The Influence of Concept Cartoon-Supported Issue of Demarcation-Based Scientific Argumentation on Argumentation Skills and Pseudoscientific Beliefs

Year 2023, , 643 - 670, 27.10.2023

Ümit Duruk , Emine Çavuş , Abuzer Akgün

https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.1323212

Abstract

Studies have found that argumentation may lessen students' pseudoscientific beliefs. However, few studies of argumentation have been handled in the context of pseudoscientific beliefs. The purpose of the present study was to examine the influence of concept cartoon-supported issue of demarcation-based scientific argumentation on middle school students’ pseudoscientific beliefs. A pre-test/post-test quasi-experimental design including a control group was employed. Participants were 22 grade 7 Turkish female middle school students sampled from two classes of a single-sex school located at the edge of a southeastern town center in Turkey. When supported by the use of concept cartoons, issue of demarcation-based scientific argumentation significantly reduced the pseudoscientific beliefs with a large effect size and this decrease was retained even after 10 months. In addition, students’ argumentation skills significantly improved. Instructors should offer metacognitive tools in pedagogical approaches along with argumentation to foster middle school students’ argumentation skills and lessen their pseudoscientific beliefs.

Keywords

Pseudoscientific beliefs, issue of demarcation-based scientific argumentation, argumentation skills, retention, concept cartoon

References

• Afonso, A. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2010). Pseudo‐science: A meaningful context for assessing nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 329-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903055758 Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & McDuffie, A. R. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers' retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194-213.
• Arik, M., & Akcay, B. (2018). An effectiveness of engaging in argumentation on students’ ability to demarcate science from pseudoscience. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 8(1), 41-60. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.338919 .
• Ausubel, D. P. (1962). A subsumption theory of meaningful verbal learning and retention. The Journal of General Psychology, 66(2), 213-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1962.9711837 .
• Blanke, S., Boudry, M., & Pigliucci, M. (2016). Why do irrational beliefs mimic science? The cultural evolution of pseudoscience. Theoria, 83(1), 78-97.
• Carroll, R. T. (2005). Becoming a critical thinker. A guide for the new millennium. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
• Cekbas, Y., & Ozel, M. (2019). The effect of astronomy activities regarding Walton argumentation on pseudoscience beliefs of science teacher candidates. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 10(37), 981-994.
• Cetin, P. S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.850071 .
• Cetinkaya, E. (2017). The effect of argumentation based activities, designed in the context of demarcation problem, on 8th grade students’ views about nature of science, their pseudoscientific beliefs and argumentation skills [PhD diss.]. Gazi University. Cetinkaya, E., & Tasar, M. F. (2018). Development of pseudoscience belief scale (PBS): Validity and reliability study. Trakya Journal of Education, 8(3), 511-526. https://doi.org/10.24315/trkefd.336650.
• Cetinkaya, E., Turgut, H., & Duru, M. K. (2015). The effect of the context of science, pseudoscience demarcation on the science perceptions of secondary school students: The case of iridology. Education and Science, 40(181), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.3127.
• Chen, C. H., & She, H. C. (2012). The impact of recurrent on-line synchronous scientific argumentation on students' argumentation and conceptual change. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 197-210.
• Chen, H. T., Wang, H. H., Lu, Y. Y., Lin, H. S., & Hong, Z. R. (2016). Using a modified argument-driven inquiry to promote elementary school students’ engagement in learning science and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 170-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1134849.
• Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 391-409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6.
• Dugard, P., & Todman, J. (1995). Analysis of pre‐test‐post‐test control group designs in educational research. Educational Psychology, 15(2), 181-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341950150207.
• Duruk, U., & Akgun, A. (2020). Representation of nature of science components across secondary school science textbooks. Amasya Education Journal, 9(2), 196-229.
• Ede, A. (2000). Has science education become an enemy of scientific rationality? Skeptical Inquirer, 24, 48–51.
• Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In T. Millon, & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and Social Psychology, 5, (pp. 159-184). John Wiley and Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0507 .
• Erduran, S., Guilfoyle, L., & Park, W. (2020). Science and religious education teachers’ views of argumentation and its teaching. Research in Science Education, 1-19.
• Es, H., & Turgut, H. (2018). Candidate classroom teachers’ perceptions about being scientific in the context of pseudoscience. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 4(2), 142-154. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.409497 .
• Fasce, A., & Picó, A. (2019). Science as a vaccine. The relation between scientific literacy and unwarranted beliefs. Science & Education, 28(1-2), 109-125.
• Francis, L. J., & Williams, E. (2009). The dayton agenda contacting the spirits of the dead: Paranormal belief the teenage worldview. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 18, 20-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10656210902751818 .
• Guilfoyle, L., Erduran, S., & Park, W. (2020). An investigation into secondary teachers’ views of argumentation in science and religious education. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 1-15.
• Jiménez Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In Argumentation in Science Education, (pp. 3-27). Springer, Dordrecht.
• Kabapinar, F. (2020). Caricature and concepts cartoons in science education. Ankara: Pegem A
• Kaplan, A. O. (2014). Research on the pseudoscientific beliefs of preservice science teachers: A sample from astronomy-astrology. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(3), 381–393.
• Khishfe, R. (2013). Transfer of nature of science understandings into similar contexts: Promises and possibilities of an explicit reflective approach. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2928-2953. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.672774 .
• Khishfe, R. (2015). A look into students’ retention of acquired nature of science understandings. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1639-1667.
• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. London: Harvard University Press.
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 159-174.
• Lizotte, D. J., Harris, C. J., McNeill, K. L., Marx, R. W., & Krajcik, J. (2003). Usable Assessments Aligned with Curriculum Materials: Measuring Explanation as a Scientific Way of Knowing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago: IL.
• Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children’s discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600855419.
• McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2016). Factors impacting teachers' argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38 (12), 2026-2046.
• McNeill, K., & Pelletier, P. (2012, May). Supporting claim, evidence, and reasoning across the grades and curriculum. Paper presented at the meeting of Annual Meeting of The National Science Teachers Association, Indianapolis, IN.
• McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20364.
• Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920410001689689.
• Metin, D., Cakiroglu, J., & Leblebicioglu, G. (2020). Perceptions of eighth graders concerning the aim, effectiveness, and scientific basis of pseudoscience: The case of crystal healing. Research in Science Education, 50(1), 175-202.
• Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (2013). Concept cartoons: What have we learnt? Journal of Turkish Science Education, 10(1), 3-11.
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 384-395.
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035.
• Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (2013). Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Rice, T. W. (2003). Believe it or not: Religious and other paranormal beliefs in the United States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(1), 95-106.
• Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27.
• Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2007). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology?” In Argumentation in Science Education, (pp. 71-88). Springer, Dordrecht.
• Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307.
• Semb, G. B., & Ellis, J. A. (1994). Knowledge taught in school: What is remembered? Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 253-286. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064002253.
• Shah, S., & Conchar, C. (2009). Why single‐sex schools? Discourses of culture/faith and achievement. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), 191-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640902903722.
• Stratton, S. J. (2019). Quasi-experimental design (pre-test and post-test studies) in prehospital and disaster research. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 34(6), 573-574. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X19005053.
• Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s Alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273-1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.
• Tsai, C. Y., Lin, C. N., Shih, W. L., & Wu, P. L. (2015). The effect of online argumentation upon students' pseudoscientific beliefs. Computers & Education, 80, 187-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.018. Tseng, Y. C., Tsai, C. Y., Hung, J. F., Liu, C. J., & Huang, T. C. (2008). Belief in Pseudoscience among Students of Technological University. Paper presented at the 24th Symposium on Science Education, National Changhua Normal University, Changhua, Taiwan.
• Turgut, H. (2009). Pre-service science teachers' perceptions about demarcation of science from pseudoscience. Education and Science, 34(154), 50-68.
• Turgut, H., Akcay, H., & Irez, S. (2010). The impact of the issue of demarcation on pre-service teachers' beliefs on the nature of science. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 10(4), 2653-2663.
• Upadhyay, B., & DeFranco, C. (2008). Elementary students’ retention of environmental science knowledge: Connected science instruction versus direct instruction. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(2), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173668.
• Yeh, K. H., & She, H. C. (2010). On-line synchronous scientific argumentation learning: Nurturing students' argumentation ability and conceptual change in science context. Computers & Education, 55(2), 586-602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.020.