetically

modified rice, we can have

more healthy eating. Plus,

we do not have enough

studies that tell us no

danger from this rice


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

argumentation as a whole that encompasses the three components (arguments, coun-

terarguments, and rebuttals).

To address students’ overall understanding of the practice of argumentation in the

present study, we further looked at the number of participants who (a) showed

informed in all three argumentation components and those participants were con-

sidered to have an overall informed practice in argumentation, (b) showed informed

and naı̈ve in all three argumentation components and those were considered to have

an overall intermediate practice in argumentation, and those who (c) showed naı̈ve in

all three argumentation components and those were considered to have an overall

naive practice in argumentation.

NOS. Each participant questionnaire was analyzed to categorize his/her views of the

emphasized NOS aspects into naı̈ve, intermediary, or informed. Table 4 presents the

categorization of student responses in relation to the three NOS aspects at three differ-

ent levels in response to the first scenario about genetically modified food. These

examples are verbatim quotes selected from the responses of participants.

A participant’s view was categorized as naı̈ve when the view was less desirable for

being inconsistent with the contemporary views of NOS. For example, when asked

Table 4. Categorization of responses to scenario I about genetically modified food related to NOS

understandings

NOS

aspect Naı̈ve views Intermediary views Informed views

Subjective I do not know but most

probably some of the

scientists made errors

They [scientists] can be

looking at the problem with

a different mind and

another possibility is that

they are not professional

and not accurate

Scientists do not have

similar ways of looking at

things so these ways of

looking at the problem can

lead to different

conclusions

Tentative This knowledge [about

genetically modified

food] will not change in

the future because it has

already been proven

Yes, it will change because

what we know will increase

so we will know more and

have more knowledge

Yes, the knowledge about

genetically modified food

might change in the future

because we might get new

evidence from new studies

that tell us new

information, then what we

know would change

Empirical I am not sure the

knowledge [about

genetically modified

food] will change in the

future

I think the knowledge about

that [genetically modified

food] will change if we get a

new study but then I think

the knowledge cannot just

change when we get a new

study with different results

Knowledge about

genetically modified food

might change in the future

if there is research from

study that is solid so can

lead to change of that

knowledge

18 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

whether the knowledge about the effects about genetically modified food might

change in the future, this participant believed that knowledge ‘will not change in

the future because it has already been proven’. Based on this response, the partici-

pants’ view about the tentative aspect was categorized as naı̈ve. An intermediary

view was, as the name suggests, thought about as being coded along a continuum

(Khishfe, 2008). The intermediary views included the multiple form (Khishfe,

2008), and these are co-existing fragmented views that might contradict each other.

For example, a participant’s response contained a sentence that would entail categor-

izing it as informed yet another sentence would demand categorizing it as naı̈ve. An

‘informed’ view represented a desirable view that corresponds with contemporary

views of NOS accepted by science philosophers, scientists, and science educators.

For example, the following participant noted that the knowledge about genetically

modified food might change in the future ‘because we might get new evidence from

new studies that tell us new information, then what we know would change’. Thus,

the participant’s view about the tentative aspect was categorized as informed.

This analysis considers each NOS aspect independently for ease of assessment. To

get a measure of the overall NOS understanding in the present study, we looked the

individual’s understanding as a whole resulting from three NOS aspects. Those

participants who held informed understandings for all three NOS aspects were

considered to have an overall informed understanding for NOS. Those participants

who held informed and naı̈ve were considered to have an overall intermediary

understanding of NOS. And those participants who exhibited naı̈ve understandings

for all three NOS aspects were considered to have an overall naive understanding

of NOS.

Comparisons between the two groups. It is significant to note that the use of statistical

analysis was inappropriate for the comparison between Treatment I and II groups

because the class, and not the students, was taken as the unit of analysis. The treat-

ments (whether I or II) was applied to the class as a whole and students in a class

do not act independently in response to any instructional treatment (Lederman &

Flick, 2005). Therefore, other measures needed to be taken to compare the percen-

tages of participants with informed views of NOS and argumentation components

in a consistent manner. The measure adopted in the present study was conducted

by Khishfe (2007) in relation to NOS analysis. Therefore, the percentages of partici-

pants in relation to argumentation and NOS views were compared and contrasted

within and across the treatment groups at the beginning and conclusion of the

study. The criterion for the percentage difference in participants’ views between the

two groups was taken to be .13%, which represents about four participants in

each group. For the present study, we considered that the difference in the views of

four participants or more from pre- to post-instruction or between the two groups

as educationally important. Therefore, when the percentage difference was higher

than 13% in favor of one group or phase (pre- to post-instruction), the change in par-

ticipants’ views was considered to be significant.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

To further check for any patterns in the data, the responses of participants who

showed improvement in their NOS understandings were mapped out with their

responses of argumentation components (argument, counterargument, and rebuttal).

The aim was to check whether there was a link between the improvement in partici-

pants’ overall understandings of NOS and the improvement in their overall argumen-

tation skills.

Results

Results are presented in relation to the four research questions to highlight the influ-

ence of explicit instruction on argumentation and NOS, the transfer of acquired argu-

mentation skills and NOS understandings, as well as the interactions of NOS

understandings and argumentation skills.

Influence of Explicit Instruction on Argumentation

Prior to the intervention, a majority of participants in all groups showed argumenta-

tion components (argument, counterargument, and rebuttal) at the levels of naı̈ve and

intermediary. In other words, these participants generated argumentation com-

ponents with no or invalid justification, or at the most, they were justified by only

one reason. After the treatment, there were improvements in the percentage of partici-

pants in the Treatment I group who exhibited informed argumentation components

supported by more than one reason. At the same time, there were few improvements

in the argumentation components in the Treatment II group participants and those

were more noted more with Teacher 2. Following is a discussion of some trends

that were noted in the data.

Comparison from pre- to post-instruction. The percentage difference of participants

demonstrating informed argumentation components from pre- to post-instruction

was designated by ‘D’ (Table 5) to represent the percentage gains. Thus, the percen-

tage gains were significant (.13%) for all Treatment I groups and that was consistent

in both scenarios and with the two teachers in the two different schools. As for Treat-

ment II groups, the percentage gains were significant (.13%) for the different com-

ponents except at two instances for the counterargument and rebuttal for the case of

scenario I (unfamiliar issue) with Teacher 1 (Dorothy). Following is a description of

the argumentation components from pre- to post-instruction between the two treat-

ment groups for scenario II addressing the issue about water fluoridation.

Prior to instruction, a majority of participants in all groups did not include a justi-

fication or included an invalid justification when making their arguments, counterar-

guments, and rebuttals. There were other participants in all groups who showed

argumentation components at the level of intermediary supporting their claims by

one reason only. For example, participant S-3 in the Treatment I group justified his

counterargument with the reason about FDA approval. While participant S-2 in the

20 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Table 5. Percentage of participants with informed, intermediary, and naı̈ve understandings usage of the argumentation components for the pre-

and post-instruction data for scenarios I and II

Argument Counterargument Rebuttal

Pre Post D Pre Post D Pre Post D

Grade 7: School 1: Teacher 1 (Dorothy)

Scenario I (genetically modified food)

Treatment I group (n ¼ 31)

Informed 3% (1) 39% (12) 36% (11) 0% 29% (9) 29% (9) 6% (2) 29% (9) 23% (7)

Intermediary 16% (5) 26% (8) 26% (8) 29% (9) 16% (5) 35% (11)

Naı̈ve 81% (25) 35% (11) 74% (23) 42% (13) 77% (24) 35% (11)

Treatment II group (n ¼ 30)

Informed 7% (2) 20% (6) 13% (4) 3% (1) 13% (4) 10% (3) 6% (2) 13% (4) 7% (2)

Intermediary 17% (5) 20% (6) 17% (5) 24% (7) 23% (7) 27% (8)

Naı̈ve 76% (23) 60% (18) 80% (24) 63% (19) 70% (21) 60% (18)

Scenario II (water fluoridation)


Informed 10% (3) 48% (15) 38% (12) 10% (3) 42% (13) 32% (10) 3% (1) 32% (10) 29% (9)

Intermediary 19% (6) 13% (4) 17% (5) 23% (7) 13% (4) 17% (5)

Naı̈ve 70% (22) 39% (12) 73% (23) 35% (11) 84% (26) 51% (16)


Informed 13% (4) 26% (8) 13% (4) 7% (2) 24% (7) 17% (5) 10% (3) 30% (7) 13% (4)

Intermediary 23% (7) 33% (10) 17% (5) 33% (10) 10% (3) 13% (4)

Naı̈ve 63% (19) 40% (12) 76% (23) 43% (13) 80% (24) 63% (19)

Grade 7: School 2: Teacher 2 (Alan)



Informed 13% (4) 52% (16) 39% (12) 10% (3) 48% (15) 35% (12) 13% (4) 52% (16) 39% (12)

Intermediary 19% (6) 26% (8) 13% (4) 13% (4) 23% (7) 23% (7)

Naı̈ve 68% (21) 23% (7) 77% (24) 39% (12) 64% (20) 26% (8)

(Continued)

Explicit

Natu

reof

Scien

ceand

Argu

men

tation

21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Table 5. Continued

Argument Counterargument Rebuttal



Informed 10% (3) 24% (7) 14% (4) 7% (2) 21% (6) 14% (4) 10% (3) 24% (7) 14% (4)

Intermediary 21% (6) 34% (10) 14% (4) 28% (8) 24% (7) 38% (11)

Naive 69% (20) 42% (12) 79% (23) 52% (15) 66% (19) 38% (11)



Informed 13% (4) 61% (19) 48% (15) 3% (1) 45% (14) 42% (13) 19% (6) 67% (21) 48% (15)

Intermediary 23% (7) 23% (7) 13% (4) 19% (6) 23% (7) 13% (4)

Naı̈ve 64% (20) 16% (5) 77% (24) 35% (11) 58% (18) 19% (6)


Informed 14% (4) 38% (11) 24% (7) 14% (4) 34% (10) 20% (6) 17% (5) 41% (12) 24% (7)

Intermediary 24% (7) 20% (6) 10% (3) 14% (4) 28% (8) 17% (5)

Naı̈ve 62% (18) 41% (12) 76% (22) 52% (15) 55% (16) 41% (12)

22

R.

Khish

fe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Treatment II group supported his rebuttal by the reason about possible links to

cancer:

No because it [water fluoridation] does not have FDA approval. (S-3, Treatment I, coun-

terargument, pre-questionnaire)

Well, I would say that scientific research does show possible links to cancer from drinking

water with Fluoride. And if a person drinks too much water does that mean they have

more chances of getting cancer? Probably. (S-2, Treatment II, rebuttal, pre-

questionnaire)

Only a minority of participants in all groups constructed argumentation components

with valid justification supported by more than one reason, and those were categor-

ized as informed:

I say no because of these reasons cause you could get cancer. Fluoridation also does not

have Food and Drug Administration approval. (S-15, argument, Treatment I, pre-ques-

tionnaire)

I would reply to him that my results are right because even though we put fluoridation in

our water and it cures our teeth but did they know that fluoridation in our water could

cause and lead to cancer? Also, it does not have FDA approval. (S-10, rebuttal, Treatment

I, pre-questionnaire)

By the end of the study, there were fewer participants in the treatment groups

(especially Treatment I groups) who generated argumentation components at the

level of naive. At the same time, there were more participants who constructed

informed argumentation components justified by more than one reason (Table 5).

As shown below, participant S-4 generated a counterargument that discusses

reasons related to violating people’s rights, FDA approval, and links to cancer. Simi-

larly, participant S-16 constructed a counterargument that relates to dental diseases,

financial issues, and support of scientific organizations:

He could say that water fluoridation violates people’s rights and that the fluoridated water

does not have Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Fluoridated water can

also cause cancer and drinking too much of the water can be even more harmful

because we do not know how much you take. (S-4, counterargument, Treatment I,

post-questionnaire, scenario II)

This can prevent dental disease, and it’s inexpensive. Many scientific organizations

support fluoridation. (S-16, counterargument, Treatment II, post-questionnaire,

scenario II)

Comparison between Treatments I and II. The number of participants who improved

their argumentation components into informed from pre- to post-instruction was

compared between the two treatment groups. Table 5 gives a similar trend for both

teachers in the context of the two scenarios in witnessing a significant difference

between Treatments I and II favoring Treatment I for all three components of argu-

mentation. For example, the difference between the two groups (School 1) for


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

scenario I was in the order of seven students (23%) for arguments. Similarly, scenario

II had the difference between the two groups in the order of eight students (25%) for

arguments in support of the Treatment I group. Similarly for School 2, an example of

the difference between the two groups was in the order of eight students (25%) for

rebuttals in support of the Treatment I group for scenarios I and II. Following is a

description of the argumentation components of participants between the two treat-

ment groups.

At the beginning of the study, there were no significant differences between Treat-

ment I and II groups in the percentage of participants showing naı̈ve, intermediary, or

informed argumentation components. For example, these two participants generated

similar arguments based on one reason only about the prevention of tooth decay, and

these were categorized as intermediary:

Yes [I vote for adding Fluoride to drinking water in my city] because it helps your teeth

from decaying and cavities. (S-8, argument, Treatment I, pre-questionnaire, scenario II)

The only thing I would say is it [water fluoridation] prevents tooth decay for all citizens

during their lifetime. (S-18, argument, Treatment II, post-questionnaire, scenario II)

By the end of the study, many more participants in the Treatment I groups, com-

pared to the Treatment II groups, showed informed argumentation components

and fewer showed naı̈ve components in the context of scenarios I and II. Below are

two examples of argumentation components, which are representative for Treatment

I groups in having their justifications based on more than one reason:

We don’t know how this genetically altered rice can affect us in our health. This rice can

also contaminate other rice. (S-18, counterargument, Treatment I, post-questionnaire,

scenario I)

I do think that golden rice should be produced and marketed because this rice deals with

Vitamin A deficiency. Also, scientists believe that eating the genetically modified rice can

help prevent blindness by improving vitamin A intake during digestion. Preventing blind-

ness can also be caused by the 2 extra genes. This would be very important because child-

hood blindness affects 500,000 children worldwide each year, which especially happens

in developing countries in Asia. Even though the rice might cause contamination to other

rice if it is grown in the same area there could be new ways to take away the contami-

nation. (S-4, argument, Treatment I, post-interview, scenario I)

Overall comparison of participants’ argumentation skills. The previous results showed

the argumentation components as independent entities. As for the overall argumenta-

tion skill of participants, we found that six (19%) participants in the Treatment I,

compared to two participants (7%) in the Treatment II groups exhibited informed

practice of argumentation for all three components (arguments, counterarguments,

and rebuttals) for scenario I in School 1. As for scenario II, there were eight (26%)

and four (14%) participants in the Treatment I and II groups, respectively, who exhib-

ited informed practice of argumentation for all three components. In comparison,

more gains in participants’ argumentation practice were found with School 2. For

24 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Table 6. Percentage of participants with informed, intermediary, and naı̈ve understandings of the emphasized NOS aspects for the pre- and post-

instruction data for scenarios I and II

Subjective NOS Tentative NOS Empirical NOS


Grade 7: School 1

Teacher: Dorothy



Informed 10% (3) 52% (16) 42% (13) 10% (3) 42% (13) 32% (10) 13% (4) 58% (18) 45% (14)

Intermediary 20% (6) 10% (3) 23% (7) 23% (7) 26% (8) 22% (7)

Naı̈ve 70% (22) 39% (12) 68% (21) 35% (11) 61% (19) 20% (6)


Informed 13% (4) 53% (16) 40% (12) 3% (1) 40% (12) 37% (11) 10% (3) 60% (18) 50% (15)

Intermediary 20% (6) 17% (5) 17% (5) 17% (5) 30% (9) 3% (1)

Naı̈ve 67% (20) 30% (9) 80% (24) 43% (13) 57% (17) 37% (11)



Informed 16% (5) 68% (21) 52% (16) 10% (3) 48% (15) 39% (12) 13% (4) 68% (21) 55% (17)

Intermediary 19% (6) 16% (5) 20% (6) 19% (6) 29% (9) 20% (6)

Naı̈ve 65% (20) 16% (5) 70% (22) 32% (10) 58% (18) 14% (4)


Informed 20% (6) 67% (20) 47% (14) 7% (2) 47% (14) 40% (12) 10% (3) 67% (20) 57% (17)

Intermediary 17% (5) 10% (3) 17% (5) 17% (5) 37% (11) 26% (8)

Naı̈ve 63% (19) 23% (7) 76% (23) 36% (11) 53% (16) 7% (2)

Grade 7: School 2

Teacher: Alan



Informed 10% (3) 45% (14) 35% (11) 10% (3) 42% (13) 32% (10) 13% (4) 58% (18) 45% (14)

(Continued)

Explicit

Natu

reof

Scien

ceand

Argu

men

tation

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Table 6. Continued

Subjective NOS Tentative NOS Empirical NOS


Intermediary 19% (6) 35% (11) 6% (2) 16% (5) 23% (7) 19% (6)

Naı̈ve 71% (22) 19% (6) 84% (26) 42% (13) 64% (20) 23% (7)


Informed 7% (2) 48% (14) 41% (12) 7% (2) 45% (13) 38% (11) 10% (3) 55% (16) 45% (13)

Intermediary 24% (7) 28% (8) 14% (4) 18% (5) 24% (7) 21% (6)

Naı̈ve 69% (20) 24% (7) 79% (23) 38% (11) 66% (19) 24% (7)



Informed 13% (4) 61% (19) 48% (15) 3% (1) 45% (14) 42% (13) 19% (6) 74% (23) 55% (17)

Intermediary 23% (7) 23% (7) 13% (4) 19% (6) 23% (7) 13% (4)

Naı̈ve 64% (20) 16% (5) 77% (24) 35% (11) 58% (18) 13% (4)


Informed 14% (4) 62% (18) 48% (14) 14% (4) 55% (16) 41% (12) 17% (5) 79% (23) 62% (18)

Intermediary 24% (7) 24% (7) 10% (3) 10% (3) 28% (8) 7% (2)

Naı̈ve 62% (18) 14% (4) 76% (22) 35% (10) 55% (16) 14% (4)

26

R.

Khish

fe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

scenario I, there were 10 (32%) and 4 (14%) participants in the Treatment I and II

groups, respectively, who exhibited informed practice of argumentation for all three

components. While for scenario II, there were 11 (35%) and 5 (17%) participants

in the Treatment I and II groups, respectively, with informed practice of argumenta-

tion for all three components.

Influence of Explicit Instruction on NOS

At the beginning of the study, a majority of participants in all groups showed naı̈ve

understandings of the subjective, tentative, and empirical aspects of NOS. After the

treatment, there were considerable improvements in participants’ understandings of

the NOS aspects for all groups in relation to both contexts (familiar and unfamiliar).

Table 6 provides a summary of the results showing the percentage of participants with

informed, intermediary, and naı̈ve views of the emphasized NOS aspects for the pre-

and post-instruction data for the two scenarios. Following is a discussion of some

trends in the data.

Comparison from pre- to post-instruction. The percentage gains of participants demon-

strating informed views of the NOS aspects from pre- to post-instruction were signifi-

cant for all groups in relation to both scenarios for the two teachers. Following is an

example of one participant’s response prior and following the treatment in response to

the item that asked participants whether they would change their decision about the

issue of genetically modified food. This question hints at the tentative and empirical

aspects of NOS. At the beginning of the study, participant S-27 asserted that he would

not change his decision about the production and marketing of genetically modified

rice:

No I would not change my decision because I would show evidence to prove my

answer and show in the future that I was right. (S-27, Treatment II, pre-questionnaire,

scenario II)

By the end of the study, this participant, however, was not as inflexible and adamant

about his decision. He related the change of his decision to the evidence that might be

given by others:

I do think that I might or am going to change my answer because other scientist with his

data might persuade me to change. I might have different statements and opinions, but if

someone shows enough evidence and examples I might change my mind. (S-27, Treat-

ment II, post-questionnaire, scenario II)

Comparison between Treatments I and II. At the conclusion of the study, a consider-

able percentage of participants in all the Treatment I and II groups exhibited informed

understandings of the three emphasized NOS aspects. To explore the differences

between the two treatments, the percentage gains were compared between the two

treatment groups (Table 6, D). It appeared there were no ‘significant’ differences


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

between the two groups related to the change of views into informed for the three

emphasized NOS aspects. The difference between the two groups was in the order

of one or two students in all cases (Table 6). However, the Treatment I group partici-

pants were able, at some occasions, to make connections to the argumentation they

had experienced during classroom instruction and thereby explicate their understand-

ings through these connections. For example, participant S-11 related his response in

scenario II about the subjective aspect of NOS in relation to what he has experienced

about argumentation during the classroom instruction. Similarly, participant S-18

related her view about the tentative aspect of NOS, when responding to scenario I,

to the argumentation she had experienced in class:

[Scientists reached different conclusions even though they were all looking at the same

data about water fluoridation] because different scientists can look at the data in different

ways. We did something similar in class when we were studying about argumentation. If

you have a different argument, you need to support it with evidence. It is the same

issue, and you can think differently about it. (S-11, Treatment I, post-questionnaire,

scenario II)

As a scientist in the future yes I might change my disition [sic] in the future because other

scientists might find information [about genetically modified food] that lures me to think

that the rice is bad for the human body. So it is important to know what these other scien-

tist think and say, same as like we did in the class with each giving and defending what we

think [referring to the generation of arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals]. (S-18,

Treatment I, post-questionnaire, scenario I)

Overall comparison of participants’ NOS understandings. The above results presented

the participants’ understandings of the three NOS aspects as independent. With

regards to the overall understandings of NOS, it was found that eight participants

(26%) in the Treatment I, compared to 10 (33%) in the Treatment II group exhibited

informed practice of all three NOS aspects for scenario I in School 1. For scenario II,

there were 11 (35%) and 10 (33%) participants in the Treatment I and II groups,

respectively, who exhibited informed understandings for all three aspects. Looking

at School 2 with scenario I, there were 9 (29%) and 10 (34%) participants in the

Treatment I and II groups, respectively, who exhibited informed understandings for

all three aspects. While for scenario II, there were 12 (39%) and 11 (38%) participants

in the Treatment I and II groups, respectively, with informed understandings of all

three NOS aspects.

Transfer of Acquired Argumentation Skills

At the beginning of the study, there seemed to be no differences in students’ argumen-

tation between the two scenarios, which were conceptualized as having familiar and

unfamiliar contexts. Prior to instruction, both issues were unfamiliar to students.

Generally, similar percentages of participants were found in the levels of argumenta-

tion components for the two treatment groups and between two scenarios. After the

28 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

treatments, there were some differences in students’ argumentation in relation to the

two scenarios.

Familiar context. The percentage gains of participants who improved their argumenta-

tion skills from pre- to post-instruction was significant for Treatment I and II groups in

the context of scenario II, which represented the familiar issue. Many participants con-

structed informed argumentation components with justifications based on more than

one reason when discussing water fluoridation. For example, participant S-2 from

Treatment I group based his argument on thepossible links to cancer and on the possible

harm as a result of quantity of fluoridated water that might be consumed by a person:

I say no because group B has a lot more points against fluoridation like possible links to

cancer from fluoridation in water. Also, what if a person drinks too much water? Can too

much fluoridation be harmful? Is there a limit? (S-2, argument, Treatment I, post-ques-

tionnaire, scenario II)

In the second example, participant S-1 from Treatment II group discussed the

reasons of expense and safety in his rebuttal to support his position on the fluoridation

of water:

I will answer him that fluoridation is inexpensive and it is also safe to reduce tooth decay

and prevent dental diseases. (S-1, rebuttal, Treatment II, post-questionnaire, scenario II)

Unfamiliar context. The percentage gains for argumentation components of partici-

pants were significant for Treatment I groups in the context of scenario I about geneti-

cally modified food, an issue that was unfamiliar to these participants. For example,

the following are representative quotations from participants who generated argumen-

tation components that were informed, being justified by more than one reason when

discussing their position about genetically modified food:

I do not support the genetically modified rice. I think maybe since it has a contamination

because it may had crossed over with another plant . . . it may also have problems when

people eat it because they might have an allergic reactions or maybe need to go to the hos-

pital because of food poisoning. (S-3, argument, Treatment I, post-interview, scenario I)

I would give information supporting my point of view like; eating the genetically modified

rice with the two extra genes can help prevent blindness by improving the vitamin A

intake during digestion. Therefore and as a result this could reduce childhood blindness,

childhood blindness affects 500,000 children worldwide each year especially in the devel-

oping countries in Asia. I could also support my point of view by saying that there are no

dangers related to eating genetically modified food. (S-20, counterargument, Treatment

I, post-interview, scenario I)

If eating genetically modified rice help reduce the blindness of children why should we not

grow them? We can try and make sure the rice doesn’t contaminate other rice first, but it

seems to me that only good will happen if we use genetically modified rice. Second, I

don’t see any negative effects doing this might cause. (S-23, rebuttal, Treatment I,

post-questionnaire, scenario I)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

As for Treatment II groups, the percentage gains were not significant for scenario I;

there were many participants who still held naı̈ve and intermediary argumentation

components. Following are two representative responses categorized as intermediary

that show an argument and a counterargument with justifications supported by one

reason only:

Yes [golden rice should be produced and marketed] because it helps people reduce blind-

ness. (S-1, argument, Treatment II, pre-questionnaire, scenario I)

Eating golden rice can be healthy but you may never know what the outcome will be. The

main thing is that it gives you vitamin A which some people lack in the world. (S-21,

counterargument, Treatment II, pre-questionnaire, scenario I)

Transfer of Acquired NOS Understandings

At the beginning of the study, the majority of participants held naı̈ve understandings

of the three NOS aspects in relation to both the familiar and unfamiliar contexts. By

the end of the study, participants’ understandings of these NOS aspects improved for

all groups when responding to the two contexts. In other words, there were no signifi-

cant differences in the percentage gains relating to participants’ understandings of the

NOS aspects for the two contexts. Following is a description of these developments in

participants’ understandings of the NOS aspects across the two contexts.

Familiar context. By the end of the study, the participants’ understandings of NOS

aspects expressed in response to the familiar context contained some references to

the treatment that focused on the content about water usage and safety. For

example, participant S-3 held naı̈ve understandings of the subjective aspect of

NOS, which was reflected in his initial response when discussing how scientists

might reach different conclusions when looking at the same data:

I would say yes scientists can reach different conclusions because maybe they would get a

mistype or they saw the data wrong. (S-3, Treatment I, pre-questionnaire, scenario II)

In a similar fashion, this participant exhibited more informed understanding of the

subjective aspect. She explained how scientists can reach different conclusions

about the same data and related it to the water quality samples that were interpreted

and discussed during the classroom instruction:

This is the same what we were doing in class. Okay, so we were all looking at same data,

right? Okay, we were looking at the water samples because we wanted to know the quality

of water. Okay, we came up with different conclusions and we had same water sample.

Here it is the same, even though we or scientists looked at the same effects of fluoridation,

it didn’t matter because all the scientists thought differently about the situation and so

they came up with different conclusions. (S-3, Treatment I, post-interview, scenario II)

Informed understandings of the NOS aspects were also experienced by Treatment

II group participants by the end of the study. For example, this participant exhibited

30 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

informed understanding of the subjective aspect of NOS and similarly related to the

classroom instruction about water usage. This participant explained that scientists

can reach different conclusions and he made a reference to the epidemiology of

cholera that was addressed in the unit:

Scientists can have different conclusions even though they looked at same information.

Yes, they can look at the information in different angles, perspectives, etc. Why? Well,

they have different experiences so different ways of looking at things. Just like conclusion

they make up with for the cholera that we discussed in class, some scientists came to and

reached a different conclusion when they looked at it. (S-8, Treatment II, post-question-

naire, scenario II)

Unfamiliar context. Table 6 gives that the differences in the percentage gains between

the familiar and unfamiliar contexts were not significant for the emphasized NOS

aspects. At the same time, comparing the pre- and post-instruction data showed sig-

nificant developments in participants’ understandings of the NOS aspects when

responding to the unfamiliar context. It was interesting to note that some of the par-

ticipants’ responses to the unfamiliar issue about genetically modified food showed

references to the issues, activities, and/or discussions that were experienced in class

in the context of the unit about water usage and safety. For example, this participant

expressed his views about the differences in scientists’ conclusions for the same obser-

vations and he related it to the chlorination of water, which was one of the topics tar-

geted in the treatment:

Well, I can tell you that every scientist is different about this genetically modified rice . . .

they are different even if they are visualizing the same data, some could end up with a

different conclusion. Okay, scientists are people, they have different minds, they think dif-

ferently [a short pause]. We humans all have different points of views for everything we

see, hear, taste, smell, and that is just like what we have discussed in class about the chlori-

nated water, sometimes we see things in a different angle. (S-11, Treatment I, post-inter-

view, scenario I)

Yet, other participants discussed the issue about genetically modified rice and

expressed informed understandings of NOS aspects without relating to any of the

activities undertaken during the treatment. For instance, these two participants

expressed an informed understanding about subjective aspect of NOS and discussed

their views generally without situating it in any particular context:

The scientists all have reached a different conclusion because they all think towards a

different perspective. Here, there is no right or wrong answer. They all have different con-

clusions, even though they all have the same data because every [scientist] varies

with experiences and no two people are alike. (S-14, Treatment I, post-questionnaire,

scenario I)

Scientists might reach different conclusions about genetically modified food because of

differences in reading the data having different prior knowledge. (S-11, Treatment II,

post-questionnaire, scenario I)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Interaction of NOS Understandings and Argumentation Skills

At the qualitative level, we closely scrutinized the individual questionnaires and the

interviews of participants in all groups. That revealed a possible pattern in the

improvement from the pre- to post-instruction data for the Treatment I group partici-

pants. By the end of the study, about 20% of these participants improved their overall

understandings of the NOS aspects (subjective, tentative, and empirical) into

informed and these participants also showed more developed overall argumentation

skills (argument, counterargument, and rebuttal). What follows are two representative

responses that demonstrate this pattern. In the first example, participant S-8 showed

an informed understanding about the subjective aspect of NOS in the context of the

familiar issue about water fluoridation. She explained that scientists can reach differ-

ent conclusions by referring to the epidemiology of cholera addressed in the unit and

she also related that to scientists’ personal experiences:

Like I said before they [scientists] can have different conclusions [when looking at same

data] because they have different minds and they might have had bad experiences before

with cholera for example, so that will just make them look at the data and come to differ-

ent conclusions about the issue. (S-8, Treatment I, post-questionnaire, scenario II)

The participant’s informed understanding about the tentative and empirical aspects

of NOS was evident with her acknowledgement about the role of evidence in the

change in scientific knowledge:

Yes, the knowledge about effects of adding Fluoride to water might change in the future

cause there might be new hard evidence and that makes knowledge change when sup-

ported by enough evidence. (S-8, Treatment I, post-questionnaire, scenario II)

This participant also generated informed argumentation components that had valid

justifications supported by more than one reason:

I would vote for adding Fluoride to drinking water in my city because first it is safe and

way to prevent tooth decay. Second, it is a cheap way to prevent tooth decay. (S-8, argu-

ment, Treatment I, post-questionnaire, scenario II)

Professor Ponso would say that water fluoridation is involuntary so we are not taking

people’s permission. And then there is no approval from the FDA organization. (S-8,

counterargument, Treatment I, post-questionnaire, scenario II)

I would answer him by telling him that fluoridation prevents dental diseases and fluori-

dation is cheaper and more systematic. (S-8, rebuttal, Treatment I, post-questionnaire,

scenario II)

In another example, the participant was discussing whether scientific knowledge

might change in the future. He ascribed the possibility of change in scientific knowledge

to the role of evidence, and then he somewhat linked that to the change in one’s decision

as well as the influence of other scientists’ perspectives, as shown in his response:

The scientific knowledge might change in the future because may be there can be more sup-

porting data for the modified rice, but it has to be enough evidence like hard evidence. The

32 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

scientist might even see something that he didn’t see before . . . If I was a scientist, I think yes

I would change my mind because if the other scientists would tell me evidence in the future

that supports their theory, which I suppose would change my mind about my decision. An

example is that if I had more facts about the genetically modified rice from others, other

people, and that this rice might [be] causing contamination then of course I would

change my mind because if the rice was contaminated then it will hurt the person that’s

eating, it’s his health! Same for scientists. (S-18, Treatment I, post-interview, scenario I)

Discussion

The present study examines relationship between students’ understandings of NOS

and argumentation. These connections have long been assumed and argued for theor-

etically but they have been rarely explored empirically, which makes the issue compel-

ling and important. Hence, the aims of the present study were to investigate the

influence of explicit NOS and argumentation instruction on students’ argumentation

skills and NOS understandings, as well as to examine the transfer of students’

acquired argumentation skills and NOS understandings into similar contexts.

The present results showed improvements in the learning of argumentation skills

and NOS understandings of participants in the Treatment I groups who received

explicit NOS and argumentation instruction. It was noted that some of the Treatment

I group participants made connections to the argumentation components they had

experienced during instruction. Similarly, there were improvements in the learning

of NOS understandings for Treatment II group participants with only some improve-

ments for the argumentation practice. With respect to transfer, results showed that

some transfer had occurred for the argumentation practice and NOS understandings

into the unfamiliar context. Interpretations of the findings are discussed below in light

of themes about explicit argumentation instruction, explicit NOS instruction, explicit

argumentation and NOS instruction, and factors influencing transfer.

Explicit Argumentation Instruction

The results of this study showed that explicit argumentation instruction, experienced

by the Treatment I groups, led to improvement in the argumentation skills of partici-

pants in those groups. This advances the perspective about the explicit instruction of

argumentation, which corroborates findings in previous research (Bell & Linn, 2000;

Yerrick, 2000; Zohar & Nemet, 2002) that reported favorable improvements in lear-

ners’ skills and/or quality of argumentation when incorporating explicit argumenta-

tion instruction within scientific contexts. At the same time, the present results

witnessed some improvements in the argumentation of Treatment II group partici-

pants without the explicit NOS instruction. That could be attributed to the socio-

scientific context, which would also advance the other perspective about

argumentation as evidenced from the literature that reported improvements in lear-

ners’ skills and/or quality of argumentation without the addition of explicit argumen-

tation instruction (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Pereiro-Munoz, 2002; Patronis et al., 1999)

when the contexts were socioscientific. These socioscientific contexts are optimal for


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

argumentation and that helps in the application of learners’ scientific ideas and

reasoning to an issue and the kindling of learners’ considerations of moral, ethical,

and social concerns (McDonald, 2010). As such, the socioscientific context in this

study might explain the general improvements in the argumentation of the Treatment

II group participants, who had no explicit argumentation instruction. Along these

lines, Dawson and Venville (2010) discussed four factors that they considered as

important in quality argumentation. These factors addressed (a) the role of the

teacher as coordinating the whole-class discussion, (b) the use of the writing frames

to scaffold student thinking, (c) the context and relevance of the socioscientific

issue in which argumentation was cultivated, and (d) the active participation of the

students in their learning.

Explicit NOS Instruction

Relative to their pre-instruction, participants’ post-instruction understandings about

the three emphasized NOS aspects improved for all groups in relation to the familiar

and unfamiliar issues. According to the criterion of significance adopted in this study,

many more than four participants from each group developed their overall understand-

ings into informed by the end of the study. All the group participants experienced

explicit NOS instruction. Therefore, explicit NOS instruction in the context of a socio-

scientific issue improved students’ views of NOS. These results corroborate and add to

the previous consistent findings about improvements in learners’ understandings of

NOS as a result of an explicit approach (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998; Khishfe, 2002;

Schwartz, & Lederman, 2002) and particularly in the context of socioscientific issues

(Bentley & Fleury, 1998; Khishfe, 2006; Matkins & Bell, 2007; Sadler et al., 2002).

Explicit Argumentation and NOS Instruction

Although the comparisons between the two treatment groups did not generally show

any significant differences in the ‘degree’ of improvement in students’ understandings

of NOS, there were connections made by Treatment I participants about the argu-

mentation components they had experienced during the treatment when responding

to the items addressing NOS aspects. Based on the idea of building connections, one

might suggest that adding the explicit argumentation instruction along with the expli-

cit NOS instruction would help participants to make links or connections between

NOS and argumentation. According to the meaningful learning model (Ausubel,

1962), making these links would later help to build a stronger anchor of students’

thinking framework, and that might further facilitate the retention of students’

acquired NOS understandings and argumentation skills.

At the same time, about 20% of these participants improved their overall under-

standings of the NOS aspects (subjective, tentative, and empirical) into informed

and these participants also showed more developed overall argumentation skills (argu-

ment, counterargument, and rebuttal) by the end of the study. Hence, we may infer

that the explicit argumentation instruction has some bearing on the explicit NOS

34 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

instruction and that supports previous research suggesting that engaging in argumen-

tation would help students to understand epistemological bases of science (Sandoval

& Milwood, 2008; Simonneaux, 2008).

Moreover, an approach that adds explicit NOS and argumentation instruction

would help to develop students’ NOS understandings and argumentation skills and

that addresses two themes of scientific literacy (BouJaoude, 2002): (a) science as a

way of knowing and (b) science, technology, and society issues. Utilizing this approach

might lead students to make links between the two themes, as evidenced with Treat-

ment I group participants. Another issue is that this approach allows teachers to use

their limited time more efficiently. To advance this approach, teachers can intentionally

connect between NOS and argumentation. Resnick and Hall (2001) have long advo-

cated for connectedness in the curriculum toward an efficient use of time.

Transfer of NOS Understandings and Argumentation Skills

The scenario about water fluoridation was related to the context in which NOS under-

standings and argumentation skills were acquired, so it was more familiar to partici-

pants. The scenario about genetically modified food was unfamiliar to participants. At

the conclusion of the study, there were improvements in participants’ understandings

of the NOS aspects for both the familiar and unfamiliar contexts. This illustrated that

transfer of the acquired NOS understandings into the unfamiliar context has

occurred. For the argumentation skills, participants in the Treatment I groups only

showed significant percentage gains in their argumentation skills when responding

to the unfamiliar scenario. Although the argumentation skills did not witness promi-

nent gains as those for NOS understandings, it still showed that transfer of the

acquired argumentation skills has taken place into the unfamiliar context.

These findings support previous research that showed positive results in relation to

the transfer of NOS understandings (Khishfe, 2012c), process skills (Chen & Klahr,

1999), and reasoning strategies (Zohar, 1996). When thinking about the issue of

transfer, one needs to consider the factors that could have enhanced transfer. The

first factor relates to the nature of explicit instruction. Participants in this study experi-

enced explicit discussions about NOS and argumentation at several occasions

throughout treatment (Table 2). The explicit and reflective instruction has been docu-

mented in previous research (Chen & Klahr, 1999) as facilitating transfer. What could

have also promoted the learning and transfer of NOS understandings and argumenta-

tion were the multiple reflective experiences that allowed students to reflect on NOS

aspects and practice argumentation in relation to the different lessons. This has been

referred to as a distributed model in previous research (Khishfe, 2006). It needs to be

noted that the multiple opportunities for students to experience NOS exceeded the

opportunities for argumentation components (particularly for Treatment I groups)

and that resulted in more transfer of the participants’ acquired NOS understandings,

compared to their transfer of argumentation skills.

A second possible factor might be related to the distance between the context of

learning and the context of the new application. In the present study, the context of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

learning (water issues) and those of applications (familiar and unfamiliar) were socio-

scientific. The socioscientific issues have been put forward as an optimum medium for

NOS instruction (Bentley & Fleury, 1998; Sadler et al., 2002) and argumentation

(Fleming, 1986; Zeidler, 2003). Therefore, the transfer of participants’ NOS under-

standings and argumentation skills could have been enhanced by the closely related

contexts (Kok & Woolnough, 1994) as they both addressed ill-structured problems

(Sadler & Zeidler, 2005). Similarly, Khishfe (2012c) found that students were able

to transfer their NOS understandings acquired in the context of genetic engineering

into the socioscientific contexts of genetically modified food and water fluoridation.

Implications and Recommendations

The participation of two teachers in the study served to overcome the possibility of a

teacher effect. Nonetheless, these results are still limited to the participants and the

socioscientific context within which the explicit instruction of NOS and argumenta-

tion were experienced. The study needs to be conducted in other socioscientific con-

texts as well as with scientific contexts.

An important implication is related to the finding about the interaction between

NOS understandings and argumentation skills in the context of controversial socio-

scientific issues. Based on this study, one might question whether the explicit instruc-

tion of argumentation added to the explicit NOS instruction would promote both the

NOS understandings and argumentation skills, along with the possibility of inter-

actions between the two. Moreover, there is a need to explore and further study the

two different perspectives that rule the instruction of argumentation: the explicit

direct instruction of argumentation versus the implicit yet context-based (i.e. socio-

scientific) instruction. That line of research to further define the relationship

between NOS understandings and argumentation skills would be very important to

pursue in future investigations. Another subsequent implication relates to integrating

the teaching of argumentation and NOS, which would allow for meaningful learning

and also address the limited time of classroom teaching. Therefore, more studies are

needed to explore this interaction between argumentation and NOS when both are

explicitly addressed or when both are situated within an ‘optimal’ context as the socio-

scientific context. In turn, that would maximize the opportunities for students to

develop their NOS understandings, while at the same time engage in argumentation

in the context of controversial socioscientific issues. Into the bargain, the instruction

of NOS and argumentation align with the discussions about controversial socioscien-

tific issues and lead toward achieving scientific literacy.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the

development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education,

88, 785–810.

36 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional

practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417–436.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational

Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.

Ausubel, D. P. (1962). A subsumption theory of meaningful verbal learning and retention. The

Journal of General Psychology, 66, 213–224.

Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning

from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.

Bentley, M. L., & Fleury, S. C. (1998). Of starting points and destinations: Teacher education and

the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science education: Ratio-

nales and strategies (pp. 277–291). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Berland, L. K., & Hammer, H. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94.

Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation:

Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Edu-

cation, 94(5), 765–793.

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Edu-

cation, 93(1), 26–55.

BouJaoude, S. (2002). Balance of scientific literacy themes in science curricula: The case of

Lebanon. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 139–156.

Bransford, J., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple impli-

cations. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education

(pp. 61–100). Washington, DC: The American Education Research Association.

Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2007). ‘Um . . . since I argue for fun, I don’t remember what I argue about’: Using

children’s argumentation across social contexts to inform science instruction. Paper presented at the

meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Edu-

cational Researcher, 17, 32–42.

Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). An experiment is when you try it and

see if it works: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific

knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11(Special Issue), 514–529.

Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of

variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120.

Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students’ questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on

argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 47(7), 883–908.

Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous

data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623–654.

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) Pan-Canadian Science Project. (1997).

Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12. Retrieved from http://204.225.6.243/

science/framework/

Curriculum Council. (1998). Curriculum framework for kindergarten to year 12 education in Western

Australia. Osborne Park, WA: Author.

Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation

skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2),

133–148.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

http://204.225.6.243/science/framework/

http://204.225.6.243/science/framework/

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Philadelphia, PA:

Open University Press.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in

classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science

education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.

Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary

engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cogni-

tion and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.

Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: Social cognition. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689–698.

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An over-

view. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Per-

spectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge con-

sumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International

Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190.

Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 470–496.

Khishfe, R. (2012a). Nature of science and decision making. International Journal of Science Edu-

cation, 34(1), 67–100.

Khishfe, R. (2012b). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation

skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

49(4), 489–514.

Khishfe, R. (2012c). Transfer of nature of science understandings into similar contexts: Promises

and possibilities of an explicit reflective approach. International Journal of Science Education.

doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.672774

Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). The influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit

inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.

Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Inte-

grated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 377–394.

Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and understand-

ings of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 939–961.

Klopfer, L., & Cooley, W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of

student understanding of science and scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1),

33–47.

Kok, A., & Woolnough, B. E. (1994). Science process skills: Are they generalisable? Research in

Science and Technological Education, 12(1), 31–42.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking.

Science Education, 77, 319–337.

Larkin, J. H., & Reif, F. (1976). Analysis and teaching of a general skill for studying scientific text.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(4), 431–440.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.

Leach, J., Hind, A., & Ryder, J. (2003). Designing and evaluating short teaching interventions about

the epistemology of science in high school classrooms. Science Education, 87(6), 831–848.

38 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of

the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.

Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Leder-

man (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that

promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of

science and science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer

Academic.

Lederman, N., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science

questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of

science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.

Lederman, N., & Flick, L. (2005). Beware of the unit of analysis: It may be you!!. School Science and

Mathematics, 105(8), 381–383.

Lin, S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific

issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8,

993–1017.

Liu, S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). Taiwanese gifted students’ views of nature of science. School

Science and Mathematics, 102(3), 114–123.

Louca, L., Hammer, D., & Bell, M. (2002). Developmental versus context-dependant accounts of

abilities for scientific inquiry: A case study of 5–6th grade student inquiry from a discussion

about a dropped pendulum. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning

complex: Fifth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 261–267). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial

topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492–509.

Matkins, J., & Bell, R. (2007). Awakening the scientist inside: Global climate change and the nature

of science in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(2),

137–163.

May, D., Hammer, D., & Pea, R. D. (2006). Children’s analogical reasoning in a 3rd-grade science

discussion. Science Education, 90(2), 316–330.

McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (2002). The nature of science in international science education

standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Ratio-

nales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer (Springer) Academic Publishers.

McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction

on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teach-

ing, 47(9), 1137–1164.

McDonald, C. V. (2011, September). The impact of context of argumentation on inservice science tea-

chers’ views of nature of science. Paper presented at the biannual conference of the European

Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Lyon, France.

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction

of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning

Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.

Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Ready, set, science!: Putting research to

work in K-8 classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London:

King’s College London.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National

Academic Press.

National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statement: The nature of science.

Retrieved February 11, 2013, from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx

Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation in primary science. Research in Science

Education, 37, 17–39.

Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school

science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.

Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific

argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15),

1977–1999.

Ogunniyi, M. B. (2006). Using an argumentation-instrumental reasoning discourse to facilitate teachers’

understanding of the nature of science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National

Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco, CA.

Oh, S., & Jonassent, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving.

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 95–110.

Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science,

328(5977), 463–466. Retrieved from https://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5977/463.

short

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.

Osborne, J. F., Ratcliffe, M., Collins, S., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What ‘ideas-about-

science’ should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the ‘Expert’ community.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.

Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making

on a socioscientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education,

21(7), 745–754.

Ratcliffe, M. (1996). Adolescent decision-making, by individual and groups, about science-related

societal issues. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in

Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 126–140). London: Falmer Press.

Resnick, L., & Hall, M. W. (2001). Principles of learning: Study tools for educators [CD-ROM,

version 2.0]. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg, Learning Research and Development

Center, Institute for Learning. Retrieved from http://ifl.lrdc.pitt.edu/ifl/index.php/resources/

principles_of_learning/

Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic under-stand-

ing from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526.

Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F., & Zeidler, D. L. (2002, April). Investigating the crossroads of socio-

scientific issues, the nature of science, and critical thinking. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Retrieved from ERIC database (ED466401).

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific

decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.

Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students

learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An explora-

tory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257.

Sandoval, W. A., & Milwood, K. A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In

S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives

from classroom-based research (pp. 71–88). Dordrecht: Springer.

Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). ‘It’s the nature of the beast’: The influence of knowl-

edge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 39(3), 205–236.

Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Smith, M. (1999). Modeling success during earth science

week. Science Scope, 23, 36–37.

Schworm, S., & Renkle, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for

self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 285–296.

40 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5977/463.short

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5977/463.short

http://ifl.lrdc.pitt.edu/ifl/index.php/resources/principles_of_learning/

http://ifl.lrdc.pitt.edu/ifl/index.php/resources/principles_of_learning/

SEPUP (2000). Issues, evidence and you. Ronkonkoma: Lab Aids.

Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and

development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2),

235–260.

Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-

Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research

(pp. 179–199). Dordrecht: Springer.

Solomon, J. (1992). The classroom discussion of science-based social issues presented on

television: Knowledge, attitudes and values. International Journal of Science Education, 14(4),

431–444.

Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scott, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science

through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

29(4), 409–421.

Spector, B., Strong, P., & La Porta, T. (1998). Teaching the nature of science as an element of

science, technology and society. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science edu-

cation: Rationales and strategies (pp. 267–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future.

Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) Press.

Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 stu-

dents’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science.


Voss, J. F., & Means, M. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and

Instruction, 1, 337–350.

Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2003, March). Students’ understanding of the nature of science and their

reasoning on socioscientific issues: A web-based learning inquiry. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Philadelphia,

PA. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED474454).

Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001).

Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529–552.

Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction.


Zeidler, D. L. (Ed.). (2003). The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science

education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

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,

343–367.

Zohar, A. (1996). Transfer and retention of reasoning skills taught in biological contexts. Research in

Science and Technological Education, 14, 205–209.

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.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Appendix 1. Controversial Socioscientific Issues Questionnaire (CSI)

Scenario I

Scientists in the United Kingdom have developed a new genetically modified strain of

‘golden rice’ to deal with Vitamin A deficiency. The genetically modified rice plants

contain two extra genes.

One group of scientists believe that eating the genetically modified rice with the two

extra genes can help prevent blindness by improving vitamin A intake during diges-

tion. As a result, this could help reduce childhood blindness, which affects 500,000

children worldwide each year especially in developing countries in Asia. This group

argues that no studies have indicated any dangers associated with genetically modified

foods.

Another group of scientists argue that we do not know how eating genetically modi-

fied rice (or any food) will affect us. There is no biochemical analysis of the golden rice

to see how adding two genes may have changed the plant as a whole. Additionally, this

group is concerned that the new rice is grown in the same regions as other rice so there

might be crossing over (contamination), which would change the genetic material of

other rice. Therefore, these scientists argue that a healthily balanced diet would be a

better solution than the golden rice to deal with the Vitamin A deficiency.

(a) Do you think the golden rice should be produced and marketed?

YES NO

(b) Explain and justify your decision

(c) Another scientist, Professor Ponso, disagrees with your decision. How could he

explain his position to illustrate the reasons supporting it and convince you?

(d) What would you reply to Professor Ponso to explain that your decision is right?

(e) How can you explain that scientists reached different conclusions even though

they were all looking at the same data about genetically modified rice?

(f) Do you think the knowledge about genetically modified food might change in the

future? Explain why or why not.

(g) Do you think you might change your decision in the future? Explain why or why

not

(h) Is there anything else you would want to know about this issue that might help

you decide or even change your decision?

Scenario II

The fluoridation of water involves adding Fluoride to public drinking water. This

issue is controversial and has been the cause for many court cases.

The group in favor of water fluoridation considers fluoridation as a safe and inex-

pensive way to prevent tooth decay for all citizens during their lifetime. They point

out that many distinguished national and international scientific organizations

support fluoridation. Further, this group argues that scientific research shows that

water fluoridation reduces tooth decay and cavities and prevents dental disease.

42 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

The group against fluoridation considers it unethical because it is a form of involun-

tary medication; it violates people’s rights as they have no choice. They also point out

that fluoridation does not have FDA approval. Further, this group argues that scien-

tific research shows harmful effects of fluoridation, such as possible links to cancer.

Furthermore, adding Fluoride to drinking water makes it impossible to know how

much Fluoride a person takes.

Your city plans on adding Fluoride to drinking water and requires residents to vote

for or against this issue. If they get enough votes, then water fluoridation will be effec-

tive for the next five years.

(a) Would you vote for adding Fluoride to drinking water in your city?

YES NO

(b) Explain and justify your decision.

(c) Another scientist, Professor Ponso, disagrees with your position. How could he

explain his position to illustrate the reasons supporting it and convince you?

(d) What would you reply to Professor Ponso to explain that your position is right?

(e) How can you explain that scientists reached different conclusions even though

scientists were all looking at the same data about the effects of water fluoridation?

(f) Do you think the knowledge about water fluoridation might change in the future?

Explain why or why not.

(g) Do you think you might change your decision in the future? Explain why or why

not.

(h) Is there anything else you would want to know about this issue that might help

you decide or even change your decision?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 1

3:59

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation Instruction in the Context of Socioscientific Issues:...

Documents

Transcript of Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation Instruction in the Context of Socioscientific Issues:...