{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02608695652173913, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004347826086956522, 'mean_word_length': 5.2207207207207205, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Argumentation, critical thinking, nature of science and socioscientific issues: a dialogue between two researchers

ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast between two theoretical frameworks for addressing nature of science (NOS) and socioscientific issues (SSI) in school science. These frameworks are critical thinking (CT) and argumentation (AR). For the past years, the first and second authors of this paper have pursued research in this area using CT and AR as theoretical frameworks, respectively. Yacoubian argues that future citizens need to develop a critical mindset as they are guided to (1) practice making judgments on what views of NOS to acquire and (2) practice making decisions on SSI through applying their NOS understandings. Khishfe asserts that AR is an important component of decision making when dealing with SSI and the practice in AR in relation to controversial issues is needed for informed decision making. She argues that AR as a framework may assist in the development of more informed understandings of NOS. In this paper, the authors delve into a dialogue for (1) elucidating strengths and potential of each framework, (2) highlighting challenges that they face in their research using the frameworks in question, (3) exploring the extent to which the frameworks can overlap, and (4) proposing directions for future research.