Epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of the construction of different types of arguments on socioscientific issues

Abstract

This study investigates whether university students’ epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge about controversial socioscientific issues (SSIs) can predict the different types of arguments that students construct. Two hundred forty‐three university students were asked to construct different types of supportive arguments—social, ethical, economic, scientific, ecological—as well as counterarguments and rebuttals after they had read a scenario on a SSI. Participants’ epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge were assessed separately. Results showed that students’ epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge predicted the quantity, quality, and diversity of the different types of arguments the students constructed. In particular, students who held sophisticated epistemic beliefs about the structure of knowledge and exhibited relatively more robust prior knowledge scores, produced arguments of greater quantity, better quality, and higher diversity than students with less sophisticated epistemic beliefs and low prior knowledge scores. Educational implications are discussed.

Examining my-side bias during and after reading controversial historical accounts

“…This finding provides further support to theories which support that epistemic beliefs support reasoning (Kuhn, 1991;Iordanou 2016b) and particularly the reconciliation of contradictory exploratory accounts about complex issues (Kuhn 2019). Our finding, highlighting the role of epistemic beliefs in writing two-sided reports, is consistent with previous empirical findings (Mason and Scirica 2006;Baytelman et al 2020;Iordanou 2016b). Yet, the present study extends the literature by showing firstly that advanced epistemic beliefs are related with two-sided thinking not only in the context of neutral, usually scientific issues, but also in an emotionally-charged controversial historical issue, where individuals are more likely to exhibit biases.…”

Integración del conocimiento científico y de la capacidad argumentativa en tomas de decisión sobre temas sociocientíficos

“…Así, en algunos casos, como en la TD Personal y algunos de la TD Social se observa que, a mayor categoría en la expresión del modelo, mejor argumentación en todos los criterios, lo que estaría en consonancia por lo hallado por Baytelman et al (2020) respecto al conocimiento previo. De todas formas, hay que reconocer que resulta inexplicable la actuación de los y las estudiantes de la categoría más alta, M4, en la Fase 4.…”

‘I wouldn’t want to be the animal in use nor the patient in need’ – the role of issue familiarity in students’ socioscientific argumentation

“…particular science-related topic that is debated; Zeidler et al, 2019). However, the relationship between the particular issue and students' argumentation is still a matter under discussion (Baytelman et al, 2020;Osborne et al, 2016;Topcu et al, 2010).…”

“…Lee et al, 2006;Pedersen & Totten, 2001), a suitable issue should preferably engage students in argumentation without requiring too much prior familiarity. In contrast to this practical demand, Baytelman et al (2020) recently suggested that familiarity about the particular issue plays an important role in constructing arguments from multiple perspectives. These perspectives are often rooted in diverse disciplines.…”

“…Since SSI are inherently controversial, the ability to identify these multidisciplinary arguments seems crucial (Sadler et al, 2007). Even though Baytelman et al (2020) were able to explore this correlation due to their study's ex-post-facto-design, meaning that all data were collected in one session without an intermediate intervention, the causal effect of increased issue familiarity on multidisciplinary arguments remains unanswered.…”