Khishfe 2013

This article was downloaded by: [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek]
On: 23 September 2013, At: 05:15

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
Explicit Nature of Science and

Argumentation Instruction in the
Context of Socioscientific Issues: An
effect on student learning and transfer
a
Rola Khishfe
a
Department of Education, American University of Beirut, Beirut,
11-0236, Lebanon
Published online: 28 Aug 2013.
To cite this article: Rola Khishfe , International Journal of Science Education (2013): Explicit
Nature of Science and Argumentation Instruction in the Context of Socioscientific Issues:
An effect 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 to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and 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 Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 05:15 23 September 2013
International Journal of Science Education, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.832004
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
∗
American University of Beirut, Beirut 11-0236, Lebanon. Email: rk19@aub.edu.lb
# 2013 Taylor & Francis

2 R. Khishfe
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
Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation 3
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
4 R. Khishfe
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.
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
6 R. Khishfe
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
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
8 R. Khishfe
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.
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
10 R. Khishfe
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).
Table 2. Overview of the unit
NOS
instruction Argumentation
(Treatments instruction (Treatments Argumentation instruction
Week Key concept(s) Activity Activity summary I and II) I and II) (Treatment I)
1 and 2 NOS Mystery bag Students make Subjective,

observations to infer empirical, and
the contents of the bag tentative
NOS Tube Students make Subjective,
observations and empirical, and
inferences to tentative
determine how the
tube works
Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation

Introduce students to
arguments,
counterarguments, and
rebuttals by examples
NOS Hole picture Students make Subjective,
observations to figure empirical, and
out the shapes inside tentative
the hole-punched
folder
3 Chemical detection Drinking water Students taste bottle Subjective, Students engage in Students engage in
by use of human quality water samples to empirical, and argumentation in discussions following the
senses determine their quality tentative relation to the quality of argumentation practice
and preference drinking water
4 Sensory thresholds Exploring sensory Students determine Subjective,
thresholds their taste threshold empirical, and
for a powdered drink tentative
mix
(Continued )
11
12 R. Khishfe
Table 2. Continued
NOS
instruction Argumentation
(Treatments instruction (Treatments Argumentation instruction
Week Key concept(s) Activity Activity summary I and II) I and II) (Treatment I)
5 Concentration and Concentration Students prepare a

serial dilution serial dilution of food
color to understand
concentration
6 Cholera: an Mapping death Students plot cholera Subjective,
epidemic disease deaths in 1840s empirical, and
London tentative
Cholera and The search for Students learn about Subjective,
epidemiology evidence epidemiology empirical, and
tentative
7 Microorganisms How much of Students explore the Students engage in Students engage in
and serial dilution chlorination is use of chlorine to kill argumentation in discussions following the
just enough? bacteria relation to the argumentation practice
chlorination of water
8 Chlorine testing: The Peru story Students learn about Subjective, Students engage in Students engage in
managing public risk management and empirical, and argumentation in discussions following the
health human judgment in a tentative relation to water quality argumentation practice
water quality context and risk management
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
14 R. Khishfe
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
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
16 R. Khishfe
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.
Table 3. Categorization of responses to scenario I about genetically modified food related to

argumentation skills
Valid justification Valid justification

Argumentation No justification or supported by one supported by more than
component invalid justification reason one reason
Argument Yes [The golden rice We need to support I do think that golden rice
should be produced production of genetic should be produced and
and marketed], I argue rice since it is cheaper marketed because this
for the genetically to make that than to rice deals with vitamin A
modified rice because it have the balanced diet deficiency. Also, scientists
is the solution for all these people 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 Professor Ponso can We do not know how this
think that I am right tell me that there is not genetically altered rice
enough studies to can affect us in our health.
make sure it is safe This rice can also
contaminate other rice
Rebuttal I can tell the Professor One thing is that the Instead of genetically
that he did not studies do not show modified rice, we can have
convince me harm done from this more healthy eating. Plus,
genetically rice we do not have enough
studies that tell us no
danger from this rice
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
18 R. Khishfe
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 They [scientists] can be Scientists do not have
probably some of the looking at the problem with similar ways of looking at
scientists made errors a different mind and things so these ways of
another possibility is that looking at the problem can
they are not professional lead to different
and not accurate conclusions
Tentative This knowledge [about Yes, it will change because Yes, the knowledge about
genetically modified what we know will increase genetically modified food
food] will not change in so we will know more and might change in the future
the future because it has have more knowledge because we might get new
already been proven evidence from new studies
that tell us new
information, then what we
know would change
Empirical I am not sure the I think the knowledge about Knowledge about
knowledge [about that [genetically modified genetically modified food
genetically modified food] will change if we get a might change in the future
food] will change in the new study but then I think if there is research from
future the knowledge cannot just study that is solid so can
change when we get a new lead to change of that
study with different results knowledge
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.
20 R. Khishfe
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
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)
21
(Continued )
22 R. Khishfe
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)
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
24 R. Khishfe
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
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)
25
(Continued )
26 R. Khishfe
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)
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
28 R. Khishfe
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
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 the possible 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)
30 R. Khishfe
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
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)
32 R. Khishfe
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
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
34 R. Khishfe
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
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
36 R. Khishfe
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.
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.
38 R. Khishfe
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.
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
40 R. Khishfe
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.
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.
42 R. Khishfe
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.
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?

Khishfe 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Khishfe 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Khishfe 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek]

On: 23 September 2013, At: 05:15

International Journal of Science

Explicit Nature of Science and

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

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Explicit Nature of Science and

effect on student learning and transfer

Keywords: Scientific literacy; Nature of science; Argumentation

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

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

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

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

Relationship between NOS and Argumentation

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

Transfer of NOS Understandings and Argumentation Skills

Summary and Purposes of the Study

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

the unfamiliar context of genetically modified food?

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

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

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

1 and 2 NOS Mystery bag Students make Subjective,

Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation

5 Concentration and Concentration Students prepare a

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

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

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

was categorized by another science education researcher with previous experience

Argumentation. Again, each participant questionnaire was analyzed to categorize

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

Valid justification Valid justification

This analysis considers each argumentation component independently by looking

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

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

Influence of Explicit Instruction on Argumentation

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

Argument Counterargument Rebuttal

Pre Post D Pre Post D Pre Post D

Grade 7: School 1: Teacher 1 (Dorothy)

Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation

Pre Post D Pre Post D Pre Post D

Treatment II group (n ¼ 29)

Only a minority of participants in all groups constructed argumentation components

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

Subjective NOS Tentative NOS Empirical NOS

Pre Post D Pre Post D Pre Post D

Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation

Pre Post D Pre Post D Pre Post D

Influence of Explicit Instruction on NOS

treatment, there were considerable improvements in participants’ understandings of

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

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

Transfer of Acquired Argumentation Skills

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