{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.008169934640522876, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.811111111111111, '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}}
Justification of Socioscientific Claims as the Basis for Assessing Argumentation

This investigation introduces a novel rubric for the assessment of argumentation quality relative to socioscientific issues and presents results from a field test of its application. Forty-five students participated in interviews designed to elicit socioscientific argumentation regarding genetic engineering issues. A five point rubric was developed to assess how well individuals justified the claims they advanced. Implications for the use of this tool for advancing research agendas in the learning sciences will be discussed.