Exploring Undergraduates’ Engagement with the Coronavirus through Socio-Scientific Argumentation
Location
Session 3 (Henderson Library)
Session Format
Oral Presentation
Your Campus
Statesboro Campus- Henderson Library, April 20th
Academic Unit
College of Education
Research Area Topic:
Education & Learning - Teaching, Learning & Human Development
Co-Presenters and Faculty Mentors or Advisors
David C. Owens and Amanda L. Glaze
Abstract
Argumentation that aligns with functional scientific literacy requires gathering and reasoning about evidence to support or refute claims related to ‘socio-scientific’ issues (SSI) – those that are informed by science but also entail societal aspects. Although argumentation has long been recognized as a critical component of scientific literacy, the recent coronavirus pandemic and associated issues has put argumentation on the forefront. In this article, we present a 5E module that we used to help model argumentation instruction while scaffolding undergraduates’ argumentation practice in the context of SSI. To do so, we introduced the claim, evidence, reasoning argumentation framework, where students respond to potential solutions to SSI related to the coronavirus (claim), support their response with data (evidence), and justify how the evidence they provided supports their response (reasoning). Specifically, undergraduates completed diverse argumentation tasks, which started with more traditional scientific argumentation, such as arguing whether a virus is a living thing after being presented with numerous scientific perspectives on the matter. Once comfort with supporting a claim with evidence and reasoning was gained in a strictly scientific context, undergraduates were tasked with recognizing and addressing non-scientific, cross-curricular aspects of issues, such as whether it is appropriate to call the coronavirus the ‘Chinavirus’, after gaining familiarity with diverse perspectives on the issue. Finally, undergraduates grappled with a decision about whether a mother should vaccinate her child after exploring the safety of vaccines and exhibiting skepticism related to media and even scientific articles that have linked vaccination with neurological disorders, such as autism. We found the progression from scientific to socio-scientific argumentation to facilitate undergraduates’ growth in and comfort with developing effective argumentation practices associated with functional scientific literacy.
Program Description
Functional scientific literacy includes the ability to develop informed arguments that address scientific and societal aspects of contentious, contemporary issues. In this article, we model learning in the context of use issues related to the coronavirus to scaffold argumentation using the claim-evidence-reasoning framework in a number of different argumentation scenarios.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Presentation Type and Release Option
Presentation (Open Access)
Start Date
4-20-2022 2:15 PM
End Date
4-20-2022 3:15 PM
Recommended Citation
Sheridan, Noah P., "Exploring Undergraduates’ Engagement with the Coronavirus through Socio-Scientific Argumentation" (2022). GS4 Georgia Southern Student Scholars Symposium. 81.
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/research_symposium/2022/2022/81
Exploring Undergraduates’ Engagement with the Coronavirus through Socio-Scientific Argumentation
Session 3 (Henderson Library)
Argumentation that aligns with functional scientific literacy requires gathering and reasoning about evidence to support or refute claims related to ‘socio-scientific’ issues (SSI) – those that are informed by science but also entail societal aspects. Although argumentation has long been recognized as a critical component of scientific literacy, the recent coronavirus pandemic and associated issues has put argumentation on the forefront. In this article, we present a 5E module that we used to help model argumentation instruction while scaffolding undergraduates’ argumentation practice in the context of SSI. To do so, we introduced the claim, evidence, reasoning argumentation framework, where students respond to potential solutions to SSI related to the coronavirus (claim), support their response with data (evidence), and justify how the evidence they provided supports their response (reasoning). Specifically, undergraduates completed diverse argumentation tasks, which started with more traditional scientific argumentation, such as arguing whether a virus is a living thing after being presented with numerous scientific perspectives on the matter. Once comfort with supporting a claim with evidence and reasoning was gained in a strictly scientific context, undergraduates were tasked with recognizing and addressing non-scientific, cross-curricular aspects of issues, such as whether it is appropriate to call the coronavirus the ‘Chinavirus’, after gaining familiarity with diverse perspectives on the issue. Finally, undergraduates grappled with a decision about whether a mother should vaccinate her child after exploring the safety of vaccines and exhibiting skepticism related to media and even scientific articles that have linked vaccination with neurological disorders, such as autism. We found the progression from scientific to socio-scientific argumentation to facilitate undergraduates’ growth in and comfort with developing effective argumentation practices associated with functional scientific literacy.
