Socioscientific Issues-based Instruction: An Investigation of Agriscience Students’ Argumentation Skills based on Student Variables

Jarred D. Wyatt, University of Arkansas

Catherine W. Shoulders, University of Arkansas, cshoulde@uark.edu

Brian E. Myers, University of Florida

PDF Available

Abstract

Many researchers in science education have recorded high school student achievement in areas of scientific literacy stemming from socioscientific issues (SSI)-based instruction.  The purpose of this study was to describe agriscience students’ argumentation skills following a six-week SSI- based instructional unit according to students’ grade level, socioeconomic status, and experiences in agricultural education. Results indicated students improved their argumentation quality from pretest to posttest, but students’ changes in the number of arguments they offered varied by grade level, socioeconomic status, number of completed agriculture classes, and FFA involvement.

Introduction

With the world’s population rapidly growing, agricultural productivity will have to grow with it by increasing yields and the nutritional quality of available foods (Federico, 2005). Even though agriculturalists have made steps toward meeting this future need, the industry has been under fire from the public (Dimitri, Effland & Conklin, 2005; National Research Council, 2009). Perceptions of concern with regard to agricultural practices and related technologies have stemmed from anticipated environmental, food safety, health, and social risks, and persist in the face of scientific evidence supporting the practices in question (World Development Report, 2008). This public concern has led to an ironic situation wherein agriculturalists are responsible for meeting the nutritional needs of a growing population with shrinking resources while overcoming this challenge in ways deemed to be acceptable by the general public. The only way for agricultural production to continue to increase and improve so that future quality and quantity demands are met is for the public to become scientifically literate in order to make educated decisions regarding agricultural technologies (Federico, 2005; National Research Council, 2009).

Although not universally accepted, the concept of scientific literacy has usually referred to public understanding of science and how the public interacts with science to live more effectively (DeBoer, 2000; Laugksch, 1999). The notion of argumentation as a component of scientific literacy has been established by numerous researchers (Callahan, 2009; Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999; Thoron, 2010; Zeidler & Sadler, 2008). Kuhn (1991) (as cited in Thoron, 2010) defined argumentation skill as “the development of logical explanations and reorganization of opposing assertions, weights of evidence, and determination of merit for each assertion with regards to evidence” (p. 70). The major components of argumentation include articulating and justifying claims, considering counter positions and evidence, and the social negotiation of data and theories (Sadler & Fowler, 2006).

Scientific literacy was identified as the most important goal of science education by the National Science Teachers Association in the 1970s (DeBoer, 2000), and has more recently been included in the purposes, goals, and necessary aspects of science education by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (2009) and the National Research Council (1996). Researchers in science education have focused on socioscientific issues-based (SSI) instruction, a method of instruction that engages students in the multi-faceted decision making process associated with controversial scientific issues in society, as an effective method of increasing numerous aspects of scientific literacy, including argumentation skills (Dori, Tal, & Tsauschu, 2003; Sadler & Fowler, 2006; Zohar & Nemet, 2002).

While agricultural education has been reported to be an ideal setting for the development of argumentation skills through applicable contexts (National Research Council, 1988; 2009), the practices in secondary agriculture classes have been slow to change, as the same problems regarding increasing scientific literacy have been the focus of agricultural education reform for over 20 years (National Research Council, 1988; 2009). The National Research Council (2009), Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (2009), National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996), and the National Research Agenda (Doerfert, 2011) have called for changes in teaching practices in order to improve student scientific literacy, and recommended the incorporation of real-world, societal issues into instruction as a means of improving scientific literacy.

Numerous researchers in science education have reported student improvement in argumentation skills resulting from SSI-based instruction (Dori et al., 2003; Sadler & Fowler, 2006; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). Many of the issues utilized in SSI-based instruction are agriculturally based (Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002), suggesting that SSI-based instruction in secondary agricultural education classes may improve students’ argumentation skills. The problem addressed by this study was the continuing gap between students’ scientific literacy skills and those needed to succeed in the workplace and society (Harvard Graduate School, 2011; National Research Council, 1996; 2009), and the search for instructional methods well-suited for secondary agricultural education that show evidence of success for improving student scientific literacy skills.

Theoretical Framework

Dunkin and Biddle’s model for the study of classroom teaching (1974) guided this study, which examined changes in agriscience students’ argumentation skills after an SSI-based instructional unit (Figure 1). Dunkin and Biddle adapted a model proposed by Mitzel (1960), and grouped thirteen classes of suggested variables into four larger groups of variables within the teaching environment, titled presage, context, process, and product variables.

Figure 1 A model for the study of classroom teaching (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974)

Presage variables are defined as variables that teachers bring to the learning environment through their formative experiences, training experiences, and personal properties (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). Based on teachers’ perceptions of and experiences regarding specific SSI topics, classrooms utilizing SSI-based instructional approaches may operate differently from one another. Context variables are uncontrolled by the teacher. They refer to students’ formative situations and properties, school and community contexts, and classroom contexts. Similarly to their teachers, students bring influential experiences to the classroom, and these experiences can be impacted by conditions such as home life, socioeconomic status (SES), and physical attributes. Because of its focus on decision-making in the context of controversial issues, SSI- based instruction can impact students differently based on their experiences outside of the classroom (Sadler, 2011). Process variables refer to the interactions between students and the teacher within the learning environment. It is in the learning environment that context and presage variables interact with learning material and the context and presage variables of the other individuals within the environment.  Product variables refer to the outcomes of the learning. These variables can include both long term and short term effects of learning on students and teachers, and can refer to outcomes related to knowledge, skills, perceptions, behaviors, actions and others.

Conceptual Framework

The notion of argumentation as a component of scientific literacy to be developed through formal education has been established by numerous researchers (Callahan, 2009; Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999; Thoron, 2010; Zeidler & Sadler, 2008). Sadler and Fowler (2006) identified the connection between SSI-based instruction and argumentation skills as contextual, stating that “a common assumption underlying [SSI-based education research] suggests that learners’ content knowledge related to the SSI under consideration significantly influences argumentation practice” (p. 3). Utilized in scientific discourse, argumentation includes articulation of justification of claims, offering of counter positions and evidence, and social negotiation of data and theories (Sadler & Fowler, 2006). Toulmin’s (1958) works in argumentation and subsequent development of his Argument Pattern (TAP) has provided a framework through which researchers have evaluated argument structure (Sadler & Fowler, 2006; Thoron, 2010). The TAP focuses on argument structure rather than on content (Callahan, 2009) and ranks arguments based on their inclusion of data, claims, warrants, backing, and rebuttals (Toulmin, 1958), and has been utilized as a primary tool in measuring the development of argumentation skills in science education.

In their 2003 study, Dori, et al. operationalized higher order thinking skills as “cognitive activities that are beyond the level of understanding according to Bloom’s traditional taxonomy” (p. 771), and chose to measure higher order thinking skills through system thinking, question posing, and argumentation. Students’ argumentation skills were measured before and after they engaged in an SSI-based module focusing on biotechnology and genetic engineering, and were analyzed based on student academic level. All students improved in their argumentation skills, averaging an increase in arguments from pre- to posttest of 1.74. Arguments were found to relate with medical, social, and moral aspects most often.

Zohar and Nemet’s (2002) study examined the impact of an SSI-based genetic revolution unit on ninth grade Israeli students’ argumentation skills through an experimental approach. Students in the experimental group, which engaged in the unit through the genetic revolution material, and those in the comparison group, which engaged in the same genetic principles through a traditional textbook approach, were both assessed through analysis of discussions, products developed during the classes, and written assessments. Arguments were scored according to students’ abilities to form an argument consisting of argument formulation, argument alternatives, and rebuttals, along with justification of each. Results indicated that, while students in both groups had similar pretest scores, students in the experimental group significantly improved in their argumentation skills while those in the comparison group experienced no increase in argumentation score from pretest to posttest. Response analysis also indicated that those in the experimental group were able to transfer their argumentation skills to contexts outside of the genetics dilemmas.

Jimenez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez, and Duschl (2000) examined the argumentation skills of one ninth grade class in Spain during six sessions, two of which were SSI-based. Arguments were analyzed according to the argumentative operations and epistemic operations related to the development of scientific knowledge. Using TAP, the authors analyzed arguments for their data, claims, warrants to justify the connection between data and claims, warrants related to theories, qualifiers which state conditions of the claim, and rebuttals, which state conditions fordiscarding the claim. Epistemic operations were analyzed according a framework developed from other fields and scientific philosophy, and included induction, deduction, causality, definition, classification, use of appeals as explanation, consistency, and plausibility. Qualitative analysis indicated that student groups “developed a variety of arguments, in some cases more sophisticated…than in others” (p. 779). While groups co-constructed arguments, they also experienced unbalanced participation, wherein certain group members contributed the majority of the argument components. In all discussion, claims were the most frequently used aspects of arguments. Epistemic operations identified in student discussions included causality most often, in addition to analogies.

Tal and Hochberg (2003) assessed the argumentation skills of ninth-grade Israeli students through the use of pre and post open-ended, case-based questionnaires, portfolios, and classroom observations. Although not analyzed quantitatively, the authors found that students’ post-test arguments were longer, included more and better structured justifications, and incorporated more knowledge consideration.

In an experimental study examining the impact of an SSI-based unit on eighth-grade student argumentation skills, Osborne, Erduran, and Simon (2004) examined students’ discussions using TAP. The experimental group was taught argumentation skills through consideration of whether a new zoo should be built while the comparison group was taught argumentation skills in a scientific context. Each of the six teachers was responsible for teaching one experimental and one comparison class. Results indicated that students in the experimental group engaged in more argumentative discourse than those in the comparison group, “suggesting that initiating argument in a scientific context is harder and more demanding both for students and their teachers, whose responsibility it is to scaffold such discourse” (p. 1007). With regard to the quality of the arguments, results indicated that while the shift was not statistically significant, students in the experimental group did exhibit an increase in their use of higher quality arguments. However, the difference in levels of argumentation between the experimental group and the comparison group was significant, with those in the experimental group exhibiting higher level arguments after their lessons than those exhibited by the comparison group.

Sadler and Fowler (2006) identified several limitations to TAP methodologies in SSI-based education research, despite its routine use. The main limitation of scoring arguments with TAP is the subjective nature of identifying an argument’s components: “distinguishing what counts as data, warrants, and backings can be particularly tricky, leaving the reliability of TAP-based assessment schemes questionable” (p. 3). The authors stated that while some researchers have overcome this problem by grouping problematic categories together and focusing on rebuttals, this method is only useful in evaluating group discussions. In a study examining the SSI-based argumentation skills of high school and college students, Sadler and Fowler (2006) developed an Argumentation Quality Rubric in an effort to minimize TAP’s limitations. Similar to the TAP, the rubric evaluated argument structure, but focused on claim justification, identified as the “most basic form of argumentation practices” (p. 7). Analysis of student arguments using the Argumentation Quality Rubric resulted in a statistically significant difference between groups; argumentation scores were significantly higher for science majors than for high school students or nonsciencemajors.

While the impact of SSI-based instruction on students’ argumentation skills has been well researched in science education, there exists a gap in the literature with regard to how SSI-based instruction impacts students’ argumentation skills within agriscience education. SSI-based instruction is rooted in society, implying that students may be presented with the issue, often within the context of agriculture, before experiencing it in the classroom. Therefore, formative context variables, such as SES and experiences in agricultural education, may considerably impact learning outcomes in SSI-based instructional classrooms. Cheek, Arrington, Carter, and Randell (1994) found that student achievement was positively related to student formative experiences such as FFA participation, number of years enrolled in agricultural education, and SES. Pupil properties, such as how middle school students differ from high school students (Bong, 2001), can impact learning outcomes differently than in science classrooms, as agricultural education courses frequently contain mixed grade levels. This study sought to add to the knowledge base regarding how the context variables of the agricultural education classroom combines with the process variable of SSI-based instruction to impact student outcome variables related to argumentation skills.

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this study was to describe agriscience students’ changes in argumentation skills following a six-week SSI-based instructional unit focusing on the introduction of cultured meat into the nation’s food supply according to students’ grade levels, SES, and experiences in agricultural education. In order to accomplish this purpose, the following objectives were developed:

1. Describe students’ number and quality of argument justifications created prior to and following an SSI-based instructional unit.
2. Describe students’ number and quality of argument justifications created prior to and following an SSI-based instructional unit based on enrollment in middle or high school.
3. Describe students’ number and quality of argument justifications created prior to and following an SSI-based instructional unit based on SES, operationally defined as enrollment in the school free or reduced lunch program.
4. Describe students’ number and quality of argument justifications created prior to and following an SSI-based instructional unit based on number of completed agricultural education classes.
5. Describe students’ number and quality of argument justifications created prior to and following an SSI-based instructional unit based on membership in the FFA.

Methods

The target population for the study was secondary school agriscience students in [State]. A convenience sample of [State] agriscience teachers was used to access the population. To participate, teachers had to be teaching at least one [Introductory Agriculture] class during the 2011-2012 school year. The classes they taught could consist of students in middle and/or high school. Teachers attending the [State Association] Teachers and regional FFA Chapter Officer Leadership Conferences were recruited to attend training sessions related to this study.

While the use of SSI-based instruction in science education has been documented and has therefore begun the process of theory construction, a theory establishing the use of SSI-based instruction in agricultural education has not yet been built; the use of SSI-based instruction has not yet be documented in agricultural education. Because this study followed a theory building nature, a pre-experimental, single group pretest-posttest design was utilized; a true experimental or quasi-experimental design was not deemed appropriate. Theory building, “the purposeful process…by which coherent descriptions, explanations, and representations of observed or experienced phenomena are generated, verified, or refined” (Lynham, 2000, p. 161), is led in design by the nature and development of the theory rather than by a researcher’s desired type of questioning (Lynham, 2002). The single group pretest-posttest design is susceptible to numerous internal validity threats. Five threats were identified by Campbell and Stanley (1963): history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, and interaction of selection and other threats. Threats to history were addressed with the use of multiple classrooms during treatment. Threats to maturation were reduced in the study through the selection of agriculture education as a class subject since the field contains a wide range of student ages and different maturation based on those ages. There were no threats to instrumentation because the pretest and posttests remained the same before and after treatment. Interaction of selection and other threats was reduced with the collection of covariate data from multiple classrooms to control for differences between classrooms. Fidelity of treatment was met through a professional development session to train teachers in the use of the SSI-based instruction (Boone, 1988; Hennessey & Rumrill, 2003). Selection of content posted a “concern with conducting a study utilizing specific teaching methods’ (Thoron, 2010, p. 91). A panel of experts from [University] [Department] examined the lesson plans and content used and deemed they were appropriate for the grade level and subjects. Generalizations of the findings in this study were limited; however, the ability to make generalizations was not a primary goal of the research since its intended nature was that of theory building.

The study’s intervention contained lessons that taught agriscience material with an SSI method. The material consisted of three instructional units, with each investigating the SSI (whether cultured meat should be introduced into the nation’s food supply) from a different point of view: (a) food safety, (b) economic impacts, and (c) environmental impacts. The study used 30 researcher-made lesson plans to be used in 45-minute classes.

Researchers provided audio recorders and instructions to be used by teachers for each session so that 25% of the recordings could be used to further ensure treatment fidelity (Thoron, 2010). Lessons had to be 80% aligned with the study to be deemed appropriate, and teachers with 90% of their lessons meeting alignment were allowed to be included in the study. Teachers were also required to take daily attendance logs. Classes that were missing over 25% of its students were deemed unacceptable and removed from the study. Despite weekly reminders, teachers failed to consistently record their class sessions citing forgetfulness and technical difficulties as their justification. Teachers also forgot to consistently record and share attendance records. Since the mortality rate of students receiving instruction was not proven to be below 25%, this is considered a limitation in the study. However, student work submitted to the researchers throughout the study indicated that classes were well attended.

Students’ argumentation skill was assessed using an Argumentation Quality Rubric, which scores open responses to SSI scenarios on a scale of 0 (“No Justifications Provided”) to 4 (Justification with Elaborated Grounds and Counterposition) (Sadler & Fowler, 2006). The rubric was designed to address the limitations of Toulmin’s Argumentation Rubric (TAP) (1958) which had been used in similar SSI-based education studies. The rubric surpasses the challenge of accurately categorizing claims, warrants and backings by focusing only on the justification of claims, which is a fundamental factor to argumentation (Sadler & Fowler, 2006). Reliability of the rubric was established by Sadler & Fowler (2006) through the use of multiple scorers, which resulted in an inter-rater consistency above .9. Students responded to researcher-developed scenarios directly related to SSI intervention in a paper-based open response format. The scenario remained the same from pretest to posttest, and was reviewed by a panel of experts in agricultural and science education for face and content validity. Scores were calculated by researchers in the [University] [Department]. The primary researcher individually scored each response. Scores on 10% of the responses were reviewed and confirmed by a secondary researcher, which resulted in an inter-rater consistency score of 1.0 (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Findings

After initial contact, approximately 40 teachers attended the training sessions that were created to inform potential participants about the study. After the meeting, 11 teachers showed interest in participating in the study and signed consent forms, which lead to a total of 672 students available to participate in the study. After repeated contact with the researcher, seven teachers requested to be removed from the study due to problems during the school year. Four teachers’ classes completed the duration of the study. Despite frequent contact, however, two teachers did not send in all of the finished instruments. A total of 633 students were removed from the study following their initial consent, resulting in a mortality rate of 94.20%. Therefore, a total of 39 students completed both pretests and posttests (see Table 1). This mortality rate is considerably higher than others that have been reported in previous experimental studies in agricultural education using intact classes (Jurs & Glass, 1971; Thoron, 2010), reducing the generalizability of this study beyond its participants. Only those students with both pretest and posttest scores were included in the data analysis.

Table 1
Number of Students per Objective Variable Completing Each Argumentation Assessment (N=39)

Objective Variable		Number of Students Completing Assessment (n)
	Overall	PretestNumber	PosttestNumber	PretestScore	PosttestScore
All Students	39	39	39	39	39
Grade Level
Middle	28	28	28	28	28
High	10	10	10	10	10
Free/Reduced Lunch Status
Enrolled	18	18	18	18	18
Not enrolled	16	16	16	16	16
# of Completed Agriculture Classes
1-2	35	35	35	35	35
3-4	2	2	2	2	2
FFA Membership
Member	28	28	28	28	28
Nonmember	10	10	10	10	10

Students’ Number and Quality of Arguments

The first objective was to describe students’ number and quality of argument justifications created prior to and following an SSI-based instructional unit. There were a total of 39 students who completed both the pretest and posttest. The students’ mean number of justifications on the pretest scenario was 2.15 (SD = 0.86), while the mean number of justifications on the posttest decreased by 0.05 to 2.10 (SD = 0.94). Students’ pretest justification quality had a mean score of 1.62 (SD = 0.75) while their posttest mean score increased by 0.56 to 2.18 (SD = 1.02).

Argumentation Skills based on Enrollment in Middle or High School

The second objective was to describe students’ number and quality of argument justifications created prior to and following an SSI-based instructional unit based on enrollment in middle or high school. There were a total of 28 students who indicated they were in middle school classes and 10 who indicated they were in high school classes. Of the 39 students submitting argumentation pretests and posttests, one did not supply grade level information. Middle school students’ pretest mean number of justifications was 2.07 (SD = 0.81), while their mean number of justifications on the posttest decreased by 0.21 to 1.86 (SD = 0.89). High school students’ pretest mean number of justifications score was 2.30 (SD = 1.06). Their posttest mean number of justifications increased by 0.50 to 2.80 (SD = 0.79). Middle school students’ mean justification quality pretest score was 1.79 (SD = 0.79), while their mean posttest scores increased by 0.07 to 1.86 (SD = 0.80). High school students’ mean justification quality pretest scores was 1.20 (SD = 0.42), while their posttest mean score increased by 1.80 to 3.00 (SD = 1.15).

Argumentation Skills based on SES

The third objective was to describe students’ number and quality of argument justifications created prior to and following an SSI-based instructional unit based on SES, operationally defined as enrollment in the school free or reduced lunch program. Out of 34 students indicating their enrollment status, 18 were enrolled in a free or reduced lunch program, while 16 were not. Free or reduced lunch students had a mean score of 2.39 (SD = 0.85) on their number of justifications pretest, while they had a reduced mean number of 2.11 (SD = 0.96) on their posttest. Students who did not have free or reduced lunches had a mean number of 1.94 (SD = 0.85) justifications on the pretest, while they had an increased mean number of 2.13 (SD = 1.02) justifications on the posttest. Students enrolled in a free or reduced lunch program had a mean quality of justifications pretest score of 1.67 (SD = 0.69), while their score increased by 0.61 to 2.28 (SD = 0.96) on the posttest. Non-free or reduced lunch students had a mean score on their quality of justifications pretest of 1.56 (SD = 0.81), while their mean score increased by 0.44 to 2.00 (SD = 0.97).

Argumentation Skills based on Number of Completed Agricultural Education Classes

The next objective sought to describe students’ number and quality of argument justifications created prior to and following an SSI-based instructional unit based on number of completed agricultural education classes. Since only two students had completed more than two agricultural education classes, two groups were created for analysis: students that had completed one to two agricultural education classes and students that completed three to four classes.

Students who had one to two previous agricultural education classes had a mean number of justifications of 2.17 (SD = 0.89) on the pretest and a decreased mean posttest number of 2.09 (SD = 0.89). Students with three to four previous agricultural education classes had a mean number of justifications of 2.50 (SD = 0.71) on the pretest, with an increased posttest number of 3.50 (SD = 1.31). Students with one to two agriculture classes had a mean quality of justification pretest score of 1.54 (SD = 0.66), with an increased posttest score of 2.09 (SD = 0.98). Students with three to four previous agricultural education classes had a mean quality of justifications pretest score of 1.50 (SD = 0.71), with an increased mean posttest score of 3.00 (SD = 1.41).

Argumentation Skills based on FFA Membership

The final objective described students’ number and quality of argument justifications created prior to and following an SSI-based instructional unit based on membership in the FFA. Out of 38 students, 28 were members of the FFA while ten were not members of the FFA. Students who were FFA members had a mean number of pretest justifications of 2.07 (SD = 0.86), while their mean posttest number remained at 2.07 (SD = 0.94). Students who were non-members had a mean pretest number of justifications of 2.40 (SD = 0.97), while their mean number on the posttest decreased to 2.30 (SD = 0.95). Students who were FFA members had a mean quality of justifications pretest score of 1.68 (SD = 0.67), while their mean posttest score increased to 2.18 (SD = 0.98). Students who were non-members had a quality of justifications pretest mean score of 1.20 (SD = 0.42), while their mean posttest score increased to 2.20 (SD = 1.23).

Conclusions and Implications

From the findings, researchers drew numerous conclusions regarding the effectiveness of SSI- based instruction in impacting student argumentation skills. Objective one examined students’ overall argumentation skills after receiving SSI-based instruction. Students were found to have a decreased mean number of justifications on the posttest compared to the pretest. However, from pretest to posttest, the mean quality score of their justifications increased. While findings related to the increase in justification quality are supported by previous research (Dori et al, 2003; Tal & Hochberg, 2003; Zohar & Nemet, 2002), the finding that students did not display gains in the number of argument justifications offered is contradicted by Tal and Hochberg’s (2003) study, implying that external factors may have impacted students’ abilities to supply an increased number of justifications in the current study. These external factors may include perceived time or space limitations when writing justifications, or writing fatigue on the part of the respondents.

Objective two examined students’ argumentation skills in relation to grade level after receiving SSI-based instruction. Middle school students’ quality of justifications pretest score was higher than high school students. This difference could imply a greater level of motivation among middle school students to perform on school tasks (Bong, 2001), an aspect of argumentation that has not yet been fully examined in SSI-based instruction research. Findings showed that regardless of student age, the quality of their justifications increased. However, the mean increase of the quality of justifications was greater among high school students than among middle school students. Middle school students also displayed a decrease in the number of justifications from pretest to posttest, which was not observed within the high school students.

Objective three examined students’ argumentation skills based on SES, which was determined by their enrollment in a free or reduced lunch program. Regardless of enrollment status, students displayed an increase in the quality of their justifications from pretest to posttest. Students enrolled in a free or reduced lunch program displayed a greater mean score increase from pretest to posttest than those students who were not enrolled in a free or reduced lunch program. These results align with Dunkin and Biddle’s (1974) theory, which states students’ learning is influenced by their context variables, including SES.

Objective four examined students’ argumentation skills based on the number of previously completed agricultural education classes. Students displayed a mean increase in quality of justifications regardless of the number of previous agricultural education classes they had completed. Students that had completed three to four previous agriculture classes had a higher mean increase in quality than students that had only taken one to two previous classes. These findings may be skewed by the great difference between the number of students in each group; the majority of students in the study had only taken one to two previous agricultural education classes while only two students had taken three to four previous classes. However, Dunkin and Biddle’s (1974) theory states that formative experiences can impact students’ learning, implying that students with more formative experiences in agricultural education may have been better equipped with agricultural knowledge to support their arguments.

Objective five sought to describe students’ argumentation skills based on their FFA membership. The findings showed that regardless of membership status, students’ mean quality of justifications increased from pretest to posttest. However, students that were not FFA members had a greater mean increase in their quality of justifications than students that were FFA members. This finding contradicts those of Cheek, et al. (1994), which state that student achievement was positively related with FFA participation.

Findings displayed that while SSI-based instruction did improve students’ quality of justifications, their number of justifications decreased. This difference in score change may be from confounding factors such as perceived time permitted, writing skills, and students’ motivation. Students may have not had adequate time or space to provide more justifications on their tests, which would have hindered their number of justifications. High school students could have had a higher level of writing skill, which would allow them to give better quality justifications than middle school students in the testing format provided.

Limitations of the study prevent generalizations from being made to populations beyond the study. Limitations of this study included the high attrition rate and resulting small sample of students participating in and completing the study, inconsistent group sizes within each objective, confounding variables such as student and teacher fatigue, and potential strong relationships between variables such as number of completed classes and grade level. While generalization is strongly discouraged, these findings can be useful in furthering understanding of how SSI-based instruction may impact different groups of students, as well as assisting researchers with the appropriate design of future studies regarding SSI-based instruction in agricultural education.

Recommendations

Previous research had found that SSI-based instruction can be considered an advantageous method in generating student knowledge in science education, although it remains a novel, sparsely-researched teaching approach in agricultural education. Like any introductory study, further research is needed to overcome limitations and further interpret preliminary findings. The results of this study show that while SSI-based instruction may positively impact agriscience students’ argumentation skills, that impact may differ among students and classes. Teacher variables could have played a part in each classroom involved in the studies and their usage of SSI-based instruction (Duncan & Biddle, 1974). Presage variables such as previous education and training, and personal views of the SSI could have altered students’ argumentation skills.

Further research should be conducted to examine the influence of presage variables on classroom behaviors and student outcomes during SSI-based instruction. The study also warrants further research on the impacts of student-related context variables, such as SES, membership with FFA, and agricultural education experience on learning during SSI-based instruction. Characteristics of the materials provided such as the order of lessons, SSI topics, and duration of the lessons could impact students’ scores and should be subject to further study, as there are no best practices recommended by researchers in SSI-based instruction (Sadler, 2009).

The findings from this study present further recommendations to agriculture teachers. Teachers should select appropriate SSI topics based on student factors, such as SES, experience in agricultural education and the field of agriculture, and FFA membership, since argumentation scores for each of these factors differed. While further research is needed in this area before additional recommendations can be made, the findings of this study support careful consideration of student backgrounds and experiences when selecting appropriate SSI topics and aspects.

Finally, recommendations can be made regarding FFA recruitment. The strong overlap between FFA events and the agricultural aspects of many SSIs warrant the incorporation of FFA activities into SSI-based instruction in agricultural education. Nonmembers displayed higher quality arguments on the posttest than FFA members; in order to benefit the FFA aspects of agricultural education programs, recruitment efforts should be increased to incorporate these students. This effort may require that teachers and researchers examine potential differences between these groups that may impact both interest in being an FFA member and argumentation skills. Researchers should also determine if other skill differences exist between members and nonmembers that may impact learning during SSI-based instruction.

The study’s findings indicate that SSI-based instruction is effective in increasing secondary agriculture education students’ argumentation skills. The findings, coupled with previous research, give recommendations to future and current teachers, curriculum makers, and researchers that could potentially be beneficial to developing further knowledge about SSI- instruction in agricultural education. This study also carries the potential to be replicated in other states or areas of instruction to evaluate the impact of SSI-based instruction in the classroom.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993/2009). Project 2061: Benchmarks for scientific literacy.

Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. (2009, May). Human capacity development: The road to global competitiveness and leadership in food, agriculture, natural resources, and related sciences. Retrieved from Association of Public and Land grant Universities website: http://www.aplu.org/document.doc?id=1639

Boone, H. N., Jr. (1988). Effects of approach to teaching on student achievement, retention, and attitude. Unpublished dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school students: self-efficacy, task-value, and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 23-34. doi:10.I037//0022-0663.93.1.23

Callahan, B. E. (2009). Enhancing NOS understanding, reflective judgment, and argumentation through socioscientific issues. (Doctor of Philosophy, University of South Florida).

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally & Company.

Cheek, J. G., Arrington, L. R., Carter, S., & Randell, R. S. (1994). Relationship of supervised agricultural experience program participation and student achievement in agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural education, 35(2), 1-5. doi: 10.5032/jae. 1994.02001

DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582.

Dimitri, C., Effland, A., & Conklin, N. (2005). The 20^th century transformation of U.S. agriculture and farm policy. No. Bulletin 3. Economic research Service/USDA.

Doerfert, D. L. (Ed.) (2011). National research agenda: American Association for Agriculture Education’s research priority areas for 2011-2015. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, Department of Agricultreal Education and Communications.

Dori, Y. J., Tal, T., & Tsauschu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies- can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 87, 767-793. doi:10.1002/sce.10081

Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching. Washington, DC: University Press of America, Inc.

Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72. doi: 10.1080/03057260208560187

Federico, G. (2005). Feeding the world: An economic history of agriculture, 1800-2000. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Harvard Graduate School. (2011). Pathways to prosperity: Meeting the challenge of preparing young Americans for the 21st century. Harvard Graduate School.

Hennesey, M. L., & Rumrill, P.D. (2003). Treatment fidelity in rehabilitation research. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 19, 123-126.

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. doi: 10.1002/1098-237X

Jurs, S. G., & Glass, G. V. (1971). Experimental mortality, Journal of Experimental Education, 40, 62-66.

Kuhn, D. (1No1). The skills of Argument. Cambridge, MA. Cambridge University Press.

Laugksch, R. C. (1No9). Scientific literacy: Aconceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lynham, S. A. (2000). Theory building in the human resource development profession. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(2), 159-178.

Lynham, S. A. (2002). The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 221-241. doi:10.1177/1523422302043002

Mitzel, H. (1960). Teacher effectiveness. In C. Hs (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (3rd ed.) (pp. 1481). New York, NY: MacMillan.

National Research Council. (1988). Understanding agriculture: New directions for education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press

National Research council. (1No6). National science education standards. No. 4962). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1No9). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), No4-1020.

Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socioscientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45, 1-42.

Sadler, T. D. (Ed.) (2011). Socioscientific Issues in the Classroom: Teaching, Learning, and Research. New York, NY: Springer.

Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986-1004. doi:10.1002/sce.20165

Tal, T., & Hochberg, N. (2003). Reasoning, problem-solving and reflections: Participating in Wise project in Israel. Science Education International, 14(4), 3-19.

Thoron, A. C. (2010). Effects of inquiry-based agriscience instruction on student argumentation skills, scientific reasoning, and student achievement (Doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.

World Development Report. (2008). Agriculture for development: World development report 2008 (2007). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Social and ethical issues in science education: A prelude to action. Science & Education, 17(8-9), 7No-803. doi:10.1007/s11191-007-9130-6

Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the NOS and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367. doi:10.1002/sce.10025

Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.