Dawson Carson 2016

Research in Science & Technological Education
ISSN: 0263-5143 (Print) 1470-1138 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20
Using climate change scenarios to assess high

school students’ argumentation skills
Vaille Dawson & Katherine Carson
To cite this article: Vaille Dawson & Katherine Carson (2016): Using climate change scenarios
to assess high school students’ argumentation skills, Research in Science & Technological
Education, DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2016.1174932
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2016.1174932
Published online: 13 May 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 7
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=crst20
Download by: [Sistema Integrado de Bibliotecas USP] Date: 17 May 2016, At: 15:39
Research in Science & Technological Education, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2016.1174932
Using climate change scenarios to assess high school

students’ argumentation skills
Vaille Dawson and Katherine Carson
Faculty of Education, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia
Downloaded by [Sistema Integrado de Bibliotecas USP] at 15:39 17 May 2016
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Background: Many international science curriculum documents Received 19 June 2015
mandate that students should be able to participate in argument, Accepted 3 April 2016
debate and decision-making about contemporary science issues KEYWORDS
affecting society. Termed socioscientific issues, these topics provide Socioscientific issues;
students with opportunities to use their scientific knowledge to argumentation; climate
discuss, debate and defend their decisions and to evaluate the change
arguments of their peers.
Purpose: This study describes the development and trialling of
scenarios based on the socioscientific issue of climate change. The
scenarios required students to make and justify a decision and were
designed to assess students’ argumentation skills.
Sample: A sample of 162 Year 10 students from five schools in Perth,
Western Australia participated in this study.
Design and methods: Recent media articles were reviewed to identify
relevant contexts for scenarios related to climate change that could
be used to develop and assess students’ argumentation skills. In the
first phase, students trialled scenarios about wind farms and hydrogen
fuel buses using writing frames with scaffolding questions to generate
as many reasons as possible to justify their decision. The responses
were categorised into themes which were used to prepare a scoring
rubric. In the second phase, students generated written arguments
about the scenarios to support their decision. The arguments were
analysed using both the scoring rubric developed from the first phase
and Toulmin’s argumentation pattern of claim, data, backing, qualifier
and rebuttal.
Results: Students’ responses to the scaffolded questions were
categorised into themes of agriculture, economy, energy, environment,
human impact and ethical factors. The themes of economy and
the environment predominated with ethical justifications cited
infrequently. An analysis of the arguments generated revealed a
majority of students’ responses consisted of a claim and data with
backings, qualifiers and rebuttals rarely provided.
Conclusions: Scenarios about climate change socioscientific issues
can be used by teachers to both develop and assess students’
argumentation skills in classroom settings.
CONTACT Vaille Dawson Vaille.dawson@uwa.edu.au

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 V. Dawson and K. Carson
Introduction
The current generation of young people will face a number of complex global issues that
will require international collaboration. According to the United Nations Millenium Project’s
global futures research (Glenn, Gordon, and Florescu 2014, 15), three of the most important
issues facing humanity in the twenty-first century are ‘sustainable development and climate
change, clean water, and population and resources’. It is therefore imperative that school
science education provides students with opportunities to develop the necessary skills,
understandings and values to be able to address these complex issues.
Students need skills of argumentation and socioscientific reasoning about socioscientific
issues to make informed evidence-based decisions that take account of the complexity of
issues, accuracy and tentative nature of evidence and the views of multiple stakeholders
(Sadler, Barab, and Scott 2007). Yet, some teachers are reluctant to teach argumentation
about socioscientific issues, in part, because of a lack of suitable resources and difficulties
in assessing and discriminating the quality of their students’ arguments (Nielson 2012). One
way of developing students’ abilities to grapple with complex issues is for them to practise
decision-making in their science classes. In doing so, students can use their scientific knowl-
edge to discuss and debate their views about real-life situations. To do this, teachers need
age-appropriate curriculum resources that are relevant and can engage students in debate
and argument.
In reviewing the literature, it seemed that much of the research on socioscientific issues
and argumentation with middle school students focusses on genetics and reproductive
technology contexts with only a few studies (e.g. Bravo-Torija and Jimenez-Aleixandre 2012)
focussing on climate change issues and argumentation. This may be because genetics has
been taught in schools for many decades and issues are considered personally relevant to
students. However, given the global significance of climate change, it was considered an
appropriate context for this study. The research presented in this paper aims to address the
perceived difficulties associated with both teaching and assessing argumentation about
socioscientific issues in science classrooms. The aim of this study was to trial scenarios about
the socioscientific issue of climate change with Year 10 (15–16-year-old) students in Perth,
Western Australia to determine whether they could be used by teachers to both develop
and assess students’ abilities to construct an argument.
Theoretical framework
Scientific literacy
The term, scientific literacy, encapsulates the desired outcomes of school science education
(Fensham 2014; Hodson 2013; Laugksch 2000; Roberts 2007; Shen 1975). Scientific literacy,
in contrast to specialist scientific training for a science career, is an appreciation of the nature,
practice and limitations of science, along with sufficient knowledge of science content to
be able to make informed evidence-based personal decisions and contribute to community
decision-making about scientific issues. These scientific issues may relate to personal or
individual decisions such as vaccinations, use of mobile phones and eating of genetically
modified foods or societal issues such as population growth, global climate change and land
clearing. It is acknowledged that personal decisions may also impact on the communities
that individuals are part of. For example, an individual’s decision not to vaccinate their child
Research in Science & Technological Education 3
against whooping cough may increase the susceptibility of their local community to an
outbreak of the disease.
There are many intertwined elements of scientific literacy that are considered important
outcomes of science education and have been the focus of educational research in recent
years. These include science inquiry (Lederman and Lederman 2012), nature of science (Abd-
El-Khalick and Lederman 2000; Kolstø 2001), socioscientific issues (Hodson 2013; Sadler
2009), argumentation (Newton, Driver, and Osborne 1999; Duschl and Osborne 2002), crit-
ical-thinking skills (Ennis 1985), higher order thinking skills (Zohar 2013) and values and
ethical issues (Reiss 2008). This paper focusses on two elements of scientific literacy: socio-
scientific issues and argumentation (Venville and Dawson 2010).
Socioscientific issues
Socioscientific issues (SSIs) are topics that have a scientific basis and are important, or of
concern, to human society (Sadler and Dawson 2012). SSIs are controversial with a range of
views expressed by individuals. They are often debated in public media outlets with scientific
perspectives and evidence, sometimes in equal competition with non-scientific perspectives
and evidence. Often the underpinning science is multidisciplinary, complex, emerging and
contested. SSIs may have ethical, social, economic, legal, political or religious dimensions.
In making decisions about SSIs, individuals may need to consider more than scientific
evidence. They may need to look at ethical, economic or societal impacts. Individuals may
need to: weigh up risks and benefits; cope with competing demands; consider the rights of
multiple stakeholders; use ethical principles; and compromise in order to choose from a
range of choices and make a decision. The views of an individual or community group may
change as new evidence (scientific and non-scientific) emerges.
Engaging with SSIs in school science can provide students with the opportunity to
develop several aspects of scientific literacy, including an understanding of the nature of
science (Khishe and Lederman 2006), decision-making skills (Patronis, Potari, and
Spiliotopoulou 1999; Saunders and Rennie 2013), informal reasoning skills (Sadler and Zeidler
2005), media literacy (Hodson 2013) and an understanding of the role of risk and uncertainty
in decision-making (Christensen 2009). Importantly, SSIs can be stimulating and engaging
and increase students’ motivation and interest in school science by showing ‘real life’ science
(Bulte et al. 2006). Students can also practise discussion and decision-making in a safe envi-
ronment and develop their argumentation skills (von Aufschnaiter et al. 2008; Grace 2009).
Finally, engaging with SSIs has been shown to improve students’ conceptual understanding
of science (Dori, Tal, and Tsaushu 2003; Dori, Tal, and Tsaushu 2003; Zohar and Nemet 2002).
Argumentation
Put simply, an argument is an assertion with supporting information or, alternatively, a claim
with reasons to support the claim. The British philosopher Stephen Toulmin (1958) was highly
influential in providing a structural framework that could be used both to analyse arguments
and to develop skills in generating arguments. The parts of Toulmin’s model included a claim
(assertion), data (relevant evidence), warrant (linking of claim and data), backing (underlying
theory or assumptions to support warrants), qualifier (conditions under which claim is sup-
ported) and rebuttals (conditions where the claim is not supported).
Almost 15 years ago, several researchers (Duschl and Osborne 2002; Jiménez-Aleixandre,
Rodriguez, and Duschl 2000; Newton, Driver, and Osborne 1999) presented a compelling case
to support the introduction of argumentation as an essential skill for school science education.
They proposed that the process of argumentation through the construction of arguments is
a central tenet of the practice of science. That is, scientific knowledge is socially constructed
through critique, replication and evaluation. Arguments to explain scientific phenomena are
generated and made public for examination through the process of peer review.
Given the importance of argumentation in constructing and justifying science knowledge,
these researchers called for argumentation to be taught in school science. Osborne, Erduran,
and Simon (2004) developed and implemented the professional learning programme and
curriculum resource, Ideas, evidence and argument in science, to support the introduction of
argumentation in school science in the UK. The resource provided teachers with activities
to support the development of students’ argumentation about scientific topics and SSIs.
Despite a strong rationale for introducing argumentation and the availability of resources,
uptake by science teachers internationally has been piecemeal. This is partly because school
science education is still seen by many people as the transfer of canonical knowledge from
teacher to student. Even where teachers are willing to teach argumentation skills, there are
concerns about how to teach and assess them (Nielsen 2012).
Another issue is that assessment of the quality of an argument has proved to be prob-
lematic with different authors using a variety of approaches to address the issue (Erduran
2008; Sampson and Clarke 2008). When using Toulmin’s framework, it can be difficult to
separate data from warrants and warrants from backings. As a result, some classification
systems collapse them (e.g. Zohar and Nemet 2002). A further weakness of examining the
argument structure alone is that the content of the components may be incorrect or irrele-
vant. Methods of differentiating the quality of arguments include: using levels to ascribe the
degree of Toulmin’s components present (e.g. Cetin 2014; Erduran, Simon, and Osborne
2004; Simon and Amos 2011); examining informal reasoning types (e.g. Sadler and Zeidler
2005); analysis of the content (e.g. Christenson, Rundgren, and Zeidler 2014; Zohar and
Nemet 2002); use of learning progressions (e.g. Berland and McNeill 2010); and analysis of
the complexity of justifications or grounds (e.g. Sadler and Fowler 2006).
In our previous research, we used two complementary methods to classify students’ written
arguments. Levels, similar to those of Erduran et al. (2004), and informal reasoning types of
rational, emotive and intuitive (Sadler and Zeidler 2005), were used concurrently to evaluate
the quality of students’ arguments (Venville and Dawson 2010). In that study, we recognised
the weakness of using Toulmin’s framework alone to evaluate the quality of arguments.
Nevertheless, the advantage of Toulmin’s framework is that it is not context-specific and can
be used to teach school students the components of a quality argument. We also found that
rational arguments were associated with the use of backings and qualifiers.
Argumentation about SSIs form part of many national curriculum documents, although
the term may not be used. For example, the Australian Curriculum in science (Australian
Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA] 2015) has a Strand called Science
as a Human Endeavour described as:
This strand highlights the development of science as a unique way of knowing and doing, and
the role of science in contemporary decision making and problem solving. It acknowledges that
in making decisions about science practices and applications, ethical and social implications
must be taken into account.
(ACARA 2015, 4)
The science syllabus for lower secondary students in Singapore (Curriculum Planning and
Development Division 2012, 5), within the domain of Science in daily life includes ‘making
informed decisions that are related to science and technology, e.g. consumption of GM food,
health choices’. In the English science curriculum (Department for Education 2013, 2), one
of the aims is that students ‘understand the uses and implications of science, today and for
the future’.
Climate change
The SSI that is the focus of this study is climate change. Climate change was chosen because
it is a topic of constant debate and dissent in the media and politics with a powerful lobby
group of sceptics denying the existence of global warming or an association between
increased human use of fossil fuels, increased atmospheric greenhouse gases and increased
global temperature. In Australia, where this study was conducted, the average increase in
temperature in the past 100 years is higher than the global increase and there is reduced
rainfall in the southern regions (Bureau of Meteorology and Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation [CSIRO] 2014). The topic of climate change is of interest to
students (Dawson and Carson 2013) and the underlying science concepts (e.g. temperature,
atmosphere, electromagnetic radiation, gases and energy) form part of most high school
science courses.
The research question addressed in this study is:
Can SSI scenarios about climate change be developed and used to assess students’ argu-
mentation skills?
Method
This research employs a qualitative case study method (Merriam 2009) to examine the devel-
opment and use of scenarios based on climate change to develop and assess students’
argumentation skills. The research design reported here comprises two phases. In Phase 1,
climate change scenarios were developed and trialled with Year 10 students using writing
frames with scaffold questions in order to determine their suitability for students and develop
a scoring rubric based on categories. In Phase 2, Year 10 students responded to the scenarios
by providing written arguments without the writing frames. The arguments were assessed
using Toulmin’s argumentation pattern (Erduran et al. 2004) and the scoring rubric from
Phase 1.
Phase 1: development and trialling of climate change scenarios

The topics for the climate change scenarios were selected after examining local media reports
based on climate change over a six-month period. Additional criteria for the final selection
of topics were that they were relevant in an Australian context, familiar to students, topical,
important from an environmental or economic perspective, realistic (true) and the underlying
science was part of the Australian science curriculum. The scenarios also needed to have a
readily identifiable controversy that would elicit a range of positions and generate debate
and discussion amongst students. The topics selected were Hydrogen fuel buses (an alter-
native energy source to reduce greenhouse gas emissions), wind farms (an alternative energy
source to reduce use of fossil fuels) and waste to energy plants (burning rubbish as an
alternative energy source). The scenarios are described in Appendix 1.
The Wind farm scenario used local media information about an alternative energy com-
pany, Moonies Hill Energy, who were given permission to commence construction of a wind
farm in the Great Southern area of Western Australia. The project has generated considerable
opposition from local landowners and farmers because of possible adverse economic and
health effects. Students were asked to decide whether they would allow two wind turbines
to be built on their property if they were a local sheep and wheat farmer. The Hydrogen fuel
bus scenario is based on a three-year international study of nine cities (including Perth) that
trialled three Hydrogen fuel buses and compared them with regular diesel fuel buses.
Although the trial was considered a success by the government-owned bus service, the
government decided not to proceed beyond the trial because of higher costs. Students were
asked whether the government made the correct decision and to justify their claim. The
third scenario is based on waste to energy plants where more than 40 countries have adopted
the burning of rubbish to generate electricity as well as reduce landfill. Plans are in progress
to have a plant built in Western Australia.
Once the topics were selected, the scenarios were written so that the literacy demands
would enable the scenario to be understood by most Year 10 students. The scenarios were
brief (100–250 words), used simple language, were scientifically correct and presented suf-
ficient content to understand the issues. Students were asked to make a decision from the
perspective of a stakeholder (e.g. farmer). It was intended that students would draw on their
own knowledge about energy sources, climate change and the greenhouse effect rather
than merely reproduce information from the scenario.
In Phase 1, the students were asked to read the scenario and the question and make a
decision of ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘I don’t know’. Students then used writing frames with scaffold ques-
tions to generate as many reasons as possible. Questions included: ‘What are the possible
advantages of your decision?’; ‘What are the possible disadvantages of your decision?’; and
‘What would you say to someone who disagrees with you?’. Students had ample time and
space to record their answers. All responses were typed up and analysed using a grounded
theory approach to identify categories based on the content of the responses. All responses
were then analysed according to the categories.
Phase 2: evaluating quality of student arguments

In Phase 2, students individually read the scenario and the question and made a decision.
In contrast to Phase 1, there were no prompt questions and students responded to the
request to ‘write as many reasons as you can to support your decision’. Again, students had
ample time and space to record their answer. The students’ responses were typed up and
coded independently by two researchers using the categories from Phase 1 as a scoring
rubric. The argument structure of the responses was also assessed using Toulmin’s argumen-
tation pattern (Venville and Dawson 2010). The structure of the argument was assigned a
Level of 1–4, where Level 1 was a claim only; Level 2 was a claim and data/warrant; Level 3
was a claim, data/warrant, and backing or qualifier and Level 4 was a claim, data/warrant,
backing and qualifier or rebuttal. Based on our prior experience in coding written arguments
about socioscientific issues with Year 10 students, we did not separate data and warrant in
our coding scheme. The researchers achieved 90% agreement. Where there was
Table 1. Number of schools and students participating in each phase and scenario.
Number of students
Wind farm Hydrogen fuel bus
School Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2
A 23
B 44 48
C 30 27
D 33 33
E 28 28
Total 72 63 98 61
disagreement, the two researchers discussed to reach consensus. The most common point
of difference was between Level 2 and Level 3 where a backing statement was not explicitly
linked to data. After consultation, it was agreed to code conservatively. That is, the backing
needed to be explicitly linked to the data to be coded as a Level 3 argument.
Sample
After obtaining university and school sector ethics approval, 162 Year 10 (15 years old) stu-
dents from five schools participated in the study during 2014. Year 10 students were selected
because climate change and the greenhouse effect are part of the Earth and Space Sciences
content strand of the Australian Curriculum in science (ACARA 2015). The schools were
selected through purposive sampling for diversity in school type (independent (2), Catholic
(1) and government (2)), and socioeconomic status (high, medium and low). Table 1 sum-
marises the number of students from each school that participated in each phase of the
research. The scenarios completed by students is also presented. Although some students
participated in Phase 1 and Phase 2, no student completed the same scenario in both phases.
In Phase 1, a total of 72 students participated in the Wind farm scenario and 98 students
participated in the Hydrogen fuel bus scenario. In Phase 2, 63 students completed the Wind
farm scenario and 61 students completed the Hydrogen fuel bus scenario. In total, 135
students completed the Wind farm scenario and 159 students completed the Hydrogen fuel
bus scenario in Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Results
Prior to testing with students, the three scenarios were presented to five science teachers
who had previously attended a Professional Development workshop on using argumentation
to teach SSIs in the science classroom. These teachers provided feedback on the content
and terminology of the scenarios. Based on their feedback, slight text changes were made.
For example, in the Hydrogen fuel bus scenario, the abbreviation of carbon dioxide equiv-
alent was changed from CO2e to CO2 eq and a definition of the term was added. Teachers
were given the opportunity to select which scenario(s) they thought would be of most
interest to their students. Only one teacher agreed to use the Waste to energy plant scenario.
Although the students in that class discussed the scenario, few students wrote responses
that could be used to construct a scoring rubric. Thus, only the results of the Wind farm
scenario and the Hydrogen fuel bus scenario are presented here. One of the schools had
boarding facilities with rural students from South West farming communities who may be
affected by the proposed wind turbines. In Western Australia, many students travel on school
buses. Thus, the Hydrogen fuel bus scenario has relevance to students.
Wind farm scenario

In response to the question about whether two wind turbines should be built on a farmer’s
property, (for Phase 1 and Phase 2 combined) two-thirds (67%) of the 135 students responded
‘yes’, 13% responded ‘no’ and 18% stated ‘I don’t know’. Three students did not respond.
All of the Phase 1 responses were examined to develop a scoring rubric. Six separate
categories were identified. Then, responses from both Phase 1 and Phase 2 were coded. The
number of students citing each category to support their claims is summarised in Table 2 in
order of decreasing frequency. The most frequently cited categories related to agriculture,
environmental factors, energy and the economy. Despite the potential (although scientifi-
cally unproven) impact on health of noise, human factors were mentioned infrequently (less
than 25%). Ethical reasons were rarely offered. Students cited up to six different categories
with the majority of students citing two (36%) or three (31%) categories.
The most frequently cited category, regardless of claim, was agriculture, which is not
surprising given the context of building wind turbines on farming land used for crops and
sheep. Students cited both advantages and disadvantages. Agricultural reasons related to
impact on productive land area; the size and location of the turbine; impact on crop pro-
duction; effect on aerial spraying and fires; and impact on crops and livestock during the
building or maintenance of the turbines. Examples included, ‘There is more space for pro-
ductive farmland’ and ‘It will be harder to spray pesticides on their crops’. Agricultural reasons
predominated with ‘no’ and ‘I don’t know’ claims.
Environmental arguments were cited more frequently for ‘yes’ claims and included general
terms such as ‘eco-friendly’ and ‘environmentally friendly’ as well as specific reasons based
on: reductions in the use of fossil fuels with a resultant decrease on greenhouse gas emis-
sions; impact on climate change and the greenhouse effect; and impact on animals, livestock
and local birdlife. For example, ‘It would help decrease the amount of carbon dioxide emis-
sions which will lower the enhanced greenhouse effect, lowering global warming’. Responses
in the energy category were also more common for ‘yes’ responses and related to the use of
renewable sources of energy for electricity that are sustainable, clean and efficient. For exam-
ple, ‘Wind power is more sustainable than some of its alternatives’.
Economic reasons were cited for both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses and related to cost or profit
for farmers, free electricity or the negative impact of wind turbines affecting their property
or crop value. Human factors and ethical reasons, although occurring infrequently, were
Table 2. Categories used by students (n = 135) to justify claims about wind farm scenario.
Category Number of students (%) n = 135
Agriculture 100 (74)
Environmental 83 (62)
Energy 64 (47)
Economic 63 (47)
Human factors 31 (23)
Ethical 11 (8)
No response 9 (7)
Table 3. Wind farm argumentation levels and examples.

Argumentation Number of Example
Level responses (%)
1 5 (8) I don’t know (claim)
2 43 (68) Yes (claim). I would approach the Moonies Hill energy for 2 wind turbines
because it will avoid carbon dioxide, and produce a lot of power. The wind
turbines are also good as they only take up a very small amount of space (data)
(575)
3 13 (20) I don’t know (claim). I am not entirely sure because carbon dioxide is needed but
there is a possibility that there is too much (data). If the wind turbines are to
help minimise carbon dioxide but still have enough for the carbon cycle to
‘work’ then I may agree (qualifier) (615)
4 2 (4) Yes I would agree (claim). The wind turbines are an efficient and sustainable form
of generating energy (data). The energy which is gathered is clean (data) and
does not then impact on the environment (backing). Each wind turbine can
produce enough energy to support a substantial amount of houses energy

needs (data). While I agree and would allow them to put wind turbines on my
farm, I would specifically ask for them to place them away from my crops, so
that I will still be able to spray them without the chemical spreading (qualifier).
(579)
usually associated with a ‘yes’ claim. The reasons in the human factor category were often
negative, but seemed to be outweighed by environmental and agricultural reasons. Human
factors related to aesthetics, noise, health and safety. Many students stated that they were
‘ugly’. Ethical reasons included aspects of social justice and responsibility. For example:
‘Because I live in this world I want to help as much as possible’.
As stated in the method, the Phase 2 responses were analysed for argumentation levels
based on the presence of a claim, data, backings, qualifier or rebuttal. The number and
percentage of argumentation levels expressed by 63 students about the Wind farm scenario
is summarised in Table 3. An example of each level is provided. Two-thirds (68%) of the
students presented a Level 2 argument with one quarter (24%) presenting a Level 3 or Level
4 argument.
Hydrogen fuel bus scenario

In response to the question about whether the government made the correct decision in
ceasing to fund the use of Hydrogen fuel buses, just over half (52%) of the 159 students
stated ‘no’, with 22% stating ‘yes’ and 21%, ‘I don’t know’. Eight students (5%) did not respond.
The same coding scheme for categories was used as for the Wind farm scenario. However,
there were no responses categorised as agriculture or energy. The lack of responses coded
as ‘agriculture’ is understandable given the context. However, we were surprised that no
students mentioned a change or reduction in energy use. The number and percentage of
each category are listed in decreasing order of frequency in Table 4. The maximum number
of categories cited by students was four with more than half (55%) of the students providing
two reasons.
Economic reasons were most frequently cited, regardless of the claim, although the pro-
portion was highest with the ‘yes’ claim, with 94% of 36 students citing economic reasons
to cease the use of Hydrogen fuel buses. The types of economic reasons included cost to
the government and passengers and cost of maintenance. Other responses related to effi-
ciency, production and availability of the Hydrogen fuel-cell buses. For example, ‘If the price
Table 4. Categories used by students (n = 159) to justify claims about hydrogen fuel bus scenario.
Category Number of students (%) n = 159
Economic 123 (77)
Environmental 104 (65)
Human Factors 40 (25)
Ethical 21 (13)
Other 9 (6)
No response 13 (8)
of the buses increased dramatically then the price of a bus ticket would need to increase as
well’.
Environmental responses were more frequently cited by students whose claim was ‘no’.
Responses included considerations of the Hydrogen fuel-cell buses being ‘environmentally

friendly’ and ‘sustainable’. Other responses included reductions in greenhouse gases and
pollution. For example:
Not using ecobuses and using normal buses will keep increasing the amount of CO2 and may
increase the chance of global warming.
Human factors and ethical issues occurred predominantly with a ‘no’ response, with 20/21
of the ethical reasons associated with a ‘no’ response. Ethical responses included aspects of
social responsibility and ‘saving the world’. For example, ‘We only have one planet and we
need to protect it at all costs!’. Human factors related to the health effects of pollution, safety,
technological advances, government and public debate over the decision. For example, ‘It
is healthier not only for the planet but also for people riding or in the vicinity of a TransPerth
bus’.
As for the Wind farm scenario, the Phase 2 responses were analysed for argumentation
levels. The number and percentage of argumentation levels expressed by 61 students about
the Hydrogen fuel bus scenario is summarised in Table 5. An illustrative argument is provided
for Levels 1 and 2 and two arguments for Level 3 (one with a backing and one with a qualifier).
In contrast to the Wind farm scenario, more than (80%) of the students presented Level 2
arguments with no students presenting a Level 4 argument.
Table 5. Hydrogen fuel bus levels and examples.

Argumentation Number of responses
level and percentage (n = 61) Example
1 2 (3)
2 50 (82) No (claim). They had the opportunity to save 300MtCO2 from
escaping into the atmosphere (data).
- It was the ‘greener’ choice (data).
- It was effective as it travelled a long distance and carried many
passengers (data).
- Hydrogen is easily accessible (data) (562)
3 9 (15) Yes (claim). Despite saving a lot of energy, coming from a personal
perspective a lot of people will not pay a lot of money for a bus
ride (data), and therefore increasing the number of cars on the
road and increasing carbon emission (backing). (576)
No (claim). No amount of money is too much to save our planet
(data). The government could have only a few and still use some
regular diesel buses (qualifier). The bigger we use this technology
the more advanced we will become and less maintenance (data).
(pre 629)
4 0
Discussion
Developing students’ scientific literacy is a desired outcome of school science education.
The ability to make and justify decisions about controversial issues using rational, scientific
and coherent arguments is an important aspect of scientific literacy. In addition, sociosci-
entific issues, argumentation and decision-making appear explicitly in many international
curriculum documents. Yet, changes in teachers’ practice has been slow (Hodson 2013).
Some teachers have criticised or avoided the teaching of socioscientific issues in school
science because of perceived difficulties with teaching and assessment. Similarly, despite
the importance of argumentation skills, assessment or measurement of students’ argument
quality has proved problematic for teachers (Neilson 2012). Yet, if science education research-
ers want to bring about sustained classroom change, they have a role in providing teachers
with access to assessment items about socioscientific issues that are fair, simple, relevant
and discriminating.
The findings of this paper indicate that it is possible to develop scenarios that can be used
by teachers to discriminate the quality of their students’ argumentation skills. As outlined
in the literature review, science education researchers have used a range of methods to
evaluate students’ argumentation skills. However, many of these methods are only appro-
priate in research contexts, as the degree of analysis required would be unrealistic, difficult
and time-consuming for many teachers. Sampson and Clarke (2008) have recommended
that three criteria be considered in assessment of scientific argumentation. The criteria are
structure (Toulmin), content (science) and nature of the justification (coherence, logical rea-
soning). Our assessment structure comprises these three criteria. Sadler, Barab, and Scott
(2007) propose a theoretical framework for socioscientific reasoning which is the ideal type
of reasoning displayed by students making decisions about socioscientific issues. The criteria
they identify are scepticism about the data, understanding the complexity of issues, exam-
ining the issues from the perspective of multiple stakeholders and understanding that more
data may be needed. Our coding scheme is congruent with this framework.
Scenarios about climate change socioscientific issues can be used by teachers in various
ways. They can be used to provide students with opportunities to engage with socioscientific
issues as a class, small group or individually. Scenarios with probing questions (e.g. writing
frames) can be used to develop students’ argumentation skills through explicit scaffolding
to develop a quality argument comprising qualifiers, backings and rebuttals. The role of the
teacher in encouraging scepticism, questioning of evidence, perspective-taking and relevant
justifications is also important.
In this study, the aim was to develop and trial scenarios in a climate change context that
could be used by teachers to easily assess their students’ argumentation skills. In selecting
an appropriate scenario to trial, we chose topics that were authentic, relevant to students,
controversial, fitted with the existing science curriculum and were based on science. Three
scenarios were developed of which two (Wind farm and Hydrogen fuel bus) were selected
for use by science teachers to trial with their Year 10 students. Although the Waste to Energy
Plant scenario fulfilled the development criteria, the teachers, when given a choice chose
not to use it. Students’ argumentation skills were assessed using two methods. The students’
written arguments were coded into Levels (1 to 4) depending on the structural components
present (i.e. Claim, data/warrant, backing, qualifier and rebuttal). Arguments were also cat-
egorised into the types of reasons (e.g. environmental, economic).
We propose that scenarios of the type reported in this paper can be used by teachers to
assess their students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues. Brief scenarios that
require a decision (claim) and justifications can be easily and quickly scored using Toulmin’s
argumentation pattern and a predetermined rubric to add the number of types of reasons.
A higher quality answer would include backings, qualifier and rebuttals, types of reasons
that consider multiple and relevant perspectives (e.g. environment vs. agriculture) and sci-
entifically correct reasons.
It was found that, regardless of the scenario or claim, more than three quarters of the
socioscientific arguments were Level 2 (claim and data/warrant). There is insufficient
evidence to determine whether the argument level is due to the scenario or students’
reasoning ability. The arguments were generated without questions to prompt backings,
qualifiers and rebuttals. We deliberately trialled the scenarios with students who had
not been explicitly taught argumentation to determine if they were able to generate an
argument that could be scored. The findings are similar to our previous work in a genetics
context (Venville and Dawson 2010). It is hoped that students’ argumentation structure
would improve after explicit instruction as we have previously shown. Teachers could
use one scenario as a diagnostic test to generate interest and determine students’ pre-ex-
isting skills and the second scenario as a summative assessment following instruction.
We acknowledge that with this sample of students, no Level 4 arguments were generated
for the Hydrogen fuel bus scenario. This is not surprising given that students have not
been taught about backings, qualifiers and rebuttals. Given that nine of the students
could provide a backing OR a qualifier, it is likely that after instruction, students could
provide a Level 4 argument.
Note that unlike scientific arguments, the purpose of the assessment was not to elicit a
particular claim that is correct or incorrect. Indeed, it is the controversial nature of the sce-
nario that makes it a socioscientific issue that will generate alternative claims. It is the written
evidence provided by students to support their claim that is assessed. Nor is a particular
type of reason valued over another (e.g. economic vs. environmental). Although teachers
may have their own personal perspectives about the value of types of reasons (perhaps
favouring environmental reasons over economic reasons, or ethical over human aesthetic
reasons), it is desirable that students consider multiple and relevant perspectives (Sadler,
Barab, and Scott 2007).
The next stages of this research study involve a larger more diverse sample of students
with teachers using the scoring rubric and Toulmin’s argument structure to score their stu-
dents’ arguments. In addition, the scenarios will be used before and after explicit instruction
on argumentation to determine whether any changes can be measured.
Conclusion
In conclusion, carefully designed scenarios can be used by teachers in science classrooms,
not only to engage students in debate about socioscientific issues, but to readily assess their
students’ argumentation skills. Climate change scenarios can be used to assess students’
argumentation skills in traditional pen and paper tests alongside test items to assess scientific
understanding.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported under Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme
(project number 130103035). The authors would also like to thank participating students and their
teachers.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., and N. G. Lederman. 2000. “Improving Science Teachers’ Conceptions of Nature of
Science: A Critical Review of the Literature.” International Journal of Science Education 22 (7): 665–701.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. 2015. Australian Curriculum:
Science. Version 7.3. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/science/curriculum/f-10?layout=1
Berland, L. K., and K. L. McNeill. 2010. “A Learning Progression for Scientific Argumentation:
Understanding Student Work and Designing Supportive Instructional Contexts.” Science Education
94 (5): 765–793.
Bravo-Torija, B., and M. Jimenez-Aleixandre. 2012. “Progression in Complexity: Conceptualising
Sustainable Marine Resources Management in a 10th Grade Classroom.” Research in Science Education
42 (5): 5–23.
Bulte, A. M. W., H. B. Westbroek, O. de Jong, and A. Pilot. 2006. “A Research Approach to Designing
Chemistry Education Using Authentic Practices as Contexts.” International Journal of Science Education
28 (9): 1063–1086.
Bureau of Meteorology and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [CSIRO].
2014. State of the Climate: 2014. http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/documents/state-of-
the-climate-2014_low-res.pdf?ref=button
Cetin, P. 2014. “Explicit Argumentation Instruction to Facilitate Conceptual Understanding and
Argumentation Skills.” Research in Science & Technological Education 32 (1): 1–20.
Christensen, C. 2009. “Risk and School Science Education.” Studies in Science Education 45 (2): 205–223.
Christenson, N., S. N. C. Rundgren, and D. L. Zeidler. 2014. “The Relationship of Discipline Background to
Upper Secondary Students’ Argumentation on Socioscientific Issues.” Research in Science Education
44 (4): 581–601.
Curriculum Planning and Development Division. 2012. Science Syllabus: Lower Secondary. http://www.
moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/sciences/files/science-lower-secondary-2013.pdf
Dawson, V., and K. Carson. 2013. “Australian Secondary School Students’ Understanding of Climate
Change.” Teaching Science 59 (3): 9–14.
Department for Education. 2013. Science Programmes of Study: Key Stage 3, National Curriculum in
England. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335174/
SECONDARY_national_curriculum_-_Science_220714.pdf
Dori, Y. J., R. Tal, and M. Tsaushu. 2003. “Teaching Biotechnology through Case Studies?Can We Improve
Higher Order Thinking Skills of Nonscience Majors?.” Science Education 87 (6): 767–793.
Driver, R., P. Newton, and J. Osborne. 2000. “Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in
Classrooms.” Science Education 84 (3): 287–312.
Duschl, R. A., and J. Osborne. 2002. “Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science
Education.” Studies in Science Education 38 (1): 39–72.
Ennis, R. H. 1985. “A Logical Basis for Measuring Critical Thinking Skills.” Educational Leadership 43 (2):
44–48.
Erduran, S. 2008. “Methodological Foundations in the Study of Argumentation in Science Classrooms.”
In Argumentation in Science Education, edited by S. Erduran, and M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre, 47–69.
Netherlands: Springer.
Erduran, S., S. Simon, and J. Osborne. 2004. “TAPping into Argumentation: Developments in the
Application of Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern for Studying Science Discourse.” Science Education
88 (6): 915–933.
Fensham, P. J. 2014. “Scepticism and Trust: Two Counterpoint Essentials in Science Education for
Complex Socio-Scientific Issues.” Cultural Studies of Science Education 9 (3): 649–661.
Glenn, J. C., T. J. Gordon, and E. Florescu. 2014. State of the Future. Washington: The Millennium Project.
Grace, M. 2009. “Developing High Quality Decision-Making Discussions about Biological Conservation
in a Normal Classroom Setting.” International Journal of Science Education 31 (4): 551–570.
Hodson, D. 2013. “Don't Be Nervous, Don't Be Flustered, Don't Be Scared. Be Prepared.” Canadian Journal
of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 13 (4): 313–331.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., A. B. Rodriguez, and R. A. Duschl. 2000. ““Doing the Lesson” or “Doing Science”:
Argument in High School Genetics.” Science Education 84: 757–792.
Khishe, R., and N. G. Lederman. 2006. “Teaching Nature of Science within a Controversial Topic:
Integrated versus Non-Integrated.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 43 (4): 395–418.
Kolstø, S. D. 2001. “Scientific Literacy for Citizenship: Tools for Dealing with the Science Dimension of
Controversial Socioscientific Issues.” Science Education 85 (3): 291–310.
Laugksch, R. C. 2000. “Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual Overview.” Science Education 84 (1): 71–94.
Lederman, N. G., and J. S. Lederman. 2012. “Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry:
Building Instructional Capacity through Professional Development.” In Second International Handbook
of Science Education, edited by B. Fraser, K. Tobin, and C. McRobbie, 335–359. Netherlands: Springer.
Merriam, S. B., 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
Newton, P., R. Driver, and J. Osborne. 1999. “The Place of Argumentation in the Pedagogy of School
Science.” International Journal of Science Education 21 (5): 553–576.
Nielsen, J. A. 2012. “Science in Discussions: An Analysis of the Use of Science Content in Socioscientific
Discussions.” Science Education 96 (3): 428–456.
Osborne, J., S. Erduran, and S. Simon. 2004. Ideas, Evidence & Argument in Science: In-Service Training
Pack. London: King’s College.
Patronis, T., D. Potari, and V. Spiliotopoulou. 1999. “Students' Argumentation in Decision-Making on
a Socio-Scientific Issue: Implications for Teaching.” International Journal of Science Education 21 (7):
745–754.
Reiss, M. 2008. “The Use of Ethical Frameworks by Students following a New Science Course for 16–
18 Year-Olds.” Science & Education 17 (8–9): 889–902.
Roberts, D. A. 2007. “Scientific Literacy/Science Literacy.” In Handbook of Research on Science Education,
edited by S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman, 729–780. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum.
Sadler, T. D. 2009. “Situated Learning in Science Education: Socio-Scientific Issues as Contexts for
Practice.” Studies in Science Education 45 (1): 1–42.
Sadler, T. D., and V. Dawson. 2012. “Socio-scientific Issues in Science Education: Contexts for the
Promotion of Key Learning Outcomes.” In Second international handbook of science education, edited
by B. Fraser, K. Tobin and C. McRobbie, 799–809. Netherlands: Springer.
Sadler, T. D., and S. R. Fowler. 2006. “A Threshold Model of Content Knowledge Transfer for Socioscientific
Argumentation.” Science Education 90 (6): 986–1004.
Sadler, T. D., and D. L. Zeidler. 2005. “Patterns of Informal Reasoning in the Context of Socioscientific
Decision Making.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42 (1): 112–138.
Sadler, T. D., T. Barab, and B. Scott. 2007. “What Do Students Gain by Engaging in Socioscientific Inquiry?”
Research in Science Education 37: 371–391.
Sampson, V., and D. Clarke. 2008. “Assessment of the Ways Students Generate Arguments in Science
Education: Current Perspectives and Recommendations for Future Directions.” Science Education
92 (3): 447–472.
Saunders, K. J., and L. J. Rennie. 2013. “A Pedagogical Model for Ethical Inquiry into Socioscientific Issues
in Science.” Research in Science Education 43 (1): 253–274.
Shen, B. S. 1975. “Science Literacy and the Public Understanding of Science.” In Communication of
Scientific Information, edited by S. B. Day, 44–52. Basel: Karger.
Simon, S., and R. Amos. 2011. “Decision Making and Use of Evidence in a Socio-Scientific Problem on
Air Quality.” In Socio-Scientific Issues in the Classroom, edited by T. D. Sadler, 167–192. Netherlands:
Springer.
Toulmin, S. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Venville, G., and V. Dawson. 2010. “The Impact of a Classroom Intervention on Grade 10 Students’
Argumentation Skills, Informal Reasoning and Conceptual Understanding of Science.” Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 47 (8): 952–977.
von Aufschnaiter, C., S. Erduran, J. Osborne, and S. Simon. 2008. “Arguing to Learn and Learning to
Argue: Case Studies of How Students’ Argumentation Relates to Their Scientific Knowledge.” Journal
of Research in Science Teaching 45 (1): 101–131.
Zohar, A. 2013. “Challenges in Wide Scale Implementation Efforts to Foster Higher Order Thinking
(HOT) in Science Education across a Whole School System.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 10: 233–249.
Zohar, A., and F. Nemet. 2002. “Fostering Students’ Knowledge and Argumentation Skills through
Dilemmas in Human Genetics.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39: 35–62.
Appendix 1. Climate change scenarios

Wind farm
A WA company called Moonies Hill Energy has proposed to build WA’s largest wind farm of 74 wind
turbines near the town of Kojonup. This wind farm can produce enough electricity to power 90,000
homes. It will avoid up to 451,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2 eq) each year. The wind
turbines will only be built on land where farmers agree to their construction. When built the turbines
will occupy less than 1% of productive farmland.
In July 2013, the government gave the wind farm the go-ahead, which means they are allowed to begin
building the wind farm. Local farmers are angry with this decision. They say the 146 m wind turbines
will prevent them from aerially spraying their crops with either fertiliser or pesticide. They also believe
it will decrease the value of their property.
If you were a wheat and sheep farmer in Kojonup, and were approached by Moonies Hill Energy to
have two wind turbines built on your property would you agree?
Hydrogen fuel bus
Between 2004 and 2007, Transperth trialled three EcoBuses in Perth which ran on hydrogen fuel cells
as their fuel source. The benefit of using a hydrogen fuel cell is that the only waste emissions produced
are water and heat. At the conclusion of the trial, the three buses had travelled 258,000 km and carried
over 320,000 passengers. 300 tCO2 eq were saved by not using regular diesel buses. Although the trial
was deemed a success by Transperth, the WA government has decided not to proceed any further
with the EcoBuses, claiming the cost to maintain each bus was too high a price to pay compared to
a regular bus.
Do you think the WA government made the right decision?
Waste to to-energy plants
When considering household waste (rubbish) local governments promote the 4Rs – Reduce, Reuse,
Recycle and Recovery. The fourth R, Recovery, means converting what is non-recyclable into resources
(e.g. electricity, heat, compost and fuel). A common global process is to burn rubbish to make elec-
tricity and this occurs in over 40 countries worldwide. Oslo, Norway burns so much rubbish to make
electricity and heat for homes that they have to import rubbish from neighbouring countries. But is
this an environmentally sound process?
Industrial plants which carry out this process are called ‘Waste to Energy’ plants and they burn the
rubbish at approximately 2000°C. This is as hot as the lava from a volcano! At this temperature the
water turns into steam which runs turbines to produce electricity. Gases and ashes are also produced
in the process. The gases are run through a series of filters to remove toxic metals and acids, leaving
only carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour. The ash left over, is turned into bricks, which are used as
landfill (buried underground).
Opponents of Waste to Energy plants criticise possible toxic emissions from burning the rubbish lead-
ing to both public health and environmental concerns. Also they believe this process does nothing
to reduce the amount of waste produced by the population and discourages people from recycling.
The first Waste to Energy plant to be built in Australia is being planned for Port Hedland, with another
one planned for Kwinana. The plant in Kwinana expects to produce enough electricity to provide power
to between 55,000 and 127,000 homes, as well as disposing of 300,000 tonnes of rubbish.
If you were the mayor, would you allow a Waste to Energy plant to be built in your Council area?

Dawson Carson 2016

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Dawson Carson 2016

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Research in Science & Technological Education

ISSN: 0263-5143 (Print) 1470-1138 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20

Using climate change scenarios to assess high

Vaille Dawson & Katherine Carson

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2016.1174932

Published online: 13 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Using climate change scenarios to assess high school

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Vaille Dawson Vaille.dawson@uwa.edu.au

Phase 1: development and trialling of climate change scenarios

Phase 2: evaluating quality of student arguments

Wind farm scenario

Table 3. Wind farm argumentation levels and examples.

produce enough energy to support a substantial amount of houses energy

Hydrogen fuel bus scenario

Responses included considerations of the Hydrogen fuel-cell buses being ‘environmentally

Table 5. Hydrogen fuel bus levels and examples.

Appendix 1. Climate change scenarios

Você também pode gostar