Students’ Belief Biases Concerning Climate Change and Factors Considered While Evaluating Informal Reasoning Arguments

Year 2020, Volume: 6 Issue: 1, 24 - 34, 15.01.2020

Perihan Güneş

https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.560668

Cited By: 1

Abstract

This study determines whether 9th-grade students have belief biases about the cause of climate change. Furthermore, it determines the factors considered while evaluating the informal arguments about climate change. This study employs a case study, a qualitative research method. Participants included 137 9th-grade students (76 females, 61 males) from three different high schools located in the central district of the city of Aksaray, Turkey. Four types of arguments for climate change were considered: strong-believable, weak-believable, strong-unbelievable, and weak-unbelievable. Each argument contained two questions. One of the questions was related to the strength (strong, weak) of the argument, while the other was linked to the reason why students considered an argument to be weak or strong. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. As a result, the findings showed that students evaluated various argument types in different ways. Students considered the strong-believable arguments to be the strongest. This was followed by weak-believable, strong-unbelievable, and weak-unbelievable arguments with diminishing strength. The students showed a weak tendency for the argument-based evaluation concerning the reasons for the strength and weak of arguments that included logical reasoning between premises and conclusions. Most of the students focused on the assertion-based evaluations that include the reality of premises and conclusion rather than the relationship between the premises and conclusions. This was followed by the arguments focusing on the relation between the conclusion and premise as well as alternative evaluations independent from the argument and those that considered the different aspects of the issue.

Keywords

Argument, İnformal Reasoning, Belief bias

References

• Baron, J. (1995). Myside bias in thinking about abortion. Thinking & Reasoning, 1(3), 221–235. doi:10.1080/13546789508256909.Beatty, E. L., & Thompson, V. A. (2012). Effects of perspective and belief on analytic reasoning in a scientific reasoning task. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(4), 441–460. doi:10.1080/13546783.2012.687892.Čavojová, V. (2015). Belief bias effect in reasoning of future teachers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174, 2211 – 2218. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815009295.Corner, A., Whitmarsh, L., Xenias, D.(2012). Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation. Climatic Change 114,463–478. DOI 10.1007/s10584-012-0424-6.Dawson V,& Venville G.,J. (2009) High‐school Students’ Informal Reasoning and Argumentation about Biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31 (11), 1421-1445, DOI: 10.1080/09500690801992870.Evans, J. St. B. T. (2002). Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 978–996.Kardash, C. M., & Howell, K. L. (2000). Effects of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on undergraduates’ cognitive and strategic processing of dual-positional text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 524–535. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92J.524.Klaczynski, P. A.,(2000). Motivated Scientific Reasoning Biases, Epistemological Beliefs, and Theory Polarization: A Two-Process Approach to Adolescent Cognition. Child Development, 71(5), 1347-1366.Klaczynski, P. A., & Aneja, A. (2002). The development of quantitative reasoning and gender biases. Developmental Psychology, 38, 208-221.Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2013) Text Belief Consistency Effects in the Comprehension of Multiple Texts With Conflicting Information. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2),151-175. DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2013.769997.McCrudden, M.,T. & Barnes, A. (2016). Differences in student reasoning about belief-relevant arguments: a mixed methods study, Metacognition Learning, 11, 275–303. DOI 10.1007/s11409-015-9148-0.McCrudden, M.,T, Barnes, A., McTigue, E. M.,Welch C. & MacDonald, E. (2017) The effect of perspective-taking on reasoning about strong and weak belief-relevant arguments. Thinking & Reasoning, 23 (2), 115-133, DOI:10.1080/13546783.2016.1234411.McCrudden, M., T, McTigue, E. M. (2018). Journal of Mixed Methods Research, https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818762576.Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139–178.Miles, M, B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Perkins, D. N. (1985). Post-primary education has little impact upon informal reasoning. Journalof Educational Psychology, 77, 562–571. Plous, S. (1991). Biases in the Assimilation of Technological Breakdowns: Do Accidents Make Us Safer? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(13), 1058–1082. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00459.x.Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4–27.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.Sinatra, G. M., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science education: the promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 374–393. doi:10.1002/RRQ.005.Shaw, V.,F. (1996) The Cognitive Processes in Informal Reasoning, Thinking & Reasoning, 2(1),51-80, DOI:10.1080/135467896394564.Stanovich, K., E , West, R., F. (1997). Reasoning Independently of Prior Belief and Individual Differences in Actively Open-Minded Thinking, Journal of Educational Psychology , 89(2), 342-357.Thompson V., & S. B. T. Evans, T. (2012). Belief bias in informal reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3), 278-310, doi: 10.1080/13546783.2012.670752.Topcu, M. S, Sadler, T D. & Yilmaz‐Tuzun,O. (2010) Preservice Science Teachers’ Informal Reasoning about Socioscientific Issues: The influence of issue context, International Journal of Science Education, 32:18, 2475-2495, DOI: 10.1080/09500690903524779.Topçu, M. S., Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Turkish Preservice Science Teachers’ Informal Reasoning Regarding Socioscientific Issues and the Factors Influencing Their Informal Reasoning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(4), 313–332. doi:10.1007/s10972-010-9221-0.Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Associations between myside bias on an informal reasoning task and amount of post-secondary education. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17,851 – 860.Wiley, J. (2005). A fair and balanced look at the news: what affects memory for controversial arguments? Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 95–109.Wu, Y., & Tsai, C. (2007). High School Students’ Informal Reasoning on a Socio‐scientific Issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163–1187.doi:10.1080/09500690601083375.Yin, R.K.(2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering Students' Knowledge and Argumentation SkillsThrough Dilemmas in Human Genetics. Journal Of Research In Scıence Teachıng, 39(1), 35-62.