Assignment Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Argumentation,-Critical-Thinking,-Natur

1. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsed20
International Journal of Science Education
ISSN: 0950-0693 (Print) 1464-5289 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
Argumentation, critical thinking, nature of science
and socioscientific issues: a dialogue between two
researchers
Hagop A. Yacoubian & Rola Khishfe
To cite this article: Hagop A. Yacoubian & Rola Khishfe (2018): Argumentation, critical thinking,
nature of science and socioscientific issues: a dialogue between two researchers, International
Journal of Science Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2018.1449986
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1449986
Published online: 20 Mar 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

2. Argumentation, critical thinking, nature of science and
socioscientific issues: a dialogue between two researchers
Hagop A. Yacoubian a
and Rola Khishfeb
a
Education Department, Haigazian University, Beirut, Lebanon; b
Education Department, American University
of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast between two
theoretical frameworks for addressing nature of science (NOS) and
socioscientific issues (SSI) in school science. These frameworks are
critical thinking (CT) and argumentation (AR). For the past years,
the first and second authors of this paper have pursued research in
this area using CT and AR as theoretical frameworks, respectively.
Yacoubian argues that future citizens need to develop a critical
mindset as they are guided to (1) practice making judgments on
what views of NOS to acquire and (2) practice making decisions on
SSI through applying their NOS understandings. Khishfe asserts
that AR is an important component of decision making when
dealing with SSI and the practice in AR in relation to controversial
issues is needed for informed decision making. She argues that AR
as a framework may assist in the development of more informed
understandings of NOS. In this paper, the authors delve into a
dialogue for (1) elucidating strengths and potential of each
framework, (2) highlighting challenges that they face in their
research using the frameworks in question, (3) exploring the
extent to which the frameworks can overlap, and (4) proposing
directions for future research.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 10 March 2017
Accepted 5 March 2018
KEYWORDS
Argumentation; critical
thinking; dialogue; nature of
science; socioscientific issues
Introduction and background
The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast between two theoretical frameworks
for addressing nature of science (NOS) and socioscientific issues (SSI) in school science.
These frameworks are critical thinking (CT) and argumentation (AR). For the past
years, the first author of this paper has pursued research in this area using CT as a theor-
etical framework whereas the second author has pursued similar research using AR as a
theoretical framework. In this paper, the authors delve into a dialogue for the purpose
of (1) elucidating strengths and potential of each approach, (2) highlighting challenges
that they face in their research using the frameworks in question, (3) exploring the
extent to which the frameworks can overlap, and (4) proposing directions for future
research.
A few words are needed about the rationale of this paper before moving any further.
First, the authors of this paper have attempted to engage in a dialogue as a way to
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Hagop A. Yacoubian hagop.yacoubian@haigazian.edu.lb Education Department, Haigazian University,
Beirut, Lebanon
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1449986

3. compare and contrast two theoretical frameworks for addressing NOS and SSI. They
believe that each of the two frameworks has its own merits and limitations and the
purpose of the dialogue is to highlight those merits and limitations. The dialogue is
both a method and an outcome of inquiry and needs to be appreciated in that regard.
Second, this dialogue can be best viewed as a reflection on the work of the authors
themselves as well as a reflection on the work of others as it relates to NOS and SSI
with an extrapolation on CT and AR. This reflection is beneficial for future directions
in research for the authors themselves and for the field in general.
Third, in trying to understand the two frameworks in depth, the dialogue explores the
extent to which the two frameworks can overlap. The authors explore how each frame-
work can feed and fill in the gaps of the other. The intention is not to use the dialogue
as a means for converging the two theoretical frameworks and creating a new synthesis.
This is beyond the scope of this paper. The dialogue takes a modest approach and leads
into recommendations for future research that draws upon the two frameworks in ques-
tion. The authors believe that this is a crucial step towards the possibility of an integrated
model in future.
Fourth, the authors agree that the SSI framework is composed of CT and AR skills.
Moreover, there are various conceptualisations of CT out there. The latter is one of
those ever-present terms in the science education literature (Sadler, Barab, & Scott,
2007). The present dialogue aims for providing some clarity for the notions of CT and
AR. It shows overlaps that CT and AR can have as well as elucidates their unique
characteristics.
NOS in school science
NOS refers to the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing, and the values and
beliefs inherent to scientific knowledge and its development (Abd-El-Khalick &
Lederman, 2000). K-12 students and teachers possess below adequate conceptions of
NOS (Lederman & Lederman, 2014). Lederman and his research group have developed
a list of seven general aspects of NOS on which there is some agreement among philoso-
phers, sociologists, historians of science, and science educators and that can be addressed
in K-12 classrooms (Lederman, 2004; Lederman & Lederman, 2014). Among these are the
view that there is a distinction between observations and inferences; the view that scientific
theories and laws differ; the idea that science is embedded in social and cultural contexts;
the notions that scientific knowledge is tentative, empirical, and subjective; and the idea
that science involves human inference, creativity, and imagination. Such lists of NOS-
related ideas, coupled with explicit-reflective discourse in science classrooms, have been
endorsed by many science educators including the authors of this paper (Khishfe, 2008;
Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010).
SSI in school science
A scientifically literate individual must have an understanding of science content, knowl-
edge of how the content was developed, and the ability to make informed decisions about
SSI (Lederman & Lederman, 2014). Sadler (2011) considers SSI as controversial social
issues related to science with no clear-cut solutions. SSI in school science is a beneficial
2 H. A. YACOUBIAN AND R. KHISHFE

4. context for fostering citizenship education (Kolstø, 2001) and for teaching scientific
content (Zohar & Nemet, 2002) and NOS (Sadler, Zeidler, & Chambers, 2004). Exposure
to SSI is associated with increased positive attitudes of students towards science (Pelch &
McConnell, 2017) and increased ability to understand the ideas of others and to value their
perspectives (Chung, Yoo, Kim, Lee, & Zeidler, 2016). Moreover, the discussion and
debate of controversial SSI are considered to foster the development of a number of CT
skills and attitudes among students (Zeidler & Nichols, 2009). More will be said about
CT skills and attitudes in the subsequent sections.
Many researchers have used AR frameworks as they engage students in SSI (e.g.
Dawson & Venville, 2010; Kim, Anthony, & Blades, 2014). Sadler et al. (2007) present
‘socioscientific reasoning’ (p. 374) as a theoretical construct and operationalise it in
terms of four practices fundamental for engaging with SSI. These practices involve recog-
nising the complexity of SSI, examining issues from multiple perspectives, appreciating
that SSI are subject to ongoing inquiry and exhibiting skepticism. Both authors of this
paper (Yacoubian, 2015; Khishfe, 2012b) have endorsed these practices as integral for
SSI-based instruction and have embedded them in their respective frameworks.
Based on a review of the literature, Zeidler (2014) identifies four broad themes related
to research in SSI. These themes are SSI as engagement of curriculum practice and tea-
chers’ pedagogical beliefs, SSI as epistemological development and reasoning, SSI as a
context for NOS, and SSI as character development and citizenship responsibility. Our
dialogue focuses particularly on the third theme – that of using SSI as a context for addres-
sing NOS, which entails exploring the relationship between NOS and SSI. Zeidler (2014)
asserts that an SSI curriculum can provide a sociocultural context for enabling more
informed NOS understandings provided with the condition of explicit connections. He
highlights the importance of research focus on SSI contexts and appropriate teaching
strategies that can facilitate students’ understandings of NOS within SSI.
NOS and SSI
Having informed views of NOS would support citizens in making decisions on SSI (Driver,
Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996; Kolstø, 2001; Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002).
Yacoubian (2015) argues that both NOS as a learning objective and NOS as a means for
socioscientific decision-making need to have their respective place in the science curricu-
lum. The latter can be used to refer to NOS instruction that views learners’ understandings
of NOS as a means of achieving another educational end, namely socioscientific decision
making. He maintains that future citizens need to be guided to (1) develop their NOS
understandings and (2) apply them by making explicit links between their NOS under-
standings and the decisions that they would make on SSI.
From another perspective, when students are engaged with real data use and interpret-
ation as is the case with SSI, they can discuss the social influence on the progress of science
and that would illustrate the values and assumptions, and concepts embodying NOS. In
that way, the discussions of NOS aspects relate to discussions of SSI (Sadler, Chambers,
& Zeidler, 2002), which represents a natural context to enhance students’ understandings
of NOS (Bell & Matkins, 2003; Bentley & Fleury, 1998; Sadler et al., 2002; Khishfe, 2008,
2012a; Spector, Strong, & La Porta, 1998). In a study that aimed to investigate the effects of
learning contexts of NOS, Eastwood et al. (2012) reported that explicit-reflective NOS
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 3

5. instruction when contextualised within SSI-driven science course was as effective as the
content-driven context in promoting more informed understandings of NOS.
Khishfe sheds the light on the relationship of NOS understandings and AR in the
context of SSI. She refers to the argument by Driver et al. (1996) that NOS helps people
participate in debates and decision making regarding science-related social issues. Accord-
ing to Khishfe, AR is an important component of decision making (Khishfe, 2012a;
Patronis, Potari, & Spiliotopoulou, 1999) when dealing with SSI (Fleming, 1986; Kolstø,
2001; Zeidler, 2003), and the practice in AR (Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Kuhn, 1993) in
relation to SSI is needed for informed decision making.
CT as a framework for addressing NOS and SSI
According to Ennis (1989, 1996a), CT is a process that aims to produce reasonable and
reflective decisions on what to believe or do and which encompasses certain dispositions
and abilities. Whether an individual is to critically evaluate a knowledge claim or adopt a
position he/she has to attempt to produce a certain outcome as a result of his/her thinking.
This outcome could have a reasoning component, an action component, or both (Ennis,
1989, 1996a; Lipman, 2003; Siegel, 1988). Yacoubian (2012, 2015) argues that as future
citizens are provided with experiences to engage in NOS learning or socioscientific
decision making, they would require to engage in these activities critically because they
would eventually need to make judgments regarding what to believe or do.
Ennis (1996a) has dissected CT into a set of concepts. These concepts include argument
development and evaluation, credibility of sources, observation, deduction, experimen-
tation, best explanation and causal inference, generalisation, definition, and making
value judgments. Each of those concepts is further dissected into sub-concepts and criteria.
Ennis (1996b) has also developed a set of three dispositions that underlie the CT abilities.
Ennis’s analysis of CT into concepts and sub-concepts/criteria creates a comprehensive
frame of reference for both the teacher and the student and acts as a mediator for one
to penetrate more deeply into one’s thinking. These concepts (and sub-concepts and cri-
teria), as well as the dispositions, could be valuable resources when future citizens engage
in exploring NOS and SSI. They would develop knowledge, skills, and dispositions related
to several concepts of CT. The mastery of this set of knowledge, skills, and dispositions is
at the core of developing a critical mindset (Ennis, 1996a).
As discussed previously, explicit and reflective discussions have often been used by
researchers to engage students in NOS learning, whereas AR frameworks have been
used to engage students in SSI. Both of these methods may engage students in CT to
some degree; however, they may not do so consistently and systematically. Moreover,
they may not comprehensively target the development of the various abilities that consti-
tute CT. For instance, as part of engaging students in explicit and reflective discussions
about tentativeness in science, students might dig deeper into developing an understand-
ing of how scientific knowledge is subject to change. However, unless CT is a planned
outcome, students would not engage in critical exploration of some of the interpretations
on tentativeness in science. Along the same lines, as part of engaging students in AR on
genetically modified food, they may be guided to develop arguments, counterarguments,
and rebuttals, and develop socioscientific reasoning. However, unless CT is a planned
4 H. A. YACOUBIAN AND R. KHISHFE

6. outcome, they may not engage in mastering abilities of CT other than argument
development.
From this perspective, Yacoubian (2015) has proposed the CT-NOS (Critical
Thinking – Nature of Science) framework that can be used to guide learners to (1) practice
making judgments on what views of NOS to acquire, or at the minimal level develop a
mindset so that they could eventually make informed judgments on what views of NOS
to acquire; and (2) practice making decisions on SSI.
AR as a framework for addressing NOS and SSI
Khishfe (2012b) notes that studies (e.g.; Carey, Evans, Honda, Jay, & Unger, 1989;
Khishfe, 2008) have continued to show that the success of explicit NOS instructional
approaches has been limited in enhancing NOS views for all learners. She argues that
emerging research advocates the engagement in AR as a framework since it can assist
in the development of more informed understandings of NOS (Bell & Linn, 2000; Ogun-
niyi, 2006). Khishfe finds there are two pathways to this framework. On the one hand,
some researchers (Sandoval & Millwood, 2008; Simonneaux, 2008) suggest that under-
standing and engaging in scientific AR can lead learners to the comprehension of the epis-
temological bases of scientific practice. For example, engaging students in AR would make
them understand there can be multiple perspectives that are based on evidence. On the
other hand, Khishfe notes that other researchers (e.g. Nussbaum, Sinatra, & Poliquin,
2008; Sandoval & Millwood, 2008 ) suggest that learners’ NOS understandings can influ-
ence their engagement in AR. For example, learners with more informed views of scientific
knowledge are better able to use arguments to support their claims by evaluating evidence
in relation to alternative viewpoints. With these two possible pathways, Khishfe highlights
the use of AR as a framework for NOS and SSI.
Outcomes of the debate
Strengths of each framework
Yacoubian considers that there are at least four good reasons why CT can be a fertile
theoretical framework for addressing NOS and SSI in school science. First, CT is funda-
mental to decision making (Ennis, 1989, 1996a; Lipman, 2003; Siegel, 1988). Second, ped-
agogically speaking, the CT literature can help provide good resources to guide learners as
they explore NOS and SSI. As Ennis (1996a) has argued, CT has certain attributes the
understandings and use of which could enable the critical thinker to produce good
decisions. Third, CT as a framework for addressing NOS and SSI would bring CT into
the foreground of school NOS, moving the substantive NOS content into the background.
Rather than working towards developing adequate NOS understandings among students,
the focus would be placed on the process as learners would be guided to (1) practice
making judgments on NOS views, or at the minimal level develop a mindset so that
they could eventually make informed judgments on NOS views; and (2) practice
making decisions on SSI. Fourth, the significance of using CT as a framework resides in
its potential to contribute to science education research in terms of setting forth a possi-
bility of a developmental pathway for NOS learning in school science using CT as a
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 5

7. progression unit. The lack of a developmental pathway for NOS learning has been
acknowledged by a few researchers (e.g. Abd-El-Khalick, 2012). One might think about
a developmental pathway for NOS learning in terms of a student’s engaging in CT
about NOS. This seems a plausible path to take especially that there is already some evi-
dence on the developmental nature of CT (e.g. Duschl, Schweingruber, & Shouse, 2007;
Keating, 1988; King & Kitchener, 1994; Kuhn, 1999).
Khishfe considers that the following are the strengths of the AR framework: First, as
previously noted AR is a critical component of decision making (Khishfe, 2012a; Patronis
et al., 1999) in the context of SSI (Fleming, 1986; Kolstø, 2001; Zeidler, 2003), and the
practice in AR is needed for informed decision making. Second, understanding and enga-
ging in AR help students to construct or reconstruct their own knowledge (Berland &
McNeill, 2010). This overlaps with the NOS aspects that portray the characteristics
related to the construction of scientific knowledge (Lederman, 2007). Third, integrating
NOS instruction within an AR framework helps participants to make connections
between NOS and AR (Khishfe, 2014). Khishfe argues that making links between NOS
and AR would help build a stronger anchor of students’ thinking framework, which
might further facilitate the retention of students’ acquired NOS understandings and AR
skills. Fourth and finally, engaging students in AR specifically teaches them how to
build a counterargument (Simonneaux, 2008). A counterargument makes students chal-
lenge their own theory (Kuhn, 1991). This challenging of students to their own theories
extrapolates into their understanding of the three NOS aspects (subjective, empirical,
and tentative), as explained by Khishfe (2012b). First, the mere generation of counterar-
guments by students forces them to consider alternative views, which in turn would help
them to understand the subjective aspect of NOS. Second, the construction of arguments,
counterarguments, and rebuttals by students is based on evidence. That helps students to
understand the role of evidence and thereby the empirical aspect of NOS. Third, the gen-
eration of counterarguments by students allows them to be cognitively flexible and thus
more accepting to the idea that scientific knowledge is subject to change (tentative
aspect of NOS).
Challenges associated with each framework
Yacoubian considers that there are at least two challenges associated with using CT as a
framework for addressing NOS and SSI. First, there are various definitions and conceptu-
alisations of CT. Second, there is some overlap between certain aspects of NOS and those
of CT. For instance, observation is considered by Ennis (1996a) as a core concept of CT.
Ennis argues that in order to engage in CT one needs to observe and report observations
well. One also needs to know criteria for observing and reporting observations well. Those
criteria are in fact related to nature of observations, which are NOS ideas themselves.
However, not all concepts of CT are necessarily NOS ideas. For example, argument analy-
sis as another core concept of CT (Ennis, 1996a) has little to do with NOS ideas directly
(although it is needed to construct NOS knowledge).
Khishfe acknowledges at least two challenges associated with using AR as a framework
for addressing NOS and SSI. The first challenge relates to the contextualisation or content-
dependence of AR. The understanding of science content knowledge correlates positively
to the quality of informal reasoning regarding SSI (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005). Driver et al.
6 H. A. YACOUBIAN AND R. KHISHFE

8. (1996) claimed that different contexts can activate different forms of reasoning. Further,
science content knowledge is likely to affect how individuals defend and justify their pos-
itions (Sadler & Fowler, 2006) and is significantly related to the number and types of
reasons generated by AR (Means & Voss, 1996 ). Fowler and Zeidler (2010) found that
students utilised their arguments about SSI differently depending on the specific nature
of each issue. Along the same lines, Smith and Wenk (2006) consider the correspondence
between the AR and epistemological ideas used by learners across domains to be complex.
This challenge makes it difficult sometimes to understand the relationship and inter-
actions between NOS and AR. The second challenge relates to other factors that are
also involved in AR. The act of AR in the context of SSI stresses the role of evidence
but it also needs to account for moral deliberations, which are necessary in SSI (Zeidler
& Sadler, 2008). As such, the connections between evidence and moral considerations
need to be emphasised.
So far the dialogue focused on elucidating the theoretical frameworks for addressing
NOS and SSI that are used by Authors A and B as well as on highlighting the potentials
and challenges of both frameworks. A summary of key ideas is presented in Table 1. In the
section that follows the authors continue the dialogue exploring overlaps between the two
frameworks.
Can the two frameworks overlap?
Both authors acknowledge some overlap between AR and CT. Khishfe (2012a) situated
instruction of NOS and socioscientific decision making in an AR framework. In that
study, students were provided with not only explicit instruction in both NOS and AR
but also explicit guidance in how to apply their NOS understandings in socioscientific
decision making. Khishfe’s explicit instruction of AR involved teaching how to formulate
arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals. It also stressed the importance of using evi-
dence in backing up arguments. Yacoubian holds that argument development and evalu-
ation are concepts of CT (Ennis, 1996a). Along the same lines, Jimenez-Aleixandre and
Table 1. Comparison between the views of Author A and Author B.
Views of Author A Views of Author B
Theoretical
framework
CT AR
Overall goal Future citizens develop a critical mindset as they
are guided to (1) practice making judgments on
what NOS views to acquire and (2) practice
making decisions on SSI through applying their
NOS understandings
Future citizens engage in practicing AR needed for
informed decision making. This, in turn, helps in
developing more informed understandings of
NOS
Approach CT-NOS framework for addressing NOS and SSI AR in addressing SSI which can improve NOS
understandings
Rationale • CT being fundamental to decision making
• CT literature can help provide good resources
to guide learners as they explore NOS and SSI
• Process-oriented: Moving CT into the
foreground of the learning experience
• Potential for a developmental pathway
• AR being a critical component of decision
making
• Learners can construct/reconstruct their own
knowledge
• Learners can make connections between NOS
and AR
• Learners can build counterarguments
Challenges • Various conceptualisations of CT
• Overlap between certain aspects of NOS and
CT
• Contextualisation or context-dependence of
AR
• The need to account for moral deliberations
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 7

9. Erduran (2008) propose five potential contributions of AR in the science classrooms. One
of these involves the development of CT among students. As future citizens are provided
with experiences to engage in NOS learning or socioscientific decision making, they would
develop knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to several concepts of CT, including but
not limited to AR. In other words, according to Yacoubian, CT is a more comprehensive
framework to which AR is a subset.
Yacoubian thinks that a CT framework can contribute to Khishfe’s research in at least
two possible ways. First, he believes that her framework can be enriched upon defining
more clearly criteria that students are taught as part of AR instruction. A CT framework
can help delineate knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed in argument formulation and
argument evaluation as well as understanding how students learn this set of knowledge,
skills, and dispositions. Second, he believes that CT can provide a more comprehensive
training for learners as they explore NOS and SSI. Hence, Yacoubian suggests that
Khishfe import some resources of CT into her research; that way the students could be
guided to learn not only AR but also other aspects of CT that would contribute to their
decision making.
In agreement with Yacoubian, Khishfe acknowledges an overlap between AR and CT.
According to Geng (2014), after researching 64 definitions of CT, the nature of CT
included ‘judgment, argument, questioning, information processing, problem-solving,
meta-cognition, skill, and disposition’ (p. 127). Khishfe thinks that Yacoubian can
better limit his focus to only one dimension of CT, which is AR. Plus, one important
dimension of AR is the construction of scientific knowledge, which is missing from the
framework of CT. This dimension about the construction of scientific knowledge is a
key element of NOS, where the NOS aspects depict the characteristics related to the con-
struction of scientific knowledge (Lederman, 2007). That dimension serves as an overlap
and interaction between AR and NOS. As such, Khishfe invites Yacoubian to review his
framework and consider AR as the framework as it encompasses a more focused perspec-
tive for the NOS aspects.
Directions of future research
The present dialogue focused on comparing between two theoretical frameworks for
addressing NOS and SSI in school science, namely CT and AR. It elucidated some of
the unique characteristics of these frameworks, highlighted strengths and challenges
associated with them, as well as explored some overlaps that they have. In doing so it
also tried to further clarify the notions of CT and AR. The present dialogue, based on
reflections on the work of the authors themselves as well as that of others, contributes
to the ongoing discussion on how SSI can be a used as a context for addressing NOS in
school science and vice versa. This is an area that needs further research as Zeidler
(2014) also points out. In this section, some implications for future research are discussed
that are derived as a result of the dialogue.
Both authors acknowledge the need for exploring the possibility of an integrated model
in future. Yacoubian suggests pulling closer both frameworks and developing research
studies where in addition to learning how to formulate arguments, counterarguments,
and rebuttals, learners also develop other abilities of CT. In addition, learners engage in
constructing meta-knowledge and explicitly explore criteria for argument development
8 H. A. YACOUBIAN AND R. KHISHFE

10. and evaluation (as well as criteria for other abilities of CT). Yacoubian also suggests
exploring the extent to which AR with or without the construction of meta-knowledge
can have an effect on how students learn NOS and SSI.
Yacoubian also thinks that the criteria could help think about AR in developmental
terms. Hence, another direction of future research might involve developing learning
pathways of how students’ AR-related knowledge and skills develop over time. Such a
research can benefit from the respective literatures of both AR and CT, in addition to
developmental psychology.
Khishfe suggests an instructional approach that integrates the teaching of NOS in a fra-
mework of AR and SSI (Khishfe, 2014) with the rationale that this approach (1) addresses
two themes of scientific literacy (BouJaoude, 2002), (2) makes links between the two
themes, and (3) allows teachers to use their limited time more efficiently. As such, she
believes that another direction of research would be to integrate NOS and AR or CT in
instruction in the context of SSI along different dimensions and study their interactions
at different levels.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Hagop A. Yacoubian http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3444-5150
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of science in science education: Towards a coherent framework
for synergistic research and development. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second
international handbook of science education (pp. 1041–1060). New York: Springer.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on stu-
dents’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1057–1095. doi:10.
1002/1098-2736(200012)37. 10<1057::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-C.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning on the
Web in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.
Bell, R. L., & Matkins, J. J. (2003, March). Learning about the nature of science in an elementary
science methods course: Content vs. Context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Philadelphia, PA.
Bentley, M. L., & Fleury, S. C. (1998). Of starting points and destinations: Teacher education and
the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science education:
Rationales and strategies (pp. 277–291). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation:
Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science
Education, 94(5), 765–793.
BouJaoude, S. (2002). Balance of scientific literacy themes in science curricula: The case of Lebanon.
nternational Journal of Science Education, 24(2), 139–156.
Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). ’An experiment is when you try it and
see if it works’: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific
knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 514–529.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 9

11. Chung, Y., Yoo, J., Kim, S.-W., Lee, H., & Zeidler, D. (2016). Enhancing students’ communication
skills in the science classroom through socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science &
Mathematics Education, 14, 1–27. doi:10.1007/s10763-014-9557-6
Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation
skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40, 133–
148. doi:10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Philadelphia, PA:
Open University Press.
Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Argumentation and discourse processes in science education.
Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and
teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, National Research Council.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012).
Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of
Science Education, 34(15), 2289–2315.
Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research.
Educational Researcher, 18, 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
Ennis, R. H. (1996a). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ennis, R. H. (1996b). Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature and assessability. Informal Logic,
18, 165–182.
Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: Social cognition. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689–698.
Fowler, S. R., & Zeidler, D. L. (2010, March). College students’ use of science content during socio-
scientific issues negotiation: Evolution as a prevailing concept. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
Geng, F. (2014). An content analysis of the definition of critical thinking. Asian Social Science, 10
(19), 124–128.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An over-
view. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education:
Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.
Keating, D. P. (1988). Adolescents’ ability to engage in critical thinking. [S.l.]: Distributed by ERIC
Clearinghouse.
Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 470–496.
Khishfe, R. (2012a). Nature of science and decision making. International Journal of Science
Education, 34(1), 67–100.
Khishfe, R. (2012b). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation
skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 49(4), 489–514.
Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socio-
scientific issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science
Education, 36(5–6), 974–1016.
Kim, M., Anthony, R., & Blades, D. (2014). Decision making through dialogue: A case study of ana-
lyzing preservice teachers’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education,
44, 903–926. doi:10.1007/s11165-014-9407-0
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promot-
ing intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Science literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of
controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking.
Science Education, 77, 319–337.
10 H. A. YACOUBIAN AND R. KHISHFE

12. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28, 16–25
+46. doi:10.3102/0013189X028002016
Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B.
Flick, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301–317). Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell, & N. G.
Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science.
In N. G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, volume II
(pp. 600–620). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among
children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2),
139–178.
Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argu-
mentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977–1999.
Ogunniyi, M. B. (2006, April). Using an argumentation-instrumental reasoning discourse to facili-
tate teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of
the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco, CA.
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.
Pelch, M. A., & McConnell, D. A. (2017). How does adding an emphasis on socioscientific issues
influence student attitudes about science, its relevance, and their interpretations of sustainability?
Journal of Geoscience Education, 65, 203–214. doi:10.5408/16-173.1
Sadler, T. D. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific
inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391.
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F., & Zeidler, D. (2002, April). Investigating the crossroads of socioscien-
tific issues, the nature of science, and critical thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from
ERIC database (ED 466401).
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socio-
scientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986–1004.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning
regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues.
Science Education, 85, 71–93.
Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., & Chambers, F. W. (2004). Student conceptualisations of the nature of
science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387–
409.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In
S. Erduran, & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives
from Classroom-based Research (pp. 68–85). Springer: Dordrecht.
Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking, and education. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jimenez-
Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based
research (pp. 179–199). Dordrecht: Springer.
Smith, C. L., & Wenk, L. (2006). Relations among three aspects of first-year college students’ epis-
temologies of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(8), 747–785.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 11

13. Spector, B., Strong, P., & La Porta, T. (1998). Teaching the nature of science as an element of
science, technology and society. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science edu-
cation: Rationales and strategies (pp. 267–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Yacoubian, H. A. (2012). Towards a philosophically and a pedagogically reasonable nature of science
curriculum (Doctoral dissertation). University of Alberta, AB, Canada.
Yacoubian, H. A. (2015). A framework for guiding future citizens to think critically about nature of
science and socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology
Education, 15(3), 248–260.
Yacoubian, H. A., & BouJaoude, S. (2010). The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry-
based laboratory activities on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 47, 1229–1252.
Zeidler, D. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research and practice. In
S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 697–726).
New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.
Zeidler, D. L. (Ed.). (2003). The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in
science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of
Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience,
character and care. In S. Erduran, & M. Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in
science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201–216). New York, NY:
Springer.
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. doi:10.1002/sce.10025
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.
12 H. A. YACOUBIAN AND R. KHISHFE