Patterns in students' argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue
Patterns in students' argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/09500690600560878
复制
发表时间：
2006-11-17
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Kolsto, Stein Dankert
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kolsto, Stein Dankert
本文对学生在一个有争议的社会科学问题上的非正式推理进行了定性研究。来自挪威四个理科班的22名学生就当地新电线的建设以及儿童白血病风险可能增加的问题接受了采访。这项研究的重点是，当学生被问及他们的决策以及知识和个人价值观之间的相互作用时，他们使用了什么论点。确定了五种不同类型的主要论点：相对风险论点、预防性论点、不确定性论点、小风险论点和利弊论点。这些论点是通过案例研究提出的，并为每个论点确定了关键信息和价值。学生们运用了一系列的科学和非科学知识。这些发现与旨在提高学生在社会科学问题上做出深思熟虑决定的能力的教学模式可能产生的后果有关。
This paper reports a qualitative study on students' informal reasoning on a controversial socioscientific issue. Twenty-two students from four science classes in Norway were interviewed about the local construction of new power lines and the possible increased risk of childhood leukaemia. The focus in the study is on what arguments the students employ when asked about their decision-making and the interplay between knowledge and personal values. Five different types of main arguments are identified: the relative risk argument, the precautionary argument, the uncertainty argument, the small risk argument, and the pros and cons argument. These arguments are presented through case studies, and crucial information and values are identified for each argument. The students made use of a range of both scientific and non-scientific knowledge. The findings are discussed in relation to possible consequences for teaching models aimed at increasing students' ability to make thoughtful decisions on socio-scientific issues.