Abstract
A scientifically literate person should be able to engage and critique science news reports about socioscientific issues from a variety of information sources. Such engagement involves critical thinking and argumentation skills to determine if claims made are justified by evidence and explained by reasonable explanations. This study explored university students’ critical thinking performance when they read science news reports. Undergraduate science/applied science (n = 52) and non-science (n = 52) majors were asked to select a science news report from Internet sources and then to read, critique, and make comments about its contents. The science and non-science majors’ comments and their quality were identified and assessed in terms of analyzing the argument elements—claims and warrants, counterclaims and warrants, rebuttals, qualifiers, and evidence. The results indicated there is significant difference in identifying and formulating evidence favoring science/applied science over non-science majors (p < .01). Quality of critical thinking associated with the strength of the arguments made indicated that science/applied science majors demonstrate significantly (p < 0.05) more advanced patterns than non-science majors. The results suggest that further studies into improving undergraduates’ concepts of evidence in the context of reading and critiquing science news reports are needed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
REFERENCES
Author. (2010). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.
Barker, S. & Julien, H. (2012). Reading for evidence. In S. P. Norris (Ed.), Reading for evidence and interpreting visualization in mathematics and science education (pp. 19–40). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Brand-Gruwel, S. & Stadtler, M. (2011). Solving information-based problems: Evaluating sources and information. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 175–179.
Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I. & Salmerón, L. (2011). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 180–192.
Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.
Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical thinking skills: Developing effective analysis and argument. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Finocchiaro, M. A. (2005). Arguments about arguments: Systematic, critical and historical essays in logical theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Fisher, A. (2001). Critical thinking. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.
Ford, C. L. & Yore, L. D. (2012). Toward convergence of metacognition, reflection, and critical thinking: Illustrations from natural and social sciences teacher education and classroom practice. In A. Zohar & J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 251–271). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Gomez-Zwiep, S. (2008). Elementary teachers’ understanding of students’ science misconceptions: Implications for practice and teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(5), 437–454.
Inch, E. S. & Warnick, B. (2010). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument (6th ed.). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
Jarman, R. & McClune, B. (2007). Developing scientific literacy: Using news media in the classroom. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Kolsto, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., Ulvik, M., et al (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632–655.
Korpan, C. A., Bisanz, G. L. & Bisanz, J. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: Evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education, 81(5), 525–532.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824.
Kuhn, D. & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(2), 90–104.
Lubben, F., Sadeck, M., Scholtz, Z. & Braund, M. (2010). Gauging students’ untutored ability in argumentation about experimental data: A South Africa case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2143–2166.
McClune, B. & Jarman, R. (2012). Encouraging and equipping students to engage critically with science in the news: What can we learn from the literature? Studies in Science Education, 48(1), 1–49.
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74.
Moon, J. (2008). Critical thinking: An exploration of theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Norris, S. P. (Ed.). (2012). Reading for evidence and interpreting visualizations in mathematics and science education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Norris, S. P. & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 947–967.
Norris, S. P. & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.
Norris, S. P. & Phillips, L. M. (2012). Reading science: How naïve view of reading hinders so much else. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 37–56). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., Smith, M. L., Gilbert, S. M., Stange, D. M., Baker, J. J. & Weber, A. C. (2008). Learning to read scientific text: Do elementary school commercial reading programs help? Science Education, 92(5), 765–798.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359.
Nussbaum, E. M. & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 443–488.
Nussbaum, E. M. & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument–counterargument integration in students’ writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92.
O’Rourke, M. (2005). UI critical thinking handbook. Retrieved from http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/crit_think/.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006). PISA report (Chinese version). Retrieved from http://www.dorise.info/DER/03_PISA-2006_html/pisa_04_download.html.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
Phillips, L. M. & Norris, S. P. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the reader’s world meets the world on paper? International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 317–327.
Ratcliffe, M. (1999). Evaluation of abilities in interpreting media reports of scientific research. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1085–1099.
Sadler, T. D. & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.
Sadler, T. D. & Fowler, S. R. (2006). The threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986–1004.
Schalk, H. H., van der Schee, J. A. & Boersma, K. T. (2013). The development of understanding of evidence in pre-university biology education in The Netherlands. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 551–578.
Scholtz, Z., Braund, M., Hodges, M., Koopman, R. & Lubben, F. (2008). South African teachers’ ability to argue: The emergence of inclusive argumentation. International Journal of Educational Development, 28(1), 21–34.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Tytler, R., Duggan, S. & Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 815–832.
Tytler, R. & Peterson, S. (2004). From “try it and see” to strategic explanation: Charactering young children’s scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 94–118.
United States National Research Council (2012). In H. Quinn, H. A. Schweingruber & T. Keller (Eds.), A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Weinberger, A. & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95.
Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 31(2), 8–19.
Yore, L. D. (2011). Foundations of scientific, mathematical, and technological literacies—Common themes and theoretical frameworks. In L. D. Yore, E. Van der Flier-Keller, D. W. Blades, T. W. Pelton & D. B. Zandvliet (Eds.), Pacific CRYSTAL centre for science, mathematics, and technology literacy: Lessons learned (pp. 23–44). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Yore, L. D. (2012). Science literacy for all—More than a slogan, logo, or rally flag! In K. C. D. Tan & M. Kim (Eds.), Issues and challenges in science education research: Moving forward (pp. 5–23). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L. & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science, 25(6), 698–725.
Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M. & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338–369.
Yore, L. D., Pimm, D. & Tuan, H.-L. (2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics, 5(4), 559–589.
Yu, S.-M. & Yore, L. D. (2012). Quality, evolution, and positional change of university students’ argumentation patterns about organic agriculture during an argument–critique–argument experience. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi:10.1007/s10763-012-9373-9. Advance online publication.
Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S. & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97–116). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lin, SS. SCIENCE AND NON-SCIENCE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ CRITICAL THINKING AND ARGUMENTATION PERFORMANCE IN READING A SCIENCE NEWS REPORT. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 12, 1023–1046 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9451-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9451-7