Reasoning on Controversial Science Issues in Science Education and Science Communication
The ability to make evidence-based decisions, and hence to reason on questions concerning scientific and societal aspects, is a crucial goal in science education and science communication. However, science denial poses a constant challenge for society and education. <i>Controversial science is...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-09-01
|
Series: | Education Sciences |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/11/9/522 |
id |
doaj-00b75bd97a254cfb98c31d289c1e4843 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-00b75bd97a254cfb98c31d289c1e48432021-09-26T00:02:11ZengMDPI AGEducation Sciences2227-71022021-09-011152252210.3390/educsci11090522Reasoning on Controversial Science Issues in Science Education and Science CommunicationAnna Beniermann0Laurens Mecklenburg1Annette Upmeier zu Belzen2Biology Education, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10099 Berlin, GermanyBiology Education, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10099 Berlin, GermanyBiology Education, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10099 Berlin, GermanyThe ability to make evidence-based decisions, and hence to reason on questions concerning scientific and societal aspects, is a crucial goal in science education and science communication. However, science denial poses a constant challenge for society and education. <i>Controversial science issues</i> (CSI) encompass scientific knowledge rejected by the public as well as <i>socioscientific issues</i>, i.e., societal issues grounded in science that are frequently applied to science education. Generating evidence-based justifications for claims is central in scientific and informal reasoning. This study aims to describe attitudes and their justifications within the argumentations of a random online sample (<i>N</i> = 398) when reasoning informally on selected CSI. Following a deductive-inductive approach and qualitative content analysis of written open-ended answers, we identified five types of justifications based on a fine-grained category system. The results suggest a topic-specificity of justifications referring to specific scientific data, while justifications appealing to authorities tend to be common across topics. Subjective, and therefore normative, justifications were slightly related to conspiracy ideation and a general rejection of the scientific consensus. The category system could be applied to other CSI topics to help clarify the relation between scientific and informal reasoning in science education and communication.https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/11/9/522argumentationreasoningjustificationssocioscientific issuessocietally denied sciencecontroversial science issues |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Anna Beniermann Laurens Mecklenburg Annette Upmeier zu Belzen |
spellingShingle |
Anna Beniermann Laurens Mecklenburg Annette Upmeier zu Belzen Reasoning on Controversial Science Issues in Science Education and Science Communication Education Sciences argumentation reasoning justifications socioscientific issues societally denied science controversial science issues |
author_facet |
Anna Beniermann Laurens Mecklenburg Annette Upmeier zu Belzen |
author_sort |
Anna Beniermann |
title |
Reasoning on Controversial Science Issues in Science Education and Science Communication |
title_short |
Reasoning on Controversial Science Issues in Science Education and Science Communication |
title_full |
Reasoning on Controversial Science Issues in Science Education and Science Communication |
title_fullStr |
Reasoning on Controversial Science Issues in Science Education and Science Communication |
title_full_unstemmed |
Reasoning on Controversial Science Issues in Science Education and Science Communication |
title_sort |
reasoning on controversial science issues in science education and science communication |
publisher |
MDPI AG |
series |
Education Sciences |
issn |
2227-7102 |
publishDate |
2021-09-01 |
description |
The ability to make evidence-based decisions, and hence to reason on questions concerning scientific and societal aspects, is a crucial goal in science education and science communication. However, science denial poses a constant challenge for society and education. <i>Controversial science issues</i> (CSI) encompass scientific knowledge rejected by the public as well as <i>socioscientific issues</i>, i.e., societal issues grounded in science that are frequently applied to science education. Generating evidence-based justifications for claims is central in scientific and informal reasoning. This study aims to describe attitudes and their justifications within the argumentations of a random online sample (<i>N</i> = 398) when reasoning informally on selected CSI. Following a deductive-inductive approach and qualitative content analysis of written open-ended answers, we identified five types of justifications based on a fine-grained category system. The results suggest a topic-specificity of justifications referring to specific scientific data, while justifications appealing to authorities tend to be common across topics. Subjective, and therefore normative, justifications were slightly related to conspiracy ideation and a general rejection of the scientific consensus. The category system could be applied to other CSI topics to help clarify the relation between scientific and informal reasoning in science education and communication. |
topic |
argumentation reasoning justifications socioscientific issues societally denied science controversial science issues |
url |
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/11/9/522 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT annabeniermann reasoningoncontroversialscienceissuesinscienceeducationandsciencecommunication AT laurensmecklenburg reasoningoncontroversialscienceissuesinscienceeducationandsciencecommunication AT annetteupmeierzubelzen reasoningoncontroversialscienceissuesinscienceeducationandsciencecommunication |
_version_ |
1717367173011210240 |