Potential of Group-Based Negotiation to Promote Learner-Based Reasoning and Weighting of Arguments on Socioscientific Issues

Abstract

This study analyzes the potential of group-based negotiation processes based on changes in reasoning and argument weighting for a socioscientific issue (SSI) in biology classes. In the corresponding pre- and post-study, students were encouraged to reason and weight arguments about the conservation of local biodiversity before and after a group-based negotiation. For this purpose, the students employed a target-mat structuring tool for compensatory reasoning and weighting in both the individual pre- and post-phases and the group phase. To identify changes in reasoning after group-based negotiation, the use of argumentative resources, i.e., fact-based and normative resources, was assessed. When the students added confirming reasons for arguments, they were more likely to use fact-based resources. When refuting the initial reasoning, the students tended to add normative resources. Furthermore, individual changes in weightings and their relationship to the group weighting were calculated. This analysis revealed that the students changed their weightings toward the group weighting. The results are discussed in terms of the potential of negotiations to cause students to revise and rethink their reasoning and weighting in addressing SSIs and the particular potential of the target-mat instructional tool for structured decision-making.

Socio-scientific Issues (SSI) research trends: A systematic literature review of publications 2011 – 2022

“…It has been found that increased issue familiarity with SSI topics can enhance the diversity of discipline-related arguments among school students (Garrecht et al, 2021). The implementation of group-based discussions has been shown to stimulate students' argumentation, with shifts in their perspectives observed following group-based negotiation (Jafari & Meisert, 2022). Studies have evaluated SSI argumentation in a persuasive manner, encompassing the assessment of argumentative structures such as 'elements of argument', 'content of argument', 'rhetoric of argument', 'characteristics of arguer', and 'argumentative relationship with SSI' (Capkinoglu et al, 2021).…”

“…A number of popular SSI topics related to argumentation included multidisciplinary argumentation (Garrecht et al, 2021), measurement of argumentation quality related to local socioscientific issues (Capkinoglu et al, 2020), pedagogical content knowledge in teacher SSI argumentation (Kutluca, 2021), the relationship between students' disciplinary backgrounds and their SSI argumentation (Christenson et al, 2014), developing prospective teachers' competences in assessing SSI argumentation (Christenson & Walan, 2022), the relationship between the nature of science and scientific argumentation (Khishfe, 2022), argumentation and reasoning in group negotiations in the SSI context (Jafari & Meisert, 2022) as well as studies on the combination of debate and reflection activity in developing student argumentation (Bächtold & Pallarès, 2022).…”

“…Several new topics in 2020 included SSI-based exhibitions with characteristics of critical reflection, contextualised information, and opinion sharing (Yun et al, 2022), compensatory weighting as the preferred strategy for decisions in SSIs, the cartography of controversy approach was used to analyse the complexity controversy over SSI (Jafari & Meisert, 2022) as well as studies on the effect of SSIs on self-efficacy of science teaching (Kinskey & Callahan, 2021). Cartography of Controversy (CoC) approach in enabling students to understand and communicate about socioscientific issues.…”

“…Table 5 shows that countries in the European continent featured the most, followed by Asia. Studies conducted in Europe reveal that the topic of SSI argumentation has garnered significant attention, maintaining its popularity even in 2022 (Bächtold & Pallarès, 2022;Jafari & Meisert, 2022;Christenson & Walan, 2022). This emphasis on argumentation remains prominent, particularly concerning middle and high school students as well as pre-service teachers.…”