See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358978918

Critical Thinking in Biology and Enviromental Education. Facing Challenges

in a Post-Truth World

Book · March 2022

CITATION READS

1 123

2 authors:

Blanca Puig María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre

University of Santiago de Compostela University of Santiago de Compostela
57 PUBLICATIONS   819 CITATIONS    106 PUBLICATIONS   4,362 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CRITHINKEDU ERASMUS EU Project View project

CRITHINKEDU - Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Blanca Puig on 20 March 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Contributions from Biology Education Research

Blanca Puig
María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre Editors

Critical Thinking
in Biology and
Environmental
Education
Facing Challenges in a Post-Truth World
Contributions from Biology Education Research

Series Editors
Marida Ergazaki, University of Patras, Patras, Greece
Kostas Kampourakis, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

Editorial Board Members

Marcus Grace , University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Marie Christine Knippels , Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Jörg Zabel, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany
Constantinos Korfiatis, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
Maria Pilar Jimenez Aleixandre, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de
Compostela, Spain
Anat Yarden, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
Marcus Hammann, University of Münster, Münster, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Ute Harms, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany
Michael Reiss, University College London, London, UK
Niklas Gericke, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden
Charbel Nino El-Hani, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador-Bahia, Brazil
Vaille Dawson, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
Ross Nehm, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
William McComas, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, USA
Cynthia Passmore, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA
Contributions from Biology Education Research (CBER) is the international book
series of the European Researchers in Didactics of Biology (ERIDOB). The series
includes edited collections of state-of-the-art papers presented at the ERIDOB
international conferences, and monographs or edited collections of chapters by
leading international scholars of the domain. The aim of the series is to shed light
on global issues and trends in the teaching and learning of biology by gathering
cutting edge research findings, theoretical views, and implications or concrete
suggestions for everyday school practice regarding biology. The books may serve
as resources for (a) getting informed about the most recent findings of biology
education research to possibly integrate them in new personal research, and
(b) studying about the teaching and learning of biology as a pre-service or
in-service biology teacher. So, the main audiences for the series range from senior
to early career biology education researchers and pre- or in-service biology teachers
working at all educational levels. Book proposals for this series may be submitted to
the Publishing Editor: Claudia Acuna E-mail: [email protected]

More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/16350

Blanca Puig • María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre
Editors

Critical Thinking in Biology

and Environmental Education
Facing Challenges in a Post-Truth World
Editors
Blanca Puig María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre
Facultade Ciencias da Educación Facultade Ciencias da Educación
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
Santiago de Compostela, Spain Santiago de Compostela, Spain

ISSN 2662-2319 ISSN 2662-2327 (electronic)

Contributions from Biology Education Research
ISBN 978-3-030-92005-0 ISBN 978-3-030-92006-7 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland
AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To our partners
Manuel González Fernández de Tejada (B. P.)
Ramón López-Facal (M. P. J. A.)
For their love and support.
Foreword

Critical thinking is a concept that has been used in education and educational
research for over 20 years now. With the publication of the UN-agenda
Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable development, in 2015,
critical thinking has received renewed and increasing attention by researchers,
curriculum designers, and policy makers around the world. This edited book volume
offers one such example through a timely exploration of questions related to the
Whats, the Whys, and the Hows of critical thinking.
Situated within the urgency of addressing current global challenges, such as
climate change, sustainability, and public health, and within the context of the so
called “post-truth” era, Blanca Puig and María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre embark on
a timely and much-needed exploration of the concept of critical thinking in biology
and environmental education. In its scope, however, the book volume goes far
beyond critical thinking to examine emerging crucial questions related to scientific
citizenship and identity, environmental action, the role of evidence in science, as
well as pedagogies and practices of resistance.
Critical Thinking in Biology and Environmental Education includes 15 chapters
written by 30 authors at different stages of their careers, from 10 different countries:
Spain, the UK, Mexico, the USA, Cyprus, Chile, France, Greece, Norway, and
Sweden. As such it presents a comprehensive set of diverse perspectives on critical
thinking and provides empirical evidence rooted in contemporary research in biol-
ogy and environmental education in various parts of the world. The chapters offer
concrete examples of programs and curricula situated in diverse geographical con-
texts and learning environments, which include different populations, ranging from
young students, preservice teachers, teachers, and citizens.
In the first chapter, the editors argue about the urgency and need for critical
thinking and frame their argument in the context of COVID19-pandemic and the
pervasiveness of disinformation and fake news. The chapters that follow travel
across epistemological, theoretical, and methodological spaces that range from
dialogical argumentation, aesthetics, emotions, sociolinguistics, and spatial literacy

vii
viii Foreword

to health education and ecofeminisn. In Chap. 2, Laura Colucci-Gray and Donald

Gray share contemporary perspectives on critical thinking that highlight the role of
language and context as they advance the central role of visual aesthetics in the
development of a critical consciousness vis-à-vis environmental issues. In the
chapter that follows, Elizabeth Hufnagel explores the intersection between emotions
and critical thinking in relation to anti-science stances and climate change in
education. In Chap. 4, Alejandra García Franco, Lisber Farrera Reyes, and Alma
Adrianna Gómez Galindo provide an example of culturally relevant educational
practices that integrate indigenous knowledge into the school science curriculum,
and which aim to facilitate students’ dialogue between their own ways of knowledge
and scientific ways of knowing.
Part II consists of five chapters reporting research about critical thinking in
biology and health education. In Chap. 5, Ravit Golan Duncan, Veronica L. Cavera,
and Clark A. Chinn report on the findings of a study that analyzed students’ critical
evaluation of evidence to decide between explanations of phenomena. Kalypso
Iordanou, in the next chapter, presents the findings of a study that aimed to examine
a group of young students’ critical thinking following their engagement in an
intervention program based on dialogic argumentation and reflective activities
genetically modified food. In Chap. 7, Blanca Puig and Noa Ageitos report on the
findings of a study that aimed to examine the intersections between preservice
teachers’ knowledge and critical thinking skills regarding specific claims in the
context of vaccination. In the next chapter, Marida Ergazaki builds on empirical
evidence to discuss the thinking strategies that biology students may employ when
exploring the procedure of making and using a DNA library. In Chap. 9, Araitz
Uskola reports on the results of a research program that analyzed the opinion and
justifications posed by students about the effectiveness of homeopathic products.
Part III consists of five chapters reporting research about critical thinking in
environmental and sustainability education. In Chap. 10, Corina González-Weil,
Valeria León, Delia Cisternas, Gabriel Caro, and Roberto Morales build on the
findings of a multiple case study with teachers framed within theoretical perspectives
around pedagogical of resistance and critical action to argue about the importance of
formative and collaborative spaces for teaching in contexts of environmental degra-
dation. In Chap. 11, Asli Sezen-Barrie, Joseph A. Henderson, and Andrea L. Drewers
report on the findings of a study that aimed to examine how students develop critical
thinking skills about climate change evidence, impacts, and solutions to make local
and individual meaning of what is ultimately a global collective action problem. In
Chap. 12, Pablo Brocos and María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre report on the findings
of a study that examined students' capacity to develop independent positions and
challenge social or peer’s ideas, related to citizenship and social practice. In the
chapter that follows, Kévin De Checchi, Gabriel Pallarès, Valérie Tartas, and
Manuel Bächtold present empirical evidence from a case study with students in
the context of a socioscientific environmental debate to argue that epistemic beliefs
might serve as a means of understanding critical thinking. In the last chapter of this
part, Eli Munkebye and Niklas Gericke argue about the importance of addressing
Foreword ix

critical thinking in primary school through an empirical study that examined

teachers’ understanding of critical thinking in the context of education for sustain-
able development.
In the chapter that closes the book, Blanca Puig and Marilar Jiménez-Aleixandre
connect the main ideas and contributions emerging across chapters and suggest
further directions for the integration of critical thinking in biology and environmen-
tal education.
Collectively, these chapters synthesize important and useful insights that promise
to deepen and expand our understanding of critical thinking and provide concrete
examples of related programs and approaches implemented in diverse contexts.
Despite the differences in their goals, theoretical framing, methods, and contexts, a
consensus exists across the chapters about the value of placing critical thinking at the
forefront in efforts to promote meaningful dialogue for social change.
The world is changing and societies are transforming in a fast pace, possibly
faster than ever before. The question then becomes one of how might education lead
sustainable change in this fast-paced world? This book volume offers a first step
towards that direction. As evident in the work done by the authors, biology and
environmental education hold a privileged position to addressing current
socioscientific challenges through (re)conceptualizing critical thinking for sustain-
ability. When do we start? As Blanca and Marilar rightfully state in the first chapter,
the time is now.

University of Groningen Lucy Avraamidou

Groningen, The Netherlands
Contents

Part I Perspectives on Critical Thinking

1 Educating Critical Citizens to Face Post-truth:
The Time Is Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre and Blanca Puig
2 Critical Thinking in the Flesh: Movement and Metaphors
in a World in Flux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Laura Colucci-Gray and Donald Gray
3 Emotional Sense-Making and Critical Thinking in the Era
of Post-truth: The Case of Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Elizabeth Hufnagel
4 Culturally Relevant Science Education and Critical Thinking
in Indigenous People: Bridging the Gap Between Community
and School Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Alejandra García Franco, Lisber Ferrara Reyes,
and Alma Adrianna Gómez Galindo

Part II Research About Critical Thinking in Biology and Health

Education
5 The Role of Evidence Evaluation in Critical Thinking:
Fostering Epistemic Vigilance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Ravit Golan Duncan, Veronica L. Cavera, and Clark A. Chinn
6 Supporting Critical Thinking Through Engagement in Dialogic
Argumentation: Taking Multiple Considerations into Account
When Reasoning About Genetically Modified Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Kalypso Iordanou

xi
xii Contents

7 Critical Thinking to Decide What to Believe and What to Do

Regarding Vaccination in Schools. A Case Study with Primary
Pre-service Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Blanca Puig and Noa Ageitos
8 Students’ Thinking Strategies and the Role of Argument
as a Shared Thinking Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Marida Ergazaki
9 Fostering Critical Thinking About Health Issues:
Facts of Success and Failure in the Case of Homeopathy . . . . . . . . . 147
Araitz Uskola

Part III Research About Critical Thinking in Environmental

and Sustainability Education
10 Teaching Science in Chilean Environmentally Degraded Areas:
An Analysis from a Critical and Ecofeminist Perspective . . . . . . . . 169
Corina González-Weil, Valeria León, Delia Cisternas, Gabriel Caro,
and Roberto Morales
11 Spatial and Temporal Dynamics in Climate Change Education
Discourse: An Ecolinguistic Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Asli Sezen-Barrie, Joseph A. Henderson, and Andrea L. Drewes
12 Social Responsibility and Critical Disposition for Considering
and Acting upon Conflicting Evidence in Argumentation About
Sustainable Diets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Pablo Brocos and María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre
13 Epistemic Beliefs as a Means of Understanding Critical Thinking
in a Socioscientific Environmental Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Kévin De Checchi, Gabriel Pallarès, Valérie Tartas,
and Manuel Bächtold
14 Primary School Teachers’ Understanding of Critical Thinking
in the Context of Education for Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . 249
Eli Munkebye and Niklas Gericke

Part IV Concluding Remarks

15 The Integration of Critical Thinking in Biology and Environmental
Education. Contributions and Further Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Blanca Puig and María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre
 Part I
Perspectives on Critical Thinking
Chapter 1
Educating Critical Citizens to Face
Post-truth: The Time Is Now

María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre and Blanca Puig

1.1 Introduction: The Need for Critical Thinking

The development of critical thinking (CT) is a consensual objective for educators in

all times. But serious crises, as may be climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic,
give it an added urgency. Taking a distance from particular topics, a serious concern
for education, as well as for the general public, is the rise of post-truth, which
McIntyre (2018) describes as “a corruption of the process by which facts are credibly
gathered and reliably used to shape one’s beliefs about reality.” (p. 11). More
worrying, according to this author, is that truth is being challenged as a mechanism
for asserting political dominance. Therefore, critical thinking, rather than an ability
or a practice related to areas such as science education or philosophy, should be
viewed as necessary for all the citizenry. As Abrami et al. (2008) pointed out,
thinking about problems within disciplinary areas has relevance for academic pur-
poses, but thinking about social, political and ethical challenges of everyday life is
relevant for students’ future as functional and contributing adults:
At a broader societal level, a democracy composed of citizens who can think for themselves
on the basis of evidence and concomitant analysis, rather than emotion, prejudice, or dogma,
is a plus—in fact, it sustains, builds, and perpetuates the democracy (Abrami et al., 2008
p. 1103).

A socio-scientific issue that we are currently experiencing, related to biology and

health education, is the COVID-19 pandemic, which illustrates a few points relevant
for critical thinking:

M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (*) · B. Puig

Facultade Ciencias da Educación, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela,
Santiago de Compostela, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 3

B. Puig, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), Critical Thinking in Biology
and Environmental Education, Contributions from Biology Education Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_1
4 M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre and B. Puig

– First, COVID-19 underscores the pervasiveness of fake news, either about the
origin of the disease or about bogus remedies such as injecting disinfectant.
Certain pieces of disinformation were even promoted by some governments.
The abundance of disinformation, coupled with cognitive bias, may explain the
difficulties that citizens are experiencing for unravelling rigorous information
from unfounded opinions.
– Second, this pandemic highlights the complexity of socio-scientific issues (SSI) in
which multiple dimensions from different fields interact. In the case of COVID-
19 this is so, not only because of health, economic, social or political impacts, but
also about the causes involved in cross-species transmission, including virus
biology, environmental disruption and livestock production, as the Intergovern-
mental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem’s (IPBES, 2020) report made
clear. Zheng-Li Shi, world leading expert on coronavirus diseases, and her
colleagues in Wuhan, made the case for the relationships between disruption of
wild habitats, intensive breeding practices and epidemics. In several papers,
written before COVID-19, Shi and colleagues anticipated new outbreaks, pre-
dictions that unfortunately came true, and proposed to keep in mind the One
Health concept, meaning human, animal and environment health, endorsed by the
World Health Organization (WHO). In Nature Zhou et al. (2018) highlighted the
importance of identifying coronavirus (CoVs) diversity in bats “to mitigate future
outbreaks that could threaten livestock, public health and economic growth.”
(p. 255). Fan et al. (2019), alerted that bat-borne CoVs would likely re-emerge to
cause the next disease outbreak. Cui et al. (2019) stated: “The constant spillover
of viruses from natural hosts to humans and other animals is largely due to human
activities, including modern agricultural practices and urbanization.” (p. 190).
They suggested that the most effective way to prevent outbreaks is keeping the
barriers between natural reservoirs of wildlife and human society. Combining
concerns about misinformation and her scientific expertise, Shi warned, on
February 2nd 2020 on her WeChat, towards conspiratorial theories about coro-
navirus: “The 2019 novel coronavirus is a punishment by nature to humans’
unsanitary life styles.”
– Third, it reveals people’s struggles with uncertainty, as for the public it is not easy
to accept that science doesn’t know enough about COVID-19, that scientists do
not have all the responses and may sometimes disagree with one another, and that
it could take many months for vaccines to be available. People and authorities
showed resistance to admit that perhaps we all should change our lifestyles, or
that plans for the next years were dependent of how the pandemic, as well as
governments’ responses to protect their citizens would evolve.
– Fourth, it lay open social inequalities when facing disease: COVID-19 is striking
countries with feebler or non-existent public health systems harder. Within
countries, infection is far more frequent in districts where people live packed
together, as for instance immigrant labourers working in slaughterhouses or
picking fruit in European countries. This is a lesson that historians of science
have told about tuberculosis, but that seems forgotten.
1 Educating Critical Citizens to Face Post-truth: The Time Is Now 5

Critical thinking is not going to speed up the scientific quest for medical solu-
tions, for COVID or any other future diseases. However, we argue that it may equip
citizens to discard fake news, to use appropriate criteria to evaluate information, and
perhaps to consider lifestyle changes. It could support the identification of multiple
dimensions in SSI, including the acknowledgement of the uncertainty inherent to
science-in-the-making (Kampourakis, 2018). Critical thinking, in the approach that
we propose, is oriented to action, so it could promote responsible behaviour, such as
keeping distances, avoiding crowded events or wearing a mask, even when it means
some sacrifice and could be seen as benefiting others rather than oneself. Engaging in
action could also mean recognizing that not everybody has the same opportunities to
overcome disease, that social priorities should shift towards guaranteeing food and
healthcare for all.
In this chapter we first review literature about CT characterizations and
knowledge building dynamics in relation to post-truth; second, we discuss our
characterization of the components of CT, which is a revision of a previous one
(Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, 2012); third, we make the case for biology education
and environmental education as privileged learning environments to develop critical
thinking, which is particularly timed for current crises and post-truth challenges

1.2 Critical Thinking and Criticality: From a Focus

on Skills to a Focus on Practice

While CT is considered a valuable goal for education, it is also a complex notion, not
easy to define and to study, and that poses difficulties for operationalizing interven-
tions (Abrami et al., 2008, 2015). There are different views about CT meaning,
components, and about how to promote it. The rationale discussed in this section
draws from two strands: first, revised characterizations of CT, including criticality
and the relevance of identities and emotions; second, literature about post-truth,
pseudoscience, uncertainty, and science denial. Because critical thinking is under-
stood in different ways, both by scholars and by the general public, we begin this
section by briefly addressing some stereotypes, which may obscure what is CT and
what is not.
First, engaging in CT does not consists in criticizing everything, in considering
only negative aspects of a given issue although, as Davies and Barnett (2015) note,
for some people CT means a propensity for finding fault. As Diane Halpern (1998)
pointed out, the word “critical” is not meant to imply “finding fault” but evaluation
or judgment.
Second, CT involves taking into account empirical evidence, but it has also other
components, some cognitive or metacognitive, as self-regulation, some disposi-
tional, as willingness to reconsider and revise views, and affective. In other words,
understanding CT as only the examination of evidence is partial.
6 M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre and B. Puig

Third, CT could be developed in the context of a range of disciplines and subject

matters courses in education. However, it has been often claimed that philosophy is
the only discipline teaching or promoting CT. This “proprietary” assertion was
examined by Álvarez Ortiz (2007), who found that there is insufficient evidence to
back the claim that studying philosophy improves CT any more than other disci-
plines. This chapter is framed in a perspective considering that science education can
be an appropriate context to develop CT, and that biology and environmental
education are privileged learning environments to do so.
Fourth, we argue that the development of CT requires engagement in its practice.
In other words, that it cannot be developed by just receiving instruction, in a
transmissive approach, something already pointed out by Facione (1990).

1.2.1 Critical Thinking: Criticality, Identities and Practice

During three decades studies about CT have taken as a starting point the definition
developed by a Delphi panel of the American Philosophical Association (APA):
“purposeful, self-regulatory judgment, which results in interpretation, analysis,
evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual,
methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judg-
ment is based” (Facione, 1990, p. 2). The panel was formed by 46 experts although
only two of them, Anita Silvers and Carol Tucker, were women, a bias that
nowadays would probably not happen.
The panel found CT to include both cognitive and dispositional dimensions.
Regarding the first, they identified six core cognitive skills: interpretation, analysis,
evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation, about which a strong con-
sensus, ranging from 95% to 87%, was found. There were, however, fewer consen-
suses about the dispositional dimension: although there was agreement on cognitive
dispositions that can be correlated to each cognitive skill, there was a division about
the affective ones. 61% of the experts held that CT includes a reference to certain
affective dispositions, while one third of them restricted it to only cognitive ones.
Examples of affective dispositions are flexibility in considering alternatives and
opinions, honesty in facing one’s own biases, prejudices, stereotypes, egocentric
or sociocentric tendencies, or willingness to reconsider and revise views where
honest reflection suggest that change is warranted.
Although this APA definition has been highly influential, there is a recent shift
from a focus on CT as skills to a focus on CT as practice. In their introduction to the
Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education Davies and Barnett (2015)
pointed out some of the shortcomings of the APA definition: first, that it does not
lend itself easily to educational implementation; second that it is rooted in one kind of
CT, namely CT as argumentation and judgment formation, leaving out concerns
about the nature of criticality – discussed below–; third, that the dimensions in the
definition include skills, reflective judgment formation, and dispositions, but action is
1 Educating Critical Citizens to Face Post-truth: The Time Is Now 7

not mentioned. They concluded: “It is in principle possible to meet the stipulated
requirements of the definition and not do anything.” (Davies & Barnett, p. 11;
authors’ emphasis).
In a recent paper Deanna Kuhn (2019) argued for a sharpening of the construct of
CT, proposing to consider it as discourse, as a dialogic practice:
Extending this [dialogic] view of thinking more specifically to the construct of critical
thinking, critical thinking is a dialogic practice people commit to and thereby become
disposed to exercise, more than an individual ability or skill. Critical thinking as dialogue
is engaged initially interactively and then with practice in interiorized form” (Kuhn, 2019,
pp. 148–149).

The author noted that this dialogic view is proposed as a framing of CT, rather
than a restrictive definition. She suggested that it may help to bring together separate
strands of work regarding CT as a theoretical construct, a measurable skill, and an
educational objective. This perspective has consequences for how to promote its
development in classrooms for, as Kuhn pointed out, CT is not a fixed attribute, an
individual ability that qualifies someone for admission to the shared practice, but
rather a dynamic activity that is developed through engaging in the practice.
This perspective is in accordance, first, with conceptualizations of epistemic
cognition as a practice (Kelly, 2016), as epistemic practices are constructed in social
interaction, and they include interactionally accomplished understandings of know-
ing; second with the approach, framing the Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS Lead States, 2013) viewing science as consisting of a set of scientific
practices.
Davies and Barnett (2015) outlined three perspectives about CT, not entirely
separable: Philosophical, educational and socially active, the last itself a complex of
positions concerned with the transformation of society; it encompasses critical
pedagogy, which the authors conceive as educating to promote political activism,
and critical citizenship, which they view as cultivating a critical citizenry. For the
purposes of our proposal about the components of CT, the differences in interpre-
tation of the meaning of “critical”, discussed by them, are of relevance. For the
philosophical perspective it means “criticism”, for instance identifying weaknesses
in claims or arguments, while for the critical pedagogy it rather means “critique”, in
other words identifying dimensions that might be missing or concealed behind
claims or arguments. Davies and Barnett discussed the shift from a view of CT as
only composed of skills and dispositions, to criticality, a view including action.
Criticality comprises critical thinking, critical reflection and critical action.
Another shortcoming of the APA definition is that it did not adequately acknowl-
edge affective disposition and much less emotions, a criticism that it has also been
raised to criticality. Danvers (2016) claimed that “Re-imagining criticality through
specifically feminist engagements with relations, affects, bodies and materialities...
allows us to ask a different set of questions about how critical thinking is
conceptualised” (p. 283, author’s emphasis). Danvers’ focus would be on the
entanglement of unequal power, viewing CT as emerging “both through the web
of social, material and discursive knowledge practices that constitute criticality and
with the different bodies that enact it” (p. 283, author’s emphasis).
8 M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre and B. Puig

Many biology, environmental and health education topics, besides being contro-
versial, are emotionally laden, which may influence judgments and decisions about
them, and increase difficulties for facing post-truth. Some instances are anthropo-
genic climate change, genetically modified organisms (GMO), genetic diagnostic,
evolution, vaccination, water access, use of fertilizers or food options. Elizabeth
Hufnagel (2015, 2019; Chap. 3, this book) is carrying out a program of research on
emotional sense-making in climate change, pointing out that emotions provide a lens
to understand how learners engaged personally with this issue. She showed how
climate change – as may be the case with others mentioned above – requires, besides
science understanding, critical evaluations of the ways in which the issue is con-
strued in science education (Hufnagel, 2015). She highlighted the role of identities to
CT, as reference points for emotions. The focus on science (and engineering)
identities is of relevance for the perspective seeing criticality as involving commit-
ment to social justice. Lucy Avraamidou (2020) advocates the adoption of
postcolonial, critical race theories and feminist approaches to science identity
research for the purposes of addressing classroom inequalities and promoting social
change. Kelly et al. (2017) faced the challenge of promoting underrepresented
students’ recruitment, because girls and African-American students did not identify
themselves as engineers. Their work examined how engagement in engineering
provided opportunities for building new identities.
Our revised proposal of characterization of the components of CT is framed in
these perspectives: considering CT as a dialogic practice and as criticality, compris-
ing attention to identities and to critical action.

1.2.2 Knowledge-Building Dynamics: Post-truth and Science

Denial in Biology and Environmental Education

Because CT has been characterized as purposeful judgment, we argue that it is

connected to judgments about post-truth (we drop the quotation marks to facilitate
reading), science denial and pseudoscience or, in other words, that CT is necessary to
face all of them. Pseudoscientific claims and therapies, such as homeopathy or the
anti-vaccination movement, have existed for a long time. However, their recent
diffusion at a larger scale and the fact of being sometimes endorsed by social or
political leaders are causes of concern, leading to the term “post-truth era”
(McIntyre, 2018). When choosing post-truth as their word of the year in 2016, the
Oxford Dictionaries defined it as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which
objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion that appeals to emotion
and personal belief.” This concern is reflected in the 2020 special issue of the journal
Educational Psychologist focusing on how post-truth problems related to scientific
and socio-scientific issues may be addressed in education. In their introduction to the
issue, Barzilai and Chinn (2020) discussed five trends associated with the post-truth
condition, which may help to make sense of this educational and social threat:
1 Educating Critical Citizens to Face Post-truth: The Time Is Now 9

(1) Increasing prevalence and influence of misinformation (incorrect information

without intention to mislead) and disinformation (inaccurate information shared with
an intent to manipulate or harm); (2) Increasing rejection of well-established claims,
which does not mean critique or skepticism, but rather disagreement about verifiable
facts or claims strongly supported by evidence, such as vaccine safety, evolution or
anthropogenic climate change; (3) Placing personal belief and experience above
facts and evidence, supporting judgments on emotions or on anecdotal reports, rather
than on systematic data; (4) Declining trust in institutional sources of information
such as science and journalism, and increased consumption of news from social
media and partisan sources; (5) Increased fragmentation and polarization of infor-
mation consumption.
Barzilai and Chinn also reviewed four approaches or educational lenses to
address the post-truth condition: (1) Not knowing how to know, how to critically
deal with information; (2) Fallible ways of knowing, cognitive biases and limita-
tions; (3) Not caring (enough) about truth, not committing oneself to the pursuit of
epistemic ideals; (4) Disagreeing about how to know, a loss of shared epistemology.
Discussing cognitive bias, McIntyre (2018) pointed out how we often reason
within an emotional context, and how feeling psychological discomfort may lead to
accommodate our beliefs to our feelings. This attitude is termed motivated reason-
ing, an expectation of data confirming one’s beliefs or hoping that what one believe
is true. This goal is accomplished through mechanisms such as confirmation bias, by
which people interpret information so it confirms their preexisting beliefs. Both have
been studied in a range of educational contexts. Rebekka Darner (2019) examined
science denial, understood as the unwillingness to consider evidence that contradicts
one’s desired conclusion, and deemed it a form of pseudoscience. She drew from
work about the backfire effect (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010), showing how the presen-
tation of refutatory evidence may reinforce mistaken beliefs, as may occur with
negationists of climate change. This effect is even stronger when counter-evidence
threatens people’s identity or worldviews, as may be the case with evolution,
highlighting the role of identities, as discussed above. Darner suggested engaging
students in critical evaluation of novel explanations through plausibility appraisals.
The problem of rejection of information that contradicts individuals’ worldview is
also discussed by Sharon and Baram-Tsabari (2020), in their work about the
identification of misinformation. They suggested teaching open-mindedness in sci-
ence classrooms.
Asli Sezen-Barrie and colleagues have addressed denialism of climate change and
how to deal with it (Sezen-Barrie et al., Chap. 11, this book; Sezen-Barrie et al.,
2019, 2020). In doing so, they draw from the idea of critical sensemaking as a lens to
look at power relationships in classroom settings. Sezen-Barrie et al. (2020) explored
what teachers identify as sources of ambiguities and uncertainties when teaching
climate change and scaffolding students’ use of epistemic tools. The scholars
designed professional learning environments to provide opportunities for teachers
to learn how to support students in grappling with uncertainties and in acquiring
epistemic agency.
10 M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre and B. Puig

The relationships between post truth and science identity, and the role of social
identities, are examined by Lapsley and Chaloner (2020), and we will return to this
issue in the next section.
Feinstein and Waddington (2020), drawing from climate change examples,
focused on how science education can help people work together to make appropri-
ate use of science in social contexts, to help people survive and sustain democracy in
the post truth era. These authors warned against the “neoliberal trope that individuals
can and should take on responsibilities that would otherwise fall on institutions”
(p. 156), for instance sustainable consumption instead of environmental regulation.
Therefore education alone cannot offer solutions to post truth, without elimination of
structural factors that exacerbate polarization. They argued that accurate scientific
knowledge does not necessarily lead to particular courses of action, so we should be
more concerned with public support of policies that produce social and environmen-
tal catastrophe than with deep understanding of climate science. Feinstein and
Waddington concluded that “for science to be an important part of civic discourse,
civic discourse – including its more pluralistic, creative, and chaotic forms – must
become an important part of science education.” (p. 161).
We draw from these ideas about the post-truth challenges and the relevance of
civic discourse for our characterization of CT discussed next.

1.3 A Revised Characterization of Critical Thinking

In a previous work (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, 2012) we proposed a holistic

characterization of CT, including four types of components or dimensions, one set
of two related to argumentation, and another set of two “related to social emancipa-
tion and to citizenship” (p. 1006). Our argument, then and now, is that while almost
all definitions of CT take into account the first dimensions related to purposeful
judgment, there is another set of dimensions about a second meaning for critical,
drawing from critical theorists, such as Habermas, Bourdieu or Fairclough, as well as
from critical educators, such as Célestin Freinet or Paulo Freire, which should also
be included. This second sense, acknowledged in the criticality approach, was
anticipated in our characterization.
In this chapter we present a revised version of the characterization, including the
two sets, with refinements in the definition of the components in light of current
perspectives about CT discussed in the previous section.
Set A, Purposeful judgment, commitments to epistemic criteria and to evidence:
(1) Cognitive and epistemic skills; (2) Critical character, dispositions.
Set B, Civic participation and social justice, commitments to independent think-
ing and civic action: (3) The capacity to develop independent opinions and to
challenge socially and culturally established ideas; and (4) The capacity to criticize
inequalities and discourses that justify them, aligned with critical discourse analysis
(Fairclough, 1995).
1 Educating Critical Citizens to Face Post-truth: The Time Is Now 11

Fig. 1.1 A revised characterization of components of critical thinking

Figure 1.1 summarizes the revised characterization and its components or dimen-
sions, with examples from each dimension that should not be considered an exhaus-
tive list. Next we discuss each component, with more attention to the second set,
which is a distinctive feature of our proposal.
A first component, cognitive and epistemic skills, involves developing and using
epistemic standards or criteria in knowledge building and knowledge evaluation. A
core post truth challenge, according to Chinn et al. (2020), is the educational
response to disagreements about appropriate ways of knowing. Unpacking these
deep epistemic disagreements, they made a case that an apt response to them, and to
post-truth, requires making epistemic assumptions visible, justifying and negotiating
them, and developing shared commitments to appropriate standards and processes of
reasoning, in sum discussing ways of knowing together with others. In order to
develop these meta-epistemic abilities, they proposed educational practices termed
explorations into knowing, illustrated with the vaccination example. These practices
involve a shift from content-focused discourse, for instance whether vaccines are
harmful, to meta-epistemic discourse focused on epistemic aims, standards and
processes, for instance whether systematic studies are more reliable and why, or
whether fit with evidence is a more appropriate standard than fit with intuition.
Duncan et al. (Chap. 5, this book) make the case for how laypeople, including
students, engage in the practice of reasoning with evidence.
A second component, critical character, involves dispositions, for instance, to
consider evidence, be it supporting one’s own claims or contradicting previous
beliefs; to revise views; to evaluate the reliability of sources. It requires open-
mindedness, regarding a diversity of worldviews. Related to this component is
engagement in the process of forming a science identity which, as Avraamidou
12 M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre and B. Puig

(2020) argues, is personal but also political, for there are inequalities about who is or
is not recognized as a science person in specific contexts. Identities are the reference
points for emotions (Hufnagel, Chap. 3, this book), and their role to CT is decisive
because how people evaluate information is shaped by their identities.
A third component is the capacity to develop independent opinions and to
challenge socially and culturally established ideas. The focus is on the influence of
social interactions and peer’s approval on CT. Although a great deal of work about
CT focuses on individual learners, studies about the sociology of knowledge show
that knowledge and beliefs about the world are socially constructed: “we may
discount even the evidence of our own senses if we think that our beliefs are not
in harmony with those around us. In short, peer pressure works.” (McIntyre, 2018,
p. 39). Social conformity, the need for peer group approval, especially in adoles-
cence, and the difficulties experienced for challenging or overcoming socially
established ideas are documented in the literature. Joan Solomon (1987) reviewed
students’ ideas about science through this lens, suggesting that the continual
reaffirmation of social notions with other people makes them very durable and
resistant to change, as well as rather opaque to rational analysis. She pointed out
that too different a viewpoint would exclude from social intercourse, a price that few
are ready to pay. The role of identity-protective mechanisms in the preservation of
belief systems was examined by Lapsley and Chaloner (2020) in the context of post-
truth challenges. They argued that belief systems are relatively immune to correction
by contradicting information when they support social identities. In order to face
these challenges, they suggested that science education should include the internal-
ization of science identity, as well as a focus on intellectual virtue – cognitive
excellence or habits of mind – related to CT. It could be noted that social identities
may have been manipulated through appeals to emotions. Brocos and Jiménez-
Aleixandre (Chap. 12, this book) examine the obstacles hindering the adoption of
decisions challenging culturally established practices.
The capacity to challenge authority or peers’ ideas should not be understood as a
lack of consideration to different views, on the contrary. It involves a careful
evaluation of the information provided by different sources, of the assumptions
behind them, of the extent of their support by evidence. We suggest that a crucial
disposition in this component is to be prepared to challenge the mainstream ideas of
one’s own group or community. As an example (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, 2012),
it denotes a higher degree of independent thinking to be against capital punishment
in some contexts and countries where it is legal, that to be against it in other countries
where death punishment was abolished years ago. Darwin delayed for twenty years
the publication of The origin of species because he was afraid of its controversial
nature. His journals and notebooks document his reluctance to make public these
ideas, in particular about the origin of man, his fears of conflicts both with the
socially dominant creationism and with the religious beliefs of his wife (Desmond &
Moore, 1992).
A fourth component is critical action, which has, among others, two facets. On
the one hand critical consciousness, the capacity to analyse and criticize inequalities
and discourses that justify them, aligned with critical discourse analysis (Fairclough,
1 Educating Critical Citizens to Face Post-truth: The Time Is Now 13

1995). The issue of critical consciousness about environmental issues is explored by

Colucci-Gray and Gray (Chap.2, this book), in a work framed by the enactivist
approach, paying attention to embodied understanding and the coordination of social
action. On the other hand critical participation, which in a criticality approach is
related to engaging in action, resisting asymmetrical relations of power. We draw
from Jürgen Habermas’ (1981) notion of critical theory as a form of self-reflective
knowledge that expands the scope of autonomy, reducing domination. Habermas’
theory of communicative action assigns people the potentiality to develop actions
directed to social change. In the context of teaching about climate change, Sezen-
Barrie et al. (2020) use critical sensemaking as a lens to look at power relationships
in classrooms, where teachers, canonical views of science and assessment systems
have more power than students do. Drawing from a decolonial perspective, García-
Franco, Farrera-Reyes and Gómez-Galindo (Chap. 4, this book) discuss the contri-
butions of traditional and local knowledge, in the Mayan Highlands in Mexico, to the
development of CT relevant to students’ lives, and to science learning. Science
teachers’ forms of resistance in environmentally degraded areas in Chile are
analysed from an eco-feminist perspective in González-Weil et al. (Chap. 10, this
book). Teachers’ sensemaking of educating in sciences is mediated through the
relationship between science teaching and territory. In particular actions oriented
towards citizen participation about the use and quality of water are discussed. These
studies provide examples of CT connection to social emancipation and to
citizenship.

1.4 Biology Education and Environmental Education

as Privileged Contexts for the Development of Critical
Thinking

The perspective of critical thinking oriented to action may apply to a range of

educational settings in science, social sciences, language or arts. However, we
suggest that biology and environmental education are learning environments partic-
ularly relevant for developing CT. In this section we briefly address some reasons
that support this view and show the potential of biology and environmental educa-
tion as privileged contexts for the practice of critical thinking.
First, controversies in biology and environmental education are issues of major
concern in a range of life settings. Climate change and its consequences on human
and natural systems is an outstanding example. Resources that we depend upon –
such as water and energy –, agriculture or human health, are experiencing the effects
of global warming. Reducing our vulnerability to these impacts depends not only
upon our capacity to understand the scientific issue of climate change and its
implications, but also upon us taking critical action to reduce greenhouse emissions
or to change intensive breeding.
14 M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre and B. Puig

Second, issues in biology and environmental education have a social impact and
are close to students’ interests and needs. For instance, issues related to health are
personally relevant as they have a direct impact on people. Individuals can be
affected by health problems, and what we do to prevent them, can also affect the
health of others, as the pandemic of COVID-19 shows. Health and environmental
issues offer an opportunity to open up science to individually relevant questions
(Zeyer & Kyburz-Graber, 2012), so they can contribute to the development of
critical thinking. For instance, understanding resistance to antibiotics will introduce
students to the science behind the problem. According to Schulz and Nakamoto
(2012), it would not be sufficient to provide students with proper knowledge
regarding the effects and possible risks of antibiotics, but also the judgment skills
regarding the proper use of antibiotics.
Third, biology and environmental education provide real world situations in
which individuals are expected to make reasoned and independent decisions. Health
issues such as vaccination, gene therapy, and the COVID-19 pandemic provide
students’ opportunities to make critical choices based on evidence. Making thought-
ful decisions and taking action about environmental problems require independent
thinking. For instance, recycling and reducing waste materials is a personal choice
made by many people to protect the environment, but not always encouraged by
government policies and their communities. Both personal commitment and civic
action putting pressure on governments in order to modify structural injustice are
needed.
Fourth, environmental and health issues are complex problems, with no clear-cut
solutions, that present a degree of uncertainty, so they do not only involve under-
standing the scientific notions, but also the processes of knowledge construction and
knowledge evaluation in science. For instance, environmental problems as the
decline of bees allow students’ engagement in the critical examination of the
different perspectives about diverse causes and consequences of this problem
(Puig & Evagorou, 2020); but also on the role of science on problem-solving
attempts. These questions may help to raise awareness that science does not provide
definitive truths, and offer an opportunity to get students familiar with scientific
ways of thinking and researching showing the potential and limits of scientific
endeavours (Zeyer & Kyburz-Graber, 2012).
Fifth, SSIs in biology and environmental education include elements of critique
and social action. Issues such as vaccination, food consumption, use of land and
energies, involve potential consequences of action or inaction that present risks both
to the wellbeing of the human society and of the environment. The World Health
Organization (WHO) released a campaign call “Vaccines work for all” in April 2020
to promote the use of vaccines to protect people of all ages against disease. CT is
necessary for making responsible decisions as vaccination and for understanding the
social consequences of our actions. Furthermore, serious crises as the COVID-19
pandemic reveal and magnify existing social inequalities. Recent studies indicate
that Black and Latino populations are experiencing higher rates of infection and
COVID-related death than their white counterparts across USA (Davila et al., 2020).
Critical thinking is crucial for addressing these social inequalities when facing
diseases and other biology and environmental problems in the classroom.
1 Educating Critical Citizens to Face Post-truth: The Time Is Now 15

Sixth, environmental and health problems are multifaceted problems that require
multi-sectorial responses, thus collaborative work to achieve better solutions. The
“One health” approach promoted by WHO, means that human health cannot be
understood without the health of other living beings and the environment. Many of
the same microbes infect animals and humans, as they share the eco-systems they
live in, so efforts by just one sector cannot prevent or eliminate the problem (Hitziger
et al., 2018).
Seventh, socio-scientific issues in biology and environmental educations are
value-laden problems that involve informal reasoning and in many cases emotions.
They provide a background of opportunities for value judgment, as for instance
when deciding what to eat and the adequacy of different diets according to environ-
mental and nutritional criteria (Brocos & Jiménez-Aleixandre, Chap. 12, this book);
when dealing with this issue in the biology classroom, conflicts emerge in the debate,
and the acknowledgement that it is not always possible to reach a solution that meets
all interests. This acknowledgement is part of the development of critical thinking
about complex, real life issues. In order to address SSIs, according to Lombard et al.
(2020), cognitive empathy is a significant skill; what means understanding others’
emotional reactions in the process of developing CT. Future biology teachers
expressed that they feel unequipped to manage students’ reactions and to guide
these debates (Evagorou & Puig, 2017). While encouraging students to consider
evidence-based alternative explanations is of primary importance, it is equally
important that teachers are equipped for this purpose.
Eighth, teaching of SSIs in biology and environmental education presents chal-
lenges related with pseudoscience and the post-truth era as the anti-vaccination and
climate change denial movements and the increase of fake news during the pandemic
reveal. Although fake news are not new, the easy way they spread through social
media and the Internet makes difficult to control them (Willingham, 2008). The
amount of information in social media paradoxically does not help to value and
assess other opinions; rather it obstructs CT, particularly perspective-taking
(Lombard et al., 2020). Furthermore, the pervasiveness of fake news is more
frequent in relation to biology and environmental topics – homeopathy, vaccination,
and climate change – than in other science areas. Learners need to develop CT to
assess health messages, distinguish scientific facts from opinions, and make personal
decisions on immunization and medical treatments, amongst other issues (Puig &
Ageitos, Chap. 7, this book; Uskola, Chap. 9, this book).
For students to truly learn how to make argued and responsible decisions on SSI
they will encounter in life as those discussed above, they need practice, which aligns
with the call for developing CT in biology classrooms. While research on content
knowledge and different modes of reasoning on SSI is vast in biology education
(Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003), CT development has been understudied. This is the gap
that the chapters in this book seek to fill. The timing is appropriate, as the twenty-first
century has brought significant changes in all aspects of life, including education
(Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2002), and CT is now being considered
a goal.
16 M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre and B. Puig

1.5 Concluding Thoughts

Devastating events shatter certainties and expectations. Although there were numer-
ous wars and catastrophes in many countries after World War II, none of them
reached planetary dimension until COVID-19 struck. There are lessons that we, as
humanity, should learn from the pandemic, and it would be wrong to strive for a
return to life “just as it was before”, for it was an unsustainable life and one devoid of
equity and social justice. Before the pandemic humans were – they still are – causing
severe damage to planet Earth, depleting resources, breaking natural balances,
ignoring scientific forewarnings about irreversible effects of global warming, carry-
ing out intensive animal breeding with attention only to money profit and not to
environmental care or much less to the rights of sentient beings.
Lessons from the pandemic should be framed in the One Health concept,
meaning human, animal and environment health. In other words, humans cannot
expect to be healthy if animals are living in unhealthy conditions and the environ-
ment is deteriorating. Biology taught us those relationships between unwholesome
environments and diseases, and humans need to pay heed to them, before the next
deadly outbreak. An important lesson is that we should place caring for the envi-
ronment before benefits for big companies: far from being wishful thinking, this
reverse of current values is a question of survival.
The implications for biology and environmental education are, among others,
first, that the social impacts of scientific issues, rather than a footnote, should be an
integral part of biology teaching; second that the complexity of SSIs need to be fully
addressed; third, that a part of developing critical thinking is to be prepared to take
critical action. As Colucci-Gray and Gray (Chap. 2, this book) claim, critical
education is a process of cultivating consciousness for reason, action and social
justice. The Lancet Migration Panel (Orcutt et al., 2020) issued a call for the
inclusion of migrants and refugees in the COVID-19 response. It is a question of
social justice, equity, human rights but, as these authors pointed out, it should not be
overlooked that from a self-interest perspective the control of the outbreak will only
be successful if all populations are included. The case of infections beginning with
immigrants forced to live in unsanitary conditions is revealing. Fourth, biology
education and environmental education should involve learning to use adequate
criteria to assess information. The more citizens in a given society are capable of
discarding fake news, of distinguishing between reliable and unreliable information,
the more democratic that society would be. It would be a step on the road to a world
where humans identify themselves as part of the environment and not out of or
above it.

Acknowledgements Work supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Education and Univer-
sities, partly funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Contract grant
PGC2018-096581-B-C22; and European Union (Erasmus+) project CRITHINKEDU , code,
2016-1-T01-KA203-022808.
1 Educating Critical Citizens to Face Post-truth: The Time Is Now 17

References

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang,
D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage
1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 1102–1134.
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson,
T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063
Álvarez Ortiz, C. M. (2007). Does philosophy improve critical thinking skills? Master thesis.
University of Melbourne. Accessed at https://www.reasoninglab.com/wp-content/uploads/201
7/05/Alvarez-Final_Version.pdf
Avraamidou, L. (2020). Science identity as a landscape of becoming: Rethinking recognition and
emotions through an intersectionality lens. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15, 323–345.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09954-7
Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2020). A review of educational responses to the “post-truth” condition:
Four lenses on “post-truth” problems. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 107–119. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1786388
Chinn, C. A., Barzilai, S., & Duncan, R. G. (2020). Disagreeing about how to know. The
instructional value of explorations into knowing. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 167–180.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1786387
Cui, J., Li, F., & Shi, Z.-L. (2019). Origin and evolution of pathogenic coronaviruses. Nature
Reviews Microbiology, 17, 181–192.
Danvers, E. C. (2016). Criticality’s affective entanglements: Rethinking emotion and critical
thinking in higher education. Gender and Education, 28, 282–297.
Darner, R. (2019). How can educators confront science denial? Educational Researcher, 48(4),
229–238. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19849415
Davies, M., & Barnett, R. (2015). Introduction. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave
handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 1–25). Palgrave Macmillan.
Davila, K., Abraham, M., & Seaberry, C. (2020). Towards health equity in Connecticut. The role of
social inequality and the impact of COVID-19. DataHaven, June 2020. Accessed at: https://
ctdatahaven.org/reports/towards-health-equity-connecticut
Desmond, A., & Moore, J. (1992). Darwin. Penguin.
Evagorou, M. & Puig Mauriz, B. (2017). Engaging elementary school pre-service teachers in
modeling a socioscientific issue as a way to help them appreciate the social aspects of science.
International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2),
113–123. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.99074
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educa-
tional assessment and instruction. California State University.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. Longman.
Fan, Y., Zhao, K., Shi, Z.-L., & Zhou, P. (2019). Bat coronaviruses in China. Viruses, 11, 210.
https://doi.org/10.3390/v11030210
Feinstein, N. W., & Waddington, D. I. (2020). Individual truth judgments or purposeful, collective
sensemaking? Rethinking science education’s response to the post-truth era. Educational
Psychologist, 55(3), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1780130
Habermas, J. (1981–1984). The theory of communicative action. Beacon Press.
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. Dispositions, skills,
structure training and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455.
Hitziger, M. O., Esposito, R., Canali, M., Aragrande, M., Häsler, B., & Rüegg, S. (2018). Knowl-
edge integration in one health policy formulation, implementation and evaluation. Bulletin of the
World Health Organization, 96, 211–218. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.202705.
Accessed at: https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/96/3/17-202705/en/
18 M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre and B. Puig

Hufnagel, E. (2015). Preservice elementary teachers’ emotional connections and disconnections to

climate change in a science course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 1296–1324.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21245
Hufnagel, E. (2019). Emotional discourse as constructed in an environmental science course. In
G. J. Kelly & J. L. Green (Eds.), Theory and methods for sociocultural research in science and
engineering education (pp. 155–180). Routledge.
IPBES. (2020). IPBES workshop on biodiversity and pandemics. Executive report. Accessed at
https://ipbes.net/pandemics
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical
thinking. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook for
science education (Vol. 2, pp. 1001–1017). Springer.
Kampourakis, K. (2018). Science and uncertainty. Science & Education, 27(9), 829–830.
Kelly, G. J. (2016). Methodological considerations for interactional perspectives on epistemic
cognition. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition
(pp. 393–408). Routledge.
Kelly, G. J., Cunningham, C., & Rickets, A. (2017). Engaging in identity work through engineering
practices in elementary classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 39, 48–59. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.linged.2017.05.003
Kuhn, D. (2019). Critical thinking as discourse. Human Development, 62, 146–164.
Lapsley, D., & Chaloner, D. (2020). Post-truth and science identity: A virtue-based approach to
science education. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00461520.2020.1778480
Lombard, F., Schneider, D. K., Merminod, M., & Weiss, L. (2020). Balancing emotion and reason
to develop critical thinking about popularized neurosciences. Science & Education, 29,
1139–1176.
McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-truth. MIT Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National
Academies Press.
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions.
Political Behavior, 32, 303–330.
Orcutt, M., Patel, P., Burns, R., Hiam, L., Aldridge, R., Devakumar, D., Kumar, B., Spiegel, P., &
Abubakar, I. (2020, May 9). Global call to action for inclusion of migrants and refugees in the
COVID-19 response. The Lancet, 395, 1482–1483.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2002). Learning for the 21st century. Partnership for 21st
Century Learning. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id¼ED480035
Puig, B., & Evagorou, M. (2020). Design of a socioscientific issue unit with the use of modeling:
The case of bees. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 11(1), 98–107. https://doi.org/
10.14434/ijdl.v11i1.24142
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship. Open University Press.
Schulz, P. J., & Nakamoto, K. (2012). The concept of health literacy. In A. Zeyer & R. Kyburz-
Graber (Eds.), Science. Environment. Health. Towards a renewed pedagogy for science edu-
cation (pp. 69–87). Springer.
Sezen-Barrie, A., Shea, N., & Borman, J. H. (2019). Probing into the sources of ignorance: Science
teachers’ practices of constructing arguments or rebuttals to denialism of climate change.
Environmental Education Research, 25(6), 846–866.
Sezen-Barrie, A., Stapleton, M. K., & Marbach-Ad, G. (2020). Science teachers’ sensemaking of
the use of epistemic tools to scaffold students’ knowledge (re)construction in classrooms.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21621
Sharon, A. J., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2020). Can science literacy help individuals identify
misinformation in everyday life? Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21581
1 Educating Critical Citizens to Face Post-truth: The Time Is Now 19

Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupils’ understanding of science.

Studies in Science Education, 14, 63–82.
Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy
Review, 109(4), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32
Zeyer, A., & Kyburz-Graber, R. (2012). Science. Environment. Health. Towards a renewed
pedagogy for science education. Springer.
Zhou, P., Fan, H., Lan, T., . . . Ma, J.-Y. (2018, April 12). Fatal swine acute diarrhoea syndrome
caused by an HKU2-related coronavirus of bat origin. Nature, 556, 255–258.
Chapter 2
Critical Thinking in the Flesh: Movement
and Metaphors in a World in Flux

Laura Colucci-Gray and Donald Gray

2.1 Introduction: Critical Thinking as the Invitation

to Think Anew in Biology Education

Confronted with the global social, economic and environmental crisis, critical
questions have been raised as to the purpose and practices of education vis a’ vis
the future. Writing about the decline of reason in everyday life, Stanley Aronowitz
(1977) highlighted 40 years ago that “critical thinking is the fundamental precondi-
tion for an autonomous and self-motivated public or citizenry” (p. 49). At heart,
critical education is a process of cultivating consciousness for reason, action and
social justice. From this perspective, being conscious ‘is a radical form of being’
(Freire, 1978), in which education helps learners to understand systems of power that
regulate social interaction, critically analyse their situation, and to link theory and
action for positive change. In biology education, this concern for the ‘critical’ has
manifested itself through a variegated set of research practices, ranging from the
analysis of students’ preconceptions of biological concepts, to supporting students’
argumentation and decision-making on complex, socio-scientific and socio-
environmental issues. Arguably however, scholarly work on the possible role of
pedagogy in radically transforming education for social and ecological justice, and
develop more sustainable imaginations, remains fragmentary at best (Osberg &
Biesta, 2021).

L. Colucci-Gray (*)
Moray House School of Education and Sport, The University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, Scotland
e-mail: [email protected]
D. Gray
School of Education, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 21

B. Puig, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), Critical Thinking in Biology
and Environmental Education, Contributions from Biology Education Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_2
22 L. Colucci-Gray and D. Gray

Starting from the more established definition of critical thinking as a skill that can
be taught and applied by students to the redefinition of existing conceptual schemas,
this chapter will first discuss the value and the limitations of ‘teaching for critical
thinking’ whereby ‘thinking’ is separate from ‘doing’. In the second part of the
analysis, we will discuss recent perspectives on critical thinking highlighting the role
of language tools and context in shaping the ability to formulate new thoughts.
Specifically, we will focus upon enactivist theories of cognition (Gallagher &
Lindgren, 2015), offering a renovated attention to the role of the body and language:
not as a set of idioms for the delivery of information, but as a tool located within an
inherently embodied understanding of oneself in the world. (Shapiro & Stolz, 2019).
This positions shifts the focus of attention from critical thinking as process taking
place ‘in the head’ to critical thinking as the emergence of conscious thought in
dialogue between oneself and the environment. Methodologically, the writing of this
chapter will follow the guidelines offered by Saldaña (1999) on the creation of texts
unfolding in the manner of theatre, that is, through the construction of three-
dimensional portrayals. Perceptions from the research literature will join in dialogue
with field-notes extracted directly from instances of teaching: “revealing how
different characters react to one another” (Saldaña, 1999 cited by Leavy, 2015,
p. 185). Following the post-qualitative insights of St. Pierre (2014, p. 7), the aim is
not to offer our “participants to our readers on a silver platter” for knowledge
consumption, but to create a ‘collective story’ of which the researchers – and writers
of this chapter – are also a part. Drawing on current thinking in the philosophy of
biology, this chapter will take a critical stance over ‘intellectualist’ views of critical
thinking in biology education with a view to re-align school science with the critical
questions raised in biology at the turn of the century.

2.2 Biology at the Interface Between Environment

and Society

Starting from an historical account of the evolution of the concept of ‘gene’, in 2000,
Evelyn Fox Keller asked the question: “What will the biology of the twenty-first
century look like”? Without claiming to predict the future, Keller made reference to a
newly emerging lexicon, one that emphasises ‘checkpoints’; ‘epigenetics’ and
‘metabolic networks’, in order to signal the profound transformation of the field
and most importantly, to engage the audience in considering what needs are those
terms expected to satisfy in the coming decades. For example, Keller (2010) details
the astonishment that derived from new understandings of DNA in the cell. One of
the most powerful and challenging critiques was addressed to the very notion of
genes as autonomous elements, or that “to think of the development of traits as a
product of causal elements interacting with one another” (Keller, 2010 p. 6), that she
deemed as fiction, because development depends on the complex orchestration of
multiple elements and interactions. Far from being a ‘repository’ of genetic
2 Critical Thinking in the Flesh: Movement and Metaphors in a World in Flux 23

information, self-sufficient and self-replicating, a more accurate portrayal of genetic

transmission reflects the complex and dynamic communication amongst the differ-
ent component parts of the cell, coordinating with each other to edit, proofread and
repair the new molecules. Hence, changes in biological understandings reflected in
language point to significant changes of understandings of the living world, caught
between early mechanistic ideas to emerging views of the Planet as a living system, a
complex network of material and energy transformations.
These ideas resonate with current philosophies of process biology (Nicholson &
Dupré, 2018), rooted in the philosophical ideas of Whitehead (1925) whom, in
Science and the Modern World, argued against the reductionist, and determinist
view of nature, which dominated for most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,
by advocating a philosophy of nature that stressed the interdependence of all things.
“If science is not to degenerate into a medley of ad hoc hypotheses – argued
Whitehead – it must become philosophical and must enter upon a thorough criticism
of its own foundations” (Whitehead 1925, p. 25). Hence, the task for a biology of the
twenty-first century is that of re-imagining a new philosophy of biology that would
emancipate itself from reductionist influences, but also from obscure and obscuran-
tist vitalistic notions, which fail to account for the dialectical tension between change
and structure in biology. Another prominent exponent of processual biology,
Edward Stuart Russell for example rejected the static construction of the organism
as a machine to suggest instead a view of the organism as a ‘something happening’,
as “a phase of a life-cycle” (Russell, 1930, p. 171). As he put it in a subsequent
discussion “[i]t is as a lifecycle progression and not as a static organisation that the
living thing is ultimately to be conceived” (Russell, 1945, p. 186).
Such recognition changes the focus of biology from the study of things or objects
to the study of phenomena taking place at different time-scales, thus calling for a
more sophisticated grasp of time and temporal change as different branches of
biology may capture it (e.g. from the quicker pace of physiology to the slower
tempo of inheritance and evolutionary change).
Overall, this distinctly processual approach to biology that emerged from the
influence of the metaphysics of Alfred Whitehead, is one that warns against the
danger of abstraction and one which rejects a preoccupation with biology as
concerned with the primacy of objects and things regarded as the basic ‘building
blocks’ of reality (Nicholson & Dupré, 2018). Rather, the dynamicity of change is
primal. In this view, things do not precede processes; and processes do not exist
simply as manifestations of the materiality of things undergoing some external
agency. As Nicholson and Dupré (2018) remarked: “What we identify as things
are no more than transient patterns of stability in the surrounding flux, temporary
eddies in the continuous flow of process (p. 13). The peculiar properties of an
organism originate from the interrelations amongst the parts, and the same applies
to the specific components (e.g. organs; tissues, etc.), whose properties are deter-
mined by the interconnections taking place amongst all entities at play. In their
process of ‘becoming’, organisms, parts and relations change themselves and one
another (Gagliasso, 2001). Such state of affairs is exemplified by metabolic pro-
cesses, which concretely demonstrate that our physical beings are a ‘knot’ amongst
24 L. Colucci-Gray and D. Gray

the multitude of living processes that connect the bios. Whether we feed on meat or
vegetables, and the fact that we are ourselves the living environment for other
species of microorganisms, are a physical manifestation and a reminder that our
existence is dependent upon a ‘sharing of worlds and knowing functions’ with the
rest of the living world.
Notably, this form thinking has influenced current developments in ecology, with
recognition of the limitations of previous ideas of species interactions, which
emphasised the negative, competitive aspects (i.e. competition and predation).
Understanding nature as flux brings recognition of ecosystems as open, relational
units (see Pierce, 2015, p. 192) for also the commonly known ‘invasive’ species can
contribute to maintain stability in nature. For an extensive discussion of this notion
of ‘shared’ worlds, see for example Jablonka and Lamb (2005) on the ongoing
interplay of genetic, epigenetic, behavioural and symbolic dimensions in the evolu-
tion of living organisms. With reference to a series of studies with rabbits, the
researchers illustrate how the intelligence of young rabbits with respect to their
feeding habits is shaped by their genetic characteristics, as well as the biochemical
conditions of the mother’s womb, which is – in turn – continuously shaped by the
mother’s behaviour responding to wider environmental conditions. Far from being a
diktat of their genetic programme, the ‘vegetarian diet’ of the young rabbits can thus
be understood ‘contingently’ as a result and manifestation of their existence in a
‘shared’ world’. Interestingly, these ideas appear to resonate with thinking in
education – developed in a different time and context – as Vygotsky (1994)
maintained that the person is not separate from her environment; instead, there is a
unity/identity of the two. To understand the person’s characteristic behaviour, one
needs to know the characteristics of the environment, including other people and
their language.

2.3 Language and Material Demarcations

While acknowledging the growth of support for a processual view of biology

influencing other realms of general culture and education, the pervasive bias towards
a reductionist view of biological ‘things’ however is perpetuated in everyday
communication through powerful and pervasive forms of demarcation, continuously
separating processes from things.1 As Keller stated (2000), the words that scientists

1
Keller (2000) provides a critique of the central dogma of the gene according to which ‘One gene-
one protein’ by acknowledging first that such specificity is an idea that is no longer accepted,
replaced as it were by established recognition that ‘one gene-many proteins’. However, the problem
that persists is that there is no means to ascertain how a gene could decide over which protein to
make. Keller argues that this problem lies with language underscored by a deeply mechanistic
epistemology, which separates process from product: the ultimate responsibility for the product
does not lie with the gene but in the complex regulatory system of the cell as a whole (for a fuller
articulation of this debate see Keller, 2000, p. 63).
2 Critical Thinking in the Flesh: Movement and Metaphors in a World in Flux 25

use play a crucial role in the way they are being motivated to action, their attention
directed to particular features and questions. Hence, a first line of inquiry into critical
thinking in biology starts from the use of language, and most importantly, the
materials, economic and social context in which that language originates and
functions.
Such understanding is critical with recognition of contemporary developments in
biology. On the one hand, we assist at the ongoing reduction of biodiversity globally
while on the other hand, developments in computing technologies integrating the bio
with the ‘micro’, ‘nano’ and ‘digital’ dimensions (Seo et al., 2019) are significantly
modifying original conceptions of the living, and the boundary between our human-
ity and our machines, including the sense of our own selves. An interesting example
is the substantial investment into DNA computing, that is, machines, which incor-
porate DNA materials instead of the traditional silicon-based transistors, yielding the
promise of increased computational power at smaller scales. However the hopes of
what DNA computing might be able to achieve raise critical questions about how
such technologies will or could interact with the evolutionary processes longer term;
and how such developments – regardless of their desirability – call for a critical
review of what we understand and want to protect about ‘being human’ (Facer,
2011).
Donna Haraway (2016) captures this idea through the shift from noun to verb,
‘worlding’, blending the material and the semiotic to remove the boundaries between
subject and environment, to highlight and make possible different temporalities and
modes of being. “Reality is an active verb – says Haraway – and the nouns all seem
to be gerunds with more appendages than an octopus” (Haraway, 2008, p. 6).
‘Worlding’ stands in stark contrast with intellectualised views of man and environ-
ment, and representational views of knowledge, to assert instead an active, ontolog-
ical process; a way of being in and attending to the world.
Taking a view of language as a central and dynamic response to the way in which
scientists imagine their object of inquiry and asks questions of it provides a route
into the process of critical and reflexive inquiry in biology. Arguably, the task of
inquiring into future imaginaries of biology is not the task of linguists and philos-
ophers alone, but one that exposes the limitations of contemporary understandings
of critical thinking in biology education, which may fall short of accounting
for socio-technical change in education. We argue that a contemporary analysis of
critical thinking in biology cannot be disentangled from understanding the
processual nature of biological entities, brought into sharp focus by the prospected
trans-human future that our children might inhabit. In the following sections, we
will draw upon a processual view of biology and an enactivist view of cognition
to derive some insights for a pedagogy of critical thinking in contemporary biology
education.
26 L. Colucci-Gray and D. Gray

2.4 Structure and Process Supporting Critical Thinking

in Biology Education

Between the years 1899 and 1910, a series of 87 futuristic pictures by Jean-Marc
Côté and other artists were issued in France. Originally, in the form of paper cards
enclosed in cigar boxes and, later, as postcards, the images depicted the world as it
was imagined to be like in the then distant year of 2000 (The Public Domain
Review). The images depict all aspects of social life at the time, from agriculture to
space exploration, domestic life to education. One of such pictures related to learning
and the classroom (Fig. 2.1) is presented to the reader here as a prompt for
illustrating features of critical thinking. The question is quite simple: what do
you see?
Two views of critical thinking in education have derived from psychological
analysis. One is Gestalt psychology – a tradition that focuses on perception (see
Wertheimer, 1938). In Gestalt psychology, critical thinking and problem solving are
understood as the reorganisation of perception that is, through the ability to approach
a problem from a different point of view. Critical thinking is thus largely associated
with ‘visual’ experience and habits, which need somewhat to be ‘reorganised’ into a
new configuration. For example, repeated experience of “perceiving an object in one
way, such as a pair of tongs as a tool for handcraft, may hinder its perception in
another way, such as seeing the pair of tongs as a possible ballast” (see Maier, 1931
in Schnotz et al., 2010, p, 11). The other is psychology of information processing,
focusing on thinking as a linear process of finding the right way through a problem
space. This approach functions on the basis that the students will have ‘a

Fig. 2.1 ‘At School’. Futuristic image of education in the year 2000 (as featured in Public Doman
Review; public domain)
2 Critical Thinking in the Flesh: Movement and Metaphors in a World in Flux 27

representation’ of the initial state of the problem at their disposal and a rather
concrete idea about the goal. The process of learning will then unfold through the
setting up of the conceptual space, which will support ‘intermediate states’ of
thinking until the goal state has been reached.
When referring back to the image in Fig. 2.1, the first immediate reaction is that of
focusing on the individual components in the picture: first the heads of the students,
which are located at the centre of the visual space. Then the cables connecting the
heads with the systems of electrical wires above, and moving on to the image on the
right hand-side: the whirring machine and the two human figures feeding it with
books and human labour. Once the detail of the main subjects is uncovered, further
questions then will arise: who is feeding the machine? Who is the boy turning the
handle? And why is he dressed differently from the other boys? Such questions lead
to a sudden realisation that perhaps the depiction of children learning in the
classroom – albeit strange – is not as innocent as it might have first appeared.
Some assumptions about equality, the nature of knowledge and the teacher’s role
are re-viewed.
As summarised by Schnotz et al. (2010), while the central tenet of Gestalt theory
is sudden restructuring that leads to insight, the information processing approach
relies on the search for possible paths; it is a gradual and linear process leading from
the initial state to the goal state. While they may appear as two contrasting
approaches, the authors maintain that these are in fact complementary to one
another: one focusing on the ‘structure’ and ‘framing’ of the problem; the other
focusing on the actual procedures. The ‘visual’ reading of the picture above illus-
trated this potential integration. The subjects represented in the picture could be
‘framed’ in Gestalt terms as a ‘class’ of individuals (in which the boy crouching
down near the machine and the man standing up were an ‘exception’ with the
potential to reveal the ‘limits’ of the frame). Alternatively, they could be perceived
as a set of individual entities, showing up in rows of stationary bodies. Drawing on
Ohlsson (1992), Schnotz et al. (2010) uphold the view that these different modes of
thinking can and should be integrated within the process of learning, the central
question being how the problem to be solved (the initial state) is represented and
structured – as an image – in the mind of the learner.
Such emphasis on ‘mental representations’ or ‘schema’ has given rise to a
significant amount of literature in science education, and especially research focus-
sing on the analysis of students’ conceptions and representations. The assumption
underpinning this work is that learning progresses on the basis of existing represen-
tations, responsible for shaping the activation of thinking patterns that students
would apply to the matter at hand. Examples of this tradition are taken from the
extensive research conducted over the past 30 years on children’s views: of the water
cycle (Bar, 1989), of the weather (Dove, 1998) and of the shape of the Earth across
multiple countries (see Diakidoy et al., 1997; Frède et al., 2011). Most of the studies
conclude with making recommendations about the teaching of concepts that need to
pre-exist (or to be taught) in order for the correct representation to take form. For
example, understanding the weather – and specifically rainfall as a phenomenon –
“requires prior understanding of evaporation, accounting for condensation and
heaviness” (Bar, 1989, p. 481).
28 L. Colucci-Gray and D. Gray

Hence, ascertaining or ‘capturing’ the existence of students’ conceptions

(or alternative frameworks, Viennot, 1979) with a view to build a different account –
or a different conception – that may accommodate new evidence, has formed the
basis of the established pedagogical tradition of teaching for conceptual change
(Hewson & Hewson, 1984). In this view, structure and thinking are closely interre-
lated as learners draw upon their conceptual schema to account for a new observation
or an experience and gradually modify their views. However, such interrelation is
also somewhat tautological, as the construction of the ‘new’ representation requires
operations to be performed on that very structure.
This recognition poses two problems; first, that choosing a new (and potentially
better) representation is not as simple as ‘picking’ one that may be available. This is
because representations do not exist per se, but they will show their representational
features to the extent to which thinking operations are activated upon them. Sec-
ondly, there is the question of ‘experience’, which in traditional Gestalt theory is
understood to be potentially limiting the opportunities for learners to change their
ways of seeing and understanding reality. For example, returning to the image in
Fig. 2.1, viewers may or may not question what is being depicted on the postcard; if
their own experience of classrooms and teaching has been one that resonates with
‘sitting at a desk and not talking’, the representation on the card – albeit
anachronistic – will validate that particular ‘configuration’ of learning and teaching.
Hence, the idea of critical thinking as a cognitive function that can be taught
either in the form of information processing or visual/integrated understanding,
reaches an impasse when dealing with students who may not have valid represen-
tations at hand. As remarked by Wetzels et al. (2010), learners with different levels
of prior knowledge may also differ in intelligence, motivation, or interest, which in
turn will affect the activation of thinking processes and learning. Such state of affairs
is at odds with the notion advanced by processual biology that human existence is
always in flux, for our learning is depending and contingent upon a world in ongoing
transformations. The literature on conceptual change falls short of explanations for
how to bridge conceptual representations with a pedagogy of critical contingency.

2.5 Embodied Cognition and Enactivism

In a revised account of the work of Vygotsky, Wolff-Michael Roth put forward a

critique of classical approaches to learning in science, which are based on represen-
tational models of knowing whereby pupils’ thinking can be externalised and
matched against the correct/incorrect conceptions or schemas. “Studies of concep-
tions tend to focus on semantics [. . .]. The images that students construct are taken to
‘signify’ a presumed reality, thereby failing to address other aspects of knowing”
(Roth, 2017, p. 256). The author identifies an essential problem with an overly
intellectualised view of knowing, namely one that emphasises the mind-body gap,
by reducing body movement and experience to intellect. Children’s views of the
world appear as if they were dead, language being separate from affect and from its
materiality (e.g., Vygotsky, 1987).
2 Critical Thinking in the Flesh: Movement and Metaphors in a World in Flux 29

Indeed, recent contributions from research on learning and cognition across a

diverse array of discipline areas, such as philosophy, psychology, linguistics, neu-
roscience, and computer science, have challenged traditional cognitivist accounts of
the mind (Shapiro, 2011). The view that is emerging instead is known as embodied
cognition, which can range in form from a weak embodied cognition through to a
more radical embodiment known as enactivism (e.g. Gallagher, 2017; Gallagher &
Lindgren, 2015; Coello & Fischer, 2016; Shapiro & Stoltz, 2019). Enactivist origins
can be traced to the work of Varela et al. (1991) arguing against the idea of cognition
as mental problem solving, involving representations in the head, and rather emerg-
ing from processes distributed across brain, body and the environment. According to
this view, cognition is grounded in our bodily movements (embodied action) and
that adaptation to our environment has both emerged from and resulted into a
cognitive system that is enacted through ‘structural coupling’ of organism and
context (for an extended account, see Shapiro & Stolz, 2019).
While classical cognitive science directed its attention towards internal mecha-
nisms (individualised focus), embodied knowing emphasises the intersubjective and
socially situated dimensions of being and learning. Most crucially, the enactivist
view of cognition lays emphasis on movement, with the idea that the sensory-motor
apparatus structure our perceptions of the world (Noë, 2004). In other words, what
‘enters’ our field of perception literally depends on ‘what we can do’ in that field of
action-perception, thus in terms of its pragmatic meaning. As it was already explored
by John Dewey almost a century ago, the pragmatist approach to cognition under-
scores that perception is not a passive phenomenon triggered by an external sensory
stimulus, but it is an active process, one that comes into being in sensorimotor
coordination. “It is the movement that is primary, and the sensation which is
secondary, the movement of body, head and eye muscles determining the quality
of what is experienced (Dewey, 1896, p. 358). For example, a chair is perceived as
‘apt’ for sitting not because of the shape itself, but because of the characteristics of
the human body, which is able to bend legs and knees at particular angles. By the
same token, a chair may afford other functions, as other objects may afford the
opportunity to sit down. In such interplay of bodily movement, perception and
context lies great potential for making meanings and for developing linguistic
creativity, e.g. a large rock on the beach may be named as a ‘throne’ for admiring
the sea-view.

2.6 The ‘Thinking’ Body

In relation to learning, the most significant contribution of embodied cognition is a

renovated understanding of language, not as the labelling activity of a dispassionate
observer but as an expression of sensorimotor engagement of the organism-in-the-
world. The well-known work of Lakoff and Johnson (1980) illustrated the role of
basic bodily movements and gestures (e.g. stepping forward; moving back; pointing
to) in the formation of abstract concepts expressed through metaphors. Their work
30 L. Colucci-Gray and D. Gray

literally illustrated the work of the body understood as a nexus of information,

energy and materials flows in intra-actions. For example, we experience the body
as a ‘container’ when we eat; or as a box into which we can ‘bury’ our thoughts and
feelings when we feel unable to move, relate or communicate with others. Such
dynamic exchanges come to our awareness in the form of ‘image-schemas’, which
do not attempt to ‘depict’ an image of the world in the manner of a snapshot, but they
capture the mind-body-state in its complex intra-actions at any one time.
From a scientific perspective, the creation of metaphors is central to the ability to
conceptualise processes that may not be accessible to the field of human, everyday
experience (e.g. at the micro or macro scale); most interestingly however, the
embodied cognition perspective is also suggestive that image-schemas are situated
‘in the environment’ as opposed to being solely ‘in the head’. Metaphors are thus
considered as “tools for working with the experience” (Kirmayer, 1992, p. 335), and
which emerge from experience in an ecological fashion (Gibson, 1979).
From an educational perspective, the enactivist position shines new light on the
processing of information. While it is known that pictorial representations require
less mental effort than verbal representations (Cox, 1999; Mayer, 2001), recent
experiments with participants reading or listening to language describing sensori-
motor events – either in action or in visual language – have shown the fast activation
of cortical, motor hand areas with verbs related to hand actions (e.g. Tettamanti et al.,
2005). In addition, such sensorimotor involvement is dependent on both task and
linguistic context (Willems & Francken, 2012).
Returning to the image presented in Fig. 2.1, we discussed some of these ideas
with a group of first year students enrolled in a Degree Course in Primary Education,
as part of an introduction to an elective course on outdoor learning led by Donald
Gray. Students contributed free responses to the pictorial representation, aided by the
use of three stimulus questions2:
it looks like the body’s function is to be a vessel in which knowledge can be uploaded;
The body seems to be useless, and its only purpose is to sit and allow knowledge to be
unnaturally absorbed.

Such responses are interesting as they emphasise processes of transmission and

assimilation, a vertical structure literally channelling information from point A to
point B. It is notable the level of metaphorical language that is being used, with the
body being ‘like a vessel’ and ‘knowledge being either uploaded’ in the manner of
computers; or ‘absorbed’ in what may be the manner of a sponge. The use of
metaphorical language directs attention to the mind-body split whereby the body is
the carrier of abstract representations. . .
the body seems to be portrayed as a working tool. . .;
The body seems to be almost part of a machine.

2
The three stimuli were set as follows: (a) What is the role of the body (if any)?; (b) What are the
children learning? (c) Is it like that today (How is it different; How is it the same)?
2 Critical Thinking in the Flesh: Movement and Metaphors in a World in Flux 31

But most interestingly, it also points to the vicarious triggering of sensorimotor

perception associated with familiar technological structures in a manner that the
students will have experienced in their everyday lives, and such vicarious experience
is underscored by implicit value-positions. As indicated by Leavy (2015), students
‘voices are revealing of how they respond affectively to the teacher-student split:
children learn whatever the teacher decides

Seemingly affirming a political and ethical stance, which arises from the partic-
ular configuration of the visual and technological structure in the picture.
Students’ comments are of particular interest, as they spur us to think differently
about the function of signs and tools in visual representations. Image-schemas do not
exist in isolation but are constituent parts of participants and their relations – they are
in fact the means of their relations. According to an enactivist view, thought does not
pre-exist doing (or talking) but instead “the movement of thinking from thought to
word is a developmental process. Thought is not expressed but completed in the
word” (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 250, emphasis added). Secondly, according to the prag-
matist branch of enactivism, not only thought is completed in the word, but also
words do not stand by themselves, continuously becoming in the ongoing process of
transaction (Dewey, 1896) of the organism through the environment. Thinking is not
expressed – or externalised – by the gestures of the body, but it exists through it.

2.7 New Clothes for the Emperor. . .?

Taking an enactivist position on learning and teaching in biology, is the equivalent

of a tectonic shift in the way we understand children’s ideas and conceptions in
biology, and our choices of methods for teaching and research. In the first instance,
we are required to think of thinking ‘as the moving body’, and thus always ‘in the
making’. In this sense, as remarked by Pink (2012), embodied knowledge is not
simply ‘stored information’ but it involves biological processes. Secondly, such a
dynamic view of thinking challenges the relationship between researchers
(or teachers) and pupils: understanding of mental conceptions can only take place
through ongoing physical intra-actions. Thirdly, in order to support critical thinking
in biology – as well as other disciplines – we need to be more acutely aware of the
role that the body plays in the development of the relation – that is – how bodies
relate through the activity of learning.
Roth (2017) provides an example of such principles translated in engineering
teaching practice by showing how “the work-related (hand, body) movements that
build and manipulate artefacts, or sensing (hand) movements deployed during an
investigation, later function as symbolic movements” (p. 257). And in a similar vein,
the field of mathematics education has taken an embodied cognition stance towards
32 L. Colucci-Gray and D. Gray

learning by recognising the link between abstract thinking and physical gestures
(Duijzer et al., 2019). Communication is thus interwoven with doing, employed for
the purpose of doing engineering design more so than being about the subject. This
is so because, for example:
when I describe a circle with my hand on a piece of paper . . . my body . . . comes into a state
fully identical with the form of the circle outside my body, into a state of real action in the
form of a circle” (Il’enkov, 1977, p. 69, original emphasis).

Similarly, recent contributions from the field of childhood studies (see Lenz-
Taguchi, 2010) are shifting attention from interpersonal human relationships
towards intra-active connections amongst all living organisms and the material
environment, such as objects and artefacts, spaces and places. In alignment with a
process view of biology and learning, the focus is on “how thinking and living in
pedagogical practices is an entwined material-discursive business which will make
us think about and perform our work differently” (p. 90).
To some readers, such dynamic articulation of knowing, doing and thinking may
feel familiar, as there is a long tradition in science teaching of deploying kinaesthetic
approaches to bring scientific knowledge alive in the classroom. Notable examples
include the application of dramatic performances for modelling of scientific concepts
(Abrahams & Braund, 2011); simulations of decision-making processes on environ-
mental issues (Colucci-Gray et al., 2006) and embodied modelling of conceptual
metaphors to generate understanding of common biological processes (Niebert &
Gropengiesser, 2015). As Treagust and Duit (2015) underlined, the body of consol-
idated scientific knowledge is overflowing with metaphors; so it is not yet clear what
may be the value added of embodied cognition to science education and how this
approach can contribute to critical thinking. Traditionally, it is the skill of the teacher
to create space through discussion “to allow learners to critique whatever analogous
model or method is used so that its successes in promoting understanding and its
limitations as a version of scientific reality are clear” (Braund, 2015, p. 115).
In order to overcome this impasse, it is helpful to return to Gallagher and
Lindgren (2015) who distinguished ‘sitting’ metaphors – which are part of language,
are taken for granted, and may help with understanding of texts; and ‘live’ meta-
phors, as ones that are brought into existence through action. Literally, through the
process of ‘acting’ in the ‘as if’ state. While the two metaphors may coincide,
(e.g. see for example the metaphor of ‘cycle’) what changes is that sitting metaphors
have long lost the original connection with the context in which they first originated.
So, in biology for example, we recognise a number of sitting metaphors which
accrue the body of knowledge but are derived from different strands of biological
thought, connected to society at different historical points, from conservation genet-
ics (e.g. bottleneck; genetic drift), to system theory (e.g. networks, nodes; for an
extensive account see Larson, 2011). Hence, in the first instance, selecting a ‘good’
metaphor requires an implicit understanding of the larger linguistic ecology in which
that metaphor is located. The ‘choice’ of metaphor will thus be telling of the social
2 Critical Thinking in the Flesh: Movement and Metaphors in a World in Flux 33

and cultural context of any speaker/learner, and revealing something of his or her
own selves. Arguably however, engaging with the literary content of metaphors
brings a new set of implications for research in biology education, calling for greater
attention to the meaning of the word per se, and not simply for their functional use as
‘indicators’ of acquired scientific knowledge. In fact, if metaphors are not “merely
shorthand for facts” (Larson, 2011, p. 128), the modelling of conceptual metaphors
will not be simply an epistemic decision but it will be more correctly understood as a
‘rhetorical act’ inviting viewers to act upon the world as if it were configured in a
specific way (Bono, 1990).

2.8 Enlivened Metaphors in ‘Rhetorical Acts’

Following Andrews (2014), the rise of interest in democratic representation, inter-

nationally, and across different sectors of society, has been accompanied by the rise
of interest in argumentation, that being as a function of social communication and as
a domain of scientific education. However, understanding the rhetorical dimension
of scientific learning is key for making sense of the role of argumentation in society,
and primarily, sharpening understanding of “the power and limitations of commu-
nication in whichever modes [. . .] and a critical perspective of communication and
action and how they work in relation to each other” (Andrews, 2014, p. 73). A
contemporary view of rhetoric therefore rejects intellectualised models of commu-
nicating to acknowledge instead the wide range of thought and feeling that goes into
communication.
In this view, we can attempt to provide a renovated understanding of language in
biology and its connections with critical thinking. We will conclude with two
examples. The first one is addressed to the field of research on argumentation. In a
study focussed on students’ argumentation explaining the links between sickle cell
disease and malaria (Ageitos et al., 2019), we invited readers to adopt ‘a double lens’
to the reading of students’ discussions related to genetics and evolution. Far from
seeking to label all argumentative moves, we sought instead to uncover and make
explicit the relational-discursive configurations underpinning students’ understand-
ing of causal events, often presented in the form of silent metaphors. While the
problem of the relationship between sickle cell disease and malaria centres on the
complex adaptive responses of organisms and environments, students in the study
continued to focus on traits or causes that were specific to individuals, thus
re-presenting the old issue of linear causality in genetics (Jiménez-Aleixandre,
2014). However, when analysed through the lenses of rhetorical analysis, we
found that the ‘silent’ metaphor framing their dialogue was the ‘mystery culprit’
identified as the original carrier of the infection, as opposed to looking for systemic,
multi-levelled interactions. Such metaphors were both used and ‘enacted’ by the
34 L. Colucci-Gray and D. Gray

students through the search for actors, places, times and specific actions, combining
induction and deduction to justify the account of events there portrayed.3 From a
research perspective, such ‘critical’ reading of students’ discussions involves a shift
from approaching biology learning as a set of content to engaging with students’
discussions in the manner of a text: whose voices are represented? Who is included?
Who is excluded? Who has remained silent?
The second example is derived from recent work with future teachers in a
University-based teacher education context at the first author’s (Colucci-Gray)
university. As part of a session outdoors that due to coronavirus restrictions took
place in the University’s Rugby pitch, students were asked to ‘take a walk’ around
the space, collect any item they would find significant and arrange it into a piece of
‘land art’. The session titled Sustainability in STEM was an introduction to inter-
disciplinary learning and place-based education. There in the pitch we were standing
at the foot of Arthur’s Seat, the volcanic plug that is the main peak of hills in the city
of Edinburgh. One of the chemistry students returned with several items of discarded
plastic that she collected from under the trees at the margins of the pitch. She titled
the display as a ‘volcano of rubbish’! (Fig. 2.2)
A powerful metaphor, which contained in itself the imagery of the volcano
overlooking the pitch along with the troubled history of fossil fuel extraction; the
linear thinking connecting production with disposal and the gradual growth of
awareness of the unintended consequences. As part of a Gestalt switch, the newly
made ‘art form’ brought the problem ‘from the margins to the centre’. From a
cognitive point of view, a shift of ‘reference-point’ occurred here, understood as a
schematic procedure of imaginative nature mediated by the visual art form leading to
a switch of target focus: from the green grass that had been presented to us upon
arrival, to the rubbish that was hidden away (and yet ubiquitous feature of our urban
lives). But the conceptual switch was also a rhetorical act, inviting to ‘see and act
upon the world’ in the manner emphasised by Bono (1990), and an ontological shift
from the world ‘out there’ to a world in the making.

3
Capra and Luisi (2014) effectively illustrate how even the classical Aristotelian syllogism is not a
form of disembodied reasoning but it grows out of our bodily experience. For example, the physical
experience of the body as container (e.g. of infected blood) or the body as ‘carrier’ (e.g. of an
infection) is projected onto an abstract category (e.g. the idea of cell disease) thus giving legitimacy
to the logical reasoning that follows. As the authors stated: “the structures and bodies and brains
determine the concepts we can form and the reasoning we can engage in” (p. 273). From this, it
follows that an education for critical thinking will pay greater attention to the experience of the body
and its unconscious thought.
2 Critical Thinking in the Flesh: Movement and Metaphors in a World in Flux 35

Fig. 2.2 ‘A volcano of

rubbish’ – land art

2.9 Conclusions

In this chapter, we reviewed some of the current debates on the use of visual
representations, as they are part of conventional practice of both teaching and
research in biology education. This chapter took a stance against intellectualist
views of knowledge as being discordant with current contributions of processual
biology and post-humanism proffering the need for a different stance on knowledge
and learning: one that is rooted into the body as a prime locus of knowing. In this
view, we argue that an education focussed on knowing about the world is no longer
sufficient. As humans that are an integral part of the Earth’s web of energy and
material transformations, a critical stance on biology education is one that will
enable us to ‘read’ the transformations of which we are a part. This requires a
practical, experiential and fundamentally relational understanding of how the
world works, but also an openness towards literary and aesthetic engagement with
experience, as a source of new metaphors that brings together cognition with feelings
and action in current times.
We argue that a new approach to critical thinking in biology is one that affords
itself of greater epistemological sophistication, supported by the possibility of a
‘moving/feeling/thinking’ body in a field of space-relations. We have illustrated the
importance of recognising the role of space – e.g. the outdoors – as a key target
source for conceptual thinking, but also as a place where we can immediately assess
36 L. Colucci-Gray and D. Gray

the impact of our actions, both cognitively but primarily affectively. A feeling body
is one that pays attention to what is deemed relevant or irrelevant and it is open to
switching the target focus from the inside to the outside; from what is noticed to what
is silent.
The voices of our students from the outdoor learning course keep resonating in
our heads. . . what is education like today? Is it similar. . .? Different?
I think that nowadays there is an emphasis on learning data as opposed to knowledge or
wisdom. Contextless data provides little opportunity for reflection or space for the learner to
ask questions and be critical of their education and society.

An education for critical thinking is thus an education, which moves from a

vertical mode of thinking, whereby the reference points are the systems of symbolic
abstractions, to a horizontal thinking mode. Here the primary goal is not the control
and management of knowledge but the opportunity to put in relation and connect
information and experiences from different contexts and different sources. More
research is needed on learning and teaching processes seeking to integrate these
different forms of thinking, for example, by combining linguistic analysis with
practical modelling, ranging from illustration, design, making and dance. In such
process, greater attention is paid to visual aesthetics. Not as a means to aid the
transfer of scientific knowledge, but as a source of affective metaphorical thinking
which can extend our abilities – as students, teachers, researchers – to think the world
(for a fuller account of these different discourses on knowledge, and the connections
between arts and science via STEAM, see Colucci-Gray et al., 2019). A biology
education for critical consciousness is also concerned with attention to the world as
we make it, directing attention towards solidarities with different social movements,
such as those struggling for food sovereignty (https://viacampesina.org), climate
justice (https://climatejusticeaction.net) or racial justice (https://blacklivesmatter.
com), whereby biological knowledge is brought into direct contact with the lives of
different people.
Resonating with Keller (2000, p. 148): “At my optimistic, I even imagine the
possibility that new concepts can open innovative ground where scientists and lay
persons can think and act together to develop policy that is both politically and
scientifically realistic”.

References

Abrahams, I., & Braund, M. (Eds.). (2011). Performing science. Teaching chemistry, physics and
biology through drama. Continuum.
Ageitos, N., Puig, B., & Colucci-Gray, L. (2019). Examining reasoning practices and epistemic
actions to explore students’ understanding of genetics and evolution. Science & Education,
28(9), 1209–1233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00086-6
Andrews, R. (2014). A theory of contemporary rhetoric. Routledge.
Aronowitz, S. (1977). Mass culture and the eclipse of reason. The implications for pedagogy.
College English, April, 768–774.
Bar, V. (1989). Children’s views about the water cycle. Science Education, 73(4), 481–500.
2 Critical Thinking in the Flesh: Movement and Metaphors in a World in Flux 37

Bono, J. J. (1990). Science, discourse, and literature: The role/rule of metaphor in science. In
S. Peterfreund (Ed.), Literature and science: Theory and practice. Northeastern University
Press.
Braund, M. (2015). Drama and learning science: An empty space? British Educational Research
Journal, 41(1), 102–121.
Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life. A unifying vision. Cambridge University
Press.
Coello, Y., & Fischer, M. (Eds.). (2016). Perceptual and emotional embodiment: Foundations of
embodied cognition (Vol. 1). Routledge.
Colucci-Gray, L., Camino, E., Barbiero, G., & Gray, D. (2006). From scientific literacy to
sustainability literacy: An ecological framework for education. Science Education, 90, 227–252.
Colucci-Gray, L., Burnard, P., Gray, D. S., & Cooke, C. F. (2019). STEAM (Science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics, with art). In P. Thomson (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of
education (pp. 1–26). Oxford University Press.
Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences.
Learning and Instruction, 9, 343–363.
Dewey, J. (1896). The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychological Review, 3(4), 357–370.
Diakidoy, A., Vosniadou, S., & Hawks, S. (1997). Conceptual change in astronomy: Models of the
earth and of the day/night cycle in American-Indian children. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 12(2), 159–184.
Dove, J. (1998). Alternative conceptions about weather. School Science Review, 79(289), 65–69.
Duijzer, C., Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Veldhuis, M., et al. (2019). Embodied learning
environments for graphing motion: A systematic literature review. Educational Psychology
Review, 31, 597–629.
Facer, K. (2011). Learning futures. Education, technology, social change. Routledge.
Frède, V., et al. (2011). The acquisition of scientific knowledge: The influence of methods of
questioning and analysis on the interpretation of children’s conceptions of the earth. Infant and
Child Development, 20(6), 432–448.
Freire, P. (1978). Pedagogy in process: The letters to Guinea-Bissau. Writers and Readers.
Gagliasso, E. (2001). Verso un’epistemologia del mondo vivente. Guerini Studio.
Gallagher, S. (2017). Enactivist interventions : Rethinking the mind. Oxford University Press.
Gallagher, S., & Lindgren, R. (2015). Enactive metaphors: Learning through full-body engagement.
Educational Psychology Review, 27, 391–404.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. University of Minnesota Press.
Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University
Press.
Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. A. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change
and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1–13.
Il’enkov, E. V. (1977). Dialectical logic: Essays on its history and theory. Progress.
Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2005). Evolution in four dimensions. Genetic, epigenetic, behavioural
and symbolic variations in the history of life. MIT.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2014). Determinism and under-determination in genetics: Implications
for students’ engagement in argumentation and epistemic practices. Science & Education, 23(2),
465–484.
Keller, E. F. (2000). The century of the gene. Harvard University Press.
Keller, E. F. (2010). The mirage of a space between nature and nurture. Duke University Press.
Kirmayer, L. J. (1992). The Body’s insistence on meaning: Metaphor as presentation and repre-
sentation in illness experience. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 6(4), 323–346.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago University Press.
Larson, B. (2011). Metaphors for environmental sustainability. Redefining our relationship with
nature. Yale University Press.
Leavy, P. (2015). Method meets art. Arts-based research practice (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
38 L. Colucci-Gray and D. Gray

Lenz-Taguchi, H. (2010). Going beyond the theory/practice divide in early childhood education:
Introducing an intra-active pedagogy. Routledge.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
Nicholson, D., & Dupré, J. (2018). Everything flows: Towards a processual philosophy of biology.
Oxford University Press.
Niebert, K., & Gropengiesser, H. (2015). Understanding starts in the mesocosm: Conceptual
metaphor as a framework for external representations in science teaching. International Journal
of Science Education, 37(5–6), 903–933.
Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. MIT Press.
Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information processing explanations of insight and related phenomena. In
M. Keane & K. Gilhooly (Eds.), Advances in the psychology of thinking (pp. 1–44). Harvester-
Wheatsheaf.
Osberg, D., & Biesta, G. (2021). Beyond curriculum: Groundwork for a non-instrumental theory of
education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 53(1), 57–70.
Pierce, F. (2015). The new wild. Why invasive species will be nature’s salvation. Iconbooks.
Pink, S. (2012). Principles for sensory ethnography: Perception, place, knowing, memory and
imagination. In Doing sensory ethnography. Sage.
Roth, W.-M. (2017). The thinking body in/of multimodal engineering literacy. Theory Into Prac-
tice, 56(4), 255–262.
Russell, E. S. (1930). The interpretation of development and heredity: A study in biological method.
Clarendon.
Russell, E. S. (1945). The Directiveness of organic activities. Cambridge University Press.
Saldaña, J. (1999). Playwriting with data: Ethnographic performance texts. Youth Theatre Journal,
13(1), 60–71.
Schnotz, W., Baadte, C., Müller, A., & Rasch, R. (2010). Creative thinking and problem solving
with depictive and descriptive representations. In L. Verschaffel, E. De Corte, J. Elen, & T. de
Jong (Eds.), Use of external representations in reasoning and problem solving: Analysis and
improvement (pp. 11–36). Routledge.
Seo, J., Kim, S., Park, H. H., Choi, D. Y., & Nam, J.-M. (2019). Nano-bio-computing lipid
nanotablet. Science Advances, 5(2), eaau2124.
Shapiro, L. (2011). Embodied cognition. Routledge.
Shapiro, L., & Stolz, S. A. (2019). Embodied cognition and its significance for education. Theory
and Research in Education, 17(1), 19–39.
St. Pierre, E. (2014). A brief and personal history of post qualitative research toward “post inquiry”.
Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 30(2), 2–19.
Tettamanti, M., Buccino, G., Saccuman, M. C., Gallese, V., Danna, M., Scifo, P., et al. (2005).
Listening to action-related sentences activates fronto-parietal motor circuits. Journal of Cogni-
tive Neuroscience, 17, 273–281.
The Public Domain Review. A 19th century vision of the year 2000. Available at: https://
publicdomainreview.org/collection/a-19th-century-vision-of-the-year-2000. Accessed
29 Oct 2020.
Treagust, D. F., & Duit, R. (2015). On the significance of conceptual metaphors in teaching and
learning science: Commentary on Lancor; Niebert and Gropengiesser; and Fuchs. International
Journal of Science Education, 37(5–6), 958–965.
Varela, F., Thomson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind. Cognitive science and human
experience. The MIT Press.
Viennot, L. (1979). Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics. European Journal of Science
Education, 1(2), 205–221.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1: Problems of general
psychology). Springer.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.),
The Vygotsky reader (pp. 338–354). Blackwell.
2 Critical Thinking in the Flesh: Movement and Metaphors in a World in Flux 39

Wertheimer, M. (1924/1938). Gestalt theory. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A source book of gestalt

psychology (pp. 1–11). London Kegan.
Wetzels, S. J., Kester, L., & van Merriënboer, J. G. (2010). Use of external representations in
science prompting and reinforcing prior knowledge activation. In L. Verschaffel, E. De Corte,
J. Elen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Use of external representations in reasoning and problem solving:
Analysis and improvement (pp. 225–241). Routledge.
Whitehead, A. N. (1925). Science and the modern world. Cambridge University Press.
Willems, R. M., & Francken, J. C. (2012). Embodied cognition: Taking the next step. Frontiers in
Psychology, 3, 582. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00582
Chapter 3
Emotional Sense-Making and Critical
Thinking in the Era of Post-truth: The Case
of Climate Change

Elizabeth Hufnagel

3.1 Introduction

How instructors attend to the intersection of school science and people’s identities,
that span and cross school walls and boundaries (Aikenhead, 1996; Darner, 2019),
have raised important questions about the permeability of classroom walls in science
sense-making. In particular, uncertainty exists about how to teach science in an era
when ideas that are substantiated and established in science communities are
contested by policy makers, world leaders, and the general public. While this anti-
science trend is not new, it has become more amplified and powerful in the current
post-truth world in which social media use abounds. Critical thinking has been put
forth as one tool “for confronting pseudoscience and credulity” (Jiménez-Aleixandre
& Erduran, 2007, p. 8). Attending to critical thinking, though, invokes questions
about how science teachers grapple with teaching science in ways to accurately
represent scientific knowledge and practices while attending to students’ identities.
What comes to the fore, then, are the emotions of the teachers and their students, and
how teachers navigate critical thinking with respect to emotions. As such, the
discussion of what counts as truth, as science, and as critical thinking are embedded
in emotional relationships with epistemologies and identities.
The aim of this chapter is to consider the intersection between what counts as
truth and emotions and how unpacking these spaces makes salient assumptions
about emotions within critical thinking. In particular, I bound this exploration to
the case of climate change denial. I first briefly describe critical thinking theoriza-
tions that highlight the situated ways in which it is accomplished. In doing so, I draw

E. Hufnagel (*)
University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 41

B. Puig, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), Critical Thinking in Biology
and Environmental Education, Contributions from Biology Education Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_3
42 E. Hufnagel

from theorizations of epistemology in science education to describe how underpin-

nings of critical thinking link to anti-science stances in the public discourse on
climate change and science. A thread throughout these spaces is identity, which is
the reference point for emotions. As such, I describe emotional sense-making,
highlighting the role of identities, to critical thinking. I then present a set of findings
from a methods course on climate change education for pre-service secondary
science teachers to underscore the intersection between the teachers’ shared goal
of critical thinking and how they orient to students who deny human-caused climate
change.

3.2 Critical Thinking in Science Education

Drawing from fields of philosophy and psychology, critical thinking has been
conceptualized in a variety of ways. In science education, critical thinking is
associated with scientific argumentation as it largely involves the evaluation of
claims or knowledge by examining evidence (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, 2012).
Critical thinking entails “developing criteria for evaluating” data, evidence, and
experts (López-Facal & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2009, p. 694). According to Jiménez-
Aleixandre and Puig (2012), critical thinking extends beyond aspects of scientific
argumentation – knowledge or claims evaluation and a disposition to seek reasons,
including challenging authority – to include emancipatory features. One such eman-
cipatory aspect is the questioning of information so as to not subscribe to group
opinions as a default. Another feature is the critical analysis of discourse for
inequalities or the justification of inequalities. Within this theorization, Jiménez-
Aleixandre and Puig (2012) orient toward the role of discourse of critical thinking
and in doing so, open the door to what is salient in the discourse when critical
thinking is negotiated, practiced, and accomplished.
While an extensive overview of influences on critical thinking outside of emo-
tions is beyond the scope of this chapter, the ways in which epistemology and the
situatedness of critical thinking shape emotions within critical thinking is important.
Critical thinking is closely linked to epistemic beliefs and practices (Greene & Yu,
2015; Jiménez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007). In particular, Jiménez-Aleixandre and
Erduran (2007) point out the distinction between personal (or practical) epistemol-
ogies and those of scientists in scientific argumentation. While the demarcation is
needed for robust epistemologies of science areas of inquiry, I orient to epistemo-
logical classifications as disciplinary, personal, and socially practiced (Kelly et al.,
2012). The disciplinary perspective centers on the normative philosophical features
of disciplinary structure and evidence embedded in specific science communities.
The personal perspective focuses on “personal views of truth, rather than on
disciplinary considerations of rationality, truth, and justification” (Kelly et al.,
2012, p. 282). The crux of the social perspective is on the social practices in
3 Emotional Sense-Making and Critical Thinking in the Era of Post-truth: The. . . 43

which knowledge is constructed in situ, which Jiménez-Aleixandre (2014) describes

as enacted epistemic disciplinary practices. Across these different orientations to
epistemology is one particular theme that is most salient to the nexus of critical
thinking and emotions,
epistemology is interpreted, not only in the traditional sense, concerning the origins, scope,
nature, and limitations of knowledge, but as an interactional accomplishment among mem-
bers who define for themselves what counts as knowledge in a particular context. . .This
view suggests that knowledge be examined as it occurs in practical actions, rather than as
measured by students’ decontextualized views of epistemology, nature of science, and so
forth. Thus, through interaction with the world and each other, members of communities
come to define what counts as knowledge, evidence, explanation, and so forth, and embody
an epistemology through such actions (Kelly et al., 2012, p. 288).

Although Kelly et al. (2012) did not consider science denial in their chapter and
focused their theorizations on research within science learning settings, their sug-
gestions about knowledge construction and group affiliation lend themselves to this
discussion on critical thinking. Since knowledge is constructed through interactions
with the world and others and that affiliation shapes what counts as knowledge,
including evidence-based explanations, it is not much of a jump to understand how
people have come to deny particular science explanations. Within communities
(face-to-face and online), affiliation shapes what counts as knowledge—and what
doesn’t. Hence, epistemology is imbued with identities—singular and collective—
which are frames of reference for making sense of the world.
An eye toward the three perspectives of epistemology (as disciplinary, personal,
and socially practiced), then, suggests that critical thinking is dynamic. However,
underlying many theories of critical thinking is the assumption that it is a static skill
(e.g. Danvers, 2016; Pithers & Soden, 2000). Given that critical thinking spans
settings, whether in science classrooms or outside of them, the act of thinking
critically varies as it is influenced by context and the norms and routines of a
given context (Pithers & Soden, 2000). In other words, critical thinking takes shapes
interactionally in unique ways depending on the specific people, tools, objects, and
knowledge involved and invoked. As such, critical thinking is not an essentialized
skill but a social practice that is shaped by the discourse in which it is constructed
and therefore shifts in its constitution across settings (Danvers, 2016). Furthermore,
the accomplishment or enactment of critical thinking is not static not only due to the
situatedness, but also the person involved. How people evaluate information is
shaped by their identities and underlying epistemological orientations to what counts
as scientific knowledge. Hence, it makes sense that teaching critical thinking is not
prescriptive, as it is embedded within the context in which the learner is situated
(Pithers & Soden, 2000), histories, personalities, and experiences of the learner
(Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, 2012; Hofer, 2001) and the role of particular disci-
plinary knowledge and practices (Greene & Yu, 2015).
44 E. Hufnagel

3.3 Anti-science Stances and Post-truth

Critical thinking has been put forth as one tool “for confronting pseudoscience and
credulity” (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007, p. 8). Anti-science stances have
been taking shape for decades throughout the world, particularly with respect to
evolution (e.g. Deniz et al., 2008; Eder et al., 2011; Glaze & Goldston, 2015; Skoog
& Bilica, 2002). However, this stance has not been exclusive to evolution and now
includes science explanations for climate change, vaccinations, and so forth. Anti-
science stances are similar to science denial and post-truth, all of which comprise a
nomenclature that captures ways people seek to refute or ignore aspects of scientific
explanations. While the term post-truth is somewhat fluid in its definition, it involves
a de-emphasis of facts and expertise while accentuating sensations of feeling or
seeming true (Fischer, 2019). Underlying post-truth are epistemological and onto-
logical questions about how people identify what counts as knowledge in relation to
how it counts within science disciplines and areas of inquiry. Even with calls to
attend to science learning as entangled in both relativism and objectivism, rather than
the false binary of relativism or objectivism (Van Poeck, 2019), the dominant
rhetoric has been that science facts are the best approach to addressing post-truth
(Fischer, 2019).
Complicating this post-truth landscape is the decentralization of the publishing
process, whereby digital resources and news sources can be accessed easily to align
with one’s ideologies. Hence, “every perspective can be catered to because, ulti-
mately, consumers are a demographic to sell news to, profit from and whose views
can be catered to. It is this new media landscape that has fostered a suitable
environment for fake news to be believed” (Barton, 2019, p. 1028). Underlying
this media landscape is that the meaning and interpretation of information is
dependent on the user as every person interacts with information in relation to
their own experiences (Barton, 2019). Compounding the access to anti-science
stances is the role of algorithms that dictate what one interacts with in social
media and other digital media settings (Boler & Davis, 2018), thus creating echo
chambers. In Höttecke and Allchin’s (2020) recent piece, they recommend that
science education incorporate science media literacy as a prominent part of the
nature of science in schools. In doing so, they recognize how the conclusions and
practices of science are modified as they move from communities of scientists to the
general public, mediated by internet resources. While the recognition of science
communication in what counts as scientific knowledge is not new (Jiménez-Aleix-
andre, 2014), the broad reach of digital media is. Hence, the ways in which scientific
information is taken up, framed, and shared intersects with science classroom
learning, as students and teachers interact with science instruction in ways that are
not divorced from their identities and sense making outside of the classroom. Given
the permeability of classroom walls, students and teachers orient to science based on
their identities, which are situated and imbued with learning and connections to
ideas, events, and interactions (Avraamidou, 2020; Gee, 2000).
3 Emotional Sense-Making and Critical Thinking in the Era of Post-truth: The. . . 45

3.4 Emotions as Part of Critical Thinking

The deeply situated ways in which critically thinking is accomplished and the uptick
in anti-science stances is then ripe for attending to emotions within critical thinking.
Despite calls to attend to science topics as emotionally laden (Darner, 2019),
particularly those that are considered socio-scientific issues or related to sustainabil-
ity (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, 2012; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005), the emotional
dimension of post-truth has been limited. Specifically, the emphasis on emotions
in post-truth centers on the ways sources of disinformation frame messages to appeal
to emotion, while simultaneously positioning itself as an authority (Barton, 2019,
p. 1027). The prevalence of emotions in media and politics does not represent a
recent shift. Instead, the recognition of them as integral to politics and sense-making
is recent (Boler & Davis, 2018; Hufnagel, 2019a).
In my work, I draw from theories of emotions in social psychology and neuro-
science to challenge prevailing assumptions about emotions in educational research
(see Hufnagel, 2019b for a full discussion). Emotions are evaluative mechanisms
(Barrett, 2017) that make sense of the world. As such, they indicate personal
relevance and a deep and urgent relationship to ideas, objects, and so forth more
so than other forms of affect. Given this relational aspect, emotions are contextual,
interactional, intertextual, and consequential in that they are embedded in and
constructed in the discourse (Boiger & Mesquita, 2012; Hufnagel & Kelly, 2018)
in which they are used, shaped, and shared (Hufnagel, 2020). As mechanisms that
make sense of our world, emotions are neither discrete nor distinct from cognition
(Barrett, 2017), including science learning (Jaber & Hammer, 2016a, b; Wickman,
2006). Yet, in the era of post-truth, the focus on emotions has been about topics that
are deemed emotional to the exclusion of the emotional relationship between a
person and idea, experience, or object.

3.4.1 Emotionality of Scientific Pursuits

The perception of objectivity and neutrality of science is pervasive and long-

standing despite evidence to suggest otherwise (e.g. Broughton et al., 2013;
Durnová, 2019a; Hufnagel, 2019a, b; Jaber et al., 2019; Lombardi et al., 2017;
Sinatra et al., 2014a). Accounts of scientists’ emotions within and about their
disciplinary pursuits are well documented and illustrate the ways in which emotions
permeate scientific work, such as attachment to particular theories (Mitroff, 1974),
within scientific observations themselves (Fleck, 1979), and as part of their identities
within their respective research communities (Osbeck et al., 2011). Due to the
sociological nature of science (Barbalet, 2002, 2011), the actions and interactions
of scientists with other scientists, tools, and texts are replete with emotions.
46 E. Hufnagel

3.4.2 Emotions, Identity, and Interactions with Science

Despite these and other accounts of emotional sense-making within scientific prac-
tices, the false dichotomization of emotions from reason prevails (see Hufnagel,
2015, 2019a). As the field of neuroscience expands, new insights on the ways in
which emotions come to bear are realized. One such current theorization is that the
brain makes sense of sensory input and in doing so constructs meaning, emotional or
not emotional (Barrett, 2017). Hence, emotions are not triggered but in situ mech-
anisms that make sense of our world – ideas, interactions, experiences, and so forth –
in relation to what is most important to oneself. Thus, emotions signal conflict,
enhancement, and maintenance of one’s goals in a given moment (Hufnagel, 2015,
2019a). They indicate personal connections to goals emanating from our identities,
regardless of the type of emotion experienced (Hufnagel, 2015, 2019b).
Identities, which are constructed in social interactions, are neither essentialized
nor static (Avraamidou, 2014). Rather, identities are multi-faceted and contextual, as
one person has many identities. In each interaction, particular identities are more
relevant to a person’s sense-making and interactional accomplishments. Personal
goals are based in one’s identity, which given its fluid nature, takes shapes differ-
ently across time and space. Additionally, emotional sense-making varies not just by
person but by contexts that are imbued with sociohistorical and cultural routines,
norms, and ways of being (Barrett, 2006; Barrett et al., 2009). As such, emotional
sense-making offers a sense of how a person evaluates ideas and experiences in
relation to their sense of self or identity. This fluidity of identity and context in
relation to emotions is why one person’s emotional sense-making can come to the
fore in one situation but not another, despite similar experiences. This orientation
aligns with the value of examining identity, particularly science identity, to make
salient “the complexities of becoming a science person which are tied to political,
structural, and societal problems” (Avraamidou, 2014, p. 325). Everyone processes
or makes sense of information differently based on their identities, lived experiences,
motivations, sense of self, and so forth (Danvers, 2016; Darner, 2019; Sinatra et al.,
2014b). Since scientific sense-making is imbued with identity and context, emotions
provide a focal point to clarify these complexities of sense-making by highlighting
what one cares most about and why (Hufnagel, 2015).

3.5 Climate Change, Identity, and Facts

Scholarship on the denial of science, especially climate change, provides important

considerations for the ways in which emotions intersect with critical thinking. For
instance, when people make sense of climate change by denying it or its human
causes, their arguments are not centered on the facts, but what the facts represent
(Fischer, 2019). People who reject climate change do so because of what they
perceive as the motives underlying scientists’ work or policy makers who try to
3 Emotional Sense-Making and Critical Thinking in the Era of Post-truth: The. . . 47

address climate change or both (Fischer, 2019). Climate change is imbued with fear
for some people due to the perception that their rights will be infringed upon should
the government take broad and aggressive action (Rosenau, 2012). In this way, the
rhetoric of the urgency of climate change has been perceived as an assault on
particular ideologies that oppose large-scale government interventions or perceived
increases in regulations (Fischer, 2019). Hence, the sense-making entails how this
phenomenon relates to their identity or sense of self through fear, anger, and other
emotions. As such, the challenge of sufficiently and effectively confronting science
denial will be insurmountable if emotional sense-making is not considered
(Rosenau, 2012). Thus, it is not surprising that recommendations for communicating
climate change involve knowing your audience to frame climate change in way that
aligns with their ontological orientation (Center for Research on Environmental
Decisions, 2009).
Emotions are integral to conflict and they emulate the deeply personal concerns
people have. Identifying, acknowledging, and responding to the conflicts borne from
identity – individual and collective, in the form of affiliation – is required. These
personal conflicts or clashes with truth (of anthropocentric climate change) are
emotional. As Rosenau (2012) states,
Recognizing and defusing the social pressures underlying science denial are key in con-
vincing people that it is even worth considering scientific ideas that seem contrary to those of
their social identity. When science denial becomes entwined with group identity, the risk of
social ostracism is probably costlier than scientific error (p. 568).

Therefore, approaches to addressing science denial ought to involve what constitutes

truth, as “the debate about the facts is only a proxy for deeper and even more difficult
sociopolitical questions” (Fischer, 2019, p. 135) in which truth is constructed and
represented. Other scholars, suggest going further: shifting from a focus on what is
truth to the rules of truth to understand the emotions in science denial (Durnová,
2019a). The rules of truth are that it is fact-based knowledge, objective and neutral,
and constructed by scientists (experts). As such, a false bifurcation of emotions from
reason and science is perpetuated and even qualifies the unscientific, as it “sustains
the dichotomy between factual and emotional when science is used as a source of
expertise” (Durnová, 2019a, p. 46). As such, the discussion of what counts as truth,
as science, and as critical thinking requires attending to emotional sensemaking.
Unpacking these spaces makes salient assumptions about emotions within critical
thinking.

3.6 Emotions Within and About Critical Thinking

Given that emotions are evaluative sense-making mechanisms embedded in one’s

identity, it seems impossible that critical thinking could be unemotional when the
crux of critical thinking is evaluating information. The act of evaluating information
can be emotional and not exclusively because people do not wish to agree with a
claim. For instance, Danvers (2016) reported that undergraduates who performed
48 E. Hufnagel

critical thinking did so in ways that felt like critical thinking. She elaborates, “critical
thinking was always an affective experience of some kind, even if it seemed
tempered or even neutral. These feelings were not simply emotional reactions to
isolated performances of critical thinking. . .Students articulated the complex affects
they felt in response to critical thinking’s discourses and practices” (Danvers, 2016,
p. 285). Danver’s (2016) work demonstrates the ways in which critical thinking is an
affective experience across a range of interactions and highlights why it is.
Within science education, shifting from the false bifurcation of rationality and
irrationality to embracing emotions as part of sense-making, learning, and doing
science (Jaber & Hammer, 2016a, b; Jaber et al., 2019; Wickman, 2006), including
critical thinking and the denial of anthropocentric climate change (or the rejection of
any well substantiated scientific claim), moves beyond a binary of right or wrong and
rational or irrational to why. With this lens of making salient the why I present a
condensed set of findings from an interactional ethnographic study (Castanheira
et al., 2000; Hufnagel, 2019b) of how pre-service science teachers learn to teach
climate change. For this study, I analyzed video recordings of every class meeting,
all student written artifacts, and video recordings of sets of interviews of the seven
participants in a secondary science methods course that centered on climate change.
During my analysis a theme that became apparent was the intersection between the
students’ goals for teaching science and their perceptions of climate change. Within
this theme was a sub-theme of the pre-service teachers grappling with their goal of
teaching critical thinking and students’ denial of human-caused climate change.
Below I present findings from within this sub-theme to illuminate some of the
complexities of supporting educators to teach climate change in a post-truth era.

3.6.1 Critical Thinking as a Goal of Pre-service Science

Teachers

Throughout the course, the pre-service science teachers expressed a range of views
about why people do not accept human-caused climate change as a robust scientific
claim. In particular, the pre-service teachers often oriented to their concerns about
teaching climate change, given the potentially contentious nature of the phenome-
non, that may conflict with teaching critical thinking skills, a goal shared among all
the participants. They grappled with how to teach a phenomenon that could cause
conflict for their students. These expressed concerns were linked to their day-to-day
interactions with friends and family members in face-to-face and digital (i.e. social
media platforms, texting) settings and brought to bear in class discussions, written
assignments, and interviews.
3 Emotional Sense-Making and Critical Thinking in the Era of Post-truth: The. . . 49

3.6.2 Intersection Between Critical Thinking and Emotions

Emanating from Identity

Permeating the discourse in the course was the pre-service teachers’ shared goal of
teaching their students to be critical thinkers. Each teacher articulated it throughout
the course in different ways. Carmen, for instance, when asked how she felt about
teaching climate change during an interview, answered by addressing the role of
critical thinking when she conveyed, “If students can walk away armed with
evidence or the tools to find and vet evidence about climate change that they can
then apply to their lives as informed citizens moving forward, I’d be satisfied.” After
being asked how she views her “role as a science teacher” during an interview,
Violet shared, “I think that we need to educate students how to be critical consumers
of information because there is so much media out there that is not telling the truth
and even as an adult, you don’t know which sources you can trust.” These sentiments
were shared across all seven of the participants and provided a reference point for
how they oriented to prospective students’ denial of climate change. It is worth
noting that two students oriented to critical thinking as tightly linked to having
sufficient scientific knowledge to perform critical thinking. Nadine, for example,
shared that critical thinking was a goal of hers as a teacher during an interview, but it
was couched in having enough “background” knowledge. She expressed that
instructors should “provide students with all the information available and the
background of understanding in climate science for the students who think critically
to reach a reasonable conclusion.”

3.6.3 Emotional Subtext of Climate Change Sense-Making

and Identity

Over the course of the semester the pre-service teachers described complexities
influencing their future students’ critical thinking with respect to climate change.
One such complexity centered on the intersection between their future students’
emotions emanating from the intersection between their identities and views of
climate change. This complexity took shape in various ways but all with an eye
toward the entanglement of people’s identities within their scientific sense-making
of climate change. In doing so, what emerged was the pre-service teachers’ priori-
tization of one of the emancipatory features of critical thinking: independence from a
group (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, 2012). For instance, Carmen talked about how
people’s views of a topic in science is wrapped up in their identity, as seen in the
excerpt below:
Often with climate change. . .people’s view of the topic is wrapped up in how they see
themselves or how they see the world at large. It’s tangled up in their identity. It can be a
scary thing. People often will have emotional responses when they learn things that then
challenge the way that they see themselves or they see the world.
50 E. Hufnagel

Carmen acknowledged that science ideas conflict with ways people make sense of
the world and are wrought with emotion. This conflict, to Carmen, is emotional
(“scary”) as it challenges one’s worldview and identity. Miranda shared a similar
sentiment on a written assignment; that “a large resistance to the belief in climate
change comes from the threat to people’s current beliefs and mindsets.” She later
elaborated on her idea during a final interview, explaining how people make sense of
climate change as “much more than just a debate of the actual science behind it”
saying that it is linked to “politics,” “the economy,” and “religion and beliefs”
suggesting “that you just can’t think the scientific principles are going to be all
that’s needed to address it.” Similar to Carmen’s ideas, Miranda recognized that
changing people’s understandings of climate change involves an emotional process
based in “threat.” Shifting students away from denial toward critical thinking is
neither easy nor straight-forward since they are, to use Carmen’s term, “wrapped up”
in their views of themselves and the world.
Matt also oriented to the role of identity, but in relation to group affiliation
throughout the course. On numerous occasions he described people’s membership
to groups as defining oneself. While this took shape in numerous ways, it relayed the
idea that social networks were based in what he described as shared “core values and
core ideals.” Furthermore, during class discussions he oriented to “group think”
regardless of group (his definition of group being along a binary of accepting or
denying human caused climate change) as “kind of sad. . .the loss of individuality I
think surrounding it.” He later elaborated that he has “a healthy level of skepticism
for any group of any kind” in his final interview.
Some teachers drew parallels between climate change and religion. Violet shared
this sentiment when she spoke of the ways in which “religion and money can just
like take over a person’s beliefs and what they choose to accept as knowledge and
what they want to like block out” during her final interview. Violet invoked her
experiences with members of her family when she likened climate change to
religion. In doing so, she elaborated on her discussions with family members
about climate change. Maya also connected climate change to religion but in a
way that raised epistemology, as seen in the excerpt from a class discussion below:
I went straight to like comparing it [denying climate change] to religion, as something that
people hold very dear and true and believe very strongly but when you talk about like
evidence or like proof of the existence of higher powers I don’t think it necessarily has to be
there. So by providing it [evidence] I don’t know if it will like sway people from one end to
the other.

In her explanation Maya referenced epistemic criteria—in this case that evidence
can’t prove the existence of a higher power. Interestingly, Maya also acknowledged
the status of people in trying to talk with people about climate change. In particular
she attended to what counts as an expert and the interaction that can ensue when she
wrote on an assignment, “sometimes it’s harder to try to educate or inform adults
because so many people internalize “being educated” by a peer or colleague as a
personal assault on their intelligence, beliefs.” In these ways, Maya was orienting to
ideas related to critical thinking: expertise and epistemology in ways to identify
emotional tensions between critical thinking and identity.
3 Emotional Sense-Making and Critical Thinking in the Era of Post-truth: The. . . 51

3.7 Concluding Remarks

Throughout their experiences learning to teach climate change, the pre-service

science teachers oriented to their shared goal of teaching students critical thinking
in relation to the students’ identities. Specifically, they recognized an important
tension: teaching climate change is wrought with emotions in part due to the identity
work at play. While the focus of the findings here was climate change education, the
implications pertain to teaching science in an anti-science atmosphere.
In this chapter I explored the intersection between emotions and critical thinking
in relation to anti-science stances, specifically in relation to anthropocentric climate
change. I briefly described critical thinking to highlight the situated ways in which it
is constituted in discourse and thus dynamic and situated. In doing so, I provided an
overview of intersections with epistemology. I then elucidated the tensions within
anti-science stances to make salient the intersection between critical thinking and
emotions with respect to identities, as emotions indicate urgent personal relation-
ships with ideas, experiences, and so forth. By highlighting particular aspects of
emotional sense-making I suggested how emotional sense-making is part of scien-
tific pursuits and people’s interactions with scientific knowledge and practices, and
therefore imbued within critical thinking itself.
As science education and other related fields such as science communication
contend with the uptick in science denial or post-truth, scholars in educational
research have suggested attending to emotions (Darner, 2019). Until discussions
about climate change shift from a sole focus on the scientific data and/or facts to
ontological, epistemological, and ideological features, fact-checking itself will not
address the gap. Since emotions sit at the intersection of this divide, they offer a way
to understand the relationships people have with climate change and other science
issues in order to have discussions about people’s fear, outrage, and other emotions
that undergird their anti-science stances. Unpacking truth to include to the exami-
nation of what counts as truth and why (Durnová, 2019a) uncovers ways in which
emotions are part of critical thinking and the constitution of knowledge. So long as
emotions are marginalized, the status of divisiveness around what counts as truth
will continue (Durnová, 2019a). “At a time when news organizations are capitalizing
on “post-truth,” we need a better understanding of emotion and affect that works
beyond the simple opposition of rationality and emotionality that continues to
overdetermine our political imaginary” (Boler & Davis, 2018, p. 84). Boler and
Davis’ plea is salient for science education as well.

Acknowledgements I thank the editors and Anica Miller-Rushing, Gabrielle Brodek, and Eliza
Jacobs for their helpful feedback on earlier versions of this chapter.
52 E. Hufnagel

References

Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies
in Science Education, 27, 1–52.
Avraamidou, L. (2014). Studying science teacher identity: Current insights and future research
directions. Studies in Science Education, 50, 145–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.
937171
Avraamidou, L. (2020). Science identity as a landscape of becoming: Rethinking recognition and
emotions through an intersectionality lens. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15, 323–345.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09954-7
Barbalet, J. (2002). Science and emotions. In J. Barbalet (Ed.), Emotions and sociology
(pp. 132–150). Blackwell Publishing.
Barbalet, J. (2011). Emotions beyond regulation: Backgrounded emotions in science and trust.
Emotion Review, 3, 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910380968
Barrett, L. F. (2006). Solving the emotional paradox: Categorization and the experience of emotion.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 20–46.
Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt.
Barrett, L. F., Gendron, M., & Huang, Y. M. (2009). Do discrete emotions exist? Philosophical
Psychology, 22, 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080903153634
Barton, C. C. (2019). Critical literacy in the post-truth media landscape. Policy Futures in
Education, 17, 1024–1036. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210319831569
Boiger, M., & Mesquita, B. (2012). The construction of emotion in interactions, relationships, and
cultures. Emotion Review, 4, 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912439765
Boler, M., & Davis, E. (2018). The affective politics of the “post-truth” era: Feeling rules and
networked subjects. Emotion, Space and Society, 27, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.
2018.03.002
Broughton, S. H., Sinatra, G. M., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2013). “Pluto has been a planet my whole
life!” emotions, attitudes, and conceptual change in elementary students’ learning about Pluto’s
reclassification. Research in Science Education, 43, 529–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-
011-9274-x
Castanheira, M. L., Crawford, T., Dixon, C. N., & Green, J. L. (2000). Interactional ethnography:
An approach to studying the social construction of literate practices. Linguistics and Education,
11, 353–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(00)00032-2
Center for Research on Environmental Decisions. (2009). The psychology of climate change
communication: A guide for scientists, journalists, educators, political aides, and the interested
public. New York.
Danvers, E. C. (2016). Criticality’s affective entanglements: Rethinking emotion and critical
thinking in higher education. Gender and Education, 28, 282–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09540253.2015.1115469
Darner, R. (2019). How can educators confront science denial? Educational Researcher, 48,
229–238. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19849415
Deniz, H., Donnelly, L. A., & Yilmaz, I. (2008). Exploring the factors related to acceptance of
evolutionary theory among Turkish preservice biology teachers: Toward a more informative
conceptual ecology for biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45,
420–443.
Durnová, A. (2019a). Understanding emotions in post-factual politics: Negotiating truth. Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Eder, E., Turic, K., Milasowszky, N., Van Adzin, K., & Hergovich, A. (2011). The relationships
between paranormal belief, creationism, intelligent design and evolution at secondary schools in
Vienna (Austria). Science and Education, 20, 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-
9327-y
3 Emotional Sense-Making and Critical Thinking in the Era of Post-truth: The. . . 53

Fischer, F. (2019). Knowledge politics and post-truth in climate denial: On the social construction
of alternative facts. Critical Policy Studies, 13, 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.
2019.1602067
Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. University of Chicago Press.
Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in
Education, 25, 99–125.
Glaze, A. L., & Goldston, M. J. (2015). U.S. science teaching and learning of evolution: A critical
review of the literature 2000–2014. Science Education, 99, 500–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/
sce.21158
Greene, J. A., & Yu, S. B. (2015). Educating critical thinkers: The role of epistemic cognition.
Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2372732215622223
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemological research: Implications for learning and teaching.
Journal of Educational Psychology Review, 13, 353–383.
Höttecke, D., & Allchin, D. (2020). Reconceptualizing nature-of-science education in the age of
social media. Science Education, 104, 641–666. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21575
Hufnagel, E. (2015). Preservice elementary teachers’ emotional connections and disconnections to
climate change in a science course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 1296–1324.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21245
Hufnagel, E. (2019a). The “subtext of everything”: High school science teachers’ views of emotions
and their related teaching practices. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technol-
ogy Education, 19, 430–445.
Hufnagel, E. (2019b). Emotional discourse as constructed in an environmental science course. In
G. J. Kelly & J. L. Green (Eds.), Theory and methods for sociocultural research in science and
engineering education (pp. 155–180). Routledge.
Hufnagel, E. (2020). Language, materiality, and emotions in science learning settings. In D. R.
Gruber & L. C. Olman (Eds.), Handbook of language and science (pp. 253–261). Routledge.
Hufnagel, E., & Kelly, G. J. (2018). Examining emotional expressions in discourse: Methodolog-
ical considerations. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13, 905–924. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11422-017-9806-4
Jaber, L. Z., & Hammer, D. (2016a). Engaging in science: A feeling for the discipline. Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 25, 156–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2015.1088441
Jaber, L. Z., & Hammer, D. (2016b). Learning to feel like a scientist. Science Education, 100(189),
220. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21202
Jaber, L. Z., Hufnagel, E., & Radoff, J. (2019). “This is really frying my brain!”: How affect
supports inquiry in an online learning environment. Research in Science Education. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11165-019-09884-y
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2014). Determinism and underdetermination in genetics: Implications
for students’ engagement in argumentation and epistemic practices. Science and Education, 23,
465–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9561-6
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). 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). Springer.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical
thinking. Second International Handbook of Science Education, 2, 1001–1015. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_66
Kelly, G. J., McDonald, S. P., & Wickman, P.-O. (2012). Science learning and epistemology. In
Second international handbook of science education (pp. 281–291). Springer.
Lombardi, D., Bickel, E. S., Brandt, C. B., & Burg, C. (2017). Categorising students’ evaluations of
evidence and explanations about climate change. International Journal of Global Warming, 12,
313–330. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGW.2017.084782
54 E. Hufnagel

López-Facal, R., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2009). Identities, social representations and critical
thinking. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 689–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-
008-9134-9
Mitroff, I. (1974). Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case
study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39, 579–595.
Osbeck, L. M., Nersessian, N. J., Malone, K. R., & Newstetter, W. C. (2011). Science as
psychology: Sense-making and identity in social practice. Cambridge University Press.
Pithers, R. T., & Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education: A review. Educational Research,
42(3), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/001318800440579
Rosenau, J. (2012). Science denial: A guide for scientists. Trends in Microbiology, 20, 567–569.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2012.10.002
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of
socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112–138.
Sinatra, G. M., Broughton, S., & Lombardi, D. (2014a). Emotions in science education. In
R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education
(pp. 415–436). Taylor & Francis.
Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014b). Addressing challenges to public understand-
ing of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational
Psychologist, 49(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916216
Skoog, G., & Bilica, K. (2002). The emphasis given to evolution in state science standards: A lever
for change in evolution education? Science Education, 86, 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/
sce.10014
Van Poeck, K. (2019). Environmental and sustainability education in a post-truth era. An explora-
tion of epistemology and didactics beyond the objectivism-relativism dualism. Environmental
Education Research, 25, 472–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1496404
Wickman, P.-O. (2006). Aesthetic experience in science education: Learning and meaning-making
as situated talk and action. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chapter 4
Culturally Relevant Science Education
and Critical Thinking in Indigenous People:
Bridging the Gap Between Community
and School Science

Alejandra García Franco, Lisber Ferrara Reyes,

and Alma Adrianna Gómez Galindo

A secondary school in a community in the Chiapas Highlands. Students speak Tseltal and
their teachers speak Spanish. Students belong to farming families and practice milpa as a
subsistence crop. In the community there are also coffee plantations and collectives of knitter
women who sell their handcrafts in larger cities. The community Yochib is one of the
poorest towns in Mexico and subsistence depends mainly on agriculture. Yochib in Tseltal
means’ sump and this is literally what it is: a sump between two mountains where a river
goes by.
What science is relevant in these communities and students in the second year of
secondary school? How can they achieve critical thinking that is relevant for their lives?

4.1 Introduction

This chapter comes from the work we started nine years ago when we approached
indigenous communities in southeastern Mexico (Montaña de Guerrero) as part of a
large research team documenting traditional knowledge about cultivation techniques
(milpa). The question back then was: what happens to this knowledge in school?
How is this knowledge considered? The answer was that traditional/local knowledge

A. García Franco
Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana – Cuajimalpa, Mexico City, México
e-mail: [email protected]
L. Ferrara Reyes
Escuela Telesecundaria 714 David Gemayel Ruíz Estudillo, Yochib, Oxchuc, Chiapas, México
A. A. Gómez Galindo (*)
Cinvestav Monterrey, Apodaca, Nuevo León, México
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 55

B. Puig, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), Critical Thinking in Biology
and Environmental Education, Contributions from Biology Education Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_4
56 A. García Franco et al.

was almost out of sight in school and, even if teachers were indigenous or farmers,
the only relevant knowledge was the one prescribed in the school curriculum. Ever
since, we have worked intermittently with teachers and students in indigenous and
non-indigenous communities. We are three authors in this chapter: an educational
researcher working in a large university in Mexico City; a science teacher in Yochib,
an indigenous community in the Chiapas Highlands; an educational researcher in a
public research institution in Monterrey in northern Mexico. We are not members of
any indigenous group. Our basic preparation is in the natural sciences.
Our main concern comes from questioning which is the value of science educa-
tion in rural schools and, particularly, in indigenous communities such as the one
described in the epigraph. As non-indigenous researchers we are looking forward to
constructing bridges between school science knowledge and indigenous/traditional
knowledge. In this chapter we discuss how traditional knowledge could be valuable
to promote critical thinking in the classrooms and why.
We recognize that global phenomena such as climate change and migrations are
part of the current crisis and recognizable for everyone. However, these problems
have different dimensions in particular communities (Gruenewald & Smith, 2007).
For indigenous people global problems are accentuated because of the accelerated
loss of indigenous languages and territories. For different reasons local knowledge
that permits the recreation of life is being eroded (e.g. Maurer, 1977).
These problems and particular conditions of different communities are funda-
mental to think about the role of science education, how it can contribute to citizen
preparation and provide students with basic tools to understand the world they
inhabit and transform it in a sustainable way (Valladares, 2010). There is a global
imperative to respect and conserve knowledge, language and practices of indigenous
people. The relation between such knowledge and sustainability has been recognized
in several studies (e.g. Oviedo et al., 2000; Boege Schmidt, 2008). In this sense, the
school plays a relevant role. However, according to Harmin et al. (2016):
In order to effectively and ethically engage with indigenous knowledge holders and address
the complexity of sustainability problems in the context of socio-ecological systems,
academic institutions are tasked with decolonizing approaches to knowledge creation and
addressing ongoing privileging of some knowledge forms over others. (p. 2)

Our approach to science education comes from recognizing the need to establish
dialogues between traditional/indigenous knowledge and school knowledge. In
previous works we have explored the value of incorporating traditional knowledge
in the science classroom, particularly indigenous knowledge about cultivating milpa
in southeastern Mexico (Gómez Galindo et al., 2019). Milpa is a policrop, with
maize, beans and squash as main components, that is fundamental to sustainability,
food sovereignty and community organization.
We have argued for incorporating knowledge about milpa in school in order to
achieve that what is learnt would be valuable to students’ lives, their autonomy,
community values, identity and, ultimately to promote social justice, where school
gives something valuable to everyone. Establishing these dialogues between tradi-
tional/local and scientific/school knowledge has allowed the visualization of stu-
dents’ and teachers’ knowledge about different topics and how they could be related
4 Culturally Relevant Science Education and Critical Thinking in Indigenous . . . 57

to school knowledge (Gómez Galindo & García Franco, 2021). But it is clear that we
need to expand our way of looking to incorporate not only knowledge but also ways
of thinking that sustain diverse ways of life.
In this chapter we problematize, from a decolonial perspective, what we under-
stand as school science where critical thinking and biology teaching are situated in
specific communities. We present an analysis that allows the identification of
relevant knowledge that can be approached from this critical stance. We recognize
that there is a need to rethink what we understand as critical thinking and how we can
promote it, so that science education would not be an artifice but rather that it
provides tools to students and is relevant to their identity construction.
With this in mind, the question that guides our analysis is:
What is the contribution of considering students’ traditional knowledge in the
development of critical thinking in the biology classrooms?
In the second section of this chapter we present the theoretical perspective that
allows reflecting about the role of traditional knowledge in developing critical
thinking in situated practices and how the frameworks of interculturality and
decolonialism can be related to social justice. In the third section we present our
methodological approach and data gathered as part of a research trajectory. In the
fourth we discuss our results, and in the last section we offer some concluding
thoughts.

4.2 Theoretical Perspectives. Culturally Relevant Science

Education and Critical Thinking

To think about a transformative education that allows students to construct meaning

for school knowledge and use it to transform their circumstances, we need to extend
the idea of critical thinking and recognize that school learning and instruction are not
neutral and transparent processes (McLaren, 1997). To do so, we rely on the notion
of critical pedagogy proposed by Henry Giroux y Paulo Freire.
Critical pedagogy construes education as a tool for conscientization,1 to recog-
nize one's own place in the world and critically interrogate it. From this stance it is
indispensable that students and teachers voices are considered because these voices
are agents of change and critical observation of reality.
According to Giroux (1997, 2003), schools are sites for struggle where teachers
and students can take the spaces that school situations’ offer in order to resist2 the
uniformity mandate. But this resistance is only possible if classroom knowledge

1
Conscientization (concientização) is a concept proposed by Paulo Freire. It means ‘critical
awareness’ or ‘critical consciousness’.
2
This term is derived from resistance. It is widely used in postcolonial and decolonial studies to
describe the political position of native/indigenous people facing colonialism.
58 A. García Franco et al.

makes sense to students, is relevant for their lives, and allows them to have a voice.
This implies retrieving wisdom, stories and cultural practices (Farrera, 2018). Cur-
ricular content and the way it is approached, as well as pedagogical practices should
find resonance in students’ vital experiences.
Freire recognizes that knowledge should promote emancipation (1970) and
encourage students’ critical stance. To do so, schools need to consider concrete
problems that students and teachers face every day, so they are able to pose questions
about topics that are relevant for them. This also promotes the recognition of their
own knowledge as well as their communities’ knowledge (Carreño, 2009/2010).
Freire’s critical pedagogy is particularly relevant for indigenous students who have
seen their knowledge and language excluded from school.We should aim for
students to participate in the classroom generating authorship processes where
students head toward production and not reception of knowledge (Subero &
Esteban-Guitart, 2020). Critical pedagogy signals the route to choose subjects and
ways to work.

4.2.1 Intercultural Science Education from a Critical

Perspective

Sociocultural perspectives are every time more frequent in science education (see
Milne et al., 2015). Different critics to science education have shown its cultural,
local and situated character and have modified the narrative of science as objective,
neutral and universal knowledge (Carter, 2004; Gorbach & López Beltrán, 2008). Its
coexistence with indigenous or local systems of knowledge has also been
recognised. Moreover, the presence of students from different cultures and lan-
guages in the classrooms have made inevitable to question the different ways in
which science and its normative culture are related with students that come from
different cultures and talk different languages (e.g. Hutchinson, 2014).
Countries in Latin America have a pluricultural composition. In Mexico there are
64 different linguistic groups with more than 365 dialects. The relation between
indigenous cultures and formal schooling has been complicated but, for the most
part, education for indigenous people has been considered as a way to ‘bridge the
gap’, assuming one culture as dominant (Ramírez Castañeda, 2006).
It was not until the last decade of the last century that intercultural education was
considered an appropriate approach for education in Mexico. However, its imple-
mentation has been filled with lights and shadows for indigenous people.
Interculturality can be considered as a result of indigenous people struggles and
their demands for recognition. It can also be understood from globalisation and find
it tied to power, capital and market. Walsh (2009) describes three perspectives for
interculturality: relational, functional and critical. Relational interculturality recog-
nizes the differences but does not question them, neither recognizes conflict. More
dangerous is functional interculturality whose intention is to include socially
excluded groups to the current system. The ‘others’ are recognized only to be
4 Culturally Relevant Science Education and Critical Thinking in Indigenous . . . 59

co-opted, turning education into a domination strategy whose final objective is not
the construction of more equitable and egalitarian societies but rather the control of
ethnical conflicts and the conservation of social stability.
Critical interculturality recognizes that differences have been constructed in a
colonial structure where native people occupy the lowest part of the social order.
From this perspective, interculturality is a tool and a grassroot process that aims for
the transformation of structures and institutions in order to construct different
conditions for being, thinking, knowing, learning, feeling and being. Critical
interculturality implies recognizing asymmetries that exist when school science
knowledge and local knowledge come in contact.
The need of an intercultural science education has been put forward by authors
such as Aikenhead (2002) and McKinley (2011) as an inescapable need when the
culture of those who learn are far away from the dominant culture. One of the most
common approaches from this perspective has been the incorporation of local
knowledge in the classroom (Aikenhead, 2002), and the recognition that students
have knowledge that could be related with the curricula in the design of teaching-
learning activities (e.g. Santos Baptista & El-Hani, 2009). However, authors such as
Carter (2004, 2008) warn about the danger when this type of interventions are
undertaken without problematizing the role of indigenous knowledge, the reason it
has been relegated in the classroom, and the relationship it keeps with dominant
knowledge. This is why it is fundamental to look at these interventions from a
decolonial stance.
Taking a decolonial stance would allow for an intercultural dialogue in the school
that, according to epistemic pluralism (Olivé, 2009), incorporates, recognizes and
values students’ own knowledge and culture. This critical perspective allows us to
reread texts that have been highly influential in the field of intercultural science
education (Carter, 2004) and point out how some of these approaches have a
functional perspective incorporating local/traditional knowledge in the classroom
without problematizing or recognizing conflict and asymmetry.
In order to construct this intercultural scientific education, there is a need to
consider real conditions in secondary classrooms where students speak a language
different from Spanish and have relevant knowledge that could be related to school
knowledge. We need to find ways to make intercultural dialogues possible and
promote critical thinking that contributes to social justice.

4.2.2 Critical Thinking as Situated Practice

Different proposals have been developed to teach critical thinking in science in

general, and in biology in particular. Some of them stress the development of
scientific practices such as argumentation (Erduran & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2007).
In recent times there are proposals that target the development of arguments about
socio-scientific issues that could be of interest to large segments of the population.
Amongst them we find those associated to discrimination (Puig et al., 2012) and
nutrition (Brocos & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2020).
60 A. García Franco et al.

In science education critical thinking has a privileged place. In a sense it is

recognized as ‘good thinking’. It allows students to recognize weak arguments,
inconsistent generalizations and non-trustable asseverations (Harrison, 2004). Crit-
ical thinking also implies a series of dispositions amongst which we can find: the
search for intellectual rigour, conceptual clarity, and the desire to seriously consider
other people's viewpoints (Ennis, 1996).
In general, critical thinking is presented as a cognitive attribute, but it could also
be framed as a situated practice (Harrison, 2004). Understanding critical thinking as
a situated practice could imply identifying its exercise not only as a way of thinking
but also as ways of acting which could be related to community commitments
(Varelas et al., 2012). Critical thinking as situated practice requires recognizing
how thinking, doing, and living together can be incorporated in the classroom.
Before we started working in Yochib – the community where part of this work is
situated-, teacher Lisber (second author of this paper) wrote a reflection on what she
understood as critical thinking and how it could be promoted amongst the students.
In a written reflection she points out:
Critical thinking in indigenous communities is bred from a different perspective, it incor-
porates how learning comes from modelling and recognizing wisdom. You learn through
practice and by using all your senses to learn. You are wise according to how you live and
feel well. Their quality of life is measured according to how you feel, to the state of your
heart. This expression has different connotations, lexil xchanel (good learning), k’uuxubinel
(considering others’ feelings), ich’elta muk’ (respecting and considering others). [In the
community] good thinking generates good living.3

The integration of “good thinking” and “good living” perspectives allows to

amplify the initial theorization of critical thinking and support the interpretation of
the information. As Rappaport mentions “theoretical frameworks that are not
entirely traditional, but neither those of western academia, which brings innovative
perspectives about subaltern history and culture” (in Vasco Uribe, 2002, p. 471).
This good thinking opens space for an intercultural science education that
supposes recognizing the ‘other’ and affirming oneself (Moya, 2009, p. 28). In
this case, ‘the other’ represents school science culture incorporating the nature of
science, the story of the construction of ideas, and the development of scientific
practices such as argumentation. In an indigenous school, affirming oneself leads to
the recognition of a cultural identity: recognizing a common history, relations to the
environment, worldviews, values, language, similarity of problems derived from
exploitation, exclusion and social and economic marginality.
It is necessary to recognize how the very meaning of education is different in
different communities. For Tsotsil people “education is conceived as a slow acqui-
sition of the soul, which is analogous to a total conscience. Soul reaches maturity

3
Good living is a translation from ‘buen vivir’ which is a common characteristic of the worldview of
different Latinamerican indigenous people.
4 Culturally Relevant Science Education and Critical Thinking in Indigenous . . . 61

through learning how to become a good cultivator of maize”.4 For indigenous people
in Northern Canada, learning is a journey centred in participation: “The Eurocentric
meaning of to learn becomes coming to know in most Indigenous contexts, a
meaning that signifies a personal, participatory, holistic journey toward gaining
wisdom-in-action” (Aikenhead & Elliott, 2010, p. 322, italics in the original).
We need to question: What does critical (scientific) thinking bring to good
(community) thinking? How are they related? How does one achieve critical think-
ing as situated practice?

4.2.3 Students’ Knowledge, Their Identity and Critical

Thinking

Situated learning frameworks allow us to incorporate students’ reflexive activity

considering sociocultural context as inseparable of the activity itself (Lave, 2009).
From this perspective, the development of critical thinking always reconstructs the
identity of the learner. The concept of identity turns out particularly useful for
theorizing the relationship between individuals and their social world. Identity as a
theoretical methodological framework has been interpreted in science education in
different ways. We consider that identity is negotiated in a continuous reconstruction
in our interactions and is mediated through language (Pozzer & Jackson, 2015).
Intersubjectivity and the development of funds of identity become relevant for such
reconstruction (Subero & Esteban-Guitart, 2020). Funds of Identity are inserted in
the theory of subjectivity from a cultural-historical perspective where it is under-
stood as a complex system articulated through the learner’s life story, through her
experiences in the different and diverse contexts in where she lives. These funds of
identity are understood as the “resources that are socially distributed, historically
accumulated and culturally developed that are essential for self-understanding, self-
expression and self-definition” (Subero & Esteban-Guitart, 2020, p. 220).
In the social negotiation of identity, different situations allow for the emergence
of moral contingencies where members of a community ponder through instituted
and interiorized values and recognize themselves in decision making. In modern
societies, this decision making is associated with the possibilities of self-
determination and the development of a life project.
González-Escallón (2017) points out:
. . . it is worthwhile to question the reason why self-determination of some individuals seems
to produce no immediate effects that in other groups are taken for granted. An example is the
case of homosexual persons whose life plan does not imply the benefits of heterosexual
persons. Deep down, this implies that the right to self-determination is not guaranteed
because they need to change their life plan if they want to have access to all the benefits.
(pp. 171–172)

4
Taken from: National Institute for Indigenous People https://www.gob.mx/inpi/es/articulos/
etnografia-de-los-pueblos-tzotzil-batsil-winik-otik-y-tzeltal-winik-atel?idiom¼es
62 A. García Franco et al.

In the same way, for indigenous students there is a dialectic relationship, established
in a socially negotiated way, between their identity development, their self-
determination capacity and the development of their life project. This is associated
with the possibilities they have to value their viewpoints, take decisions, to plan, and
develop their life projects.

4.3 Methodological Approach. A Research Trajectory

In order to explore the contribution of students’ traditional knowledge in the

development of critical thinking in the biology classrooms we have undertaken
recurrent approaches to schools situated in indigenous communities in the Highlands
and the Central Depression of Chiapas in southeastern Mexico. In these communities
Tsotsil, Tseltal and Spanish are spoken. Field work in indigenous communities poses
challenges associated to language use and to documentation and access time (such a
situation has been theorized in the field of ethnography by different authors, see for
example, Rappaport, 2007). We used a situated learning theory (Lave, 2009) to
understand activity in context and an approach from critical theory (Johnson, 2008)
which aims to identify structures in science education that can originate or perpetuate
inequalities and subordination relations and, from there, revalue forms and work
traditions in the classroom.
We have constructed research trajectories in which vinculation and collaborative
work with teachers in the zone has been crucial to gather information and construct
questions. In the part of the trajectory that we are presenting in this chapter, we
undertook fieldwork in two stages.
In the first stage, we worked with a group of 18 students in secondary school
(14–16 years) in the community of Yochib (Chiapas Highlands). The biology
teacher of this group is the second author of this chapter. From september to
december 2019 students worked on aspects related to milpa: describing diversity,
cultivation techniques, animals and plants associated. The three authors met for four
remote work sessions. In these meetings we planned activities, discussed results, and
talked about results’ interpretation. After activities were completed the teacher posed
two questions for which students provided a written answer:
– How do you feel about learning about milpa in your school?
– Why do you think that your teacher is teaching about the milpa in the school?
Categories resulting from the analysis of these two questions are presented in
Tables 4.1 and 4.2.
In the second stage, after identifying that the topic of fertilizers was relevant for
the students, we envisioned a second stage in the research trajectory with the aim of
exploring its potential in the development of critical thinking. This second stage
started with a workshop for teachers who work in schools situated in indigenous
communities. Two of the participant teachers invited us to develop activities related
to fertilizers with their students. On february 2, 2020, we went to a secondary school
4 Culturally Relevant Science Education and Critical Thinking in Indigenous . . . 63

Table 4.1 Categories obtained from the analysis of students’ answers to the question: how do you
feel about learning about milpa in your school?
Category (code) Description
Is life and food (LF) Point out feelings of relevance and satisfaction because
milpa and maize are life and nurture.
Learning to sow/harvest and pre- Point out they feel proud, good, happy. It is good and
paring food (LS) important to learn about how to sow/harvest and prepare
food. They mention they should not use fertilizers to obtain
a good crop and healthy food.
Have economic independence and It is important, valuable and urgent. Women point out their
food sovereignty (FS) future roles as responsible for a family and food providers.
They recognize this is the moment to learn about milpa, to
have their own milpa in their future without using fertilizers
and achieve economic independence and food to prevent
starvation.

Table 4.2 Categories obtained from the analysis to the question: Why do you think that your
teacher is teaching about the milpa in school?
Category (code) Description
Teacher as learner (T-L) Students mention that the teacher wants to learn about milpa
cultivation, and they will teach her.
Teacher as field examiner Teacher wants to assess how students are working their milpa.
(T-FE) They point out that she wants to verify they are not using
fertilizers.
Teacher as school examiner Teacher wants to revise that their school work is correct and that
(T-SE) they know how to present their work about milpa in school.
Teacher as guardian of the Teacher knows that milpa is relevant for their future and that is
future (T-FG) why she brings it as a school topic.

in San Cristobal de las Casas with a group of 25 students. These students spoke
Spanish and some of them Tsotsil. On February 3, 2020, we went to a secondary
school in Aldama with a group of 27 students who spoke Tsotsil and Spanish (with
different levels of command). Students worked with the material Aprendiendo en la
milpa (Learning in the milpa) (García Franco & Gómez Galindo, 2020) that was
presented both in Spanish and Tsotsil. They undertook an individual task where they
elicited their knowledge about fertilizers, how they are used in milpa and what they
thought of their usage. Here we present the analysis of questions posed by students
about what they wanted to know about fertilizers (Table 4.3). After that they wrote,
in couples, a letter to other families that will cultivate their milpa giving advice on
the use of fertilizers.
To construct categories we transcribed all the activities, and used an hermeneutic
circle (Weiss, 2017) as a tool to interpret our data. We undertook a first reading of the
data with our initial question in mind. We identify common topics and also particular
expressions that spark our attention: these are our first intuitions on meaningful
relations. Then we start a systematic analysis where questions and categories are
fine-tuned. We advance in the comprehension of words, paragraphs and metaphors,
relating statements with the whole text, but also considering the implicit or explicit
64 A. García Franco et al.

Table 4.3 Questions that students pose about fertilizers arranged by category
About milpa and its growing About fertilizers and the pollution
What can we do to make milpas grow well? Why is it Why do we use fertilizers?
that sometimes they do not grow well? What is in the fertilizer that makes plants
Why do you sow beans near maize? grow fast?
What is the usage of maize leaves? What happens with the milpa if we
What kind of bacteria are there in milpa? always use fertilizers?
Are the fertilizers that they use on
milpa good?
Why are fertilizers bad?
Are there non-natural fertilizers that do
not pollute the soil?
Why is it that fertilizers damage plants?
What happens when you are in close
contact with fertilizers?
About the natural fertilizers and their production About alternatives to fertilizers
What chemicals do fertilizers have? Why is an industrial fertilizer used
Are there chemicals in the natural fertilizers? knowing you can use a natural fertilizer?
What elements and materials are used to make fer- What can we do to stop using fertilizers?
tilizers? How many different kinds of fertilizer are What is the difference in the growth time
there? when using or not using fertilizer?
How is fertilizer produced? Why aren’t other things used? Instead of
Which was the first country to use fertilizer? fertilizers?
Who sends us fertilizer?
Who created the fertilizer?

relation of texts with the larger context trying to establish a pattern of meanings and
generate analytical categories. Meaningfulness of a category is not necessarily
related to how frequently it appears. In the results and discussion section we present
examples of transcribed students’ texts associated with the categories in order to
confer reliability to our arguments. We have translated students’ answers trying to
convey students’ meaning and writing style. We have assigned pseudonyms to each
student.

4.4 Results and Discussion. Traditional Knowledge and Its

Contribution to Reflections on Critical Thinking

As stated in the introduction, in previous works we have explored the subject of

milpa and its relation to school science (Gómez Galindo et al., 2019). Milpa is a
Mesoamerican policrop whose main components are maize, beans and squash. It has
been recognized as an efficient agroecological system that profits from symbiotic
relations among plants. Besides the main components of plants there are different
milpas where you can find fruit trees, vegetables, chilies, as well as animals.
Milpa has also been recognized as relevant to face climate change (Boege Schmidt,
2008) and is fundamental to communities social life and is in the centre of rituals and
festivities (Carrillo Trueba, 2016).
4 Culturally Relevant Science Education and Critical Thinking in Indigenous . . . 65

Throughout the categorical analysis, we found different contributions from con-

sidering students’ traditional knowledge in the development of critical thinking in
the biology classrooms. We will discuss the aspects that we found more relevant in
terms of their potential to promote critical thinking as situated practice.

4.4.1 Emotional Bond

In activities undertaken by students in the classroom it is evident that they have a

relation to milpa beyond its cultivation. Categories in Table 4.1 indicate that the
milpa is highly valued by students and has more than cognitive implications.
Students feel happy learning about milpa, some of them state they feel proud. We
consider this emotional bond is relevant because emotions can be tools to construct a
life project and to generate links with school topics (Ahmed, 2015). Students also
assert that milpa for them is life (not part of their life, but literally, life).
This is what I like to learn about maize. When I learnt I felt very happy because we are living
with the maize.
Elena – LF

Milpa is life, without milpa there is no life.

Susana – LF

Another relevant category is the one in which students state that they like to learn
about sowing/harvesting or to prepare food from the milpa. These kinds of answers
also show an emotional bond and one that is related to motivation, to the recognition
that what they are learning in school is valuable for their own interests and activities.
This is also relevant in terms of students’ identities and life-projects as will be
discussed further.
I like to learn about milpa, I like to learn how to sow in the milpa, how to sow maize, beans,
that is why I like to learn about milpa, I like to learn how you can take the weeds out of the
milpa (...) this is why I feel happy and proud to learn about the milpa because later it will be
useful to sustain my family, milpa is important to me because it gives us maize, beans,
everything comes from there.
Susana – LS

4.4.2 Transforming Traditional School Roles

When the teacher questions students about the milpa, the traditional order in the
classroom can be subverted, modifying students’ identity who, in this case, turn into
teachers or ‘the ones who know’. There is a term in Tseltal, sk’oplal jbiteswanejetik5,
which means the one who knows, and which is fundamental to indigenous
pedagogy.

5
“The experience of those who teach”.
66 A. García Franco et al.

The category ‘teacher as learner’ (T-L) shows us how bringing milpa into the
classroom allows them to have an authorized voice that they can use to teach their
teacher. This is unusual in school and perhaps even more in indigenous schools,
where teachers are always the authority (Ramírez Castañeda, 2006). Students state
that the teacher wants to learn from them.
The teacher also wants to learn about maize to live. Also to cultivate her milpa.
Elena – T-L
Teacher wants to learn everything we do with the maize, maybe learn about the food.
Gelda – T-L

It is worth noting that students consider this knowledge as their own knowledge,
part of a larger system that we have called traditional knowledge. This larger system
is also associated to their identity construction, for example, as a farmer that knows
how to cultivate:
My teacher wants to do all the questions. We are farmers and we know how to cultivate seeds
of maize, beans, squash, chilies. We know how to cultivate. This teacher and the other
teachers do not know how to cultivate milpa, but the people in Yochib know.
Adelina – T-L

We understand traditional knowledge or indigenous knowledge as the knowledge

that has been developed by people with ample histories of interaction with the
natural environment and that originated independently from science in a particular
cultural environment separate from occidental culture (Pérez Ruiz & Argueta
Vilamar, 2011). We recognize that students in secondary school are in a process of
appropriating traditional knowledge in their community. In this sense, students’
knowledge can be partial and incomplete but, nonetheless, important.
The categories ‘teacher as field examiner’ (T-FE) and ‘teacher as school exam-
iner’ (T-SE) show us how the examiner notion, attributed to the teacher prevails in
school. However, in students’ answers the teacher is recognized not only as super-
vising school work but also practices outside school and the respect to community
consensus such as not using fertilizers. One aspect that teachers should take into
account when bringing traditional knowledge to the fore is related to helping
students recognize themselves in this formative process and visualize what it brings
to school beyond teacher’s supervision and her examiner character. The category
‘teacher as guardian of the future’ (T-FG) retrieves the interest that students assign to
studying milpa in relation to their life project.
My teacher knows that it is important for our future and that it could be useful for us
somehow; we live it, we see it and it grows in front of us and because the teacher is right in
teaching us about milpa because we could not forget our traditions and customs because
those are in our blood, about how we are, where we were born...
Sabrina – T-FG
4 Culturally Relevant Science Education and Critical Thinking in Indigenous . . . 67

4.4.3 Relevant Topics with Potential to Promote Critical

Thinking

In the questions about how they felt about learning about milpa, when students talk
about learning how to sow and prepare food they constantly refer to fertilizers. This
term is generally associated with industrial fertilizers (when they talk about natural
fertilizers they use the term manure). We found this recurrent mention worth noting
because this topic could be suitable to develop critical thinking activities. Students’
statements about fertilizers are, for example:
Other knowledge in our milpa is that I can not use fertilizer because it is poison, it is not good
for the milpa, it is better that we work with our own hands with the hoe, in this way the corn
will grow very big.
Vilma – LS

If you give fertilizer it is possible that the plant dies, the teacher wants to know what is she
going to do with maize. This teacher wants to know everything we do with maize, perhaps
she wants to learn everything about the food.
Gelda – T-L

In this part of the country the usage of industrial fertilizers has been the center of a
debate. Not using fertilizer implies a political position that breaks the circle of
dependence on industrial producers. Government and political parties have used
industrial fertilizers as a way of control and the dependency on such fertilizer
generates vicious circles, because the land impoverishes due to its continuous
usage. Not using industrial fertilizers can be related to identity and food sovereignty.
This is why we found it relevant that it appears in students' answers in a recurrent
way, opening a clear window for resistance and for the development of critical
thinking.
Students in the schools in San Cristobal de las Casas and Aldama posed different
questions about fertilizers that let us recognize this is a topic with an important
potential to develop students’ critical thinking. In Table 4.3 we present the four
identified categories and examples of the students’ questions related to each one. In
this case we identify interest in relation to different aspects of fertilizers.
Students establish differences between industrial and natural fertilizers. When
writing a letter to a family about the usage of fertilizers, we can see an example of
traditional knowledge associated to natural fertilizers in the description made in
couples, by Rosa and Heidi:
To have a good crop without using fertilizers, before you sow your milpa you have to
prepare the terrain and once it is clean your terrain you mix the soil with gallinaza6 or
you can also put fruit rinds and peels and once they are rotten you give it in the feet of milpa.
You can also make an organic compost with the leaves of the trees but they have to be dry,
you put them together with cow manure and a bit of pozol7 and leave it to settle for a while.

6
Gallinaza is the manure of chicken mixed with soil, food residues and feathers.
7
Pozol is a traditional drink in the Chiapas Highlands, made from fermented corn dough.
68 A. García Franco et al.

The differences between industrial fertilizers and natural fertilizers are questioned
by students when they ask if industrial fertilizers could not contaminate or if the
natural fertilizers have a lot of chemicals (Table 4.3). Listening to the questions made
by students would allow us to generate an intercultural dialogue where traditional
and scientific knowledge could come into play. Knowledge associated with plant
nutrition, biochemistry needed to understand composition of fertilizers, water and
mineral cycles, could have meaning if integrated from a dialogic perspective.
We recognize that it is necessary to design specific strategies to promote critical
thinking and go beyond information delivery. Controversies are already present, for
example: between milpas’ good growing and fertilizers’ polluting effects; depen-
dency generated by acquiring fertilizer from the industry and communities’ self-
determination.

4.4.4 Critical Thinking and the Identity of Students in Yochib

When we ask students how they felt about studying milpa in school, in category
‘have economic independence and food sovereignty’ (FS) in Table 4.1, students in
Yochib relate the topics of fertilizers and milpa cultivation with their own identities
and their life projects. For these students the development of critical thinking
associated with these subjects implies a larger commitment beyond the school
institution. It implies learning about what is relevant and has a place in their lives.
Critical thinking as situated practice, as we have pointed out, is not an abstract entity
related only to thinking, it is thinking in action that will allow them to make
decisions relevant for their lives:
The knowledge I have and I am still learning, will be very useful in my future of what I am
going to do later in life when I have kids, husband and my own family (...) I feel very happy
and proud to learn about milpa in the school. I like to learn about milpa, I like to learn how
milpa is cultivated, how you sow maize, beans. But if we do not have terrain, we do not have
where to cultivate even if we like to cultivate, just like those who do not have terrain (...) they
are the ones that steal from us, they steal our maize (...) until I go out of my house, that is why
milpa for me is my life because I eat from there and if I don’t know how to work I will starve
with my kids.
Susana – FS

If we want the maize to maintain us then we have to cultivate our milpa because milpa is very
important for us to take care of our house. Milpa is very important because it is food, we can
make tortilla, pozol, etc.
Adela – FS

For these students this knowledge is relevant, not only for the constitution of
habits of mind, but for their life, for their future. This is why knowledge that comes
into play goes beyond environmental and biological specific knowledge. Beyond
knowledge that students can have about biodiversity in the milpa, this is relevant for
their life and their future. We believe this is why it is important that students have
spaces in the school to develop critical thinking understood as the possibility to
interrogate their reality and, if possible, transform it.
4 Culturally Relevant Science Education and Critical Thinking in Indigenous . . . 69

4.5 Concluding Thoughts. A Life Project and Critical

Thinking

We have discussed four different contributions of bringing traditional knowledge

into the classroom and its relation to critical thinking as practice: emotional bond,
transforming traditional school roles, relevant topics, and students’ identity. We
have tried to underscore that bringing traditional knowledge into the classroom,
recognizing students’ and community knowledge opens a door to develop critical
thinking as a situated practice and as part of an intercultural dialogue.
We are aware that our dataset is limited and that we still need to develop
collaborative teaching approaches and gather evidence of the ways in which critical
thinking as situated practice emerges and thrives. Nevertheless, the findings of this
study emphasize how critical thinking acquires relevance when topics in school are
important for students, when knowledge is related to their own life projects and to
their possibilities to construct a stance within the community, as well as taking
decisions that have relevant consequences for life. We want to emphasize the
contribution of this chapter in the reflection of what critical thinking could mean
for the lives of students in communities with diverse worldviews.
Science education is not only a sociocultural activity but a sociopolitical one
“where issues of authority, power, and hierarchy affect social relations, access to
ideas, and positionings that learners of a particular socially constructed racial group,
ethnolinguistic affiliation, class, gender, and so forth, must negotiate” (Varelas et al.,
2012, p. 6). Indigenous people have traditionally seen how their knowledge is
devalued in school. Therefore, it is relevant that students are able to discuss in
class about relevant issues for their lives (such as the milpa and fertilizers), where
their voice can subvert some of these hierarchical relations, as we have shown in this
chapter.
Bringing knowledge related to milpa to the classroom is relevant to promote
critical thinking as situated practice. To promote critical thinking in a variety of
communities there is not a ready-made recipe. We need to rethink and reinvent, bring
cases such as the one presented to the arena for a collective reflection, aiming for
research to help us think about different ways of being and contributing. In this case
we have discussed data from classroom experiences with indigenous students.
However, this viewpoint can be applied in other contexts where inequalities have
generated the exclusion of contents, ways of thinking and even specific groups of
students (migrant communities, for example).
The development of critical thinking is related to knowledge, abilities, and
dispositions that can strengthen what the students in our study call “good living”,
associated with individual identity development and the construction of life projects
(Subero & Esteban-Guitart, 2020). The objective is the development of individual
self-determination: “the disposition to exert the capacity to elect between alternatives
and, with a moral north constructed or individually chosen, each individual can take
the moral determination according to her values and practices in an individual way”
(p. 169). However, these alternatives to choose are restricted by the possibilities that
70 A. García Franco et al.

the community allows and that are considered acceptable. In this margin for election
is where the school would be situated, trying to develop students' critical thinking in
order to give them opportunities to identify the range of possibilities for action, and
develop justifications for their elections. For this reason, classroom experiences as
the one presented here, which supports the legitimization of alternative ways of
knowledge are valuable.
Currently we are collaborating with some teachers to design activities that
consider their students’ knowledge, their interests about fertilizers and their ways
of being and knowing the world with the objective of generating dialogue spaces that
promote decision making and justification. These activities will, on one hand, let us
recover the experience of teachers in their work with indigenous students and, on the
other hand, open spaces for in-service preparation and collaboration in learning
communities. Activities will be used by teachers in their classrooms and shared and
analysed in groups.
We aim to develop critical thinking in school in a way that it is useful for students
to make decisions about issues that are relevant for their lives, congruent with their
communities ways of living and consider the power relations that have been histor-
ically established. Critical thinking should be useful to craft students’ and commu-
nities’ ‘good living’.
This line of research, that aims to integrate traditional knowledge in the class-
rooms, promote critical thinking and develop decolonizing strategies is barely
developed but highly relevant and challenging. Especially important would be that
groups of teachers, such as the ones with whom we have collaborated, be consoli-
dated, permitting that reflections and actions in the classroom come from the joint
interests of a diversity of voices: academics, teachers, and particularly, students and
their communities.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank students of the second grade in secondary school in
Yochib, San Cristóbal de las Casas and Aldama, and the teachers who participated in the workshop
in San Cristóbal de las Casas for letting us work besides them and learn from their experience.
To Yeison Arboleda for his support in data collection in some of the activities in Chiapas. To
Rocío Balderas and Nallely Jiménez for organizing data and transcribing. To Yei Rentería for her
support in organizing information.
To the members of the GRECI Seminar: Eurídice Sosa, Liliana Valladares and Luz Lazos for
their opinions on a previous version of this document.
This work was made possible with the support of the project Cinvestav-SEP, Conacyt No. 217.

References

Ahmed, S. (2015). La política cultural de las emociones. Programa Universitario de Estudios de

Género de la UNAM.
Aikenhead, G. (2002). Cross-cultural science teaching: Rekindling traditions for aboriginal stu-
dents. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2, 287–304.
Aikenhead, G., & Elliott, D. (2010). An emerged decolonizing science education in Canada.
Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10(4), 321–338.
4 Culturally Relevant Science Education and Critical Thinking in Indigenous . . . 71

Boege Schmidt, E. (2008). El patrimonio biocultural de los pueblos indígenas de México. Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos
Indígenas.
Brocos, P., & Jiménez Aleixandre, M. P. (2020). El impacto ambiental de la alimentación:
argumentos de alumnado de Magisterio y Secundaria. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 38(1),
127–145. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.2802
Carreño, M. (2009/2010). Teoría y práctica de una educación liberadora: el pensamiento
pedagógico de Paulo Freire. Cuestiones Pedagógicas, 20, 195–214.
Carrillo Trueba, C. (2016). Gente de maíz, maíz como gente. Variación y estabilidad en el infinito
complejo-maíz. Ciencias, 118–119, 4–11.
Carter, L. (2004). Thinking differently about cultural diversity: Using postcolonial theory to (Re)-
read science education. Science Education, 88, 819–836. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20000
Carter, L. (2008). Recovering traditional ecological knowledge (TEK): Is it always what it seems?
Transnational Curriculum Inquiry, 5(1), 17–25. http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci
Ennis, R. (1996). Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature and assessability. Informal Logic,
18(2 & 3), 165–182.
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education. Perspec-
tives from classroom-based research. Springer.
Farrera, L. (2018). La biliteracidad y sus usos sociales en estudiantes tseltales de la telesecundaria
714. El caso de Yochib, Oxchuc, Chiapas. Unpublished master’s thesis, Universidad Autónoma
de Chiapas.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogía del oprimido. Tierra Nueva, Siglo XXI.
García Franco, A., & Gómez Galindo, A. A. (2020). Aprendiendo en la milpa. Universidad
Autónoma Metropolitana.
Giroux, H. (1997). Los profesores como intelectuales. Hacia una pedagogía crítica del
aprendizaje. Paidós.
Giroux, H. (2003). Pedagogía y política de la esperanza: teoría, cultura y enseñanza: Una
antología crítica. Amorrortu.
Gómez Galindo, A. A., & García, F. A. (2021). Multicultural and dialogic science education in
indigenous schools in the Mayan highlands, México. In M. M. Atwater (Ed.), International
handbook of research on multicultural science education (Springer international handbooks of
education). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37743-4_21-2
Gómez Galindo, A. A., García Franco, A., Gónzalez Galli, L., & Torres Frías, J. C. (2019). Cultural
diversity and evolution: Looking for a dialogical teaching perspective. In U. Harms & M. Reiss
(Eds.), Evolution education re-considered (pp. 227–247). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-030-14698-6_13
González-Escallón, J. D. (2017). Ciudadanía liberal, proyecto de vida y autodeterminación: los
derechos individuales como camino o como límite de la construcción de la identidad.
Vniversitas, 135, 65–192.
Gorbach, F., & López Beltrán, C. (2008). Saberes locales: ensayos sobre historia de la ciencia en
América Latina. El Colegio de Michoacán.
Gruenewald, D., & Smith, G. (2007). Place-based education in the global age. Routledge.
Harmin, M., Barrett, M., & Hoessler, C. (2016). Stretching the boundaries of transformative
sustainability learning: On the importance of decolonizing ways of knowing and relations
with the more-than-human. Environmental Education Research, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13504622.2016.1263279
Harrison, N. (2004). Rethinking critical thinking: Indigenous students studying at university.
Teaching Education, 15(4), 375–384.
Hutchison, C. B. (2014). Internationally inclusive science education: Addressing the needs of
migrants and international students in the era of globalization. In M. M. Atwater, M. Russell,
& M. B. Butler (Eds.), Multicultural science education. Preparing teachers for equity and social
justice (pp. 137–158). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7651-7_9
72 A. García Franco et al.

Johnson, D. P. (2008). Contemporary sociological theory. An integrated multi-level approach.

Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-76522-8
Lave, J. (2009). The practice of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.). Contemporary theories of learning,
learning theorists. . .In their own words (pp. 209–217). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203870426
Maurer, E. (1977). ¿Aprender o enseñar?: la educación en Takinwits, poblado tseltal de Chiapas
(México). Revista del Centro de Estudios Educativos (México), VII(1), 84–103.
McKinley, E. (2011). Postcolonialism, indigenous students and science education. In S. Abell &
N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 199–226). Routledge.
McLaren, P. (1997). Prefacio: Teoría Crítica y significado. In H. Giroux (Ed.), Los profesores como
intelectuales. Hacia una pedagogía crítica del aprendizaje. Paidós.
Milne, M. C., Tobin, K., & DeGennaro, D. (Eds.). (2015). Sociocultural studies and implications
for science education. The experiential and the virtual. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
94-007-4240-6
Moya, R. (2009). La interculturalidad para todos en América Latina. In L. E. López (Ed.),
Interculturalidad, educación y ciudadanía. Perspectivas Latinoamericanas (pp. 21–56). Plural
Editores.
Olivé, L. (2009). Por una auténtica interculturalidad basada en el reconocimiento de la pluralidad
epistemológica. In E. Sader (Ed.), Pluralismo Epistemológico (pp. 19–30). CLACSO.
Oviedo, G., Maffi, L., & Larsen, B. (2000). Indigenous and traditional peoples of the world and
ecoregion conservation: An integrated approach to conserving the world’s biological and
cultural diversity. World Wild Fund.
Pérez Ruiz, M., & Argueta Villamar, A. (2011). Saberes indígenas y diálogo intercultural. Cultura y
Representaciones Sociales, 5(10), 31–55.
Pozzer, L. L., & Jackson, P. A. (2015). Conceptualizing identity in science education research:
Theoretical and methodological issues. In C. Milne, K. Tobin, & D. DeGennaro (Eds.),
Sociocultural studies and implications for science education. The experiential and the virtual
(pp. 213–230). Springer.
Puig, B., Bravo Torija, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2012). Argumentation in the classroom:
Two teaching sequences. Project Science Teacher Education Advanced Methods (S-TEAM).
Danú. http://www.rodausc.gal/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/01/Argumentation-Two-
teachingSequences-English.pdf
Ramírez Castañeda, E. (2006). La educación indígena en México. UNAM.
Rappaport, J. (2007). Más allá de la escritura: la epistemología de la etnografía en colaboración.
Revista Colombiana de Antropología, 43, 197–229.
Santos Baptista, G. C., & El-Hani, C. N. (2009). The contribution of ethnobiology to the construc-
tion of a dialogue between ways of knowing: A case study in Brazilian public high school.
Science & Education, 18, 503–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-008-9173-3
Subero, D., & Esteban-Guitart, M. (2020). Más allá del aprendizaje escolar: el rol de la subjetividad
en el enfoque de los fondos de identidad. Teoría de la educación, 31(1), 213–236. https://doi.
org/10.1420/teri20955
Valladares, L. (2010). La educación científica intercultural y el enfoque de las capacidades. Revista
CTS, 16(6), 39–69.
Varelas, M., Martin, D., & Kane, J. (2012). Content learning and identity construction (CLIC): A
framework to strengthen African American students’ mathematics and science learning in urban
elementary schools. Human Development, 55, 319–339.
Vasco Uribe, L. G. (2002). Entre selva y páramo: viviendo y pensando la lucha india. Instituto
Colombiano de Antropología e Historia.
Walsh, C. (2009). Interculturalidad crítica y pedagogía de-colonial: Apuestas (des)de el in-surgir,
re-existir y re-vivir. In P. Melgarejo (Comp.), Educación Intercultural en América Latina:
memorias, horizontes históricos y disyuntivas políticas (pp. 25–42). Plaza y Valdés.
Weiss, E. (2017). Hermenéutica y descripción densa versus teoría fundamentada. Revista Mexicana
de Investigación Educativa, 22(73), 637–654.
 Part II
Research About Critical Thinking
in Biology and Health Education
Chapter 5
The Role of Evidence Evaluation in Critical
Thinking: Fostering Epistemic Vigilance

Ravit Golan Duncan, Veronica L. Cavera, and Clark A. Chinn

5.1 Introduction: Promoting Reasoning in Epistemically

Unfriendly Contexts

The current times, with a global pandemic, have brought into focus the dangers of
misinformation and the difficulties that lay individuals experience when trying to
evaluate information (scientific and otherwise) on various media platforms. In fact,
the problem of misinformation regarding COVID-19 is so severe that Tedros
Adhanom, the Director-General of the World Health Organization claimed that
“Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous”
(WHO, 2020). In this post-truth climate, it is more pertinent than ever to educate
future citizens to be epistemically vigilant (Britt et al., 2019). By epistemically
vigilant we mean evaluating and monitoring the credibility and trustworthiness of
information while being aware of the potential of being misinformed (Sperber et al.,
2010). Epistemic vigilance is vital to critical thinking.
We draw on Kuhn’s (2018) definition of critical thinking as argumentation. That
is, evaluating information in light of alternative claims and constructing an argument
in support of one (or more claims) and that refutes alternative claims. A central
component of such critical thinking is reasoning with and about evidence. In the
U.S. context, the Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Coun-
cil, 2012) argues that a common feature of science knowledge building across
domains is “a commitment to data and evidence as the foundation for developing
claims” (p. 26). Research in science education has accordingly attended to the role of
scientific evidence in inquiry (e.g., McNeill & Berland, 2017; McNeill & Krajcik,
2012; Erduran & Dagher, 2014; Berland et al., 2016), argumentation, (e.g., Berland

R. G. Duncan (*) · V. L. Cavera · C. A. Chinn

Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 75

B. Puig, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), Critical Thinking in Biology
and Environmental Education, Contributions from Biology Education Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_5
76 R. G. Duncan et al.

& McNeill, 2010; Driver et al., 2000; Jiménez-Aleixandre et al., 2000; Sandoval &
Millwood, 2005), and modeling (e.g., Bamberger & Davis, 2013; Passmore &
Svoboda, 2012).
However, there are several problems with the ways in which evidence is
addressed in current science education. The evidence used in science instruction
often does not reflect the complexity of evidence encountered in the real world.
Rather, evidence in science instruction is usually highly simplified, consisting of
straightforward experimental set-ups and observations, or simple descriptions of
scientific data (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Moreover, a few pieces of evidence,
sometimes just one or two, are treated as sufficient to develop and evaluate models
(see critique by Samarapungavan, 2018). In contrast, even the abridged evidence that
individuals encounter in the news or social media is more complex and varied in
quality than the epistemically friendly evidence seen in classrooms. Students also
have few opportunities to learn that evidence evaluation and synthesis are social
epistemic practices that are governed by community norms (Longino, 1990, 2002).
Thus, it is no surprise that adults reason poorly with authentic, and epistemically
messy, evidence of the real world (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), frequently basing
judgments on low-quality evidence or single studies, and showing little appreciation
for higher-quality, stronger evidence (Iordanou & Constantinou, 2014; Kelly &
Takao, 2002; Nisbett & Ross, 1980).
If we want students to learn to think critically about the kinds evidence and claims
they will encounter in the epistemically unfriendly world outside the classroom, we
need to engage them with evidence that varies in quality and strength of support and
reflects greater epistemic complexity. This raises the question of which aspects of
evidence quality and strength are easier or harder for students’ to grasp, especially
when students are tackling a set of varied evidence.
In this chapter we attempt to address this question through analyses of secondary
students’ responses of an argumentation task involving a set of evidence that varied
in quality and strength. Students’ arguments reflected their critical thinking about the
evidence. Our analyses of their arguments is grounded in the Grasp of Evidence
framework (Duncan et al., 2018), which captures dimensions of reasoning with
evidence.

5.2 Theoretical Framework: Grasp of Evidence

Our conception of grasp of evidence builds on work by Ford (2008), who discussed
the grasp of scientific practice as an internalization of two critical, interrelated roles:
constructing and critiquing claims. “Grasp” entails an understanding of both the
elements of the practice and practical skill in engaging in the practice across various
contexts. Such a grasp is socially constructed and negotiated within a community of
practicing scientists (or a community of science learners in a classroom). The Grasp
of Evidence (GoE) framework (Duncan et al., 2018) unpacks reasoning with evi-
dence as an important aspect of grasp of practice.
5 The Role of Evidence Evaluation in Critical Thinking: Fostering Epistemic. . . 77

Expert grasp of evidence involves extensive topic-specific knowledge of theories

and methods in a field, such as highly technical methods of data analysis (Chinn &
Duncan, 2018; Samarapungavan, 2018). Achieving an expert level of grasp of
evidence surpasses what is feasible to accomplish in K-12 education. Therefore,
GoE proposes a mid-level of domain specificity, a lay grasp, at which students
understand many important dimensions of reasoning with evidence (e.g., under-
standing the importance of carefully controlled experiments) while also appreciating
that working with evidence involves extensive connections with detailed topic
knowledge (that they do not necessarily have). Despite lacking the advanced topic
knowledge to attain an expert grasp, students can still understand—as competent
outsiders (Feinstein et al., 2013)—many of the relevant aims, ideals, and processes
that undergird scientific evidentiary practices.
What are these aspects of lay reasoning with evidence? The framework posits five
dimensions encompassing both what students should understand about how experts
work with evidence and how laypeople can use evidence reports themselves. These
dimensions are complementary, because having a mid-level understanding of how
scientists use evidence can help laypeople engage with scientific evidence in pro-
ductive ways despite limited disciplinary knowledge. For this study we focused on
four of the five dimensions, described below:
1. Evidence evaluation. The evaluation of the methodological quality of evidence is
central to scientific practice and often a point of contention in arguments (e.g.,
Collins & Pinch, 2012; Galison, 1997; Mayo, 1996; Staley, 2004). Although full
evaluation of methodology typically requires deep disciplinary knowledge, there
are some mid-level methodological considerations that should be within the grasp
of secondary students. For example, checking that experimental variables are
appropriately controlled to rule out any confounding factors; or being aware of
the limitations of some forms of data, such as self-reports, in terms of their
potential bias.
2. Evidence interpretation. Evidence is interpreted in light of (often) competing
claims and models. Different theoretical perspectives can lead to different inter-
pretations of evidence (Thagard, 1992; Thomm et al., 2017), as well as consid-
ering the strength and diagnosticity of evidence in supporting or refuting
alternative models (Chinn, Rinehart, & Buckland., 2014). Not all high-quality
(i.e., methodologically sound) evidence is strong evidence; rather, strength is a
property of model-evidence relationships. For example, stronger evidence might
support more model components or core (rather than peripheral) model
components.
3. Evidence integration. The dimension of evidence integration focuses on the
challenges of coordinating large, diverse, and often conflicting bodies of evidence
(Barzilai & Ka’adan, 2017; Thagard, 2012) with alternative models. It also relates
to the idea of converging lines of evidence and why such occurrences provide
strong support of models. Ideally, different kinds of evidence cohere—for exam-
ple, when evidence using a particular method supports a model, there will be
independent lines of evidence for the validity of that method.
78 R. G. Duncan et al.

4. Lay use of evidence. Given bounded disciplinary knowledge, laypeople need to

use practices for engaging with evidence that are informed by expert evidentiary
practices but are distinct from them (Bromme & Goldman, 2014; Keren, 2018).
This dimension details grasp of evidence for lay use. For example, although
laypeople cannot evaluate the merit of conclusions from technically complex
studies, they can seek corroborating accounts for these claims, consider the
reactions of other scientists, and get a sense of where experts agree or disagree
about them (Thomm et al., 2017).
These four dimensions are each unpacked in terms of the kinds of epistemic
considerations entailed by them. We conceptualize these epistemic considerations in
terms of the AIR model of epistemic cognition (Chinn et al., 2014). This model posits
that epistemic cognition includes three central components:
A. Aims and values, which are the goals that individuals and communities set
(aims), such as knowledge, and the importance of that knowledge (value) to
those individuals and communities. For example, a lay person’s epistemic aim
may be to find out (gain knowledge) whether being sick with COVID-19 confers
immunity and protects you from further infections.
B. Epistemic Ideals are the criteria used to evaluate the resulting epistemic products
such as evidence, claims, or models. In relation to the COVID-19 immunity, the
person may have an ideal of high source credibility—that is, information should
be gathered from reliable news media who themselves obtained information
from reliable experts.
C. Reliable epistemic processes are the diverse processes used to achieve epistemic
aims, such as protocols for carrying out observations or conducting experiments,
procedures for meta-analyses, social processes of critique, etc. In relation to the
COVID-19 immunity, the person can search for information in credible news
outlets, corroborate the information across multiple sources, and try to determine
the extent of scientific consensus around these claims.
In the GoE framework, each dimensions is specified in terms of relevant aims &
values, ideals, and reliable process associated with the dimension. For example, in
the evidence evaluation dimension, the aim is to determine whether available
evidence is of high quality and its conclusions trustworthy. High-quality evidence
meets the epistemic ideals of being appropriate for addressing the research question
and of ruling out potential confounds and alternative explanations. To meet these
ideals, one needs to use reliable processes for creating good evidence, including
designing studies using appropriate experimental design; creating valid, accurate,
and reliable measures; using well-established procedures, and so on. Students can
use such processes themselves when conducting investigations, or they can evaluate
whether evidence from secondary sources, such as reports of scientific studies in the
media, employed appropriate reliable processes. (See Table 5.1 for aims, ideals, and
reliable processes for the other dimensions.)
In this chapter we discuss our analysis of students’ arguments using the four
dimensions of GoE shown in Table 5.1.
5 The Role of Evidence Evaluation in Critical Thinking: Fostering Epistemic. . . 79

Table 5.1 Grasp of evidence framework dimensions

Epistemic aims & Epistemic ideals Reliable epistemic
Dimension value (examples) processes (examples)
Evidence Determining if evi- Appropriateness (i.e., the Study uses proper pro-
evaluation dence is of high methods address the ques- cesses of study design
quality and conclu- tions) (e.g., appropriate samples
sions are trustworthy Determinacy/conclusive- and comparisons)
ness (i.e., ruling out con- Study uses valid and reli-
founds and alternative able measures and analysis
explanations for the find- Study provides evidence
ings) of relevant source
Source trustworthiness expertise
(degree of expertise, track
record, etc.)
Evidence Determining model Relevance (i.e., the evi- Systematic coordination of
interpretation validity using strong dence is related to the alternative models with
evidence model) evidence.
Strength (i.e., the evidence Model perspective taking
clearly supports core parts (i.e., inferring what results
of the model) different models predict
Diagnosticity (i.e., precise and how different models
fit with the model, ruling explain the same evi-
out other models, provid- dence)
ing severe tests) Model-evidence fit evalu-
ation (i.e., carefully ana-
lyzing which parts of
models are supported)
Evidence Determining model Quantity of evidence Reliable evidence selec-
integration validity based on a Quality of evidence tion methods are used to
large body of Variety of evidence (i.e., select all relevant evidence
evidence multiple types/lines of evi- Quality checks ensure that
dence) only evidence of adequate
Consistency of support quality is integrated
(i.e., lack of contradictory Systematic integration
evidence) methods such as meta-
Coherence within bodies of analyses, tallying
evidence methods, and so on, enable
consistent and impartial
weighting of evidence
Lay use of Determining the Source credibility (degree Determine relevance of
evidence credibility of scien- of expertise, lack of bias, expertise trustworthy-ness
tific claims in every- etc.) of source (e.g., potential
day communication Acceptance of claims in conflict of interest)
scientific community Determine degree of con-
(degree of consensus) sensus in the scientific
Validation by knowledge- community; identify
able others (reports vetted points of expert agreement
by independent relevant and disagreement.
experts) Determine whether publi-
cation and dissemination
channels have mecha-
nisms of vetting or
filtering
80 R. G. Duncan et al.

5.3 Instructional Context- Model-Based Inquiry in Biology

The arguments used in our analysis are drawn from two model-based inquiry pro-
jects for life sciences students: The Promoting Reasoning and Conceptual Change
In Science (PRACCIS) for middle school students (Rinehart et al., 2014, 2016); and
the Investigating Issues in Learning Progressions (I2LeaPs) in which we developed
a genetics unit for high school students (Castro-Faix et al., 2020; Duncan et al.,
2017). Both interventions engage students in the practice of modeling through the
development, evaluation, and revision of models of biological phenomena. In our
instructional activities and assessments, students typically weigh multiple models
(either ones they create or ones we provide) in light of evidence sets. Evidence sets
include three to seven pieces of evidence varying in form and equality, such as
anecdotal accounts, videos of experiments or observations, and simplified reports of
research studies. Students are tasked with appraising the models in light of all the
evidence available and then writing an argument in support of the model they think
is best.
To support students’ modeling practices, especially their coordination of models
and evidence, we developed a suite of scaffolds that includes the Model-Evidence-
Link (MEL) matrix, evidence ratings, and shared epistemic criteria (Rinehart et al.,
2014, 2016). The MEL matrix (Fig. 5.1) presents a table with three columns: the first
lists the evidence, and the following two list each of the competing models. Students
use five types of arrows to denote the relationship between each piece of evidence
and each model.
In conjunction with denoting the relationship between evidence and models,
students also rate the quality of each piece of evidence on a four-point scale (0–3).

Fig. 5.1 Model-Evidence Link Matrix. Students use arrows to denote relationship between each
piece of evidence and each model Students also rate evidence quality on a scale of 0–3 in the box
next to each evidence thumbnail
5 The Role of Evidence Evaluation in Critical Thinking: Fostering Epistemic. . . 81

A rating of 0 indicates that evidence is low-quality and untrustworthy (e.g., an

anecdotal account), whereas evidence rated as 1 or 2 suggest that there are one or
more methodological problems with the research design or its execution (e.g., lack of
appropriate controls, small sample size, or possible confounds). Evidence quality
pertains to the validity and reliability of the conclusion of the evidence, it does not
imply any particular relationship between the evidence and the model. For instance,
a high-quality study may be irrelevant to the models in question.
In addition to the MEL matrix, we also engaged students in the development of
shared epistemic criteria for good models (Rinehart et al., 2016). Students first
developed individual lists of criteria, and then the class a whole agreed on a shared
community list of criteria for good models (Pluta et al., 2011). The class lists differed
but overall included criteria for good models such as: “should be easy to understand
and make sense”, “supported by evidence” (fit with evidence), “show all the steps in
a process”, “explains why or how something happens”, etc. These shared epistemic
criteria were on public display in the classrooms and teachers drew students’
attention to them as they engaged in modeling and argumentation tasks throughout
the units.

5.3.1 Argumentation Tasks

We analyzed three different argumentation tasks. One of these tasks was part of a
lesson in a five week unit in molecular genetics, for high school students, that
focused on evaluating models that explain the genetically based resistance to HIV
found in some individuals. Figure 5.2 displays the two models and one piece of
evidence from the HIV task. The other two tasks, DEB and Asthma, were used as
performance assessment task. The DEB task was about a genetically inherited skin
disorder in which blisters are formed in the skin. While the disorder is real, the name
“DEB” is fictitious. The DEB task was the performance assessment given at the end
of the 5-week high school HIV unit. The Asthma task was a simpler performance
assessment that was used in middle school (ages 11–13) as a post assessment after
students had engaged in multiple model-based inquiry units. Table 5.2 summarizes
the materials for each task.

5.4 Research Questions and Analysis

The argument tasks in these assessments entail reasoning about epistemic ideals and
reliable processes involved in the four dimensions of reasoning with evidence
(evaluation, interpretation, integration, and lay use). As described in Table 5.2, we
engineered epistemic “messiness” into these tasks in terms of varied evidence
quality, evidence strength and quantity, and the need to consider two models
simultaneously when reasoning about model-evidence fit. This added epistemic
82 R. G. Duncan et al.

Fig. 5.2 Top box – Models for the HIV unit: normative model is “HIV can’t get in” and an
inaccurate model “Attack and Destroy”. Bottom box – Evidence 2 regarding a new treatment for
Hepatitis B involving interferon

messiness raises the question of whether students will be able to cope with it all. Will
students notice problematic methodologies? Will they attend to relative strength of
support? Will they attend to the amount and quality of the supporting or
contradicting evidence? Moreover, will tasks that have more epistemic messiness
(HIV) compared to ones with less messiness (DEB or Asthma) result in arguments
that are richer in epistemic considerations related to GoE dimensions? By addressing
these questions, we can gain insights about students’ reasoning in epistemically
messy contexts (in school and ultimately real world situations) and how to support it.
To address these questions we analyzed 20 written arguments of high school
students from the HIV and DEB tasks (total of 40), and 20 written arguments of
middle school students (ages 11–13) from the asthma task. The two high school
5 The Role of Evidence Evaluation in Critical Thinking: Fostering Epistemic. . . 83

Table 5.2 Argumentation tasks: models and evidence

Genetic resistance to HIV
Model A: Attack and destroy Model B: HIV can’t get in
HIV resistant individuals have a mutated gene HIV resistant individuals have a mutated gene
that codes for a new protein. This protein exits that codes for a non-functional protein, which
the cell and attacks the virus and kills it. is then missing from the membrane. Without
(non-normative explanation) this protein the virus cannot anchor and get
into the cell.
Evidence Features of evidence and relationship to
models
E1: Burke family members suffer from AIDS A family in which the father, mother, and one
child are sick with AIDS. The first-born child
is not infected (born before the parents were
infected). Anecdotal account from a
non-expert (father’s opinion) of why the first
born is not sick that implicates a protein that
can attack the virus.
Supports Model A
E2: Interferon This evidence describes an experiment to treat
hepatitis patients with interferon. The experi-
ment was conducted by scientists but was not
controlled. The sample size is small. The effect
size is small. The phenomenon is different
(Hepatitis vs. HIV).
Supports Model A
E3: HIV resistant individuals are missing CCR5 This high-quality evidence describes an
experiment showing that HIV-resistant indi-
viduals are missing the CCR5 protein (the
anchor for HIV). Conducted by a scientists in a
well-controlled and executed experiment.
Supports Model B
E4: EM imaging of white blood cell and HIV This high-quality evidence describes a well-
controlled experiment conducted by scientists
showing that resistant individuals do not have
any HIV bound to their white blood cells
(using an electron microscope image).
Supports Model B
E5: DNA sequencing Experiment comparing DNA sequence of HIV
resistant and non-resistant individuals showing
that they differ in one DNA section.
Supports both Models (non-diagnostic)
Genetic disorder of the skin (DEB)
Model A: Separatin Model B: Connectin
Individuals with the DEB disorder have a gene Individuals with the DEB disorder have a
for DEB which codes for a new protein called mutated gene which codes for a non-functional
separatin. This new protein breaks down the connectin protein that is broken down by the
proteins that hold together the skin layers. This cell. Normal connectin protein holds the skin
causes the layers to separate. This causes blis- layers together, without it the layers separate.
ters in the skin. (non-normative explanation) This causes blisters in the skin.
Evidence Features of evidence and relationship to
models
(continued)
84 R. G. Duncan et al.

Table 5.2 (continued)

E1: DNA mutation Shows the mutated sequence of DNA, noting
that scientists think this mutation will affect the
protein.
Supports Model B
E2: Gaps in skin Provides the results of an experiment
conducted by scientists showing that affected
individuals have blisters, but non-affected
individuals do not. Method of experiment is
not described.
Supports both models (non-diagnostic)
E3: Image of skin layers Labeled microscope image of the three skin
layers (background information)
Supports both models (non-diagnostic)
E4: Maria’s treatment Anecdotal account of a mother who bought
medication from a website claiming the medi-
cation can break down separatin. After giving
it to her son he had fewer blisters.
Supports Model A
E5: Affected individuals missing a protein Report of scientific study claiming that
affected individuals (but not non-affected
individuals) were missing a protein in their
skin. Method of study not provided.
Supports Model B
E6: Injecting connectin Experiment conducted by scientists in which
affected individuals were injected with
connectin and most got better. Experiment was
missing a control and sample size was not
large.
Supports Model B
Cause of asthma in brothers
Model A: Cockroach allergy Model B: Inherited
The boys are allergic to cockroaches. Cock- Asthma runs in the family (the grandmother
roaches in their apartment are causing the had asthma) and the boys inherited it from their
asthma attacks. parents. (non-normative explanation)
Evidence Features of evidence and relationship to
models
E1: Cockroach dust gets into lungs Experiment conducted by scientists; individ-
uals who spent a long time in a room with
cockroach dust all had dust in their lungs. A
control group did not. Sample size was mod-
erate.
Partially supports Model A
E2: Allergy study Scientists studied the prevalence of allergies in
a large sample of children. They found that
over a third were allergic to cockroach dust.
Partially supports Model A
E3: Grandma Anecdotal account by neighbor claiming the
boys sound like their sick grandmother and that
genes can skip a generation.
Supports Model B
5 The Role of Evidence Evaluation in Critical Thinking: Fostering Epistemic. . . 85

classes (HIV and DEB tasks) were honors biology classes taught by the same high
school biology teacher; the middle school class (asthma) was taught by a single
middle school teacher. The schools, from which these classes were drawn, are from a
suburban district with academically average performance in mathematics, language
arts, and science. The district served 79% White, 9% Hispanic, 6% Black, 1% Asian,
and the remaining students identify as mixed race. Approximately 34% of the
students were classified as economically disadvantaged.
Our analysis of these arguments focused on which ideals and reliable processes
students invoked in relation to the four evidence dimensions of GoE. In Table 5.3,
we provide a coded example of an argument from DEB assessment task.

We were rather conservative with our coding. Students did not get credit for
mentioning details of the evidence (e.g., that it was conducted by scientists, or had
25 patients, or the large impact of 80% improvement in patients). In order to get
credit for noting source credibility students had to explicitly offer an appraisal, as in
this example: “Evidence 4 also states the same thing, but is found using a controlled
experiment by actual scientists”. This statement was double coded as referencing
evidence evaluation in terms of the reliable epistemic process of having controls and
as referencing lay use of evidence in terms of the ideal of professional/credible
source. In addition, it had to be clear that students were not simply repeating
information provided as part of the evidence itself (e.g., sample size of 25 or noting
that scientists conducted the study).

Table 5.3 Example of a student argument from the asthma task

The connectin protein explanation is better. 1. This statement was classified as evidence
This is so because the evidence is better quality integration in terms of GoE because it relates
and more reliable1 for this theory. The to the body of evidence supporting the pre-
connectin protein is clearly missing as proven ferred model. It was further coded as the Ideal
by evidence 5 where scientists found that of having better support due to the higher
affected people were missing a protein. Then, as quality of the evidence.
per evidence 6, when people were injected with 2. These statements were classified as evidence
connectin, 80% of the 25 patients did not pro- evaluation in terms of GoE because they were
duce as many blisters. Connectin is specifically about a methodological issue with
non-function because we see a genetic mutation the evidence. This was further coded as related
in the gene that produces connectin in evidence to Reliable Epistemic Processes (REP)
1. Finally, the lack of connectin explains the because it references the small and unreliable
gap between the epidermis and dermis talked sample size of one.
about in evidence 2. Without functional
connectin proteins, the two parts separate and
cause problems. Evidence 4, while it does sup-
port the separatin theory, has only one patient.
This makes it unreliable2.
86 R. G. Duncan et al.

5.5 Results and Discussion

Students’ arguments were fairly comprehensive. With the HIV arguments being
longer on average (152 words average, ranging from 88 to 281), the DEB ones
somewhat shorter (144 words average, from 50 to 207), and the Asthma arguments
the shortest (134 words average, from 44 to 251). Most arguments across the three
tasks included a claim supported by at least one piece of evidence.
There were differences in how many of these epistemic considerations (ideals and
reliable processes) were evident in students arguments. Of the 20 HIV arguments,
four failed to include epistemic considerations (in terms of our coding), six included
1–2 considerations, and ten included 3–5 considerations. Of the 20 DEB arguments,
ten did not include any considerations, seven included 1–2 considerations, and three
included 3–4 considerations. Of the 20 Asthma arguments (by middle school
students), seven did not include any epistemic considerations, seven included one
consideration, and six students included two. The HIV arguments included the most
epistemic considerations. We believe that this is partly attributable to the greater
complexity and epistemic messiness of the task and evidence in the HIV tasks. We
discuss this point in more detail next.
Table 5.4 illustrates the ideals and reliable processes students noted in relation to
the four dimensions of GoE across the three tasks. Numbers in the three rows
represent how many arguments included the epistemic consideration noted in each
row (total number of written arguments is 60).
Overall, for each set of considerations (i.e., lay use of ideals, evaluation ideals,
evaluation reliable processes, interpretation ideals, integration ideals), there were
more unique considerations in the HIV arguments. This was most evident for
evaluation ideals of which there were three different types of considerations men-
tioned in HIV arguments but none in DEB or Asthma. We attribute this trend to the
epistemic opportunities engineered into the task. The evidence set for HIV was more
complex and epistemically messy; there was simply more to appraise in regard to
epistemic ideals and reliable processes. The DEB and asthma evidence were less
complex (and asthma had only three pieces of evidence) and thus afforded fewer
issues to raise.
When problems did exist in the evidence, it is worth noting that students did
notice and referenced them. For example, in the Asthma task evidence 3 was an
anecdotal account and one student noted this. In fact, two additional students noted
that the source of this evidence was not professional or credible, these students did
not raise the issue of the account being a mere opinion (which would have been
coded as anecdotal). Thus, about three students raised concerns about the quality of
evidence 3 recognizing that it violated an ideal of source credibility (lay use of
evidence).
However, given that there were multiple problems with the evidence (sample
size, anecdotal account, lack of control) for DEB as well as HIV (there were fewer
with the shorter asthma task), it is somewhat discouraging that students did not
mention more epistemic considerations related to relevant ideals and reliable pro-
cesses. In particular, evidence 6 in DEB and evidence 2 in HIV were both missing an
5 The Role of Evidence Evaluation in Critical Thinking: Fostering Epistemic. . . 87

Table 5.4 Epistemic considerations in students arguments

Ideal Number of arguments
GoE or
Epistemic consideration categories dimension REP HIV DEB Asthma
Professional or credible source Lay use Ideal 5 1 4
Anecdotal, hearsay, or unproven idea Lay use Ideal 4 0 1
Non-professional or not-credible source Lay use Ideal 3 0 2
Totals and (number of unique 12 (3) 1 (1) 7 (3)
considerations)
Accurate or reliable conclusion (result) Evaluation Ideal 2 0 0
Dated (old) evidence Evaluation Ideal 1 0 0
High quality evidence (unspecified) Evaluation Ideal 3 0 0
Totals and (number of unique 6 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0)
considerations)
Adequate/missing controls Evaluation REP 2 0 0
Potential confounds Evaluation REP 0 2 0
Sample size (adequate or small) Evaluation REP 1 3 3
Evidence is detailed/shows process Evaluation REP 2 1 0
Empirical (experiment or series of Evaluation REP 1 0 1
experiments)
Totals and (number of unique 6 (4) 6 (3) 4 (2)
considerations)
Evidence contradicting favored model is Interpretation Ideal 1 0 0
weak
Evidence is inconsistent with or contradicts Interpretation Ideal 2 2 0
other model
Size of impact or effect (either large or small) Interpretation Ideal 1 1 0
Evidence is direct /conclusive/proves Interpretation Ideal 1 1 1
Evidence is irrelevant/indirect (different Interpretation Ideal 5 0 0
phenomenon)
Totals and (number of unique 10 (5) 4 (3) 1 (1)
considerations)
Multiple/more/most evidence supports Integration Ideal 3 1 5
model (amount)
Explicit connection between two or more Integration Ideal 5 0 0
evidence pieces
Stronger/better/higher quality support for Integration. Ideal 7 2 2
preferred model OR insufficient support for
other.
Totals and (number of unique 15 (3) 3 (2) 7 (2)
considerations)

important control condition. Yet only two students wrote about this in their HIV
arguments, and none mentioned this problem in their DEB arguments. Although
even fourth graders can recognize confounds in simpler forced-choice tasks (Bullock
et al., 2009), it may be more difficult to recognize confounds in these more complex
tasks. Alternatively, some students may have found evidence 2 for HIV irrelevant
88 R. G. Duncan et al.

(because it was about hepatitis and not HIV) and felt no need to reference the
methodology of an irrelevant piece of evidence. Thus, students’ attempts at devel-
oping a persuasive argument may have influenced which epistemic considerations
they saw as worth mentioning.
Another noteworthy pattern is the distribution of considerations across the
dimensions of the GoE framework. Most of the epistemic considerations related to
evidence evaluation. This was also the only dimensions for which students referred
to both ideals and reliable processes. We believe that students certainly used reliable
processes for other dimensions. For example, students used tallying and weighting
processes to decide which model has more and better supporting evidence; thus, they
used reliable epistemic processes to integrate evidence (see Table 5.4). However,
students did not explicitly mention the strategies they used for interpretation,
integration, and lay use of evidence and so these considerations were not coded.
We next provide two examples of students’ argument shown in Tables 5.5 and 5.6
below. We selected a-atypical arguments with five considerations (most arguments
had fewer). However, these provide a good illustration of how these epistemic
considerations are interleaved in an argument. The considerations in this example
were all ideals and pertained to evidence evaluation (5), evidence interpretation
(1 and 2), and lay use of evidence (3 and 4).

Table 5.5 Example of a student argument from the HIV task

The HIV-can’t get-in model (specifically one 1. This statement illustrates the interpretation
where the CCR5 protein serves as an “anchor”) ideal of “evidence is direct/conclusive”. The
is the superior model. In evidence 3, the CCR5 idea that direct evidence provides stronger
is shown to be lacking in HIV-resistant indi- support.
viduals. This shows that CCR5, rather than 2. These statements reflect a violation of the
being a HIV-attacking protein, is a protein that ideal above (i.e., evidence is irrelevant/indi-
facilitates HIV infection. One such way that a rect). The epistemic consideration notes that a
protein can facilitate infection is by acting as an different virus (phenomenon) may involve
“anchor” for the virus. CCR5 was directly entirely different mechanisms and is thus
observed to do this in evidence 41; the HIV irrelevant.
viruses were shown to be connected to the pro- 3. This statement reflects a violation of the
tein. Without the protein, as it was with ideal of credible source (i.e., non-professional/
HIV-resistant individuals, the virus could not be non-credible source) included in the lay use of
present on the white blood cells. There are evidence dimension.
pieces of evidence that seemingly contradict the 4. This statement relates to the consideration
model, most saliently evidence 2. While in that that anecdotal evidence is problematic (lay use
study viruses were directly attacked by immune of evidence) and is essentially a violation of the
cells activated by interferon proteins (which trustworthy evidence ideal.
aligns with the attack-and-destroy model), the 5. This statement reflects a violation of the
evidence is not directly applicable. The hepatitis ideal that evidence should be up to date and not
B virus, which was used in that study, is not the old and is an important consideration in terms
HIV virus, and it is not clear that the viruses are of evidence evaluation. Only this student
being inhibited by different mechanisms2. Evi- mentioned it.
dence 1 hints at the first model, but it’s not
worth considering- the “science” mentioned
was said by a nonprofessional3 (so all he has to
go on is hearsay4), this was during the 1980s,
when HIV was little-known5
5 The Role of Evidence Evaluation in Critical Thinking: Fostering Epistemic. . . 89

Table 5.6 Example of a student argument from the HIV task

Model 2 is the model I think to be better 1. This statement appeals to the ideal of stron-
because there is better evidence supporting the ger/better support and explicitly notes multiple
model. Evidence 3 and 4 both are very good pieces of evidence taken together. This ideal
evidence they fit the criteria and give good relates to the evidence integration dimension of
information1. Evidence 3. Supports model 2 by GoE.
showing by showing an experiment that people 2. Adequately controlling experiment is a reli-
resistant to HIV do not have a certain protein able processes relevant to evidence evaluation.
that HIV locks onto so it can reproduce 3. The explicit pointing out that the study was
supporting the fact that HIV cannot get done by actual scientists reflects a consider-
in. Evidence 4 also states the same thing, but is ation of professional/credible source which is
found using a controlled experiment 2 by actual an ideal relevant to lay use of evidence.
scientists3.

The student appealed to the ideal of direct/conclusive support in order to highlight

the strength of the model-evidence fit for the preferred model. Conversely, the
student pointed out the weakness in the support evidence 2 (interferon) provided
to the competing model, claiming that because it was a different virus the evidence
was “not directly applicable” and thus resulted in a weaker model-evidence fit. Next,
the student raised three epistemic concerns with evidence 1: the evidence is from a
non-credible source, it is hearsay, and it is dated. This last epistemic consideration
was only mentioned by this student and while true (the evidence was from the 1980s)
this was not a potential weakness we actually considered or deliberately included as
designers. That the student noticed and raised this as a problem (because HIV was
“little known”) suggests a fairly sophisticated understanding that during the early
phases of inquiry knowledge is more tentative.
Our next example illustrates a variety of ideals and a reliable process from three of
the four GoE framework dimensions: lay use of evidence (3), evidence evaluation
(2), and evidence integration (1). We chose it specifically to illustrate the evidence
integration dimension, which was not evidenced in the prior example. The student
here appeals to the ideal that support by multiple and better evidence is stronger.
Interestingly, the student notes that evidence 3 and 4 “fit the criteria and give good
information”(1). We suspect the student meant that these evidence pieces fit the
criteria for highly ranking evidence quality- the criteria used to determine the rating,
from 0 to 3, of evidence. The explicit and specific focus on evidence quality and
quantity as an important epistemic consideration when choosing a model is com-
mendable as this consideration is particularly relevant to evaluating evidence in the
epistemically messy real world. Later in the argument the student points out what
contributes to the quality of the evidence, namely, that it is a “controlled
experiment”(2) conducted by “actual scientists”(3). In this statement the student
appeals to a reliable epistemic process (adequate controls) and source credibility, an
ideal for lay use of evidence.
Overall, these students’ arguments drew on multiple pieces of evidence,
addressed the competing model and the evidence in support of it, and included
multiple appeals to ideals and reliable epistemic processes across all four GoE
dimensions (both arguments taken together). The task, with its two models and
variety of evidence, afforded opportunities to notice and articulate these epistemic
considerations rather impressively.
90 R. G. Duncan et al.

5.6 Conclusion and Implications

In this chapter we presented a theoretical framework, Grasp of Evidence, which we

used to analyze students’ epistemic considerations (ideals and reliable epistemic
processes) relevant to the dimensions of evidence evaluation, evidence interpreta-
tion, evidence integration, and lay use of evidence. Our aim was to show that
students can and do attend to issues of evidence quality and strength when these
are available for them to comment on in the evidence. That is, students are respon-
sive to engineered epistemic messiness.
However, this epistemic vigilance does seem to be more prevalent among the
high school students compared to the middle school students. We do have to qualify
this assertion as the evidence in the Asthma task that the middle school students
completed afforded fewer methodological issues to comment on and was also an
assessment task that lacked the MEL matrix and evidence rating scaffolds that were
included in the HIV task. Thus, it is more likely that this result is a combination of
multiple factors: development (age), fewer epistemic affordances (less messy), and a
lack of scaffolds. The DEB task, which was a similar assessment completed by the
high school students also lacked scaffolds and was somewhat less epistemically
messy, and similarly led to fewer epistemic considerations per argument and overall
(fewer unique considerations per dimension of GoE as seen in Table 5.4).
Also, worth noting is that not all epistemic messiness is equally salient to
students. For example, the epistemic considerations raised most frequently were
about source credibility (a lay use of evidence ideal) and having strong evidentiary
support (an evidence integration ideal). In contrast, ideals and reliable processes
related to evidence evaluation were mentioned less, despite the fact that problems
with methodology (the evidence evaluation dimension) were specifically engineered
into the evidence sets. This is somewhat surprising as these epistemic considerations
are ones most relevant to the focus on experimental methods and control of variables
that are relatively privileged in current science instruction.
A key instructional implication from this work pertains to making classroom
environments more epistemically complex and messy. As we have noted (Duncan
et al., 2018; Chinn et al., 2021) if we want students to develop competencies in
reasoning about claims and evidence in the epistemically unfriendly real-world
contexts outside of the classroom we need to engage them with epistemically
messy evidence early and often. Our work here suggests that students are able to
attend to these considerations when they are evident in instructional materials and
assessments.

Acknowledgements The research presented herein was supported by National Science Founda-
tion Awards #1053953 and #100863. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
National Science Foundation. We also wish to acknowledge Aitan G. Duncan who kindly assisted
with data analysis.
5 The Role of Evidence Evaluation in Critical Thinking: Fostering Epistemic. . . 91

References

Bamberger, Y. M., & Davis, E. A. (2013). Middle-school science students’ scientific modelling
performances across content areas and within a learning progression. International Journal of
Science Education, 35(2), 213–238.
Barzilai, S., & Ka’adan, I. (2017). Learning to integrate divergent information sources: The
interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition. Metacognition and Learning,
12(2), 193–232.
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation:
Understanding studentwork and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education,
94, 765–793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Episte-
mologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 53, 1082–1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21257
Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., Blaum, D., & Millis, K. (2019). A reasoned approach to dealing with fake
news. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 94–101.
Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69.
Bullock, M., Sodian, B., & Koerber, S. (2009). Doing experiments and understanding science:
Development of scientific reasoning from childhood to adulthood. In W. Schneider &
M. Bullock (Eds.), Human development from early childhood to early adulthood: Findings
from a 20 year longitudinal study (pp. 173–197). Psychology Press.
Castro-Faix, M., Duncan, R. G., & Choi, J. (2020). Data-driven refinements of a genetics learning
progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Early view.
Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. (2018). What is the value of general knowledge of scientific reasoning?
In K. Engelmann, F. Fischer, J. Osborne, & C. A. Chinn (Eds.), Interplay of domain-specific and
domain-general aspects of scientific reasoning and argumentation skills (pp. 77–101).
Routledge.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A
theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.
Chinn, C. A., Rinehart, R. W., & Buckland, L. A. (2014). Epistemic cognition and evaluating
information: Applying the AIR model of epistemic cognition. In D. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.),
Processing inaccurate information (pp. 425–454). MIT Press.
Chinn, C. A., Barzilai, S., & Duncan, R. G. (2021). Education for a “Post-Truth” world: New
directions for research and practice. Educational Researcher, 50(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/
10.3102/0013189X20940683
Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (2012). Edible knowledge: The chemical transfer of memory. In The golem:
What you should know about science (Canto classics) (pp. 5–26). Cambridge University Press.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in
classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Duncan, R. G., Chinn, C. A., & Barzilai, S. (2018). Grasp of evidence: Problematizing and
expanding the next generation science standards’ conceptualization of evidence. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 907–937.
Duncan, R. G., Choi, J., Castro-Faix, M., & Cavera, V. L. (2017). A study of two instructional
sequences informed by alternative learning progressions in genetics. Science & Education,
26(10), 1115–1141.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing nature of science for science education. In
Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education (pp. 1–18). Springer.
Feinstein, N. W., Allen, S., & Jenkins, E. (2013). Outside the pipeline: Reimagining science
education for nonscientists. Science, 340(6130), 314–317.
Ford, M. (2008). Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science
understanding. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 147–177.
Galison, P. (1997). Image & logic: A material culture of microphysics. University of Chicago Press.
92 R. G. Duncan et al.

Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers’ evidence-based

argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning and Instruction, 34, 42–57.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or
“doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university
oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314–342.
Keren, A. (2018). The public understanding of what? Laypersons’ epistemic needs, the division of
cognitive labor, and the demarcation of science. Philosophy of Science, 85(5), 781–792.
Kuhn, D. (2018). A role for reasoning in a dialogic approach to critical thinking. Topoi, 37(1),
121–128.
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry.
Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. E. (2002). Science and the common good: Thoughts on Philip Kitcher’s science, truth,
and democracy. Philosophy of Science, 69(4), 560–568.
Mayo, D. G. (1996). Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. University of Chicago Press.
McNeill, K. L., & Berland, L. (2017). What is (or should be) scientific evidence use in k-12
classrooms? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(5), 672–689.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in
science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Pearson Allyn &
Bacon.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscut-
ting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social
judgment.
Passmore, C. M., & Svoboda, J. (2012). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modelling
classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1535–1554.
Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners’ epistemic criteria for good scientific
models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 486–511.
Rinehart, R. W., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2014). A scaffolding suite to support evidence-
based modeling and argumentation. Science Scope, 38, 70–77.
Rinehart, R. W., Duncan, R. G., Chinn, C. A., Atkins, T., & DiBenedetti, J. (2016). Critical design
decisions for successful model-based inquiry in science classrooms. International Journal of
Designs for Learning, 7, 17–40.
Samarapungavan, A. (2018). Construing scientific evidence: The role of disciplinary knowledge in
reasoning with and about evidence in scientific practice. In K. Engelmann, F. Fischer,
J. Osborne, & C. A. Chinn (Eds.), Scientific reasoning and argumentation: The roles of
domain-specific and domain-general knowledge (pp. 56–76). Routledge.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written
scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.
Sperber, D., Clement, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010).
Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393.
Staley, K. W. (2004). Robust evidence and secure evidence claims. Philosophy of Science, 71(4),
467–488.
Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. University Press Princeton.
Thagard, P. (2012). The cognitive science of science: Explanation, discovery, and conceptual
change. MIT Press.
Thomm, E., Barzilai, S., & Bromme, R. (2017). Why do experts disagree? The role of conflict
topics and epistemic perspectives in conflict explanations. Learning and Instruction, 52, 15–26.
WHO. (2020). Munich security conference (WHO director-general speech). https://www.who.int/
dg/speeches/detail/munich-security-conference
Chapter 6
Supporting Critical Thinking Through
Engagement in Dialogic Argumentation:
Taking Multiple Considerations into
Account When Reasoning About
Genetically Modified Food

Kalypso Iordanou

6.1 Introduction: Critical Thinking and Dialogic

Argumentation

Being lockdown because of the COVID-19 pandemic (at the time of writing this
chapter), the whole world is experiencing the multiple facets of a real-world prob-
lem. At the outset of the pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) orga-
nized a forum with the participation of almost 400 scientists of different disciplines
to discuss preventive measures to help control the outbreak, including the scientific
dimensions of the issue – diagnostics, vaccines, therapy – but also the social ones –
ways to address fear, rumours, and stigma (Ghebreyesus & Swaminathan, 2020),
showing that real life problems are complex, involving multiple dimensions.
COVID-19 pandemic is an example of a socio-scientific issue (SSI), involving
scientific and social dimensions, such as shortages of food, unemployment, educa-
tion, environment, global economy, psychological effects of social isolation and
racism, some of which are the results of the adopted preventive measures by
countries to control the expansion of the virus. We are witnessing differences
among countries in how they deal with the different dimensions of the issue of
COVID-19. For example, some countries delayed or avoided escalating the mea-
sures to a lock down, to protect the country’s economy for paralyzing, focusing on
the economic dimension; while other governments took early and strong (with high
impact on the economy) preventive measures to avoid the capacity degradation of
the local health system and to save more human lives, prioritizing on the health
dimension at a heavy expense on the economy. Different decisions might be the
result of possible failure to consider all the diverse dimensions involved in a SSI

K. Iordanou (*)
University of Central Lancashire, Larnaka, Cyprus
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 93

B. Puig, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), Critical Thinking in Biology
and Environmental Education, Contributions from Biology Education Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_6
94 K. Iordanou

during decision-making. Another possible explanation of the different approaches

observed among countries on how they handled the pandemic, at least at its
outbreak, is how decision makers prioritize multiple dimensions of a SSI or the
values they held.
It’s not only politicians and scientists who are called to make decisions that affect
citizens’ lives about SSIs, they are individuals themselves who are called to make
choices and take actions, such as following the instructions and recommendations
issued by the public health authorities. Different decisions and actions lead to
different consequences – including variations in the number of dimensions that
would be affected and the intensity of the impact. Decisions, which fail to take
into consideration the complexity of the issue and the different variables involved,
may have detrimental consequences to the individuals and the societies. In chal-
lenging situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, politicians ask citizens to
exhibit social responsibility. The President of the Greek parliament, Katerina
Sakellaropoulou, asked citizens to put the social benefit above the individual one,
to prioritize ‘We’ over ‘I’ (Ethnos, 2020). What could have prepared us to deal
effectively with this situation and show the social responsibility expected? And what
can prepare us to deal with such unforeseen situations in the future? The present
chapter proposes that part of the answer is critical thinking. The answer may not
sound novel, however a specific approach is proposed, along with new empirical
evidence showing the effectiveness of the approach to achieve this objective. In
particular, it is proposed that engagement in dialogic argumentation with real-world
problems, such as socio-scientific issues, which are complex and multi-facets issues,
can support individuals’ critical thinking skills, particularly their ability to be aware
of the complexity of the issue and the different dimensions it involves. To examine
this hypothesis, primary school students were asked to engage in dialogic activities
on the topic of Genetically Modified Food (GMF).1 GMF constitutes another
example of complex SSI, which shares some similarities to the features commented
above for COVID-19. Unlike COVID-19 SSI, though, which is a new and pressing
one, GMF is an on-going and contentious issue and its effects might be different
from country to country, with one country, for example, experiencing to a greater
extent its consequence on a particular dimension (e.g. environmental changes).
What is critical thinking? Critical thinking involves reflective thinking for decid-
ing what to believe or do, according to Ennis’ (2018) long-lasting definition, which it
is adopted here. Critical thinking is considered as a key twenty-first century skill,
which is fundamental for higher education and the workplace (Trilling & Fadel,
2009; Wagner, 2008). Kuhn (1999) proposed that critical thinking follows a devel-
opmental progression, along with meta-level thinking. Kuhn identified specific
forms of meta-level thinking which are central to critical thinking, namely:
(a) metacognitive, that is having control of one’s own beliefs, (b) metastrategic,
which involves the consistent application of standards of evaluation, and
(c) epistemological, which describes one’s view of knowledge and knowing.

1
The data collection took place before the first cases of COVID-19 were reported.
6 Supporting Critical Thinking Through Engagement in Dialogic Argumentation:. . . 95

The later form, the epistemological, has its roots in the early forms of the theory of
mind understanding and follows a developmental progression (Iordanou, 2016a),
embarking in childhood from a view of knowledge as an objective fact, conceptu-
alizing later, in adolescence, knowledge as a subjective opinion and finally reaching
an understanding of knowledge as a judgment amenable to evaluation, based on the
criteria of argument and evidence. The later form of understanding, the evaluativist
one, achieved usually in adulthood, is the form of understanding which supports
critical thinking. Empirical data, show that an evaluativist epistemological under-
standing supports individuals’ ability to consider multiple perspectives on an issue –
being able to identify different dimensions of a SSI – (Baytelman et al., 2020),
consider counterarguments (Zavala & Kuhn, 2017; Iordanou, 2016b; Iordanou et al.,
2020; Shi, 2020), evaluate evidence (Iordanou et al., 2019b) and integrate divergent
perspectives (Barzilai & Eshet-Alkalai, 2015; Bråten et al., 2011).
A fundamental component of critical thinking is individuals’ ability to identify
and take into consideration the multiple factors involved in a complex issue. In order
to be able to decide effectively, individuals need first to be aware of the possible
options. Without a consideration of the contribution of all possible factors to a
problem, an effective solution can’t be reached. Are individuals effective multiple
factor thinkers? Several kinds of evidence suggest that most individuals think
simplistically about complex issues. Individuals do not conceptualize multiple
contributing causes as necessary to account for most phenomena, nor are they likely
to take multiple considerations into account in making judgments (Kuhn &
Iordanou, in press; Lytzerinou & Iordanou, 2020). Therefore, the question which
appears pressing for educators is: How can we support individuals to be multiple
factor thinkers? Being a multiple factor thinker involves both the skill to identify
different dimensions of an issue – e.g. ethic, moral, social, scientific and economic
dimensions – and the appreciation of divergent perspectives within a particular
dimension – e.g. whether GMF is necessary to feed the entire world population.
Explicit teaching (Kienhues et al., 2011) and engaging individuals in argumentative-
based discussions (Fisher et al., 2017; Iordanou, 2010, 2016b; Shi, 2020; Zavala &
Kuhn, 2017) appear promising in supporting students to acquire an awareness that
multiple viewpoints may exist about an issue, focusing on a particular dimension.
Yet, the question of how we can support students to acquire an understanding of the
complexity of a problem, appreciating the diversity of dimensions involved in a
particular issue, is still open.
Efforts to support directly the development of critical thinking skills yielded mix
findings. Meta-analyses show that traditional undergraduate courses on critical
thinking resulted in only minimal improvements in students’ critical thinking skills,
while subject-matter instruction involving student discussion on real life problems
appears more promising (Abrami et al., 2015; Hitchcock, 2015). Still, there is a need
for more empirical research examining which forms of interactions are more effec-
tive (El Soufi & See, 2019; Murphy et al., 2014). For example, research findings
show that peers who engaged in discussions with peers holding an opposing view
benefited more in developing their reasoning skills (Iordanou & Kuhn, 2020) and
appreciating that there is an objective truth about a particular issue (Fisher et al.,
2017) compared to a control group whose dialogs were confined to same-side peers.
96 K. Iordanou

The present study examines whether engagement in dialogic argumentation over

an extended period of time can support individuals’ critical thinking, particularly
their ability to consider multiple dimensions of a particular SSI. Rather than con-
ceptualizing critical thinking as an individual ability or skill, it is conceptualized as a
dialogic practice (Kuhn, 2019). Consistent with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory,
according to which skills developed at the social practice are internalised and are
then exerted at the individual level, it is hypothesized that engagement and practice
in dialogic argumentation with peers can support students’ critical thinking. Students
are engaged in an argumentative based curriculum, involving practice in dialogic
argumentation and reflection (Iordanou, 2010; Iordanou & Constantinou, 2015;
Iordanou et al., 2019a; Kuhn et al., 2016), about a SSI, namely Genetically Modified
Food (GMF). Previous research has showed the benefits of engagement in dialogic
argumentation for supporting students’ skill to construct counterarguments (Kuhn
et al., 2013; Iordanou, 2010), use evidence (Iordanou & Constantinou, 2015),
acquire knowledge (Iordanou et al., 2019a), promote reading comprehension
(Wilkinson et al., 2015) and advance individuals’ epistemological understanding
(Iordanou, 2010, 2016b; Zavala & Kuhn, 2017).
This study was part of a greater project that engaged primary school students in
extensive application of the argumentative-based curriculum with SSIs for two
years. The data presented here were collected in the second year of the implemen-
tation of the curriculum of a particular class and focus on students’ ability to
construct arguments of great diversity, taking into consideration the complexity of
the issue and the multiple dimensions involved. Results of this intervention on
promoting other aspects of students’ argument skills over time – such as their ability
to use evidence and the function that evidence serves, e.g. for supporting one’s
position or counterargue other’s position – both on the intervention and a transfer
topic, were reported in Iordanou and Kuhn (2020). Considering dialogic argumen-
tation as a pathway of supporting critical thinking skills (Jiménez-Aleixandre &
Puig, 2012; Kuhn, 2019; Murphy et al., 2014), the focus of this chapter is in
examining dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for supporting multiple dimensions
thinking, which is a fundamental component of critical thinking. This question was
examined by asking primary school students to engage in an argumentative based
curriculum. The topic of GMF was chosen, because it is a socio scientific issue
which involves multiple dimensions which would make it ideal for supporting
students’ ability to take into consideration this range of dimensions when thinking
about a particular issue. Engagement in meaningful discussion on this topic and
making strong arguments for a particular position as superior to the alternative,
adequate content knowledge was required. Building on the work of Iordanou et al.
(2019a), we provided participants with multiple pieces of relevant information in the
form of questions and answers, which remained available throughout the interven-
tion so for them to make use of as they chose.
6 Supporting Critical Thinking Through Engagement in Dialogic Argumentation:. . . 97

6.2 Modes of Inquiry

6.2.1 Participants

Nineteen primary school students participated in the study. They were 6th grade
students, 12 years old, eleven of them girls, who attended a public school in Cyprus.
Participants were mostly from middle-class families and within an average range of
ability and academic achievement. Students participated as part of their science
classes, taught by their science school teacher, who received training by the author.

6.2.2 Procedure

6.2.2.1 Initial Assessment

Participants’ argument skills were assessed by an individual writing task. Partici-

pants were asked to write an essay taking a position on whether Genetically
Modified Food (GMF) should be allowed or not in the European Union, in which
their country is part of. The teacher provided a brief introduction about GMF. The
prompt was to “Write the argument you would make to someone who didn’t agree
that your position is the better one.”

6.2.2.2 Intervention

The intervention involved the implementation of a curriculum, which was based on

practice in dialogic argumentation and reflection (Iordanou, 2010; Iordanou et al.,
2019a; Kuhn et al., 2016). It took place over twelve 90-min class periods, twice per
week, in the computer lab of the school. For motivational purposes, the participants
were informed that the purpose of the activity was to prepare for a whole-class
debate, where a winning team would be declared, while also learning about GMF.
Participants were assigned to one of two teams – for or against allowing GMF in the
European Union – based on the position they supported at the initial essay. Students
who were undecided or neutral were asked to join the less popular team – for GMF –
in order to have an equal number of students in each one.
Preparation In the first two sessions, participants assembled, randomly, into same-
side groups of 5–6 each and were asked to generate reasons supporting their side’s
preferred position. First, participants were asked to write individually the reasons for
supporting their position, and then, to discuss and reflect on those reasons in the
context of their group. Once eliminating duplicates students recorded each reason on
a separate card and ranked the reasons cards with respect to the reason’s strength.
98 K. Iordanou

Paired Dialogic Electronic Argument with Opposing-View Pair Same-side pairs

were formed in each team – for or against GMF –, who remained together through-
out the next sessions, which involved dialogic argumentation. Each same-side pair
engaged in an electronic dialog with a different pair from the opposing side in their
classroom. The dialogs took place via an instant-messaging platform. Participants
were asked to introduce themselves and the position they supported – either for or
against GMF – at the beginning of the dialog. Then, they were instructed to
collaborate with their partner to decide what they wished to communicate to the
other pair they were to engage in dialog with. No explicit instruction with respect to
argumentation was provided, besides the encouragement to focus on positions and
not judging individuals.
Participants had available pieces of information that they could use if they
wished. The information was provided in the form of a set of 24 “question and
answer” (Q&A) cards. Each card contained a question on one side and a short
answer to the question concealed on the other side. The set was balanced overall
with respect to support of the two positions, including some neutral statements,
statements for GMF and statements against GMF. Table 6.1 shows some examples
of the evidence that were provided.

Table 6.1 Examples of questions and answers provided to students on the topic of genetically
modified food
What are the major Genetically Modified crops?
Cotton, corn, and soybeans are the main genetically modified crops grown in the United States.
Most of these are used to make ingredients for other foods, such as Corn syrup used as a sweetener
in many foods and drinks, Corn starch used in soups and sauces, Soybean, corn, and canola oils
used in snack foods, breads, salad dressings, and mayonnaise, Sugar from sugar beets. Other
major GE crops include Apples, Papayas, Potatoes and Squash.
Do genetically modified crop increase yield?
A study by the Corn Producers Organization in 2006 showed that genetically modified corn
produces 10 tonnes of corn per hectare while conventional corn yields 9 tons per hectare.
What are the effects of growing genetically modified plants on the environment?
The environment is benefiting as farmers increasingly adopt conservation tillage practices, build
their weed management practices around more benign herbicides and replace insecticide use with
insect resistant genetically modified crops. The reduction in pesticide spraying and the switch to
no till cropping systems is continuing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.
How do the genetically modified plants affect the ecosystem?
Cultures of genetically modified plants affect various species of the ecosystem, such as weeds,
which are undesirable for the crop. Weeds can reduce the harvest of a farmer, but they are
important for the ecosystem and the environment, because they provide food and protection to
insects, birds and other organisms. Reduction of weeds leads to reduction of beneficial insects
such as bees and birds.
Why Australia abandoned a 10-year project on genetically modified pea?
Genetically modified peas under development in Australia were evaluated by tests normally
applied to medicine. The peas created a dangerous immune response in mice which, if found in
humans, might be life threatening. The 10-year pea project, costing over $2 million dollars (US),
was abandoned.
6 Supporting Critical Thinking Through Engagement in Dialogic Argumentation:. . . 99

At the beginning of each session, before the dialog began, pairs were presented
with this information bank and were asked to choose three cards and access the
answers. At each new session, the cards they had chosen in previous sessions
remained available to them and three new ones could be chosen. By the end of
these sessions, all participants had seen an identical set of 24 cards with questions
and answers. Students were instructed to examine the new information and then
engaged in electronic dialogs with other-side pairs. They were asked to try to
convince the other pair that their position was the better one.
Reflective Analysis of Transcripts from Previous Argument Sessions After three
dialogue sessions – 3rd, 4th and 5th – had been completed, reflective analysis was
introduced in every other chat session, 6th, 8th and 10th (Table 6.2). In this activity,
pairs were asked to reflect on the electronic transcript of the dialog they had
completed in the previous session by using one of two reflection sheets (RS), the
own-side RS and the other-side RS. First the own-side reflection sheet was intro-
duced, which asked participants to reflect on the opposing side’s position and on the
strength of the counterarguments they had constructed to the opposing side’s
position, taking into consideration whether they had used evidence to support their
position. Participants were also encouraged to construct a better counterargument to
other side’s argument, using evidence. Then the other-side reflection sheet was
introduced which asked participants to reflect on the rebuttals they used to weaken
counterarguments to their own position. Further, participants were asked to contem-
plate what a better rebuttal might have been. At the 10th session, participants were
asked to complete both the own side and the other-side reflection sheets.
Review and Preparation for Showdown In Sessions 11 and 12, same-side groups
reassembled and worked together to prepare for the whole-class showdown. The
group reviewed and reflected on the reflection sheets they had completed in previous
sessions to decide what arguments to use in the debate. An adult coach, the teacher
and three research assistants, facilitated these discussions. Students after reflecting
on the counterarguments and the rebuttals they had constructed, excluded duplicates
and noted the arguments, counterarguments and rebuttals in different colored cards.
In session 11, students had available the own-side reflection sheets that they had

Table 6.2 Activities involved in the curriculum, by session

Session Activity
Sessions 1–2 Generating reasons supporting own side
Session 3–5 E-Chats (1, 2, 3)
Session 6 Reflective Activity: Own Side Reflection Sheet
Session 7 E-Chat 4
Session 8 Reflective Activity: Other side Reflection Sheet
Session 9 E-Chat 5
Session 10 Reflective Activity: Own and Other side Reflection sheets
Session 11 Preparation for Showdown
Session 12 Showdown
100 K. Iordanou

completed in the previous sessions and prepared a two-cards array of counterargu-

ments that they could use to address possible arguments from the other sides. In
session 12, using the completed other-side reflection sheets, students constructed an
array of three-cards consisting of argument, counterargument and rebuttal. Those
sets of cards provided a visual representation for students of the structure of an
argument.

6.2.2.3 Final Assessment

One week following Session 12, all participants were asked to write a final essay on
the discourse topic, of whether GMF should be allowed in the European Union. The
prompt again was to “Write the argument you would make to someone who didn’t
agree that your position is the better one.”

6.3 Results

6.3.1 Coding

Students’ essays were segmented to arguments. Arguments were first coded based
on their category to scientific, social or socio-scientific. Arguments were further
coded based on their content to the following categories: Food Quality, Food
Preservation, Economy, Health, Employability, Food availability, Poverty,
BEnvironmen/Environment (Table 6.3).
In addition, arguments were coded as one-side or two-sided depending on
whether they included both pro and con reasons or only one of the two (Kuhn &
Udell, 2003).

6.3.2 Preliminary Analysis

At initial assessment, 5 students supported the use of GMF, 9 students were against
the use of GMF, and 5 students were neutral or undecided. At the final assessment,
3 students were for GMF, 11 were against and 5 students were neutral or undecided.
Regarding change of position, 14 students expressed the same position at initial and
final assessment, while 5 students changed their position. Of those who changed
their position, 2 students changed from for GMF to against GMF, 2 students changed
from neutral or undecided position to for GMF and 1 student changed from a
position supporting the use of GMF to a neutral position, from initial to final
assessment.
6 Supporting Critical Thinking Through Engagement in Dialogic Argumentation:. . . 101

Table 6.3 Categories of arguments

Categories of arguments Examples
Food Quality (+) Quality control of GMF
(+) Enrichment of vitamin content of GMF
(
) Reduced vitamin content in GMF
(+) Improved physical characteristics of food
(e.g. larger size, more attractive colours)
Food preservation (+) Greater expiry time
(+) Avoiding or minimizing the use of food
preservatives which may pause a risk to health
Economy (Arguments related to the production, (+) Lower production cost
distribution and trade, as well as consumption (+) Genetically modified organisms are more
of goods and services by different agents. It resistant to pests and plan diseases, thus they
includes different perspectives: seller, buyer, require less or no spraying. Hence, farmers do
companies, countries) not have to spend so much pesticides.
(+) Consumers have to pay less to buy them.
Health (including human’s and animals’ health) (+) Avoid effects to health from having to use
less pesticides and insecticides compared to
conventional plants.
(+) Prevention of human diseases (by the
enrichment of GMF with missing vitamins
e.g. golden rice)
(
) GMF are harmful for human health
(
) GMF cause human diseases
(
) GMF increase the number of deaths in
humans
(
) GMF are tested in animals (animal cruelty)
(
) GMF cause increase in animal deaths,
when animals are fed with these products
Employability (+) Creating of new jobs in genetically modi-
fied organism production
(
) GMF causes unemployment of farmers
Food Availability (+) Increasing the quantity of food on the
market
(+) Finding food every season of the year
(Reducing the seasonality on the availability of
fruit and vegetable)
Poverty (+) Increasing food production (which makes it
available to a larger population)
(+) Ability to feed a larger proportion of the
population
Bioethical issues/ Environment (
) Modifications in organisms’ DNA
(e.g. insects)
(
) Genetically modified plants can have a
negative effect on the (animal) food chain
(+) Humans intervene in nature, as genetically
modified organisms are not natural products
Note. (+) pro GMF, (
) con GMF
102 K. Iordanou

6.3.3 Number of Arguments

Before turning to the main analysis, examining the type of arguments used, a
quantitative indicator was examined that, while hardly conclusive on its own,
provide an initial, albeit superficial, indication of change in argument skill. This is
change in the number of arguments in the essay. At initial assessment students
produced 2.350 (SD ¼ 1.496) arguments, while at the final assessment they pro-
duced twice as many arguments as they produced at initial assessment, M ¼ 4.60 (SD
¼ 3.016). Paired sample t-test showed that this difference was statistically signifi-
cant, t(19) ¼ 3.028, p ¼ .007.

6.3.4 Categories of Arguments: Social, Scientific

and Socio-scientific

Regarding the different categories of arguments produced – Social, Scientific and

Socio-Scientific – while participants produced arguments of all of these categories at
both initial and final assessment, the most prevalent category, as seen in Fig. 6.1, is
social at both initial and final assessment. Participants produced about the same
number of scientific and socio-scientific arguments at initial assessment, whereas at
the final assessment they produced twice as many socio-scientific arguments com-
pared to scientific arguments.

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
Social Scientif ic Socio-scient if ic

Initial Assessment Final Assessment

Fig. 6.1 Mean number of Social, Scientific, and Socio-Scientific arguments produced at initial and
final assessments
6 Supporting Critical Thinking Through Engagement in Dialogic Argumentation:. . . 103

To examine if there were changes in the categories of arguments in students’

essays in terms of using social arguments, scientific arguments and socio-scientific
arguments, from initial to final assessment paired sample t-test was used. Results
showed that participants produced significantly more socio-scientific issues at the
final assessment compared to the initial assessment, t(19) ¼ 2.896, p ¼ .009. In
particular, they produced three times more socio-scientific arguments at the final
assessment, (M ¼ 1.158, SD ¼ 1.068), than they did at initial assessment (M ¼ 0.47,
SD ¼ 0.612).
There was also a significant change in the number of social arguments produced,
from initial (M ¼ .750, SD ¼ .910) to final assessment (M ¼ 2.15, SD ¼ 1.565),
t(19) ¼ 4.499, p < .001. No significant change was observed in the number of
scientific arguments produced, from M ¼ .450 (SD ¼ .686) scientific arguments at
initial assessment to about the same number at the final assessment (M ¼ .400, SD ¼
.754).

6.3.5 Diversity of Arguments

To examine participants’ ability to consider multiple perspectives of an issue, the

diversity of arguments produced, that is, the number of different types of arguments
produced was examined (i.e. Food Quality, Food Preservation, Economy, Health,
Employability, Food Availability, Poverty, Bioethical issues/Environment). Com-
paring the number of different types of arguments produced at initial and final
assessment, the essays at the final assessment included a greater diversity of argu-
ments than the ones at initial assessment, t(19) ¼ 3.028, p ¼ 0.007. Participants’
essays at initial assessment included M ¼ 2.350 (SD ¼ 1.496) different categories,
whereas their respective essays at the final assessment included two times more
diversity, with a mean of 4.600 different categories (SD ¼ 3.016). Noteworthy,
84.2% of participants introduced at least one new type of argument at their final
assessment, which they haven’t reported at initial assessment.
As seen in Fig. 6.2, three new types of arguments were observed at the final
assessment, which were not observed at the initial one. In particular, at the final
assessment participants considered bioethical/environmental issues, food availabil-
ity and food preservation, none of which were considered at initial assessment.

6.3.6 Sidedness of Essays

At initial assessment only 14.3% of the students produced two-sided arguments,

whereas at the final assessment about half of the participants did so (47.4%).
McNemar test showed that the change in the number of participants produced
two-sided arguments from initial to final assessment was statistically significant,
p ¼ .031.
104 K. Iordanou

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Init ial Assessment Final Assessment

Fig. 6.2 Frequency of different types of arguments used at initial and final assessments by
participants

6.3.7 Examples of Students’ Arguments at Initial and Final

Assessment

In this section, some illustrative examples are provided of the arguments provided
during the initial and final assessment to exemplify the changes observed in students’
argument skills. Students are identified using pseudonyms.
Example 6.1: Costas
Initial Assessment.
Some plants have to be genetically modified, because those that are not (genetically
modified) may become contaminated while growing up.

Final Assessment
Τhe use of genetically modified organisms should be allowed in Cyprus because GMF is
more resistant to cold and have positive health effects. There are foods that can save lives if
modified, such as golden rice. There are foods that prevent diseases. These foods are
(genetically modified) soybean oil and soybean. Modified food lasts for more days. Also
modified food is cheaper, bigger, and it is produced in larger quantities for consumers (to be
accessed by more consumers). Non-genetically modified plants produce less quantity,
therefore can feed less consumers. It (conventional food) is very expensive, so consumers
have to spend a lot of money.

In this example, at initial assessment only one dimension is considered, namely

contamination while growing up, which is related to food quality. At the final
assessment, besides food quality, other dimensions are now considered – food
preservation, dealing with poverty and economy.
6 Supporting Critical Thinking Through Engagement in Dialogic Argumentation:. . . 105

Example 6.2: Anne

Initial Assessment
I am undecided because on the one hand genetically modified food lasts longer, is bigger, so
it is more worth buying. But on the other hand, genetically modified food can harm our body
and be unhealthier. That’s why I’m undecided, and I don’t know which is best.

Final Assessment
I’m for Genetically Modified Food because there is more (availability). The use of geneti-
cally modified food is unhealthy but on the other hand it saves us from cancer, heart disease
and (we can) add vitamins to some food. It also yields more crop and needs less pesticides.
In addition, it is more durable, it is bigger and tastier. For example, (without genetically
modification) corn’s size would have been equal to our little finger, apple wouldn’t have
such a nice red colour, and tomato would have been tasteless and not juicy. They (scientists)
will find out if the GMF includes something of danger for our health and they will correct it
or remove it. For these reasons, I support the permission of Genetically Modified Food in my
country.

In the second example, Anne at the initial assessment considered the food
preservation, the economic and the health dimensions. She constructed arguments
either for or against GMF for each dimension, for example for the health dimension
the student supported that GMF has negative effects whereas for the economic
dimension, she claimed that the GMF has a positive effect. At the final assessment,
the student was able to see both pros and cons within a single dimension,
constructing a two-sided argument. For example, for the health dimension, she
acknowledged that GMF might by unhealthy, but at the same time, they can actually
promote health, by adding vitamins that are missing in particular types of food. Then
she continued her argument about health, counterarguing her initial argument – that
GMF might not be healthy – by providing a counterargument – that if this is the case,
scientists will identify and resolve the issue.
Example 6.3: Peter
Initial Assessment
I chose this view because some food after the (genetic) modification may have more
vitamins. It is even more delicious than the regular one and consumers would want to buy
it. Also, it is not bad and does not harm our health.

Final Assessment
I am neutral because both (options) have positives and negatives. GMF is cheaper and good
value for money. But GMF causes health problems, such as cancer, but this is rare. If there
were no GMF, there wouldn’t be jobs in the factories and the economy would be affected
negatively. Some people become allergic because of consuming GMF. I believe that both are
good.

In the third example, Peter at initial assessment considers food quality, health and
attractiveness of products leading most likely to increases in GMF’s sales (econ-
omy), in his argument. He claims that GMF is more nutritious and tastes better than
conventional food; these qualities make it more attractive to the consumers, leading
most probably to an increased consumption (“consumers would want to buy it”).
106 K. Iordanou

At the final assessment, Peter produced arguments regarding economy and health,
but he also considered another dimension of the issue, namely employment,
acknowledging the GMF industry has created new jobs. Interestingly, the student’s
thinking about a particular dimension has also changed. For the health dimension,
although at initial assessment he didn’t identify any risks, at the final assessment he
identified the risks of some individuals being allergic to GMF and more importantly
the possibility of developing cancer. Like Anne, though, in Example 6.1, the same
student counterargued this argument, by claiming that this risk is rare. Those
examples show that students have internalized the thinking first developed at the
social level, of offering arguments and counterarguments, to the individual level.
Example 6.4: Loucas
Initial Assessment
I chose this answer because in this way farmers will not have to spray all the time, if for
example a tomato is harder and makes it impossible for the various insects and worms to eat
through it. But there should not be a lot of genetically modified food, because they harm our
health.

Final Assessment
I believe that genetically modified food should be restricted because it is bad for health.
When we (genetically) modify food, we eat something such as a tomato, but it is not (really) a
tomato, it is something else. Also, if we modify a tomato the insects will not be able to pierce
it, but gradually the insects will get stronger and they will become dangerous.

In the fourth example, Loucas, at initial assessment focused on producers’

convenience who won’t have to use chemicals to protect their products from insects
and worms. At the final assessment, he extended his thought on the issue, identifying
some cons on the issue which initially he considered as an advantage. At the final
assessment, Loucas identified the risk of insects getting stronger, identifying bio-
ethics risk on biodiversity.
Example 6.5: Mary
Initial Assessment
I chose this decision because if we hadn’t modified some food, they would have been
damaged (infected by pests), they would come in smaller sizes and they would last for a
shorter time. We would have to spray them more, because without modification they
wouldn’t last long.

Final Assessment
GMF should not be banned, nor should it be allowed (in the EU) because modified fruits and
vegetables are larger (in size) and last longer but on the other hand are not good for our
health. Furthermore, genetically modified food is damaging for our health, but on the other
hand, if it was actually damaging our health, it would have been published in the press that a
particular type of food is not good for our health. Also genetically modified plants have
greater production than the conventional ones and consumers have to pay less (are
cheaper), but some individuals argue that if you eat large quantities of genetically modified
food you will spend far more money for health care (due to illness caused by GMF) than
(when eating) conventional ones.
6 Supporting Critical Thinking Through Engagement in Dialogic Argumentation:. . . 107

Mary, as seen in Example 6.5, at initial assessment exemplifies the benefits of

GMF, focusing on the dimensions of food perservation – GMF lasts longer –, food
quality – GMF is bigger in size – and the environment – with cultivating genetically
modified plants, spraing is minimised.
At the final assessment, Mary showed a two-sided thinking, identifying pros and
cons. Interestingly, she provided an argument – GMF is of larger size and lasts
longer –, then she counterargued her argument – GMF is damaging to health – and
finally she provided a rebuttal to the counterargument she provided – “if it was
actually damaging our health, it would have been published in the press”. In
addition, at the final assessment the student considered some new dimensions on
the issue of GMF, namely availability of food – that genetically modified plants have
greater production than the conventional ones – and the economic factor – GMF is
cheaper than conventional food.
Notably, as seen in the examples above, participants took more dimensions into
account when reasoning about GMF at the final assessment, after dense engagement
in argumentation on this topic, compared to their performance at initial assessment.

6.4 Discussion

The aim of this chapter is to examine whether engagement in dialogic argumentation

over an extended period of time on a real-life issue can support individuals’ critical
thinking, particularly their ability to consider multiple dimensions of a socio-
scientific issue. Students engaged in a dialogic argumentative curriculum (Kuhn
et al., 2008; Iordanou & Kuhn, 2020; Iordanou et al., 2019a), involving extensive
discussions with peers on the SSI of whether Genetically Modified Food (GMF)
should be allowed in their country. The results of the study show that after the
intervention, participants produced longer and more socio-scientific arguments
combining the social and the scientific dimensions of the issue and arguments of
greater diversity – considering different aspects such as health, economy and the
environment. While participants at initial assessment considered on average two
different dimensions in their arguments, at the final assessment they considered
twice as many dimensions as they did in the initial assessment. Interestingly, the
majority of the participants – 16 out of 19 – considered a dimension at the final
assessment that they didn’t consider during the initial assessment, showing that peer-
discussions gave them the opportunity to consider dimensions of the issue that they
haven’t considered before, when they were thinking on their own.
Besides constructing arguments of greater diversity, participants of the study
exhibited gains in constructing two-sided arguments. Although at initial assessment
only about 3 of the students produced two-sided arguments, at the final assessment,
about half of them were able to do so. As seen in the qualitative analysis presented in
the results section, students included counterarguments in their arguments either
108 K. Iordanou

within a particular dimension or across dimensions. For example, Mary, in Example

6.5, provided an argument for GMF, regarding food preservation – claiming that
GMF lasts longer – and then constructed a counterargument, on the dimension of
health – claiming that GMF are not healthy. In other cases, such as Peter’s and
Anne’s, students provided a counterargument within the same dimension that the
argument was constructed. For example, Peter identified the risk of GMF causing
health problems, but then he moved on to acknowledge that this possibility is rare.
The findings of this study provide support to our hypothesis that engagement and
practice in dialogic argumentation with peers can support students’ critical thinking.
These results are in line with other empirical findings in the literature, both our own,
using the same argumentative curriculum (Kuhn et al., 2008), and others’, using
similar methods (see Resnick et al., 2018, for a review), in exemplifying the benefits
of engagement in dialogic argumentation in advancing students’ quality of thinking.
For example, the improvements observed in producing two-sided arguments are in
line with the findings of other empirical studies which reported similar results after
engagement in an argumentative-based intervention (Kuhn & Udell, 2003; Kuhn
et al., 2008). Yet, our findings extend the literature in an important way, showing that
engagement in dialogic argumentation can promote multiple dimensions thinking,
and an important element of critical thinking. The finding of producing different
types of arguments, considering multiple dimensions – such as health, economy, and
the environment – show that engagement in dialogic argumentation supported
participants to develop an appreciation of the complexity of the socio-scientific
issue that they discussed. The opportunities provided in the context of the curriculum
to articulate, explain, find relevant evidence, form arguments and counterarguments
to convince peers, and reflect upon their own reasoning (Iordanou & Constantinou,
2015; Iordanou, 2022), may have supported students to think about the complexity
of the problem and the multiple facets that it involves. These findings underline the
necessity to incorporate dialogic argumentation with peers in the everyday learning
process of science classes (Jiménez-Aleixandre et al., 2000; Resnick et al., 2018).
The current design does not enable us to identify the mechanism that supported
the gains observed, ruling out the possibility that the improvements observed can be
attributed to a particular element of the curriculum. For example, someone may
argue that the new types of arguments observed at the final assessment are the result
of learning new information provided during the intervention. Yet, empirical data
from previous research makes this possibility less plausible. In particular, in the
Iordanou (2010) study, an experimental group of middle-school students who
engaged in the dialogic curriculum outperformed a control group of same age
students who received the same pieces of information but didn’t engage in the
dialogic curriculum. The first group showed greater improvement in their argument
skills, particularly their ability to produce counterarguments both in the intervention
topic and in a new topic, in another domain, which had not been discussed (transfer
topic). Similar results were observed in the Iordanou et al. (2019a) study, where we
compared an experimental group who participated in the dialogic curriculum on the
topic of alternative sources for producing electricity with a control group who
engaged in the same curriculum but received the information in the form of a text
6 Supporting Critical Thinking Through Engagement in Dialogic Argumentation:. . . 109

instead of the question-and-answer format. The question-and-answer group

outperformed the control group in their argument skills – their ability to construct
evidence-based arguments and counterarguments – showing the superiority of the
question-and-answer method over a traditional whole-text method in making avail-
able to students knowledge they need to engage in meaningful discourse about a
topic they have little prior knowledge of, probably because the question-and-answer
format supported students to appreciate the potential use of the information. Other
experimental studies, focusing on other elements of the curriculum showed the
importance of peer interaction and reflection. In Iordanou and Kuhn (2020) study,
examining peer interaction itself, we found that the thinking of those who engaged in
discourse with peers who held an opposing view benefited by hearing arguments
favouring the opposing position expressed by individuals known to hold this
position and outperformed peers who engaged in dialogs with same-side peers.
Iordanou and Constantinou (2015) and Iordanou (2022) provided evidence for the
contribution of engagement in reflective activities for promoting students’ argument
skills, either by examining students’ dialogs during the intervention, using the
microgenetic method (Iordanou & Constantinou, 2015) or by comparing a group
of students who engaged in reflective activities in the context of the curriculum with
a control group who engaged in peer dialogs only, without engaging in reflective
activities (Iordanou, 2022).
This study shows that engagement in an argumentative-based curriculum on a
real life socio scientific issue, such as the issue of genetically modified food,
involving practice in argumentation with peers and reflective activities, can support
students to develop an awareness of the complexity of socio-scientific issues.
Whether the gains observed in the present study can have an impact on students’
thinking but also their actions – critical thinking action – in real-world issues, such as
the COVID-19, only future research can determine. Re-visiting the question we
addressed in the introduction of “What could have prepared us to deal effectively
with the situation of pandemic COVID-19 and show the social responsibility
expected?”, we believe that critical thinking could be part of the answer. Critical
thinking could have prepared us, both by being more prepared long before the
appearance of the pandemic – expecting a possible pandemic as scientific evidence
suggested – and at the outset of the pandemic on how a country could have
effectively dealt with this issue. The awful real-life experiment that humanity is
currently going through with COVID-19 pandemic, shows that through engagement
with a SSI, individuals experience the different aspects that it involves – such as
scientific, social, environmental. The present study, which was pursued a couple of
years earlier than the COVID-19 pandemic, shows that asking students to think of
real life issues or possible scenarios, can support the development of multiple
dimension thinking, an attribute of critical thinking which is necessary to deal
with real life issues, for which we have little control on when and how they will
arise. At the moment, supporting the development of students’ critical thinking
through engagement in argumentation on SSIs, appears as one of our best
investment.
110 K. Iordanou

References

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson,
T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314.
Barzilai, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of
multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36, 86–103.
Baytelman, A., Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. (2020). Epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge as
predictors of the construction of different types of arguments on socio-scientific issues. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching. 57 (8), 1199–1227.
Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J. F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the
comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psy-
chologist, 46(1), 48–70.
El Soufi, N., & See, B. H. (2019). Does explicit teaching of critical thinking improve critical
thinking skills of English language learners in higher education? A critical review of causal
evidence. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 60, 140–162.
Ennis, R. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum. Topoi, 37, 165–184.
Fisher, M., Knobe, J., Strickland, B., & Keil, F. C. (2017). The influence of social interaction on
intuitions of objectivity and subjectivity. Cognitive Science, 41, 1119–1134.
Ghebreyesus, T. A., & Swaminathan, S. (2020). Scientists are sprinting to outpace the novel
coronavirus. The Lancet, 395(10226), 762–764.
Hitchcock, D. (2015). The effectiveness of instruction in critical thinking. In M. Davies &
R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Iordanou, K. (2010). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of
Cognition and Development., 11(3), 293–327.
Iordanou, K. (2016a). From theory of mind to epistemic cognition. A lifespan perspective.
Frontline Learning Research, 4(5), 106–119.
Iordanou, K. (2016b). Developing epistemological understanding through argumentation in scien-
tific and social domains. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie., 30(2-3), 109–119.
Iordanou, K. (2022). Supporting strategic and meta-strategic development of argument skill: The
role of reflection. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09289-1
Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2015). Supporting use of evidence in argumentation through
practice in argumentation and reflection in the context of SOCRATES learning environment.
Science Education, 99, 282–311.
Iordanou, K., Kendeou, P., & Michalinos, Z. (2020). Examining my-side bias during and after
reading controversial historical accounts. Metacognition & Learning, 15(3), 319–342.
Iordanou, K., Kuhn, D., Matos, F., Shi, Y., & Hemberger, L. (2019a). Learning by arguing.
Learning and Instruction., 63, 101–207.
Iordanou, K., Muis, K. R., & Kendeou, P. (2019b). Epistemic perspective and online epistemic
processing of evidence: Developmental and domain differences. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 87(4), 531–551.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical
thinking. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of
science education. Springer.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or
“doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Kατερίνα Σακελλαρoπoύλoυ: Να βάλoυμε τo «εμείς» πάνω απó τo «εγω  » [Katerina
Sakellaropoulou: Putting ‘we’ over ‘I’] (2020, March 24). Όθνoς [Ethnos]. Retrieved from
https://www.ethnos.gr/politiki/96135_katerina-sakellaropoyloy-na-baloyme-emeis-pano-
apo-ego
Kalypso, I., & Deanna, K. (2020). Contemplating the opposition: Does a personal touch matter?
Discourse Processes, 57(4), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1701918
6 Supporting Critical Thinking Through Engagement in Dialogic Argumentation:. . . 111

Kienhues, D., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2011). Dealing with conflicting or consistent medical
information on the web: When expert information breeds laypersons’ doubts about experts.
Learning and Instruction, 21, 193–204.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational researcher, 28(2),
16–46.
Kuhn, D. (2019). Critical thinking as discourse. Human Development, 62(3), 146–164.
Kuhn, D., & Iordanou, K. (in press). Epistemology as a core dimension of cognitive development.
In D. Dunning & N. Ballantyne (Eds.), Reason, bias, and inquiry: New perspectives from the
crossroads of epistemology and psychology. Oxford University Press.
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74,
1245–1260.
Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016). Argue with me: Argument as a path to developing
students’ thinking and writing (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the computer: A
microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment.
Child Development, 79, 1311–1329.
Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation:
Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence.
Cognition & Instruction, 31, 456–496.
Lytzerinou, E., & Iordanou, K. (2020). Teachers’ ability to construct arguments, but not their
perceived self-efficacy of teaching, predicts their ability to evaluate arguments. International
Journal of Science Education. 42(4), 617–634.
Murphy, P. K., Rowe, M. L., Ramani, G., & Silverman, R. (2014). Promoting critical-analytic
thinking in children and adolescents at home and in school. Educational Psychology Review,
26(4), 561–578.
Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., Clarke, S., & Schantz, F. (2018). Next generation research in
dialogic learning. In G. E. Hall, L. F. Quinn, & D. M. Gollnick (Eds.), Wiley handbook of
teaching and learning (pp. 323–338). Wiley-Blackwell.
Shi, Y. (2020). Talk about evidence during argumentation. Discourse Processes. 57(9), 770–792.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Wiley.
Wagner, T. (2008). Even our “best” schools are failing to prepare students for 21st-century careers
and citizenship. Educational leadership, 66(2), 20–25.
Wilkinson, I. A. G., Murphy, P. K., & Binici, S. (2015). Dialogue-intensive pedagogies for
promoting reading comprehension: What we know, what we need to know. In L. B. Resnick,
C. S. C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and
dialogue (pp. 37–50). American Educational Research Association.
Zavala, J., & Kuhn, D. (2017). Solitary discourse is a productive activity. Psychological Science,
28, 578–586.
Chapter 7
Critical Thinking to Decide What to Believe
and What to Do Regarding Vaccination
in Schools. A Case Study with Primary
Pre-service Teachers

Blanca Puig and Noa Ageitos

7.1 Introduction

Our world faces increasingly complex social, environmental and health problems
marked by social tensions between individual rights, social aims, economic interests,
and values (Reis, 2014). Socio-scientific issues (SSIs) affecting the health of our
society require a citizenry that is well-equipped and capable of making critical
decisions and taking action based on reason and critical thinking (CT), as the
pandemic of Covid-19 demonstrates. The propagation of “fake news”, the use of
pseudo-therapies and the increasing number of opponents to vaccination have
become worrying and are issues that should be addressed in teachers’ training
programmes and in biology lessons when looking at the topic of health. The
introduction of modes of instruction capable of enacting and sustaining a culture
of questioning in schools is essential nowadays (Peters et al., 2018). Teacher training
“for” and “about” CT is necessary to face the challenges raised by postmodern
thought in the teaching of health. This book considers CT reasonable and indepen-
dent thinking (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, Chap. 1) that entails a set of skills and
dispositions, which can be developed through the practice, like other human prac-
tices (Facione et al., 2000).
School science practices and teacher training must move towards the use of new
approaches, tools, and the design of learning environments that provide

B. Puig (*)
Facultade Ciencias da Educación, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela,
Santiago de Compostela, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
N. Ageitos
IES Nº 1, Ribeira, Galicia, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 113
B. Puig, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), Critical Thinking in Biology
and Environmental Education, Contributions from Biology Education Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_7
114 B. Puig and N. Ageitos

opportunities to practice CT without paying attention to subject matter, content, and

procedural knowledge (Vincent-Lacrin et al., 2019). In the context of health teach-
ing, this requires, among other issues, equipping future teachers and students with
the kinds of knowledge and CT skills that will empower them to make health-
enhancing decisions regarding their own health.
This chapter presents a case study research conducted with Primary pre-service
teachers (PSTs) engaged in the practice of CT in a decision-making task on vacci-
nation. The study was implemented while vaccination was mandatory for students in
Early Childhood education in all state schools in our Spanish region, Galicia. In
response to this regulation, a range of media spread information regarding this topic.
Considering this context, and the importance of preparing teachers for dealing with
this controversy in schools, a case study was designed. Although SSIs have been
deeply explored, and there is evidence of their benefits for enhancing argumentation
and knowledge application (Evagorou & Puig, 2017), in the area of teaching health
issues there are no prior studies on how they could promote these competencies
along with CT skills.
Our research aims to broaden empirical investigation on CT and health literacy in
PST training. The main goal is to explore PSTs’ positions regarding vaccination and
their capacity to critically evaluate diverse premises supporting the anti-vaccination
movement. The research questions are:
RQ1 – Which CT skills and what background knowledge are mobilized by a group
of PSTs in a decision-making task on vaccination?
RQ2 – What are the connections between the practice of CT and the knowledge
domain of immunization?

7.2 The Role of Critical Thinking and Health Literacy

We will first discuss CT on SSI instruction and then turn attention to the role of CT
and health literacy as crucial components for addressing some of the challenges that
arise in our times, such as the anti-vaccination movement.

7.2.1 Critical Thinking and SSIs Instruction

CT is one of the key competences included in the European Reference Framework

(Hoskins & Deacon Crick, 2010). Curricula in most of OECD countries include, in
one form or another, CT as an expected learning result (Elen et al., 2019). None-
theless, teachers can find it unclear as to what CT means and what this will require in
their daily teaching practice (Vincent-Lacrin et al., 2019). This is not surprising,
since CT is a multifaceted notion that causes controversy concerning its conceptu-
alization, evaluation, and instruction. The concept of CT has been used with a wide
range of meanings in theoretical literature (e.g. Ennis, 1962; Facione, 1990). Views
7 Critical Thinking to Decide What to Believe and What to Do Regarding. . . 115

range from defining it merely as a commitment to evidence, to competencies related

to the evaluation of evidence, the challenge of arguments based on authority, or the
ability to criticize discourses that contribute to the reproduction of asymmetrical
relations of power (Jiménez Aleixandre & Puig, 2012). This book builds upon this
perspective and thus considers CT as a reasonable and independent mode of thinking
entailing a set of components related to argumentation and social emancipation
along with citizenship (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, Chap. 1, this book). We draw
from the revised proposal of characterization of these authors, which point to the
importance of CT for action. SSI instruction, as health controversies, provides
opportunities for dialogic practice and critical actions.
Both CT and argumentation overlap in their territories of engagement (Andrews,
2015). As Dewey (1910) suggests, CT is evaluative in nature; that is, it involves the
active consideration and analysis of claims, suppositions, procedures and influences
about whatever it is that the agent is thinking. One of the central features in
argumentation is the development of epistemic criteria for knowledge evaluation
(Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2007), which is a necessary skill to be a critical thinker.
According to the experts of the Delphi panel of the American Philosophical Asso-
ciation (Facione, 1990), CT cannot be considered as a body of knowledge to be
presented to students just as any other school subject. It should be embedded in the
content programmes that are specific for each discipline and which rely on the events
of everyday life as the foundation for developing one’s CT. A key feature of CT is
that it requires the mastery of context-specific knowledge in order to evaluate precise
beliefs or claims (Anderman et al., 2012). These authors point out that even in
environments that are appropriate to enhance CT and scientific reasoning, students
frequently lack the required background knowledge to do so successfully. They
suggest that the ability to reason effectively demands rich, interconnected, domain-
specific knowledge, and that lack of content knowledge “makes the task of thinking
critically challenging if not impossible”. If this is correct, then how can we best
prepare future teachers to succeed in this kind of teaching? Which teaching strategies
and learning activities are adequate to engage students in the practice of CT along
with the mobilization of knowledge?
There is a wealth of theoretical studies on CT, in contrast with little empirical
research on which teaching strategies and learning environments better promote CT
(Puig et al., 2019). According to Ennis (1989), there are four main approaches for the
promotion of CT that emerged from the attempt to provide a framework that would
help researchers and professionals: the general approach, the infusion approach, the
mixed approach and the immersion approach; the last one being the most frequent in
empirical studies on CT. The immersion approach means that CT is integrated into
the subject matter without making its principles explicit to the students.
This research follows this approach, but expands it taking into account Brocos
and Jiménez-Aleixandre (Chap. 12, this book) proposal, which distinguishes three
dimensions or types of practices for teacher training in CT: (1) (instructors) teaching
CT as content; (2) pre-service or in-service teachers’ engagement in tasks intended
for them to develop CT skills and dispositions; (3) transfer of practice: teachers’
engagement in tasks intended to promote transfer of the CT skill to school pupils.
116 B. Puig and N. Ageitos

The task designed in this study deals with the second dimension and encourages
participants to think critically, with attention to the following four aspects (Ten Dam
& Volman, 2007): (a) students’ development of their epistemological beliefs,
(b) students’ engagement in active learning, (c) interactions among students, to
exchange their point of view (Paul, 1992), and (d) the use of real-life contexts
(Brown, 1997). Health controversies are appropriate contexts for this purpose as
they are topics that provide learners with a strong sense of a need to know where they
are expected to make reasoned and independent decisions with a high impact on
society. Prior investigations point to the need to promote personal decision-making
on immunization to improve students’ personal skills (Maguregi González et al.,
2017). The decision about vaccination can be regarded as a SSI (Ratcliffe & Grace,
2003), in which CT and scientific knowledge play a crucial role.

7.2.2 Critical Thinking and Health Literacy on the Topic

of Vaccination

Teacher education programs primarily focus on content knowledge and there has
been a shift to focus more on practice (Grossman & McDonald, 2008) and on
CT. Teaching SSIs through engaging learners in argumentation and CT goes beyond
implementing a new biology curriculum. It requires dealing with some challenges
presented by pseudoscientific thought, such as the anti-vaccination movement
addressed in this chapter. Schools play a central role in preparing learners with the
knowledge that will enable them to make health-enhancing decisions (Kickbusch,
2008). This chapter argues that promoting health literacy in primary education is
crucial for this purpose. As a construct, health literacy encompasses the articulation
of five core components: theoretical knowledge, practical knowledge, critical think-
ing, self-awareness, and citizenship (e.g. Paakkari & Paakkari, 2012; Nutbeam,
2000). Aligned with these authors we can agree that theoretical knowledge is not
enough to make individuals take health-promoting actions. Learners need to com-
prehend health notions and processes, but they also must have CT skills to assess
health messages, distinguish scientific facts from opinions, and make personal
decisions on immunization, amongst other issues.
Despite the number of studies targeting PSTs training on SSIs continuing to
expand, the efficacy of such designs for improving CT skills remains understudied.
Furthermore, one of the problems identified is that PSTs often feel ill equipped to
address the complexities and sensitive debates that derive from these issues
(Evagorou & Puig, 2017). Added to all the difficulties above, pseudoscience has
highlighted new challenges to health teaching. The increase in “fake news” has
become a concerning issue (Peters, 2018). Research suggests that limited knowledge
and misinformation about vaccines plays an essential role in public attitudes (Motta
et al., 2018). In the case of vaccines, social media plays a large role in disseminating
and sensationalizing vaccine objections (Lundström et al., 2012). This includes the
7 Critical Thinking to Decide What to Believe and What to Do Regarding. . . 117

question of safety of vaccines, for instance, concerning the alleged link to autism.
This drives people to see only the risks of vaccines instead of their crucial role in
public health care and the prevention of outbreak and global spread of diseases, as
the COVID-19 pandemic is revealing.
Such objections are part of what has been called the “anti-vaccination movement”
(Kata, 2010), which has had a demonstrable impact on vaccination policy, and
individual and community health (Poland & Jacobson, 2001). The anti-vaccination
movement is formed by people who reject the use of vaccines for different reasons.
Some people have philosophical or religious objections; some see mandatory vacci-
nation as interference by the government into what they believe should be a personal
choice; some may believe that vaccine-preventable diseases do not present a serious
health risk and others are concerned about the safety or efficacy of vaccines (WHO,
2019). We could also include in this group of opponents pseudoscience supporters, or
people who feel aligned with them, and others that mistrust conventional medical
practices and/or lack scientific knowledge. As Faasse et al. (2016) point out, it is
important to note that this characterization of individuals as “pro-vaccine” or “anti-
vaccine” could lead to an oversimplification. Some people are either totally support-
ive or totally critical of vaccines. However, for the purposes of this study, we will
consider that there is a continuum within “anti-vaccination” positions, between those
who are totally opposed to vaccination and those who accept the value of vaccines,
but think that their potential dangers pose real concerns for them.
Anti-vaccination messages are more frequent on the Internet than in other media,
increasing the likelihood that vaccination decisions may be based on misleading
information (Kata, 2010). Prior studies on attitudes to vaccination (Zingg & Siegrist,
2012) show that people with a higher level of general knowledge are more likely to
vaccinate compared with people having a lower level of general knowledge. It seems
likely that not only general, but also specific knowledge, influence vaccination
decisions. These researchers found substantial correlations between knowledge
and peoples’ willingness to vaccinate their children or themselves, which points to
the need to increase peoples’ knowledge on this topic. However, our view is that the
knowledge domain needs to be articulated with CT. As Paakkari and Paakkari
(2012) suggest, CT relates to the ability to distinguish the conditions that promote
health from those that do the contrary. Students face circumstances where they are
required to assess whether a given source is reliable and can be regarded as scientific
information. It is therefore essential to explore learning experiences and ways of
teaching which support pre-service teachers in addressing these challenges.
Despite the increase of anti-vaccination movements over the world (Duggan &
Gott, 2002), there are still few studies on this topic in Biology education. Maguregi
González et al. (2017) examined PSTs’ arguments and models of immunization in a
teaching sequence about the vaccination controversy. Their results show PSTs’
difficulties for applying this model to diverse contexts. Another study on this issue
was carried out by Lundström et al. (2012), who examined which aspects a group of
teenagers considered when making decisions about vaccination. The secondary
effects of vaccines are considered as an important aspect for most of them, whether
supporters or opponents to vaccines.
118 B. Puig and N. Ageitos

This chapter explores CT and arguments surrounding vaccination. We seek to

explore the relationship between knowledge on vaccination and CT skills by means
of case study research with PSTs working on the analysis of diverse premises about
the anti-vaccination movement. The purpose of the study is to identify these
connections and how they affect PSTs’ positions on vaccination.

7.3 Methodology

The study employed a qualitative methods research approach (Denzin & Lincoln,
2005) with a single-case study design (Gerring, 2007). Discourse analysis methods
were followed with the aim to explore how a group of PSTs put into practice CT in
articulation with the application of knowledge on immunization in the context of
assessing the anti-vaccination movement. Further, content analysis (Lincoln, 1995)
was applied for the examination of the research questions using inductive and
deductive procedures detailed in the data analysis section.

7.3.1 Participants, Instructional Context and Design

The study was carried out with a group of 39 PSTs during their third year in a public
University in the northwest of Spain, Galicia. The students were enrolled in a science
education methods course, which focuses on Biology instruction in Primary educa-
tion. Content related with the human body, health education and controversies are
part of this subject, among others, and they are introduced through practices of
argumentation and CT. Author 1, with more than eight years of experience in this
subject, was the teacher of the group. The students participated in argumentation and
modelling activities throughout the entire course, prior to the implementation of the
task addressed in this chapter.
The task, about vaccination and the anti-vaccination movement, was designed to
engage PSTs in argumentation and CT. Previous to the application of this activity,
participants completed an individual survey that included three open-ended ques-
tions to assess their prior knowledge of vaccination and to gauge their perception
regarding how to introduce this topic in future teaching. Table 7.1 presents a
summary of the sequence of activities carried out with the students. The design
draws from a prior one developed and previously implemented by the authors with a
group of secondary PSTs (Ageitos & Puig, 2016).
The task analyzed was developed in a three-part session totaling 90 min (see
Table 7.1). Before the implementation, the teacher (author 1) and researcher (author
2) agreed to adjust time allotted for questions included in the activity based on
students’ needs and success and to maintain the time required for the class discussion
and exit slip to suitably close the session.
7 Critical Thinking to Decide What to Believe and What to Do Regarding. . . 119

Table 7.1 A summary of the tasks about vaccination and the anti-vaccination movement
Session Task Description of the task
1 What do you know about An individual survey on vaccination composed by
vaccines and vaccination? three open-ended questions
2 Lía’s vaccines (part 1) Identification of vaccines included in Lía’s vaccination
card (an hypothetical child living in our region) and
comparison with the official vaccination calendar in
our region.
Lía’s vaccines (part 2) Students’ communication of their prior knowledge
about the anti-vaccination movement.
Lía’s vaccines (part 3) Evaluation of five premises supporting the anti-
vaccination movement.

In the first part, a hypothetical situation about vaccination in our context was
presented. In particular, the case of a child called Lía whose parents are willing to
enrol her in Early Childhood Education; however, they had decided to stop vacci-
nating her. Participants were provided with Lia’s vaccination card and the official
vaccination calendar in our region. They had to compare both in order to form a
conclusion regarding Lía’s vaccines. Afterwards, two pieces of news from 2019
reporting the introduction of mandatory vaccination in early education in all state
schools within our region were provided. Students were asked to argue in favour or
against this health regulation and to decide whether the girl should be allowed to
enrol or not under those circumstances.
In the second part, the anti-vaccination movement was introduced. Firstly, stu-
dents were asked about their previous knowledge about it and whether they had
previously heard about it or not. Secondly, five premises that support the anti-
vaccination movement were presented to students. They make reference to: (1) indi-
vidual free will; (2) dangerous secondary effects; (3) alleged reduced effectiveness;
(4) they cause autism or allergies; (5) they introduce artificial substances to our
bodies.
Participants were asked if they agreed or not with each premise and to provide
reasons to justify their answers.
The third part of the activity presented Lía’s parents’ arguments for stopping
vaccination. Students were required to express their opinions on this decision and to
argue their view.
The task ended by asking PSTs to reflect on their knowledge regarding vaccina-
tion and about their own views regarding health instruction in compulsory education.

7.3.2 Data Collection and Analysis

The first author implemented the vaccination activity and the second one attended
the session as an observer taking field notes without interfering in the progress of the
tasks. Individual reports (N¼39) were collected and then numbered to guarantee
120 B. Puig and N. Ageitos

Fig. 7.1 Data analysis process

their anonymity for analysis. Figure 7.1 shows the process of analysis followed to
address the two research questions. Content analysis methods (Lincoln, 1995) were
applied for the examination of individual written statements. Both authors coded all
the data together and a third person was involved in the analysis as a way of
triangulating the findings.
The process of analysis of RQ1, about CT skills and scientific knowledge
mobilized by PSTs, involves Step 1 (see Fig. 7.1). The identification of CT skills
follows an inductive process, which adapts the definition of some categories of CT
skills provided in Facione et al.’s (1990) proposal: (1) interpretation; (2) evaluation;
(3) explanation, (4) self-regulation. The characterization of these skills, summarized
below, was adjusted for the purposes of the research, in accordance with the content
of the task.
1. Interpretation: to comprehend and express the meaning or significance of the
premise being addressed.
2. Evaluation: to assess claims, particularly the credibility of statements supporting
anti-vaccination movement.
3. Explanation: to reason about the premises with arguments.
4. Self-regulation: to self-consciously monitor one’s cognitive activities and the
elements used in those activities and the results educed. In order for students to
be self-regulated they need to be aware of their own thought process, and be
motivated to actively participate in their own learning process (Zimmerman,
2001). In the context of this task, this skill refers to the self-consciously process
that learners use to manage and organize their thoughts and knowledge on the
7 Critical Thinking to Decide What to Believe and What to Do Regarding. . . 121

topic of vaccination and make explicit when assessing the anti-vaccination

premises.
It needs to be highlighted that more than one category could appear and overlap in
an individual written response, or even within the same claim.
Concerning the examination of content knowledge, a deductive and interactive
process was followed. We revised all individual answers and developed a coding
scheme to capture the main ideas showed implicitly or explicitly in the data. First, we
distributed all the responses in two main groups: (1) not references to content
knowledge; (2) references to content knowledge. Four categories of knowledge
related with immunization through vaccination emerged in the examination of
responses included in the second group: social benefits, vaccines function; vaccines
effectiveness; vaccines composition.
The analysis of RQ2, about the connections between CT skills and knowledge
domain, was carried out in two steps (Steps 2 and 3) displayed in Fig. 7.1. Firstly,
three levels of knowledge domain in individual responses were established (Step 2)
through an iterative process followed by both authors:
• Level 3 – Scientifically adequate: appropriate use of scientific knowledge about
immunization.
• Level 2 – Partially scientifically adequate: partial use of scientific knowledge
about immunization. Only some scientific notions are used adequately.
• Level 1 – Not scientifically adequate: responses that do not incorporate appropri-
ate scientific notions about vaccination.
Secondly, the connections between the level of knowledge domain and the type
of CT skills mobilized were examined in Step 3.

7.4 Results

7.4.1 Critical Thinking and Background Knowledge

on Vaccination

We begin by addressing RQ1, about the CT skills and scientific knowledge mobi-
lized by PSTs while assessing five premises related to the anti-vaccination
movement.
The results are developed in two parts. First, we focus on the CT skills by
presenting the quantitative results obtained in each premise and discuss the catego-
ries with examples of the written reports. Secondly, we develop the results related to
the scientific knowledge used in each premise.
122 B. Puig and N. Ageitos

7.4.1.1 Critical Thinking Skills in the Evaluation of Anti-vaccination

Premises

Table 7.2 shows the frequencies of each CT skill identified in the PSTs’ responses to
each of the five premises.
Explanation was the skill most frequently displayed; it appeared 46 times. It was
mobilized in the five premises, being the only one along with evaluation. In contrast,
evaluation was the less frequent skill articulated by the students as Table 7.2 shows.
Participants were able to mobilize the four categories of CT skills in the five
premises, except self-regulation in premise 1 and interpretation in premise
4, that did not appear in these responses. Premise 5 is the one in which the frequency
of CT skills is higher (33 skills) and premise 4 the lowest (20 skills).
Next, we discuss our coding of CT skills by providing quotations of individual
written responses. The examples chosen are the ones that appear more frequently
related to the premised presented.
1. Explanation: responses related to the practice of reasoning, where students
provide their own arguments in relation to the addressed premises. This skill is
the most common in premise 1 (18 out of 27). Examples are provided below.

I believe that getting vaccinated should not be voluntary as it is playing with the possibility
of children getting the disease, and I also think that many parents do not have the scientific
knowledge necessary to make such decisions and that they affect a person’s health (S17,
premise 1).

This response is coded as explanation since it shows how the student reasons his
position regarding premise 1 (individual free will), providing two arguments
rejecting vaccination as voluntary: one about the drawbacks of not getting vacci-
nated, and the other about the need of scientific knowledge in order to make
decisions that affect human health.
I consider that they have secondary effects because a disease is being introduced in the body
(S5, premise 2).

Table 7.2 CT skills mobilized by PSTs in the responses of the five anti-vaccination premises. In
bold, the most frequent category is highlighted. N¼39
P2. P5.
P1. Dangerous P3. Alleged P4. Cause Introduction of
CT skills/ Individual secondary reduced autism or artificial
premises free will effects effectiveness allergies substances NT
Explanation 18 8 6 7 7 46
Self- 0 4 10 6 10 30
regulation
Interpretation 3 9 3 0 13 28
Evaluation 6 6 4 7 3 26
Total skills 27 27 23 20 33 130
No skills 6 13 15 15 7 56
7 Critical Thinking to Decide What to Believe and What to Do Regarding. . . 123

This student agrees with premise 2 (dangerous secondary effects) and reasons his
position based on his own view about the composition of vaccines. The argument
provided is that vaccines introduce diseases in the body.
2. Self-regulation: students self-consciously express explicitly their cognitive skills
or knowledge domain on vaccination, particularly in relation to the content of the
premise assessed. It is the second most frequent skill, with 30 appearances.

I have not enough information on vaccines, their effects and all of this, so I do not consider
myself able to comment (S3, premise 3).

I do not have many notions of what exactly is introduced through the vaccine, as to say that
they are totally artificial substances (S20, premise 5).

These responses are included in this category since they express their own
limitations on the knowledge required to assess the content of the premises
addressed. Both students are aware about their reduced notions and little information
on the topic, and as consequence they decide not to provide their opinion regarding
the premise presented.
3. Interpretation: during interpretation individuals engage in grasping and disclos-
ing the meaning of the premise being assessed. This skill is enacted 28 times in
the responses to four of the premises, being absent in the responses about premise
4 (vaccines cause autism or allergies). It appears more frequently in responses
about premises 2 (dangerous secondary effects) and 5 (vaccines introduce artifi-
cial substances to our bodies).

What is injected in the vaccines is a minimal amount of the agent that causes the disease so
that the body creates the antibodies and is prepared for the possible arrival of that agent, so it
would not be artificial (S11, premise 5).

This response shows how the student interprets the significance of premise
5, unpacking it’s meaning and explaining the composition of vaccines and how
they work. It shows a pro-vaccination position.
We don’t get vaccinated as often as it does to make us less effective (S6, premise 3).

The student interprets the meaning of premise 3, particularly what he understands

by “reduced effectiveness”. He associates this issue to the repetition of vaccines,
what might be confusion between this notion and the idea of antibiotics resistance.
4. Evaluation: participants evaluate the content of the premises. In other words, they
assess the credibility of the statements provided.

I agree that vaccines have dangerous side effects, but I do not consider this a valid argument
because certain medicines that we provide throughout life also have them and we do not
question them (S25, premise 2).
124 B. Puig and N. Ageitos

The student rejects the credibility of premise 2 (dangerous secondary effects) as a

valid argument for opposing vaccination. He (or she) appeals to the side effects of
other medicines as data against this premise.
I disagree, that was a conclusion from a doctor who came up with the experiment but was
proven that the data was falsified. On the other hand, there are more than numerous scientific
reports that prove otherwise. Autism cannot be got (S28, premise 4).

This response shows another example of evaluation in which the student opposes
to premise 4 (cause autism or allergies), questioning its credibility; particularly, the
study behind it, that used falsified data. He also points to the existence of many
scientific studies that prove that autism is not caused by vaccination.

7.4.1.2 Background Knowledge on Vaccination

This section focuses on the scientific knowledge used by PSTs when assessing the
five premises. Table 7.3 presents an overall picture of the frequencies of responses
per premise. Each category is illustrated with selected examples, taking into consid-
eration its higher frequency of appearance in relation to each premise.
1. Vaccines function: statements that point to the important role and contribution of
vaccines to human health. The knowledge used is related to the need to prevent
the appearance of a disease and create immunity against it (direct protection) and
reducing the transmission of a disease, so the spread of an infection.
It is the most frequent category, as Table 7.3 shows; it appears 32 times in the
responses about all the premises. All students’ responses reveal a pro-vaccination
stance, except one. An example is:
I think they have side effects because we are introducing a disease directly, but I think it is
best to have them rather than later as we would not have the antibodies needed to fight it
[a disease] (S33, premise 2).

Table 7.3 Scientific knowledge used by participants when assessing the five anti-vaccination
premises
P2 P5
P1 Dangerous P3 Alleged P4 Cause Introduction of
Knowledge/ Individual secondary reduced autism or artificial
premises free will effects effectiveness allergies substances Total
Vaccines 4 11 3 1 13 32
function
Vaccines 4 10 8 9 _ 31
effectiveness
Vaccines _ 2 _ _ 18 20
composition
Social 7 1 3 _ _ 11
benefits
7 Critical Thinking to Decide What to Believe and What to Do Regarding. . . 125

This student makes reference to the role of vaccines in the production of anti-
bodies to “fight” a disease and considers that this is achieved by the introduction of
the disease by vaccines.
2. Vaccines effectiveness: responses that point to the protective benefits of vaccines,
and some factors that may affect their effectiveness. It is the second most frequent
category, identified 31 times in the responses about all the premises, except
premise 5.

Vaccination is necessary to prevent a disease and is not effective if some people is vaccinated
and other are not (S1, premise 1).

This student recognises that vaccines are a protection against diseases and also
acknowledges a factor that affects the effectiveness of immunization (herd
immunity).
I disagree. It is true that some vaccines over time stop acting and need to be renewed, but this
does not mean that they have reduced effectiveness, they protect us (S13, premise 3).

In this example the student points to the fact that some vaccines required more
than one dose to produce a continued protection against a disease.
3. Vaccines composition: references to the ingredients or constituents of vaccines.
This category appears, as expected, with a high frequency (18 times) in relation to
premise 5 (vaccines introduce artificial substances in our bodies). However, it
also appeared 2 times when assessing premise 2 (dangerous secondary effects).
The knowledge mobilized is related to the infectious agent introduced to the body
through the vaccine. Five of the 19 students identified viruses as infectious agents
and six mentioned microorganisms, agents or viruses and bacteria. Some of them
introduced not only terms such as viruses or microorganisms, but also were able to
build an explanation related to attenuated viruses. Three students mentioned that
vaccines are made of particles responsible for the diseases, such as virus or bacteria,
or that vaccines introduce directly the disease.
Vaccines are cultures that are made from viruses or bacteria that are intended to protect
people who will be vaccinated but weakened (S32, premise 5).

I think they do have side effects since they are getting a disease in the body, but I think it’s
better to have them then than later since we wouldn’t have the antibodies needed to fight it
(S5, premise 2).

4. Social Benefits: references that acknowledge the social benefits of vaccination.

This category was identified in the responses about three premises (1, 2 and 3)
eleven times.

I agree that not only is it an aspect that influences the person but also the society; it should be
mandatory for everyone (S6, premise 1).
126 B. Puig and N. Ageitos

This student recognizes the importance of vaccination, not only individually, for
the person that is being vaccinated and then protected against a disease, but also for
the society. Based on this, he is in favour of compulsory vaccination.

7.4.2 Connections Between CT Skills and Knowledge Domain

on Immunization

This section reports on RQ2, concerning the relationships between CT skills artic-
ulated by participants and their knowledge domain on immunization. We aim to
investigate whether a higher performance in CT skills is related to a higher level of
scientific knowledge domain in vaccination and/or vice versa. Table 7.4 shows the
distribution of individual statements in three levels of knowledge domain adequacy
(scientifically adequate; partially scientifically adequate; not scientifically adequate)
along with the intersections with CT skills.
As Table 7.4 shows, most responses are accurate or partially accurate regarding
the scientific knowledge used when assessing the five premises.
In the case of “social benefits,” all statements were coded as adequate. In the rest
of the categories, most responses were coded as scientifically adequate, however
several responses were identified as partially adequate and one as not adequate
regarding “vaccines composition” and “vaccines effectiveness”. Vaccination is
considered to be the inoculation of the disease and resistance to vaccines is related
mistakenly to their lack of effectiveness.
Concerning connections between the scientific knowledge domain and CT skills,
there seems to be a correspondence between a higher level of knowledge domain and
a higher mobilization of CT skills. Students were able to put into practice diverse CT
skills mobilizing scientific knowledge (81 times compared to the 69 that skills did
not appear connected to scientific knowledge), although this rarely occurs in the
opposite way. Examples of students using knowledge without being involved in the
practice of CT skills are scarce (sixteen times).
Explanation and interpretation appear to be content-domain specific, whereas
evaluation is not so frequently related to the content domain (approximately half of
the times). Self-regulation is not content-domain specific as expected, since this
category includes responses that express limited knowledge to assess the premises.
Examples that show the connections between the scientific knowledge and CT skills
enacted by participants may be:
I don’t agree because I can’t find a relationship between them. One affects the immune
system and the other is genetic (S29, premise 5).

The student is explaining why he disagrees with the premise by using his/her
knowledge on the origin of allergies and autism. The skill of explanation is fre-
quently related to the use of knowledge.
I think that they aren’t artificial substances, I think that it is the same (but in a fewer quantity)
of what we are trying to eradicate (S8, premise 5).
Table 7.4 Interactions between CT skills and categories of scientific knowledge
Social benefits Vaccines function Vaccines effectiveness Vaccines composition No
Scientific Partially Not Partially Not Partially Not Partially Not scientific
knowledge adequacy Adequate adequate adequate Adequate adequate adequate Adequate adequate adequate Adequate adequate adequate Total knowledge
Explanation 8 – – 13 2 – 9 2 – 2 1 1 38 18
Interpretation 1 – – 8 1 – 3 2 1 9 3 – 28 4
Evaluation – – – 4 – – 8 – – 3 – – 15 17
Self-regulation – – – – – – – – – 0 30
No CK skill 2 – – 6 – – 7 – – 1 – 16
128 B. Puig and N. Ageitos

The example shows the connection between knowledge about the composition of
vaccines and the skill of interpretation. This student is pointing to the composition of
vaccines, which can consist of a lower proportion of the agent that causes the disease.
Examples illustrating the lack of connections between CT and knowledge mobi-
lization are provided below:
I agree, as I know close cases that after vaccination a spot on the skin appeared (S9,
premise 4).
I don’t agree, there are scientific reports that show evidence of its effectiveness (S28,
premise 3).

Student 9 is involved in explanation, although he does not use any scientific

notion; he reasons his position on his own experience. Student 28 is involved in
evaluation; however, no scientific knowledge is used to support his argument.
Evaluation is the skill in which students have more difficulties in mobilizing
scientific knowledge and is the less frequent CT skill. This might point to the
difficulties that students have engaging in this skill.

7.5 Discussion and Educational Implications

The research presented in this chapter was designed with the goal of exploring the
practice of CT by a group of PSTs in the context of dealing with a health contro-
versy. We aimed to advance the empirical research on CT, with an emphasis on the
CT skills and interactions with the relevant knowledge domain when addressing
premises supporting the anti-vaccination movement. Despite CT literature being
extensive and there being a consensus regarding its central role in higher education,
the number of studies depicting teacher training “for” and “about” CT in Biology
education are still scarce.
The findings of this study indicate that PSTs engaged in the practice of CT were
able to articulate diverse skills when they were asked to assess five anti-vaccination
premises. However, not all CT skills appeared with the same frequency. The most
frequent skill identified in the responses about all the premises assessed was expla-
nation. Participants were able to reason their answers to the five premises, providing
arguments supporting their positions in favour or not. The fact that explanation was
the predominant skill in premise 1, individual free will, might be caused to its
openness, which encourages arguments. While we think that CT skills cannot be
exercised without some knowledge of the subject matter under consideration, this
does not mean that CT always produce a well-reasoned argument. Students should
feel free to express their own thoughts in biology classrooms, but they should be
encouraged to support their views reasonably and to exercise informed critique.
Drawing from Halpern’s work (1998), we also think that CT requires awareness of
one’s own knowledge. When engaging in CT students need to monitor their thinking
process. CT requires for instance insight into what one knows and the extent and
importance of what one doesn’t know in order to assess anti-vaccination premises
7 Critical Thinking to Decide What to Believe and What to Do Regarding. . . 129

and their implications. The results of this study have also highlighted that the CT
skill of self-regulation was the second most frequent and emerged when students
acknowledged their lack of scientific knowledge regarding the topic to give an
opinion. Similar results were reported by Maguregi González et al. (2017), in an
investigation about PSTs engaged in modelling and argumentation in the context of
explaining immunization, in which participants acknowledge their lack of informa-
tion on the topic.
In our study, part of the students’ responses indicated the need to consult an
expert in order to make a decision, and in other cases they stated that some people
should listen to experts to decide whether to vaccinate their children or not. This
result is consistent with Navarro Alonso et al.’s (2001) research, which shows that
Spanish families identify paediatricians as the experts to be consulted to make
decisions related to vaccination. However, a recent study in our country (Picchio
et al., 2019) with public paediatric professionals reveals that one in four participants
in the study showed doubts about some vaccines included in the official immuniza-
tion schedule.
Regarding the scientific knowledge mobilized when dealing with the anti-
vaccination premises, four categories were identified in the five premises. It seems
that the content of the premise oriented or influenced the knowledge being used by
the participants. The majority of students used appropriate scientific knowledge on
immunization in their answers and few participants were not able to use appropriate
scientific notions about vaccination. This means that most students have conceptual
tools to critically evaluate the anti-vaccination premises.
Addressing the interactions between CT skills and use of scientific knowledge,
the most frequent one corresponds to interaction between the two most frequent
categories: vaccines function and explanation. The CT skill of evaluation closely
related to the use evidence to support claims showed the least frequent interactions
with the use of scientific knowledge. This result highlights the difficulties that
students face when engaging in this skill.
We are aware that these results have limitations, as the nature of the premises
provided might have influenced the type of CT skills that we identified in students’
discourse and also the knowledge used.
Atwell and Salmon (2014) argue that labelling a person as pro-vaccine or anti-
vaccine is oversimplification. Although it is not the focus in this chapter, the results
stress that most participants are in the pro-vaccination spectrum, and no students are
close to the anti-vaccination spectrum.
Previous studies such as Walker et al. (2002) suggest that scientific literacy is not
significantly correlated to the degree of believing in pseudoscientific claims. Our
results suggest that CT skills and scientific knowledge may help citizens to make
decisions on pseudoscientific topics, since there seems to be a correspondence
between a better performance in CT and a higher level of knowledge domain.
What is a remarkable result is the fact that self-regulation is a skill frequently
enacted, showing students’ self-awareness of their knowledge limitations for critical
assessment and evaluation of the topic. As Motta et al. (2018) point out, people with
overestimation in their knowledge on a topic, such as the causes of autism, might
130 B. Puig and N. Ageitos

show an opposition to mandatory vaccination. Furthermore, recognizing one’s own

bias on a topic is also important for CT development. Biology instruction designed
to help students to be critical thinkers on SSIs should attend to these issues related
with metacognitive skills. Halpern (1998) suggested a model for teaching CT that
consists in four components, being the metacognitive component to assess thinking
important for this purpose. An implication of this study is the possibility to tackle
SSIs by promoting students’ engagement in the practice of CT skills along with the
application of content knowledge, making the skills performed explicit. Challenging
anti-vaccination premises and pseudoscientific beliefs is not an easy task. Some
resources and tools should be made accessible to students in order to assist them in
engaging CT in Biology classrooms. This requires teaching activities that can equip
teachers and students with the tools for more critical analysis of health topics in the
media. Research on SSIs show that whilst Science teachers commonly use media
information to highlight the relevance of a particular topic, they lack the skills
required to teach how to critically analyse this information (Kachan et al., 2006).
We agree with Johnson and Pigliucci (2004), who raise the point that we cannot
assume that by improving only scientific knowledge, CT and scepticism will
develop. However, we argue that the promotion of both scientific knowledge and
CT skills in unison may help to increase levels of scepticism within the context of
health controversies, health literacy and critical actions.

Acknowledgements This study was supported by The Spanish Ministry of Science, Education
and Universities, partly funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF, grant code:
PGC2018-096581-B-C22; and European Union (Erasmus+) project P2D, code, 5016-D5ZD-
64400. We gratefully acknowledge the participants.

References

Ageitos, N., & Puig, B. (2016). ¿Debería ser obligatoria la vacunación? Alambique, Didáctica de
las Ciencias Experimentales, 86, 78–79.
Anderman, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Gray, D. L. (2012). The challenges of teaching and learning
about science in the twenty-first century: Exploring the abilities and constraints of adolescent
learners. Studies in Science Education, 48(1), 89–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2012.
655038
Andrews, R. (2015). Critical thinking and/or argumentation in higher education. In M. Davies &
R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 49–63).
Palgrave MacMilan.
Atwell, J. E., & Salmon, D. A. (2014). Pertussis resurgence and vaccine uptake: Implications for
reducing vaccine hesitancy. Pediatrics, 134, 602–604. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-1883
Brown, A. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious
matters. American Psychologist, 52, 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.4.399
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research
(3rd ed., pp. 1–32). Sage.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D.C. Heath and Company.
7 Critical Thinking to Decide What to Believe and What to Do Regarding. . . 131

Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International
Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 661–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110133
Elen, J., Jiang, L., Huyghe, S., Evers, M., Verburgh, A., . . . Palaigeorgiou, G. (2019). In
C. Dominguez & R. Payan-Carreira (Eds.), Promoting critical thinking in European higher
education institutions: Towards an educational protocol. UTAD.
Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review, 32(1), 81–111.
Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research.
Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018003004
Evagorou, M., & Puig, B. (2017). Engaging elementary school pre-service teachers in modeling a
socioscientific issue as a way to help them appreciate the social aspects of science. International
Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.
%2099074
Faasse, K., Chatman, C. J., & Martin, L. R. (2016). A comparison of language use in pro- and anti-
vaccination comments in response to a high profile Facebook post. Vaccine, 34(47), 5808–5814.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.09.029
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educa-
tional assessment and Instruction. research findings and recommendations. The California
Academic Press.
Facione, P., Facione, N. C., & Giancarlo, C. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its
character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 1. https://doi.
org/10.22329/il.v20i1.2254
Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge University Press.
Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and
teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 184–205. https://doi.org/10.
3102/0002831207312906
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. Dispositions, skills,
structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
Hoskins, B., & Deacon Crick, R. (2010). Competences for learning to learn and active citizenship:
Different currencies or two sides of the same coin? European Journal of Education, 45(1),
121–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2009.01419.x
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran
& M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from
classroom-based research (pp. 91–117). Springer.
Jiménez Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical
thinking. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook for
science education (Vol. 2, pp. 1001–1017). Springer.
Johnson, M., & Pigliucci, M. (2004). Is knowledge of science associated with higher skepticism of
pseudoscientific claims? The American Biology Teacher, 66(8), 536–548.
Kachan, M. R., Guilbert, S. M., & Bisanz, G. L. (2006). Do teachers ask students to read news in
secondary science? Evidence from the Canadian context. Science Education Policy, 90(3),
496–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20113
Kata, A. (2010). A postmodern Pandora’s box: anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet.
Vaccine, 28(7), 1709–1716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.12.022
Kickbusch, I. (2008). Health literacy: An essential skill for the twenty-first century. Health
Education, 108(2), 101–104. https://doi.org/10.1108/09654280810855559
Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research.
Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049500100301
Lundström, M., Ekborg, M., & Ideland, M. (2012). To vaccinate or not to vaccinate: how teenagers
justified their decision. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7, 193–221. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11422-012-9384-4
Maguregi González, G., Uskola Ibarlueza, A., & Burgoa Etxaburu, M. B. (2017). Modelización,
argumentación y transferencia de conocimiento sobre el sistema inmunológico a partir de una
132 B. Puig and N. Ageitos

controversia sobre vacunación en futuros docentes. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 35(2), 29–50.
https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.2237
Motta, M., Callaghan, T., & Sylvester, S. (2018). Knowing less but presuming more: Dunning-
Kruger effects and the endorsement of anti-vaccine policy attitudes. Social Science & Medicine,
211, 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.06.032
Navarro Alonso, J. A., Bernal González, P. J., & Niguez Carbonell, J. C. (2001). Analysis of factors
influencing vaccine uptake: Perspective from Spain. Vaccine, 20(Suppl 1), 13–15. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0264-410X(01)00300-0
Nutbeam, D. (2000). Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health
education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promotion International,
15(3), 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/15.3.259
Paakkari, L., & Paakkari, O. (2012). Health literacy as a learning outcome in schools. Health
Education, 112(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1108/09654281211203411
Paul, R. (1992). Critical thinking: what, why and how. New Directions for Community Colleges, 77,
3–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.36819927703
Peters, M. A. (2018). Education in post-truth world. In M. A. Peters, S. Rider, M. Hyvönen, &
T. Besley (Eds.), Post-truth, fake-news. Viral modernity & higher education (pp. 77–88).
Springer.
Peters, M. A., Rider, S., Hyvönen, M., & Besley, T. (2018). Post-truth, fake-news. Viral modernity
& higher education. Springer.
Picchio, C. A., Carrasco, M. G., Sagué-Vilavella, M., & Rius, C. (2019). Knowledge, attitudes and
beliefs about vaccination in primary healthcare workers involved in the administration of
systematic childhood vaccines, Barcelona, 2016/17. Euro Surveillance, 24(6). https://doi.org/
10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.6.1800117
Poland, G. A., & Jacobson, R. M. (2001). Understanding those who do not understand: A brief
review of the anti-vaccine movement. Vaccine, 19(17–19), 2440–2445. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0264-410X(00)00469-2
Puig, B., Blanco-Anaya, P., Mosquera Bargiela, I., & Crujeiras, B. (2019). A systematic review on
critical thinking intervention studies in higher education across professional fields. Studies in
Higher Education, 860–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1586333
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education and citizenship: Teaching socioscientific
issues. Open University Press.
Reis, P. (2014). Promoting students’ collective socio-scientific activism: Teachers’ perspectives. In
J. L. Bencze & S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist Science and Tecnology Education (pp. 547–574).
Springer.
Ten Dam, G., & Volman, M. (2007). Educating for adulthood or for citizenship: Social competence
as an educational goal. European Journal of Education, 42(2), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1465-3435.2007.00295.x
World Health Organization (WHO). (2019). Inmunization-stress related responses. A manual for
program managers and health professionals to prevent, identify and respond to stress-related
responses following immunization. World Health Organization; 2019. Accesible at: http://apps.
who.int/iris
Vincent-Lacrin, S., González-Sancho, C., Bouckaert, M., de Luca, F., Fernández-Barrera, M.,
Jacotin, G., Urgel, J., & Vidal, Q. (2019). Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking:
What it means in school, Educational research and innovation, OED Publishing. https://doi.
org/10.1787/62212c37-en
Walker, W. R., Hoekstra, S. J., & Vogl, R. J. (2002). Science education is no guarantee of
skepticism. Skeptic, 9(3), 24–28.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An
overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning
and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–37). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zingg, A., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Measuring people’s knowledge about vaccination: Developing a
one-dimensional scale. Vaccine, 30, 3771–3777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.03.014
Chapter 8
Students’ Thinking Strategies and the Role
of Argument as a Shared Thinking Tool

Marida Ergazaki

8.1 Introduction

Science education research is concerned with argumentation for quite a long time. Α
very rich and still growing body of studies (e.g. Christenson et al., 2014; Driver
et al., 2000; Sandoval et al., 2019; Zohar & Nemet, 2002) attempts to shed light on
students’ discourse in various scientific and socio-scientific contexts and inform the
design of learning environments and assessment tools. This high interest of science
education researchers in argumentation seems to reflect the significance of argumen-
tation’s systematic introduction in science classes (Siegel, 1995). It has been
suggested that the use of argumentation in teaching and learning science can support
teachers and students in pursuing more effectively important educational goals, such
as understanding science content, getting familiar with the scientific culture, acquir-
ing scientific literacy, training for active citizenship and developing critical thinking
dispositions and abilities (Jimenez & Puig, 2012; Siegel, 1995).
According to Vygotsky (1978), learning is performed first on the inter-personal
and then on the intra-personal level. When students interact in argumentative
discussions that take place either in small peer-groups or in the whole class, they
have learning opportunities on the inter-personal level; in other words, they have
opportunities for joint construction of knowledge, which later on can be internalized
and thus become personal. Argumentation is also considered as a key scientific
practice (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Crujeiras, 2017; Kelly & Licona, 2018). Scientists
depend on it for the construction and evaluation of their hypotheses or theories
(Kuhn, 1993; Knorr-Cetina, 1999). So, an introduction to the use of argument can be

M. Ergazaki (*)
University of Patras, Patras, Greece
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 133
B. Puig, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), Critical Thinking in Biology
and Environmental Education, Contributions from Biology Education Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_8
134 M. Ergazaki

considered as an introduction to the scientific culture as well (Jimenez-Aleixandre &

Erduran, 2008). Moreover, building a sound background of scientific knowledge and
getting familiar with the scientific culture in argument-based science classes that
highlight socio-scientific issues too, can enhance students’ scientific literacy and
prepare them for becoming active citizens.
It seems that all these issues have something to do with critical thinking. Being a
scientific literate citizen with strong insights from scientific culture and knowledge
requires, and possibly enhances at the same time, one’s disposition and ability to
behave as a critical thinker. So, if argumentation can really support science education
goals like the above, it can support critical thinking as well. Argumentation is based
on justification and thus it involves commitment to evidence and indeed strong one.
Rationality and reflection lie at its core. Critical thinking on the other hand, has been
described as reasonable reflective thinking for deciding what to believe or what to do
(Ennis, 1987, 2018). Critical thinkers are disposed to search for evidence and
employ rational criteria for evaluating it (Siegel, 1989). Therefore, rationality and
reflection that are intrinsic to argumentation are also intrinsic to critical thinking
(Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2008).
Although the relationship between argumentation and critical thinking appears to
be easily traced, it is certainly worth exploring, even if briefly. Argument may be
viewed from quite different perspectives. A comprehensive review can be found in
Jimenez-Aleixandre and Erduran (2008). The most popular view among science
education researchers is the one suggested by Toulmin (1958). According to it,
argument is a reasoning strand with different structural elements, such as claims
(statements about something), data (claim-supporting evidence), warrants (explana-
tions for the shift from data to claims), backings (warrant-supporting statements),
qualifiers (statements about the conditions under which claims can be valid), and
finally rebuttals (oppositions to any other structural element of the argument). This
model of argument has been proved very useful both as an analytical and as a
teaching tool (Erduran et al., 2004; Erduran, 2008). However, in the study presented
here, argument is considered as any justified claim or any justified concession,
opposition or challenge, as explained in the methods’ section.
Critical thinking can represent a theoretical notion, a set of measurable skills, or
an educational goal (Kuhn, 1991, 2019). As argumentation, critical thinking can be
viewed from several perspectives. Jimenez-Aleixandre and Puig (2012) suggest a
holistic, science education relevant view of critical thinking, which emphasizes its
argumentation-related components and combines them with components related to
social emancipation (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Puig, Chap. 1, this book).
In sum, critical thinking and argumentation appear to be related either because
they share core elements like rationality and reflection, or because argumentation
seems to be part of critical thinking. But what if argumentation and critical thinking
were not just related to each other? What if they could be conceptualized as one
thing? In fact, according to Deanna Kuhn (2019), they can. Critical thinking can be
viewed as a dialogic practice, which is both social and individual. People are
involved in critical thinking while interacting with others, and as they do it more
and more they can internalize it and start performing it individually; i.e. in the
8 Students’ Thinking Strategies and the Role of Argument as a Shared. . . 135

presence of an inner other and not necessarily real others who take part in actual
argumentative discourse. This notion of critical thinking is consistent with
Vygotsky’s ideas (1978) about the social and individual dimensions of knowledge
construction and thinking processes. Moreover, it implies that argumentation in
interactional contexts is a pathway to both inter- and intra-critical thinking (Boyd,
2019; Kuhn et al., 2016; Makhene, 2017).
This chapter is concerned with the use of argument as a shared thinking tool for
the construction of knowledge. More specifically, we are interested in the thinking
strategies that biology students may employ when exploring the procedure of
making and using a DNA library. Our focus is particularly set on what kind these
strategies may be and on whether they are underlined by the use of argument as a
shared thinking tool that allows for a critical examination of the emerging issues.
Thus, the research questions addressed here are:
1. What kind of thinking strategies may be employed by biology students involved
in making decisions and articulating experimental proposals for creating and
using a DNA library?
2. What is the role of argumentation within these strategies? Do students use
argument as a shared thinking tool and how?

8.2 Methods

To shed light on these research questions, we draw on a qualitative case study that is
concerned with the argumentative discourse of thirty biology students interacting in
three- or four-member groups, in order to build shared knowledge about making and
using DNA libraries. In this context, students were involved in thinking as if they
would really have to make and use the DNA library of a medically useful plant. They
were asked to make decisions about experimental tools, suggest experimental pro-
cedures, predict experimental outcomes, articulate and test hypotheses that might
explain not necessarily expected experimental observations (Ergazaki & Zogza,
2005a, b, c,; Ergazaki et al., 2007). This chapter is particularly concerned with the
discussions of one of these groups on two different tasks.

8.2.1 Tasks

The first task had to do with peers’ decision-making about the vector they would use
for making the DNA library of the plant. In fact, peers were required to choose
between a plasmid with a unique recognition site for the restriction enzyme they
were supposedly using, and another plasmid with three recognition sites. The second
task required the articulation of an experimental procedure, which would allow peers
to locate a specific gene in the DNA library. More specifically, students were
supposed to have already (a) selected their plasmid vector, (b) used a specific
136 M. Ergazaki

restriction enzyme to digest both plasmids and plant DNA, (c) mixed the ‘open’
plasmids with the pieces of the plant DNA, (d) attempted to transform bacterial cells
with the products of the previous step, and finally (e) cultivated the bacteria to
eventually form the colonies of the library. So, they were asked to come up with an
experimental procedure for locating a specific gene in the DNA library in the light of
two crucial pieces of information: (a) the plasmid that was supposedly used for the
construction of the DNA library had two genes for resistance to the antibiotics
kanamycin and ampicillin respectively, and (b) the restriction enzyme cut in the
second gene. Students were provided with scaffolding questions that prompted them
to (a) start by getting to know their search scope (i.e. the bacterial colonies and their
differences in terms of the plasmids they might have taken in), and (b) try to narrow
it down before proceeding with the quest of their target gene (i.e. get rid of the
colonies that could not carry the target gene in any way).

8.2.2 Participants

The peer-group that carried out both of these discussions consisted of three female,
second-year biology students of the University of Patras, who volunteered to take
part in the study and were keen on collaborative work. All three were diligent
students with at least average scores at the exams they had taken up to that point.
Moreover, they showed interest in the molecular biology course that hosted the
study, since they were active in the course’s typical lectures and labs that had already
taken place.

8.2.3 Data Analysis

The discussions were tape-recorded, transcribed and analyzed in NVivo, a computer

program for the analysis of qualitative data. First they were coded with regard to
peers’ arguments. More specifically, the coding scheme used for the argumentative
operations (Pontecorvo & Girardet, 1993; Resnick et al., 1993) allows for capturing
not just the individual, but also the social aspect of argument construction within a
peer-group. Since the focus is set on the use of argumentation as a shared thinking
tool that could support critical examination of the issues that emerge while exploring
the tasks, the coding scheme includes typical argumentative operations (claims and
justifications), as well as non-typical ones (oppositions, concessions and challenges)
which are equally important. For instance, a challenge posed to a peer’s unjustified
claim by another peer, may very well lead to the missing justification and thus to the
construction of an argument. Similarly, an opposition to one’s justified claim by
another one may prompt the use of more elaborated justifications and thus enhance
the argument’s value as a thinking tool. Moreover, coding for the arguments’
epistemic content (Ergazaki et al., 2007; Jimenez-Aleixandre et al., 2000; Mason,
8 Students’ Thinking Strategies and the Role of Argument as a Shared. . . 137

1996; Pontecorvo & Girardet, 1993) allows for tracing what may count to peers as a
good justification, and thus highlighting further whether peers’ arguments can really
give them a critical view to the issues that emerge while exploring the tasks. For
instance, epistemic operations like evaluating consequences or appealing to knowl-
edge seem to indicate a more critical approach than those of appealing to authority or
to mere opinion. The inter-rater reliability of the argumentative and epistemic
operations’ coding was checked by having a second researcher also re-code part of
the discussions.
Finally, the thinking strategies peers employed in making the decision required in
the first task or in coming up with the experimental procedure required in the second,
were re-constructed through the overall analysis of the discussions. In fact, consid-
ering argument as any justified claim, concession or opposition, makes it possible to
trace all the partial arguments that shape students’ overall strategies for coping with
the two tasks, and thus to adequately describe these strategies.

8.3 Results

In this section we present the results of our analysis with regard to students’ thinking
strategies and use of arguments when involved (1) in deciding about the vector they
would use for making a DNA library, and (2) in articulating an experimental
procedure that would allow peers to locate a specific gene in this library.

8.3.1 Thinking Strategies and Argumentation in Students’

Decision-Making Discussion

Students jointly made the right decision about the vector they should use for
supposedly constructing the DNA library of the plant. More specifically, they
selected the plasmid that had a unique recognition site for the restriction enzyme
they were supposedly using (option A), instead of another plasmid that had three
(option B). Their decision was made by evaluating both options through two
different reasoning strands: (a) a reasoning strand that supported option A, and
(b) a much more elaborated reasoning strand that rejected option B which actually
seemed quite appealing to them at some point. The former strand evaluated the
consequences of using the one-site plasmid as the vector that would be loaded with
the plant DNA, whereas the latter strand evaluated the consequences of using the
three-site plasmid for the same purpose. In other words, students started with each of
the two available plasmids (‘bottom’) and explored whether their use would be
appropriate for the production of recombinant plasmids carrying pieces of the plant
DNA, i.e. appropriate for the required goal (‘up’). So, students’ thinking strategy
was actually based on a ‘bottom-up’ approach regarding all given options. In other
138 M. Ergazaki

words, it was a strategy of deciding which option to use by evaluating the conse-
quences of each with regard to the goal that needs to be achieved. Although used in a
domain-specific task, a strategy like this cannot actually be considered as domain-
specific. Apparently, it may also apply to decision-making tasks in everyday life
situations, as it will be discussed later.
Shifting to argumentation in particular, it should be noted that argument appeared
to have a central role as a shared thinking tool in the peer-group’s discussion. In fact,
students’ thinking strategy was underlied by the use of argument, as shown by the
analysis of their discourse. In this, the three students are presented in short as S1, S2
and S3.
– S1:‘The one-site plasmid is a good choice (claim); ‘It can just open at the
recognition site by the restriction enzyme that cuts there, take in a piece of the
plant DNA and then close. It does what we need it to do’ (justification). S1 argued
for the one-site plasmid (option A) by evaluating the consequences of its use with
regard to the experimental goal; she did this by appealing to background knowl-
edge about how recombination may occur.
– S2: ‘Isn’t it a better idea to choose a plasmid that could probably carry more than
one pieces of the plant DNA at the same time?’ (claim); ‘One recognition site
means a unique insertion; three recognition sites means a triple insertion’
(justification). S2 challenged the previous argument by highlighting the favorable
consequences of the three-site plasmid (option B) through an analogy.
– S1: ‘After all, we do need many copies of each piece, don’t we? The three-site
plasmid can give these copies to us’. S1 reflected on the argument for the three-
site plasmid and conceded to it by providing a more explicit evaluation of the
consequences of its use with regard to the experimental goal.
– S3: ‘The three-site plasmid is not a good idea’ (opposition); ‘It can be cut in three
different pieces and it won’t be easy for these to re-connect to each other the same
way as before. They may be arranged in different ways and result in a
non-functional vector’ (justification). S3 argued against the three-site plasmid
by challenging the supposedly favorable consequences of its use. She did this by
appealing to the idea of contingency on the molecular level.
– S1: ‘Let’s take the safe way. A three-site plasmid does not necessarily mean triple
insertion. It may mean a disaster as well’. S1 conceded to S3’s argument against
the three-site plasmid. She suggested avoiding risking the whole experiment just
for the possibility of a triple insertion. S2, however, insisted on the argument for
the three-site plasmid.
– S3: ‘What if a piece does not re-connect at all? And what if this piece is the ori for
instance? We’ll get up with nothing at all. No replication will be possible’
(justification). S3 attempted to highlight further the risk that the use of the
three-site plasmid may pose to the whole experiment. She appealed to contin-
gency by giving a specific example. The peer-group reached consensus against
the three-site plasmid, thanks to S3’s concrete example, which made S2 to
reconsider her own argument. S1 reminded her initial argument for the one-site
plasmid in particular, which, in the light of the three-site plasmid’s rejection, got
accepted by all three peers.
8 Students’ Thinking Strategies and the Role of Argument as a Shared. . . 139

In sum, students were engaged in argumentative discourse. They employed

justifications to support their claims for or against each of the options. Moreover,
they came up with challenges, oppositions and concessions, which points to using
argument as a shared thinking tool. Finally, students drew upon several epistemic
operations such as evaluating consequences or appealing to goals, analogy, contin-
gency, and background knowledge, in order to build or critically reflect upon the
arguments that shaped their ‘bottom-up’ thinking strategy.

8.3.2 Thinking Strategies and Argumentation in Students’

Discussion on Articulating an Experimental Procedure

Students did not actually complete the articulation of a procedure for locating a
target gene somewhere within the bacterial colonies that they had supposedly created
earlier. However, they did make significant progress by arguing for or against
several ideas as discussed below. First, they got to know their search scope by trying
to describe the different colonies in terms of (a) whether they were formed by
non-transformed or transformed bacteria, and (b) whether the transformed bacteria
carried non-recombinant or recombinant plasmids. Second, they tried to narrow
down their search scope (a) by using the idea of antibiotic resistance or sensitivity
to eliminate the colonies of non-transformed bacteria, and (b) by inventing ways to
get the target colonies alive. After using the task’s scaffolding (see the methods
section above) for narrowing down their search scope to the colonies of bacteria that
were transformed with recombinant plasmids in particular, the students focused on
locating the target gene, not by searching for it but by looking for the protein it codes
for. Finally, when they realized that such an indirect search cannot be effective, they
attempted to come up with the details of a direct search for the gene, although not
quite successfully.
In sum, students’ thinking strategy included four different parts: (a) getting to
know the search scope, (b) narrowing it down, (c) exploring the possibility of an
indirect search for the target gene, and (d) shifting to the idea of a direct one (the first
two parts are encouraged by the scaffolding questions of the task). Once more,
students’ thinking strategy does not seem to be domain-specific. On the contrary, it
may also apply to decision-making tasks in everyday life situations, as it will be
discussed later.
To highlight the role of arguments as peers’ shared thinking tool, we draw on an
overview of their discussion about this task.
– S3: ‘We have also bacteria without plasmid’ (claim); ‘Transformation does not
necessarily happen all the times. It is random’ (justification). S3 provided a claim
about the presence of non-transformed bacteria in the culture and, after being
challenged by S2, she justified her claim by appealing to background knowledge
about contingency as an inherent characteristic of the process of bacterial
transformation.
140 M. Ergazaki

– S2: ‘The colonies of bacteria that did not take in plasmids, are sensitive to both
antibiotics (claim), since ‘no plasmid’ means ‘no resistance” (justification). S2
argued for the sensitivity of the non-transformed bacteria to both antibiotics by
appealing to the task’s data.
– S2: ‘The colonies of bacteria that took in plasmids, are resistant to kanamycin
and sensitive to ampicillin’ (claim); ‘The gene for ampicillin resistance gets
destroyed by the restriction enzyme’ (justification). S2 appealed to the task’s
data, this time in order to argue for the sensitivity of the transformed bacteria to
ampicillin.
– S3: ‘But are all the plasmids that were used for bacterial transformation,
recombinant? Is this the only possible case?’ S3 challenged the last argument
by recognizing the underlying assumption that all transformed bacteria had taken
in recombinant plasmids. After the recognition and challenge of peers’ problem-
atic assumption, both S2 and S1 seemed to follow S3 according to whom the idea
of contingency applies not only to bacterial transformation but to plasmid recom-
bination as well. This critical notion about the kind of plasmids that the
transformed bacteria have taken in was used later on.
– S3: ‘We have colonies of bacteria that haven’t taken in any kind of plasmid
(claim), and thus are sensitive to both antibiotics (justification); we can eliminate
them by adding kanamycin’ (claim). S3’s argument about how to eliminate the
non-transformed bacteria started the group’s attempt to narrow down their search
scope.
– S1: ‘We have also colonies of bacteria that took in a recombinant plasmid, as
well as colonies that took in a non-recombinant plasmid (claim); some plasmids
did not become recombinant; recombination is not a certain thing (justification)’.
S1 continued narrowing down the search scope. She did this by going back to the
transformed bacteria and using the previously discussed idea of contingent
recombination in order to identify their content.
– S1:‘We can add ampicillin (claim), because both of the types of transformed
colonies that we have, are resistant to kanamycin (justification)’. S1 completed
her contribution by arguing for an experimental handling that would eliminate
some of the transformed bacteria.
– S3: ‘Yes, but this not convenient for us (claim); ampicillin will kill the colonies
with recombinant plasmids and then we will never be able to locate our gene’
(justification). S3 challenged S1’s argument (or at least its claim) by evaluating
the consequences of the suggested handling. Both S2 and S1 conceded to this
argument and the group realized that they needed to come up with a smart
handling that would allow them to identify the colonies with recombinant plas-
mids and still be able to have them alive.
– S3: ‘We have to use ampicillin and also to keep the colonies with the recombinant
plasmids alive and these two things are not possible at the same time (justifica-
tion); so we need to copy the colonies somewhere else (claim). S3 suggested such
a handling by taking into account both the data they have and the goal they need
to achieve.
8 Students’ Thinking Strategies and the Role of Argument as a Shared. . . 141

– S3: ‘We can take a sample from each colony, cultivate them in a new Petri dish
and add ampicillin there (claim); the original Petri will be intact and the colonies
we are interested in will be alive (justification); when we see which ones die in the
new Petri, we can go back to the original and spot them there (justification)’. S3
completed her contribution with another argument in order to fulfill S2’s request
for an elaboration of the details.
Having narrowed down their search scope only to the colonies that were
transformed with recombinant plasmids, students were now able to focus on locating
the target gene. They started with exploring the idea of an ‘indirect’ search and then
proceeded with the idea of a ‘direct’ one.
– S2: ‘We should find the gene by looking for the protein it codes for’ (claim). S2
reframed the task by suggesting an indirect, protein-based search instead of the
direct gene-search that was probably more expected.
– S1: ‘In theory this is possible (claim), because gene and protein go together
(justification)’. S1, although worrying about practical details, built on her peer’s
claim by drawing on background knowledge about the ‘gene-protein’ relation.
So, the task was shifted on the level of a protein search.
– S3:‘It would be convenient to isolate [from the bacterial cells with recombinant
plasmids] all the proteins that have similar molecular weight with that of our
protein and add them in separate cultures of human cancer cells’ (claim);
‘Whatever protein kills the cancer cells, will be the one that our gene codes
for’ (justification). S3 suggested that they planned a search for the protein through
a search for its (possible) anti-cancer action. In other words, she suggested an
‘indirect’ search once more.
– S2: ‘We do not know for sure that the protein of our gene can kill cancer cells.
This is something that needs more research in order to be proved. That’s why we
are supposed to work with cloning the gene and then studying the protein’. S2
challenged the previous argument (its justification in particular) by appealing to
uncertainty.
– The peer-group arrived at a dead-end and so they started exploring the idea of
searching directly for the gene. This new idea led to new claims, justified by
drawing on background knowledge about the heating’s effect on DNA, the cDNA
notion (i.e. DNA synthesized from an mRNA template with the aid of reverse
transcriptase) or the hybridization of partially complementary DNA sequences.
More specifically, peers took a three-step approach to articulate a hybridization-
based experimental procedure. The first step concerned the gene itself, as shown
below.
– S2: ‘It would be difficult to find the gene by using a probe (claim), because
the gene is double-stranded’ (justification). S3: ‘It wouldn’t be difficult, because
the gene can get single-stranded if we heat it’. S2 argued for difficulties in finding
the gene, whereas S3 challenged S2’s argument by appealing to background
knowledge. The second step concerned the gene’s probe. More specifically:
142 M. Ergazaki

– S3: ‘The probe should be a single-stranded DNA (justification), and so we can

make it by using the mRNA of the protein (claim)’. S1: ‘So, we’ll have a cDNA
probe’. Peers tried to think about how to produce a molecule that could serve as a
probe for their gene. Finally, the third step concerned the ‘gene-cDNA’ hybrid-
ization. More specifically:
– S3 underlined that ‘the gene and its cDNA probe won’t be fully complementary
(claim), but this won’t be a problem (claim) since partially complementary
molecules can actually stick to each other (justification)’. Moreover, she
suggested that they ‘should also label the probe’ (claim), so that ‘the ‘gene-
cDNA’ hybrid will be easier to spot’ (justification).
– S2: ‘A partially complementary probe could stick not just to the target gene but
probably somewhere else, too’ (justification); ‘This is not good for us’ (claim). S2
appealed to uncertainty: she suggested that using a probe which is only partially
complementary to the gene, would not necessarily lead them to it.
– Facing a dead-end for a second time, peers decided to re-think the suggested
procedure in more detail. Their new attempt did not actually help them to go any
further. However, it did reveal their weakness to clearly conceptualize the ‘gene-
locating’ problem as a problem that needed to be solved in vitro: for instance, they
suggested ‘heating bacterial cells in order to denature DNA’ or ‘introducing
cDNA in the bacterial cells the same way as plasmids’. Finally, the discussion
came to an end without consensus about a complete experimental procedure for
locating the target gene.
In sum, students were engaged in argumentative discourse once more. They
provided justifications to support their claims either about overall solutions to the
‘gene-locating’ problem or about solutions’ partial steps. Moreover, they came up
with oppositions, concessions and of course challenges, which points to the social
aspect of argument’s use; in other words, to its use as a shared tool for coping with
the task at hand. Finally, students drew upon several epistemic operations such as
evaluating consequences, recognizing assumptions, appealing to background knowl-
edge, uncertainty, data or goals, in order to build or critically reflect upon the
arguments that shaped their four-part thinking strategy which ended with both
‘indirect’ and ‘direct’ gene searches.

8.4 Discussion

The dialogues analyzed in this chapter were carried out by a group of three female
second-year biology students and concern different steps of constructing or using a
DNA library. The first one was performed in the context of a decision-making task;
this provided peers with two alternative versions of a molecular tool for the con-
struction of a DNA library and required from them to decide which version they
should use. The second discussion was performed in the context of a task about
articulating an experimental procedure; this provided peers with specific information
8 Students’ Thinking Strategies and the Role of Argument as a Shared. . . 143

and required from them to articulate an experimental procedure for achieving the
goal of locating a target gene in the DNA library. Students’ thinking strategies for
solving these tasks that lied in a specific science domain, are actually domain-
general.
More specifically, the decision-making strategy of the peer-group consisted of an
evaluation of each option (‘bottom’) in terms of whether its use could lead or not to
the achievement of a specific goal (‘up’). In fact, it included (a) a bottom-up
acceptance of one option, and also (b) a bottom-up rejection of its alternative. This
strategy has emerged in order to address the need for deciding about the cloning
vector in a genetic engineering context, but it is actually a strategy of ‘evaluating
options’ appropriateness’ that may very well apply to decision-making tasks arising
in everyday life. Peers could also use a top-down strategy by re-inventing the most
appropriate option through a ‘goal reframing’ process; i.e. through a process of
‘breaking’ the experimental goal (‘top’) to a series of prerequisites the last of which
would point to the specific option (‘down’). This strategy is also relevant to everyday
life, especially when there are not any predefined options (Ergazaki et al., 2007).
Finally, it is worth noticing that bottom-up strategy employed in the discussion
presented here, took into account each of the options. Peers did not accept one option
by just rejecting its alternative, although they could within the specific task. Instead,
they developed a separate reasoning strand for each option and came up with a
decision based on a complete rather than a partial evaluation. This may be consid-
ered as an indication of a critical approach to the required decision-making. Critical
thinkers tend to decide what to believe or to do by reasonably reflecting on different
options in a thorough, evidence-based evaluation process underlied by rational
criteria (Ennis, 1987, 2018; Siegel, 1989).
Students’ thinking strategy towards an experimental procedure for locating a
target gene in a DNA library cannot be considered as strictly domain-specific either.
Although the first two parts of the strategy (familiarizing with the search scope and
narrowing it down) were encouraged by the scaffolding questions of the task, the
other two (performing an indirect or a direct target search) were suggested by the
students themselves. All apply to everyday life, too. In fact, ‘looking-for-a-needle-
in-a-haystack’ situations are quite common in everyday life and may be handled by
trying to locate either the ‘needle’ one really wants to find or the ‘thread’ that will
possibly lead them to the ‘needle’; and it may be helpful if they get familiar with the
search scope and narrow it down as much as possible before starting their search.
The part of the strategy that concerns the indirect search is probably more worth
discussing, since it presupposes to establish a connection between what really needs
to be found (i.e. the real target) and what is going to be searched just for leading to
the real target. Establishing this connection requires knowledge and is crucial for the
effectiveness of the strategy. A not well-grounded connection results in a not
effective strategy. In fact, this happened when the peer-group decided to search for
the protein in order to locate the gene that codes for it, without examining the gene-
protein connection in the light of knowledge about the differences in the molecular
mechanisms of eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells as they should. This might also
happen in everyday life situations. If the presence of the target (i.e. the presence of
144 M. Ergazaki

the ‘needle’, if we go on with the ‘looking-for-a-needle-in-a-haystack’ example),

was correlated with the presence of something else that is probably easier to spot but
cannot really function as a reliable probe for the target (e.g. it was connected with the
presence of a ‘thimble’ rather than the presence of the needle’s ‘thread’), then the
strategy would not be effective enough.
In sum, the thinking strategies that peers employed in the context of both tasks
seem to apply to or even originate in everyday life. Their usefulness in a scientific
context underlines how relevant everyday thinking may be to thinking within
science, and vice versa (Kuhn, 1996; Kuhn & Pearsall, 2000). Students’ ability to
cope with domain-specific problems such as those presented here may be enhanced
by drawing on everyday thinking strategies, whereas the latter strategies may be
eventually elaborated and refined due to their parallel use in a scientific context.
Highlighting a relationship like this in explicit ways might contribute towards
bridging the ‘science-everyday life’ gap in students’ minds, decreasing their stress
and increasing their motivation for learning science.
Students’ thinking strategies emerged within argumentative discourse. The mem-
bers of the peer-group did provide justifications for or against their claims about the
options they evaluated for addressing the decision-making in the first task; and
likewise, they did provide justifications for or against the experimental handlings
they suggested for addressing the ‘gene-locating’ problem in the second task. On the
other hand, students often mobilized non-typical argumentative operations like
challenges, oppositions and concessions, which underlines that they didn’t use
argument just as an individual thinking tool but actually as a shared tool that engaged
them in true dialogue. According to Kuhn (2019), students’ dialogic practice itself
can be considered as an instance of critical thinking. Moreover, students’ arguments
were based on several epistemic operations like evaluating consequences, recogniz-
ing assumptions, appealing to background knowledge, data, goals, contingency,
analogy, or uncertainty. By activating these, students actually established rational
criteria in their discourse. This pinpoints to critical thinking as well, since rationality
and reflection are core elements not just in argumentation but also in critical thinking
(Ennis, 1987, 2018; Siegel, 1989).
So, the arguments and their epistemic content did set the stage for critical
examination of the issues that arose while solving the tasks. For instance recognizing
the false assumption that a gene and its protein go always together, indicates that
peers were thinking critically enough to reflect on their overall strategy, realize its
ineffectiveness and finally shift to a different one. It is also worth noticing however,
that the lack of background knowledge seemed to be an obstacle in students’ critical
reflections. For instance, lacking knowledge about the loop formation that makes the
hybridization of partially complementary molecules possible, proved to be key in
peers’ failure to complete the experimental proposal they have been developing
through a thinking strategy that otherwise could possibly be effective. It is well-
known that building new knowledge does require previous knowledge no matter
how good one’s reasoning devices may be, but giving students the opportunity to
reflect on this idea through concrete examples might be beneficial for them.
8 Students’ Thinking Strategies and the Role of Argument as a Shared. . . 145

References

Boyd, N. L. (2019). Using argumentation to develop critical thinking about social issues in the
classroom: A dialogic model of critical thinking education. In S. P. A. Robinson & V. Knight
(Eds.), Handbook of research on critical thinking and teacher education pedagogy
(pp. 135–149). IGI Global.
Christenson, N., & S., Rundgren, N. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2014). The relationship of discipline
background to upper secondary students’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in
Science Education, 44(4), 581–601.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in
classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Εnnis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking abilities and dispositions. In J. B. Baron & R. J.
Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9–26). W. H. Freeman.
Ennis, R. Η. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum. Topoi, 37(1), 165–184.
Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of science classroom argumentation.
In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education:
Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47–69). Springer.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the
application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education,
88, 915–933.
Ergazaki, M., & Zogza, V. (2005a). Reaching consensus through adversarial discourse: Peers’
argumentative activity on predicting experimental outcomes in the context of genetic engineer-
ing. In M. Ergazaki, J. Lewis, & V. Zogza (Eds.), Trends in biology education research in the
new biology era (pp. 119–129). Patras University Press.
Ergazaki, M., & Zogza, V. (2005b). Fishing for the target gene: Peers’ discursive activity on
screening bacterial clones in a gene-cloning experiment. In R. Pinto & D. Couso (Eds.),
Proceedings of the fifth international ESERA conference on contributions of research to
enhancing students’ interest in learning science (pp. 1350–1353). European Science Education
Research Association.
Ergazaki, M., & Zogza, V. (2005c). From a causal question to stating and testing hypotheses:
Exploring the discursive activity of biology students. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong,
& H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 407–417). Springer.
Ergazaki, M., Dimitriadis, G., & Zogza, V. (2007). Constructing the profile of effective cloning
vectors in decision-making tasks: Conceptual tools, epistemic operations and emerging reason-
ing patterns. Journal of Science Education, 8(1), 24–27.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Crujeiras, B. (2017). Epistemic practices and scientific practices in
science education. In K. S. Taber & B. Akban (Eds.), Science education (pp. 69–80). Brill
Sense.
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). Springer.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical
thinking. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of
science education (pp. 1001–1015). Springer.
Jiménez Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson or doing
science”: Arguments in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
Kelly, G. J., & Licona, P. (2018). Epistemic practices and science education. In M. Matthews (Ed.),
History, philosophy and science teaching. Springer.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: The cultures of knowledge societies. Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking.
Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.
146 M. Ergazaki

Kuhn, D. (1996). Is good thinking scientific thinking? In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Modes of
thought: Explorations in culture and cognition (pp. 261–281). Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (2019). Critical thinking as discourse. Human Development, 62, 146–164.
Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Development origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition
and Development, 1, 113–127.
Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016). Argue with me. Argument as a path to developing
students’ thinking and writing (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Makhene, A. (2017). Argumentation: A methodology to facilitate critical thinking. International
Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 14(1).
Mason, L. (1996). An analysis of children construction of new knowledge through their use of
reasoning and arguing in classrooms discussions. Qualitative studies in Education, 9(4),
411–433.
Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics.
Cognition and Instruction, 11(3&4), 365–395.
Resnick, L., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in
conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3&4), 347–364.
Sandoval, W. A., Enyedy, N., Redman, E. H., & Xiao, S. (2019). Organising a culture of
argumentation in elementary science. International Journal of Science Education, 41(13),
1848–1869.
Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking and science education. Synthese, 80,
9–41.
Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17, 159–176.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
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.
Chapter 9
Fostering Critical Thinking About Health
Issues: Facts of Success and Failure
in the Case of Homeopathy

Araitz Uskola

Science education aims to train citizens to take part in the decisions that affect them.
Feinstein (2011) proposed that when making decisions about socioscientific issues,
people act, in the best of the cases, as competent outsiders. One way to train students
to become such competent outsiders is by evaluating claims based on the available
information (Feinstein et al., 2013), that is, by introducing argumentation practices
that foster critical thinking in science lessons (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, 2012,
Chap. 1, this book). Critical thinkers are those justify their decisions appealing to
scientific evidence, show breadth of thinking, willingness to change their opinion
(Ennis, 1996; Paul & Elder, 2006) and take into account what experts say (Norris,
1995).
Pseudosciences constitute an appropriate everyday context for promoting argu-
mentation and critincal thinking in science classrooms. This chapter discusses the
results of a research program that analyzed the opinion and justifications posed by
students about the effectiveness of homeopathic products and about a directive that
considers them to be medicine.

9.1 Health-Related Pseudosciences in Science

and in Science Education

One of the main objectives of science education is to prepare citizens, rather than to
be experts in science, to take part in decisions affecting their health, their diet, the
appropriate use of new materials and technologies or the use of energy, among others

A. Uskola (*)
Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibersitatea, Facultad de Educación, Leioa, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 147
B. Puig, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), Critical Thinking in Biology
and Environmental Education, Contributions from Biology Education Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_9
148 A. Uskola

(OECD, 2016). Health-related controversies are present in the media and were found
to be the more frequent scientific controversies in the Spanish press (Díaz &
Jiménez-Liso, 2012). Among these, one of the most controversial fields is that of
the set of alternative therapies to conventional medicine, many of which can be
considered pseudosciences (Lack & Rousseau, 2016), that is, they make “claims that
fail to conform to accepted standards in science regarding openness to peer review,
replicability, transparent methodology, and the potential for falsifiability” (p. 39).
Promoters of alternative therapies base on issues different from those on which
conventional medicine is based (Lake, 2005). Thus, they allude to the origin, to the
history of the treatments, while scientists allude to the composition of the substances,
to how their compounds can act in the body and to the empirical evidence of their
effect. On the other hand, alternative therapies try to relate their compounds to what
is considered “natural”, which as Lake (2005) showed, belongs together with “pure”
to a linguistic metaphor to which a positive value is attributed, that is, in many cases
it is identified “natural” with “good”. In addition, pseudoscientists use technical
buzzwords such as “quantum” to give an image of scientificity and they make
reference to people’s testimonies (anecdotes) but not to scientific evidence (Lack
& Rousseau, 2016).
According to Yates and Chandler (2000), pseudoscience advocates seek to reject
analyses based on critical thinking, encouraging belief in “all opinions are valid”
regardless of the evidence behind them. Thus they attempt to give an image
impression of scientific controversy where there is none, for example by publishing
their work in journals of questionable quality (Lack & Rousseau, 2016).
This image of open and equidistant debate can be reinforced by the attention paid
to the defenders of non-scientific positions in the media. In Spain, even in main-
stream media, pseudosciences have increased their presence in recent years
(Cortiñas-Rovira et al., 2015) but they are not critically evaluated (Fernández-
Muerza, 2004).
In a study carried out with 49 Spanish scientific journalists, Cortiñas-Rovira et al.
(2015) found that 35% did not see any danger in the presence of pseudoscientific
information in the media. On the other hand, 45%, most of them with over 10 years’
experience, considered the pseudosciences to represent a threat and saw the need to
warn of the deception and to address them in formal education. Metin et al. (2020)
and Preece and Baxter (2000) suggested that in science classrooms students should
have the opportunity to engage with these pseudosciences. Yates and Chandler
(2000) found that teachers-in-training had little skepticism about pseudosciences,
highlighting that it is sometimes considered anecdotal or not very harmful to have
that kind of beliefs. These authors point out that today, when the Internet offers so
much information and so much disinformation, it is more necessary than ever to
work in the classroom on critical thinking and the evaluation of information.
Several studies have examined gullibility and lack of scepticism among students.
Preece and Baxter (2000) analysed the skepticism shown by 2159 secondary stu-
dents regarding pseudo-scientific issues, such as reflexology, homeopathy or astrol-
ogy. They found that the students were gullible, as their mean skepticism score was
9 Fostering Critical Thinking About Health Issues: Facts of Success and. . . 149

2.8 in a 1–4 scale. This concern for students’ lack of skepticism about
pseudo-scientific issues was the focus of a study with primary school teachers in
training, with the revealing title Where have all the skeptics gone? (Yates &
Chandler, 2000). They provided eight statements considered incredible by experts
and philosophers. A total of 232 teachers-in-training responded, with an average of
3.5 ideas rejected; only four participants rejected all of them. Gullibility was also
found by Metin et al. (2020) in eighth graders that believed that crystals could be
used for medical purposes.
It could be expected that as people’s scientific knowledge increases they will use
it more proficiently in their decisions. However, research on the use of scientific
knowledge in public affairs shows that there are other factors, besides knowledge.
Feinstein (2011) reviewed studies about how decisions about socio-scientific issues
are made, concluding that people selectively integrate scientific ideas with those
from other sources to make decisions that are personally and socially meaningful. At
best, they act as competent outsiders, people who have learned to recognize when
science is relevant for their needs and interests and to interact with expert scientific
sources to help them achieve their goals (Feinstein, 2011). Feinstein et al. (2013)
discussed how to contribute to the formation of competent outsiders from within
science education. From the scientific practices that science education aims to
promote (Osborne, 2014), they pointed out to evaluating statements based on
available information as one of the most useful to work on for non-scientists,
therefore proposing working on argumentation and debates on socio-scientific issues
in the classroom.

9.1.1 Socio-Scientific Issues in the Classroom

One way to foster critical thinking and scientific competence is to work on socio-
scientific issues or controversies in science education (Erduran & Jiménez-Aleixan-
dre, 2008). These are considered suitable for learning scientific concepts, since the
student places the content in a broader context that gives it meaning (Sadler et al.,
2007).
Kuhn (1993), concerned with fostering the relationship between scientific and
everyday thinking, proposed using socio-scientific issues in science classrooms. She
recognized that there may be a paradox in that scientific thinking may be developed
even better by socio-scientific issues than by scientific ones, since in the latter,
students may feel inhibited by a strong belief in their ignorance. That is, in scientific
subjects students would show less confidence in themselves, and they would have a
worse disposition for critical thinking (Barak et al., 2007). Decision making on
socio-scientific issues, thus, constitutes a valuable context to develop use of data and
critical thinking skills in science education (e. g. Albe, 2008; Kortland, 1996;
Patronis et al., 1999).
150 A. Uskola

9.1.2 Use of Data and Critical Thinking

The role of evidence-based evaluation of information is central in decision making

(Feinstein et al., 2013). In a case in which inaccurate information may be involved,
the capacity to evaluate information based on evidence will allow to discern whether
the piece of information meets the conditions to be considered scientific or whether it
can be deemed pseudoscience (Bell & Lederman, 2003). Kuhn (2010) stressed the
importance of developing argumentation skills in science classrooms, even if no
conceptual knowledge is developed. In trying to characterize scientific thinking,
Kuhn (1993) observed that although conceptual knowledge played an important
role, its acquisition did not fully characterize the development of scientific thinking.
Kuhn accorded importance to being able to distance oneself from one’s beliefs in
order to evaluate them, so that she pointed out that the progress people made had to
do with how they came to the conclusions. Thus, she characterized scientific
thinking as argument. Arguing, evaluating statements based on available
information, assessing the credibility of information, and differentiating well-
founded opinions from those that are not are skills closely related to critical thinking
(Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, 2012). Various definitions of critical thinking are
coincident on this point.
According to Ennis (1996), critical thinking is logical and reflective thinking
focused on deciding what to believe and what to do. He considers that the compe-
tence for critical thinking includes both skills, such as ability to analyse, evaluate and
make inferences, and disposition towards critical thinking. Becoming competent
requires lifelong learning to leave behind natural self-centered thinking (Paul &
Elder, 2006). Critical thinking scholars point out that one of its constituents is the
reason given when stating something (Ennis, 1996), the information on which a
statement is based (Paul & Elder, 2006).
But there are other aspects that scholars deem important, namely taking into
account others´ points of view and the consideration of experts. Johnson (2009)
studied the assessment of critical thinking and pointed out that part of the problem
lies in the diversity of definitions of critical thinking. For him the argument plays a
central role. In an argument, critical thinking becomes apparent both in how the
options are justified, and in the dialectic skills. He conceived that critical thinkers
were the opposite of dogmatic ones. Therefore critical thinkers should be willing to
receive criticism, consider the weaknesses of their position, and contemplate under
what conditions they would change it or even do so. Along the same lines, Lack and
Rousseau (2016) defined how a sceptic acts. Similarly, Paul and Elder (2006) stated
that breadth of thinking, in other words, looking at the problem from different points
of view is a standard for critical thinking. The adoption of multiple perspectives was
also proposed as a criterion for evaluating arguments, for instance by Sadler and
Donnelly (2006) to evaluate student argumentation in interviews. Likewise, Felton
et al. (2009) and Kortland (1996) evaluated if students dealing with socio-scientific
controversies where aware of the limitations of the option they were defending or of
the advantages of opposite options.
9 Fostering Critical Thinking About Health Issues: Facts of Success and. . . 151

Although listening to the arguments of experts may seem inconsistent with

critical thinking, Norris (1995) pointed out that in science education people are not
intellectually independent in a strict sense, they have to trust experts. Acting with a
reflective skepticism allows people to judge who the experts are in a given context
and to evaluate the evidence on which the claims are based.

9.2 Methods, Educational and Regional Context

9.2.1 Controversies About Homeopathy in Spain and Europe

Numerous studies have shown that homeopathy has no greater effectiveness than the
placebo (Lack & Rousseau, 2016; Ministerio de Sanidad, Política Social e Igualdad,
2011). Despite this, in Europe there is a ruling, Directive 2001/83/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council (European Parliament, 2001) that considers
them to be medicinal products, requiring their regulation as such. The regulation
differentiates between medicinal products with therapeutic indications and without
it. This regulation began more than a decade later in Spain and triggered the rise of
voices from Medicine and Science to criticize it. An European manifesto against
pseudo-therapies was drafted. In 2018 2008 products were presented to be consid-
ered as medicines, 12 of them with therapeutic indication. There is no product
evaluation data at the time of writing this.
Some recent changes may suggest that the positioning towards homeopathy is
changing in the Spanish government and in the Spanish media. It seems that its
treatment in the media is more negative that it used to be (Martí-Sánchez & Roger-
Monzó, 2018). The Spanish government submitted a proposal to the European
Parliament in 2018 to amend Directive 2001/83/EC, but it was rejected, on the
grounds that no other country had seen problems with it (European Commission,
2018). In 2019 the Royal Academy of the Spanish Language (Real Academia
Española) which rules in cooperation with academies across the 21 Spanish speaking
countries, after 167 years of defining homeopathy as a “healing system”, decided to
change it, now defining it merely as a practice. With regard to citizenship, the
barometer of the Center for Sociological Research (Centro de Investigaciones
Sociológicas, 2018) first included questions related to pseudosciences and homeop-
athy in 2018. The results showed that people had misconceptions about pseudosci-
ences and did not clearly reject them. A Survey about the social perception of science
and technology (Quintanilla et al., 2019) found that a positive attitude towards
science and a high level of scientific knowledge was compatible with confidence
in certain non-scientific practices in the area of health, namely homeopathy and
acupuncture. According to the National Institute of Statistics (Instituto Nacional de
Estadística, 2013), the higher the level of studies, the greater the use of homeopathic
products. The preceding data show that while there is a change in how institutions
and media treat pseudosciences, it seems that this change has not been transferred to
how people think about them.
152 A. Uskola

9.2.2 Research Questions and Design

This chapter analyses the skepticism and critical thinking dimensions in the products
and in the process developed by students while making a decision about a socio-
scientific issue. The research questions are:
RQ1. At what extent do the initial positions about homeopathy mirror the recent
changes in the attitude of Spanish institutions and differ from those obtained
5 years before?
RQ2. How do the positions about homeopathy of students change after participating
in teaching activities that include critical reading, making dilutions and group
discussions?
RQ3. How do students justify their opinion about the effectiveness of homeopathic
products and about naming homeopathic products medicine?
RQ4. At what extent do students show breadth of thinking and willingness to change
in their decisions?
RQ5. In which way do students refer to experts´ knowledge in their arguments and
decisions?
Skepticism and critical thinking of students can be analysed in the decisions made
by the students and in how they justify them. The analysis of the decisions them-
selves was taken into account in research questions RQ1 and RQ2 (Feinstein et al.,
2017; Lack & Rousseau, 2016; Metin et al., 2020; Preece & Baxter, 2000; Yates &
Chandler, 2000). Research questions RQ3, RQ4, RQ5 capture the elements that
characterize a critical thinker discussed above, namely the emergence of the justifi-
cation and the use of evidence (Ennis, 1996; Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, 2012; Paul
& Elder, 2006), the breadth and willingness to change (Johnson 2009; Lack &
Rousseau, 2016; Paul & Elder, 2006), and the consideration of experts (Feinstein
et al., 2017; Kolstø et al., 2006; Norris, 1995).
Three studies were carried out with students in the degree in Primary Education at
a Spanish public university (S1, S2 and S3) and one (S4) with high school students.
The information about the studies is summarized in Table 9.1. Part of the results of
S1 and S2 were published (Uskola, 2016, 2017).
Pseudonyms were used for students. In S1 and S2, students were numbered, using
A for girls and O for boys. In S3 and S4 each student was assigned a pseudonym
beginning with the letter of their group.
Data sources for answering the research questions consisted of written answers to
open questions on the effectiveness of homeopathy (Q1 Do you think homeopathic
products are effective in curing diseases?) and its consideration as a medicine
(Q2 There is controversy today about whether homeopathic products should be
considered as medicines in the legislation. Would you be for or against considering
them as medicines?), collected before and after the teaching activities. Besides, data
from audio and video recordings of 12 group discussions in S3 and S4 also were
used. Diverse data analyses were made to answer each research question. They are
described along with the corresponding results.
9 Fostering Critical Thinking About Health Issues: Facts of Success and. . . 153

Table 9.1 Participants and activities in the four studies

S1 S2 S3 S4
Academic 2014/15 2014/15, 2019/20 2019/20
year 2015/16
Number of 42 (71% girls) 134 (71% 34 (50% girls) 10 (80% girls)
participants girls) 9 groups (A-I) 3 groups (J-L)
Academic 4th year of degree 1st year of 4th year of degree in High school
context in Primary degree in Primary Education
Education Primary
Education
Age 21–22 18.8 22.4 16
Activities
Critical reading
Close-
Close-ended ques-
Close-ended and
of a press release ended ques- tionnaire open-ended
(Oliveras et al., tionnaire
Two open-ended questions
2013)
Two open- questions
ended
questions

20D dilutions
20D dilutions
20D dilutions
of dye, sugar and
Reading press
Reading a brief
salt releases
Identification and

Search for
Identification and evaluation of data
information evaluation of data for for and against
and against homeop- homeopathy
athy
Group discussions

Group discussions

Final individual
Final individual
Final individual
decisions decisions decisions

9.3 Results: Skepticism About Homeopathy

In this section findings related to RQ1 and RQ2 are examined. First we compare, on
the one hand shifts in the initial position of students in 2014 and in 2019 (RQ1); and
on the other hand differences between positions before and after the teaching
sequence (RQ2).
The results of the analysis of the answers to the open question Q1 are summarized
in Fig. 9.1.
It can be seen that, at the beginning, in S1 and S2, more than 80% of the students
believed in the effectiveness of homeopathy. Five years later, in S3 and S4, the
results were different. Although the sample is limited and certainly cannot represent
society, this difference may be in part related to the change in the attitudes of Spanish
media and institutions. These results are somehow unexpected taking into account
the findings from recent surveys described in the previous section.
After participating in the activities, the majority did not believe that homeopathic
products are effective, especially in S3 and S4, in which they reached over 80%.
154 A. Uskola

Fig. 9.1 Percentage of students who said that homeopathic products are effective or not, for each
study, and in the pre and post activities situations

Fig. 9.2 Percentage of students who were for and against homeopathic products being considered
medicines, for each study, and in the pre- and post-sequence situations

The results of the analysis of the answers to the open question Q2 are shown in
Fig. 9.2.
At the beginning, as seen in the Figure, in S1, S2 and S4 more students were in
favor of considering homeopathic products as medicines. At the end, in S1 the
students against considering them as such constituted just over half, a position
much more pronounced in S3 and S4, with a percentage of more than 90%.
9 Fostering Critical Thinking About Health Issues: Facts of Success and. . . 155

Taking into account the responses to Q1 and Q2, the results shows that, on the
one hand, in response for RQ2, the positions about homeopathy did change after
participating in the activities, so that they showed a higher level of skepticism. On
the other hand, the results also show that the changes in the attitude of institutions
maybe are transferring to society in a higher level that survey data suggest, and that
changes may help so that this healthy skepticism increases.

9.4 Results About Critical Thinking: Justifications and Use

of Evidence

In this section findings related to RQ3 are examined, based on the comparison of the
justifications put forward by students before and after the activities. First, we
compare justifications for Q1 and, secondly, for Q2.

9.4.1 Effectiveness of Homeopathic Products

For the analysis of justifications for Q1, a scale of 4 levels, shown in Table 9.2 was
established.
Conceptual errors in level 1 include confusing homeopathic products with natural
and traditional remedies or thinking that the placebo effect is exclusive to these
products. Some examples to illustrate the coding are:
S1O11(Pre): If the illness is not serious, I think so [that homeopathic products are
effective]. In fact, natural medicine has been used since ancient times
and has had positive results many times. (Level 1).
Level 3 includes explicit references to scientific evidence, justifications referring
to the composition of products or to expert opinion/action (Norris, 1995).
S1O10(Post): No, after seeing the process that is followed to manufacture them, I
have realized that homeopathic products are only lactose and
sucrose. They can have a placebo effect, but any product can
produce this effect. (Level 3).

Table 9.2 Levels for the categorisation of justifications in Q1

Level Description
3 Justifications including scientific evidence
2 Justifications alluding to anecdotal testimonies and/or personal experience
1 Justifications with conceptual errors
0 No justification
156 A. Uskola

Fig. 9.3 Percentage of students, in relation to the total in each positioning, at each level of
justification, when justifying their opinion about the effectiveness of homeopathic products (Q1)

Figure 9.3 shows the percentages of students who formulated justifications at the
different levels, separating those believing in the effectiveness of homeopathic
products from those who didn’t. For this analysis, we considered the level of the
best justification given by each student. It should be noted that in order to study
differences between the justifications of students who believed and those who did
not believe in the effectiveness of homeopathy, only those positioning themselves in
one way or another were considered.
As seen in the Figure, prior to the sequence, when the students stated that they
believed in homeopathy, on many occasions (29% in S1 and S2 and 60% in S3), they
did so by resorting to errors such as considering that they are “natural” products. In
fact, the results of the close-ended questionnaire conducted in S2 and S3 showed that
76% of the students believed that using medicinal herbs belongs to the practice of
homeopathy, and that 60% believed that homeopathic products are composed solely
of natural products. Therefore, as in other studies (Lake, 2005), many students
considered homeopathy to be natural and identified “natural” with something good.
Moreover, in the answers to the open-ended questions Q1 and Q2 in S2, 26% of
students spontaneously expressed that natural is “healthier, more effective and better
than chemical”. The difficulties they had with this issue were in some cases extended
to the group discussions, for example in group H and J.
June: Yeah, then they put sugar in it and all you take is sugar with water.
Joana: I’m in favor of natural things.
Janire: Homeopathy is not natural.
Joana: It is more natural than medicine.
The other large group of justifications alluded to by students who believed in the
effectiveness of homeopathic products were personal first-hand experience and the
testimonies of people, i.e. everyday knowledge.
S2A25: Yes, I believe that homeopathic products are effective in curing diseases
because I take them and they cure me. It is true that they are slower than
conventional medicine but their effect is longer lasting and they have no
side effects. (Level 2).
9 Fostering Critical Thinking About Health Issues: Facts of Success and. . . 157

As in other studies with high school students (Metin et al., 2020; Patronis et al.,
1999) and professional trainees (Albe, 2008), participants, especially those who
defended homeopathy, seemed to assign great validity to personal experience and
close testimonies.
Students who did not believe in the effectiveness of homeopathy provided
justifications mostly at the highest level (3), based on scientific evidence, for instance
the high dilution of the products.
June (S4, Post): No because they only contain water and sugar and they are not
scientifically proved. (Level 3).
In S1 and S4, at the end of the activities, students who did not believe in the
effectiveness of homeopathy used more and better justifications. However, in S3
52% of students did not use any justification.
In the group discussions of S3 and S4, students alluded to the need for scientific
evidence and used high level justifications:
Fernando: The result [of dilution] is water.
Flora: All of them [effectiveness tests for homeopathic products] are going to
be negative.
Fernando: We don’t know. The conclusion is that only 12 want to do it
[effectiveness test]. For me it’s quite revealing.
June: That’s placebo.
Joana: I don’t think so, I think it does have an effect.
June: If it does, why hasn’t it been proven scientifically?
Janire: It’s like what we did with the water yesterday. After 20 times of filling
and emptying, do you think that had salt in it? Well, it’s the same with
homeopathy.

9.4.2 Consideration of Homeopathic Products as Medicines

For the analysis of justifications for Q2 a scale of five levels, shown in Table 9.3, was
established.
Figure 9.4 shows the percentage of participants who formulated justifications at
each level, depending on whether they were for or against the consideration of
homeopathic products as medicines. For this analysis, the highest level reached by
each student was taken into account.
After participating in the activities, as seen in the Figure, the percentage of
students who didn’t justify their opinion (level 0) decreased. Besides, levels 3 and
4, which include reference to the characteristics that define medicine, were reached
by most students who positioned themselves in one direction or the other. This
shows that they had internalized what a medicine should accomplish. Thus, effec-
tiveness was taken into account by 55% of the total number of students who had
158 A. Uskola

Table 9.3 Levels for the categorisation of justifications in Q2

Level Description
4 Justifications including medicine defining criteria and scientific evidence
3 Justifications alluding to the criteria that define medicine in Spanish legislation (quality,
effectiveness, safety)
2 Other justifications (e.g. economy)
1 Justifications referring to origin of the products
0 No justification

Fig. 9.4 Percentage of students, in relation to the total in each positioning, at each level of
justification, when justifying their opinion about considering homeopathic products as medicine
(Q2)

indicated their position. In fact, correlations were found between the belief in the
effectiveness of homeopathy and positioning against its consideration as a medicine.
However, interesting exceptions were found: for example, students who did
believe that homeopathy has some effect but considered that it must be scientifically
proven to be considered a medicine; or students who did not believe it is effective but
approved of it being classed as a medicine as, in this case, it would have to pass the
required safety checks.
The difference between the results in levels 3 and 4 is that, in the case of level
4, the increase after the sequence was considerable among those students who were
against considering homeopathic products as medicines, of which more than 50%
referred to scientific evidence, to the need for the characteristics to be scientifically
proven. It is interesting that this allusion to scientific evidence also appeared in the
discussions of two of the three groups of 16 year olds in S4:
June: I believe that if it is not scientifically proven, it should be not in
pharmacies.
Kirmen: I think it is bad that 2008 [homeopathic products] have requested testing
to qualify as medicine, 12 of these also for recognition as medicine with
approved therapeutic indication, and we are still waiting for the results.
And they are on sale. For me, an untested medicine should not be on sale.
9 Fostering Critical Thinking About Health Issues: Facts of Success and. . . 159

9.5 Results Concerning Critical Thinking: Breadth

of Thinking and Willingness to Change

In this section we examine results related to RQ4, based on how students took into
account the counter-position or even change their opinion.
Figure 9.5 shows the percentage of students that although taking a position
attended to opposing arguments.
As seen in the Figure more students took into account the opposing justifications
after the activities. Still, in most cases the percentage of students that did it so was
less than 40%. The exception were the arguments put forward in S3 to justify the
belief in the effectiveness of homeopathy. In this case students demonstrated that
they were paying attention to opponents at a high degree, reaching 80%. It is striking
that these were precisely the students that scored lowest in justications as seen in
Fig. 9.3.
Table 9.4 shows the changes in positioning with respect to the situation at the
beginning of the sequence for S1, S3 and S4.
The percentage of students who changed their position in these studies was
relatively high, especially among those who initially defended the effectiveness of
homeopathy and its consideration as a medicine.
Even students who acknowledged taking homeopathic products themselves
questioned their effectiveness after the experiment. This can be seen in the

Fig. 9.5 Percentage of students, in relation to those who positioned themselves, who referred to the
opposing evidence
160 A. Uskola

Table 9.4 Percentage of students, with respect to the total sample, who changed position. All
changes were taken into account both for students who initially took the opposite position and for
those who had not positioned themselves initially
S1 (N ¼ 42) S3 (N ¼ 34) S4 (N ¼ 10)
Effectiveness Medicine Effectiveness Medicine Effectiveness Medicine
To NO 50 48 21 24 40 70
To YES 2 21 9 3

discussion of group K, when Karmele said “I have allergies and I take homeopathy
but I didn’t know what it was until now (. . .) After the experiment I question it a little
bit.”

9.6 Critical Thinking: Expert Consideration

In this section findings related to RQ5 are examined, based on how students
appealed to experts´ knowledge in their arguments.
The experts´ viewpoints were referred to in a total of 18 initial and final responses
by students from the four studies as justifications for adopting a particular opinion.
Although their percentage was low (7%), these responses are worthy of discussion.
On the one hand, in some cases, considering what experts say caused confusion in
students. We must take into account that some of those who are expected to act as
trustworthy and intellectually dependent experts (Norris, 1995), don’t in fact act that
way. Nor do they necessarily base their actions on evidence in the case of alternative
therapies. For example, the Spanish Ministry of Health itself, from its position of
authority, may have made it difficult to judge the information by calling the set of
non-conventional therapies “natural therapies”, while recognizing that “using this
terminology may mistakenly encourage the public to think that these therapies use
more natural means than conventional medicine, when this is not necessarily the
case” (Ministerio de Sanidad, Política Social e Igualdad, 2011, p. 5). As noted, this
may lead one to believe that they are also “good” (Lake, 2005). Moreover, in the case
of homeopathy, considering homeopathic products as medicines may also imply that
they have proven effectiveness, and this despite a government report stating that “it
is difficult to interpret that the favourable results found in some trials are distin-
guishable from the placebo effect” (Ministerio de Sanidad, Política Social e
Igualdad, 2011, p. 72). This was the case with six students, all in S1 and S2, who
showed how the actions of certain institutions or doctors influence the acceptance of
pseudosciences such as homeopathy.
S1A1(Pre): Yes, if the Health Department considers them to be medicines, it will
be because they have been proven to be valid for curing diseases.
S2A22: I believe that homeopathic products can be effective in curing
diseases. In fact, some experts who know a lot about medicine
recommend homeopathy.
9 Fostering Critical Thinking About Health Issues: Facts of Success and. . . 161

The other 12 students used the reference to experts to rule out homeopathy.
The role of experts was highly considered in S3 and S4. Indeed, 50% of the
groups (A, C, F, G, J and K) talked frequently about their confidence in experts.
More precisely, A, C, F, and K addressed the fact that calling these products
medicine and selling them in pharmacies as such can generate confusion among
citizens:
Karmele: We know this because we have done the experiment; but the person who
goes to the pharmacy does not know about it.
Kirmen: And that’s what they use, they use the fact that people don’t know what
they are getting into.
Karmele: Well, that’s why not [they shouldn’t be considered medicine].
Karla: What has made me doubt is this, that there are more than 10,000
products in Spain that are prescribed. If there are so many products
and so many are sold, will they really cure something? I doubt it. But
then you think about it, and I can’t believe that this will cure anything.
It’s nonsense. But to accept this? Does it do anything? It makes me
think. Either they’re laughing at us and they’re laughing at the sick who
want to be cured or it really does do something.
Koro: I believe in what the doctors say.
Karla: There are many lives at stake, but it is allowed, so. . .
In fact, in S3, 22% of the justifications against considering homeopathic products
as medicines at the end of the sequence refer to this point:
Aitor: Clearly not. If you call them medicine, you can create confusion. You
have to make it clear to people what they are taking and what the
consequences are.
Carmen: No. Because people may think they are as effective as real medicine.
That can be dangerous.
Fernando: I think that in the sense that they are not effective, they cannot be
medicines, because in society the word “medicine” is very much linked
to its effectiveness.

9.7 Implications for Education

The students that participated in the various studies proved to be quite gullible and
initially not sceptical, as was found in other studies (Metin et al., 2020; Preece &
Baxter, 2000; Yates & Chandler, 2000). It must be highlighted that there was a
difference in the initial positions (RQ1) taken by S1 and S2 on the one hand (more
than 80% of the students believed in the effectiveness of homeopathy) and those
initially taken by S3 and S4 on the other (15–40% believed in its effectiveness). As
discussed before, the difference between their positions/opinions, which were
recorded 5 years apart, may be attributable in part to may be attributable in part to
the change in attitude of the institutions in Spain. Indeed, in S1 and S2, some
162 A. Uskola

students consistently referred to the decisions of the Spanish institutions as justifi-

cation for their own view that homeopathic products are effective and/or medicines.
In contrast, in S3 and S4, such decisions were used to justify exactly the opposite.
As far as justifications are concerned, the students who were less sceptical about
homeopathy used two main types of justifications: either they considered these
products to be natural or they based their opinions on their own testimonies or
those of people close to them. The activities carried out with the students in S1, S3
and S4 were aimed, firstly, at creating a cognitive conflict so that students would be
faced with their own misconceptions; secondly, at considering other types of
justifications, such as scientific evidence and expert opinion; and thirdly, at evalu-
ating the consistency of the different types of justifications. It was expected that, after
participating in the activities, the students would be more sceptical (RQ2), and that
they would develop more critical thinking skills (RQ3, RQ4, RQ5).
One of the achievements of the activities carried out with the students was to
clarify what homeopathy consists of, since one of the factors that lead them to be
rather credulous was their lack of knowledge. After the activities students were less
gullible (RQ2). One of the main sources of error was that they confused homeopathy
with “natural” (60% of the 168 students). In addition to this confusion, it was
observed, similarly to Lake (2005), that students consider that being natural is
equivalent to being good, and that not being natural has negative connotations.
Reading the leaflet of homeopathic products and making dilutions helped to show
exactly what they are and also to demonstrate that they are not necessarily natural
products. However, it may still be necessary to discuss with students the meaning of
certain terms, such as “natural” and “pure”, and the different use that is made of them
in the scientific context and in everyday life (Lake, 2005). This would help students
to be more aware of the meaning of “natural” and the attributes that are given to
it. The same would be applicable to the term “chemical”, usually negatively charged.
Indeed, it became an issue of discussion in some groups. In H, Humberto stated that
“But that creates a chemical reaction in your body so it’s a chemical”.
After participating in the activities, the students used higher-level justifications
(RQ3), making reference to scientific evidence. Differences were found depending
on the student’s position, and those that were sceptical of homeopathy also showed a
higher level of critical thinking, using justifications based on scientific evidence.
This is shown, in the case of these students, by the increase in level 3 of the belief in
its effectiveness, and in level 4 for its consideration as medicine,. The use of more
scientific justifications was facilitated by the information given to students about
homeopathy and by the dilutions made in the laboratory, but, in the case of S3 and
S4, some activities were added to improve the results of S1. In S1, many students
continued to believe in the effectiveness of homeopathy, in spite of the dilutions they
made, and still based their positioning on personal experience.
The context of the activities can be relevant for the weight that personal experi-
ence is given in decision-making. Kolstø (2001) raised eight aspects, unrelated to
content, to be considered when dealing with socio-scientific issues in science
education, some of them closely related to the consideration of evidence.
9 Fostering Critical Thinking About Health Issues: Facts of Success and. . . 163

He highlighted the difference between the consideration of what is evidence in the

scientific context and in the everyday context, and stressed that, in the everyday
context, anecdotal evidence is also valued. Educators, then, must try to get students
to value the role of evidence not only in the process of building scientific knowledge,
but also in the performance of critical thinking in their everyday contexts.
In S3 and S4, students had to consider the validity of both types of evidence
(anecdotal and scientific) in line with Kolstø’s (2001) proposal. Furthermore, after
considering the data individually, they had the opportunity to discuss them in a
group. In these discussions, as seen in the previous sections, high-level justifications
were given for rejecting both the belief in the effectiveness of homeopathy and its
consideration as a medicine. In the discussions, students had the opportunity to
evaluate the information they were given (in both senses), as can be seen, for
example, in Fernando’s intervention in Sect. 13.5.1.
The results of S4 are comparable to those of S3 despite the age difference.
Although in S4 they started from a greater lack of knowledge, in the end many
changed their minds and rejected homeopathy. Their discussions were rich and the
justifications were based on scientific evidence; they were also very aware of the
consequences of calling homeopathic products medicines. The results for S4 can be
considered acceptable, whereas those for S3 provoke much thought. S3 students are
about to become practicing teachers, and a greater degree of development of the
critical thinking skills could be expected of them. Indeed, many of them (52%) didn’t
even think it necessary to justify their scepticism towards homeopathy after the
activities. Maybe some reflection is needed about how to encourage to a greater
degree this type of thinking all throughout education. However, it is true that the S3
students did stand out from the rest in one component of critical thinking: the
consideration of other points of view (RQ4). In fact, 83% of those who did not
believe in the effectiveness of homeopathy discussed issues that could be used to
believe in it (e.g. placebo effect, testimonies). This reflection on the justifications of
the opposing view is considered to characterize both a sound argument (Felton et al.,
2009; Kortland, 1996; Sadler & Donnelly, 2006) and critical thinking (Johnson,
2009; Paul & Elder, 2006).
If the results of the level of the justifications for Q1 (Fig. 9.3) and Q2 (Fig. 9.4) are
compared with those of the consideration of the opposing justifications (Fig. 9.5), it
seems that in many cases, when students performed well in justifying, they did not
do so well in considering the other point of view and vice versa. For example, in S3
the students used less justifications for their arguments about effectiveness, but they
attended to opposing justifications more than in other cases. Overall, students had
difficulties in developing arguments that meet all the quality criteria.
Discussions in S3 and S4 were found to be very productive. Students referred to
the high dilution of homeopathic products, the importance of scientific evidence, the
role of experts, and, linked to the latter, the consequences of calling homeopathy a
medicine The use of such arguments are characteristic of high-level critical thinking
(Ennis, 1996; Paul & Elder, 2006) and of skepticism (Lack & Rousseau, 2016).
164 A. Uskola

Indeed, some students put forward justifications that showed signs of critical think-
ing, and even modified their beliefs (Table 9.2), becoming more skeptical. This is
considered unusual (Albe, 2008) and would correspond to the maximum degree of
open-mindedness or breadth of thinking (Ennis, 1996; Paul & Elder, 2006). At the
end of the activities, the majority did not believe that homeopathic products are
effective, especially in S3 and S4 with over 80% adhering to this view.
A further important issue in the case of primary school teachers is that they need
to develop not only their own critical thinking skills, but also those of their future
students. To this end, they obviously first have to develop the skills in themselves
(Windschitl, 2003) but it is also essential that they genuinely value them. In S3 the
participants were asked about dealing with pseudo-scientific issues in their class-
rooms. 93% found this an interesting topic. Of these, 44% justified this interest based
on the fact that they are current issues, 59% linked it to the educational context and
curriculum, and 63% explicitly referred to the development of critical thinking:
Fernando: In addition to encouraging students´ critical thinking, they will develop
knowledge that will be valuable to them for their future. And what is
education, if not the teaching of valuable concepts? Teachers should
not give their opinion and should use data on the subject. In this way,
students will develop healthy habits and their own opinion on this very
contemporary subject.
Participants also put forward ideas as to how they would go about dealing with
pseudo-scientific issues in class. Here it can clearly be seen that they have internal-
ized some keys to critical thinking, such as justifying statements, contrasting and
evaluating different sources of information, even though throughout the sequence of
activities, the concept of critical thinking was not explicitly worked on.
Flora: Educational centres must guarantee integral development, which includes
critical thinking. I think they should not be taught what [products] to take or
not, but to act critically in the face of new information and to base their
arguments on significant and reliable sources of information, and to contrast
them with other sources.
It can be said that the activities designed have shown to be valid for developing
students´ critical thinking and for enabling them to act in their daily lives as
competent outsiders (Feinstein, 2011), making decisions about their health, and so
fulfilling one of the objectives of science education (OECD, 2016). In the case of
these future primary teachers, moreover, one can say that they were aware of the
importance of educating critical thinkers and competent outsiders themselves in the
future.

Acknowledgments This research was funded by the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU
Research Grants: Mod. II Groups (codes GIU19/008 and PPGA20/14).
9 Fostering Critical Thinking About Health Issues: Facts of Success and. . . 165

References

Albe, V. (2008). Students’ positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial
socioscientific issue. Science and Education, 17, 805–827.
Barak, M., Ben-Chaim, D., & Zoller, U. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-
order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Research in Science Education, 37, 353–369.
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision
making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352–377.
Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. (2018). Barómetro de Febrero 2018 [Barometer of
February 2018]. http://www.cis.es/cis/export/sites/default/-Archivos/Marginales/3200_321
9/3205/es3205mar.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2020.
Cortiñas-Rovira, S., Alonso-Marcos, F., Pont-Sorribes, C., & Escribà-Sales, E. (2015). Science
journalists´ perceptions and attitudes to pseudoscience in Spain. Public Understanding of
Science, 24(4), 450–465.
Díaz, N., & Jiménez-Liso, M. R. (2012). Las controversias sociocientíficas: temáticas e importancia
para la educacion científica [Socio-scientific controversies: Themes and relevance for science
education]. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 9(1), 54–70.
Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Prentice Hall.
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education:
Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer.
European Commission. (2018). Answer to a parliamentary question. http://www.europarl.europa.
eu/doceo/document/E-8-2018-004948-ASW_EN.html. Accessed 20 Feb 2020.
European Parliament. (2001). Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri¼CELEX:32001L0083
andfrom¼ES. Accessed 20 Feb 2020.
Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95, 168–185.
Feinstein, N. W., Allen, S., & Jenkins, E. (2013). Outside the pipeline: Reimagining science
education for nonscientists. Science, 340(6130), 314–317.
Feinstein, N. W., Bromme, R., Barzilai, S., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2017). What counts as success in
public engagement with science? (Blog Post). Public Understanding of Science. https://sagepus.
blogspot.com/2017/08/what-counts-as-success-in-public.html. Accessed 20 Feb 2020.
Felton, M., García-Milá, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of
argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal
Logic, 29, 417–446.
Fernández-Muerza, A. (2004). Estudio del periodismo de información científica en la prensa de
referencia: el caso español a partir de un análisis comparativo [Study of scientific information
journalism in the reference press: The Spanish case from a comparative analysis]. Doctoral
dissertation, Universidad del País Vasco.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística. (2013). Encuesta Nacional de Salud [National Health Survey]
2011–2012. http://www.ine.es. Accessed 20 Feb 2020.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical
thinking. In B. J. Frasser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook
for science education (pp. 1001–1016). Springer.
Johnson, R. H. (2009). The implications of the dialectical tier for critical thinking. In J. Sobocan &
L. Groarke (Eds.), Critical thinking education and assesment: Can higher order thinking be
tested? (pp. 55–74). The Althouse Press.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension
of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.
Kolstø, S. D., et al. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to
socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90, 632–655.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue.
Science Education, 80, 673–689.
166 A. Uskola

Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking.
Science Education, 77, 391–337.
Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94, 810–824.
Lack, C. W., & Rousseau, J. (2016). Critical thinking, science, amd pseudoscience. Springer.
Lake, D. (2005). About being pure and natural: Understandings of pre-service primary teachers.
International Journal of Science Education, 27(4), 487–506.
Martí-Sánchez, M., & Roger-Monzó, V. (2018). La percepción social de la homeopatía en la prensa
digital española: Un análisis semántico [The social perception of homeopathy in the Spanish
digital press: A semantic analysis]. Panace@, XIX(47), 115–123.
Metin, D., Cakiroglu, J., & Leblebicioglu, G. (2020). Perceptions of eighth graders concerning the
aim, effectiveness, and scientific basis of pseudoscience: The case of crystal healing. Research
in Science Education, 50, 175–202.
Ministerio de Sanidad, Política Social e Igualdad. (2011). Análisis de situación de las terapias
naturales [Situation analysis of natural therapies]. https://www.mscbs.gob.es/novedades/docs/
analisisSituacionTNatu.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2020.
Norris, S. P. (1995). Learning to live with scientific expertise: Toward a theory of intellectual
communalism for guiding science teaching. Science Education, 79(2), 201–217.
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 assessment
and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy, PISA. OECD
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255425-en. Accessed 20 Feb 2020.
Oliveras, B., Márquez, C., & Sanmartí, N. (2013). The use of newspaper articles as a tool to develop
critical thinking in science classes. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 885–905.
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 25, 177–196.
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students´ argumentation in decision-making
on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Educa-
tion, 21(7), 745–754.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking (2nd ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
Preece, P. F. W., & Baxter, J. H. (2000). Scepticism and gullibility: The superstitious and pseudo-
scientific beliefs of secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education,
22(11), 1147–1156.
Quintanilla, M. A., Escobar, M., & Santos-Requejo, L. (2019). La actitud global hacia la ciencia en
las comunidades autónomas [The global attitude towards science in the Autonomous Commu-
nities]. In FECYT (Ed.), Percepción Social de la Ciencia y la Tecnología en España 2018
[Social Perception of Science and Technology in Spain 2018] (pp. 86–105). FECYT.
Sadler, T., Barab, S., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in Socioscientific
Inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391.
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content
knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.
Uskola, A. (2016). ¿Los productos homeopáticos pueden ser considerados medicamentos?:
Creencias de maestras/os en formación [Homeopathic products can be considered medicine?
Beliefs of elementary preservice teachers]. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de
las Ciencias, 13(3), 574–587.
Uskola, A. (2017). Escepticismo del profesorado de Primaria en formación hacia las
pseudociencias: Influencia de las concepciones erróneas en el caso de la homeopatía [Skepti-
cism of Elementary preservice teachers about pseudosciences: Influence of erroneous concep-
tions in the case of homeopathy]. Profesorado Revista de currículum y formación del
profesorado, 21, 391–408.
Yates, G. C. R., & Chandler, M. (2000). Where have all the skeptics gone?: Patterns of New Age
beliefs and anti-scientific attitudes in preservice primary teachers. Research in Science Educa-
tion, 30(4), 377–387.
Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative
experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education,
87, 112–143.
 Part III
Research About Critical Thinking
in Environmental and Sustainability
Education
Chapter 10
Teaching Science in Chilean
Environmentally Degraded Areas:
An Analysis from a Critical and Ecofeminist
Perspective

Corina González-Weil, Valeria León, Delia Cisternas, Gabriel Caro,

and Roberto Morales

10.1 Introduction: Socio-Environmental Conflicts

and Science Education

The current planetary emergency that we are in (IPCC, 2018) has its origin in the
socioeconomic system, specifically in the accumulation of capital and the search for
short term particular benefits, carried out under the premise of a continued growth
that is non-sustainable (Foster & Clark, 2012). In addition, demographic explosion,
migration towards urban areas and hyperconsumerism of the more developed soci-
eties, continues to grow as if the capacities of the Earth were infinite (Vilches & Gil
Pérez, 2007). This has generated unsustainable imbalances, which translate into
pollution, destruction of resources, loss of biodiversity and cultural diversity,
hyperurbanization and desertification. This, in addition to making our planet more
inhabitable, increases inequality, extreme poverty, conflict and violence (Bencze &
Carter, 2011).
For South America, the neoliberal system has perpetuated the role of the producer
of raw materials, such as mineral deposits, gas, oil, agricultural, forestry and fishing
resources, initiated in our continent with the arrival of Christopher Columbus
(Lander, 2014). South America has mainly become a supplier of primary resources
to attend to the demands of the capital, through the logic of neo-extractivism
(Machado, 2012). This consolidates a development model based on the over-
exploitation of natural resources, most of them non-renewable, as well as on the
expansion of production towards new areas, generating a breakdown of the regional
economies, and the displacement of rural, farmer and Indigenous communities
(Merchand, 2016).

C. González-Weil (*) · V. León · D. Cisternas · G. Caro · R. Morales

Centro de Investigación en Didáctica de las Ciencias y Educación STEM, Pontificia Universidad
Católica de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 169
B. Puig, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), Critical Thinking in Biology
and Environmental Education, Contributions from Biology Education Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_10
170 C. González-Weil et al.

With the excuse of economic growth, the accelerated process of appropriation of

natural resources has caused environmental deterioration in South America, which
translates in forest loss, deterioration of natural habitats, endangered species and
exaggerated use of fertilizers (Acosta & Machado, 2012). These environmental and
ecological degradations not only affect nature but the whole social structure, mod-
ifying the lifestyle and everyday practices of the inhabitants of degraded areas, the
communities in rural areas being the most affected. This has resulted in an explosion
of socio-environmental conflicts related to access and control of natural resources
that involve Indigenous and farmer movements, as well as mobilization and citizen
participation, which is strongly repressed and criminalized (Svampa, 2012).
Many of these movements have women as protagonists. From this perspective,
the practices of resistance towards neo-extractivism agree with certain principles
that – not being exclusive of this view – can be grouped under the term ecofeminist
(Svampa, 2015). Among them we can highlight acknowledgement of
interdependence and ecodependence (Escribano, 2017), overcoming of anthropo-
centric visions by placing the sustainability of life at the center (Pérez Orozco, 2014),
creation of an ecological equality culture and the value of relationships and collab-
orative work for survival (Bernardos et al., 2020). In this way, feminism has earned
prominence during recent decades. In Chile, the movement called Women of Sacri-
fice Zones in Resistance of Quintero – Puchuncaví, born in 2016, is a clear example
of resistance, by which women that inhabit highly degraded areas –about which the
government claimed that they need to “sacrifice”– seek to protect the life, health and
environment of their communities through organizational, educational and
judicializing practices (Bolados & Sánchez, 2017).
Within the context of environmentally degraded territories, science education has
a particularly relevant role in the education of youth, especially when addressed from
a placed-based perspective. It would contribute to develop territorial awareness and
critical thinking (CT), as well as competences for citizen participation. In addition,
some ecofeminist principles can be a contribution to science education. Feminist
scholars warned about the risk of teaching in isolation from real world, with
knowledge that cannot be located (Haraway, 1991). Therefore, a perspective of
science education that is territorial, critical and that is addressed on the basis of
ecofeminist principles becomes relevant, especially in degraded socio-
environmental contexts.
However, just as socio-environmental conflicts have divided society, so has the
school-business dependence. Whether it be because of the schools’ desire to obtain
job placements for their most socially vulnerable students, or because businesses
involved are important job markets for parents, a subordination scenario is created.
In it, not all school members dare to take a critical stance, which hinders the action of
teachers. In this context, a teacher seeking to educate from a socio-critical perspec-
tive will be forced to challenge current political values and educational objectives –
oriented towards nature exploitation, economy and consumerism – shifting to
objectives aligned with sustainable development (Edwards, 2016).
10 Teaching Science in Chilean Environmentally Degraded Areas: An Analysis. . . 171

In this chapter, we analyze, from a critical and ecofeminist standpoint, through

the analysis of interviews and written records, the experience of two teachers and of
a group of science teachers taking part in an in-service teacher education program. In
all three cases, teachers work in the Aconcagua Valley – central area of Chile – in
environmental degraded territories.

10.2 Socio-Environmental Context and Theoretical

Perspectives

10.2.1 Socio-Environmental Degradations in the Aconcagua

Valley

According to the Chile Map of Socio-environmental Conflict (INDH, 2020), the

Aconcagua Valley is affected by nine socio-environmental conflicts, many of them
also mentioned in the Global Atlas of Environmental Justice (EJatlas, 2020).
Located in the Region of Valparaiso (Chile), the valley is crossed by the Aconcagua
River, which rises in the Andes Mountains and runs into the Pacific Ocean. At one
end of the Valley, towards the mountains, we find the provinces of San Felipe and
Los Andes. In this area, the great mining industry directly affects the watercourses,
either due to contamination by spilling, or by glacier destruction (INDH, 2020).
There is a great amount of water
2.000 liters per second– used in the mineral
extraction process (OLCA, 2015).
On the same valley, towards the coast, are situated the cities of Quintero and
Puchuncaví. This territory has been systematically impacted since the 1960s due to
the setting of an industrial park that gathers various companies related to the
smelting and refining of copper, five thermoelectric centrals, a port and gas maritime
terminal, fuel, asphalt, cement, among other chemicals (Liberona & Ramírez, 2019).
This resulted in strong atmospheric pollution, which has caused severe episodes of
mass intoxication, leading to the temporary closing of La Greda School in
Puchuncaví (INDH, 2020). It also caused water pollution, both of runoff and
groundwater, affecting consumption of well water in rural areas, and seawater
pollution, due to spilling and beaching of oil and charcoal (Saravia et al., 2016).
Due to the loss of marine biodiversity caused by pollution, small-scale fishermen in
the Puchuncaví-Quintero bay could not continue their jobs. All these reasons led to
name this territory as a Sacrifice Zone.
In addition, the General Direction of Waters, has decreed all continental Prov-
inces of the region as zones of water scarcity. Rainfall has decreased throughout the
Aconcagua Valley (OLCA, 2015). Therefore, the water problem, its scarcity and
pollution, represents an environmental degradation across this territory.
MODATIMA (2014) frames this issue within the denominated “Water conflict”
originated in the neoliberal economic model, through the Constitution and the Water
Code of Chile (Ministerio de Justicia, 1981), implemented under Pinochet’s
172 C. González-Weil et al.

dictatorship, that grants the administration and use of this common resource to
private companies. Since then, mining, industrial and agro-industrial activities
have aggravated the situation, generating socioenvironmental degradations in and
around the territories where they take place.
From a social dimension, this has had direct impact on small-scale activities
related to farming, agriculture and fishing for family subsistence. Because of the
deterioration of both nature and quality of life, socio-environmental movements and
ecological organizations have emerged, with the purpose of defending territory and
waters. These groups have taken on the task of disputing power spaces through the
generation of collaboration networks within the valley.

10.2.2 Critical Thinking and Critical Scientific Literacy

in the Context of Environmentally Degraded Areas

In a context of environmental degradation, it may be expected a politically engaged

science education, emphasizing transdisciplinarity, promotion of values and an
orientation towards action. These actions aims are caring for ourselves and our
surroundings, in a way that makes it possible for us and the planet to survive (Sadler,
2011; Bencze, 2017). In this way, we propose that science education should develop
a critical perspective in which an activist disposition is promoted, with the purpose
of increasing social and environmental justice, a vision termed critical scientific
literacy (Sjöström & Eilks, 2018).
Critical scientific literacy involves the promotion of critical thinking, understood
as the competence of developing independent opinions and the ability to reflect
about the world that surrounds us and our participation in it (Jiménez-Aleixandre &
Puig, this book). This vision of CT combines components of argumentation – such
as evaluating knowledge from evidence and having the disposition to look for
reasons and question authority– with components of social emancipation and
citizenship – such as being able to develop an independent opinion, and critically
analyzing the discourses that justify the inequalities and power relationships –
(Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, this book). This perspective of critical scientific
literacy and promotion of CT requires science teachers to be critical and transfor-
mative. This means viewing science as a product of social, cultural and political
contexts, and understanding the school as a space for the development of ideas and
generation of contextualized school knowledge, as well as their own role as agents of
transformation (Moura & Silva, 2018).
In the context of degraded territorial contexts, being a critical and transformative
teacher involves a high commitment to the territory, for instance the identification of
local socioenvironmental problems as scenarios for contextualized science education
that transforms the community. In rural contexts, students can take advantage of their
local knowledge to make sense of school knowledge, but also what students learn in
school influences, improves and increases the available knowledge in the
10 Teaching Science in Chilean Environmentally Degraded Areas: An Analysis. . . 173

community (Roth, 2010). A curriculum that is alive, situated, addressing local socio-
environmental problems, helps students to get involved with their own development
and visualizes the utility of what they are learning for their territory. It also allows
them to evidence the impact that science can have in our lives, and generate the need
for ecojustice (Roth, 2010).

10.2.3 Ecofeminist Principles and Transformation from

the School

From the dialogues between deep ecology and feminism, Ecofeminism allows us to
reflect on domination, exploitation and appropriation of nature, interpreting human
relationships and the subjection of women with this perspective. This is part of the
foundation of the capitalist and patriarchal system (Federici, 2018) which
invisibilizes the tasks associated to reproduction and care, such as children’s care,
supply for basic needs, health promotion, emotional support, or social participation.
Therefore, we deem adequate to adopt the perspectives of critical Ecofeminism
(Puleo, 2016) and Ecofeminism of the South (Svampa, 2015) to question the current
development model, which affects environmentally degraded territories. It results
appropriate then, to consider these ecofeminist principles, as a contribution to
building processes of socio-environmental transformation from the school:
Acknowledgement of interdependence between people, and with nature (ecodependence)
(Escribano, 2017): it opens the possibility to question social relationships and its forms of
reproduction in school. It invites us to understand human interdependence and the genera-
tion of relationships for survival and mutual support.
Overcoming the anthropocentric vision and placing life sustainability at the center: The
principles of feminist economy (Pérez Orozco, 2014) incorporate an integration of the
production-reproduction tasks from the ethics of care, along to judging valuable all kinds
of knowledge (Korol, 2016).
Creation of a new world vision anchored in the ecologic culture of equity, in the face of
current social injustice scenarios that result in the violation of human rights and the
destruction of nature (Escribano, 2017).
Highlight the importance of relationships for survival and wellbeing, to address objec-
tives in a collaborative manner and overcome individualism (Bernardos et al., 2020).

10.3 Experiences of Chilean Science Teachers

in Environmental Degraded Areas: From In-Service
Teacher Education to Citizen Education

The three experiences that we analyze take place in the Aconcagua Valley, in the
region of Valparaiso. We have been working for several years with schoolteachers,
specifically from public schools that serve the more vulnerable areas of the popula-
tion. Many of them live in environmental degraded areas, where many people do not
have running water at home, and if they do, it is contaminated. Case 1 refers to
174 C. González-Weil et al.

teachers from Los Andes province, the mountain area of the valley, that were part of
a continued education program that promotes inquiry oriented towards the use of
territory as scenario for critical scientific literacy. Case 2 focuses on a teacher from
the same area, suffering a mega-draught, aggravated by the settling of monocultures
and mining activity. Case 3 refers to a teacher from Puchuncaví, a coastal area of the
valley, severely impacted by industrial pollution. From a territorial, critical and
ecofeminist perspective, we address these three experiences, and ask these questions:
1. How do teachers relate to their territory and how is this relationship identified in
the accounts of their educational practices?
2. What sense do they give to their practices and how do their accounts substantiate
the promotion of critical thinking aspects in their students?
3. Which principles of ecofeminism can be identified in teachers and their narratives
of their educational practices?
4. What are the difficulties of teaching science in an environmentally degraded
territory?
In order to answer them, we analyze individual and group written records and
teachers’ interviews. The names are pseudonyms.

10.3.1 Case 1: Understanding Together the Sense

of Educating in Sciences Through the Relationship
Between Science Education and Territory

Since 2015, the Chilean Ministry of Education promotes ICEC (Scientific Inquiry
for Science Education), an In-Service Teacher Education Program for the public
system. It seeks the professional development of science teachers through collabo-
rative work promoting the generation of learning communities. In our region, the
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso is one of two in charge of the program.
Throughout these 5 years, we have sought to integrate the territorial component and
the use of socio-scientific issues, encouraging participants to identify problems of
their territory and use them for their teaching. Within this context we focus on three
sessions (4 h each), in which 29 teachers of the Aconcagua Valley were invited to
reflect on problems of their community and think together about possible ways to
address them in teaching. For the purposes of this analysis, we examine individual
and group written records. We highlight the use of narratives about their professional
practice, the collaborative reflection regarding teaching practices that generates
learning and the use of socio-scientific issues and planning tools, for the design of
teaching sequences with a territorial focus.
10 Teaching Science in Chilean Environmentally Degraded Areas: An Analysis. . . 175

10.3.1.1 How Is Science Teaching Understood in a Professional

Education Community?

Activity 1: In 7 groups of 4–5 participants, teachers discussed about the sense of

science education, around the questions: (a) What is for me the purpose of science
education? (b) How can knowing science help my students in their everyday
lives? (c) How can I link science teaching with the context of my students? and
(d) How can I link science with current social events1?
About the purpose of science education and the role of science knowledge in
students’ lives, teachers consider that they include: (a) Generating in students an
understanding of themselves and their environment, helping them acknowledge that
science is present in their everyday lives. (2) Training students to develop the
abilities of discovery, research and reflection, promoting curiosity and bringing
them closer to the world of science (3) Promoting CT and the ability to apply what
has been learned in order to solve problems of everyday life and (4) Promoting
environment care. Teacher 4 in Group 2 offers an example:
[knowing science] Helps them to be citizens that understand their environment, the pro-
cesses and events that affect their everyday life, it helps them to make better decisions, to
develop abilities they can apply in other fields, and also to understand how their actions
have an impact on the planet.

Regarding the link between science education and the students’ environment,
considering the social crisis in our country, teachers mention that: (1) Teaching must
be based on students’ knowledge, considering their interests and experiences and use
their contexts as a setting, carrying out activities that relate what they learned with
their life. (2) Teaching must be oriented towards students learning to take care of
themselves (e.g., nutrition), and of the environment, promoting awareness in the
good use of natural resources (as water). (3) Reflection must be promoted among
students, as well as social awareness, CT and better knowledge of national issues, so
they can become agents of change in their communities. When talking about the
national situation, teachers refer to specific topics, such as the water crisis, the
quality of the health system and the pollution of the environment.
Group 6 concludes: “[as teachers we must] Achieve significant learning, consid-
ering the context of each student so we can educate agents of change that are
responsible for their environment”.
In addition, Teacher 2 of Group 3 proposes: “That students achieve their own
critical thinking about issues and base it on information they manage in order to
defend their ideals”.

1
On October 18, 2019, a strong social outbreak began in Chile, an expression of great citizen
discontent triggered by a high level of inequity and abuse. This outbreak was characterized by
massive demonstrations and riots, as well as great police repression that led to the loss of human
lives and massive eye losses. This situation led to the suspension of on-site classes in Schools and a
reformulation of the teaching role.
176 C. González-Weil et al.

10.3.1.2 What Is the Focus of the Groups’ Lesson Plans? Views

for a Teaching Sequence on “Water”

During the second session, teachers analyzed, in groups, the problem “What do I
make for dinner?” The activity allowed teachers to relate an everyday decision to
aspects of science learning, such as pyramids of energy and biomass, the salmon
culture in Chile and socio-environmental significant crises such as the red tide and its
relation to tons of salmon thrown to sea in the Island of Chiloé. Then, they
constructed collective definitions for critical scientific literacy and used an analysis
tool in order to generate classroom proposals, considering their reflections. After
working in groups they presented their results in a plenary session.
Activity 2: Use of an analysis tool of the content to be taught for the creation of
learning proposals with a focus on critical scientific literacy.
In order to describe teacher proposals, we examine the answers of three groups
that proposed similar topics related to water. The analysis tool of the content to be
taught was a schema that includes 6 elements related to critical scientific literacy
(CSL) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). It required teachers to discuss
around: (1) Selected concept, (2) Key idea, (3) Relation with social, political and
economic aspects, (4) Learning difficulties and student’s interests, (5) Teaching
strategies and resources and (6) Possible actions and strategies for evaluation. A
summary of the results of the three groups is presented in Table 10.1:

10.3.1.3 Teachers Report Their Own Learning

At the end of the third session 26 (of 29) teachers answered a “ticket out” that include
the following questions: What did I learn today? and How does my learning modify
my classroom practice?. Figure 10.1 summarizes the analysis of the categories in
their answers: Curriculum, Teacher, Context and Student, with the references to
each. How teachers view: (a) themselves: they stress the importance of fostering a
critical scientific literacy focus and they state the importance of analysis tools such
as the one used for the analysis of content, to intentionally use activities promoting
students’ critical and scientific literacy; (b) the pedagogical context: they refer to a
vision of science teaching centered in the relations of their students to the political,
cultural and social world; in their narrative they refer to socio-scientific issues as
vehicles that allow their students to develop scientific thinking to be able to respond
in the aforementioned scenarios; (c) their students: considered as decision-making
subjects; teachers should consider students’ interests and daily life situations to
support a student-centered science learning; (d) the curriculum: they account for
two dimensions, the concept of “key idea”, however, when highlighting their own
learning, they only mention the concepts or “keywords” learned during the session.
10 Teaching Science in Chilean Environmentally Degraded Areas: An Analysis. . . 177

Table 10.1 Teacher analysis of the content “Water”

Selected concept Teachers propose that the concept to be taught be simply
water, or the problem associated to it (draught)
Key idea Proposed in three ways as a: concept: “Care of the Environ-
ment”; brief scientific idea: “Water is a fundamental element
for life”; socio-environmental problem: “We are running out
of water, therefore, it is necessary to take care of its use and
do so in a responsible manner, recycle and preserve the
available water sources”.
Relation with social, political Learning about water should involve an understanding of the
and economic aspects context: “It is necessary to become aware of inequalities
regarding access to water”, as well as to understand that
“there are no policies that regulate the use of water in our
territories”. Teachers point out that it is important to consider
real situations, such as "the use of large amounts of water for
mining, to the detriment of other essential uses" or “Animal
feed shortage”. It is also important to develop attitudes, such
as awareness and collaborative work that lead students to take
a position on environmental problems and promote water care
actions for the local community.
Learning difficulties and stu- References to three dimensions: (a) Students' previous ideas
dent’s interests that hinder learning: “Water is an inexhaustible resource” or
“students do not place freshwater or seawater within the
water cycle”. (b) Attitudes: lack of awareness or interest from
the students and their families (c) Pedagogical context or local
territory: little availability of safe water in their territories,
social reality and levels of water care.
Teaching strategies and Mentions of experience – based learning, the use of concrete
resources material (models), and inquiry projects, like the design and
application of a survey to know about water use habits in the
community or the comparison of images of the river at dif-
ferent years
Possible actions and strategies Proposal of a call to action to students, through communi-
for evaluation cating the results of their inquiring: “Presenting conclusions
at the School” “Radio program and use of social networks”.
Propose actions oriented towards citizen participation: “Cre-
ation of a water care brigade”, “Publicly denounce products
that use more water for their production”, “Design posters
about the good use of water at home”.

Teachers also mention in their responses that they would require more courses or
tools to relate the curriculum with the formative goal of critical scientific literacy. We
interpret this as declarative statements that would reach greater development when
they elaborate proposals to address real territorial issues.
178 C. González-Weil et al.

Fig. 10.1 Vision of Science Education held by teachers participating in an in-service teacher
education program with a focus on scientific inquiry. (n) indicates the number of participants
(N 26). The categories of the teachers’ responses in their “ticket out” are displayed, indicating the
presence of the subcategory in their writings

10.3.2 Case 2: To Include Students, the Experience of a

Teacher in the City of Los Andes

The truth is that I could not find a more beautiful profession, where what you give comes
back to you, as it happens in teaching [. . .] To do what I do, makes me very happy [. . .]. I
feel that I don’t work alone. If I have questions I can ask around, now I have a network of
colleagues to go to. . . (Paula, teacher from Los Andes).

Paula is a high school biology teacher currently working in a school in the city of
Los Andes; their students are between 13 and 18 years old. She lives with her 8-year
old daughter and her 81-year old mother. She describes herself as busquilla,2 since
she finds different job opportunities such as selling clothes, making jewelry or nail
art, whatever brings extra income to the family. Among her academic achievements,
she has participated twice in the ICEC Program, in addition to an in-depth course on
inquiry. Paula has carried out scientific inquiry projects with her students, achieving
recognition at city and national levels. She is currently leading and coordinating the
ICEC teacher science network in her city. She is a mother, daughter, sister, aunt,
friend, teacher, homemaker, guide and partner. Throughout time she took on the role
of supporting and guiding the teacher science community, showing a disposition to
collaborative work focused on service and peer accompanying. She keeps a trusting
relationship with her students, centered on dialogue and their interests. She describes
herself as a caring and understanding teacher when it comes to the different interests
of the kids, especially teenagers.

2
In Chile, a person that is ingenious and persistent regarding the search for sources of income.
10 Teaching Science in Chilean Environmentally Degraded Areas: An Analysis. . . 179

10.3.2.1 Highly Degraded Territory and Citizens’ Response

Paula’s description of her territory is based on comparison: she explicitly mentions

marked differences between the space she now inhabits and the one of her childhood.
The accounts of her grandmother, mother and her childhood memories describe an
environmental deterioration of her territory “[. . .] the river does not catch your
attention as it did when I was a child, when you travel to San Esteban or San Felipe
and go through the bridges, you can see only drops of water coming [. . .] before, the
water flow was such that you could hear it from blocks away [. . .] there is a
completely different vegetation, it doesn’t rain like before, [. . .] the water has a
strange smell, like that of a disinfectant [. . .]”. She refers to urban growth, the
decrease of the water flow of the Aconcagua river, which crosses her city, and
pollution, “[. . .] the problem we have with the mining company, [is that] they have
their “good neighbor” slogan but in fact they are not so good neighbors because
they produce waste and always discharge their tailing to the river”. The exploitation
of natural resources, such as water, directly affected by pollution and extraction,
appears as the greatest impact in the Aconcagua river basin, where the draught takes
its toll on the most defenseless ones, such as the small-scale farmers that cannot
compete with big producers of the area, as avocado exportation. Water became an
economic good when Chile turned into the only country in the world to privatize this
public resource, under the concept of Right to Water. Paula tells the story of a
relative that can pay for their right to water only once a week, for a couple of hours.
“[. . .] Suddenly we arrived at a canal and my cousin says: This is where these guys
keep the water! The canal was almost overflowing, and my cousin receives a very
small flow of water once a week. She and her husband work, and if the water arrives
and they are not there, they lose it.” In this context, the teacher has promoted, along
with her friends and neighbors, different actions at home and neighborhood levels,
such as the installation of filters to purify greywater. She also mentions how the
members of the group have organized irrigation “[. . .] we give each other informa-
tion among neighbors [. . .] it is hard for me because I don’t have a filter, but I still
go and water the crops using cans, it is good exercise”. The community is organized
around different activities, such as recycling and the maintenance of plastic collec-
tion containers, something she values and encourages.
Among the initiatives around the water problem, Paula mentions collaborative
work carried out with teachers from schools in San Felipe and Los Andes, part of the
ICEC Program. Together they designed projects specifically related to the Aconca-
gua river. “[. . .] in fact, all teachers from this area had water-related research.
[My colleague] wanted to investigate heavy metals found in the water in an area of
the river and I was researching “how irrigation with river water affects plants”. The
river was important to us”. As a group, they started to review their research
documentation, which allowed them to gain deeper knowledge into the water
issue. This research led them to become a part of a city initiative in which they
expressed their rejection to a mining project, which through the expansion of
excavation works, endangered 18 rock glaciers and five white glaciers, which,
180 C. González-Weil et al.

because of their closeness to the mining company sites, became a threat to them. This
caused a generalized rejection from these local groups, and the mining company
decided not to carry out the project. “[. . .] we made a lot of noise with that; we
moved a lot. [. . .] they closed the group [. . .] in fact the woman that led the group
had to disappear for a while [. . .] we even held secret meetings”. Paula’s partici-
pation, along with other teachers in her High School ended when the school principal
forbade them from being a part of this investigation “[. . .] at that time a colleague
and I were very much committed to continue with the investigations, but our school
principal at the time told me: be careful, do not mess with them [the mining
company]”. Considering this, Paula put her research project aside.

10.3.2.2 Classroom Practices in the Local Context and Development

of Critical Thinking

In her teaching, Paula considers the narrative itself to be a process that creates
meaning. She tells stories to her students, which somehow allows them to connect
with the territory they inhabit, as a way to develop CT. “[. . .] I try to integrate
critical thinking as much as possible [. . .] I like to tell stories in my classes, Did you
know that?... when I was a kid. . .my friend told me, etc.. . .what I do is transport
them to a comparison of what I am telling them and reality. [. . .] when the student
feels close to something, not just something that is being told to them but that they
live daily, they start to get involved in their learning”. Paula states that she
encourages scientific inquiry as a methodological approach in her teaching. “[. . .] I
love when they ask questions! It is difficult for them at the beginning”. To get
students involved with territorial environmental problems is a way to direct their
interest towards inquiry, “[. . .] I feel that when you teach you have to not only deliver
content but also the tools so they can continue to develop [. . .] we have to be very
realistic as teachers and bring the content to their reality and current situation [. . .]
sometimes there is something that catches their attention and they discuss it in
wonderful debates. [. . .] I don’t mind if I feel I am straying away from the content, I
let them continue since I feel there is much gain in this”. Inquiry can be developed
from different approaches, however if it is linked to the territory learning would be
more significant. Paula carries out research with her students, such as to establish
relationships between the contamination of the Aconcagua river water that is used
for irrigation and the growth of vegetables. The research lines developed in the
classroom invite students to participate in different aspects of scientific research and
the understanding of how scientific knowledge is generated, which is a crucial aspect
for the development of critical scientific literacy. “[. . .] Students in general are used
to receive everything already done, and to be told what to do or what not to do. I like
to bring about this in class and have them think and research. It is important that
kids experience it”.
10 Teaching Science in Chilean Environmentally Degraded Areas: An Analysis. . . 181

10.3.3 Case 3: Critical Scientific Literacy Outside School

We have an industrial ring that started with a few thermoelectrical units and this has grown
exponentially. Suddenly we have an industrial system with many companies and most of
them polute. This has impacted the whole ecosystem: air, earth and sea.
Collaborative work is fundamental in order to generate something that will impact the
communities, something that is relevant. For this, each actor has to get involved in the
action (Marisol, teacher from Puchuncaví).

Marisol is an elementary and special education teacher in the School Integration

Program (PIE, for its name in Spanish) in a school located in the Las Ventanas
community, in the city of Puchuncaví. She is also a singer in a traditional folk group
from La Greda, enjoys Latin American music and playing the guitar. There, she says,
she has connected with students: “Being a teacher and a woman is a great challenge,
especially in areas of high vulnerability. To connect with them is very important, to
their lives. What this job entails is much deeper than providing knowledge and
content, and implies values that go beyond this”. The vulnerability of this territory,
she tells us, is marked by environmental deterioration, which has directly affected
the health of boys and girls, resulting in a high rate of students with learning
difficulties associated to their neurodevelopment, along with respiratory problems,
asthma and cancer. After these consequences were made evident, in addition to mass
intoxication episodes which affected the La Greda school, among others, the popu-
lation has achieved greater ecological awareness. This is directly related to the role
of some social movements, comprised by teachers and other inhabitants, who have
promoted CT through raising awareness about the socio-environmental conflict and
the deterioration caused by industries located in the area. At the same time, she says
that youth has had a great participation, joining this struggle in a significant way.

10.3.3.1 Building Collaborative Work in the Community

As a consequence of socio-environmental damage caused by the development of the

industrial ring, in which most companies are highly contaminating, Marisol has
made relevant social and political decisions, joining a group of residents of the
Quintero – Puchuncaví bay, formed 15 years ago, called “Communities for the Right
to Life”. According to her account, this group responds to a form of collective self-
organization in the face of the contamination that during the 1990s “had no filter”.
They began to work for the environmental literacy of the population, raising
awareness about these problems: “we would go to the communities, the small
towns, neighborhood councils and we showed them videos so that people could be
aware of what was happening to them”. This task continued and encouraged the
generation of socio-environmental movements; among them the “Women of Sacri-
fice Zones in Resistance” network has emerged strongly. This group of women has
had a center stage role in the visibilization of the conflict and the violation of rights in
this territory. Among their characteristics we can highlight the generation of support
182 C. González-Weil et al.

networks through different organizations, Human Rights, International Courts, the

support of scholars and experts in health issues, ecosystems, biology and chemistry,
NGO’s that, together with the population’s environmental education and literacy,
have led them to present the socio-environmental degradation happening in the
territory to different media and at different scales.

10.3.3.2 Critical Scientific Literacy Outside of School in Highly

Deteriorated Territories

For this Puchuncaví teacher, the integration of the pedagogical practice in the fight
against pollution has been a difficult path to travel. First, because her school has a
direct relationship with the polluting companies, through a system that facilitates the
future entrance of students as workers of these industries: “here we have our
differences, it is difficult, so we have to leave it here, we cannot go further. But we
can move forward through the different organizations outside the school”. This is
the first obstacle hindering implementation of critical scientific literacy initiatives
within the School. Especially in territories that have been highly degraded and
intervened by the industrial businesses, where their dynamics of introducing them-
selves within the communities, and compensating them, are characterized by mate-
rial and financial incentives: “That’s why is so hard [...]. . . here it is hard to fight
against the powerful”. From this perspective, education becomes a form of resis-
tance of a political nature, and at the same time, action-oriented educational practices
are faced with limitations. In spite of this, she states that outside school, students
participate of rallies and protests around the city that end at the doors of the
industries. These spaces enable to articulate and highlight the importance of different
knowledge among the citizens, where they complement the artistic dimension
through music, dance, theater interventions, with discussion groups – assemblies
with fishermen and meetings with scientists, dialogues with communication media,
among others.

10.3.3.3 Education of Critical Citizenship in Interdisciplinary Spaces

About critical citizenship, Marisol suggests that Citizenship Education can be one of
the fields through which topics related to socio-environmental contamination and
degradation could be addressed from a CT perspective in school, considering “the
importance of the role they can play in decision making when they elect their
authorities and how these elections can affect the interests of the community”.
She emphasizes the importance of integration of knowledge in collaborative and
interdisciplinary spaces, through the participation of boys and girls in talks, “Pre-
sentations by experts, doctors, environmentalists, human rights representatives”,
artistic events, rallies, demonstrations, workshops on environmental issues. These
allow students to “express their feelings on the environmental topic”. On the other
hand, she considers essential to strengthen student organization, and empower them
10 Teaching Science in Chilean Environmentally Degraded Areas: An Analysis. . . 183

on this topic. Marisol states that collaborative work can generate changes that impact
communities “and for this every actor must get involved in the action”. In this sense,
it is possible to observe the socio-environmental problem through a space where
each collaborator can contribute with their own abilities, generating together a work
of value.

10.4 Discussion and Implications

Teaching science in a territory marked by socio-environmental degradation faces

teachers with certain dilemmas, both inside the school, and in the development of
their role as a political subject of the territory the reside in. Often, the promotion of
actions motivated by critical scientific literacy is limited in schools that receive
financial incentives from polluting companies, or in students that have families
whose only income comes from them. This hinders the development of CT, which
also involves students’ formation of independent opinions (Jiménez-Aleixandre &
Puig, this book), given that censorship, sometimes explicit, exists in educational
spaces. Overcoming these obstacles requires, firstly, to address socio-environmental
problems from a socio-scientific perspective, that will allow its understanding as a
contextualized problem, enhancing a territorial approach that is anchored in the local
reality of each school. Secondly, the incorporation of ecofeminist perspectives to
educational practices could support the promotion of attitudes, such as collaboration,
equity, wellbeing and a harmonic relationship with nature, opening new paths for
transformation (Rodríguez & Herrero, 2017).

10.4.1 Educational Practices Contextualized to the Territory

The teachers that collaborated with this study possess a high sense of territorial
awareness, associated to a critical vision about the socio-environmental conflicts in
their territories. This leads them to promote, in different ways, critical thinking and
science teaching from a situated knowledge (Camacho-González, 2020). For the
teachers participating in the in-service science teacher education program, we
identify the need to know their students and the territory they inhabit in order to
design contextualized learning opportunities, so they could apply what they have
learned to everyday life. In the case of Paula, territory becomes a setting for the
development of scientific practices, which goes hand in hand with educating citizens
that are able to understand the world and make everyday decisions.
We can see that in the three cases strong ideas emerge related to critical scientific
literacy and teaching for life within the local context. At the same time, participation
in professional learning communities supports teacher practice on the use of new
knowledge and the promotion of change in collaboration with others (Taotao Long
et al., 2019). In this sense, the Inquiry program discussed in the first case creates
184 C. González-Weil et al.

dynamic spaces that invite to (1) question one’s own vision about science education
(2) build a collective vision of science education (3) make science education
territory-related, based on collaboration. These spaces seem to have great relevance
for promoting socially active professional trajectories. The exchange of experiences
and the construction of common visions allows for the development of didactic
proposals that expand the initial visions of teachers.

10.4.2 Promotion of Critical Thinking Inside and Outside

of the Classroom

The development of CT can be identified in different levels in their narratives. In the

case of the teachers in the program, the importance of promoting CT in students is
declared in a generic way. This is associated to reflection about the problems of the
territory, both locally and nationally, in order to become agents of change. This
agrees with the aspects pertaining to critical thinking proposed by Jiménez-Aleix-
andre & Puig (this book), in relation to developing the ability to reflect about the
world surrounding us and our participation in it. In the accounts offered by Paula,
development of CT is rather associated to the development of scientific abilities and
assessment of knowledge from evidence, which the teacher promotes through
inquiry projects that use the territory as the scenario and propose to evaluate the
impact of environmental issues in situ.
For Marisol the purpose of her teaching practice is directly related to her
conception as a political subject within the area she resides in. She takes out of the
classroom proposals that promote the development of their own opinions through
CT, among other performances (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, this book). This
includes networking with other community actors, scientists, experts and social
leaders that strengthens students’ own opinion, through access to knowledge includ-
ing different points of view. This would support the development of a sense of
children and youth as agents of transformation of their local reality (Moura & Silva,
2018), encouraging some eco-social values related to the consolidation of an orga-
nized critical citizenship (Rodríguez & Herrero, 2017).
According to Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig (this book), the selection of the differ-
ent socio-scientific topics that teachers consider appropriate to include in their
teaching, would support the development of scientific argumentation. In the case
of Paula from Los Andes, she selects, on one hand, the issues that emerge from the
extraction and contamination of natural resources such as water, and on the other,
she uses a methodology with a focus on scientific inquiry, which allows to obtain
evidence for the questions proposed by students. According to the authors, one of the
fundamental aspects of argumentation and critical thinking develops through the
appropriation of scientific practices. The teacher fosters debates in her classes where
students can choose between one position or another.
10 Teaching Science in Chilean Environmentally Degraded Areas: An Analysis. . . 185

10.4.3 Principles of Ecofeminism That Facilitate

the Development of Critical Thinking

As a concluding thought, we propose that it is relevant to take into account those

principles of ecofeminism that would help in the development of a critical scientific
literacy based on the analyzed cases. Our analysis points to the importance of
collaborative spaces, understood as the foundation of the weave of life itself, both
inside and outside the classroom. From an ecofeminist perspective, the recognition
of the relationships for survival, makes it possible to replace an anthropocentric
vision for another one that places life sustainability at the center (Pérez Orozco,
2014), valuing, above all, local knowledge, support networks and interdependence
within the territory. In turn, the incorporation of multiple knowledges that facilitate
the development of critical thinking (Jiménez-Aleixandre and Puig, this book),
would allow to problematize the ways of life imposed by the development model
(Korol, 2016), especially in territories affected by neo-extractivism (Machado, 2012;
Merchand, 2016). This opens new reflection spaces around the ecological crisis,
encouraging thinking about environmental justice. Therefore, as these principles are
incorporated to the educational practices, it is possible to build new ways towards an
ecological culture of equality (Escribano, 2017), for the creation of a transforming
educational practice.

Acknowledgments We thank all the teachers who shared their experiences with us, and who,
despite the circumstances, do their best to improve the education of children and young people who
inhabit environmentally degraded territories. Moreover, they see in them the hope of a generation
that establishes fairer relationships with society and the environment.

References

Acosta, A., & Machado, D. (2012). Movimientos comprometidos con la vida. Ambientalismos y
conflictos actuales en América Latina. OSAL, 13(32), 67–94.
Bencze, L., & Carter, L. (2011). Globalizing Students Acting for the Common Good. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 48 (6), 648–669.
Bencze, L. (2017). STEPWISE: A framework prioritizing altruistic actions to address
Socioscientific issues. In L. Bencze (Ed.), Science and technology education promoting
wellbeing for individuals, societies and environments (pp. 19–45). Springer.
Bernardos, A., Martínez, I., & Solbes, I. (2020). Vínculos y comunidad: Introducción de la ética del
cuidado en educación a través de estructuras participativas. Diversidade e Educação, 8,
195–212.
Bolados García, P., & Sánchez Cuevas, A. (2017). Una ecología política feminista en construcción:
El caso de las "Mujeres de zonas de sacrificio en resistencia", Región de Valparaíso, Chile.
Psicoperspectivas, 16(2), 33–42.
Camacho-González, J. P. (2020). Educación Científica, reflexiones y propuestas desde los
feminismos. Revista Científica, 38(2), 190–200.
186 C. González-Weil et al.

Edwards, J. (2016). Socially-critical environmental education in primary classrooms. Springer.

EJatlas. (2020). The Global Atlas of Environmental Justice. www.ejatlas.org. Accessed 7 Mar 2020.
Escribano, R. (2017). Tejiendo lazos entre el ecofeminismo crítico y la educación para el desarrollo.
Géneros, 21(2), 151–164.
Federici, S. (2018). El Patriarcado del Salario. Críticas feministas al marxismo. Traficantes de
Sueños.
Foster, J., & Clark, B. (2012). The planetary emergency. Monthly Review, 64, 1–25.
Haraway, D. (1991). Conocimientos situados: la cuestión científica en el feminismo y el privilegio
de la perspectiva parcial. In D. Haraway (Ed.), Ciencia, cyborgs y mujeres: La reinvención de la
naturaleza (pp. 313–346). Ediciones Cátedra.
INDH. (2020). Mapa de conflictos socioambientales en Chile. https://mapaconflictos.indh.cl/#/.
Accessed 10 Mar 2020.
IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5 degrees. https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf.
Accessed 15 Mar 2020.
Korol, C. (2016). Feminismos populares. Pedagogías y políticas. El Colectivo.
Lander, E. (2014). El Neoextractivismo como modelo de desarrollo en América Latina y sus
contradicciones. Heinrich Böll-Stiftung. https://mx.boell.org/sites/default/files/edgardolander.
pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2019.
Liberona, F., & Ramírez, H. (2019). Antecedentes y reflexiones sobre la zona de sacrificio de
Quintero y Puchuncaví. Cuadernos médico sociales, 59(1), 21–31.
Machado, H. (2012). Los dolores de Nuestra América y la condición neocolonial. Extractivismo y
biopolítica de la expropiación. OSAL, 13(32), 51–66.
Merchand, M. (2016). Neoextractivismo y conflictos ambientales en América Latina. Espiral,
23(66), 155–192.
Ministerio de Justicia de Chile. (1981). DFL 1122 Fija texto Código de Aguas. https://www.
leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma¼5605. Accessed 8 Mar 2020.
MODATIMA (Movimiento de Defensa por el acceso al Agua, la Tierra y la Protección del
Medioambiente). (2014). Recuperación del agua y defensa de la vida. http://modatima.
cl/2014/10/19/recuperacion-del-agua-defensa-la-vida/. Accessed 15 Apr 2020.
Moura, B. A., & Silva, C. C. (2018). Critical and transformative teachers: A rationale for history and
philosophy of science in teacher education. In M. E. B. Prestes & C. C. Silva (Eds.), Teaching
science with context, science: Philosophy, history and education (pp. 3–13). Springer.
OLCA (Observatorio Latinoamericano de Conflictos Ambientales). (2015). Expansión de Codelco
Andina 244: Una amenaza a los Glaciares, el Agua y la Vida del Valle del Aconcagua. https://
www.ocmal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Expansion-de-Codelco-Andina-244.pdf.
Accessed 13 Mar 2020.
Pérez Orozco, A. (2014). Subversión feminista de la economía. Aportes para un debate sobre el
conflicto capital-vida. Traficantes de Sueños.
Puleo, A. (2016). Ecofeminismo para otro mundo posible. Ediciones Cátedra.
Rodríguez, V., & Herrero, Y. (2017). Claves para la construcción de un proyecto educativo
transformador. In E. Assadourian (Ed.), Educación ecosocial, cómo educar frente a la crisis
ecológica (pp. 331–347). Icaria Editorial.
Roth, W. (2010). Local matters, EcoJustice, and community: Opportunities of village life for
teaching science. In D. J. Tippins et al. (Eds.), Cultural studies and environmentalism
(pp. 51–82). Dordrecht.
Sadler, T. (2011). Situating socio-scientific issues in classrooms as a means of achieving goals of
science education. In T. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom (pp. 1–10).
Dordrecht.
Saravia Ramos, P., Armingol Jaime, K., & Garland Castro, B. (2016). El derrame de petróleo en
Quintero, V región de Chile. Una mirada desde las organizaciones sociales. Población &
Sociedad, 23(2), 179–206.
10 Teaching Science in Chilean Environmentally Degraded Areas: An Analysis. . . 187

Sjöström, J., & Eilks, I. (2018). Reconsidering different visions of scientific literacy and science
education based on the concept of Bildung. In Y. J. Dori, Z. Mevarech, & D. Baker (Eds.),
Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education (pp. 65–88). Springer.
Svampa, M. (2012). Consenso de los commodities, giro ecoterritorial y pensamiento crítico en
América Latina. OSAL, 13(32), 15–38.
Svampa, M. (2015). Feminismos del sur y ecofeminismos. Nueva Sociedad, 256, 127–131.
Taotao, L., Guoqing, Z., Xuanyang, Y., Rongchi, Z., & Qianqian, C. (2019). Bridging the belief-
action gap in a teachers’ professional learning community on teaching of thinking. Professional
Development in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1647872
Vilches, A., & Gil Pérez, D. (2007). Emergencia planetaria: necesidad de un planteamiento global.
Educatio Siglo XXI, 25, 19–49.
Chapter 11
Spatial and Temporal Dynamics in Climate
Change Education Discourse:
An Ecolinguistic Perspective

Asli Sezen-Barrie, Joseph A. Henderson, and Andrea L. Drewes

11.1 Re-imagining Climate Change Education for Next

Generations

Modern, human-caused climate change is altering the physical world faster than
prior, non-human caused climatic changes, and it has already shown disastrous
impacts through floods, droughts, extinctions, and more intense storms (Mann,
2012). With a high degree of certainty, scientists state that human activity since
the Industrial Revolution is the main reason behind modern climate change and its
impacts (Dessler, 2011). Younger generations are increasingly aware of the global
climate change problem as accumulated scientific evidence continues to show the
human impact on the climate (Hamilton et al., 2019). Despite the scientific knowl-
edge available, the climate change problem seems to be getting worse (Gardiner,
2006). The worry is that coming generations will suffer more from the impacts of
modern climate change, and this has led to children leading calls to action. During
her speech at the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, then 15-year-old climate activist Greta
Thunberg said: “You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are
stealing their future in front of their very eyes” (Thunberg, 2018).

A. Sezen-Barrie (*)
School of Learning and Teaching & Research in STEM Education Center, University of Maine,
Orono, ME, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
J. A. Henderson
Department of Environment & Society, Paul Smith’s College, Paul Smiths, NY, USA
A. L. Drewes
Department of Graduate Education, Leadership, and Counseling, Rider University,
Lawrenceville, NJ, USA

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 189
B. Puig, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), Critical Thinking in Biology
and Environmental Education, Contributions from Biology Education Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_11
190 A. Sezen-Barrie et al.

This call toward social action is important to us as both climate change education
scholars and as parents of young children who are more likely to struggle with the
impacts of climate change. The three of us had the opportunity to work on a climate
change education project (National Science Foundation Grant #1239758) across
schools in Maryland and Delaware in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States.
In these settings, we have seen many educators who are committed to learn and teach
climate change and who care about their students, the next generation. However, our
work has shown how despite climate change targeted professional development,
challenges remain and questions linger for educators enacting climate change teach-
ing in the classroom (Drewes et al., 2020; Shea et al., 2016). But more importantly,
our work has also shown that despite educators’ intentions to teach evidence-based
explanations on how human activity causes modern climatic changes, many teachers
were also ready to accept the inaccurate, nonscientific debates distributed through
the media (Sezen-Barrie et al., 2019). Therefore, we argue that to be informed
citizens on the climate change problems that the next generations will face, it is
not sufficient to read about climate change, but learners must also develop critical
thinking skills to judge the scientific knowledge being read. This chapter focuses on
how students develop critical thinking skills about climate change evidence,
impacts, and solutions to make local and individual meaning of what is ultimately
a global and unequally distributed collective action problem.

11.2 Critical Thinking and Scientific Learning

In his book, How We Think, John Dewey highlighted critical thinking as “active,
persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in
the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends”
(1910, p. 6; 1933, p. 9). Dewey’s writings brought attention to the role of philosophy
in developing a system to critique our belief systems and our suppositions about
everyday phenomena. Dewey highlighted the scientists’ habits as more than objec-
tifying the eternal truth and formed the basis of focusing on critical thinking for
educating citizens. Later, Glaser in 1941 mentioned that despite having a literate
electorate in the United States, the public lacks the skill of evaluating “critically what
they read” (pp. 4–5). In his definition of critical thinking, Glaser highlighted
evidence based thinking as well as the use of logical inquiry and reasoning. Since
the 1980s, critical thinking has been a popular topic in research (e.g., Glaser, 1985;
National Council on Education Standards, & US Dept. of Education, 1992).
Researchers saw critical thinking not only as a higher order skill to tackle academic
tasks (e.g., Halpern, 1998), but also as a skill with political meaning that helps
citizens critically question claims (e.g., Fenton & Smith, 2019; McLaren & Giarelli,
1996).
Critical thinking has a crucial place in scientific research. The ideas and theories
in science become stronger as they are defended when they are critically questioned
by peers during lab meetings, symposia, and other scientific meetings (Latour &
Woolgar, 1986). Since our goal in science education is to show students
11 Spatial and Temporal Dynamics in Climate Change Education Discourse: An. . . 191

the authentic work of scientists, critical thinking should be part of science learning
activities (Osborne, 2014). Unfortunately though, science is taught in schools “more
as a dogma – a set of unequivocal, uncontested, and unquestionable facts – more
akin to the way people are indoctrinated into a faith than into a critical, questioning
community” (Osborne, 2014, p. 54). In order to change this view of teaching
science, recent research has a strong emphasis on the practice of scientific argumen-
tation (e.g., Driver et al., 2000; Erduran & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2008; McNeill &
Krajcik, 2009). If we want instruction on scientific argumentation in science learning
environments to provide an epistemic window into the world of scientists, teachers
and students need to develop an understanding of the distinct epistemic practices of
disciplinary cultures of science (Kelly et al., 2000; Knorr Cetina, 1999). These
disciplinary practices can determine the nature of critical questions we raise to
evaluate the arguments. For example, we can ask about repeated observations on
how the length of a pendulum impacts its swing counts. On the other hand, to
evaluate the strength of plate tectonics theory, we will need to ask what geologic
activity (volcanic, topographic, seismic) we see common on the plate boundaries
(Sawyer et al., 2005).
Drawn from Dewey (1910) and Glaser (1941), we see critical thinking as the
ability to judge the beliefs, assumptions, and propositions while considering the role
of evidence in the (re)construction of scientific knowledge. Therefore, we agree with
the science education scholar’s view that teaching based on evidence is at the center
of scientific learning (Osborne, 2011). In order to evaluate the strength of evidence
and ask critical questions, we should not only understand the culture of science, but
the cultures of each subfield of science (Kelly et al., 2000; Knorr Cetina, 1999). In
this chapter, we focus on how climate science heavily relies on the distinct practices
of spatial and temporal reasoning to build stronger claims.

11.3 The Spatial and Temporal Nature of Climatic Change

Global climate changes are usually cyclical phenomena on our planet. There are
times during the Earth’s history where climates have warmed, and times where the
planet’s climates have cooled. Modern, anthropogenic climate change, however, is a
break from this natural pattern. We know from the accumulated body of scientific
research that rates of modern global warming are above normal background levels
due to human activities on the planet, and we also know with near-certainty that the
burning of fossil fuels via industrialization is the primary cause (IPCC, 2018). Much
of the carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere is the result of past human
activities, and much of the carbon released now into the atmosphere will remain
there for decades to come (Stager, 2011). CO2, for example, stays in the atmosphere
approximately 200 years (Archer, 2005). This long lifetime of CO2 makes it more
challenging for us to reverse what we have inherited from the past for the future
generations.
192 A. Sezen-Barrie et al.

Further, not all carbon is consumed in an even fashion, as those humans in the
so-called “developed” world tend to produce higher levels due to their wealth
(Oxfam International, 2015). Even though the commonplace term “global climate
change” is often used in scholarship on climate change education, the spatial and
temporal reality is complicated by the uneven social and physical dimensions of the
issue (Henderson & Drewes, 2020).
Moreover, it is often hard for the lay public to understand the impacts of climate
change given their spatial and temporal distance from lived experience (McDonald
et al., 2015). For example, sea level rise is a process that plays out over decades or
even centuries. Temporal and spatial thinking is an important practice of geoscien-
tists’ work as they interpret their observations or data by considering the history of
Earth. Understanding geological time – also referred to as “deep time” in the history
of Earth – geoscientists pay attention to conditions like Earth with no life, Earth with
no humans, a hothouse Earth, or a snowball Earth, for example. The historical
interpretation of past time is critical in the nature of climate data. In order to claim
that the climate is changing, scientists have to be able to talk about what it was in the
past (Edwards, 2010).
While scientists – especially geoscientists – are often trained to think about the
intergenerational and interspatial dimensions of climate change, most people, includ-
ing science teachers, do not think this way (Devine-Wright, 2013; Sezen-Barrie,
2018). One result of this conceptual short-sightedness is that leaders with short term
horizons have little incentive to plan for longer-term or more widespread impacts,
thereby discounting the impact of climate change on future generations (Weisbach &
Sunstein, 2008). Further, while climate scientists have achieved consensus on
human-caused climate change (Cook et al., 2016), there remains the “scientific
uncertainty about the precise magnitude and distribution of effects” (Gardiner,
2006, p. 401). In other words, while geoscience and geoscience education are
quite good at explaining past and current events across space and time, exactly
how these play out in the future remains uncertain. Dealing with climate change in
the present means interpreting the past to inform possible futures, and this means
moving from a descriptive “is” orientation to a normative “ought” orientation in
terms of climate change education activities (Drewes et al., 2018). It also means
expanding the educational sphere of concern outward toward distant others and
places around the world in order to truly understand the uneven causes and effects of
climate change across space (Henderson, 2015).
The role of spatial and temporal awareness while critically evaluating climate
change data and claims is essential (Edwards, 2010). When we underemphasize
these skills of geosciences in our education system, confusion about causes of
climate change are highly possible in science classrooms. Plutzer and colleagues’
large-scale study with 1500 public middle and high school teachers in the U.-
S. showed that about 31% of the teachers are confused about the scientific consensus
that the climatic changes we witness today are due to human activity such as
industrialization and increased air travel. Many of these teachers think the other
side of the controversy is equally credible which inaccurately explains that
11 Spatial and Temporal Dynamics in Climate Change Education Discourse: An. . . 193

the current climatic changes are due to natural causes such as solar cycles (Plutzer-
et al., 2016). Simply presenting two sides of the argument in the case of climate
change eliminates opportunities for critical thinking where students can judge
strong vs. weak claims and pieces of supporting evidence. On the other hand, if
teachers want to create opportunities for critical thinking, they will need to scaffold
students to look at climate data in temporal and spatial scales to gain an appreciation
of the nuances beyond a two-sided debate.
For this chapter, we present one set of data from our project that looks at how
students make meaning of climate change phenomena through their social and
cultural experiences. Since temporal and spatial reasoning is crucial in understanding
climate change and the science behind it, we explored how the temporal and spatial
aspects of climate change appear in middle school students’ explanations of climate
change issues. In the following sections, we will explain our methods and findings
on the following question:
How do students locate themselves and others across space and time relative to climate
change phenomena in sociocultural learning contexts?

11.4 Modes of Inquiry

This research is designed as a qualitative study that utilizes the methods of discourse
analysis with an ecolinguistics perspective to evaluate the stories we live from an
ecological lens (Stibbe, 2015). We accomplish our analysis by leveraging theories
from sociolinguistics (Blommaert, 2010) and spatial literacy (Leander & Sheehy,
2004; Scollon, 2013) to examine how students make sense of the climate change
phenomenon. We are interested in how particular phenomena (i.e., causal mecha-
nisms, effects, solutions) manifest in sociocultural contexts of middle school stu-
dents. We used Blommaert’s (2010) concept of indexical ordering and Scollon’s
(2013) concept of conceptual mobility to examine regimes of linguistic interaction in
climate change education. In sociolinguistic theory, indexicality refers to how signs
point toward objects in sociocultural contexts. For example, a student saying that
humans caused global climate change signals their membership in a broader social
community, and at the global scale over time. The student points to a broader
collective (“humans”) that existed in the past (“caused”). Further, social actors
actively mobilize ideas across space and time as they learn, and not all climate
change concepts achieve cultural salience depending on how they are contextualized
in educational spaces (Drewes et al., 2018). Analytically deploying these concepts
allowed us to see how particular climate change concepts moved both across scalar
space (e.g., local, regional, global) and through time (e.g., past, present, future) in
student explanations of phenomena.
194 A. Sezen-Barrie et al.

11.4.1 Context and Data Collection Process

This study is a component of MADE CLEAR (Maryland and Delaware Climate

Education, Assessment, and Research) which was an NSF funded project that
focused on the implementation of comprehensive climate change education across
Maryland and Delaware. A prominent part of this project was a Climate Academy
which brought together educators for a year-long professional development experi-
ence focused on improving climate content knowledge and pedagogy.
While the current study in this chapter does not focus on outcomes of teacher
professional development, we have previously engaged with this classroom to
explore those related learning outcomes (see Drewes et al., 2018 for further details).
Prior to the start of one enactment of climate change teaching, we worked with the
teacher, Emma (a pseudonym), to recruit and interview 13 middle school students
(ages 12–14) from her classes to explore how sociocultural dimensions of middle
school students’ daily life are highlighted in their explanations of modern climatic
changes. Emma was a past participant in a MADE CLEAR Climate Academy and
demonstrated deep engagement and interest throughout the professional develop-
ment sessions. The school study site was a public charter school. In the U.S., the
charter schools are public schools that receive funding from the government, but are
independent from their state or local school system for most of their rules and
regulations (Bettinger, 2005). The charter school in our study, is located close to
an urban area, was in close proximity to our research team, and serves a racially and
socio-economically diverse student body. The school hosts about 15% African
American students, approximately 25% White students, and more than 50% His-
panic students.
With these 13 middle school students, we conducted a “sociocultural interview”
prior to Emma’s formal instruction on climate change to emphasize students’ initial
perceptions of climate change and the sources of their information in regards to
climate change. The interviews were designed as responsive, semi-structured inter-
views (Rubin & Rubin, 2011) and included questions about the sources that shape
students’ conceptions of climate change and how these sources influence not only
students’ scientific or novice explanations, but also their agency, and emotions. The
reason for expanding our analysis to agency and emotions is due to recent call by
scholars on the role of these constructs for developing deep learning of controversial
science topics such as climate change (Calabrese Barton, 2008; Lombardi & Sinatra,
2013). Agency is simply defined as an individual’s ability to shape the world around
them (Shanahan, 2009). Drawn from this definition, science education scholars see
agency as including learners’ ability to use their understanding of science to develop
or have a willingness to take action on societal problems (Basu et al., 2009;
Calabrese Barton, 2008). These scholars highlight that the action can be at different
levels, such as individual or community. Narrowly, in our data, we look at students’
agency in terms of how students positioned individual-self, their communities, and
others when they suggested climate change action. The students’ decision to take
action on climate change issues can be influenced by their emotions (e.g., such as
11 Spatial and Temporal Dynamics in Climate Change Education Discourse: An. . . 195

worry, frustration, and hope) about impacts and solutions of climate change
(Lombardi & Sinatra, 2013). Some scholars suggest that developing optimistic
views about solutions can increase students’ feeling of agency and lead to improved
critical thinking and an action orientation toward climate change solutions (e.g.,
Ojala, 2016). The emotions can be expressed in variety of ways during learning such
as semantically by using emotion words (This is surprising), raised intonation in oral
discourse (REALLY!), and facial impressions (contraction of the brow muscles). In
other cases, emotions might not be explicit in discourse unless it is intentionally
prompted for the research study (Sezen-Barrie et al., 2020). Therefore, we will be
limited to analyzing students’ emotions that are visible through discursive
interactions.
During the interview, students watched a short video entitled Climate Change
Basics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼ScX29WBJI3w). This video was
developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review societal
problems that cause climate change and the impacts felt by many species on Earth.
This video was followed by interview questions on how students relate the climate
change mechanisms, impacts, and solutions to their life, to their communities, and to
our planet Earth. Including watching the video, each interview lasted between 12 and
20 min.

11.4.2 Data Analysis Approach

Informed by the sociolinguistic approach, we organized our data into transcripts by

sequence units, that are “cohesive and thematically tied interactions” (Kelly & Chen,
1999). We used Dedoose, a collaborative qualitative analysis software, to organize
our transcripts and code each sequence unit. We took an abductive approach to our
qualitative discourse analysis. According to Tavory and Timmermans (2014):
Abductive analysis is a qualitative data analysis approach grounded in pragmatism and
aimed at theory construction. Abduction refers to the process of producing theoretical
hunches for unexpected research findings and then developing these speculative theories
with a systematic analysis of variation across a study. This approach depends on iterative
processes of working with empirical materials in a relationship with a broad and diverse
social science theoretical literature. (p. 131)

The “pragmatic” step in our analysis was to frame our initial codes based on the
current seminal documents and literature on climate science and climate change
education. For example, by looking at the most recent standards and learning
progression studies, we decided to examine four core ideas of climate change that
is mechanism, human activity, climate change effects, and mitigation/adaptation
(Breslyn et al., 2017). Table 11.1 shows the codes we determined through this
pragmatic approach: Climate Change Core Ideas, Temporal Indexicality, Spatial
Indexicality, Pronouns, and Emotions.
196 A. Sezen-Barrie et al.

Table 11.1 Codes and subcodes, explanations and examples

Code Explanation Subcodes Examples
Climate These codes correspond to the Impacts of How people are putting more
Change 4 core concepts of climate Human carbon dioxide into the air and
Core Ideas change in the Next Generation Activity giving it a lot of heat to the
Science Standards (NGSS, Mechanisms Earth
2013) and represented in the Effects Humans should start using
developed learning progression Mitigation & natural resources
for climate change (Breslyn Adaptation
et al., 2017)
Temporal Climate scientists rely on his- Past Well at home, I know my mom
Indexicality torical data dating back to Present is always like, “Turn off the
pre-industrial times (NASA Future lights, we need to save energy.”
Earth Observatory, 2016) to They could destroy ecosystems
make claims that modern cli- which would then eventually
mate changes we are experienc- affect us
ing now are due to human
activity (Karl & Trenberth,
2003). Then, they need to make
future projects to better adapt
and mitigate (IPCC, 2018)
Spatial Socially and culturally struc- Personal We are close to the ocean
Indexicality tured “real” and “imaginary” Humans/ Letting more of the sun’s rays
geographies can shape our Humanity in
sensemaking of climatic Environment
changes (Leander & Sheehy, Family/
2004). Climate scientists also Home/
look at both worldwide data House
(Edwards, 2010) and observe Friends
local impacts of climatic School
changes (Najjar et al., 2000) to Local/
make stronger claims about cli- regional
mate change State
Country
Planetary/
World
Pronouns The use of pronouns can be She/he Well if you use the bathroom
interpreted as identity construc- God and you wash your hands and
tion (Goffman, 1974, 1981). I/me maybe your friend comes in
Use of singular pronouns (I, It (object) and the water is running
You) can be seen as individual- No one So people can be playing
istic while plural pronouns can Everyone outside
be interpreted as collective per- (exclusive)
spectives (Bramley, 2001) They
(objects)
They/them
(people)
Us/we/our
(inclusive)
You
Emotions Studies call for attention to stu- Good It is better to use solar energy
dents’ emotions in science (moral)
(continued)
11 Spatial and Temporal Dynamics in Climate Change Education Discourse: An. . . 197

Table 11.1 (continued)

Code Explanation Subcodes Examples
learning (Sinatra et al., 2015) Concerned My friend like to be sarcastic
and environmental action Displeasure and say this happened because
(Ojala, 2016). Recent studies Fear/worry of global warming
show links between our emo- Bad (moral)
tions and judgements about cli- Joy/Fun
mate change (Lombardi & Irony/sar-
Sinatra, 2013) and actions we casm
consider to solve the climate Surprise
change problem Hope
Love

Table 7.1 provides explanations to each of these codes to show the related source.
Other than these documents and the literature, we used an ecolinguistics approach
(i.e., looked at students’ stories about climate change) to look for new subcodes such
as school, a spatial index, and irony/sarcasm as an emotional response to climate
change. We then utilized an iterative process with our empirical data from students’
interviews to revise the subcodes. To ensure the internal reliability of our codes, each
student interview was assigned to two researchers and when there were disagree-
ments or confusions on any sequence unit, the questions were brought to the whole
group where three researchers discussed the issues until 100% agreement was
achieved (Saldaña, 2015). Drawn from an ecolinguistics approach, we wanted to
look at aspects of climate change that were made salient or ignored across all
13 students by calculating frequencies for each subcode (Stibbe, 2015). In order to
understand how temporal, spatial, and relational sensemaking of climate change
occur on each core idea of climate change, we paid attention to frequencies at the
co-occurrence of subcodes within each core idea of climate change (Table 11.1).

11.5 Epistemic, Relational, Emotional Aspects of Climate

Change in Students’ Explanations

During our analysis, we looked at the temporal and spatial indexicality of climate
change core ideas from middle school students’ life experiences that are socially and
culturally constructed in their relationships with their friends, families, neighbor-
hood and through their perceptions of themselves, others, and their world. Here we
present our findings from the frequency analysis of co-occurrences to show what
temporal, spatial, personal/relational, and emotional aspects of climate change were
made salient (or erased) in regards to students’ explanations of the core concepts of
climate change. We then present examples from our discourse analysis of the
students’ excerpts to understand how these aspects were highlighted.
198 A. Sezen-Barrie et al.

11.5.1 Temporal Indexicality for Climate Change Core Ideas

Temporal indexicality was coded 109 times out of 396 total codes. When we look at
the frequency results for the temporal indexicality, we notice that “Effects of Climate
Change” is the most highlighted aspect of climate change (61 out of 109) while
“Mitigation and Adaptations Strategies” is the least apparent (7 out of 109). In
general, we also see that students position the solution strategies for mitigation and
adaptation (0 out of 109) and human activity impacts infrequently as a past event
(1 out of 109) (Fig. 11.1).

11.5.1.1 Effects of Climate Change in the Future

When we look at the co-occurrences, a prevalent time frame in students’ responses is

the future when students talk about the forthcoming or expected effects of climate
change that we or our Earth will experience (39 out of 109). Students’ examples for
effects of climate change varied among the issues of sea level rise, increase in
dissemination of diseases, flood and droughts, extinction of living things including
humans, decrease in outdoor play areas (e.g., soccer and baseball), and heat waves.
For example, the excerpt below explains how the increasing effects of climate
change will impact the lives of people and other living things who inhabit their
state in the future:
Ocean levels will rise so when you go to the beach it will be higher and it might affect some
people that live around the water because it might form a flood and damage their house.
Ocean levels will rise so. . .it might affect people because, like some people here in [name of
nearby town and state], it is mostly water near us and if the water levels rise that is going to
affect them, probably some animals, and the environment and their homes.

Fig. 11.1 The frequencies of core ideas of climate change vs. temporal indexicality
11 Spatial and Temporal Dynamics in Climate Change Education Discourse: An. . . 199

In another example, we see that the student is talking about climate change causing
diseases and that these diseases will get worse and affect him and people around him:
Because if people of my generation start getting these diseases and making the earth worse,
then it is going to effect me by making my family and friends of mine, or anyone, at risk of
dying, and organisms that help people like me get fed and alive.

11.5.1.2 Humans Are Altering the Climate Change NOW

Another common co-occurrence we noticed is that middle school students mostly

explained the impacts of human activity on climate change situated in the “present”
time (24 out of 109). In other words, students were considering “present” as being
the timeframe to see how humans cause climatic changes. Within our data, we saw
that students highlighted wasting energy at home and school, and poor transportation
choices as the causes for modern climatic changes. In the example below, we see that
the student talks about her parents’ behavior that leads to “wasting energy” in the
present time:
There is a lot of light being used and sometimes they just keep their computers on or their
TVs on. They keep their lights on and just forget about it, they are wasting energy and it is
coming in and there is fossil fuel being burnt like coal fossil fuel and gas till it is polluting the
air and causing climate change. They are wasting energy.

11.5.2 Spatial Indexicality for Climate Change Core Ideas

The spatial indexicality was coded 91 out of 396 total codes. The frequency analysis
of the spatial indexicality and core ideas of climate change showed that students
highlighted the global/planetary scale of climate change (32 out of 91). Interestingly,
students only referred to the state or the country on the mechanisms of climate
change, i.e. the causes of the modern climatic changes. Students highlighted the local
aspects of climate change while they are talking mostly about their region and their
home environment. We will look at example excerpts for both local and global
sensemaking of climate change. The “environment” is also heavily mentioned
(21 out of 91) in regards to other living organisms and their habitats, both in global
and local references to climatic changes (Fig. 11.2).

11.5.2.1 Global Perceptions: Planet Is Impacting and Affected by

the Climate Change

Students made many references to Earth, people in general, and other living organ-
isms who are living on Earth as both impacting and being affected by modern
climate changes (28 out of 53). In the excerpt below, the student takes a stance
that people of the world are making Earth a worse place for other living things:
200 A. Sezen-Barrie et al.

Fig. 11.2 The frequencies of spatial indexicality vs. core ideas of climate change

I think it is horrible that people [everywhere] are changing the earth in a bad way and
making living creatures and organisms extinct and harming themselves in the process. . . .

In another example, a student mentioned that people like to “travel for fun” and not
only that travelling might get harder, but that jobs and businesses are affected
globally by climatic changes:
People might travel for fun and climate change can make it hard for them to travel because of
flooding and heat waves. I think jobs [everywhere] can be affected because they can’t get
money because of the things that happen, they may not be able to make it to work, and
businesses [all around] might be broken down or weathered away because of it and they
might lose their jobs because of it.

11.5.2.2 Local Perceptions: Region & Family Is Impacting and Affected

from the Climate Change

Although not as frequent as the references to global scale, local aspects of climate
change often were expressed by middle school students. These references were
mostly made about their region (the places they have often been) and their family
(25 out of 35). For instance, one student talked about her parent’s choice to drive her
to school and therefore causing the exhaust fumes to contribute to climate change:
Well my mom or dad drives me to school every day because I live 30 minutes down the road
and my bike has a flat tire. Then the buses also have gas in it because it has a lot of stops and
then they have to go back and go to the gas station and get more gas and there is exhaust
coming out of the pipe.
11 Spatial and Temporal Dynamics in Climate Change Education Discourse: An. . . 201

Another student talked about how his soccer field would be affected if the climatic
changes cause the lake nearby to flood:
Well like natural things, I like to play soccer, so if I try to play in fields. . .in one place I play
there is this little lake and if it affects the lake then it will soon flood too and then I won’t
have anywhere to play.

11.5.3 Positional and Emotional Sensemaking of Change

Core Ideas

In our attempt at understanding sociocultural dimensions of climate change, we also

explored how students relate climate change events to themselves or to others or to
no one (Harré, 2015). When looking at the pronouns students used in their expla-
nations of climate change (171 references out of 396 total codes), we noticed that
students varied in their ownership such as I/Me, We/Us/Our (79 out of 171) or
dissociations such as You, They/Them (92 out of 171). In either case, we also notice
that students tend to see climate change causes, impacts, and solutions as more of a
collective action (we, they) than individualistic (I, you) (Fig. 11.3).

Fig. 11.3 The frequencies of pronouns vs. core ideas of climate change
202 A. Sezen-Barrie et al.

11.5.3.1 Collective Problem and Action

The excerpt below shows an example from a student who mostly refers to We/Us/
Our in his explanations of climate change. The student here talks about alternative
energy sources as a solution to climate change and “we” need to act on these
solutions because the use of electric and hydro cars will cost less for “a lot of us”:
If we use something like electricity or hydro cars, as my fellow student did his essay on, this
could help the environment more with the climate change and even though the electric cars
are higher in terms of cost of the car, the fuel economy is better and I know a lot of us around
the world are very worried about gas prices rising but with electric vehicles and hydro cars, it
costs less, much less.

Although not as common, some students owned the climate change problems but
talked about climate change as more as an individualistic problem: “I could probably
make the world less at stake for global warming I guess.”
Another student mostly used “they” and “you” when she was talking about what
is causing the impacts of climate change we observe today:
Sometimes they just don’t want to blame it on themselves so they just say global warming did
it and you see it a lot on TV. They say global warming did this but they did it, don’t blame
everything on global warming. And a lot of people say that this happens because of global
warming but I don’t think everything happens because of global warming. . . sometimes it is
just you.

This excerpt also shows that the student was emphasizing the human aspect of
climatic event, by opposing the idea that “they” blame it on “global warming”,
however, keeps herself outside of the problem.
We looked at the emotional sensemaking semantically with emotion words such
as love, fear and with interjections, such as wow, ahh. Our coding of emotions did
not show high frequency of emotions with only 25 out of 396 total codes. We
noticed that the most common emotion was surprise in regards to mechanisms and
causes of climate change (Fig. 11.4).

11.5.3.2 Unexpected Mechanisms and Effects of Climate Change

After watching the video on Climate Change Basics, students found that the mech-
anisms leading to climate change or effects people will experience are unexpected
and therefore expressed being surprised. In the example below, the student talked
about how even the excessive use of electronics at home can be the contributor to the
climatic changes:
I was very surprised at what I was seeing. There were obviously some things we all know
about cars and fossil fuels but I mean, I wasn’t really thinking about. . . I mean I know that
electronics get hot when you use them a lot and they feel a little warm but I never thought of
that [using electronics a lot] as being a fossil fuel kind of and heating up the planet.
11 Spatial and Temporal Dynamics in Climate Change Education Discourse: An. . . 203

Fig. 11.4 The frequencies of emotions vs. core ideas of climate change

In another example, we interpreted a student’s use of “wow” that she was surprised
about how much ice has been melting and will have damaging impacts on climate
change. We found it interesting that this emotion led to an analogy between climate
change impacts and the scene from the “Hunger Games” movie where children fight
for resources.
It’s destroying ice sheets so maybe in a couple hundred years or less we might get the
Arctic. . . the Antarctic might be completely gone, it will be underwater and that will rise us
up and [state name]in general is by a lot of water so I think a lot of this. . . what they call
coastal states might be flooded and we will have to move in more. Wow! I just thought of the
Hunger Games, they flooded up and now they have to live somewhere in the Rockies and
they call it. . . because the water. . . it is because of us.

11.5.3.3 Empathy and Concern for the Environment

Students also mentioned that their moral dilemmas, worries or fears are due to the
love or joy they feel about the world and the environment. For example, the student
below highlights that because he loves animals, he feels bad about their extinction
due to human caused climate change:
Well I saw that animals are getting extinct which is really bad because I love animals,
especially the ones that are most gone. If global warming keeps happening and the animals
that live in the icy areas that are really cold, they won’t have anywhere to live and they will
soon die.
204 A. Sezen-Barrie et al.

11.6 Conclusions

Critical thinking is at the core of scientific practices (NRC, 2000; Schwab &
Brandwein, 1962). If we want students to experience how science is done, we
need to consider ways to support students in developing critical thinking skills. As
climate change education researchers, we see critically thinking about socioscientific
issues as especially important due to two main reasons. First, we need students to
critically question the information they obtain about climate change. Students can
easily get exposed to unreliable and scientifically inaccurate information through the
media, or elsewhere. Second, we need all students, independent of pursuing a STEM
career, to critically evaluate their options to act on this massive problem. We paid
particular attention to middle school students (ages 12–14) in our work because other
studies showed that we can have a better influence on adolescents whose worldviews
are still developing (Stevenson et al., 2014). Due to such flexibility in worldviews,
we see this as an opportunity where middle school students can improve a habit to
critically think about climate change claims. Plutzer and Hannah (2018) recently
found that many secondary school science teachers in the United States engage
students in inquiry-based debate environments only for claims that are empirically
settled among vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations. On the other
hand, Berbeco and colleagues (Berbeco et al., 2014) suggested inquiry-based
debates around climate change questions that still has competing claims in scientific
communities and those questions that are within the scope of students’ abilities. For
instance, instead of asking if humans cause climatic changes, it will be more
authentic to ask how will climatic changes impact lobster migration. Debating
around claims with clear scientific consensus might limit critical thinking as students
can find answers through respected scientific organizations. If students tackle
authentic scientific questions with multiple reasonable claims, they will then work
with foundational knowledge and build on those by engaging in epistemic practices
to evaluate the claims. Recent work showed that these real and relevant learning
experiences have the potential to engage youth to have a socially active role in
solving the climate change problem (Stapleton, 2019).
We expect that middle school students will use critical thinking while learning
about climate change if they understand climate change causes, impacts, and solu-
tions across varying times scales (such as pre-industrial revolution, 50 years later)
and various spaces (such as their homes, states, country, and globe). The focus on
spatial and temporal practices and human-nonhuman relationships on the impacts
and solutions of climate change is due to epistemic culture of the climate scientists’
work. Climate scientists are formed and encultured into these epistemic cultures with
distinct interpretation of scientific practices to decide on norms for warranting
knowledge (Kelly et al., 2000; Knorr Cetina, 2007). Such distinct interpretations
in the climate change considers a balance between “matters of fact” that are risk-free
body scientific knowledge and “matters of concern” that are knowledge entangled
with risks, values, and concerns (Latour, 2004, pp. 23–25). Different than the
traditional laboratory sciences that privileges matters of fact, climate science
11 Spatial and Temporal Dynamics in Climate Change Education Discourse: An. . . 205

works at the merge of matters of fact and matters of concern. Therefore, warranting
climate science knowledge needs to consider the past human activity which led to
current impacts of climate change and how human activities of today will impact the
next generations. Moreover, critical evaluation of evidence for what caused climatic
changes and what actions will be effective needs to be evaluated in local and global
contexts (Vallabh et al., 2016).
In our study, we found that most students dissociated themselves from past
climate causality and most of them focused on the present. Some students also
talked about the future mostly when they talked about the effects on climate change
on people or other living things. While doing so, students see the future belongs to
their generation and show care for the climate change problem. However due to lack
of understanding of historic interpretation of past climate data, they were not able to
ask critical questions on the mechanisms of climate change or the impacts of human
activity. We, therefore, see that it is crucial for students to learn about how the
historic data about climate is collected and interpreted.
The middle school students in our study referred to both local and global aspects
of climate change phenomena. However, we found it interesting that the students
only mentioned their state or country when they talked about mechanisms of climatic
changes. Studies show that mitigation and adaptation strategies can be more effec-
tive if they are regulated by statewide and nationwide policies (Engel, 2006).
Moreover, although we noticed that students are using plural pronouns which can
be seen as their view of collectivism in climate change problem and action, the
examples they mentioned for solutions to climate change were more individualistic
in nature such as recycling and consuming greener products. For students to criti-
cally think about real collective action, they need to drive from social science and
humanities (McKeown & Hopkins, 2010). For example, students can understand and
develop opinions on taxation to build an efficient public transportation system if they
study economics (Lundholm, 2011). In addition, students can evaluate how climate
change is impacting different geographies on Earth unequally if they study geogra-
phy and sociology (Bohle et al., 1994). We therefore recommend that climate change
should be thought of as more than “just science” (Drewes et al., 2018; Fahey et al.,
2014) for students to be able to develop critical thinking skills.
Finally, middle school students expressed emotional stress at the distant and
overwhelming global nature of climate phenomena, and coped via the scalar
downshifting of solutions. This current positioning of students in making sense of
climate change limits their ability to improve the necessary critical thinking skills to
be active agents for taking part in solving the climate change problem.

Acknowledgements We like to acknowledge our colleagues Drs. Emily Hestness and Wayne
Breslyn for their help with the data collection process and the late Prof. Dr. J. Randy McGinnis for
his guidance and curiosity for exploring the sociocultural aspects of climate change education.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant
#1239758. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
206 A. Sezen-Barrie et al.

References

Archer, D. (2005). Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Oceans, 110(C9), 1–6.
Basu, S. J., Calabrese Barton, A., Clairmont, N., & Locke, D. (2009). Developing a framework for
critical science agency through case study in a conceptual physics context. Cultural Studies of
Science Education, 4, 345–371.
Berbeco, M., McCaffrey, M., Meikle, E., & Branch, G. (2014). Choose controversies wisely. The
Science Teacher, 81(4), 8.
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge University Press.
Bohle, H. G., Downing, T. E., & Watts, M. J. (1994). Climate change and social vulnerability:
Toward a sociology and geography of food insecurity. Global Environmental Change, 4(1),
37–48.
Bramley, N. R. (2001). Pronouns of politics: The use of pronouns in the construction of self and
other in political interviews. [Doctoral dissertation, Australian National University]. Open
Research Library.
Breslyn, W., Drewes, A., McGinnis, J. R., Hestness, E., & Mouza, C. (2017). Development of an
empirically-based conditional learning progression for climate change. Science Education
International, 28(3), 214–223.
Calabrese Barton, A. (2008). Feminisms and a world not yet: Science with and for social justice. In
W.-M. Roth & K. Tobin (Eds.), The world of science education: Handbook of research in North
America. Sense Publishers.
Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., . . .
Nuccitelli, D. (2016). Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on
human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), 048002.
Dessler, A. (2011). Introduction to modern climate change. Cambridge University Press.
Devine-Wright, P. (2013). Think global, act local? The relevance of place attachments and place
identities in a climate changed world. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 61–69.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. DC Heath.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative
process. DC Heath.
Drewes, A., Henderson, J., & Mouza, C. (2018). Professional development design considerations in
climate change education: Teacher enactment and student learning. International Journal of
Science Education, 40(1), 67–89.
Drewes, A., Rogers, M., & Petrone, C. (2020). Climate change professional development
approaches ‘MADE CLEAR’: Looking back on one project and looking forward to the future.
In J. Henderson & A. Drewes (Eds.), Teaching climate change in the United States. Routledge.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in
classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Edwards, P. (2010). A vast machine: Computer models, climate data, and the politics of global
warming. MIT Press.
Engel, K. (2006). State and local climate change initiatives: What is motivating state and local
governments to address a global problem and what does this say about federalism and environ-
mental law. Urban Law, 38, 1015.
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. In Per-
spectives from classroom-based research. Springer.
Fahey, S. J., Labadie, J. R., & Meyers, N. (2014). Turning the Titanic: Inertia and the drivers of
climate change education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 6(1), 44–62.
Fenton, J., & Smith, M. (2019). ‘You can’t say that!’: Critical thinking, identity politics, and the
social work academy. Societies, 9(4), 71.
Gardiner, S. (2006). A perfect moral storm: Climate change, intergenerational ethics and the
problem of moral corruption. Environmental Values, 15, 397–413.
11 Spatial and Temporal Dynamics in Climate Change Education Discourse: An. . . 207

Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking (Vol. No. 843). AMS.
Glaser, E. M. (1985). Educating for responsible citizenship in a democracy. In National Forum.
(Vol. 65, No. 1, p. 24). Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organisation of experience. Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills,
structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449.
Hamilton, L. C., Hartter, J., & Bell, E. (2019). Generation gaps in US public opinion on renewable
energy and climate change. PLoS One, 14(7), e0217608.
Harré, R. (2015). Positioning theory. In The international encyclopedia of language and social
interaction (pp. 1–9). Wiley-Blackwell.
Henderson, J. A. (2015). Out of sight, out of mind: Global connection, environmental discourse and
the emerging field of sustainability education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(3),
593–601.
Henderson, J., & Drewes, A. (Eds.). (2020). Teaching climate change in the United States.
Routledge.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. (2018). Global warming of 1.5 C: An IPCC
special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels and
related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global
response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate
poverty. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Karl, T., & Trenberth, K. (2003). Modern global climate change. Science, 302(5651), 1719–1723.
Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices
through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883–915.
Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing
science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 691–718.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Knorr Cetina, K. (2007). Culture in global knowledge societies: Knowledge cultures and epistemic
cultures. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32(4), 361–375.
Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature. How to bring the sciences into democracy. Harvard University
Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The [social] construction of scientific facts (2nd
ed.). Princeton University Press.
Leander, K. M., & Sheehy, M. (2004). Spatializing literacy research and practice. Peter Lang.
Lombardi, D., & Sinatra, G. M. (2013). Emotions about teaching about human-induced climate
change. International Journal of Science Education, 35(1), 167–191.
Lundholm, C. (2011). Society’s response to environmental challenges: Citizenship and the role of
knowledge. In Factis Pax, 5, 80–96.
Mann, M. E. (2012). The hockey stick and the climate wars: Dispatches from the front lines.
Columbia University Press.
McDonald, R. I., Chai, H. Y., & Newell, B. R. (2015). Personal experience and the ‘psychological
distance’ of climate change: An integrative review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44,
109–118.
McKeown, R., & Hopkins, C. (2010). Rethinking climate change education: Everyone wants it, but
what is it? Green Teacher, 89(Summer), 17–21.
McLaren, P., & Giarelli, J. (Eds.). (1996). Critical theory and educational research. SUNY Press.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to
support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments
to explain phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416–460.
Najjar, R. G., Walker, H. A., Anderson, P. J., Barron, E. J., Bord, R. J., Gibson, J. R., . . . Polsky,
C. D. (2000). The potential impacts of climate change on the mid-Atlantic coastal region.
Climate Research, 14(3), 219–233.
208 A. Sezen-Barrie et al.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] Earth Observatory. (2016). Paleoclima-
tology: Ice cores. Retrieved from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_
IceCores/
National Council on Education Standards, & United States Dept. of Education. (1992). Raising
standards for American education: A report to congress, the secretary of education, the
National Education Goals Panel, and the American people. US Government Printing Office.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A
guide for teaching and learning. National Academy Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National
Academies Press.
Ojala, M. (2016). Young people and global climate change: Emotions, coping, and engagement in
everyday life. In N. Ansell, N. Klocker, & T. Skelton (Eds.), Geographies of global issues:
Change and threat. Geographies of children and young people (Vol. 8). Springer.
Osborne, J. (2011). Science teaching methods: A rationale for practices. School Science Review,
98(343), 93–103.
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific reasoning: The ineluctable in search of the ineffable? In
Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences
(ICLS) 2014 (Vol. 3). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Oxfam International. (2015). Extreme carbon inequality. Retrieved from: https://www.oxfam.org/
en/research/extreme-carbon-inequality
Plutzer, E., & Hannah, A. L. (2018). Teaching climate change in middle schools and high schools:
Investigating STEM education’s deficit model. Climatic Change, 149(3–4), 305–317.
Plutzer, E., McCaffrey, M., Hannah, L., Rosenau, J., Berbeco, M., & Reid, A. (2016). Climate
confusion among US teachers. Science, 351(6274), 664–665.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage.
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Sawyer, D. S., Henning, A. T., Shipp, S., & Dunbar, R. W. (2005). A data rich exercise for
discovering plate boundary processes. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 65–74.
Schwab, J. J., & Brandwein, P. F. (Eds.). (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. Harvard
University Press.
Scollon, R. (2013). Geographies of discourse. In I. de Saint-Georges & J.-J. Weber (Eds.),
Multilingualism and multimodality: Current challenges for educational studies
(pp. 183–198). Sense.
Sezen-Barrie, A. (2018). Utilizing professional vision in supporting preservice teachers’ learning
about contextualized scientific practices. Science & Education, 27(1–2), 159–182.
Sezen-Barrie, A., Shea, N., & Borman, J. H. (2019). Probing into the sources of ignorance: Science
teachers’ practices of constructing arguments or rebuttals to denialism of climate change.
Environmental Education Research, 25(6), 846–866.
Sezen-Barrie, A., Miller-Rushing, A., & Hufnagel, E. (2020). ‘It’s a gassy world’: Starting with
students’ wondering questions to inform climate change education. Environmental Education
Research, 26(4), 555–576.
Shanahan, M. (2009). Identity in science learning: Exploring the attention given to agency and
structure in studies of identity. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 43–64.
Shea, N., Mouza, C., & Drewes, A. (2016). Climate change professional development: Design,
implementation, and initial outcomes on teacher learning, practice, and student beliefs. Journal
of Science Teacher Education, 27(3), 235–258.
Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring
student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13.
Stager, C. (2011). Deep future: The next 100,000 years of life on earth. Thomas Dunn Books.
Stapleton, S. R. (2019). A case for climate justice education: American youth connecting to
intragenerational climate injustice in Bangladesh. Environmental Education Research, 25(5),
732–750.
11 Spatial and Temporal Dynamics in Climate Change Education Discourse: An. . . 209

Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Bondell, H. D., Moore, S. E., & Carrier, S. J. (2014).
Overcoming skepticism with education: Interacting influences of worldview and climate change
knowledge on perceived climate change risk among adolescents. Climatic Change, 126(3–4),
293–304.
Stibbe, A. (2015). Ecolinguistics: Language, ecology and the stories we live by. Routledge.
Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Thunberg, G. (2018). Speech at UN Climate Change COP24 Conference, Katowice, Poland,
December 15. Retrieved from: https://www.gbnews.ch/greta-thunbergs-speech-to-the-world/
Vallabh, P., Lotz-Sisitka, H., O’Donoghue, R., & Schudel, I. (2016). Mapping epistemic cultures
and learning potential of participants in citizen science projects. Conservation Biology, 30(3),
540–549.
Weisbach, D., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Climate change and discounting the future: A guide for the
perplexed. Yale Law & Policy Review, 27, 433.
Chapter 12
Social Responsibility and Critical
Disposition for Considering and Acting
upon Conflicting Evidence
in Argumentation About Sustainable Diets

Pablo Brocos and María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre

12.1 Introduction and Objectives: Critical Thinking

and Conflicts

In our times, the effects of uncompromising industrial and economic growth, large-
scale implementation of technological advances and demographic growth have led
to energy, health, environmental and climate crises across the globe. The current
situation urgently calls for the creation of new ways of thinking, producing, con-
suming, and acting. There is widespread consensus about the fact that, in this
context, Critical Thinking (CT) is necessary for addressing the complex issues we
are facing, and for promoting the articulation of innovative solutions to both
persistent and emerging challenges.
Critical thinking is a complex, multifaceted practice, related to purposeful judg-
ment and citizenship practice. The revised characterization of CT by Jiménez-
Aleixandre and Puig (Chap. 1, this volume) serves as the theoretical foundation
for this chapter. It is developed in four components: cognitive-epistemic skills,
critical character, independent opinion, and critical action. Empirical research on
CT has focused mainly on analysing the cognitive and epistemic skills, which is
coherent with the traditional conceptualization of CT itself as a skill. Studying CT in
terms of character dispositions, intellectual independence and agency entails both
operationalizing and analytical difficulties (Abrami et al., 2008, 2015). Arguably, as
a result of those methodological challenges and the later conceptualization of those
three aspects as an integral part of CT, they are currently understudied. In this
chapter we aim to provide an approach for exploring these three components in
classroom discourse.

P. Brocos (*) · M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre

Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 211
B. Puig, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), Critical Thinking in Biology
and Environmental Education, Contributions from Biology Education Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_12
212 P. Brocos and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre

An issue of particular concern is how to equip teachers to foster the development

of critical thinking in their students. CT is rarely explicitly taught; this may be related
to an implicit assumption about its spontaneous development alongside disciplinary
knowledge. Research shows that a mixed approach, integrating explicit instruction
and modelling combined with practice yields better results (Heijltjes Van Gog et al.,
2014). We argue about the importance of appropriate contexts for promoting CT: our
position is that when conflict is embedded in task design it creates fruitful learning
opportunities to engage in CT practice. Argumentation tasks about socio-scientific
issues (SSI), such as the one presented in this study, provide privileged learning
environments for fostering CT, since SSI involve conflicts which prevent reaching a
solution that meets all interests. This acknowledgement is part of the development of
CT about complex, real life issues. Arguing about SSI is considered relevant for the
development of responsible citizens capable of taking part in future collective
decision-making processes (Acar et al., 2010; Kolstø, 2001) and for sustainability
(Tytler, 2012). In Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), the promotion of
environmentally responsible behaviours is a priority. However, Oliveira and
Ackerson (2015) emphasize that the construct of agency is an understudied topic.
Stevenson and Stirling (2010) argue about the need of developing the capacity of
appropriate and effective action, pointing to the need of reflecting about one’s own
experiences, assumptions, beliefs and values, as well as about the contextual factors
that shape them.
Accordingly, this chapter examines the aforementioned three components of CT
in pre-service teachers’ discourse in the context of an environmental socio-scientific
argumentation task, in which participants had to choose a diet and construct argu-
ments about food choices. The task was framed as a dilemma between omnivorous
and vegetarian diets, and it was designed drawing from recent environmental science
literature, which provides evidence for the environmental benefits of diets with
higher proportions of vegetables, and for the contribution of meat-based diets to
global warming, resources depletion, and deterioration of public health (IPBES,
2020; Stehfest et al., 2009; Tilman & Clark, 2014).
The research objectives are:
1. To examine the participants’ acknowledgement of conflicts between the evidence
considered in their arguments and the options chosen, and how they account for
and justify them.
2. To examine the dimensions related to taking actions towards sustainability in
participants’ discourse.
Specifically, we explore features related to critical character by examining, in
their discourse, participants’ disposition to consider evidence which would support
non-mainstream options –e.g. vegetarian or vegan diets– and potentially challenge
their previous beliefs and worldviews. We address the dispositions to independent
thinking and social responsibility by examining the existence and acknowledgement
of conflicts between the options chosen and the dissonant evidence considered in
their arguments, and the ways in which these conflicts are accounted for and
justified. We examine the component of critical action by analysing dimensions
12 Social Responsibility and Critical Disposition for Considering and Acting. . . 213

related to agency in participants’ discourse, particularly the existence of spontaneous

references to the need for modifying social or individual behaviours, and the
identification of obstacles preventing change.

12.2 Theoretical Framework

The rationale draws from three bodies of knowledge, education for sustainable
development (ESD); Critical Thinking framed in Criticality and action; and argu-
mentation about Socio Scientific Issues (SSI) with a focus on the role of values and
conflicts.

12.2.1 Education for Sustainable Development

and Environmental Agency: Sustainable Food
Choices

Education for sustainable development (ESD) is receiving increasing attention in

science education, with a focus on the emergence of values (Garrison et al., 2015).
Industrial civilization has caused environmental problems, such as ecosystem deg-
radation, extinction of species and climate change. As David W. Orr puts it: “time is
running out on the experiment of civilization” (2017, p. viii). Current worldwide
efforts to advance ESD gravitate around the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop-
ment (United Nations, 2015), which includes 17 specific Sustainable Development
Goals (SDG). Within this framework, ESD is understood in terms of competencies,
which UNESCO (2017) defines as an “interplay of knowledge, capacities and skills,
motives and affective dispositions” (p. 10). According to de Haan (2010),
Rieckmann (2012) and Wiek et al. (2011), key competencies for sustainable devel-
opment include: systems thinking, anticipatory, normative, strategic, collaboration,
critical thinking, self-awareness, and integrated problem-solving competencies.
UNESCO (2017) claims that the most effective pedagogical approaches to
achieve these objectives are learner-centred, action-oriented, and transformative; in
other words, those which promote the capacity to put into question the ways in which
students think about the world (Mezirow, 2000; Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012), in order
to change the statu quo, which aligns with the objectives of transgressive learning
(Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2015). This approach involves a participatory learning, which
stimulate critical thinking (Tilbury, 2011; UNESCO, 2012) through the engagement
in tasks that encourage discussion –in other words, argumentation–, analysis and
application of values (UNESCO, 2012) and decision-making (Breiting & Mogensen,
1999). Addressing sustainability in education requires an approach emphasizing
multiple perspectives, and the ability to establish relationships between processes,
scales and contexts (Colucci-Gray et al., 2006). For this purpose, the analysis of local
214 P. Brocos and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre

issues and contexts through an interdisciplinary perspective, as the one addressed in

this study, has been suggested as a fruitful educational strategy (Laurie et al., 2016;
UNESCO, 2012). These considerations about ESD are coherent with our CT
approach, which emphasizes engagement with place-based and social issues (Brocos
& Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2020a). Critical approaches to ESD reveal a discourse
emphasizing objectivity and faith in technology, while “blackboxing” ideologies
underlying decisions and policies (Ideland & Malmberg, 2015). We contend that the
question of which diet should be promoted is also framed in particular ideologies and
economic interests, such as intensive breeding or aquaculture companies, which
should be taken out of this “black box”, in order to allow assumptions, as for instance
the image of a diet for “developed countries” linked to high meat consumption, being
questioned.
The most crucial and pressing objective of ESD is the promotion of behaviour
patterns that are environmentally responsible. As a researcher interviewed by Laurie
et al. (2016) puts it: “Society does not need people that know how to save water. It
needs people that actually do save water” (p. 237). In this regard, Oliveira and
Ackerson (2015) point out that research on environmental education has made
limited analytical use of the construct of agency. They define environmental agency
as the capacity to act upon and resolve environmental problems. The efforts of
environmental education for several decades have been focusing on education for
the environment. However, there are not many studies focusing on action, on the
development of commitment to act in ways that care for the environment, protect it,
and defend it from degradation. Stevenson and Stirling (2010) discuss the need for
developing the capacity for appropriate and effective action, characterizing learners’
agency as involving three distinct forms of reflective, relational and transformative
agency. They suggest the need for deep reflection on one’s own experiences,
assumptions, beliefs and values, as well as on the contextual factors that shape
them. The task analysed in this study was designed with the intention of promoting
this type of reflection.
We approach education for sustainability by addressing the development of
sustainable food choices. The FAO (2012) defines a sustainable diet as “protective
and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible,
economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while
optimizing natural and human resources” (p. 294). Most studies and policies about
sustainability and climate change mitigation focus on the production and use of
energy (Stehfest et al., 2009), and little attention has been paid to the environmental
impact of diets until recent years, both in science education and in climate science.
However, as Stehfest et al. show, the livestock sector accounts for 18% of the
greenhouse emissions, as well as for 80% of land use. They suggest that a global
transition to a low-meat diet would reduce the climate change mitigation costs by
about 50%. Thompson et al. (2013), taking into account cultural traditions, propose
changes in the amount and types of meat to be consumed. Other recent studies reach
the same conclusions (Springmann et al., 2016; Tilman & Clark, 2014), also
highlighting the public health benefits of plant-based diets. The scope of the poten-
tial health benefits of low-meat diets involve not only lower incidences of chronic
12 Social Responsibility and Critical Disposition for Considering and Acting. . . 215

disorders, but also infectious diseases, since research indicates that biodiversity loss
and habitat disruption caused by human activities such as intensive breeding enable
interspecies transmission of microbes, which increases the risk of emerging pan-
demics such as COVID-19 (IPBES, 2020). So, as a summary, environmental science
research has recently pointed out the convenience of promoting nutrition patterns
with a higher proportion of plant products, which would be beneficial for the
environment, public health, and in the fight against hunger, which is aligned with
the Sustainable Development Goals (UNESCO, 2017).

12.2.2 Critical Thinking Framed in Criticality and Action

The study is framed in the revised characterization of CT by Jiménez-Aleixandre and

Puig (Chap. 1, this book), which endorses a shift from CT as solely or mainly
argumentation and judgment formation, focused on skills and disposition, towards
criticality, which sees CT as practice, focusing on action (Davies & Barnett, 2015).
A detailed discussion of this shift is to be found on that chapter, and in this section
we only summarize some of its main tenets. Criticality comprises critical thinking,
critical reflection and critical action, thus combining the traditional view of CT as the
evaluation of evidence and the disposition to consider a range of views, with
perspectives from critical pedagogy and critical theory, emphasizing critical citizen-
ship. This new approach would mean both engaging in critique of discourses
concealing particular interests and power games, and participating in action
concerned with environmental and social justice. Therefore, criticality is connected
with agency, developing the capacity for appropriate and effective action. Criticality
is also taking into account affective dispositions, emotional sense-making and
identities for, as Hufnagel (Chap. 3, this book) points out, biology and environmen-
tal education issues are emotionally laden, and in CT identities are the reference
points for emotions.

12.2.3 Argumentation About Socio Scientific Issues: The

Role of Values and Conflicts

Conflicts make part of life, of decisions, of scientific endeavor; in a number of

matters, as socio-scientific issues or environmental questions, it is almost impossible
to avoid them. We argue that it is necessary to educate teachers –and students– by
raising awareness about these challenges. For instance, taking actions in order to
address environmental problems involves conflicts, both social –within structural
dimensions of the issue, as illustrated in the case of diets– and personal –as with
lifestyles. Reducing waste involves more effort than dealing with waste in a careless
way; using public transportation instead of private cars entails personal sacrifices in
216 P. Brocos and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre

terms of practicality. Thus, with food choices, eating less meat and more vegetables
may involve facing some difficulties or renouncing to some pleasures. However, it
may be necessary to make these decisions, for the sake of the environment, or for
respecting animals’ welfare.
Argumentation about SSI may reveal these conflicts; it addresses complex issues
involving consideration of a wide range of dimensions, pieces of information and
viewpoints (Aikenhead, 1985). SSI contexts provide opportunities to face open-
ended questions from a multidisciplinary perspective. According to Morin et al.
(2014), dealing with these issues involves considering complexities and uncer-
tainties associated to problems without a clear-cut solution, and which reflect a
variety of value systems and social representations. As Kolstø (2005) argues, in
SSI argumentation decisions are not solely based on knowledge, being rather a result
of the interaction between knowledge and values, to which we would add emotions.
Values, then, are necessary in order to assess the desirability of the different potential
consequences of alternative decisions. Drawing from Kolstø (2006), by values we
mean those ideas a person appeals to as criteria or justifications used as the basis to
evaluate the desirability of a given action, consequence or conclusion.
It also needs to be noted that there are different argumentation contexts, so, for
instance, there are differences in argumentation in the context of evaluation of a
causal explanation, and in the context of making a decision (Jiménez-Aleixandre &
Brocos, 2018). Thus, we suggest that, in SSI contexts, shifts in acceptability of the
options are related to dynamic interactions among emotions, appeals to scientific
evidence, and other dimensions such as cultural identities or ethical concerns. We
also suggest that in the case of the evaluation of explanations, the subject is often
individual, but in decision making the acceptability is generally considered in a
broader social context. The study that we present focuses on groups’ discourse,
rather than on individual discourse.

12.3 Methods and Instructional Context

The methodological approach is qualitative, appropriate to study processes

(Creswell, 2013) and knowledge evaluation practices. It seeks to identify patterns
through systematic analysis in order to understand the meanings of participants in
their context (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Eighty-five pre-service primary teachers
participated in the case study, in the context of an argumentation teaching sequence
as part of a science methods course, constructing arguments in small groups
(N ¼ 20) about sustainable and healthy diets. Data collection included multiple
sources, student teachers’ written products (pre-test, portfolio reports, and final
essays) and video recording of oral debates. The final written reports are the main
focus of this study. Participants’ discourse was analysed with rubrics constructed in
interaction with data, according to constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss,
1967). Groups are identified with a code formed by the seminar number and the
small group number, from 1.1 to 4.5.
12 Social Responsibility and Critical Disposition for Considering and Acting. . . 217

Table 12.1 Dimensions of teaching Critical Thinking in Higher Education

Intervention/strategy/practice Characterization
Teaching CT as a content CT is explicitly taught (there are objectives and
lessons about CT) and is modelled in the
classroom
Practice: Tasks intended for University stu- Tasks which promote CT skills and disposition
dents to develop CT development in students are designed and stu-
dents engage in them
Transfer of practice: Tasks intended for Uni- Tasks which promote transfer of CT skills and
versity Students to transfer CT to their profes- disposition development in future professional
sional target (school pupils) target

The context for the study is a 15 weeks science education course taught by the
second author, which included six tasks about argumentation, implemented in a
Faculty of Education in Galicia, a predominantly rural region in Northwest Spain, in
which omnivorous diets are the norm. The design of the teaching sequence is
discussed in greater detail elsewhere (Brocos & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2020a). In
the sequence, content about CT is framed in a mixed approach. Our preliminary
proposal for what is involved in teaching CT in Higher Education, summarized in
Table 12.1, distinguishes three dimensions, which can be conceived as types of
practices. Research shows that explicit instruction combined with practice yields
better results (Heijltjes et al., 2014).
– Teaching CT as content: It corresponds to the explicit facet; we characterize it in
terms of objectives and lessons about CT, as well as modelling it during
instruction.
– Practice: University students’ engagement in tasks intended for them to develop
CT’s skills and dispositions. The task discussed here would correspond to this
dimension.
– Transfer of practice: University students’ engagement in tasks intended to pro-
mote transfer to their professional target, in our study the school pupils.
In task 6 of the teaching sequence about argumentation, participants were asked
to construct, working in small groups, a written argument choosing a diet and
justifying their choice in the available evidence and based in values, taking into
account five criteria (cultural-personal, environmental, ethic, nutritional, economic).
The task design provided students with five dossiers of information, each one of
them focused on one of the five criteria considered. These dossiers included
conflicting pieces of information that could be used to support opposing options.
Thus, most information related to the environmental and ethic criteria would argu-
ably point towards the adoption of vegetarianism over an omnivorous diet: for
instance the significantly lesser water and carbon footprint derived from the produc-
tion of plant-based food compared to those of animal origin; or the concerns about
animal rights and wellbeing. On the other hand, the data related to Galician
economy –which is highly dependent on livestock and fishing industry– and Gali-
cian food culture –which highlights the social and gastronomic prestige of animal
products– would support opting for an omnivorous option.
218 P. Brocos and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre

12.4 Findings

12.4.1 Critical Character: Open-Mindedness

and Consideration of Inconvenient Evidence

As a way to explore dimensions related to critical character, which involves open-

mindedness and disposition to consider evidence which would contradict previous
beliefs and threaten established worldviews, we pay attention to how participants
collected and used evidence pertaining to the environmental and ethic criteria in their
argumentative discourse. As stated earlier, most information included in the dossiers
related to these criteria would point towards the benefits of vegetarian diets, which
are, in the Galician context, marginalized options.
Environmental data were considered in 18 of the 20 written reports. Data about
pollution, and efficiency in the use of land and energy were used in more than half of
the written reports. From the 63 instances of environmental data identified, the
overwhelming majority (58) were used to indicate that plant-based diets produce a
lower environmental impact. The remaining 5 pieces of information were used by
4 groups to point out perceived negative outcomes of the mass adoption of vegetar-
ianism, mainly related to potential pollution derived from agricultural practices. In
another publication (Brocos & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2020b) we present a detailed
analysis of the use of environmental data in these reports.
The ethic criterion was addressed in 15 of the arguments. Most of them,
13 groups, used information related to animal wellbeing to highlight the ethical
desirability of reducing or completely removing the proportion of animal products in
the diet: “eating meat or animal products involves an underlying idea: animal
suffering. Breeding animals in precarious conditions just to be killed and eaten
afterwards implies inflicting pain in order to eat these animal products” (group
4.4). However, two of these 13 groups, besides expressing the ethical advantages
of plant-based diets, also pointed out the fact that, in nature, “some animals eat each
other” (group 2.4), which might be considered as a justification to accept human
consumption of animals, although it is presented as an argumentum ad naturam, a
kind of informal fallacy. The other two groups presented an equidistant position
regarding the ethic criterion, considering that both vegetarian and omnivorous diets
could be carried out in a more or less ethical way, and that one option should not
necessarily be considered intrinsically better than the other one from an ethical point
of view: “Analysing the fourth aspect, ethics, rather than choosing one [diet] or
another in accordance to their advantages, we observe than in the case of the
vegetarian diet instances of non-ethic production can also occur”(group 2.3).
These results indicate that most of the groups considered environmental and ethic
information, and that they used this evidence to criticise the consumption of animal
products and indicate advantages associated to plant-based diets, which implies
putting their lifestyle and worldviews into question. Accordingly, we interpret
these results as an indicator of open-mindedness and good disposition to consider
evidence, even if it is disruptive.
12 Social Responsibility and Critical Disposition for Considering and Acting. . . 219

12.4.2 Thinking and Social Responsibility: Making Decisions

and Overcoming Conflicting Evidence

Assessing dispositional traits of CT such as independent thinking entails analytical

difficulties, as stated earlier. We address this component of CT at group level, by
analysing the decisions made by the participants and how they are justified. Partic-
ularly, we examine the existence and acknowledgment of conflicts between the
evidence included in the written arguments and the conclusions defended, analysing
how the conflict was justified and overcome. As conflict was embedded in task
design, no option could meet all desirable criteria. Thus, the capacity of recognizing
and making visible the shortcomings of the available options –and especially of
one’s own choice– is, we argue, a sign of intellectual honesty, and a good starting
point for making a decision as an independent thinker who is capable of perceive that
the issue is ill-structured. The way in which conflict is argumentatively justified and
overcome indicates which aspects take pre-eminence over others, and as such, sheds
light on how participants undertake and handle their decision-making process in
terms of social responsibility.
First, we analyse the options chosen by each group (see Table 12.2). From the
20 written reports, 10 chose an option described by them as omnivorous diet with
reduced intake of animal products, so, from a normative point of view, involving
moderate changes; 7 selected an omnivorous diet with regular amounts of animal-
based products, in other words, they followed the prevailing norm; 2 opted for an
ovo-lacto vegetarian diet, an unconventional option; and one group chose a vegan
diet, exclusively based on plant products, a diet which radically differs from social
norms.
The examination of the reports revealed that in ten of them there was an
acknowledgement of explicit conflict between the choice of a diet and the arguments
displayed. In these reports the participants acknowledged and made transparent the
trade-offs associated with each option. For instance, group 4.3, choosing an omniv-
orous diet, recognized the ethic and environmental advantages of vegetarian diets,
and the difficulties involved in making a decision:
Choosing a mixed [omnivorous] diet was a difficult task taking into account that, from the
ethic and environmental point of view, the vegetarian diet would be the ideal one. [. . .]

Table 12.2 Conflict between decision and arguments in the written reports (N ¼ 20)
Omnivorous
reducing animal Omnivorous Vegetarian Vegan
Diet option products (O-) (O) (V) (Vg) Total
Number of reports 10 7 2 1 20
Conflicts between argu- 6 EC 2 EC 2 EC 10 EC
ments and decision 4 IC 4 IC 8 IC
1 NC 1 NC 2 NC
Legend: EC Explicit Conflict, IC Implicit Conflict, NC No Conflict
220 P. Brocos and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre

Despite this, the advantages of an omnivorous diet are still numerous, since the other
dimensions (nutritional, economic, and cultural-personal) bring benefits.

Group 2.5, choosing a vegetarian diet, acknowledged the shortcomings of their

choice and the negative economic consequences for Galicia of its full-scale
adoption:
As the last opposing factor that we find regarding this [vegetarian] diet, we can address the
cultural and economic domain, focusing in our region, which is Galicia. Most of this cattle-
breeding region’s economy is based on the livestock, cannery, milk and fishing industries.
This implies that a frequent usage of the vegetarian diet would reduce the economic level of
our region.

In eight reports the conflict was implicit in the way the arguments were deployed.
In them, conflict is inferred from the lines of reasoning developed in the argument,
but contradictions and difficulties were not made visible. For instance, in this
example from group 2.4, each criterion was evaluated independently, with no
coherent crosslinks to justify the opposing claims and how they relate to their
conclusion, an omnivorous diet:
Cultural-personal dimension: [. . .] we choose an omnivorous diet because it is the one we
have followed since we were little. [. . .] In this dimension [environmental] we find pros and
cons for both the omnivorous and vegetarian diet. [. . .] Ethic dimension: we find mainly
arguments in favour of a vegetarian diet, because [. . .] it is cruel to sacrifice animals for
human consumption. [. . .] Conclusion: Seeing the pros and cons of every dimension this
group chooses the omnivorous diet as the best option.

The choices were largely coherent with the arguments deployed in two reports,
which do not acknowledge conflict. However, their arguments might be considered
biased (“cherrypicking”) in terms of the evidence presented, they failed to recognize
the conflict regarding the issue, and they did not inform of the shortcomings of the
elected options. Interestingly, these two groups elected extreme but opposite options,
situated at both ends of the spectrum: omnivorous and vegan diets. In contrast, the
results presented in Table 12.2 suggest that conflict is more likely to be recognized
by groups choosing “intermediate” or compromising options: vegetarian (2/2 EC)
and omnivorous diet with meat reduction (6/10 EC, 4/10 IC).
It should be noted that we do not evaluate the acceptability of the choices. We are
not implying judgments about the approvability of the decisions –we do not imply
that being a critical thinker means choosing a particular option, the one that better
aligns with our position. Our objective is to examine how these pre-service teachers
justify making a decision which conflicts with the evidence they present. A thematic
analysis revealed some common patterns in the way in which the 16 groups,
choosing either a standard omnivorous diet or with a reduction of meat, justified
their conclusion, despite acknowledging the benefits of vegetarianism. These written
arguments justify taking a conflicting choice using three types of justifications,
which are not mutually exclusive:
12 Social Responsibility and Critical Disposition for Considering and Acting. . . 221

1. Anthropocentrism: conflict between personal (we/our) and world rights;

acknowledgement that some decisions could be better for the planet or for the
wellbeing of other living beings, but they would come at a high economic or
individual cost. They are present in 10 reports: 6 O, 4 O-. For instance, acknowl-
edging that human preferences are placed above the other dimensions considered
in this dilemma:
Most of the documents we were given, in relation with the different dimensions, support
the vegetarian diet; however, from our point of view, we concluded that for human
beings a mixed diet without excessive abuse of animal meat is preferable (group 4.3).

2. Pragmatic: practical difficulties for carrying out a vegetarian diet in the Spanish
and Galician context, such as higher prices or scarce availability in restaurants,
expressed in seven reports: 3 O, 4 O-. The following excerpts present pragmatic
issues for eating vegetarian in restaurants, or for committing to a regular use of
dietary supplements: “In current society is easier to be an omnivore [. . .] in
catering, for instance, the supply of vegetarian meals is still inferior than meat,
fish and seafood” (group 3.1); “In our opinion, the regular consumption of dietary
supplements [in vegan diets] would amount to a questionable need, at least in
terms of everyday convenience” (group 2.2).
3. Cultural justifications: alluding to the cultural context, the prestige of meat and
the social difficulties for adopting a vegetarian diet. In 5 reports: 1O, 4 O-. The
report of group 4.1 illustrates the role of the cultural and symbolic value of
animal-based food in their decision:
Most of the gastronomic festivals that we know highlight animal-based products,
especially meat and fish. Food is part of our tradition and it is very difficult to decouple
it from it, because, in its own way, they are a component of our identity [. . .] with this
kind of diet [omnivorous], we would not renounce to any cultural asset.

These results suggest that the conflicting dimensions of the issue were generally
considered by the participants, especially by those electing intermediate options that
would involve moderate changes, although not always explicitly. The shortcomings
of their elections were generally recognized. The transparency in the acknowledg-
ment of the underlying conflict and in the limitations of one’s choices is, we argue, a
sign of intellectual honesty and critical thinking. The analysis of the justifications for
overcoming the conflict in the participants’ arguments reveal the considerable
weight of social and cultural influence on their decisions.

12.4.3 Critical Action: Change Towards Sustainability

and Identification of Obstacles

Although the task was an argument about dietary choices, which did not demand to
explain their personal choice or why would be difficult to carry on with it, the
participants framed it as a real-world decision. In some cases, the proposal is
considered in the wider social context, rather than just as an academic exercise.
222 P. Brocos and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre

We examine the component of critical action by analysing the existence of sponta-

neous references to the need for modifying social or individual behaviours, and the
identification of obstacles preventing change in the written reports.
Table 12.3 summarizes these results. Seven of the 20 groups spontaneously
highlighted the need or convenience for change in their arguments. These references
are identified only in groups proposing O-, V or Vg, in other words, any option that
involves modifying eating behaviours, appearing in 7 out of the 13. No references to
the need for change appear in the 7 groups proposing O, which seems coherent with
their conclusion, since these proposals would not entail an implementation of
individual or social changes.
The convenience for change appears in different forms. In some cases, as direct
appeals to act, involving public persuasion: “We encourage you all to reduce the
presence of meat in your diets” (group 2.1). In others, is presented as the result of the
reflection on the issue: “We consider that a restructuring should take place for
avoiding the overconsumption of meat and in order to not generate as much polluting
gas” (group 4.2). Specific changes in particular contexts are also suggested: “We
think that a good option would be to include in school canteens, in order to educate
kids on food, the Mondays without meat, in which meals, for a day, would not
include any kind of meat” (group 4.5).
In contrast, we interpret signs of lack of empowerment in three groups. These
include acknowledgments of the weight of social and cultural influence, which
would prevent individual agency: “If a majority had a vegetarian diet we would
choose it, so we can say that a diet is adopted because of heritage, fashion” (group
1.2); and reveal reluctances to act, which might be interpreted as a refusal to take
responsibility on the issue: “There are many other pollution causes without having to
directly influence on the diet we should follow” (group 2.3).
Thirteen groups pointed to the presence of obstacles preventing dietary changes.
Six of these made no proposals to overcome them (4 O, 2 O-); while five of them did
so (2 O-, 2 V, 1 Vg), and two (2 O-) included both obstacles with and without
possible solutions for them. The characterization of these obstacles and the inclusion
of ways to surmount them appears to be coherent, or at least related, to the options
chosen. The lack of proposals was more frequent in groups with options that
involved little or no change (4 O), while the inclusion of proposals appeared in all
groups aiming at noticeable changes (2 V; 1 Vg). Groups electing O- fall somewhere
in the middle, with more dispersion across categories.

Table 12.3 Analysis of dimensions related to agency in participants’ discourse

Number of reports
Category Sub-category (N ¼ 20)
Disposition to action/ Highlighting the need or convenience for change 7 (6O-, 1V)
change Expressing lack of empowerment or disposition to 3 (2O, 1O-)
act
Identification of obsta- Identifying obstacles that prevent change with no 8 (4O, 4O-)
cles for change proposals to overcome them
Identifying obstacles and making proposals to 7 (4O-, 2V, 1Vg,)
overcome them
12 Social Responsibility and Critical Disposition for Considering and Acting. . . 223

Thematically, the most frequent obstacles pointed out in the reports were related
to economic constraints, for instance in group 4.3: “in the case that we all started to
follow a vegetarian diet, we would experience an enormous decrease in the eco-
nomic aspect”; or in group 4.2: “quitting meat would be a great economic loss for
us”. Pragmatic and cultural difficulties are also highlighted. We identified proposals
to overcome both economic: “A great new vegetable industry could be developed to
substitute the reduction in cattle production” (group 2.5); and cultural issues, for
instance highlighting the role of institutions and families in social change: “This
would be an important cultural change, that is why it should be supported by food
and nutrition education, in which the school plays an essential role, as well as
families and institutions” (group 3.1).
Besides the written arguments, the action component was also identified in the
individual portfolio reports, which the participants were asked to submit at the end of
the course. Seven reports mentioned spontaneously that the task made them reflect
on the need for a change of diet, emphasizing the impact of the task in their
assumptions about diets. This issue was not the focus of the portfolio report,
which was supposed to address pedagogical reflections about the tasks carried out
throughout the course.

12.5 Discussion and Significance

The analysis of the participants’ reports allows some insights into their dispositional
traits of CT and their thoughts and perceptions about changing ways of life, in
particular changing ways of eating. Although the task did not explicitly require them
to justify personal choices, the context of the argumentation sequence promoted that
choices needed to be justified, not only in terms of evidence or premises supporting
them, but also in terms of evidence or premises contradicting them. Environmental
responsibility and animal suffering were generally explicitly considered, but had
limited impact on the conclusion. However, we argue that the analysis of the way in
which participants use and take –or not– ownership of these data provided us with an
opportunity to examine their critical character in terms of their consideration or
dismissal of inconvenient, lifestyle-threatening evidence; confirmation biases; and
intellectual honesty, captured in the accuracy of their recollection and interpretation
of the information presented to them by their partners and the task design.
Conflict was present and recognized in most reports, although not always explic-
itly. This acknowledgment indicates the capacity of understanding the ill-structured
nature of the task and its embedded conflict, which lays the ground for engaging in
the practice of making an independent decision. Furthermore, these results show that
students made their decisions transparent, at least to some degree, avoiding the
impulse of disregarding uncomfortable, inconvenient evidence. The awareness of
potential dissonances might trigger dissatisfaction with previous ideas and assump-
tions, which could facilitate the revision of one’s worldviews and, thus, informs us of
dispositional traits related to critical character.
224 P. Brocos and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre

The participants’ reports point to some reasons perceived as difficulties hindering

the conclusion that was coherent with their evaluation of evidence. The way in which
participants justified their decisions and overcame conflicts in their arguments
reveals how they valued and prioritised different dimensions of the issue, which
has implications regarding their own perceptions about personal and social respon-
sibility. The analysis of participants’ arguments, in terms of the self-reported social
influence in their opinions and decisions, points to a substantial weight of socially
established ideas, and to the difficulties, experienced or anticipated, for taking
non-mainstream options. The general attribution of such influence to society and
culture may be interpreted also as a shifting of responsibility about sustainable and
healthy diets onto society, although diets might be considered as personal options to
much greater extent that, for instance, energy choices, which are more dependable on
government regulations. The choice of mainstream diets was also influenced by
socioeconomic concerns, and hence it was, at least to some extent, built on the basis
of perceived responsibilities towards social well-being and traditional lifestyles of
Galician population. However, we must observe that from an ESD point of view, the
promotion of ecocentric perspectives (Kopnina, 2012) and a greater degree of
commitment towards the environment would be more desirable in order to guarantee
future sustainability.
To be clear, we do not think that being a critical thinker means opting for
non-mainstream options, or for a specific option within a specific dilemma for
specific reasons, perhaps those coinciding with the ideas which the teacher or,
more generally, people in charge, have in mind. Quite the opposite: it is possible
that students arguing for mainstream options show high CT skills and dispositions,
particularly if they perceive a consensus in the audience, and, in that particular
context, still decide to argue for a different option or perspective. However, we argue
that choosing non-conventional options usually represents a greater opportunity (at a
higher risk) to practice CT, and involves a higher potential of development of
independent positions. This does not mean, of course, that if one chooses a radical
option, one must be automatically considered a critical thinker. Choices are not
enough: we need to take a look at how they are developed and justified. That’s why
we analyse the existence of conflict in the arguments and how it is solved. So, as an
educational implication, we think that it is important that practitioners do not convey
the idea that being an “original” or “different” thinker necessarily reveals criticality.
The step from critical thinking to critical action is not a smooth one, even when
the action is hypothetical. The task did not required them to take actual action, but
only to decide a hypothetical recommendation about which diet would be healthy
and sustainable. Even being aware that their decision (in the report) did not mean any
commitment to actually change their diet, they experienced difficulties in drawing
conclusions coherent with the evidence considered, obstacles similar to those
discussed by Macdiarmid et al. (2016) regarding social dietary changes towards
plant-based diets. Agency towards sustainability involves new behavioural patterns
and, as such, is dependent on the capacity of developing independent positions and
challenge social ideas, to go beyond those established. In this sense, and for
promoting sustainable agency, it might be worth exploring the role played by
12 Social Responsibility and Critical Disposition for Considering and Acting. . . 225

students’ notion of culture and traditions, and how understanding them not as static
entities, but dynamic, permeable and ever-changing, might contribute to open
dispositions for facilitating large-scale changes towards sustainability.
Our study adds to the literature about criticality findings revealing explicit or
implicit awareness of the conflict between evidence and final claims. Conflict is, we
argue, an essential feature of learning environments designed to promote CT. If there
are no possible conflicts, no space for controversies stemming from the interplay of
values and points of view, there is no room for CT to be clearly enacted –no space of
coherent options to be critical about. Our analysis presents some methodological
limitations: it studies CT at the level of groups, and it is, in a way, an indirect
approach, focusing on products derived from argumentative practice. Future
research may develop more refined analytical approaches comprising detailed dis-
course analysis of oral interactions, focusing, for instance, on the influence of peer
pressures on the capacity to develop independent opinions, challenge established
ideas and increase dispositions towards agency.

Acknowledgements Work supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Education and Univer-
sities, partly funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Contract grant
PGC2018-096581-B-C22.

References

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang,
D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage
1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 1102–1134.
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson,
T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063
Acar, O., Turkmen, L., & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in socio-scientific argu-
mentation and decision-making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines.
International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191–1206.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science
Education, 69(4), 453–475.
Breiting, S., & Mogensen, F. (1999). Action competence and environmental education. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 29(3), 349–353.
Brocos, P., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2020a). What to eat here and now: Contextualization of
scientific argumentation from a place-based perspective. In I. Sánchez-Tapia (Ed.), Interna-
tional perspectives on the contextualization of science education (pp. 15–46). Springer.
Brocos, P., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2020b). El impacto ambiental de la alimentación:
argumentos de alumnado de magisterio y secundaria. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 38(1),
127–145.
Colucci-Gray, L., Camino, E., Barbiero, G., & Gray, D. (2006). From scientific literacy to
sustainability literacy: An ecological framework for education. Science Education, 90, 227–252.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design (3rd ed.). Sage.
Davies, M., & Barnett, R. (2015). Introduction. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave
handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 1–25). Palgrave Macmillan.
226 P. Brocos and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre

de Haan, G. (2010). The development of ESD-related competencies in supportive institutional

frameworks. International Review of Education, 56(2), 315–328.
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2012). Sustainable diets and biodiversity: Directions and
solutions for policy, research and action. Proceedings of the International Scientific Sympo-
sium, Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets United Against Hunger. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Garrison, J., Östman, L., & Håkansson, M. (2015). The creative use of companion values in
environmental education and education for sustainable development: Exploring the educative
moment. Environmental Education Research, 21(2), 183–204.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Aldine.
Heijltjes, A., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). Improving students' critical thinking – Empirical
support for explicit instructions combined with practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(4),
518–530.
Ideland, M., & Malmberg, C. (2015). Governing ‘eco-certified’ children through pastoral power:
Critical perspectives on education for sustainable development. Environmental Education
Research, 21(2), 173–182.
Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. (2020). IPBES workshop on
biodiversity and pandemics. Retrieved from: https://ipbes.net/pandemics
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Brocos, P. (2018). Shifts in epistemic statuses in argumentation and
in conceptual change. In T. Amin & O. Levrini (Eds.), Converging perspectives on conceptual
change: Mapping an emerging paradigm in the learning sciences (pp. 171–179). Routledge.
ISBN 978-1-138-20540-6.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). “To trust or not to trust, . . .” – Pupils’ ways of judging information
encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9),
877–901.
Kolstø, S. D. (2005). The relevance of values for coping with socioscientific issues in science
education. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA)
conference, Barcelona, Spain.
Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-
scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689–1716.
Kopnina, H. (2012). Education for sustainable development (ESD): The turn away from ‘environ-
ment’ in environmental education? Environmental Education Research, 18(5), 699–717. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.658028
Laurie, R., Nonoyama-Tarumi, Y., Mckeown, R., & Hopkins, C. (2016). Contributions of educa-
tion for sustainable development (ESD) to quality education: A synthesis of research. Journal of
Education for Sustainable Development, 10(2), 226–242.
Lotz-Sisitka, H., Wals, A. E., Kronlid, D., & McGarry, D. (2015). Transformative, transgressive
social learning: Rethinking higher education pedagogy in times of systemic global dysfunction.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, 73–80.
Macdiarmid, J. I., Douglas, F., & Campbell, J. (2016). Eating like there’s no tomorrow: Public
awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eat less meat as part of a
sustainable diet. Appetite, 96, 487–493.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Wiley.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress.
Jossey-Bass.
Morin, O., Simonneaux, L., Simonneaux, J., Tytler, R., & Barraza, L. (2014). Developing and using
an S3R model to analyze reasoning in web-based cross-national exchanges on sustainability.
Science Education, 98(3), 517–542.
Oliveira, A. W., & Ackerson, V. (2015). Environmental agency in classroom argumentation:
Crossing sociocultural and sociocognitive boundaries. Paper presented at the ESERA confer-
ence, Helsinki, August 31–September 4.
12 Social Responsibility and Critical Disposition for Considering and Acting. . . 227

Orr, D. W. (2017). Foreword. In B. Jickling & S. Sterling (Eds.), Post-sustainability and environ-
mental education: Remaking education for the future (pp. vii–x). Springer.
Rieckmann, M. (2012). Future-oriented higher education: Which key competencies should be
fostered through university teaching and learning? Futures, 44(2), 127–135.
Slavich, G. M., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2012). Transformational teaching: Theoretical underpinnings.
Basic principles, and core methods. Educational Psychology Review, 24(4), 569–608.
Springmann, M., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2016). Analysis and valuation
of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 113(15), 4146–4151.
Stehfest, E., Bouwman, L., van Vuuren, D. P., den Elchen, M. G. J., Eickhout, B., & Kabat,
P. (2009). Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change, 95, 83–102.
Stevenson, R., & Stirling, C. (2010). Environmental learning agency in diverse cultural contexts. In
R. B. Stevenson & J. Dillon (Eds.), Engaging environmental education: Learning, culture and
agency (pp. 219–238). Sense Publishers.
Thompson, S., Gower, R., Darmon, N., Vieux, F., Murphy-Bokern, D., & Maillot, M. (2013). A
balance of healthy and sustainable food choices for France, Spain, and Sweden. World
Wildlife Fund.
Tilbury, D. (2011). Education for sustainable development: An expert review of processes and
learning. UNESCO. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001914/191442
e.pdf
Tilman, D., & Clark, M. (2014). Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health.
Nature, 515(7528), 518–522.
Tytler, R. (2012). Socio-scientific issues, sustainability and science education. Research in Science
Education, 42(1), 155–163.
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Retrieved from: http://
www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol¼A/RES/70/1&Lang¼E
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2012). The education for
sustainable development sourcebook. Education for Sustainable Development in Action, Learn-
ing and Training Tools N 4. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0021/002163/216383e.pdf
United Nations Educational, & Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2017). Education for sus-
tainable development goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO.
Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A
reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6(2),
203–218.
Chapter 13
Epistemic Beliefs as a Means
of Understanding Critical Thinking
in a Socioscientific Environmental Debate

Kévin De Checchi, Gabriel Pallarès, Valérie Tartas, and Manuel Bächtold

13.1 Dealing Critically with Unfriendly Epistemic Contexts

Environmental and sustainability issues are of decisive importance for our society.
As future citizens, students need to be able to take part in an informed way in debates
on environmental socioscientific issues (SSIs) and to think and argue critically.
Developing students’ critical thinking (CT) about science and its links to societal
issues has thus become a major challenge (Hazelkorn et al., 2015). Environmental
SSIs are complex (Morin et al., 2017), as students need to combine knowledge from
different disciplines with values and other people’s opinions, in order to adopt an
enlightened position and engage in critical argumentation. Learners also need to deal
with knowledge uncertainties (Kampourakis, 2018), as these are a distinctive feature
of SSIs. Lastly, students need to be aware of the openness of these issues: there are
numerous reasonable answers to an SSI, none of them is self-evident and all must be
argued (Oulton et al., 2004).
Students therefore need to be able to problematize, conceptualize, question,
analyze, and argue on SSIs. These skills can be developed during the teaching of
specific topics and domains, but only if teachers allow sufficient room for argumen-
tation in their teaching (Schwarz & Baker, 2017). Argumentation is a key component
of CT (Facione, 2000, 2011), and some authors consider the two to be somewhat
similar (Groarke & Tindale, 2013; Kuhn, 2019). Nevertheless, as other authors

K. De Checchi (*) · G. Pallarès · M. Bächtold

LIRDEF, University of Montpellier and University of Paul-Valéry Montpellier 3, Montpellier,
France
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
V. Tartas
CLLE, University of Toulouse, CNRS, Toulouse, France
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 229
B. Puig, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), Critical Thinking in Biology
and Environmental Education, Contributions from Biology Education Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_13
230 K. De Checchi et al.

(Ennis, 2018) have pointed out, CT is a complex construct that involves not only
argumentative skills, but also dispositions to use them. In other words, in order to
apply these skills, students must not only master them, but also be disposed to use
them (Facione, 2000; Kuhn, 2019).
Several studies have found that students’ epistemic beliefs (i.e. their representa-
tions of knowledge and knowing) influence their argumentation (Iordanou et al.,
2019; Kuhn et al., 2000; Mason & Scirica, 2006; Nussbaum et al., 2008). As SSIs
involve various kinds of knowledge and opinions, we assumed that if we wanted to
examine epistemic beliefs in this context, we would need to take account of students’
representations not only of knowledge, but also of opinions. We expect this inves-
tigation to shed light on students’ CT skills and dispositions to argue in the context of
environmental education. Highlighting these links is important, as it can help
teachers improve their teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation
and their critical dispositions in relation to environmental SSIs. It would also enable
us to ask about the nature of the links between CT and epistemic beliefs in the
context of socioscientific argumentation, and more specifically in the context of
environmental SSIs.
The main purpose of this chapter is to develop a theoretical framework that could
connect CT to epistemic beliefs, defined as representations of both knowledge and
opinions. We test this theoretical framework with an empirical study, looking at the
arguments produced by six students during debates about environmental SSIs, and
transcripts of interviews undertaken to elicit their epistemic beliefs. In the following
sections, after setting out our theoretical framework, we describe this empirical study
and analyze the two sets of data and their possible interconnections. We then discuss
how our study opens up new avenues for developing environmental education and
fostering students’ critical argumentation on environmental SSIs.

13.2 Towards a Theoretical Framework Connecting

Critical Thinking and Epistemic Beliefs

13.2.1 Critical Thinking

CT has been conceived by Ennis (2018) as “judging in a reflective way what to do or

what to believe” (p. 136). As this is a rather vague description, CT has been given a
variety of definitions, ranging from a very broad set of skills and dispositions to a list
of specific behaviors (Ennis, 2011). There is nonetheless a consensus among many
authors that there is a strong link between CT and argumentation. For example, each
of the six core critical thinking skills highlighted by Facione and colleagues in their
Delphi project (American Philosophical Association APA, 1990), namely interpre-
tation, inference, evaluation, explanation, analysis and self-regulation, are closely
linked to argumentation. By the same token, argumentation scholars often define an
ideally good argumentation as one that contains critical discussions (Van Eemeren
13 Epistemic Beliefs as a Means of Understanding Critical Thinking in a. . . 231

& Grootendorst, 2004) or critical questions (Walton, 1989, 1996). This link can also
be found in instructional contexts. For instance, Kuhn (2019, p. 147) observed that
“inquiry and argument [. . .] get us closer to empirically identifiable skills or behav-
iors than does the term critical thinking, while capturing much of what critical
thinking is envisioned to encompass.” Following Kuhn’s methodological concerns,
we chose to consider CT through the lens of argumentation in this study, despite
considering that CT cannot be reduced to argumentative skills and behaviors.
CT can be seen both as a set of skills and as a set of dispositions (Ennis, 2011). As
Kuhn (2019, p. 148) noted, researchers currently hold that “critical thinking is at
least as much a disposition as it is a skill or ability,” as students may have the ability
to put forward arguments to explain their opinion, but may not necessarily be
disposed to use it. CT dispositions can be seen as the difference between critical
thinking and critical thinker: the former is an activity that can be achieved with the
use of specific skills, while the latter is the individual who can decide whether or not
to use these CT skills. Accordingly, dispositions are linked to willingness to engage
in CT. The Delphi project (APA, 1990, p. 6) listed some of the many dispositions of
an ideal critical thinker. We consider this list relevant but to be viewed with caution,
as dispositions are broad and can manifest themselves in a variety of ways in the
context of argumentation. For example, in a debate, a student who is open-minded
and willing to reconsider may be inclined to acknowledge that his or her opinion is
not self-evident and attempt to argue in favor of it, but may also tend to take another
person’s opinion into account, try to understand it better, and either challenge it or
agree with it.
Another issue is whether students develop all these critical dispositions at the
same time. Some dispositions may be easier to develop, if they make more sense to
students with regard to the current activity or topic. In the context of environmental
SSIs, which is a favorable one for CT practice or development (Simonneaux, 2007),
it may be useful to identify which kinds of epistemic beliefs can influence both the
development and use of certain critical dispositions. So let us turn now to epistemic
beliefs and the most accurate way of defining them.

13.2.2 Epistemic Beliefs

Epistemic beliefs can be defined as “beliefs that might be more or less independent,
rather than existing in integrated fashion and developing in a coordinated sequence”
(Hofer, 2004, p. 45). This definition implies that “there are multiple dimensions to be
considered and these dimensions can be thought of independently, as well as
together” (Schommer, 1990, p. 301).
In a developmental approach, Kuhn et al. (2000) identified three stages. At the
absolutist stage, individuals view knowledge as a certain, objective entity supported
by external sources. At the multiplist stage, they no longer view knowledge as an
objective entity that can be acquired, believing instead that having a given item of
knowledge is as a matter of choice. In other words, all individuals have the right to
232 K. De Checchi et al.

their opinions, and all opinions have equal value. Finally, at the evaluativist stage,
knowledge is assumed to contain elements of uncertainty because it is constructed by
individuals, but there are objective criteria for evaluating and comparing it, which
allow this uncertainty to be reduced. More broadly, the developmental approach
considers that all individuals move through the same increasingly elaborated stages
that reflect the development of the criteria and/or strategies expressed by students to
deal with their awareness of uncertainty (King & Kitchener, 2002).
In a dimensional approach, Hofer and Pintrich (1997) described the content of
epistemic beliefs in terms of four dimensions separated into two components. The
first component concerns the nature of knowledge (i.e. what an individual believes
knowledge is) which includes the dimensions certainty of knowledge and simplicity
of knowledge. The second component concerns the nature of the process of knowing
(i.e. how an individual comes to know), and contains the dimensions justification for
knowing and source of knowledge (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Moreover, Chinn et al.
(2011) proposed to study epistemic beliefs more comprehensively and argued “for a
fine-grained, context-specific analysis” in terms of five dimensions: epistemic aims
and epistemic values; the structure of knowledge and other epistemic achievements;
the sources and justification of knowledge, and the related epistemic stances;
epistemic virtues and vices; and reliable and unreliable processes for achieving
epistemic aims.
Context-dependency has been supported by several empirical studies, which have
shown that epistemic beliefs vary notably according to the academic discipline
(Kuhn et al., 2000) or SSI (e.g. Khishfe et al., 2017). Zeidler et al. (2009) observed,
for example, that students may be at different stages of epistemic beliefs, depending
on which SSI they are being asked about. In this regard, we chose to focus our
attention on epistemic beliefs in the context of argumentation, and more specifically
in the context of environmental SSIs.

13.2.3 Epistemic Beliefs and Socioscientific Argumentation

Many studies investigating the influence of epistemic beliefs on argumentation have

shown that the more elaborated these are, the better individuals argue (e.g. Kuhn
et al., 2000; Mason & Scirica, 2006). More specifically, elaborated epistemic beliefs
have been observed to lead to better reasoning (Zeineddin & Abd-El-Khalick, 2010),
or more alternative arguments and better coordination of facts and hypotheses
(Kuhn, 1991). Nussbaum and Bendixen (2003) also observed epistemic beliefs
influence the way students engage in argumentative activities. More precisely
these authors pointed out, for example, that students who consider knowledge to
be certain and simple state that “arguments were anxiety-promoting” (p. 3) and tend
to avoid dealing with them. A correlation has been found between certain dimen-
sions of epistemic beliefs (according to Hofer & Pintrich, 1997) and argumentative
skills: justification from knowing develops in the same direction as the argumentative
quality of written productions (Ferguson & Bråten, 2013; Mason & Scirica, 2006),
13 Epistemic Beliefs as a Means of Understanding Critical Thinking in a. . . 233

while certainty of knowledge develops in the opposite direction to willingness to

engage in argumentation (Nussbaum & Bendixen, 2003). Moreover, the nature of
the topic being discussed influences the way in which students argue: the latter do
not argue in the same way if the debate concerns a scientific issue or an SSI
(Simonneaux, 2007; Zeidler et al., 2009; Zeineddin & Abd-El-Khalick, 2010). The
particular features of the topic under discussion should therefore be taken into
account in order to describe epistemic beliefs in a situated way in the context of
socioscientific argumentation.
Links between epistemic beliefs and students’ argumentation have been brought
to light through the use of interviews or questionnaires within the framework of SSIs
(Barzilai & Weinstock, 2015; Kuhn, 1991; Mason & Scirica, 2006). In these studies,
the authors presented students’ epistemic beliefs as concerning only knowledge.
However, the interview questions aimed at eliciting epistemic beliefs about knowl-
edge also focused on opinions: “How sure are you of your view, compared to an
expert?” (Kuhn, 1991, p. 175), “Can you say that one opinion is better and one is
worse?” (King & Kitchener, 2002). The same is true for students’ responses, in
which knowledge and points of view were interwoven. For example, in reply to the
question “Could someone prove that you were wrong?” (Kuhn, 1991, p. 175),
students responded “No, they couldn’t prove it [. . .] because it’s my opinion [. . .]”
(p. 181), “I was wrong, but I would probably not change my opinion. It’s the result of
lifelong personal experience and quite frankly, I think it is right. [. . .]” (p. 182). The
first answer refers to an opinion, and the second answer concerns statistical knowl-
edge that can be given to refute the student’s proposal, lending more weight to one
opinion than to another based on personal experience. It should be noted that these
excerpts can contain different terms, such as view, point of view, opinion, belief and
position. However, these terms are not always defined or explicitly considered in the
literature on students’ epistemic beliefs. In our research, we took them to be
synonymous, and chose to use the term opinion. It is also apparent from these few
examples that students’ responses involved knowledge, opinions, and the connec-
tions between the two. This suggests that students may endorse different beliefs
about knowledge and about opinions. Even though both kinds of beliefs appear to be
expressed in students’ responses, the latter have been less studied in the literature and
defined as part of the epistemic beliefs to be taken into account in the context of
argumentation on SSIs. The description of epistemic beliefs in this context remains
restricted to beliefs about knowledge.

13.2.4 Research Questions

Our study aims to achieve a better understanding of the factors at play in high-school
students’ development of CT on environmental SSIs. In line with other authors
(Facione, 2000; Groarke & Tindale, 2013; Kuhn, 2019), we take argumentation to be
a major component of CT. More specifically, we assume that CT about environ-
mental SSIs relies on both skills and dispositions to argue on them. As CT
234 K. De Checchi et al.

dispositions influence the use of CT skills (Facione, 2000), we chose to specifically

study CT dispositions. As pointed out in other studies (Nussbaum et al., 2008;
Zeidler et al., 2009), the quality of students’ argumentation on SSIs is related to
their epistemic beliefs. This leads us to regard epistemic beliefs as a key to under-
standing how students develop their CT on environmental SSIs. Moreover, as SSIs
involve both knowledge and opinions, we investigate epistemic beliefs as represen-
tations of knowledge, but also opinions. Based on the literature, we predict that the
more elaborated the students’ epistemic beliefs are, the more they have developed
CT dispositions to argue. Therefore, our research questions are: How precisely are
students’ epistemic beliefs related to their CT, especially to their dispositions to
argue, in the context of environmental SSIs? Which features of their epistemic
beliefs about knowledge and opinions are most important in this respect?
We begin exploring our research questions by separately describing the argu-
mentation of six students during an environmental socioscientific debate and their
epistemic beliefs on the same topic. We then cross-analyzed our data to show how
some features of epistemic beliefs can help us better understand students’ critical
dispositions to argue.

13.3 Methodology

13.3.1 Context: The AREN Project and the Participants

This study is part of the Argumentation et Numérique (AREN) French project (the
French word “numérique” means “digital”). The purpose of this project is to design
an online debate platform (also called AREN) that promotes the development of
students’ argumentative skills and CT on SSIs, following a design experiment
method (Sandoval, 2013). We developed a teaching sequence consisting of three
phases: (1) a preparatory phase where students acquire knowledge on the topic;
(2) an online debate on an SSI, mediated by the AREN platform; and (3) a synthesis
phase, where students undertake a reflective analysis of the quality of the arguments
produced during the debate.
The data were collected in two Grade 10 biology classes (mean age: 16 years) in
two high schools located in the center of a city from south of France (around 250,000
inhabitants). The first is attended by students from mixed socio-economic back-
grounds, and the second by students from middle and low socio-economic back-
grounds. We analyzed the productions of six students, three from each class. The
sample was composed of four girls (Silène and Hibiscus from the first high school,
and Azalée and Crocus from the second high school) and two boys (Jonquille from
the first high school and Muguet from the second high school). All original first
names have been changed here. All six students were volunteers and were selected
with the help of their teachers to reflect varying levels of involvement in class
activities. In each class, the teaching sequence was implemented twice during the
school year. We examine the second debate, which focused on an environmental
SSI, use of renewable energy and/or fossil fuel.
13 Epistemic Beliefs as a Means of Understanding Critical Thinking in a. . . 235

AREN-mediated argumentation has several specific features. Argumentation on

the platform is based on a text, which appears on the left side of the screen. Students
can debate by posting comments on the right side of the screen. To do it, a student
has to select some words, generally a full sentence, in the text or in a peer’s
comment. This triggers an argumentation pop-up asking the student to reformulate
them, give an opinion on this sentence (color-coded: Tend to agree in blue/Tend to
disagree in red/Do not understand in grey), and justify this opinion through argu-
mentation. Students are free to fill the argumentation box as they wish: the platform
induces arguments with a Toulminian structure (Toulmin, 1958), comprising a thesis
(here, the opinion) and grounds (in the argumentation box), but this is the only extent
to which students’ arguments are structured.
As students can react to any part of the text or their peers’ comments, argumen-
tation on AREN is not linear, and can take an arborescent structure. It should be
noted that there is no guarantee that all the students will actually read all the
arguments of the debate, as they may limit themselves to reading only parts of the
arguments that are developed in parallel. The reflective synthesis phase, at the end of
the teaching sequence, ensures that students have read all the kinds of arguments
produced during the debate.

13.3.2 Data Analysis

For our analysis, we first examine the arguments students produced during a debate
on environmental SSIs. Second, we describe their epistemic beliefs about knowledge
and opinions, based on thematic analysis. Third, we subject the features of both their
epistemic beliefs and their argumentative practices to a cross-analysis.

13.3.2.1 Analysis of Students’ Argumentation

Assuming that CT is instantiated in argumentation and that argumentation is meth-

odologically the easiest way to evaluate CT (Kuhn, 2019), we chose here to
determine students’ CT by considering the arguments they produced during debates.
To this end, we used a coding scheme developed in the frame of a previous study of
the AREN project and applied to analyse about 2500 arguments (Pallarès, 2020) to
evaluate the quality of students’ socioscientific argumentation. In order to assess CT
dispositions in students’ argumentation, we link the dispositions listed in APA
(1990) to items in the coding scheme. This scheme was based on the view that
argumentation is both a dialogical process, in the context of a debate, and a
monological process, in relation to students’ reasoning (Jiménez-Aleixandre &
Erduran, 2007). It was composed of what we called argumentative moves. For
each of them, we also assessed whether students tried to justify their affirmation,
or thesis, for instance using empirical data, examples or personal values.
236 K. De Checchi et al.

Concerning CT dispositions, the frequent use of justifications can be linked to the

disposition to inquiry, where data are a core component. These argumentative
moves, and the precise ways in which they could be related to CT dispositions, are
described in Table 13.1, where the last column show examples (underlined) of the
argumentative moves, in their context of enunciation. It should be noted that an
argument, treated here as the product of an argumentative process (Jiménez-Aleix-
andre & Erduran, 2007), could contain more than one argumentative move.
We also analyzed the monological aspects of socioscientific argumentation,
namely the content of the arguments. We recorded the occurrence of a domain of
validity, awareness of uncertainties relative to knowledge, and the socioscientific
domains taken into account in the arguments. Each of these indicators, examples for
them, and the precise way in which they could be related to CT dispositions, are
described in Table 13.2.

13.3.2.2 Analysis of Epistemic Beliefs

The interviews served to elicit students’ epistemic beliefs, that is, beliefs about
knowledge, opinions and the link between the two. These interviews were conducted
after a preparatory phase and before a debate in class. The preparatory phase allowed
the students to study definitions and knowledge related to environment in a biology
class. They were therefore prepared in terms of knowledge content and knew that
they would be debating in a future session on a theme related to what they had
studied in biology lessons.
Before the interviews, the researcher explained to students that the aim was not to
judge or evaluate what they said, and there were no right or wrong answers. A
statement related to the socioscientific theme seen during the preparatory phase:
“Human activities that enable economic and social development should not be
changed just because they might cause the disappearance of animal or plant species”
was then shown to the students, who were asked to express their agreement or
disagreement with it. This statement had been previously tested within the AREN
project. Each interview lasted about 15 min, was audio-taped and transcribed. We
prepared an interview guide featuring nine questions, developed by the first author
and their validity discussed with the third and fourth authors. To ensure that the
questions were well formulated and understood, the interviews were tested on eight
students. Their responses ensured that the questions were well understood and had
the potential to elicit students’ beliefs about knowledge (Q6 & Q8), opinions (Q2,
Q7 & Q9), and the relationship between the two (Q3, Q4 & Q5) (Appendix).
We ran a multistep thematic analysis of the interview transcripts. The first step
consisted in describing for each student her or his beliefs about knowledge, opinions,
and the link between the two. In the second step, these analyses were compared so as
to identify common areas and specific themes. We chose to conduct a thematic
analysis first, based on the students’ responses, instead of an analysis based on the
dimensions established by Hofer and Pintrich (1997) or Chinn et al. (2011). This
choice was justified by the fact that we did not know beforehand whether the
13 Epistemic Beliefs as a Means of Understanding Critical Thinking in a. . . 237

Table 13.1 Description of argumentative moves (dialogical aspects of argumentation)

Example (translated
from French; the
relevant parts of the
Argumentative Possible links to APA excerpts are
moves Description (1990) CT dispositions underlined)
Concession Involves the acceptance “Flexibility” and “will- Accidents can happen
of another’s justification ingness to reconsider” in nuclear power plants
or thesis. which may concern the (even if it’s rare)
thesis or justification Nuclear accidents are
one is ready to accept. rare but may be more
frequent in the future
because nuclear plants
grow old
Refutation of Counterargumentative “Inquiry process,” in I think solar energy is
the thesis move, focused on rebutting with sound the best, because it does
another’s thesis and data erroneous hypothe- not pollute and is infi-
intended to undermine ses, use of “reasonable nite, do not emit green-
it. criteria,” which may be house gas, however we
the kind of processes need solar panels and
involved when evaluat- it’s expensive
ing another’s thesis with Solar energy is not effi-
the aim of refuting it. cient enough, we can’t
even power a city with-
out another energy
Refutation of Counterargumentative “Inquiry process,” “pru- People’s mind is
the justification move aimed at denying dence in making judg- changing, thanks to
a justification put for- ments,” use of recycling people care
ward by another student. “reasonable criteria,” about the planet
which may be the kind There’s nothing to do
of processes involved with recycling, in any
when evaluating case recycling doesn’t
another’s justification prevent millions of
with the aim of refuting people to litter plastic
it. or metallic trash
Nuance Partial refutation of “Fair-mindedness in Accidents can happen
another’s thesis or justi- evaluation,” “prudence in nuclear power plants
fication aimed at by in making judgments,” (even if it’s rare)
pointing out its which may concern Nuclear accidents are
limitations. another’s thesis or rare but may be more
justification. frequent in the future
because nuclear plants
grow old
Development Intended to complete or “Trustfulness of reason” [Nuclear accidents] are
extend another student’s which may lead to rare but may be more
thesis or justification, by develop another’s rea- frequent in the future
proving further justifica- soning expressed in an because nuclear power
tion or clarification. argument. plants grow oldSo we
have to repair them or
build new ones
(continued)
238 K. De Checchi et al.

Table 13.1 (continued)

Example (translated
from French; the
relevant parts of the
Argumentative Possible links to APA excerpts are
moves Description (1990) CT dispositions underlined)
New idea Consists in considering “Open-mindedness” and [In a discussion about
an idea or point of view “inquisitiveness,” which nuclear waste and what
which was not discussed may concern a new idea to do with it]
before during the debate. or point of view Nuclear waste are gen-
concerning the topic erally buried deeply
being disputed.

Table 13.2 Description of content of arguments (monological aspects of argumentation)

Example (translated
from French; the
Content of the Possible links to APA relevant parts of the
arguments Description (1990) CT dispositions excerpts are underlined)
Awareness of a Identification of the “Fair-mindedness in Yes [nuclear energy] is
domain of cases in which the argu- evaluation” and “pru- one of the best energies
validity for ment/thesis can be dence in making judg- from a climatic point of
assertions applied or clarification ments,” which may view but not a good
of the degree of trust in consists in identifying energy for its local
the conclusion. the degree of trust and consequences which
the domain of validity. are terrible
Awareness of Expression of specific “Prudence in making For now there is no
the reservations about the judgments,” “reason- energy which both
uncertainties certainty of knowledge ableness in the selection respects the environ-
or showing prudence in of criteria” to evaluate ment and sustainable
considering the devel- “results which are as Which is why we need
opment of technologies. precise as the subject to find energies like this
and the circumstances of and if it doesn’t exist
inquiry permit,” what we’ll have to use other
might amount to taking means!
into consideration the
uncertainties related to
the situation.
Socioscientific Domain(s) which are “Orderliness in complex We have to [Axiologi-
domains involved in an argument. matters,” which can cal, moral imperative]
Eight domains have consist in tackling the find other energies with
been identified: Scien- SSI systematically in all similar capacities as
tific, Technical, Eco- its complexity by con- nuclear [Technical fea-
nomic, Political, Social, sidering its different tures] but without being
Axiological (values), domains. dangerous! [risks for
Sanitary and Health and
Environmental. Environment]
13 Epistemic Beliefs as a Means of Understanding Critical Thinking in a. . . 239

dimensions identified in the literature to describe beliefs about knowledge would be

equally suitable to describe beliefs about opinions and the links between both. The
thematic analysis allowed us to identify four themes: opinion and knowledge,
certainty of knowledge, certainty of opinion, and possibility and means of obtaining
a better opinion. For each theme, we categorized the types of responses given by
students. Moreover, in each theme, we distinguished between students’ epistemic
beliefs according to the richness of their elaboration. Based on King and Kitchener
(2002), we judged the relative elaboration of epistemic beliefs on two main criteria:
richness of the awareness of uncertainty, and complexity of criteria and/or strategies
for obtaining the best opinion available.

13.4 Results Concerning Students’ Arguments

and Epistemic Beliefs

In this section we first examine the arguments students produced during a debate on
environmental SSIs. Second, we describe their epistemic beliefs about knowledge
and opinions, based on thematic analysis. Third, we subject the features of both their
epistemic beliefs and their argumentative practices to a cross-analysis.

13.4.1 Analysis of Students’ Argumentation and Epistemic

Beliefs

The results of the analysis of students’ argumentation are summarized in Table 13.3.
One “argument” is defined as corresponding to one posted comment. It may consist
of several argumentative moves or no argumentative move at all (e.g. “I completely
agree”).
The analysis of students’ epistemic beliefs allowed identifying four themes:
opinion and knowledge, certainty of knowledge, certainty of opinion, and possibility
and means of obtaining a better opinion. The main results regarding epistemic
beliefs are summarized in Table 13.4.

13.4.2 Cross-Analysis of Argumentation and Features

of Epistemic Beliefs

The interviews indicated different profiles of epistemic beliefs among students,

based on the four themes (opinion and knowledge, certainty of knowledge, certainty
of opinion, and possibility and means of obtaining the best opinion). By the same
token, concerning argumentation in the socioscientific computer-mediated debate,
 240

Table 13.3 Analysis of students’ argumentative moves and content of arguments (numbers in parentheses correspond to the fraction of argumentative moves
with a justification)
Argumentativemoves Azalée Crocus Hibiscus Jonquille Muguet Silène
Arguments (Total) 5 8 6 9 12 7
Concessions 2 (1) 2 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0)
Nuances 0 (0) 2 (1) 4 (1) 1 (0) 3 (2) 0 (0)
Refut. thesis 1 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (3) 0 (0)
Refut. justif. 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 1 (1)
Developments 1 (0) 5 (3) 1 (1) 6 (3) 5 (4) 3 (1)
New ideas 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 2 (1) 1 (0) 1 (0)
Domain of validity 2 0 3 1 3 2
Uncertainties 0 0 1 0 0 3
Socioscientific domains 4 Technical 5 Scientific 3 Environ. 4 Technical 7 Technical 5 Technical
1 Scientific 4 Technical 3 Social 3 Environ. 5 Environ. 3 Axiological
1 Environ. 2 Environ. 2 Health 2 Health 3 Social 3 Environ.
2 Health 2 Technical 1 Political 1 Scientific 2 Health
1 Social 1 Scientific 1 Axiological 1 Without domain
1 Without domain 2 Without domain
K. De Checchi et al.
13 Epistemic Beliefs as a Means of Understanding Critical Thinking in a. . . 241

Table 13.4 Types of student responses by epistemic beliefs theme

Epistemic
beliefs Opinion and Certainty of Certainty of Possibility and means of
theme knowledge knowledge opinion obtaining the best opinion
Azalée Different nature of Source Source Possible if we do some
opinion and uncertainty uncertainty research and ask someone
knowledge who knows
Crocus Explicit reference Source Source Impossible but some opin-
to a link between uncertainty uncertainty ions are better than others,
opinion and depending on the arguments
knowledge
Hibiscus Explicit reference Uncertainty Source Impossible but some opin-
to a link between related to uncertainty ions are better than others,
opinion and learning, depending on whether we
knowledge source ask a specialist
uncertainty
Jonquille Explicit reference Almost certain Uncertainty Impossible right now, but
to a link between owing to the time will tell
opinion and nature of
knowledge opinion
Muguet Different nature of Almost certain Uncertainty Possible if we take the most
opinion and owing to the likely opinions in relation to
knowledge nature of scientific theory
opinion
Silène Different nature of Almost certain Source Possible if we ask a
opinion and uncertainty specialist
knowledge

we found various kinds of critical arguments, in terms of argumentative moves. The

first theme, opinion and knowledge, allowed us to make a clear distinction between
two groups of students. This led us to analyze the features of the arguments produced
by each group. In order to make sense of the specificities of their respective
arguments, we considered the degree of elaboration of students’ epistemic beliefs.
The two groups differed on their belief about a link between knowledge and
opinions: The students Azalée, Muguet and Silène in Group 1 did not mention any
link, whereas the students Crocus, Hibiscus and Jonquille in Group 2 explicitly
acknowledged and described a link between knowledge and opinions: Crocus, “your
opinion is formed from your knowledge”; Hibiscus, “I will form a opinion based on
what I know”; Jonquille, “an opinion is formed from what we have seen, what we
have heard” (knowledge being identified here by the student to personal experience).
These two groups produced similar numbers of arguments during the debate,
24 arguments for Group 1 and 23 for Group 2. However, they differed on the nature
of these arguments. Group 1 produced more diverse argumentative moves, whereas
Group 2 seemed to focus mainly on developments and nuances. Moreover, Group
2’s arguments featured a better combination of the socioscientific domains than
Group 1’s.
242 K. De Checchi et al.

Looking more closely at the diversity of the argumentative moves produced by

Group 1, each of the students in this group produced a refutation of another student’s
justification, which is a complex critical argumentative move (Sampson & Clark,
2008), especially as these three refutations of justifications were each accompanied
by a justification of their own. For example, answering another student’s claim “if
we stop nuclear power plants before an alternative is found we’ll run out of energy”
the refutation produced by Azalée was: “there are a lot of different energy sources
[refutation of the necessity of finding an alternative], there is not only nuclear, but
also solar or photovoltaic energy [justification of this refutation: examples of alter-
natives which already exist]”.
By contrast, only two of the students in Group 2 (Crocus and Hibiscus) produced
four or more different kinds of argumentative moves, namely developments, con-
cessions, nuances, and refutation of the thesis (Crocus) and new idea (Hibiscus).
Another difference was that the arguments of students in Group 2 were more focused
on developments and nuances than on counter-arguments and refutations. For
example, Crocus produced an argument combining a concession and a justified
nuance (even if it was on erroneous grounds): “Each industry has risks, but nuclear
is one of the less lethal energy sources (less than solar or wind).”
Regarding the exploration of SSI complexity, students in Group 2 mostly pro-
duced arguments tackling more than one socioscientific dimension, whereas students
in Group 1 mostly made arguments tackling only one dimension at a time. The
specificity of the domains tackled (e.g., if a student tackled more technical or social
matters) did not seem to differ across the two groups of students. For example,
Hibiscus produced an argument that simultaneously considered the technical, envi-
ronmental and social domains: “today there is no BEST energy, namely productive
enough [for the needs of our society], cheap, risk-free AND nonpolluting.”
For Group 1, we also analyzed the complexity of the criteria and/or strategies
expressed by students to obtain the best opinion available and their awareness of
uncertainty, in order to determine which epistemic beliefs were more elaborated
(King & Kitchener, 2002). Muguet set out not only criteria (e.g., “better from
someone who knows”) but also a genuine strategy for obtaining the best opinion
available: for him, opinions had to be compared with scientific theory to decide
which one was the most trustworthy. For Azalée, to obtain the best opinion, it was
important to do research and ask a knowledgeable person. We interpret that this
process was less elaborated than the one described by Muguet, as it referred more to
criteria than to an actual strategy. Silène considered that the best opinion must be one
that came from a specialist, and she therefore described the least elaborated way of
obtaining the best opinion. Muguet produced more advanced argumentative moves
than Azalée and Silène did. Furthermore, Muguet produced more refutations than
Azalée, who made more refutations than Silène. Muguet was also the only one of the
six students to question another student.
Regarding Group 2, it was awareness of uncertainty that appeared to be decisive
in differentiating between the degrees of elaboration of students’ epistemic beliefs.
Hibiscus seemed to have the most elaborated epistemic beliefs: “there are things that
I know, well maybe it is not true [. . .] with more advanced knowledge [. . .]. So I
13 Epistemic Beliefs as a Means of Understanding Critical Thinking in a. . . 243

think there are some knowledge that are safe, that everybody learns and it’s a reality
and some others that aren’t necessarily. [. . .] you really need to be specialized in a
field to have more advanced knowledge.” Crocus seemed to have less elaborated
epistemic beliefs than Hibiscus, as she only considered uncertainties about the
source of knowledge. Jonquille had even less elaborated epistemic beliefs, as for
him, knowledge was always almost certain. Incidentally, Hibiscus’s argumentation
was more critical than that of Crocus and Jonquille: she produced fewer arguments,
but was more focused on nuances (four nuances on six arguments, which is a lot
considering that nuancing is a complex critical move), associating them with con-
cessions, and showing considerable awareness of the domain of validity in her
arguments (three arguments out of six). Furthermore, Hibiscus tackled more than
one socioscientific domain in almost all her arguments (five out of six). Similarly,
Crocus’s arguments were better than those of Jonquille: her nuances were combined
with concessions, she produced a refutation of the thesis, and explored SSI
complexity more.
Overall, regarding argumentation and epistemic beliefs, Muguet (Group 1) and
Hibiscus (Group 2) were the ones who produced the most critical arguments and
who had the most elaborated epistemic beliefs. However, these two students did not
argue in the same manner, and their epistemic beliefs differed in one important
respect (i.e., expression or not of a link between knowledge and opinions). Muguet
was the one who produced the greatest variety of argumentative moves, including
justified refutations and questions. We consider that Muguet had the most highly
elaborated epistemic beliefs, based on the complexity of the strategy he described for
obtaining the best opinion. By contrast, Hibiscus produced a great many nuances and
developed arguments related to several domains. We consider that Hibiscus pro-
duced the most highly elaborated epistemic beliefs, based on her awareness of
uncertainty.

13.5 Discussion and Conclusion

The goal of this study is to highlight links between epistemic beliefs and CT
dispositions. As such, our research questions were: How exactly are students’
epistemic beliefs related to their CT, and more specifically to their dispositions to
argue, in the context of environmental SSIs? Which features of their epistemic
beliefs about knowledge and opinions are the most important components in this
respect?
In the wake of findings that epistemic beliefs seem to be linked to the way in
which students argue, the study provided a new and more fine-grained analysis,
offering a mean of defining the relationships between specific features of epistemic
beliefs and ways of participating in a computer-mediated discussion on an environ-
mental SSI. Previous studies had found that the more elaborated individuals’ epi-
stemic beliefs are, the better they argue (e.g. Kuhn, 1991; Mason & Scirica, 2006).
Our study shed further light on this influence. Students may produce arguments
244 K. De Checchi et al.

focused more on nuances, or focused more on refutations. Furthermore, it seems that

when epistemic beliefs are elaborated, with respects to King and Kitchener’s (2002)
criteria, students’ arguments tend to become more critical, with more nuances (than
developments) and more refutations.
Our cross-analysis yields two main results. First, students could be categorized
according to whether they ignored the link between knowledge and opinions, or
whether they acknowledged and explicitly described it. Indeed, students produced
different arguments, depending on whether or not they drew this link: students who
ignored it made various argumentative moves and were the only ones to refute
justifications, while students who explicitly described this link focused on develop-
ments and nuances, and produced more complex arguments from a socioscientific
perspective. Second, these specific argumentative features seemed to be related to
students’ awareness of uncertainties of knowledge and/or their strategy for obtaining
the best opinion. The more elaborated students’ epistemic beliefs regarding these
two aspects, the better they argued. Hibiscus and Muguet, the students with the most
elaborated epistemic beliefs, exhibited the most critical argumentation, but in dif-
ferent ways, as Hibiscus saw a link between knowledge and opinions, whereas
Muguet did not.
Concerning CT, it should be noted that argumentative moves, be they in the form
of nuances or refutations of justifications, can be linked to the same evaluative
dispositions, namely reasonableness of the selection of criteria, fair-mindedness in
evaluation, and prudence in making judgments (APA, 1990). This is in line with the
literature, which indicates that evaluation is a crucial component of critical argu-
mentation (Facione, 2000, 2011; Groarke & Tindale, 2013; Van Eemeren &
Grootendorst, 2004; Walton, 1996). Moreover, even if Hibiscus and Muguet dif-
fered on their epistemic beliefs, they expressed the same CT dispositions and had the
most elaborated epistemic beliefs. It therefore seems that the more elaborated their
epistemic beliefs, the more students were disposed to CT. However, the nature of
students’ epistemic beliefs about the link between knowledge and opinions led them
to operationalize these same dispositions in different ways. For instance, by contrast
with other students who explicitly drew a link between knowledge and opinions,
Hibiscus’s arguments contained a high proportion of “nuances” moves. Meanwhile,
Muguet’s arguments contained a greater variety of argumentative moves and more
refutations than those of other students who neglected the link between knowledge
and opinions. There were other characteristic features of students’ arguments,
namely the use of justification for students who ignored the link between knowledge
and opinions, and socioscientific complexity for students who explicitly drew such a
link. Concerning CT, these features referred to different dispositions, namely focus
in inquiry (i.e., a set of procedures and criteria appropriate for making reasonable
judgments), and orderliness in complex matters (i.e., dealing with and organizing
complexity in specific issues) (APA, 1990). It seems that when students argue, they
are more focused either on inquiry or orderliness, depending on whether they neglect
or consider respectively the link between knowledge and opinions.
13 Epistemic Beliefs as a Means of Understanding Critical Thinking in a. . . 245

Furthermore, epistemic beliefs appear to be more elaborated when students

become aware of the uncertainty of knowledge, viewing it as a flawed product that
does not reflect reality as it is, but rather an approximation of it (King & Kitchener,
2002; Kuhn et al., 2000). In this regard, it should be noted that, as in the study by
Mason et al., (2011), most of our participants seemed primarily focused on the
credibility of the source, rather than uncertainties inherent to knowledge itself. This
may be explained by the fact that such uncertainties, to be acknowledged, require a
developed epistemological view on the nature of knowledge. Our results argue in
favor of considering epistemic beliefs not only about knowledge, but also about
opinions, as well as the link between them, in order to highlight links with CT in the
context of environmental SSIs. This would provide means to investigate precisely
how the link between knowledge and opinions drawn by students influences the way
they perceive content relating to different SSI domains. For example, depending on
their epistemic beliefs, do students perceive arguments relating to the technical and
scientific domain as involving only knowledge, and arguments relating to both the
social and moral domains as involving only opinions (Kuhn et al., 2000)? The link
between epistemic beliefs and CT seems to be a complex one, and needs to be
studied with regard to the features of both knowledge and opinions, in order to
highlight their influence on students’ argumentation. Our cross-analysis focused on
two specific aspects of epistemic beliefs: the link between opinion and knowledge,
and the elaboration of epistemic beliefs regarding the certainty of knowledge and the
possibility and means of obtaining the best opinion. However, epistemic beliefs can
be described from many other aspects (e.g., dimensions proposed by Chinn et al.,
2011). Furthermore, the operationalization of critical dispositions appears to differ
across contexts: previous studies showed that students’ arguments vary according to
the SSI being debated (Pallarès, 2020; Pallarès et al., 2020), as well as students’
epistemic beliefs (Zeidler et al., 2009). Implementing teaching sequences in the
context of other SSIs or in nonsocioscientific debates could yield more detailed data
on the link between epistemic beliefs and CT. Finally, it should be noted that our
study focuses on computer-mediated argumentation, which may have induced a very
different operationalization of CT dispositions from oral argumentations, and further
investigation is also needed in that direction.
Despite these limitations and the need for further research, as far as the implica-
tions for teaching are concerned, our study highlighted specific epistemic beliefs that
should be fostered in environmental education, in order to improve the relevant CT
dispositions and thereby students’ socioscientific argumentation, making it more
critical. This might provide an answer to the problem of students being uncritical of
environmental issues that has been identified in previous research (Barthes &
Jeziorski, 2012). First, to improve students’ critical argumentation, the first set of
CT dispositions that need to be fostered are linked to evaluation: reasonableness of
the selection of criteria, fair-mindedness in evaluation, and prudence in making
judgments. These three dispositions seem to be linked to the critical argumentative
moves we observed, notably in students Hibiscus and Muguet. In this regard, one
246 K. De Checchi et al.

way of improving CT dispositions may be to develop some aspects of epistemic

beliefs related to these critical dispositions. It might be useful for environmental
education to foster the sort of epistemic beliefs exhibited by Hibiscus and Muguet,
namely the link between knowledge and opinions and either uncertainties (Hibiscus)
or the criteria for obtaining the best opinion (Muguet). Before or during a
socioscientific debate, teachers could help students ask themselves about the links
between knowledge and opinions, the uncertainties of knowledge, and strategies to
articulate knowledge and opinions and to deal with these uncertainties. As one of the
aims of environmental education is to foster students’ CT about SSIs (Morin et al.,
2014, 2017; Simonneaux, 2007), this focus on epistemic beliefs would be in line
with its objectives.
Second, CT dispositions to focus in inquiry and orderliness in complex matters
also appear important for fostering critical argumentation. Considering that the latter
seems to induce a more complex argumentation from a socioscientific perspective, it
might be preferable to focus specifically on this in the context of environmental
education, which has to deal with complex SSIs. As Leung (2020) pointed out,
students who only consider uncertainties about inquiry, and not about the nature of
knowledge, may work well when they have to deal with well-established and reliable
knowledge. However, this may be more problematic in a context where they have to
argue about environmental SSIs, which are complex and uncertain (Morin et al.,
2014, 2017).
Overall, this discussion shows that the relationship between students’ epistemic
beliefs and students’ dispositions to argue about environmental SSIs remains a very
complex question. However, it also points out that explicitly considering both
knowledge and opinions in this respect opens up new avenues that deserve to be
explored in future research.

Appendix: Questions of the Interview Guide

• Q1: What do you think about the statement? Do you agree?

• Q2: Would you say your opinion about this subject is certain?
• Q3: Who might have the best opinion on this?
• Q4: How can we obtain the best opinion/least bad opinion?
• Q5: What are the differences and similarities between an opinion and knowledge?
What is knowledge?
• Q6: Is knowledge certain or uncertain?
• Q7: In comparison, is an opinion certain or uncertain?
• Q8: Does knowledge change over time?
• Q9: Does an opinion change over time?
13 Epistemic Beliefs as a Means of Understanding Critical Thinking in a. . . 247

References

American Philosophical Association. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for
purposes of educational assessment and instruction. ERIC document ED 315–423.
Barthes, A., & Jeziorski, A. (2012). What kind of critical university education for sustainable
development? A comparative study of European students and social representations. Journal of
Social Science Education, 11(4), 62–77.
Barzilai, S., & Weinstock, M. (2015). Measuring epistemic thinking within and across topics: A
scenario-based approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 141–158.
Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. L. A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of
epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist,
46(3), 141–167.
Ennis, R. H. (2011). Critical thinking: Reflection and perspective, Part I. Inquiry, 26(1), 4–18.
Ennis, R. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum. Topoi, 37(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/
s11245-016-9401-4/s11245-016-9401-4
Facione, P. A. (2000). The disposition towards critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and
relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84.
Facione, P. A. (2011 [2006]). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Measured Reasons and
The California Academic Press.
Ferguson, L. E., & Bråten, I. (2013). Student profiles of knowledge and epistemic beliefs: Changes
and relations to multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 25, 49–61.
Groarke, L. A., & Tindale, C. W. (2013). Good reasoning matters! A constructive approach to
critical thinking. Oxford University Press Canada.
Hazelkorn, E., Ryan, C., Beernaert, Y., Constantinou, C., Deca, L., Grangeat, M., . . . Welzel-
Breuer, M. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship. Report to the European
Commission of the expert group on science education. European Union.
Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud
during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 43–55.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about
knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1),
88–140.
Iordanou, K., Muis, K. R., & Kendeou, P. (2019). Epistemic perspective and online epistemic
processing of evidence: Developmental and domain differences. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 87(4), 531–551.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An over-
view. In S. Erduran & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education
(pp. 3–27). Springer Science.
Kampourakis, K. (2018). Science and uncertainty. Science & Education, 27(9–10), 829–830.
Khishfe, R., Alshaya, F. S., BouJaoude, S., Mansour, N., & Alrudiyan, K. I. (2017). Students’
understandings of nature of science and their arguments in the context of four socio-scientific
issues. International Journal of Science Education, 39(3), 299–334.
King, P., & Kitchener, K. (2002). The reflective judgement model: Twenty years of research on
epistemic cognition. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of
beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 37–61). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (2019). Critical thinking as discourse. Human Development, 62, 146–164.
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understand-
ing. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309–328.
Leung, J. S. C. (2020). Students’ adherences to epistemic understanding in evaluating scientific
claims. Science Education, 104(2), 164–192.
Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial
topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 492–509.
248 K. De Checchi et al.

Mason, L., Ariasi, N., & Boldrin, A. (2011). Epistemic beliefs in action: Spontaneous reflections
about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and their influence on
learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 137–151.
Morin, O., Simonneaux, L., Simonneaux, J., Tytler, R., & Barraza, L. (2014). Developing and using
an S3R model to analyze reasoning in web-based cross-national exchanges on sustainability.
Science Education, 98(3), 517–542.
Morin, O., Simonneaux, L., & Tytler, R. (2017). Engaging with socially acute questions: Devel-
opment and validation of an interactional reasoning framework. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 54(7), 825–851.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Bendixen, L. D. (2003). Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of
epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 28(4), 573–595.
Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues.
International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411–423.
Pallarès, G. (2020). Développer les compétences argumentatives de lycéens par des débats
numériques sur des questions socio-scientifiques. Vers une didactique de l’argumentation et
de l’esprit critique. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Montpellier, France.
Pallarès, G., Bächtold, M., & Munier, V. (2020). Des débats numériques pour développer les
compétences argumentatives des élèves sur des questions socio-scientifiques? Recherches en
Didactique des Sciences et des Technologies.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in
science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science
Education, 92(3), 447–472.
Sandoval, W. (2013). Educational design research in the 21st century. In R. Luckin, J. Underwood,
N. Winters, P. Goodyear, B. Grabowski, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Handbook of design in
educational technology (pp. 388–396). Taylor & Francis.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498.
Schwarz, B., & Baker, M. (2017). Argumentation, dialogue and education: History, theory and
practice. Cambridge University Press.
Simonneaux, L. (2007). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In S. Erduran & M. Jiménez-
Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (p. 179–199). Springer.
Toulmin, S. E. (2008 [1958]). The uses of argument (18th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The
pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3, 169–184.
Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific
argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15),
1977–1999.
Zeineddin, A., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2010). Scientific reasoning and epistemological commit-
ments: Coordination of theory and evidence among college science students. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1064–1093.
Zeidler, D., Sadler, T., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment
through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74–109.
Chapter 14
Primary School Teachers’ Understanding
of Critical Thinking in the Context
of Education for Sustainable Development

Eli Munkebye and Niklas Gericke

14.1 Introduction

Critical thinking (CT) is one of the key skills in the twenty-first century for the
education profession to develop among young people to facilitate their success as
individuals, citizens, and workers (European Commission, 2016). A common argu-
ment for this is that everyone must be able to critically relate to their own beliefs and
defend them in a logical way. A healthy critical attitude protects an individual from
being manipulated, deceived, and exploited (Vieira et al., 2011). Living and partic-
ipating in a democratic society places many demands on citizens’ critical thinking.
Hence, CT is of great importance in many areas of an individual’s personal life as
well as in their role as a participant in society. This chapter will focus on CT within
the context of education for sustainable development (ESD), because ESD has
grown in importance within curricula in many countries, such as Norway (Ministry
of Education, 2017). In contemporary curricula, ESD is described as a broad
teaching approach that often replaces environmental education as a way to connect
the human world (society and economy) with the world of other species (the
environment). Therefore, ESD includes biology and environmental education but
also transcends these domains (Gericke & Ottander, 2016).

E. Munkebye (*)
Department of Teacher Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU,
Trondheim, Norway
e-mail: [email protected]
N. Gericke
Department of Teacher Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU,
Trondheim, Norway
Department of Environmental and Life Sciences, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 249
B. Puig, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), Critical Thinking in Biology
and Environmental Education, Contributions from Biology Education Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_14
250 E. Munkebye and N. Gericke

The underlying assumption of the importance of CT in ESD is the complexity of

sustainability issues with no definite answers, and where values as well as knowl-
edge form the base for decision making, leading to CT. The application of scientific
advances has led to increasing complexity in today’s society, which makes it more
difficult to solve the challenges we face in achieving sustainability. To meet and
overcome these challenges, political decisions must often be made between different
interests relating to development versus sustainability. For example, a choice often
needs to be made about whether to preserve a natural habitat or increase economic
development based on the exploitation—and inevitable degradation—of that habitat.
These issues do not have one correct answer, and there is often no right or wrong
position; instead, plausible, different answers can be made depending on what
position or argument people personally validate as being the most important. Such
complex issues are suggested to be addressed in ESD by using a pluralistic teaching
approach that embraces these different positions (Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2015). To
address these challenges in a plural and democratic society, high-quality CT skills
are crucial when validating the important choices that must be made (Davies &
Barnett, 2015). Hence, CT is a key aspect in ESD (Wiek et al., 2011). However,
despite this urge to develop CT among the younger generation to help them cope
with complex sustainability issues, very little research has been conducted in the
field, and for primary education, it is non-existent.
This chapter presents an interview study with Norwegian primary school teachers
that aimed to explore the teachers’ views and understanding of CT in an ESD
context. The research questions were as follows: (1) How do primary school teachers
understand CT?; (2) How do primary school teachers understand CT in an ESD
context?

14.2 Critical Thinking—A Complex Idea

CT is often described as dispositions within an individual or as skills, such as

judging and evaluating, and it is described as normative because specific criteria
can be used in the assessment of its qualities (Bailin et al., 1999). Moreover, the
relevance of criteria often depends on the domain or subject of interest in which CT
are evaluated (Lai, 2011). One definition of CT that is often used is that of Ennis
(1985, p. 45): “Critical thinking is reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding
what to believe or do.” This section discusses what characterizes a critical thinker
and the extent to which CT can be described as a general or a subject-specific skill.
A critical thinker is often described as someone who possesses the specific
cognitive skills and sub-skills necessary for CT. Facione (1990) categorizes these
skills into six core categories (interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, expla-
nation, and self-regulation), which this study uses as analytical tools to discern
teachers’ understanding of CT. In contrast to skills that are manifested in actions,
dispositions can be described as the inner motivations that stimulate a critical thinker
to apply their critical skills (Facione, 1990). Facione (1990) categorized dispositions
into two approaches: to life and living in general (e.g., inquisitiveness) and to
14 Primary School Teachers’ Understanding of Critical Thinking in the Context. . . 251

specific issues, questions, or problems (e.g., clarity in stating the question). Herein,
Facione’s framework will guide our analysis of this aspect of CT. This study is
interested in investigating which skills and dispositions teachers relate to when they
reflect on CT as well as investigating what criteria teachers use when evaluating
claims and arguments in their own thinking and teaching.
If a person merely possesses the basic skills and dispositions that define CT, it
does not necessarily mean that this person acts like a critical thinker. Therefore,
Davies and Barnett (2015) extended CT through the concept of criticality to include
thinking, being, and acting. Through this concept of criticality, CT is defined as a
trait (i.e., how a person behaves in the world). A person with this trait is critically
oriented toward the outside world and acts in relation to it. In an ESD context, the
ability to act is central to achieving a more sustainable world (Mogensen & Schnack,
2010). It is not enough to know what to do; one must also act sustainably based on a
critical approach to environmental challenges. Therefore, this study aimed to see if
this aspect of CT also appeared in teachers’ understanding of CT in the conducted
interviews.
Much of the research on teachers’ understanding of CT has been at the level of
higher education (e.g., Choy & Cheah, 2009), and no studies were found relating to
primary schools. However, Alazzi (2008) examined Jordanian secondary and high
school teachers’ understanding of CT and found that teachers often exemplify CT as
a disposition or attitude used in a specific situation, or they describe someone with
CT as being inherently sceptical by asking questions. Howe (2004) compared
Canadian and Japanese secondary and high school teachers’ understanding of
CT. The teachers ranked the top 10 of 50 keywords describing common conceptions
of CT and answered an open-ended questionnaire. When looking at all the teachers’
responses, analysis was the most preferred keyword, followed by reasoning, draw-
ing inferences, problem solving, and analytical skills. The next five definers were
inductive reasoning, creative thinking, clarifying ideas, logical, and thoughtful
judgements. Hence, these teachers rated the cognitive and logical aspects of CT
skills as important. Howe (2004) also found significant differences between Japa-
nese and Canadian teachers. Canadian teachers understood CT as a cognitive
domain, as shown above, while Japanese teachers understood CT as an affective
domain and ranked conscientious judgements (e.g., objectivity) the highest, followed
by intellectual engagement (e.g., active participation). Hence, CT might be viewed
differently in various cultural contexts. We must be careful when interpreting and
comparing results from different countries, as in this case where the data is drawn
from Norway alone.
Although none of the reviewed studies included primary school teachers, similar
patterns of varying ideas about CT among these teachers might be expected in this
study. However, as mentioned earlier, most of the research on CT stems from higher
education, where teachers are closely linked to their respective disciplines, a fact that
might influence the results for their understanding of CT. In contrast, primary school
teachers teach several school subjects that have less connection to academic disci-
plines. This might lead to more possible multidisciplinary and multidimensional
perspectives focusing more on the learner rather than content, which, as argued
below, is important in the context of ESD.
252 E. Munkebye and N. Gericke

14.3 Critical Thinking in the Context of Education

for Sustainable Development

ESD is a policy concept established in international steering documents originally

from the UN and UNESCO. Within ESD, CT has become a key competence
according to these documents, where it is summarized as “the ability to question
norms, practices and opinions; reflect on own one’s values, perceptions and actions;
and take a position in the sustainability discourse” (UNESCO, 2018, p. 44). Over the
years, ESD and CT have trickled down into many national curricula, such as the
Norwegian (Ministry of Education, 2017). As policy concepts, both ESD and CT
have been given vague definitions and often multiple meanings. Not only are they
closely intertwined at the policy level, as shown in the quote above, but CT is
described as a foundation of sustainability education according to a research review
by Wiek et al. (2011). The following will discuss ESD and how it might relate to CT.
ESD is polysemous and has encompassed different meanings in the literature
(Vare & Scott, 2007). In a research review of the ESD field, Eilam and Trop (2010)
outlined a framework of four essential components of ESD pedagogy based on
accumulated theory and experience in the field. The framework aspires to encompass
most prevailing teaching approaches within a set of four basic principles. The first
principle, the traditional academic style of teaching and learning, takes place within
traditional school subjects and is decontextualized from the learning objective. This
principle supports the development of analytical-rational modes of intelligence. The
second principle is multidisciplinary learning (inter and/or multidisciplinary). This
approach combines knowledge from a variety of disciplines. It is considered capable
of supporting the acquisition of systemic thinking and the formation of linkages
between cause and effect within systems. The third principle, multidimensional
learning, can be achieved when the academic learning of principle one and the
multidisciplinary system of principle two are added with time and space dimensions.
It facilitates the development of contextual ways of thinking (Hopkins & McKeown,
2002) and the acquisition of abilities to think “out of the box” and investigate
systems in their relations to other systems, spaces, and times. The fourth principle,
emotional learning, involves the emotions in a learning activity that simultaneously
activate processes of value and ethics clarification. In this way of learning, students
are motivated to do activities that make them feel any type of emotion ranging from
enjoyment to distress. In other words, they are led on a path of emotional learning—
to care, according to Eilam and Trop (2010).
Further, Eilam and Trop (2010) argue that it is necessary to include all these
principles for learning opportunities in ESD teaching to achieve action competence
in line with sustainability (Mogensen & Schnack, 2010). However, the principles
also represent a hierarchy where each step precedes the other in the development of
true ESD. A question emerges: What does CT become in these learning principles?
We would assume that CT is enacted differently in these different steps of ESD. This
study will relate primary school teachers’ understanding and practices of CT to these
different learning principles of ESD. First, we will theoretically discern what CT
might look like in these steps.
14 Primary School Teachers’ Understanding of Critical Thinking in the Context. . . 253

The ideas of CT as generic or subject-specific have been discussed in the field of

CT research since the 1980s (e.g., Facione, 1990). McPeck (1981) and Ennis (1989)
claimed that CT is expressed differently according to the discipline within which it is
practised, and criteria for CT that apply in one discipline do not necessarily apply in
another discipline. There is a broad consensus that content knowledge plays an
important role when thinking critically, because—naturally—we need something to
think critically about (Willingham, 2008). Content knowledge is necessary, as CT
takes place within a context characterized by concepts, values, and beliefs. Hence, if
teachers recognize subject-specific aspects of CT, we can see that they achieve the
first step of ESD, according to Eilam and Trop (2010).
Most of the literature recommends that ESD should be taught in an interdisci-
plinary and/or multidisciplinary way that promotes holistic and pluralistic ideas for
students to address complex problems (e.g., Sund & Gericke, 2020; Munkebye et al.,
2020). ESD is commonly defined by environmental, economic, and social dimen-
sions (Gough & Scott, 2003), i.e., referring to many school subjects of various
domains. In this context, the role of the subject is not entirely clear because of the
interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary nature of ESD. If the teachers recognized that
CT should be addressed in many settings (i.e., from an inter- or multidisciplinary
perspective), we would see traces of step two in Eilam and Trop’s (2010) framework.
As a study by Beilin and Bender (2010) suggests, the disciplines can be approached
by teachers using a question-based teaching methodology possessing a willingness
to transcend the cultural boundaries of the disciplines, as this opens new perspectives
on CT. Apart from that study, so far, educational research has not addressed what CT
becomes in interdisciplinary teaching settings. Does CT transform into something
different in an ESD interdisciplinary setting? This study will address this question by
asking the interviewed teachers about their view of CT both from a general perspec-
tive and from an ESD perspective and comparing the differences.
In ESD research, holism is referred to as a crucial subconstruct of ESD (Gericke
et al., 2019). Holism can be defined as a holistic approach since it includes multiple
perspectives on content that emphasise the necessity to include all three dimensions
of sustainability (environmental, social, and economic) and focus on their interrela-
tionship, as well as interactions over time and space (Gough, 2002). Holism agrees
with step three of Eilam and Trop’s framework (2010). Through education for CT, it
would be possible to prepare students to deal with these complex problems of holism
(Vieira et al., 2011). There are rarely simple answers to sustainability issues like
climate change and the fair and equal distribution of natural resources. Instead, these
issues often demand that the learner draw from their knowledge, ethics, and values to
make decisions that must address goal conflicts, for example, the conflicting goals of
sustaining the environment and developing the economy. It follows that CT is a
crucial competence for students to discern and address these kinds of problems
within ESD according to the third step of Eilam and Trop’s (2010) framework.
In a study by Ampuero et al. (2015), it is suggested that empathy is an important
addition to cognitive and logic skills and dispositions, as argued in most CT
literature. They found a significant advantage in using empathy strategies in teaching
to engage students in societal processes to solve environmental problems. This
254 E. Munkebye and N. Gericke

intriguing perspective is in accordance with the suggestions of other scholars that CT

is situated and context-dependent (Davies & Barnett, 2015). Moreover, it closely
relates to the fourth step or principle of ESD as defined by Eilam and Trop (2010).
Hence, if emotions are included in teaching in relation to CT, the last step in ESD
will be reached.
Eilam and Trop (2010) argue that ESD teaching often evolves from being
characterized by the terms unidisciplinary, unidimensional, and rational to the
terms multidisciplinary, multidimensional, and emotional when encompassing all
four steps. The latter way of teaching could be denoted as pluralistic teaching.
According to Boeve-de Pauw et al. (2015), pluralism is one of the main character-
istics of ESD. In education, pluralism emphasises a democratic approach by striving
to promote different perspectives, views, values, and emotions when dealing with
authentic questions and problems concerning the future of our world (Lijmbach
et al., 2002). Moreover, pluralistic teaching has been found to affect students’ self-
reported pro-sustainability actions (Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2015). We would argue
that this teaching approach meets the demand of incorporating all four steps that are
asked for in the framework of Eilam and Trop (2010).
Pluralistic teaching involves critically evaluating different perspectives, asking
questions, considering other people’s arguments, formulating valid arguments, and
having an open and fair mindset; these are skills and dispositions that also charac-
terize CT. It is suggested that equipping students with CT enables them to participate
in a sustainable society when leaving school (Willingham, 2008). In this study,
primary school teachers were asked about how they understand CT and how it
relates to ESD. This chapter will discuss in what ways the teachers’ understanding of
CT reflects the different steps of ESD according to Eilam and Trop (2010).

14.4 Methods, Context, and Participants

A semi-structured interview protocol (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009) was developed,

inspired by previous studies that examined teachers’ understanding of CT (Alazzi,
2008; Choy & Cheah, 2009). The first questions inquired about teachers’ compe-
tences, as well as which subjects and grades they taught. The teachers were then
asked to express their understanding of CT. They could speak freely, and afterward,
they were asked follow-up questions about skills, dispositions, and what criteria they
used when assessing CT. Next, they were asked how they taught about CT and asked
to provide examples from their own teaching. Finally, they were asked about their
understanding of CT in the context of ESD. This sequence of questions was meant to
give teachers an opportunity to obtain a broader picture of CT before linking CT to
ESD. For the interview guide, see the Appendix.
The interviews were transcribed and then studied using thematic analysis (Braun
& Clarke, 2006). The dataset was encoded with an initial open coding where
different understandings of CT were highlighted. The initial codes were then
14 Primary School Teachers’ Understanding of Critical Thinking in the Context. . . 255

grouped, and new categories were developed. Through repeated, systematic reviews
of the dataset considering the categories and codes, themes were gradually devel-
oped that represented the content of the dataset (e.g., source criticism, argumenta-
tion, and need for knowledge). Then, the themes were categorized as skills or
dispositions and organized, where possible, according to Facione’s (1990) overview
of CT skills and dispositions.
As an analytical framework for CT skills, we used Facione’s (1990) categories of
skills into six core dimensions. First, interpretation: skills such as categorization,
decoding significance, and obtaining clarification. Second, analysis: skills that can
be used to explore ideas and uncover and analyse arguments. Third, evaluation:
skills to evaluate assertions and arguments by determining relevant criteria for
assessment and assessing their relevance when using them. Fourth, inference: skills
for judging whether one has sufficient information, skills to obtain necessary
information, and skills to conjecture alternatives and draw conclusions. Fifth, expla-
nation: the ability to state results, justify procedures, and present arguments. Sixth,
self-regulation: skills to self-monitor cognitive activities and to correct errors and
weaknesses that are revealed.
Facione’s framework was also used for the analysis of CT dispositions (Facione,
1990); see Table 14.1.
This study focuses on Norwegian primary school teachers’ understanding of
CT. Norwegian compulsory education is divided into two main levels: primary
school (grades 1–7) and lower secondary school (grades 8–10). The compulsory
education system is based on the principle of equitable education for all and is
primarily financed by the municipality. All schools follow the same national curric-
ula (Ministry of Education, 2020).
Recently, a new Norwegian core curriculum has been developed that includes
sustainable development as one of three interdisciplinary themes (Ministry of Edu-
cation, 2017). CT has also been highlighted; according to the reform’s overarching
goals, students should “become curious and ask questions, develop scientific and
CT, and deal with ethical awareness” (Ministry of Education, 2017, p. 7). CT is
interpreted and operationalized in different subject-specific ways. This means that
CT is formulated both as a general ability and in more specific ways depending on
what subject is to be studied.
Ten primary school teachers teaching grades 5–7 were interviewed about their
understanding and practice of CT; see Table 14.2 for an overview of the participants.
Nine of the 10 teachers were selected from a professional development program
named Sustainable Backpack programme (further described in Munkebye et al.,
2020), because we wanted sustainable development to be a familiar concept to them.
This programme aims to increase awareness for sustainable development, under-
standing, and competencies among teachers and students of primary and secondary
schools, although there is little explicit attention given to CT.
256 E. Munkebye and N. Gericke

Table 14.1 Analysis framework

Disposition approaches to life and living in general
Subcategories 1. Concerns of becoming and remaining generally well-informed
2. Inquisitiveness regarding a wide range of issues
3. Alertness to opportunities to use CT
4. Trust in the processes of reasoned inquiries
5. Self-confidence in one’s own ability to reason
6. Open-mindedness regarding divergent world views
7. Flexibility in considering alternatives and opinions
8. Understanding the opinions of other people
9. Fair-mindedness in appraising reasoning
10. Honesty in facing one’s own biases, prejudices, stereotypes, and egocentric
or sociocentric tendencies
11. Prudence in suspending, making, or altering judgments
12. Willingness to reconsider and revise views where honest reflection suggests
that change is warranted
Disposition approaches to specific issues, questions, or problems
Subcategories 13. Clarity in stating the question or concern
14. Orderliness in working with complexity
15. Diligence in seeking relevant information
16. Reasonableness in selecting and applying criteria
17. Care in focusing attention on the concern at hand
18. Persistence when difficulties are encountered
19. Precision to the degree permitted by subject and circumstances
Dispositions According to Facione (1990)

Table 14.2 Information of participants

Distribution Participants teach at different schools in five municipalities, except two who
work at the same school.
Geographical Central Norway
location Six of them are in urban locations.
Teaching grades All teachers work with students aged from 9 to 11 years.
Teaching All teachers have between four and 30 years of teaching experience.
experience
Teaching One subject: T7a; two subjects: T1, T5; three subjects: T8; four subjects: T9;
subjects more than four subjects: T2, T3, T4, T6, T10
Natural science: T1–10; Social studies: T4, T6, T10; Language: T2, T3, T6,
T10
a
The letter and numbers in brackets are the identifiers of the teachers

14.5 Results

First, teachers’ understanding of CT and the criteria they use for critical assessment
is presented. Then the focus is shifted to what teachers do in the classroom to
promote student CT. Finally, how teachers understand CT in the specific context
of ESD is presented.
14 Primary School Teachers’ Understanding of Critical Thinking in the Context. . . 257

14.5.1 Teachers’ Understanding of CT

CT as Scepticism Eight of the 10 interviewees understood CT as an attitude people

possess where they do not accept everything they are told. A couple excerpts from
interviews highlight this, where some teachers said this attitude means to “face
things with a certain, it may be wrong to use the word scepticism, but with a little
attention to the things you read and hear (1)” and “to meet information with a healthy
scepticism (10)”. Two teachers pointed out that students must understand the
difference between CT and negativity, and one of them said: “They [the students]
often associate criticism with something negative, and it does not have to be so. It
takes time before they can see that to be a critical thinker is not just to be negative
about something”. Hence, most of the teachers first and foremost viewed CT as
scepticism.
CT Skills and Dispositions When teachers described their understanding of CT,
most of them referred to what they considered to be CT skills (Table 14.3).
When it came to dispositions, the teachers described five types that coincided with
some categories of Facione’s (1990) framework (Table 14.4).
None of the teachers addressed whether CT could be understood diversely when
viewed from the perspective of different disciplines or school subjects. The teachers
seemed to mostly talk about CT as a generic ability. However, two teachers
mentioned CT in specific relation to mathematics. They linked problem solving in
mathematics with CT, as students are encouraged to be critical of their own solutions
in mathematics and physics and to justify their solution strategies.
When the teachers were asked about what criteria they used when assessing
something critical, few answers emerged. Seven teachers expressed the view that
this was a difficult question that they had not really thought about. Only three of
them answered. Teacher 5 argued that “whatever sounds logical” was a criterion,
while teachers 7 and 8 stated that disciplinary aspects of content and methods within
the natural sciences formed their standards against which they judged CT. Teacher
7 pointed out that the methodological aspects of science studies can vary and that, for
example, an important quality criterion is to evaluate against the sample size of
specific studies, where a large sample means better quality.
Six of the teachers stated they often promoted CT in their teaching, while only
one said it rarely happens. The teachers mostly referred to activities in which they
believe the students get to practise CT. In Table 14.5, the categories found in the
analysis are outlined. As can be seen, they are largely in accordance with the
understanding of CT (see Table 14.3) and support the notion that teachers teach in
accordance with their perception of CT.
258 E. Munkebye and N. Gericke

Table 14.3 Skills teachers associated with CT

Skills according to Facione
(1990) CT skills mentioned by the teachersa
Interpreting
Clarifying meaning Asking clarifying questions (1)
Analysing
Examining ideas Distinguishing between established knowledge and opinions
(1)
Seeing a case from multiple perspectives (4)
Detecting and analysing Looking for more sources that point in the same direction (1)
arguments Reasoning in relation to statistical representations (2)
Evaluating
Assessing claims and arguments Considering the credibility of the sources (9)
Evaluating arguments against what is logical (1)
Inferring
Drawing conclusions Making choices based on their own assessments (1)
Explaining
Justifying procedures Justifying solutions in maths (1)
Stating results of one’s reasoning Making arguments for their own views (8)
Making arguments for and against a topic (1)
Self-regulating
Self-examining Being critical of their own answers in maths and physics (1)
a
The number of teachers providing these responses is presented in brackets

Table 14.4 Dispositions mentioned by teachers

Dispositions according to Facione
(1990)a,b Dispositions exemplified by teachers’ quotesc
1. Inquisitiveness regarding a wide A kind of ‘driving force’ to find an answer. . . .
range of issues (6) enthusiasm or interest, I do not know what is best.
Engagement maybe. (T10)
Ask questions about what you hear. (T4)
2. Concerns about becoming and To be able to judge whether something is true,
remaining generally well-informed (4) knowledge is important. (T1)
6. Open-mindedness regarding diver- Being open to change their point of view. (T7)
gent world views (8) Acknowledge that they have different opinions. (T1)
To listen. (T1)
Taking someone else’s perspective. (T4)
9. Fair-mindedness in appraising rea- A sense of justice. (T10)
soning (1)
16. Reasonableness in selecting and Having trust in science as criteria to evaluate against.
applying criteria (2) (T7)
a
The disposition number refers to the category number in Table 7.1
b
he number of teachers providing these responses is presented in brackets
c
The letter and numbers in brackets are the identifiers of the teachers
14 Primary School Teachers’ Understanding of Critical Thinking in the Context. . . 259

Table 14.5 Teachers’ responses about their practices of CT

Teachers’ teaching practicesa
Approaching different texts and figures critically (10)
Exploring different perspectives through dialogue and/or texts (9)
Practicing CT through dialogue (5)
Problem solving (1)
a
The number of teachers providing these responses is presented in brackets

Table 14.6 Teachers’ different approaches to CT in ESD

Different approachesa Examples of the approaches
CT as an overarching approach to CT as a pillar of ESD
ESD (3) Evaluating today’s contribution to a better future
CT skills and teaching approaches Argumentation (5), dialogue (2), discussing complex issues
included in ESD (5) (2), and an exploratory approach (1)
Others (3) Authenticity (1), environmentally friendly choices (1), and
CT across disciplines and subjects (1)
a
The number of teachers providing these responses is presented in brackets

14.5.2 Teachers’ Understanding of CT in the Context of ESD

We now turn to the second research question about teachers’ understanding of CT in

the context of ESD. The interviewees found it difficult to express their understanding
because they had not thought much about the relationship between ESD and
CT. Table 14.6 provides an overview of the teachers’ different approaches to CT
in ESD.
Three of the teachers considered CT to be an overarching approach to ESD, as
shown in this excerpt:
[CT is] the essence of it [ESD]. If you have to think about ESD, it’s about the complex issues
and problems that do not have an answer. If you want to move forward in any way, you have
to think critically and put arguments against each other. So, I think it is very difficult to carry
out ESD without CT as a pillar. (T8)

Five of the teachers talked about teaching approaches and CT skills as argumen-
tation. One teacher (T7) said that by approaching different environmental issues,
such as the climate crisis and wolf/sheep problem, the students found arguments for
and against them and identified and defended different points of view. Another
teacher (T5) stated that students worked on approximating contradictory arguments,
such as reducing the use of plastic to reduce microplastics in the ocean and packing
food in plastic to increase durability and reduce food waste. The skills highlighted by
the teachers were similar to those highlighted earlier in the interview.
Three of the teachers referred to teaching methods that form part of the Sustain-
able Backpack programme, such as presenting students with complex problems
related to the local environment and making environmentally friendly choices, like
choosing between farmed or wild salmon. According to the teachers, these
260 E. Munkebye and N. Gericke

approaches should help students develop skills related to argumentation. Based on

these statements, we can see that primary school teachers teach CT from a broad and
general perspective relating to complex problems. This is epitomised by a quote
from Teacher 7:
That you have the ability to think critically across disciplines, that you manage to think
critically in a bigger picture. And because sustainability has three dimensions, there are
many, three dimensions, and in each dimension, there are incredible amounts of information
that you have to decide on. It says something about how difficult it can be to think critically
about sustainability then. (T7)

14.6 Discussion

It is important to get insight into how teachers subjectively understand CT, as this is
the starting point for equipping teachers to undertake the efforts required to promote
students’ CT. We will start by discussing teachers’ understanding of CT. In our
study, both skills and dispositions were mentioned by the teachers, although differ-
ent aspects dominated. Moreover, none of the teachers included empathy, emotion,
intuition, or imagination as aspects of CT. Hence, the more affective, cultural, and
context-dependent aspects of CT—as suggested by Ampuero et al. (2015)–were not
addressed by the teachers. When looking into what the teachers said about specific
skills and dispositions in more detail, many of their comments can be seen to relate to
an understanding of CT essentially as scepticism, possessing an inquiring attitude
and applying source criticism.
Secondly, in this section, we interpret these results in the context of ESD.
Interestingly, teachers thought of CT as the core of ESD, though they gave it more
or less the same meaning as they did outside the context of ESD.

14.6.1 Primary School Teachers’ Understanding of CT

Six of the teachers understood CT as a questioning and inquiring attitude; one

teacher described it as a “healthy scepticism”. Hence, it seems that the teachers’
notion of CT is close to the concept of criticality (Davies & Barnett, 2015), i.e., that a
student should be critically oriented toward the outside world and act accordingly.
The teachers also emphasised that the students had to understand the difference
between negativity and scepticism, as they believed many students understood being
critical as something negative. Moore (2013) pointed out that scepticism can be
understood as a propensity to judge in a negative way. This way of applying the term
scepticism does not coincide with the teachers’ use of the term. The teachers who
used the term explicitly pointed out that it must not be understood in this way.
Motivation to find answers to complex questions was identified by some teachers
as crucial to becoming a critical thinker at the primary school level. We consider this
an important point, because possessing the skill of asking questions does not
14 Primary School Teachers’ Understanding of Critical Thinking in the Context. . . 261

necessarily mean that one does ask questions. Mastering CT skills does not neces-
sarily produce a critical thinker, since one must practise to be so (Bailin et al., 1999).
Therefore, at the primary school level, it is not only about skills and dispositions but
also about creating learning environments that enable students to use and further
develop these skills and dispositions. Here, we would argue that ESD is an excellent
context for cultivating CT skills, as will be discussed in the following section.
Looking at the skills teachers defined as CT skills, they largely coincide with
Howe’s (2004) findings related to the Canadian teachers at the secondary level, in
which cognitive strategies to achieve CT were a dominant notion among teachers.
Source criticism was a CT skill referred to by four of the participants. These
teachers reported that they frequently taught source criticism. In the Norwegian
curriculum, source criticism is found in several subjects as part of digital skills,
which is one of the basic skills that applies to all subjects. However, previous
research shows that students often disregard source information and only focus on
the content; this applies to all levels of education (Britt & Aglinskas, 2002).
Furthermore, Norwegian secondary school students do not master source criticism
as well as they should (Bråten et al., 2019). This is concerning, as source criticism is
important in the twenty-first century because of the exponential growth and acces-
sibility of information on the internet. It is also a key competence in ESD.
To conclude, it seems as though the teachers had a coherent idea of CT that was
also manifested in their teaching practices. This is in line with Alazzi’s (2008) study
of Jordanian secondary school teachers. However, although the primary school
teachers had a coherent idea, this idea represented a quite limited understanding
and teaching of CT focusing on attitudinal aspects, such as scepticism, source
criticism, and argumentation, as generic skills. Mostly cognitive strategies were
used to achieve CT, but no assessment criteria were mentioned, and the influence
of the subject was hardly addressed. In the next section, we will discuss how this way
of perceiving CT might affect CT as an aspect of ESD.

14.6.2 Primary Teachers’ Ability to Enact CT in ESD

In this section, the framework of Eilam and Trop (2010) will be used to analyse how
the primary school teachers of this study could enact CT within ESD, what barriers
there might be, and what aspects need to be addressed in future professional
development and research. In this endeavour, we will explain the results generated
from the interviews regarding teachers’ general understanding and their practice of
CT, as well as how they explicitly understood CT in relationship to ESD. As can be
seen in the results section, three of the teachers recognized CT as an overarching
feature of ESD, and five of them recognized it as a teaching approach exposing
different arguments and perspectives on complex sustainability issues (i.e., similar to
a pluralistic view on teaching ESD) (Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2015). Still, the teachers
had difficulties outlining this more specifically. From these results, we can conclude
that the teachers recognized the centrality of CT in ESD and possessed the willing-
ness to teach accordingly, but they may lack the qualification to enact CT in ESD in
262 E. Munkebye and N. Gericke

line with that belief. That conclusion will be explored by analysing our results using
the four-step framework of Eilam and Trop (2010).
The first aspect of ESD, according to Eilam and Trop (2010), is the traditional
academic style of teaching and learning taking place within traditional school
subjects. From our results, we can see that this rarely happens at the primary school
level. Only two teachers referred to aspects of math and science where disciplinary
analytical-rational modes were mentioned, such as problem-solving strategies. No
referents were made to other disciplinary skills or rationales connected to other
specific subjects, although source criticism could be argued to be more practiced in
some school subjects like civics. Further, the lack of criteria for evaluating CT in the
teachers’ practices might be related to the fact that the primary school teachers do not
connect CT to subject-specific traditions where they are familiar with the teaching
traditions, including assessment practices.
The second aspect of Eilam and Trop’s framework is multidisciplinary learning.
This teaching approach combines knowledge from a variety of school subjects
supporting the acquisition of systemic thinking. From our results, we can see that
only one of the teachers referred to this principle, interdisciplinary, in their teaching
practice of CT in ESD. The teachers pointed to aspects that look multidisciplinary
and interdisciplinary at a superficial level, and some of them referred to the different
dimensions of ESD (environment, society, and economy). However, less is expli-
cated about what this would look like in practice. Instead, references were made to
argumentative practices around specific topics, such as climate change, but not how
these topics might be informed from different school subjects or disciplinary aspects.
It seems that the teachers also ignore this principle to a large degree.
The third principal or step of ESD, according to Eilam and Trop (2010), is
multidimensional learning, referring to holism, which includes multiple perspectives
on content over time and space (Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2015). Several of the teachers
mentioned that they worked with complex issues when teaching CT, and they
highlighted skills and dispositions related to issues with multiple points of view
(i.e., a holistic approach). The teachers also understood CT in ESD as taking and
maintaining a stand and making arguments leading to choices, which are actions that
can be linked to dealing with complex issues. To conclude, it seems that the primary
school teachers participating in this study understood the discourse on CT as a
multidimensional learning aspect of ESD.
The fourth principle of ESD relates to emotional learning, which is meant to
activate the processes of clarifying values and ethics for the learner. In the results of
this study, one teacher referred to “fair-mindedness” and one teacher to “respect to
others”. These responses may be regarded as belonging to this fourth teaching
principle; otherwise, there were no references. Hence, the teachers almost leave
out emotions entirely as important aspects for CT while emotions are claimed as
central by Ampuero et al. (2015) and within sustainability education (Ojala, 2013).
Based on our analysis, we can conclude that these primary school teachers did not
seem to follow the progression of CT in ESD building on the framework of Eilam
and Trop (2010), as outlined in the background section of this paper. The teachers
did not seem to teach CT, neither in their ordinary teaching nor in connection to
14 Primary School Teachers’ Understanding of Critical Thinking in the Context. . . 263

ESD, according to the first two steps (i.e., unidisciplinary, unidimensional, or

multidisciplinary). Likewise, the emotional aspect of step four was left out. The
results indicate that the primary school teachers viewed and enacted CT as a
cognitive strategy demanding an inquiring attitude with the aim of outlining the
multidimensional third aspect of ESD in a way that addresses different viewpoints of
complex sustainability issues. An interesting question then emerges: What conse-
quences might such a teaching approach have for the students?
The overall aim of ESD is to establish an action competence for sustainability in
the learner (Mogensen & Schnack, 2010; Olsson et al., 2020; Sass et al., 2020).
Therefore, the teaching approach cannot only address cognitive decontextualized
learning, as in traditional teaching, but also contextualised, multidisciplinary,
multidimensional, and emotional learning (Eilam & Trop, 2010). The teachers of
this study only focused on the multidimensional aspects, and this does not neces-
sarily lead to action competence. The primary school teachers did not seem to have
the knowledge about or tools for what CT might be in a disciplinary or school subject
context, apart from some statements relating to mathematics and science. Without
the unidisciplinary perspective, the teachers could not articulate multidisciplinary
aspects either. Thus, the teachers could not teach the analytical-rational modes of CT
in ESD, as linked to the first two principles of Eilam and Trop’s framework. This is
also indicated by the teachers’ inability to point out what criteria they used in
assessing CT. The emotional principle, including value-laden aspects, is possibly
left out by the teachers because this principle is outside the teachers’ usual teaching
traditions. This is potentially problematic because these aspects of teaching may be
seen to comply with an indoctrination of the learner (see discussion with Jickling and
Wals (2012) on the matter).
Therefore, the overall conclusion is that these teachers could have difficulties in
teaching CT in the context of ESD in a way that promotes action competence due to
their limited coverance of the teaching approaches needed. This was not expected
considering several of the teachers understood CT as the essence of ESD, in line with
research (Wiek et al., 2011) and policy (UNESCO, 2018). Our interpretation is that
teachers have been following the international and national policy discourse around
ESD, as, for example, outlined by UNESCO, which mainly addresses the
multidimensional aspect of CT. Note that all but one of the teachers in this study
participated in the Sustainable Backpack programme; therefore, they could have
encountered perspectives and teaching methods related to ESD that influenced their
understanding, although CT was not particularly expressed in that programme.
If the teachers of this study are representative of primary school teachers at large,
we can conclude that there is a great need for professional development relating to
CT in the context of ESD. Such professional development needs to first address what
CT might be in different school subjects, such as biology, geography, mother
tongue, and civics. The next step should address how multidisciplinary aspects of
CT can be taught using tools and aspects of the different subjects. In this endeavour,
CT as a rational practice based on scientific knowledge and argumentative practices
of the disciplines should be developed into teaching approaches and pertinent
evaluation criteria. Only thereafter would we recommend connecting these teaching
practices to the multidimensional and holistic aspects of CT in ESD that today seem
264 E. Munkebye and N. Gericke

to dominate primary school teaching. This way, the learning of CT can be built upon
deep insights from subject knowledge rather than societal discourse alone. As
discussed by Gericke et al. (2020) and Sund and Gericke (2020), multidisciplinary
teaching that builds on societal discourse and everyday knowledge would be point-
less because all the subjects would provide the same perspectives. Finally, the
emotional dimension, including values and ethics at both the individual and societal
levels, needs to be addressed. Here, it would be fruitful to follow the advice of
Davies and Barnett (2015) to shift from CT’s individual focus (for example, a
person’s ability to relate to a situation critically to avoid being misled) toward a
socio-cultural dimension. In an ESD context, CT’s socio-cultural dimension seems
particularly relevant, as it is about preserving the common good and includes a social
focus and critical virtue in the form of ethics.

Acknowledgements This study was conducted within the project CriThiSE (https://www.ntnu.no/
ilu/crithise), which is supported by The Research Council of Norway, project number 302774.

Appendix

Interview guide, inspired by Alazzi (2008) and Choy and Cheah (2009)
How many years have you worked as a teacher?
What age levels do you teach for?
What subjects do you teach?
What does CT mean to you?
Follow-up question: What are the skills related to CT?
Follow-up question: What are the dispositions related to CT?
What standards/criteria do you use when evaluating the thinking of others?
Is there anything you do in the classroom that you believe fosters CT?
How often do you involve students in CT?
Do you think CT teaching is important?
What is, for you, critical thinking in an education for sustainable development context?

References

Alazzi, K. F. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of critical thinking: A study of Jordanian secondary

school social studies teachers. The Social Studies, 99(6), 243–248.
Ampuero, D., Miranda, C. E., Delgado, L. E., Goyen, S., & Weaver, S. (2015). Empathy and critical
thinking: Primary students solving local environmental problems through outdoor learning.
Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 15(1), 64–78.
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285–302.
Beilin, R., & Bender, H. (2010). The getting of interdisciplinarity: The everyday practice of
environmental curriculum design. In Interdisciplinary higher education: Perspectives and
practicalities (pp. 181–193). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
14 Primary School Teachers’ Understanding of Critical Thinking in the Context. . . 265

Boeve-de Pauw, J. B. D., Gericke, N., Olsson, D., & Berglund, T. (2015). The effectiveness of
education for sustainable development. Sustainability, 7(11), 15693–15717.
Bråten, I., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2019). Teaching sourcing in upper secondary school: A
comprehensive sourcing intervention with follow-up data. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(4),
481–505.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source
information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485–522.
Choy, S. C., & Cheah, P. K. (2009). Teacher perceptions of critical thinking among students and its
influence on higher education. International Journal of teaching and learning in Higher
Education, 20(2), 198–206.
Davies, M., & Barnett, R. (2015). Introduction. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave
handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 1–25). Springer.
Eilam, E., & Trop, T. (2010). ESD pedagogy: A guide for the perplexed. The Journal of Environ-
mental Education, 42(1), 43–64.
Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership,
43(2), 44–48.
Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research.
Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4–10.
European Commission. (2016). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions:
EU Action plan against wildlife trafficking. European Commission.
Facione, P. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational
assessment and instruction. The Delphi report. The California Academic Press.
Gericke, N., & Ottander, C. (2016). On the issue of ‘research in didactics of biology’: Definitions
and demarcations. In T. Tal & A. Yarden (Eds.), The future of biology education research; A
selection of papers presented at the 10th conference of European Researchers in Didactics of
Biology (pp. 155–162). The Technion Israel Institute of Technology and The Weitzmann
Institute of Science.
Gericke, N., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Berglund, T., & Olsson, D. (2019). The Sustainability Conscious-
ness Questionnaire: The theoretical development and empirical validation of an evaluation
instrument for stakeholders working with sustainable development. Sustainable Development,
27(1), 35–49.
Gericke, N., Huang, L., Knippels, M. C., Christodoulou, A., Van Dam, F., & Gasparovic, S. (2020).
Environmental citizenship in secondary formal education: The importance of curriculum and
subject teachers. In A. C. Hadjichambis, P. Reis, D. Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, J. Činčera,
J. Boeve-de Pauw, N. Gericke, & M. C. Knippels (Eds.), Conceptualizing environmental
citizenship for 21st century education (pp. 193–212). SpringerOpen.
Gough, S. (2002). Right answers or wrong problems? Towards a theory of change for environ-
mental learning. The Trumpeter, 18(1), 1.
Gough, S., & Scott, W. (2003). Sustainable development and learning: Framing the issues.
Routledge.
Hopkins, C., & McKeown, R. (2002). Education for sustainable development: An international
perspective. In Education and sustainability: Responding to the global challenge (p. 13). IUCN.
Howe, E. R. (2004). Canadian and Japanese teachers’ conceptions of critical thinking: A compar-
ative study. Teachers and Teaching, 10(5), 505–525.
Jickling, B., & Wals, A. E. (2012). Debating education for sustainable development 20 years
after Rio: A conversation between Bob Jickling and Arjen Wals. Journal of Education for
Sustainable Development, 6(1), 49–57.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research
interviewing. Sage.
266 E. Munkebye and N. Gericke

Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson’s Research Reports, 6, 40–41.
Lijmbach, S., Van Arcken, M. M., Van Koppen, C. A., & Wals, A. E. (2002). ‘Your view of nature
is not mine!’: Learning about pluralism in the classroom. Environmental Education Research,
8(2), 121–135.
McPeck, J. E. (1981). Critical thinking and education-issues and ideas in education. Martin
Robertson Co.
Minestry of Education. (2017). Overordnet del – verdier og prinsipper for grunnopplæringen
[Overarching part – Values and principles of primary and secondary education]. https://www.
regjeringen.no/contentassets/53d21ea2bc3a4202b86b83cfe82da93e/overordnet-del%2D%2D-
verdier-og-prinsipper-for-grunnopplaringen.pdf
Minestry of Education. (2020). Facts and analysis of kindergarten, primary and secondary
education in Norway. http://utdanningsspeilet.udir.no/2016/en/
Mogensen, F., & Schnack, K. (2010). The action competence approach and the ‘new’ discourses of
education for sustainable development, competence and quality criteria. Environmental Educa-
tion Research, 16(1), 59–74.
Moore, T. (2013). Critical thinking: Seven definitions in search of a concept. Studies in Higher
Education, 38(4), 506–522.
Munkebye, E., Scheie, E., Gabrielsen, A., Jordet, A., Misund, S., Nergaard, T., & Øyehaug, A. B.
(2020). Interdisciplinary primary school curriculum units for sustainable development. Envi-
ronmental Education Research, 26(6), 795–811.
Ojala, M. (2013). Emotional awareness: On the importance of including emotional aspects in
education for sustainable development (ESD). Journal of Education for Sustainable Develop-
ment, 7(2), 167–182.
Olsson, D., Gericke, N., Sass, W., & Boeve-de Pauw, J. (2020). Self-perceived action competence
for sustainability: The theoretical grounding and empirical validation of a novel research
instrument. Environmental Education Research, 26(5), 742–760.
Sass, W., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Olsson, D., Gericke, N., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2020).
Redefining action competence: The case of sustainable development. The Journal of Environ-
mental Education, 1–14.
Sund, P., & Gericke, N. (2020). Teaching contributions from secondary school subject areas to
education for sustainable development—A comparative study of science, social science and
language teachers. Environmental Education Research, 26(6), 772–794.
UNESCO. (2018). Issues and trends in education for sustainable development. https://unesdoc.
unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000261445
Vare, P., & Scott, W. (2007). Learning for a change: Exploring the relationship between education
and sustainable development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1(2),
191–198.
Vieira, R. M., Tenreiro-Vieira, C., & Martins, I. P. (2011). Critical thinking: Conceptual clarifica-
tion and its importance in science education. Science Education International, 22(1), 43–54.
Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A
reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6(2),
203–218.
Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy
Review, 109(4), 21–32.
 Part IV
Concluding Remarks
Chapter 15
The Integration of Critical Thinking
in Biology and Environmental Education.
Contributions and Further Directions

Blanca Puig and María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre

15.1 Introduction

The purpose of this volume is to bring together research on critical thinking (CT) in
biology and environmental education from international scholars working in this
area of research. The volume seeks to broaden current ideas about the role of CT in
biology and environmental education taking into account educational challenges in
the post-truth era. To this end, the chapters are distributed in three sections, perspec-
tives of a theoretical character (part I), empirical research about CT in the context of
biology and health education (part II), and empirical research on CT in the context of
environmental and sustainability education (part III). The chapters focus on studies
reporting students’ engagement in the practice of CT, and display how CT can be
integrated in biology and environmental education and why biology and environ-
mental issues are privileged contexts for the development of CT. Biology and
environmental education are overlapping fields: some biology topics such as ecology
have been for many years suffused with environmental education, as the chapters by
Hufnagel, González-Weil and colleagues, or Sezen-Barrie and colleagues evidence.
Recently other topics as nutrition have shown potential for been approached through
a sustainability education perspective, as the chapter by Brocos and Jiménez-Aleix-
andre shows. We argue that biology and environmental education provide complex
and multifaceted problems in which the practice of CT would be relevant in order to
take responsible actions. Furthermore, emotions and identities emerge in the practice
of CT when dealing with biology and environmental topics (Hufnagel, Chap. 3, this
book). The examination of evidence is a substantial part of CT, but understanding

B. Puig (*) · M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre

Facultade Ciencias da Educación, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela,
Santiago de Compostela, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 269
B. Puig, M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), Critical Thinking in Biology
and Environmental Education, Contributions from Biology Education Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_15
270 B. Puig and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre

CT as only this examination is limited, as argued in the chapters by Jiménez-

Aleixandre and Puig and by Duncan and colleagues. The volume is an effort to
put together theoretically and empirically founded perspectives on how to promote
CT in biology and environmental education contexts, approaches that, we believe,
can be transferred to other science education contexts. Furthermore, we aim to
examine how the components of CT presented in our characterization (Jiménez-
Aleixandre and Puig, Chap. 1, this book) are articulated in diverse contexts.
This chapter aims to connect the main ideas and challenges that emerge across the
volume and to provide some reflections about future directions for the integration of
CT in biology and environmental education based on the studies reported in
the book.

15.2 Integration of Critical Thinking in Biology

and Environmental Education: Main Ideas
and Contributions

Meeting the global challenges of the twenty-first century will require citizens who
possess the capacity to apply CT to find solutions to problems that have not been yet
anticipated and to navigate through uncertainty, as the pandemic of COVID-19 is
showing. In the approach suggested in this book, CT is oriented to action, as
evidenced for instance in the chapter by González-Weil and colleagues. CT for
action in biology and environmental education implies, among other issues, to
engage students in making reasonable decisions and developing appropriate behav-
iors regarding controversial issues. Decision making and taking action are challeng-
ing in the post-truth era, in the contexts of the rise of science denial on issues of
urgency, such as climate change or anti-vaccines movements, which advocate for
alternative health therapies (e.g., Dillon & Avraamidou, 2020; Puig et al., 2021).
Although the body of research in the domain of CT in biology and environmental
education has been growing, and the literature points to the crucial role of CT in
order to face the post-truth era challenges (Willingham, 2008), little is known on
students’ engagement in CT and on how the development of CT interacts with
knowledge building dynamics. Consequently, the book seeks to address the ques-
tions of what is the role of CT in biology and environmental education and how can
we engage students in order to develop CT, to make appropriate use of science in
social contexts, and to face post-truth and misinformation.
The chapters report a range of studies that investigate the practice of CT by
students’ learning biology and environmental issues, and how CT interacts with their
knowledge, epistemics beliefs and other factors, as identities and emotions. Four
main ideas connect the chapters and are contributions of the book:
(a) CT oriented towards responsible actions and behaviors is crucial in the post-
truth era and biology and environmental education are privileged environments
to develop it.
15 The Integration of Critical Thinking in Biology and Environmental. . . 271

We are experiencing a rise of post-truth and consequently the harmful effects on

the public of misinformation and disinformation, such as people’s loss of confidence
in fact-based science (Saribas & Çetinkaya, 2021). Climate change, vaccination,
gene therapy, sustainable diets, are among the environmental and health topics
affected by science denial movements addressed in the chapters. The studies report
on the role of CT as a tool to face some of the challenges posed by post-truth in
biology and environmental education, and on ways to engage students in CT through
the practice of argumentation. Biology and environmental topics are considered
privileged contexts to engage students in CT for action since they offer
opportunities to: (1) explicitly reflect on the ways media can (intentionally or
unintentionally) expose people to inaccurate scientific information; (2) engage
them in argumentation interactions, as in chapters by Puig and Ageitos, and Uskola.
As discussed by Munkenbye and Gericke there is a range of factors that may shape
what people perceive as true. Thus, for instance, the socio-cultural contexts, people’s
personal experiences and their own judgements that can be biased as Colucci-Gray
and Gray, and García Franco and colleagues report; (3) make responsible decisions
based on evidence, as reported by Duncan and colleagues, and acting upon
conflicting evidence, as discussed by Brocos and Jiménez-Aleixandre; (4) develop
appropriate behaviors and actions to protect the environment, as reported by
González-Weil and colleagues, and teach climate change, acknowledging the ten-
sions between CT and emotions related to students’ identities, as discussed by
Hufnagel; and (5) think about their own CT and epistemic beliefs when facing
socio-scientific biology and environmental related issues, as discussed by De
Checchi and colleagues.
(b) CT is a dynamic activity that can be developed through engagement in the
practice.
This perspective, drawing from Kuhn (2019), proposed in the book as a framing
of CT, is illustrated in the chapters and supports the view that CT is not a static
attribute, but rather that it can be developed through engagement in the practice. Its
exercise might vary in complexity depending on the topic and the context. For
instance, assessing the arguments produced by classmates in peer negotiation, as
Brocos and Jiménez-Aleixandre report, may pose challenges different from evalu-
ating information provided by media, as in the chapters by Puig and Ageitos, and
Uskola. On the other hand, applying CT to assess evidence as reported in the chapter
by Duncan and colleagues, might prove more difficult than using CT to provide
arguments based on evidence, as in the chapter by Ergazaki. The view of CT as an
activity that is developed with engagement in the practice plays a central role in
Kuhn’s (2019) dialogic view, and informs several chapters, as Iordanou’s.
(c) CT development in biology and environmental education might be affected by a
range of factors, besides scientific knowledge.
SSIs in biology and environmental education deal with complex issues, demand-
ing the consideration of different dimensions and multiple perspectives (Jiménez-
Aleixandre & Brocos, 2021). These topics may be emotionally laden, as health
272 B. Puig and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre

issues and environmental problems addressed in the book, in which emotions,

identities, values and ethical concerns are mobilized. Several chapters point to the
importance of these dimensions when designing activities for CT development: thus
Elizabeth Hufnagel highlights the role of identities to CT, as reference points for
emotions; Brocos and Jiménez Aleixandre discuss the obstacles that affect the
adoption of decisions challenging culturally established ideas; De Checchi and
colleagues report about the influence of epistemic beliefs; and the role of traditional
knowledge in designing science education and critical thinking that are culturally
relevant is addressed by García Franco and colleagues.
(d) CT includes a set of components related to purposeful judgement and another
set related to civic participation and social justice, related to the criticality
approach.
Engagement in CT is not easy to assess, thus some chapters aim to analyze
diverse components of CT, from the characterization proposed by Jiménez-Aleix-
andre and Puig, as indicative of engagement in CT for action. We argue that CT has
two main roles in biology and environmental instruction: one linked to the promo-
tion of rational arguments, cognitive skills and critical dispositions; and other related
to the idea of critical action and civic participation, that involves commitment to
independent thinking (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, Chap. 1, this book). In the
complex biology and environmental problems these components may be articulated.
Climate change, genetically modify food, vaccination, homeopathy, food options,
are multifaceted problems that involve informal reasoning and elements of critique.
Decisions about them entail direct consequences for the well-being of human society
and of the environment. As Aikenhead (1985) pointed out people would need to
balance subject matter knowledge, personal values and societal norms when making
decisions on socio-scientific issues. However, Bencze et al. (2020) argue that they
also need to be critical of the discourses that shape their own beliefs and practices in
order to act responsibly. Considering these two sets of components involves a shift
from a view of CT as a set of skills to a broader notion of CT that expands its
meaning to critical action. This volume provides some examples about what CT for
“action” means in the practice, as the chapters by Corina González-Weil and
colleagues, in particular, and by Brocos & Jiménez-Aleixandre illustrate. It also
provides examples about how teachers understand CT and support its practice in the
context of biology and education for sustainable development, as Iordanou and
Mukenbeye and Gericke report.
The integration of CT in biology and environmental education can be achieved in
diverse ways, however all chapters concur on the importance of “teaching for” and
“teaching about” CT in order to face post-truth challenges. There is also agreement
on that CT can be embedded in biology and environmental instruction as a dialogic
practice in a way that help students to take critical actions, as discussed by García
Franco and colleagues, and Jiménez-Aleixandre and Brocos. However, teachers
might face some difficulties in the integration of CT in their instruction. Some
obstacles are related with post-truth, and others with additional pressures from
their educational institutions as the curriculum, the number of teaching hours, the
15 The Integration of Critical Thinking in Biology and Environmental. . . 273

number of students, and their own training and knowledge about CT instruction,
among others. The consideration of CT as a practice that requires time to be
developed, and the acknowledgement that CT can be taught, might stimulate
educational institutions and teachers to dedicate more time for their students to
cultivate CT through the practice (Vincent-Lacrin et al., 2019). Teachers may face
difficulties to put CT into practice, since there is not a clear understanding about
what it means (e.g., Abrami et al., 2008; Thomas & Lok, 2015), and how it can be
articulated with specific subject domains in a way that make students aware of their
own competencies and progression in CT development (Puig et al., 2021).
This volume seeks to provide examples to teachers on how to create the condi-
tions that encourage the exercise of CT. Thus, for instance, engaging students in its
practice supports making visible two aspects: a) the components involved in CT
practice; b) and elements that affect it being successful. For instance, Iordanou’s
chapter proposes to engage primary pre-service teachers in dialogic activities on the
topic of Genetically Modified Food with the goal of making teachers aware of a
fundamental component of CT: individual’s ability to take in consideration multiple
factors involved in an issue. Puig and Ageitos engage primary pre-service teachers in
the assessment of claims from the anti-vaccination movement, with the objective of
making them aware of their own knowledge and bias when assessing diverse
premises supporting anti-vaccination. Hufnagel’s chapter points to the intersections
between emotions and CT in a course developed with pre-service teachers about
climate change. On the other hand, there are chapters that may be useful in helping
teachers to recognize CT in students’ arguments and actions, as Brocos and Jiménez-
Aleixandre illustrate in the analysis of the dimensions related to taking actions
towards sustainability in the participants’ discourse.
Drawing from the research presented in the volume we propose three main
aspects that can support teachers in engaging students in CT development.
1. Biology and environmental education instruction centred on SSIs and their social
impacts can facilitate students’ engagement in CT. It can also help students to
cultivate CT consciousness, as Colucci-Gray and Gray show. To do so, teachers
need to provide opportunities to critically reflect on on our own place in the
world, particularly on how our actions can affect the environment (negatively or
positively). Using empathy strategies to engage students in socioenvironmental
processes, as Mukenbye and Gericke suggest, might be beneficial for this
purpose.
2. The creation of learning communities and collaborative work in the classroom, in
which CT is considered a situated practice, is of crucial significance in the
promotion of CT. Understanding CT as a situated practice implies identifying
its exercise not only as a way of thinking, but also as a way of acting which could
be related with community commitments (García Franco and colleagues, Chap. 4,
this book). To do so, biology and environmental teaching need to consider
students’ experiences and to make use of their local contexts, with the goal to
promote social and environmental awareness. For instance, regarding the ade-
quate use of natural resources and health supplies and taking steps towards
prevention.
274 B. Puig and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre

3. Task design that embeds conflict creates fruitful learning opportunities to engage
students in the practice of CT, as Brocos and Jiménez-Aleixandre discuss. To do
so, biology and environmental education instruction needs to engage students in
dialogic processes, but also in critical actions. For instance, taking actions in
order to address environmental problems as food selection, climate change; or
taking responsible decisions regarding health problems as vaccination, involves
conflicts, both social and personal, as they suggest.

15.3 Future Directions for the Integration of Critical

Thinking in Biology and Environmental Education

Taking into consideration the studies presented in the volume and the educational
challenges of post-truth, some key ideas regarding future directions for the success-
ful integration of CT are:
Key Idea 1. CT entails awareness of one’s own thinking and knowledge as well as
reflection on the thinking on the self and others. Therefore, biology and environ-
mental instruction should provide learning opportunities in which CT is inte-
grated as a social practice that is shaped by the discourse and dependent on the
knowledge domain.
Key Idea 2. Evidence on how students develop CT might be necessary to make them
aware of their own competencies in it. This suggests that CT could be explicitly
mentioned in the learning goals as well as during the development of CT
activities. When engaging in CT, students could monitor their thinking (Puig &
Ageitos, Chap. 7, this book), but also the skills performed during the activity.
Therefore, future directions for the integration of CT could take this aspect into
consideration and design activities for this purpose.
Key Idea 3. Designing learning environments in which students have to deal with
uncertainties provide opportunities for CT development, as Hufnagel and De
Checchi et al. point out. Environmental and health issues related with post-truth
era challenges, as climate change and health issues, do not present clear cut
solutions. They involve some degree of uncertainty, so CT requires not only
understanding of the scientific notions behind these topics, but also of the
processes of knowledge construction in science. Consequently, future directions
in the integration of CT should make an effort in explaining the nature of
uncertainty in environmental and biology topics (Kampourakis, 2018;
Kampourakis & McCain, 2019).
Key Idea 4. Epistemic beliefs may help students to plan and evaluate their own and
other people’s actions (De Checchi & colleagues; Iordanou, Chap. 13, this book).
In the context of environmental issues, it can be helpful to identify which kinds of
epistemic beliefs can influence both the development and use of certain critical
dispositions, as De Checchi and colleagues suggest. When epistemic beliefs are
elaborated, students’ arguments become more critical. Hence, future directions
15 The Integration of Critical Thinking in Biology and Environmental. . . 275

for the integration of CT in biology and environmental instruction should attend

to these connections in order to improve students’ critical argumentation and
dispositions to become critical thinkers.
Key Idea 5. Attention to “Critical consciousness” in biology and environmental
education is necessary in order to make students aware of the impacts of our
actions in the world (Colucci-Gray & Gray, Chap. 2, this book). Future directions
could integrate “CT awareness” of “critical consciousness” in teaching designs as
a way to empower students to take critical actions and to make proper decisions in
order to protect the environment and to take action against social inequalities as
these authors suggest and the current pandemic and post-truth era demands.
This volume has been completed during the COVID-19 pandemic, a period of
time that has promoted collaboration among researchers, teachers and teachers’
educators to find new ways to make education relevant for today’s circumstances.
We hope that the studies in it will encourage teachers and teachers’ educators to
introduce CT in biology and environmental instruction and to make educational
institutions reconsider their priorities in terms of CT for a better society and a healthy
environment.

Acknowledgements Work supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Education and Univer-
sities, partly funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Contract grant
PGC2018-096581-B-C22. http://www.rodausc.eu

References

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Ramim, R., & Zhang,
D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage
1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science
Education, 69(4), 453–475.
Bencze, L., Halwany, S., & Zouda, M. (2020). Critical and active public. Engagement in addressing
socioscientific problems through science teacher education. In M. Evagorou, J. A. Nielsen, &
J. Dillon (Eds.), Science teacher education for responsible citizenship (pp. 63–83). Springer.
Dillon, J., & Avraamidou, L. (2020). Towards a viable response to COVID-19 from the science
education community. Journal for Activist Science and Technology Education, 11(2), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.33137/jaste.v11i2.34531
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Brocos, P. (2021). Emotional tension as a frame for argumentation
and decision-making: Vegetarian vs. omnivorous diets. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662141
Kampourakis, K. (2018). Science and uncertainty. Science & Education, 27(9), 829–830. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0019-3
Kampourakis, K., & McCain, K. (2019). Uncertainty: How it makes science advance. Oxford
University Press.
Kuhn, D. (2019). Critical thinking as discourse. Human Development, 62(3), 146–164. https://doi.
org/10.1159/000500171
 276 B. Puig and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre

Puig, B., Blanco-Anaya, P., & Pérez-Maceira, J. J. (2021). “Fake news” or Real Science? Critical
Thinking to Assess Information on COVID-19. 2021. Front. Educ. 6:646909. https://doi.org/10.
3389/feduc.2021.646909
Saribas, D., & Çetinkaya, E. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ analysis of claims about COVID-19 in an
online course. Science & Education, 30, 235–266.
Thomas, K., & Lok, B. (2015). Teaching critical thinking: An operational framework. In M. Davies,
R. Barnett, et al. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education
(pp. 93–105). Palgrave Macmillan.
Vincent-Lacrin, S., González-Sancho, C., Bouckaert, M., de Luca, F., Fernández-Barrera, M.,
Jacotin, G., Urgel, J., & Vidal, Q. (2019). Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking:
What it means in school, educational research and innovation. OED Publishing. https://doi.org/
10.1787/62212c37-en
Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why it is so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy
Review, 109(4), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32

View publication stats