See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233443596

Student Difficulties in Socio‐scientific Argumentation and Decision‐making

Research Findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines

Article in International Journal of Science Education · June 2010

DOI: 10.1080/09500690902991805

CITATIONS READS

135 694

3 authors, including:

Omer Acar Anita Roychoudhury

Kocaeli University Purdue University
22 PUBLICATIONS 365 CITATIONS 31 PUBLICATIONS 1,977 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Omer Acar on 18 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Ohio State University Libraries]
On: 10 August 2009
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 906455276]
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.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713737283

Student Difficulties in Socio-scientific Argumentation and Decision-making

Research Findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines
Omer Acar a; Lutfullah Turkmen b; Anita Roychoudhury c
a
Kocaeli University College of Education, Turkey b College of Education, Usak University, Turkey c College of
Education, Purdue University, Indiana, USA

First Published on: 05 August 2009

To cite this Article Acar, Omer, Turkmen, Lutfullah and Roychoudhury, Anita(2009)'Student Difficulties in Socio-scientific
Argumentation and Decision-making Research Findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines',International Journal of Science
Education,99999:1,
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09500690902991805
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690902991805

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 International Journal of Science Education
2009, 1–16, iFirst Article

RESEARCH REPORT

Student Difficulties in Socio-scientific

Argumentation and Decision-making
Research Findings: Crossing the
borders of two research lines
Downloaded By: [Ohio State University Libraries] At: 10:23 10 August 2009

Omer Acara*, Lutfullah Turkmenb and Anita Roychoudhuryc

aKocaeli University College of Education, Turkey; bCollege of Education, Usak
University, Turkey; cCollege of Education, Purdue University, Indiana, USA
acar.4@osu.edu
0Taylor
00
Mr.
000002009
OmerAcar
&
International
10.1080/09500690902991805
TSED_A_399352.sgm
0950-0693
Original
2009 andFrancis
Article
(print)/1464-5289
Francis
Journal of Science
(online)
Education

Students’ poor argumentation in the context of socio-scientific issues has become a concern in
science education. Identified problems associated with student argumentation in socio-scientific
issues are misevaluation of evidence, naïve nature of science conceptualizations, and inappropriate
use of value-based reasoning. In this theoretical paper, the authors propose that incorporation of
decision-making research findings to argumentation research may help students overcome these
problematic areas. For this aim, decision-making research findings about value-focused decision-
making framework and common heuristics have been discussed. Specifically, the authors propose
that explicit teaching of argumentation research should provide students a decision-making frame-
work in which students can consider their values about a socio-scientific issue and assess different
alternatives as well as incorporate teaching about common heuristics. The authors believe that this
incorporation is necessary for a quality student argumentation in socio-scientific issues.

Keywords: Argumentation; Literature review; Nature of science; Socio-scientific

argumentation; Decision-making; Heuristics

Introduction
Students’ poor argumentation has become a concern in science education. It was
found that students have problems with linking the data to claims in their arguments
(Jimenez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez, & Duschl, 2000; Kelly, Druker, & Chen, 1998;

*Corresponding author. Department of Primary Education, Kocaeli University College of

Education, Kocaeli, Turkey. Email: acar.4@osu.edu

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/09/000001–16

© 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09500690902991805
 2 O. Acar et al.

McNeill, Lizotte, & Krajcik, 2006; Watson, Swain, & McRobbie, 2004). Without
understanding what constitutes a qualified argument, students would be more apt to
use their intuitive conceptions and reasoning skills in their arguments. This possible
tendency is problematic in that fostering scientifically literate citizens who would
reason scientifically about the contemporary world is seen as one of the major goals
in science education (AAAS, 1989; NRC, 1996).
Philosophers of science emphasized the importance of weighing of alternative
theories that explain the same phenomena for a quality argumentation in science
(Giere, 1984; Kuhn, 1996; Popper, 1968; Root-Bernstein, 1989). However,
researchers found that adolescents have problems in arguing for theories that contra-
dict their beliefs (Chinn & Brewer, 1993; Kuhn, 1991).
Socio-scientific issues are good contexts to examine students’ argumentation
Downloaded By: [Ohio State University Libraries] At: 10:23 10 August 2009

quality because there can be more than one scientific theory that explain the same
phenomena in these contexts. Problematic areas detected in student socio-scientific
argumentation can be categorized as evaluation of evidence (Fleming, 1986b;
Kolsto, 2001), nature of science (NOS) conceptualizations (Sadler, Chambers, &
Zeidler, 2004; Walker & Zeidler, 2007), and value-based reasoning (Fleming,
1986a; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005).
Toulmin’s argumentation pattern was adapted as a model of scientific reasoning
to enhance student socio-scientific and scientific argumentation (Osborne,
Erduran, & Simon, 2004; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). The results were encouraging
for the improvement of student socio-scientific argumentation compared to their
scientific argumentation (Osborne et al., 2004). However, the effectiveness of
explicit instruction was not consistent across these studies; granted the instruc-
tional approaches and student population are different for these studies making it
difficult to synthesize the findings and draw implications from them. We postulate
that perhaps other approaches toward developing argumentation skills in students
could be undertaken and research in decision-making skills could be useful in this
regard.
Science educators recognized a need for teaching decision-making skills to
students because the contemporary world issues have been getting more complex
which required assessing pros and cons of alternative positions. However, the focus
of those programs which taught decision-making to students was not specifically on
socio-scientific issues rather on problematic areas across disciplines such as smoking,
using alcohol, efficient energy use, and environmental problems.
The reasoning involved in discussion of socio-scientific issues requires arguing for
or against different positions for a sophisticated argumentation and also avoiding
confirmation bias (Kuhn, 1991). This quality of argumentation is in alignment with
the objectives of the contemporary decision-making research which calls for the
evaluation of each alternative to a problem with using technical information and
considering tradeoffs. Within this research line, in addition to arguing for different
positions, the quality of people’s decision-making depends on several factors: (1)
making people aware of the heuristics, (2) taking their objectives and values into
account, and (3) providing them a decision-making framework in which they can
 Socio-scientific Argumentation and Decision-making 3

assess the evidence for each alternative followed by tradeoff assessment (Arvai,
Campbell, Baird, & Rivers, 2004; McDaniels, Gregory, & Fields, 1999; Plous,
1993).
As socio-scientific issues are ill-defined in nature, that is, there is no absolute
solution to these problems, we believe that it is important to incorporate decision-
making research findings regarding value-focused decision-making approach and
common heuristics to explicit instruction on argumentation. With such an incorpo-
ration, students can consider their values, assess different information sources and
alternative positions, and control their automatic reasoning strategies in socio-
scientific issues.

Argumentation
Downloaded By: [Ohio State University Libraries] At: 10:23 10 August 2009

The quality of argumentation in science has been emphasized as considering alterna-

tives and arguing about those with available data (Giere, 1984; Kuhn, 1996; Popper,
1968). In this view, every theory is apt to refutation because the problem of induction
requires that there would be always potential falsifiers to a theory (Popper, 1968).
Although scientists’ methodological belief about a theory may affect their attitude
toward falsifiers to the theory, their reaction to the falsifiers will not be just ignoring
them. They would recognize the data as being contradictory to their theory. Their
reaction to anomalous data would be either holding this contradiction in abeyance
until a new theory explains these contradictions or articulating the theory in light of
new evidences (Chinn & Brewer, 1993; Kuhn, 1996).
However, studies found that students ignore the data when these data contradict
their beliefs (Kuhn, 1991; Kuhn, Amsel, & O’Loughlin, 1988; Kuhn, Schauble, &
Garcia-Mila, 1992). To support their position, they offer pseudo-evidence, theory-
oriented evidence, which is not evidence at all according to causality (Kuhn, 1993).
Because of their core beliefs about the topic, they have difficulty in offering counter-
arguments which are against their theories. Kuhn (1993) stated this problem as the
inability of students seeing their theories as an object to cognition. Thus, arguing for
and against alternative theories are stressed as essential components both for quality
dialogic and rhetoric argumentation (Kuhn, 1993).

Argumentation about Socio-scientific Issues

Studies indicate that students have problems about evaluation of the evidence,
NOS conceptualizations, and value-based decision-making in socio-scientific argu-
mentation (Sadler, 2004). As socio-scientific issues are inherently complex, student
problems in these areas can have a serious effect on student argumentation quality.
That is to say, if students have naïve ideas about evaluation of evidence, NOS, and
how values play a role in decision-making, socio-scientific contexts are probably the
most difficult contexts to use a quality argumentation in which the proper use of
these areas is crucial. The following sections will discuss the findings of the previous
argumentation literature regarding these problematic areas.
 4 O. Acar et al.

Evaluation of Evidence
Unlike the evidences in scientific issues, evidences in socio-scientific issues have
much uncertainty in them. Thus, understanding of this inherent uncertainty in socio-
scientific issues and considering them in the argumentation process are necessary for
a sophisticated argumentation. Due to the importance of evidence evaluation in
socio-scientific issues, studies observed the nature of student evaluation of evidence
in socio-scientific issues.
Student problems detected in evaluation of evidence by the argumentation litera-
ture are related to comprehension of uncertainty in scientific evidence, evaluation of
authorities’ claims, and recognition of data. To begin with, uncertainty in the scientific
data was treated as intolerable by the students (Fleming, 1986b). In addition, when
students were presented with research reports, mostly they adhered to the authorities’
Downloaded By: [Ohio State University Libraries] At: 10:23 10 August 2009

claims in their arguments without scrutinizing them (Kolsto, 2001). More impor-
tantly, they hardly recognized the scientific data in a socio-scientific issue. More
specifically, students confused the data with predictions and opinions (Sadler et al.,
2004).
It is concluded from student difficulties in evaluation of scientific evidence that
science education in schools is not adequate for students to argue in socio-scientific
issues (Fleming, 1986b). On the other hand, it is suggested that evaluation of differ-
ent sources of scientific evidence should be an integral part of an instruction to avoid
poor evaluation of scientific evidence among students. Finally, it is suggested that
educators should teach the nature of scientific evidence for students to understand
the distinction between data, prediction, and opinion (Sadler et al., 2004).

NOS Considerations
Socio-scientific issues are good contexts to study students’ views of NOS because
there can be more than one position for an issue each having appropriate justifications.
Accordingly, students’ views on social embededness, tentative, empirical-based, and
theory-laden NOS aspects can be examined deeper in socio-scientific problems.
Difficulties detected in student NOS conceptualizations by the argumentation
literature are related to the use of NOS conceptualizations in socio-scientific issues,
core beliefs about a socio-scientific issue, and comprehension of the difference of
scientific evidence with the information used for personal decisions. Surprisingly,
although students were taught about NOS issues, it was found that their argumenta-
tion discourse about a socio-scientific issue did not reveal much of this understanding
(Walker & Zeidler, 2007). Needless to say, it was found that student core beliefs
affected their evaluation of evidence as well as their decision-making (Sadler et al.,
2004; Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002). In addition, it was found that
students compartmentalized scientific evidence and the evidence they use for
personal decisions (Sadler et al., 2004).
Several implications were made in light of these results. First, it is suggested that
NOS issues can be taught to students when they experience these issues during
 Socio-scientific Argumentation and Decision-making 5

socio-scientific argumentation (Walker & Zeidler, 2007). Second, it is suggested that

students should reflect on multiple perspectives of a socio-scientific issue for them to
see their theories as an object to cognition (Sadler et al., 2004; Zeidler et al., 2002).
Finally, it is suggested that students should be encouraged to integrate scientific
evidence into their decision-making process for them to close the gap between scien-
tific evidence and the evidence used for personal decisions (Sadler et al., 2004).

Value-based Reasoning
Socio-scientific issues are inherently related to the society as a whole. Since every
social group and individuals have their own interests and benefits about a socio-
scientific issue, their value judgments might be in play. The problem here is not
Downloaded By: [Ohio State University Libraries] At: 10:23 10 August 2009

about people’s use of value-based reasoning but it is about to what extent they use
and if they are aware of their value-based reasoning. Needless to say students are not
isolated from their environment and society so that their value-based reasoning may
affect their argumentation quality in socio-scientific issues.
It was found that students use emotive and intuitive reasoning along with rational-
istic reasoning in socio-scientific issues (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005). However, it was
found that students use emotive reasoning more than other reasoning types in socio-
scientific argumentation (Fleming, 1986a). Furthermore, student emotive reasoning
was found to be more context-dependent than their rationalistic and intuitive
reasoning (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005).
It is suggested according to these results that educators should give more space to
and respect student values in socio-scientific issues (Bell & Lederman, 2003; Fleming,
1986a; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005). In addition, it is suggested that educators may frame
socio-scientific issues in a manner that encourages use of different modes of informal
reasoning patterns (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005).

Explicit Instruction on Argumentation about Socio-scientific Issues

Stemmed from students’ poor argumentation in science classrooms, researchers
explored the effects of explicit argumentation instruction (Osborne et al., 2004;
Zohar & Nemet, 2002) on students’ argumentation quality. Toulmin’s argumenta-
tion pattern was taught as a model for scientific reasoning for this purpose. Accord-
ing to this argumentation pattern, simple layout of an argument consists of data,
warrant, backing, and claim which can be used across domains. In more qualified
arguments, qualifiers and rebuttals might also be used (Toulmin, 1958). In addition
to teaching Toulmin’s argumentation pattern, students were also provided contexts
in which they could argue for different positions in these studies.
Zohar and Nemet (2002) observed student argumentation about current dilemmas
related to human genetics such as genetic traits, gene therapy, and genetic cloning. In
an experimental design, an experimental group received explicit instruction on argu-
mentation while the control group received traditional instruction. What was found
in the study was that students who were in the experimental group outperformed the
 6 O. Acar et al.

control group both for the genetic knowledge and argumentation quality after the
instruction. In addition to this finding, the authors found that students were able to
make simple arguments with justifications even before the instruction. From this
result, the authors argued that students may have argumentation ability intrinsically
which can be enhanced through explicit argumentation instruction.
In Osborne et al.’s (2004) study, science teachers used in the study were trained
for a regular basis about argumentation discourse. The authors used competing
theories strategy, in which alternative views about a topic are presented in order to
elicit student argumentation, to reinforce argumentation among students. In addi-
tion to examining student argumentation on socio-scientific issues, the authors also
examined argumentation on scientific issues to compare student improvement of
argumentation for both contexts. The authors found that students’ argumentation
Downloaded By: [Ohio State University Libraries] At: 10:23 10 August 2009

skills better improved in socio-scientific issues than scientific issues. Although they
found improvements of argumentation in the experimental group which received
explicit instruction on argumentation, this improvement was not significant
compared to that of the control group.
As can be seen from these studies, explicit argumentation instruction on socio-
scientific issues has no consistent effect on student argumentation quality. For a
quality argumentation in socio-scientific topics, we postulate that students should
assess the pros and cons for each alternative about an issue. This would help
students see their theories as a cognitive entity which would in turn help students
improve their argumentation quality (Kuhn, 1993). Neither of these studies stressed
the importance of the assessment of pros and cons of each alternative position in
explicating the socio-scientific argumentation to students. In addition, two studies
did not make an attempt for students to realize that value-based reasoning is part of
socio-scientific argumentation. If value-based reasoning is part of socio-scientific
argumentation (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005), instruction cannot ignore student values
and core beliefs which emerge in argumentation discourse.

Integration of Decision-making to Science Curricula

Science educators recognized the need for teaching decision-making skills to students
to foster scientifically literate citizens who will participate in complex decisions in future
as adults. As a consequence, decision-making skills were taught explicitly to students
(Mann, Harmoni, Power, Beswick, & Ormond, 1988; Ratcliffe, 1997; Ross, 1981).
Mostly, the aim of these studies was to incorporate decision-making skills to curriculum
and examine student decision-making skills in various disciplines. Decision-making
programs used in these studies were adopted from the recent approaches in decision-
making research in which values of people are seen as an integral part of the decision-
making process along with identifying alternatives, weighing information regarding
the alternatives, identifying and assessing the advantages and disadvantages of alter-
natives and finally reaching to a decision.
The studies, which integrated decision-making skills to curriculum, can be
grouped into experimental studies in which the effect of decision-making tasks on
 Socio-scientific Argumentation and Decision-making 7

student decision-making skills was sought (e.g., Mann et al., 1988, Ross, 1981)
and naturalistic studies in which the nature of student decision-making skills were
sought (e.g., Hogan, 2002; Ratcliffe, 1997). The results of the studies in the first
group showed that treatment groups which received explicit instruction on
decision-making scored higher than the control groups on motivation for deci-
sion-making (Mann et al., 1988). In addition, it was found that treatment groups
scored higher than the control groups on decision-making steps, that is, identify-
ing and assessing alternatives, summarizing information, and self evaluation
(Ross, 1981). Alternatively, results of the second group of studies showed that
value judgments and concerns with uncertainty appeared in student decision-
making. In addition, students’ decision-making was less integrative, that is,
students focused narrowly on particular themes and ignored other dimensions of
Downloaded By: [Ohio State University Libraries] At: 10:23 10 August 2009

the decision-making (Hogan, 2002). On the other hand, considering alternatives,

use of relevant information, value clarification, recognition of where scientific
principles may help, motivation, and consideration and respect for other view-
points were found to be important predictors of student quality judgment
(Ratcliffe, 1997).

Creating the Boundary between Decision-making and

Argumentation Explicit
In the past, decision-making research findings were incorporated to curricula for the
problematic issues that the society faced. Recently, Arvai et al. (2004) proposed
integration of decision-making research findings to environmental education in
order for students to make thoughtful decisions in environmental issues. The
authors proposed that students should be aware of heuristics, automatic decision
strategies, and called for a need for a structured decision-making framework for
students to avoid overusing of heuristics and to consider each alternative position
about an environmental issue.
We believe that this proposal should be considered more seriously for the education
of students about socio-scientific issues rather than only for that about environmental
issues. As a matter of fact, socio-scientific issues cover a broader context, for example,
global warming, nuclear energy, genetic engineering, invasive species, which also
includes environmental issues. Thus, teaching decision-making skills may not be
limited to environmental education; instead, it may be extended to socio-scientific
issue education.
As discussed previously, explicit teaching on argumentation research should pay
attention to students’ values and emphasize considering alternatives in socio-
scientific issues for more sophisticated argumentation. These can be done by intro-
ducing a value-focused decision-making framework to students in which they can
consider their values and assess different alternatives in socio-scientific issues. In
addition, common heuristics that people use in decision-making process can also be
taught to students in order for them to be aware of their automatic responses and
how effectively use those. Relationship of socio-scientific argumentation with
 8 O. Acar et al.
Downloaded By: [Ohio State University Libraries] At: 10:23 10 August 2009

Figure 1. Linkage between socio-scientific argumentation, instruction on argumentation, value-

focused decision making, and common heuristics

explicit instruction on argumentation, value-focused decision-making and common

heuristics proposed in this study can be seen in see Figure 1.
Figure 1. Linkage between socio-scientific argumentation, instruction on argumentation, value-focused decision making, and common heuristics

Value-Focused Decision-making Approach

The findings of people’s perceived risk and common heuristics’ role in decision-
making led the researchers to focus on considering the value judgments of stakeholders.
An analytic structured framework was proposed by McDaniels et al. (1999).
According to this structured decision-making framework, stakeholders must follow
five steps for a thoughtful decision-making:
(1) Clearly characterizing “what matters” to stakeholders in the form of objectives.
(2) Creating a set of attractive alternatives.
(3) Employing the best available technical information to characterize impacts of
the alternatives, including uncertainties.
(4) Identifying the tradeoffs that the alternatives entail.
(5) Summarizing the areas of agreement, disagreement and reasons for those views
among the stakeholders.
The first step involves value elicitation. Following this step is important in socio-
scientific argumentation because value-based reasoning is an integral component of
student socio-scientific argumentation (e.g., Sadler & Zeidler, 2005). Take the
 Socio-scientific Argumentation and Decision-making 9

example in Zohar and Nemet’s (2002) study that students were asked to argue about
if the abortion of the fetus is necessary for a mother who carries a disease gene. One
student can say, for example, regardless of if the infant born would be affected, that
this fetus should not be aborted because it is a living organism and the living right of
this organism should be protected. This value-based objective would be pronounced
in the first step of the structured decision-making framework along with other objec-
tives all of which will later undergo tradeoff assessment in later steps. As Arvai et al.
(2004) emphasized, it is also important to teach means and end objectives at this
step because this will help students see the degree of importance of their objectives.
Considering the above example, protecting the living right of an organism would be
an end objective whereas doing the regular check up of the fetus would be a means
objective.
Downloaded By: [Ohio State University Libraries] At: 10:23 10 August 2009

The second step involves creating a set of alternative solutions for a socio-scientific
issue. As emphasized by researchers, students have difficulty in understanding the ill-
defined nature of socio-scientific topics. By following this step, students would
comprehend that there may be several alternative solutions to a socio-scientific
problem and the presence of several alternative solutions is an inherent property of
the socio-scientific issues.
The third step involves the employment of the content knowledge regarding a
socio-scientific issue. Following this step, students would assess each alternative for
their positive and negative impacts. For example, in the case of invasive species,
students might recognize at this step that, as an alternative solution to the growth of
purple loosestrife, using chemicals to kill the purple loosestrife has some side effects
to other species. On the other hand, for areas that are thread of the overpopulation
of this species, this approach may be an effective way to remove the species. In addi-
tion to applying the content knowledge, students might recognize and consider
uncertainties involved in the information in their arguments. Taking the above
example, side effects of chemicals to native species would involve some uncertainty
because of the limited application of using chemicals to kill an invasive species,
consequently not knowing the exact environmental impacts. Furthermore, special
environmental characteristics of the area that is in consideration should also be taken
into account which would increase the uncertainty level.
The fourth step involves assessment of the tradeoffs associated with each alterna-
tive. To use application of chemicals to cease the growth of an invasive species as an
example, students would consider that this alternative solution to the problem is an
effective method for removing the species whereas this method may harm the native
species. Going through this tradeoff assessment, students might comprehend ill-
defined nature of socio-scientific issues in that they would observe that each alterna-
tive solution would have their own tradeoffs. This comprehension in turn may help
them understand why scientists have inconsistent views for socio-scientific issues.
The last step involves summarizing the agreement and disagreement areas
among groups of students. Even though knowledge processing might be shared by
students in previous steps, this step would help students consider all the agreement
and disagreement points which might have arisen in decision-making. Small group
 10 O. Acar et al.

argumentation discourse may be supplemented by a class discussion in which each

small group can make a presentation about their decision-making and show how
they arrived to the final decision by following each step in the structured decision-
making framework.
Success of this decision-making framework for causing better quality judgments
among adults was reported in the decision-making literature (e.g., Arvai, Gregory, &
McDaniels, 2001; Gregory, 2000; Gregory, Arvai, & McDaniels, 2001). What is
proposed in this paper is that use of this framework can help students consider
different alternatives about a socio-scientific issue, recognize their value-based
stances on the issue, and evaluate different alternatives by going through a tradeoff
assessment all of which would enhance student argumentation quality.
Downloaded By: [Ohio State University Libraries] At: 10:23 10 August 2009

Common Heuristics
Studies show that students use automatic and unconscious reasoning strategies in
socio-scientific issues (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Zeidler, 1997). These reasoning
strategies may affect student argumentation quality in socio-scientific issues along
with student evaluation of evidence, NOS conceptualizations, and value-based
reasoning. Thus, it may be important to know the nature of these heuristics and how
they might affect student argumentation quality. This section will discuss common
heuristics used in decision-making and then, give examples of how student use of
these heuristics might affect their argumentation.
The study of heuristics gained momentum after observing the short comings of
normative models, for example, utility theory, and expected utility theory, in which
people’s decision-making was explained in a rational way. Tversky and Kahneman
(1981) proposed a comprehensive framework which they called prospect theory to
explain the choices of decision-makers. According to this theory, value judgments
will not be the same for gains and losses among decision-makers. After this theory
was proposed, the idea that other factors rather than only cognition have an effect on
the actual decision-making process has been accepted widely. For example, it was
found that lay people’s perception of risk and experts’ perception of risk are different
from each other (Slovic, 1987). In another example, it was found that preferences
are commonly constructed in the process of elicitation (Slovic, 1995). This phenom-
enon is called construction of preference which means that decision-makers can be
affected by the frame that the choice is given. In addition, it was found that public
tend to stigmatize new technology (Gregory, Flynn, & Slovic, 1995). These reason-
ing strategies which do not fit into normative models of decision-making are called
heuristics. Use of heuristics is usually preconscious and requires little cognitive
effort. In fact, they are mostly used in simple everyday problems where analytical
reasoning strategies may not be necessary (Klaczynski, 2000, 2001).
One of the heuristics is the affect heuristic which was studied by decision-making
researchers (e.g., Finucane, Alhakami, Slovic, & Johnson, 2000; Rottenstreich &
Hsee, 2001). According to this view, people mark positive or negative images or
representations for important events. When an emotionally significant event occurs,
 Socio-scientific Argumentation and Decision-making 11

the person searches his/her memory bank for related events automatically which can
evoke either positive or negative feelings to the individual. If the activated feelings
are pleasant, they foster actions or thoughts to maintain those feelings. If they are
not, they foster actions or thoughts to avoid those feelings (Dmasio, 1994, cited by
Finucane et al., 2000).
Another heuristic that people tend to use is the representativeness heuristic.
People often judge probabilities by the degree to which A is representative of B, that
is, by the degree to which A resembles B (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). To give an
example, in a study by Tversky and Kahneman (1983), a group of professional
forecasters were asked to evaluate the probability of diplomatic suspension between
the USA and the Soviet Union sometime in 1983. Another group of professional
forecasters were asked to evaluate the probability of Russian invasion of Poland and
Downloaded By: [Ohio State University Libraries] At: 10:23 10 August 2009

the diplomatic suspension between the USA and the Soviet Union. Although the
first situation was more general and likely, the second group of participants stated a
probability value that was significantly higher than the stated probability value of the
first group.
Availability heuristics is another type of common heuristics that is found in the
literature. It is defined as a rule of thumb in which decision-makers assess the
frequency of a class by the ease with which instances or occurrences can be brought
to mind (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). For instance, people’s relative perception of
the likelihood of being killed by a falling airplane part or a shark attack was examined
(Plous, 1993). Because of its vividness and easy to imagine property, being killed by
a shark attack was perceived as more likely by most of the participants although the
real statistics showed the other option.
In addition to affect, representativeness, and availability heuristics, there are more
heuristics on play in decision-making such as the overestimation of positive
outcomes as more probable to occur than negative outcomes, and the overestima-
tion of conjunctive probabilities, that is, two variables compound to make the
outcome. Moreover, decision-makers are prone to see any pattern in random or
chance events. Other heuristics stem from people’s perception about correlation and
causation. For the former one, people tend to conclude two variables are correlated
by only looking at the present–present (the number of instances that both variables
occurred) cell of the correlation matrix. However to be sure to conclude that two
variables are correlated with each other, all the present–present, present–absent and
absent–absent cells are needed. For the latter one, people tend to see any causation
between correlated variables (Plous, 1993). However, any correlation between
variables does not necessarily imply a causation for those variables because other
variables may be involved between the relationships of those variables or there may
be multivariable causality.
As a summary, people often use heuristics when they make a decision about a
topic, especially for the ones they are familiar with. The use of heuristics may be an
efficient strategy when a decision should be made immediately and the context does
not require use of analytical reasoning. However, overuse of heuristics can be
problematic in contexts where use of analytical reasoning is essential. Thus, it is
 12 O. Acar et al.

suggested in decision-making research that people should be aware of their use of

heuristics and they should know how to control overuse of them for a quality judg-
ment (Plous, 1993; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).

Students’ Use of Heuristics in Socio-scientific Argumentation

The contexts most likely to foster the use of heuristics are the ones where context
dependent features (e.g., familiarity) and semantic memory features (e.g., stereo-
types) evoke a familiar representation for the problem solver (Klaczynski, 2001).
In fact, socio-scientific issues can be the most probable contexts where a person
may not find it hard to contextualize. In addition, studies show that students use
a reasoning mode that is pragmatic and contextualized along with analytical
Downloaded By: [Ohio State University Libraries] At: 10:23 10 August 2009

reasoning modes (Klaczynski, 2001; Patronis, Potari, & Spiliotopoulou, 1999;

Sadler & Zeidler, 2005). Although heuristics was not specifically addressed in
socio-scientific argumentation research, student use of heuristics within this
reasoning mode might be a possible factor for explaining socio-scientific argu-
mentation quality.
In a study by Zohar and Nemet (2002), the authors examined student argumen-
tation about diseases carried by genes. More specifically, in one case, the authors
examined student argumentation about whether a female should abort her fetus
that can be affected by a particular gene disease. Since student views and values
about abortion were not elicited, it is not known how their views might have
affected their argumentation. In fact, student argumentation may have been
affected by students’ positive or negative markings (affect) about the issue. This
possible influence of affect heuristic on student argumentation about genetic engi-
neering dilemmas was detected by Sadler and Zeidler (2005). The authors catego-
rized patterns of student reasoning in this socio-scientific topic as intuitive, emotive,
and rationalistic. Intuitive reasoning is defined as the pattern that individuals use to
express an immediate and automatic positive or negative reaction to the dilemmas.
The authors recommended that effective instruction on socio-scientific issues
should take into account intuitive reasoning of students which is defined as affect
heuristic according to decision-making research.
In addition to the effect of affect heuristic, representativeness heuristic may also
affect student argumentation. To give an example, Simmons and Zeidler (2003)
elicited student argumentation in the topic of animal testing. One student gave an
example from his/her life:
My grandmother has arthritis. She is in another country but they are doing testing on
her to see if it could help her and possibly other people. I mean, sure the animal has no
say in it, but I am sure that if they did, they would agree to it. (p. 91)

This student is altering the argument by drawing upon his/her grandmother’s situa-
tion to the animal testing issue. Possibly, the use of representativeness heuristics limits
this student argumentation in this case by evoking the representation, the situation of
the grandmother, and making an anchor effect.
 Socio-scientific Argumentation and Decision-making 13

Several studies examined student argumentation for nuclear power plants (e.g.,
Fleming, 1986a). Availability heuristics can play a critical role in student argumenta-
tion on this issue due to the ease of remembrance of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island
accidents exposed intensively in the media. Although these accidents were not stated
explicitly in student transcripts, predominant domain of reasoning among partici-
pants in Fleming’s study was found as social cognition in which they stated concerns
about the possible harm of nuclear power plants to individuals and the society.
Students’ use of social cognition instead of non-social cognition may have resulted
from one-sided media coverage of adverse effects of nuclear power plants occured in
recent history. The effect of availability heuristics in student argumentation about a
socio-scientific issue was more evident in a study by Zeidler, Lederman, and Taylor
(1992) (cited in Zeidler, 1997). A student responded to the question of whether his/
Downloaded By: [Ohio State University Libraries] At: 10:23 10 August 2009

her town should spend money on AIDS research in this way:

I don’t think our town should be spending tax dollars for AIDS research. Only two
cases that I know of were reported in our [local] paper last year and everyone I know is
against it anyhow. These facts do not justify us spending money when much more
money is needed for other health issues. (p. 492)

Availability of the two cases of the disease may have limited this student argumenta-
tion in this case by making an anchor effect on the limited information and hindering
the search for other information.
Although studies in argumentation literature did not examine specifically the effect
of heuristics on student argumentation quality, possible uses of heuristics and their
effect on socio-scientific argumentation was argued in this section. Science classrooms
are not isolated from the society so that if people use heuristics in decision-making, it
will not be surprising to find trace of heuristics in science classrooms. Nevertheless,
it was claimed that use of heuristics may cause fallacious reasoning in science class-
rooms: “Heuristics strategies that require less investment of cognitive energy are gener-
ally favored over more formal strategies that are deductive or inductive in nature in
evaluating mixed evidence” (Zeidler, 1997, p. 493). To avoid fallacious reasoning and
improve socio-scientific argumentation, it was suggested that educators should know
student reasoning strategies (Zeidler, Osborne, Erduran, Simon, & Monk, 2003). If
heuristics are the efficient reasoning strategies that students use in socio-scientific
topics, then instruction on socio-scientific argumentation cannot ignore student use
of heuristics. More specifically, if explicit instruction on argumentation aims to develop
student argumentation quality, we believe that heuristics should be taught to students
to avoid employment of heuristics among students in socio-scientific issues where use
of analytical reasoning skills might be more necessary (Arvai et al., 2004).

Implications
Integration of decision-making frameworks to curricula was initiated in past years
without an explicit emphasis on socio-scientific issues. The findings indicate that
these programs helped students improve their decision-making skills and achieve
 14 O. Acar et al.

higher levels of cognitive competencies in decision-making. In addition, it was found

that quality judgment found in adolescents for socio-scientific issues possess the
following elements: alternative consideration, use of relevant information, value
clarification, motivation, and consideration of and respect for other viewpoints
(Ratcliffe, 1997). Since the main emphasis was not on examining the effect of deci-
sion-making instruction on student decision-making skills in socio-scientific issues in
these studies, it is hard to conclude that these programs helped students achieve
higher cognitive competencies for socio-scientific decision-making. Besides, enhanc-
ing student argumentation was not the main aim in these studies.
Problematic areas in socio-scientific argumentation can be categorized into
student evaluation of evidence, NOS conceptualizations, and value-based reason-
ing. Recent studies have emphasized the importance of student values and consider-
Downloaded By: [Ohio State University Libraries] At: 10:23 10 August 2009

ation of different alternatives for a quality socio-scientific argumentation (Kolsto,

2006; Wu & Tsai, 2007; Zeidler, 2003). Use of a value-focused decision-making
framework, in which students can consider their values and examine different alter-
natives in the light of evidence, can be a remedy to aforementioned problems in
socio-scientific argumentation. Studies also show that students can be trapped into
reasoning fallacies in socio-scientific argumentation (Zeidler, 1997). Students’
reasoning fallacies may arise in socio-scientific issues because they may not be
aware of their use of heuristics. However, decision-making researchers have docu-
mented that the use of heuristics can be efficient in simple everyday situations but
can be deficient in contexts where complex decisions are necessary. Thus, heuristics
might be taught to students to make them aware of their reasoning strategies which
they use unconsciously in socio-scientific issues.
Research examining explicit instruction on argumentation has no consistent results
about students’ argumentation quality. By teaching heuristics and value-focused
decision-making framework to students, we propose that explicit socio-scientific
argumentation instruction may be more effective. Proposed implications may make
students see the connections between the decision-making used for personal issues
and the decision-making performed in socio-scientific issues which might impede
their ignorance to reason in ill-defined problems.

References
AAAS (American Association for the advancement of Science). (1989). Science for all Americans.
Washington, DC: AAAS.
Arvai, J., Campbell, V. E. A., Baird, A., & Rivers, L. (2004). Teaching students to make better
decisions about the environment: Lessons from the decision sciences. Journal of Environmental
Education, 36(1), 33–42.
Arvai, J., Gregory, R., & McDaniels, T. (2001). Testing a structured decision making approach:
Value-focused thinking for deliberative risk communication. Risk Analysis, 21(6), 1065–1076.
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understanding of the nature of science and decision
making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A
theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research,
63(1), 1–49.
 Socio-scientific Argumentation and Decision-making 15

Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgment
of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1–17.
Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, Part 1: Social cognition. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 677–687.
Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, Part II: Nonsocial cognition.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689–698.
Giere, R. N. (1984). Understanding scientific reasoning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gregory, R. (2000). Smarter environmental decisions. Environment, 42(5), 35–44.
Gregory, R., Arvai, J., & McDaniels, T. (2001). Value focused thinking for environmental risk
consultations. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 9, 249–273.
Gregory, R., Flynn, J., & Slovic, P. (1995). Technological stigma. American Scientist, 83, 220–223.
Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental manage-
ment decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341–368.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or
Downloaded By: [Ohio State University Libraries] At: 10:23 10 August 2009

“doing science:” Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining
performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education,
20(7), 849–871.
Klaczynski, P. A. (2000). Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory
polarization: A two-process approach to adolescent cognition. Child Development, 71(5),
1347–1366.
Klaczynski, P. A. (2001). Analytic and heuristic processing influences on adolescent reasoning and
decision making. Child Development, 72(3), 844–861.
Kolsto, S. D. (2001). “To trust or not to trust, …:” Pupils ways of judging information encoun-
tered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877–901.
Kolsto, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-
scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689–1716.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking.
Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.
Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross-domain development of scientific
reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 9(4), 285–327.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Mann, L., Harmoni, R., Power, C., Beswick, G., & Ormond, C. (1988). Effectiveness of GOFER
course in decision making for high school students. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1,
159–168.
McDaniels, T. L., Gregory, R. S., & Fields, D. (1999). Democratizing risk management: Successful
public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Analysis, 19, 491–504.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific
explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
15(2), 153–191.
NRC (National Research Council). (1996). The national science education standards. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
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.
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making
on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education,
21, 745–754.
Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.
 16 O. Acar et al.

Popper, K. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper & Row.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science
curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182.
Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1989). How scientists really think. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine,
32(4), 472–488.
Ross, J. A. (1981). Improving adolescent decision-making skills. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(3), 279–295.
Rottenstreich, Y., & Hsee, C. K. (2001). Money, kisses, and electric shocks: On the affective
psychology of risk. Psychological Science, 12(3), 185–190.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: A critical review of
research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature
of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26,
387–409.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific
Downloaded By: [Ohio State University Libraries] At: 10:23 10 August 2009

decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.

Simmons, M. L., & Zeidler, D. L. (2003). Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socio-
scientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and
discourse in science education (pp. 81–94). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280–285.
Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50(5), 364–371.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science,
211, 453–458.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.
Science, 211, 453–458.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction
fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293–315.
Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through
scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387–1410.
Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students’ discussions in practical scientific
inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 23(1), 25–45.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific
issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9),
1163–1187.
Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education,
81, 483–496.
Zeidler, D. L. (Ed.). (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science
education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument
during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning
on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 81–94). 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., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through
dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.

View publication stats