María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre – författare

Our conversations about arguments began in Nashville in the Spring of 1996 in Richard Duschl’s doctoral seminar that we were both attending, Marilar Jiménez-Aleixandre as a visiting scholar at Vanderbilt University. Jiménez-Aleixandre and Duschl were designing authentic problems in genetics for the University of Santiago de Compostela-based RODA project aimed at engaging high school students in argumentation. Erduran and Duschl had been working on Project SEPIA extending their work in Pittsburgh schools to the design of curricula that support epistemological aspects of scientific inquiry including argumentation. In that spring we attended a NARST s- sion in St Louis, where Gregory Kelly, Steven Druker and Catherine Chen presented a paper about argumentation. As a consequence, a symposium about argumentation was organised (possibly the first of its kind) at the 1997 NARST meeting in Chicago, including papers from Kelly and colleagues and from Jiménez-Aleixandre, Bugallo and Duschl. The symposium was attended, among others, by Rosalind Driver, who had just submitted an application for funding of an argumentation project based at King’s College London, a project Erduran would incidentally work on after Driver’s untimely death. From this time frame in the 1990s to the present day, argumentation studies in science education have increased at a rapid pace, from stray papers for which we were unable to find an appropriate strand in a conference, to a wealth of research base exploring ever more sophisticated issues.

Our conversations about arguments began in Nashville in the Spring of 1996 in Richard Duschl’s doctoral seminar that we were both attending, Marilar Jiménez-Aleixandre as a visiting scholar at Vanderbilt University. Jiménez-Aleixandre and Duschl were designing authentic problems in genetics for the University of Santiago de Compostela-based RODA project aimed at engaging high school students in argumentation. Erduran and Duschl had been working on Project SEPIA extending their work in Pittsburgh schools to the design of curricula that support epistemological aspects of scientific inquiry including argumentation. In that spring we attended a NARST s- sion in St Louis, where Gregory Kelly, Steven Druker and Catherine Chen presented a paper about argumentation. As a consequence, a symposium about argumentation was organised (possibly the first of its kind) at the 1997 NARST meeting in Chicago, including papers from Kelly and colleagues and from Jiménez-Aleixandre, Bugallo and Duschl. The symposium was attended, among others, by Rosalind Driver, who had just submitted an application for funding of an argumentation project based at King’s College London, a project Erduran would incidentally work on after Driver’s untimely death. From this time frame in the 1990s to the present day, argumentation studies in science education have increased at a rapid pace, from stray papers for which we were unable to find an appropriate strand in a conference, to a wealth of research base exploring ever more sophisticated issues.

This volume seeks to broaden current ideas about the role of critical thinking (CT) in biology and environmental education considering educational challenges in the post-truth era. The chapters are distributed into three sections, perspectives of a theoretical character (part I), empirical research about CT in the context of biology and health education (part II), and empirical research on CT in the context of environmental and sustainability education (part III). The volume includes studies reporting students’ engagement in the practice of critical thinking, and displays how CT can be integrated in biology and environmental education and why biology and environmental issues are privileged contexts for the development of CT. The chapters examine a range of dimensions of CT, such as skills, dispositions, emotions, agency, open-mindedness, or personal epistemologies. In addition, they explore topics such as climate change, sustainable diets, genetically modified food, vaccination, acceptance of evolution, homeopathy, and gene cloning.Concluding remarks regarding the connections between the chapters and future directions for the integration of critical thinking in biology and environmental education are presented in a final chapter.

This volume seeks to broaden current ideas about the role of critical thinking (CT) in biology and environmental education considering educational challenges in the post-truth era. The chapters are distributed into three sections, perspectives of a theoretical character (part I), empirical research about CT in the context of biology and health education (part II), and empirical research on CT in the context of environmental and sustainability education (part III). The volume includes studies reporting students’ engagement in the practice of critical thinking, and displays how CT can be integrated in biology and environmental education and why biology and environmental issues are privileged contexts for the development of CT. The chapters examine a range of dimensions of CT, such as skills, dispositions, emotions, agency, open-mindedness, or personal epistemologies. In addition, they explore topics such as climate change, sustainable diets, genetically modified food, vaccination, acceptance of evolution, homeopathy, and gene cloning.Concluding remarks regarding the connections between the chapters and future directions for the integration of critical thinking in biology and environmental education are presented in a final chapter.