In this phase, the ability of students’ scientific epistemological beliefs as well as their cognitive structures for predicting their informal reasoning on nuclear power usage was also assessed

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

With qualitative and quantitative analyses, the conduct of this study was divided into the two phases: the informal reasoning exploration phase and the on-line

searching task phase. The informal reasoning exploration phase aimed to explore the interplay between students’ scientific epistemological beliefs, cognitive structures regarding nuclear power usage, and their informal reasoning on this issue. In this phase, the ability of students’ scientific epistemological beliefs as well as their cognitive structures for predicting their informal reasoning on nuclear power usage was also assessed. The on-line searching task phase was conducted to examine the effects of different on-line searching tasks on learners’ learning outcomes, including searching outcomes, cognitive structure outcomes, and informal reasoning outcomes.

Besides, the interactions between students’ attributes (e.g., their scientific

epistemological beliefs as well as their information commitments) and the searching tasks on their learning outcomes (including searching outcomes, cognitive structure outcomes, and informal reasoning outcomes) were also explored in this phase. In this chapter, the major findings derived from these two phases will be discussed respectively. Then, with the findings in this study, the robustness of the theoretical model proposed in this study will be discussed. Finally, the conclusion of this study will be proposed.

V.1 Discussions on the major findings derived from the informal reasoning exploration phase

V.1.1 Students’ usage of reasoning modes, decision-making modes, and reasoning quality

In this study, the participants’ informal reasoning on nuclear power usage was analyzed first. Some findings derived from these analyses are similar to those in Wu and Tsai (2007a). In this study, most of the participants were found to process reasoning from multiple perspectives. The results concur with those of Sadler and Zeidler (2005), Yang and Anderson (2003), and Wu and Tsai (2007a) that learners are oriented to reason from multiple perspectives.

Similar to Wu and Tsai (2007a), it was found that about 20% the students tended to make evidence-based decisions. Contemporary reforms in science education have highlighted students’ ability to make their decisions on socio-scientific issues (e.g., American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990, 1993; National Research Council, 1996). As preparing learners for rational thinkers is of great importance, how students make their decisions on socio-scientific issues should receive more attention among science educators.

Moreover, Kuhn (1993) has argued that rebuttal construction is critical in learners’ informal reasoning. However, more than half of the participants in this study had difficulty in proposing rebuttals to against counter-arguments. As

advocated by Osborne et al. (2004), science instructors should try to improve learners’

argumentation levels. In other words, learners’ rebuttal construction in the process of informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue should be particularly highlighted.

V.1.2 Students’ supportive argument and counter argument construction before and after making personal positions

Evans (1996) has argued that people decide first and think afterward in order to justify choices that are unconsciously determined. In addition, Evans and Curtis-Holmes (2005) also proposed that a central phenomenon in dual-process accounts of reasoning is related to

“belief bias”, the tendency to evaluate the validity of an argument on the basis of whether or not agrees with the conclusion. In this study, the participants were asked to write down the arguments supporting both positions toward nuclear power usage before they wrote down their personal positions toward nuclear power usage. The results showed that the students significantly proposed more counter-arguments before making personal decisions than they did after making personal decisions. In other words, after making their personal decisions on a socio-scientific issue, learners may tend to ignore some counterarguments they have known. It seems that, as proposed by Evans (1996), students will make their personal decisions toward a socio-scientific issue first; and, after making their personal positions, their “belief bias” will cause them to ignore some counterarguments they have known. As a result, when being asked to propose counterarguments again, they will propose less counterargument than they do before they express their personal positions toward this issue.

V.1.3 The formation of students’ initial positions

The students in this study were asked to write down what perspectives they mainly consider in the beginning when proposing their positions toward the building of the forth nuclear power plant in Taiwan. It was found that most of the students in this study tended to form their initial positions from multiple perspectives. In addition, this study also revealed that the more learners were oriented to form their initial position from multiple perspectives, the more they would tend to achieve

higher-level reasoning quality. Undoubtedly, the initial perspectives students mainly considered in the beginning can be regarded as one part of the results derived from their usage of System 1 in the Preliminary Stage. Therefore, how students make use of System 1 may be one of the important factors influencing their reasoning quality.

V.1.4 Students’ evaluative criteria for arguments regarding two opposite positions

Kolsto et al. (2006) explored science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socio-scientific issue, and identified 13 different criteria students used, and these criteria were further classified into four categories: criteria focusing on empirical and theoretical adequacy, criteria focusing on completeness of information, criteria focusing on social aspects, and criteria focusing on manipulative strategies. The current study also revealed 10 criteria students used to evaluate arguments of two opposite positions: “personal benefits or the necessities of existence” (26.5%), followed by “environmental or ecological protection” (25%),

“safety (or healthy) and environmental protection” (11.8%), “balance the

considerations of safety (or environmental protection) and energy usage” (10.3%),

“future life or the future generations” (8.8%), “the comments of experts or other practical data” (7.4%), “weigh all matters carefully” (4.4%), “safety considerations”

(2.9%), “practical situations” (1.5%), and “I don’t know” (1.5%). These criteria can be further classified into five categories:

(1) Criteria focusing on more than two perspectives from one-sided considerations, including “environmental or ecological protection”, “safety (or healthy) and environmental protection”, and “safety considerations” (a total of 39.7%) (2) Criteria focusing on practical situation or actual benefits, including “personal

benefits or the necessities of existence”, and “practical situations” (a total of

26.5%)

(3) Criteria focusing on balance of information, including “balance the

considerations of safety” (or environmental protection) and energy usage”, and

“weigh all matters carefully” (a total of 14.7%)

(4) Criteria focusing on sustainability, including ““future life or the future generations” (a total of 8.8%)

(5) Criteria focusing on authority or empirical data: “the comments of experts or other practical data” (7.4%)

We can also find that the criteria students used most frequently was “criteria focusing on one-sided considerations”, followed by “criteria focusing on practical situation or benefits”, “criteria focusing on balance of information”, “criteria focusing on

sustainability”, and “Criteria focusing on authority or empirical data”.

Learners’ beliefs about the justification of scientific knowledge are concerned with the ways they evaluate knowledge claims, including the use of evidence, how they make use of authority and expertise, and their evaluation of experts (Hofer &

Pintrich, 1997). It is plausible that learners’ critical examination of arguments supporting the two opposite positions regarding a socio-scientific issue, such as the criteria they use, may be correlated with their beliefs on the justification of scientific knowledge. However, further studies are needed to confirm this perspective.

V.1.5 Students’ further need for making rational decisions

In this study, the students were also asked to write down what they further needed for making rational decisions. The category of highest frequency of their responses was “Relevant knowledge or information” (26.5%), followed by “scientific data or report” (22.1%), “I don’t need any more” (10.3%), non-relevant responses (8.8%), “the comments from experts” (7.4%), “thinking harder” (5.9%), “I have no

idea” (5.9%), “opinions of other people” (4.4%), “books” (2.9%), “conducting experiments or research” (2.9) and “searching on the Internet” (2.9%). More than half of the students in this study expressed “relevant knowledge or information”,

“scientific data or report”, “the comments from experts”, or “books” are helpful for their further making rational decisions. Yang (2004) explored high school students’

use of theory and evidence in environmental science decision-making, and revealed that the participants attributed their uncertainty about their thought to insufficient background knowledge, and some of them tended to believe experts’ opinions. She further argued that, in terms of the “Perry Scheme”, these students were in an early stage of “multiplicity” where thinkers still believed things were knowable, but started to realize some knowledge domain were fuzzy. Similar to Yang (2004), when being asked to write down what they further needed for making rational decisions, more than half of the participants in this study expressed their need of relevant knowledge, data, or comments from experts. In other words, they may in an early stage of

“multiplicity” in the “Perry Scheme”.

Moreover, the students’ responses on this item may, to a certain degree, reflect their epistemological views on justification of scientific knowledge. For example, the students, who answered “conducting experiments or research”, or “searching on the Internet” were likely to have relatively sophisticated beliefs on the justification of scientific knowledge, while those who responded “I don’t need any more”, “I have no idea”, or non-relevant answers, were likely to hold less advanced beliefs on

justification of scientific knowledge. By investigating students’ augmentative thinking, Kuhn (1991) has distinguished epistemological views into one of the three stages: absolutist, multiplist, and evaluativist. Whether students of different epistemological views, as classified by Kuhn (1991), vary in their responses on this item should be also an interesting issue for further exploration.

V.1.6 Students’ self-perceived rationality

The term “rationality” has two distinct meanings, personal rationality (Rationality 1): reasoning, making decisions, or acting in a way that is generally

reliable for achieving one’s goals, and normative rationality (Rationality 2): reasoning, making decisions, or acting when one has reason for what one do sanctioned by a normative theory (Evans, 2002). In this study, almost three quarters of the students in this study perceived their personal decisions as rational ones, indicating that most of the students in this study achieved their personal rationality.

Evans and Over (1996) argued that people’s behavior frequently meets personal rationality ever when conflicting with normative rationality. They also proposed that personal rationality can often be achieved by the learning incorporated into System 1 process without the requirement for System 2 intervention, whereas system 2 thinking is required to achieve normative rationality. This study also showed the more the students tended to form their initial decisions or positions from multiple perspectives, the more they were oriented to perceive their decisions as rational ones. It seems that learners’ better usage of System 1 in the Preliminary Stage may help them to form their initial decisions or positions from multiple perspectives, and, consequently, they will achieve personal rationality.

In addition, this study also revealed that students, who considered their decisions to be rational ones, displayed, in general, more sophisticated scientific

epistemological beliefs. However, these students did not outperform on their

argument construction, usage of reasoning modes, and cognitive structure outcomes.

It seems to suggest that students who hold more sophisticated scientific epistemological beliefs may be more oriented to achieve personal rationality.

However, the extent of students’ conceptual understanding may not be related to

whether they perceive their decisions toward a socio-scientific issue as rational or not.

Moreover, students’ achieving of personal rationality do not guarantee for their achieving of higher-level reasoning quality.

V.1.7 Gender difference on students’ informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue

Gender difference is always one of the important issues for educators and researchers in science education (e.g., Adamson et al., 1998; Lee & Burkam, 1996;

Jones et al., 2000). In this study, gender differences on learners’ informal reasoning on nuclear power usage were also investigated. However, similar to Wu and Tsai (2007a), the high school students in this study did not show any gender difference on their decision-making modes, their argument construction for different purposes, and their usage of different reasoning modes. Also, no gender difference was found on their initial perspectives for forming their personal positions in the beginning as well as on their self-perceived rationality about their decisions on nuclear power usage.

These findings seem to suggest that male students and female students do not show any difference their informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue. To get deeper insights into this issue, further research is suggested to address this important issue with samples at other different school levels (such as elementary school or university) as well as with different socio-scientific issues.

V.1.8 Students’ cognitive structure and informal reasoning outcomes between different decision-making mode groups

This study revealed that the students who made evidence-based decisions significantly generated more rebuttals that those made intuitive decisions, indicating that students’ evidence-based thinking may be necessary for their achieving of

higher-level reasoning quality. However, Wu and Tsai (2007a) found that students’

decision-making modes are not correlated with their reasoning quality. The finding above is different from that in Wu and Tsai (2007a). A careful examination of the relationship between students’ decision-making modes and their reasoning quality is needed.

As aforementioned, learners’ application of learned knowledge in novel contexts (i.e., the transfer of learning) is always an important issue for educators (e.g., Haskell, 2001). However, no significant difference on cognitive structure outcomes was found between the students in the two different decision-making mode groups. It implies that students of more extended, richer, and more integrated cognitive

structures may not necessarily make evidence-based decisions. In other words, some learners may have abundant knowledge regarding a socio-scientific issue; however, they may not be able to apply their relevant knowledge in their decision-making on a socio-scientific issue, and still tend to make intuitive decisions. This situation is worthy of receiving more attention from science instructors.

V.1.9 The characteristics of students of higher-level reasoning quality

Kuhn (1993) has argued that rebuttals are critical because they complete the structure of argument, integrating argument and counterargument. In this study, a student’s reasoning level was categorized as “lower-level” if he (or she) only made simple claims (supportive arguments) or counterarguments, while his (or her) reasoning level was categorized as “higher-level” if he (or she) generated not only simple claims (supportive arguments) and counterarguments, but also rebuttals. The results of this study revealed that the students of higher-level reasoning quality were more able to propose more arguments as well as to reason from multiple perspectives.

It was also found that the students who made evidence-based decisions significantly

possessed higher-level reasoning quality, and the more learners are oriented to form their initial position from multiple perspectives, the more they will tend to achieve higher-level reasoning quality. In addition, the students in the higher-level reasoning group significantly scored higher than their counterparts on their scores on the

“justification” scale, and students having more extended and more integrated cognitive structures as well as using the information processing modes “comparing” and

“inferring or explaining” more frequently, are more oriented to achieve higher-level reasoning quality.

By summarizing the findings above, it seems to suggest the following characteristics are displayed by students of higher-level reasoning quality:

(1) They, in general, have more sophisticated scientific epistemological beliefs, in particular the beliefs on justification of scientific knowledge.

(2) They often have more extended and more integrated cognitive structures, and tend to more frequently use higher-level information processing modes, such as

“comparing” and “inferring or explaining”.

(3) They tend to form their initial position from multiple perspectives.

(4) They are more oriented to make evidence-based decisions.

(5) They are more prone to reason from multiple perspectives, and are able to generate more arguments.

V.1.10 Students’ SEBs and their informal reasoning quality

With qualitative analyses, previous studies mainly focused on the relationship between students’ beliefs on NOS and their informal reasoning on socio-scientific issues, and have suggested that students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue is related to certain aspects of beliefs about NOS, such as social embeddedness of science and tentativeness of science (Sadler et al., 2004; Zeidler et al., 2002). As

aforementioned, there are some distinctions between some issues that beliefs on the nature of science (NOS) and scientific epistemological beliefs (SEBs) addressed.

With both qualitative and quantitative analyses, this study aimed to explore the relationship between students’ informal reasoning quality and their scientific

epistemological beliefs (including both beliefs on the nature of scientific knowledge and beliefs on the nature of science knowing). It was revealed that the students’

scores on the two scales, “development” (a scale related to the beliefs on the nature of scientific knowledge) and “justification” (a scale related to the beliefs on the nature of knowing in science), were significantly correlated with their construction of rebuttal, which is an important indicator for higher-level reasoning. The finding above not only concurs with what has been revealed in previous studies that students’ beliefs about NOS are correlated with their informal reasoning quality, but also suggests the relationship between learners’ beliefs about the nature of science knowing (in

particular on the justification of scientific knowledge) and their informal reasoning quality.

This study further examined the ability of the four dimensions of students’ SEBs to predict their informal reasoning quality. It was found that only students’ beliefs on the justification of scientific knowledge, related to the role of experiments in science and the use of data to support arguments, could significantly and positively predict the amount of rebuttal they constructed. Hofer and Pintrich (1997) have argued students’ beliefs on the nature of knowing involves the role of evidence and the processes of justifying knowledge, and these processes are usually assumed to be cognitive processes of a higher level than simple inductive reasoning or general critical thinking. From their perspective, learners’ beliefs on science knowing may be correlated with their informal reasoning on socio-scientific issue. The finding in this study concurs with the perspective above, suggesting the importance of learners’

beliefs on the nature of science knowing on their informal reasoning quality.

V.1.11 Students’ cognitive structure outcomes and their reasoning quality (as well as their usage of different reasoning modes)

Kolsto (2001) has argued that students’ knowledge can serve as tools for their informal reasoning and decision-making on controversial issues. The current study was also interested in the relationship between learners’ conceptual understanding and their informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue. Although previous qualitative studies have suggested the relationship between learners’ conceptual understanding of science content and their informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue (e.g., Hogan, 2002; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Zohar & Nemet, 2002), learners’ conceptual

understanding in theses studies was mostly assessed by traditional assessment method, such as multiple-choice questions (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Zohar & Nemet, 2002).

With the flow map method for probing students’ cognitive structures, this study aimed to both qualitatively and quantitatively explore the relationship between what students had already learnt about a socio-scientific issue and their informal reasoning on this issue. It was found that the more extended, richer, and more integrated the students’

cognitive structures were, the more they were oriented to achieve a higher informal reasoning level. The findings above reconfirmed the relationship between students’

conceptual understanding and their informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issues, which has been revealed in previous studies, and also further indicated that both the quality (i.e., the richness and the integratedness of their cognitive structures) and the quantity (i.e., the extent of their cognitive structures) of their cognitive structures regarding a socio-scientific issue are correlated with their informal reasoning quality.

This study further examined the ability of the extent, the richness, and the

integratedness of cognitive structures to predict their reasoning quality. It was found

that only the richness of students’ cognitive structures significantly predicted their higher-level reasoning quality. In addition, the richness of students’ cognitive structures was also found to be significant predictor for their usage of multiple reasoning modes. It implies that the richness of students’ cognitive structures regarding a socio-scientific issue plays an important role in their informal reasoning on this issue. Tsai and Chou (2005) have tried to identify the “core concept” and

“anchored concept” within an individual learner’s knowledge structure, and have highlighted the importance of the core concept and anchored concept in one’s

knowledge construction. How the core concept and the anchored concept within an individual learner’s knowledge structure regarding a socio-scientific issue (if any) play a role in their informal reasoning on this issue may be an interesting issue for further research.

Besides, Dole and Sinatra (1998) proposed that the usage of metacognition has a profound influence on learners’ cognitive learning outcomes, and a meaningful processing or refinement of information should be involved in metacognitive

activities. The usage of metacognition likely plays an essential role in the process of constructing cognitive structure. It is plausible that learners’ metacognitive

engagement will also influence how their make use of their learnt concepts and ideas regarding a socio-scientific issue in dealing with this issue. In addition, in this study, the students’ usage of metaconition might help them to retrieve the arguments they had proposed from the opposite positions when constructing rebuttals. In other words, their usage of metacognition may facilitate their rebuttal construction, and help them to achieve higher-level reasoning quality. Besides, this study also examined whether the students perceived their personal decisions as rational ones or not. It may be plausible that students’ usage of metacognition is related to their achieving of personal rationality. The perspectives above need empirical research to examine.

However, still no research has addressed the role of students’ usage of metacognition on their informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue. Therefore, further studies are also suggested to address this issue.

In addition, this study also attempted to investigate the relationship between students’ usage of different information processing strategies and their informal reasoning quality. This study showed the more frequently an individual learner tended to utilize the “comparing” information processing mode, the more he/she was oriented to precede higher-level informal reasoning. It seems that the more learners tend to retrieve and organize relevant concepts or ideas from their cognitive structures by comparing both advantage and disadvantage of nuclear power usage, the more they are likely to achieve higher-level reasoning quality. The results derived from

regression analyses further indicated that only students’ usage of the information processing mode, “comparing”, was found to significantly predict their rebuttal construction. Again, it highlighted the importance of students’ usage of the

“comparing” information processing mode on their informal reasoning quality.

Hence, to improve learners’ informal reasoning quality, they should be encouraged to compare the arguments supporting the two opposite positions toward a

socio-scientific issue when they try to retrieve or organize relevant concepts or ideas from their cognitive structures.

V.1.12 The ability of students’ SEBs and cognitive structure outcomes as predictors for their informal reasoning

The forth research question in this study is the initially attempt to addresses that, among the variables regarding students’ scientific epistemological beliefs and their cognitive structures, which one is the best predictor for students’ informal reasoning on this issue. To this end, all the variables above were used as predictors in

regression models to predict their reasoning quality in regression analyses. It was found that, at the first step of the model, the frequency of the students’ usage of the

“comparing” information processing mode entered the equation and accounted for 12% of the variance in their rebuttal construction, and, at the second step in the regression, the students’ scores on the “justification” scale of SEBs entered the equation and added an incremental R² change of 5% to the model. It implies that students’ cognitive structures, in particular their information processing mode, may be the most significant factor influencing their informal reasoning quality, and their scientific epistemological beliefs, in particular their beliefs on science knowing , is also a important factor influencing their informal reasoning quality. Recently, educational psychologists have proposed dual-process theories to account for the mechanism of human’s thinking and reasoning. Wu and Tsai (2007a) have argued that the construction of rebuttal may be viewed as one of the productions of operating System 2. From their perspective and the results of this study, students’ frequent usage of the “comparing” information processing mode as well as their sophisticated beliefs on the nature of knowing in science are likely correlated with their better usage of System 2 in the Deliberation Stage.

It should be also noticed that the students’ rebuttal construction was explained totally 17% by their cognitive structures and scientific epistemological beliefs. It seems that some other factors may also account for learners’ informal reasoning quality on a socio-scientific issue, such as students’ usage of metacognition or their personal experiences regarding this issue (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004). With the factors above, we may be able to get more complete and systematic insights into learners’

informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue.

Wu and Tsai (2007a) have suggested that instructors should encourage students to reason on a socio-scientific issue from multiple perspectives. This study also

examined, among the variables regarding students’ scientific epistemological beliefs and their cognitive structures, which one is the better predictor for students’ usage of multiple reasoning modes. It was revealed that the richness of the students’

cognitive structures was the only significant predictor for the amount of their reasoning modes. The finding above highlighted the important of the richness of students’ cognitive structures on their ability to reason from multiple perspectives.

V.2 Discussions on the major findings derived from the on-line searching task phase

V.2.1 The effects of different on-line searching tasks on the students’ learning outcomes

The on-line searching task phase in this study aimed to examine the effects of these two different on-line searching tasks on students’ learning outcomes, including their searching outcomes, cognitive structure outcomes, and informal reasoning outcomes. It was found that the students in the two different on-line searching task groups did not show any significant difference on their on-line searching outcomes, including the accuracy, the amount, and the organization of their reports; however, the students in the guided on-line searching task group significantly outperformed in the extent, richness, and integratedness of their cognitive structures as well as their usage of higher-order modes of information processing (i.e., “comparing” and “inferring or explaining”). In other words, the guideline used in this study did not help the students in the guided on-line searching task group obtain better searching outcomes, but did help these students obtain better cognitive outcomes. It may be due to the fact that, even with the guideline in this study, it was difficult for the participants to carefully examine both sides of searching abundant information and integrating what

they had searched into their reports at the same time on the time-constrained on-line searching task (about 100 minutes). The students in the guided on-line searching task group may browse more relevant Web information during the conduct of on-searching task; consequently, they outperformed their counterparts in their cognitive outcomes. Nevertheless, they did not have ample time to completely integrate and organize what they had searched into their reports. As a result, they did not outperform than their counterparts on their searching outcomes. Although the finding above suggests the effectiveness of the usage of guideline on students’

cognitive outcomes, it also reminds educators the importance of improving students’

ability of integrating what they have searched in the Internet-based science learning environments. In other words, it should be noticed that learners’ better on-line searching outcomes do not guarantee for their better cognitive outcomes after completing the on-line searching tasks.

The current study also investigated the effects of different on-line searching activities on learners’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue. It was found that the students in the guided on-line searching task group only outperformed their counterparts on their supportive argument construction. Moreover, the Cohen’s d value of “counter-argument” is small, and the Cohen’s d values of “supportive argument”, “total number of arguments”, and “total number of reasoning modes” are middle, indicating that students benefits more from the guided on-line searching task on their supportive argument construction, and the guided on-line searching task also enables them to propose relatively more arguments and to reason from more

perspectives. However, the students’ rebuttal construction was not particularly improved after completing the guided on-line searching task. It seems that learners’

rebuttal construction, which is regarded as an important indicator for higher-quality reasoning, is not easy to be facilitated with such a short period of on-line searching

task as conducted in this study. It should also be acknowledged that although the students in the guided on-line searching group obtained relatively better cognitive structure outcomes they were not able to apply these newly-acquired concepts or ideas to improve their reasoning quality immediately after the conduct of searching tasks.

Science educators should pay more attention to how to facilitate learners’ ability to apply what have searched to facilitate their informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue.

V.2.2 The interaction between the students’ SEBs and on-line searching tasks on the students’ learning outcomes

Some studies have reported the interactions between epistemological beliefs and instructional conditions in conventional educational contexts. For example, Tsai (2000b) has suggested that learners’ scientific epistemological beliefs interacted with instructional conduction in determining students’ cognitive structure outcomes.

This study is one of the initial attempts to examine the interaction between learners’

scientific epistemological beliefs and instructional condition in Internet-based learning environments.

In this study, the interaction between students’ belief on the source of knowledge and on-line searching task in predicting the amount of student on-line searching outcomes was found. Also, the interaction between students’ beliefs on the source of knowledge and on-line searching task in predicting the organization of student on-line searching outcomes was found. Such interactions indicate that students having less sophisticated scientific epistemological beliefs obtain better searching outcomes in guided on-line searching task, while those holding sophisticated scientific

epistemological beliefs display better searching outcomes in unguided on-line searching task. In other words, in Internet-based learning environments, students’

scientific epistemological beliefs interacted with the conductions of on-line searching tasks in determining students’ searching outcomes.

Tsai (2000b) has reported that learners’ scientific epistemological beliefs interacted with instructional conditions in determining students’ cognitive structure outcomes. Similar to the findings in Tsai (2000b), the interaction between students’

beliefs on the nature of development of scientific knowledge and on-line searching task on student usage of the “inferring or explaining” information processing mode was also found in this study, suggesting that students having less sophisticated scientific epistemological beliefs likely benefit more from the guided on-line searching task on their usage of higher-level information processing modes. The finding above also provides some initial evidence for the interaction between learners’

scientific epistemological beliefs and instructional condition in Internet-based learning environments in determining their cognitive structure outcomes.

In addition, no statistical interaction between students’ scientific epistemological beliefs and on-line searching task and their informal reasoning regarding a

socio-scientific issue was found in this study. It may due to the fact that the period of learning activities only lasted for two classes. Further research with long-term instructional period is needed to examine whether the interaction between learners’

scientific epistemological beliefs and the conditions of learning activities in Internet-based learning environment in determining students’ informal reasoning outcomes exists.

In sum, this study provided some evidence that, in Internet-based learning environments, students’ scientific epistemological beliefs interacted with the conditions of learning activities in determining their searching outcomes as well as cognitive structure outcomes. It suggests that the sophisticated scientific

epistemological beliefs may facilitate students learning in relatively more open-ended

searching tasks (e.g., unguided on-line searching task). On the other hand, learners with less advanced scientific epistemological beliefs may benefit more from guided on-line searching activities.

V.2.3 The interaction between the students’ information commitments and on-line searching tasks on the students’ learning outcomes

Tsai (2004b) has proposed that the information commitments shape some epistemological standards for Web information and are related to learners’

epistemological beliefs. According to the perspective of Tsai (2004b), it is plausible that, similar to their scientific epistemological beliefs, learners’ information

commitments may also interact with instructional conditions in Internet-based learning environments. Hence, this study also attempted to examine the interaction between students’ information commitments and the condition of learning activities in Internet-based learning environments.

In this study, the interaction between information commitments and on-line searching tasks in determining student cognitive structure outcomes was revealed. It indicated that students who tended to use the “match” searching strategy might benefit more from the guided on-line searching task on the integratedness of their cognitive structures, while those were less oriented to use the “match” searching strategy benefited more from the un-guided on-line searching task on the integratedness of their cognitive structures. However, in Tsai’s (2004b) perspective, the “match”

searching strategy is a less sophisticated searching strategy. In other words, similar to their scientific epistemological beliefs, learners’ sophisticated information

commitments will facilitate their knowledge construction in more open-ended on-line searching activities (i.e., un-guided on-line searching task), while those having less advanced information commitments will benefit more in guided on-line searching task,

suggesting guided on-line searching task may help learners, who tend to use less advanced searching strategies (e.g., match), obtain more integrated cognitive structure.

In addition, the interaction between students’ information commitments and

on-line searching tasks on their total number of arguments was also found in this study.

Such interaction indicates that students who tend to use “multiple sources” as the evaluative standards for the accuracy of Web materials benefit more from the guided on-line searching task on the total number of arguments they are able to propose.

The finding above is quite different from what we expect. One possible reason may come from the fact that those using “multiple sources” as the evaluative standards for the accuracy of Web materials had to spend more time in assessing the accuracy of information they have searched in the unguided on-line searching task. However, the time of on-line searching task was constrained and was insufficient for them. As a result, they could only review relatively less relevant information on the Internet, which is the basis for their construction of more arguments. Consequently, they proposed relatively less arguments in the un-guided on-line searching task. If the searching time is sufficient, learners with sophisticated information commitments regarding the accuracy of Web materials may outperform on their argument construction in the un-guided on-line searching task.

V.3 Revision of the theoretical model of this study

This study has proposed a two-stage model for interpreting informal reasoning, including the Preliminary Stage and the Deliberation Stage. In the Preliminary Stage, when encountering a socio-scientific issue, on the basis of past experiences regarding

this issue (including relevant concepts or ideas and personal beliefs instantaneously retrieved from long-term memory), an individual learner will unconsciously form an initial mental model about this problem and make an initial decision, while he (or she) may conduct hypothetical thinking (including formatting evaluative criteria, justifying the initial decision accordingly) to make a conclusion (i.e., a final decision) in the Deliberation Stage. In addition, the individual learner may not experience the Deliberation Stage, and only make an intuitive decision in the end. This two-stage model is proposed based upon the literature review in this study (e.g., Evans, 1996, 2002, 2003; Sloman, 1996). The results in this study only provide evidence for learners’ intuitive decision-making and the existence of the Deliberation Stage.

However, the data of this study did not completely provide empirical evidence supporting the existence of the two stages. To examine the existence of the two-stages of informal reasoning, further case study can be conducted with deep interviews to carefully trace the process of students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue.

With an interactionist perspective, the theoretical model of this study also suggests that an individual learner’s cognitive structure is related to his (her) reasoning in the Preliminary Stage, while his (or her) scientific epistemological beliefs will guide his (her) reasoning both in the Preliminary Stage and in the Deliberation Stage. The results in this study only reveal the relationship between learners’ informal reasoning and their cognitive structure as well as their scientific epistemological beliefs. As illustrated in the theoretical model of this study, one may be interested in how learners’ cognitive structure as well as their scientific

epistemological beliefs influences their reasoning in each stage (i.e., the Preliminary Stage and the Deliberation Stage). Unfortunately, the data collected in this study can not provide empirical evidence for this issue. Deep interviews to carefully trace the

process of students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue may be helpful to address this issue.

In the theoretical model of this study, an individual may use the Internet as the information resource for learners’ understanding on this issue, and by on-line searching learning activities, the individual learner’s initial mental model may be revised, and new mental models will be constructed until a conclusion is reached.

Two different on-line searching tasks were conducted in this study, and the effects of these two on-line searching tasks were also examined. However, in this study, no significant effect was found on students’ informal reasoning quality. This study is one of the initial attempts to address this issue. To get deeper insights into this issue, case studies are suggested to examine how on-line searching activities help learners construct new mental models, and how these new mental models contribute to their reasoning in the Deliberation Stage.

The theoretical model of this study also advocates that during on-line searching, his (her) scientific epistemological beliefs as well as information commitments will guide the construction of new mental models. Learners’ new mental models can be viewed as their cognitive outcomes in the Internet-based learning environments. It has been proposed that epistemological beliefs will guide the individual learner’s process and outcomes of knowledge construction (Hewson, 1985; Tsai, 2001b). Wu and Tsai (2005c) also asserted that learners’ information commitments may guide their knowledge construction in Internet-based learning environments. The literatures above have supported this part of theoretical model. Moreover, it seems plausible that, after informal reasoning on this issue, an individual learner’s scientific

epistemological beliefs as well as information commitments may be shaped, and his (her) cognitive structure regarding this issue will be also reconstructed. The aforementioned hypotheses can be added to the theoretical model in this study, and

further long-term studies are needed to examine this perspective.

In sum, the discussions above can be summarized as Figure 5.1. This study is one of the initial attempts to propose a theoretical model for students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue. The theoretical model proposed in this study attempts to illustrate the process of informal reasoning with two stages. Also, this model dynamically illustrates the roles of scientific epistemological beliefs, cognitive structures, information commitments, and on-line searching activities in informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue. However, this study is basically a correlational study, while the theoretical model proposed in this study displays the dynamic and interactional process of informal reasoning. Therefore, the data

collected in this study only provide partial evidences supporting this theoretical model.

Undoubtedly, much work will need to examine the robustness of the theoretical model proposed in this study, and the theoretic model proposed in this study may also need some revisions. Further qualitative studies with small sample will be helpful to address this issue.

V.4 Conclusions

In science education, previous studies regarding learners’ informal reasoning on socio-scientific issues were mainly conducted with qualitative analyses (e.g., Bell &

Lederman, 2003; Hogan, 2002; Sadler, 2004; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Yang, 2004).

This study is the initial attempt to explore students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue both qualitatively and quantitatively.

The finding derived from the first phase of this study provides us deeper insights into the role of scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structure in informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue. It implies that learners’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue is, in general, correlated with their scientific epistemological beliefs as well as their cognitive structures regarding this issue. In particular, the importance of the richness of students’ cognitive structures, the usage of the

“comparing” information processing mode, and their belief about the nature of science knowing on their informal reasoning were highlighted in this study.

The second phase of this study revealed the effects of different on-line searching tasks on learners’ learning outcomes, including searching outcomes, cognitive

structure outcomes, and informal reasoning outcomes. The current study also reported the significant effects of guided on-line searching task on students’ cognitive structure outcomes as well as on their informal reasoning outcomes. However, the guided on-line searching task in this study did not facilitate students’ reasoning quality. This part of findings provides the basis for further research on improving learners’ informal reasoning quality with Internet-based learning activities. Besides, the interaction between students’ scientific epistemological beliefs and instructional conditions on students’ searching outcomes as well as on their cognitive structure outcomes was found. Also, the interaction between students’ information

commitments and instructional condition on students’ cognitive structure outcomes as well as on their informal reasoning outcomes was revealed. It suggests that, when trying to improve students’ informal reasoning ability in Internet-based learning environments, science instructors should pay attention to the role of learners’

scientific epistemological beliefs and the information commitments in their learning outcomes.

At the 21^st century, preparing learners’ ability to deal with socio-scientific issues has been recognized as an important goal for science education (Kolsto, 2001).

Undoubtedly, it should be also an important issue for science educators and researchers in Taiwan. However, still not much local research has been conducted to address this important issue in Taiwan. The findings in this study may not only provide us some insights into how Taiwanese students reason and make their personal decisions on a socio-scientific issue, but also caution the science instructors in Taiwan about students’ insufficient ability to apply what they have learnt in science classrooms to deal with socio-scientific issues they encounter in daily life. In conclusion, this study is one of the initial attempts to facilitate our understanding of learners’ informal reasoning on socio-scientific issues. Obviously, still much further research is needed to get deeper insights into this important issue.