Argumentation in a Socioscientific Context and its Influence on Fundamental and Derived Science Literacies

This study explored the effects of arguing to learn in a socioscientific context on the fundamental and derived components of reading, writing, and science understanding as integral parts of science literacy. We adopted mixed-methods in which the 1-group pretest–posttest design with supplemental interviews and questionnaires. The pretest evaluated the dependent variables (reading and writing scores), the treatment was arguing to learn about the global climate change issue, the posttest evaluated the dependent variables, and follow-up questionnaires and interviews informed the quantitative results. An intact grade six class (N = 28) at an urban elementary school located in central Taiwan was the participants. Analyses of the pretest–posttest gain scores and correlations between these outcomes revealed significant (p < 0.05) improvements in writing and associations among reading, writing, and arguing to learn. Interpretation of the qualitative data (interview and questionnaire responses) supported that argumentation as an instructional treatment focused on fundamental literacy could play a positive role in facilitating students’ enhanced science understanding (derived literacy).     

Evaluating a bedside tool for neuroanatomical localization with extended‐matching questions

Neuroanatomical localization (NL) is a key skill in neurology, but learners often have difficulty with it. This study aims to evaluate a concise NL tool (NLT) developed to help teach and learn NL. To evaluate the NLT, an extended‐matching questions (EMQ) test to assess NL was designed and validated. The EMQ was validated with fourth‐year medical students and internal medicine and neurology residents. The NLT's usability was evaluated with third‐ and fourth‐year students, and the effectiveness was evaluated with an experimental study of second‐year students, using the EMQ as the outcome measure. Students were taught how to use both the NLT and textbook algorithms (control) to perform NL, then randomized into either group, and only allowed to use their assigned tool to complete the EMQ. Primary outcome was the difference in mean EMQ scores expressed as a percentage of total score. For EMQ validation, students (n = 56) scored lower than residents (n = 50) (76.7% ± 1.7 vs. 83.0% ± 1.6; mean ± standard error of mean, P < 0.009). The EMQ demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach's α 0.85) and generalizability (G‐coefficient 0.85). Third‐ (n = 77) and fourth‐year (n = 42) students found the NLT user‐friendly and helpful in their learning of NL. In the experimental study, scores were significantly higher for NLT group (n = 94) than for controls (n = 101) (42.5 vs. 37.0%, P = 0.014); the effect size (Cohen's d) was 0.36. The EMQ is validated to reliably assess NL and is generalizable, feasible, practical, and of low cost. The concise and user‐friendly NLT for NL was effective in aiding medical student performance of NL. Anat Sci Educ 11: 262–269. © 2017 American Association of Anatomists.     

The effects of cultural and historical information and contribution threshold on public contributions: an experimental study on the conservation of heritage houses in Penang,Malaysia

Budget constraints at the local government level towards the provision of public goods have fuelled interest in the voluntary contribution and provision point mechanisms. However, due to their public nature, these mechanisms are not without problems. The literature shows the presence of free riding and socially inefficient contribution levels. This paper experimentally tests the effect of cultural and historical information pertaining to heritage houses in Penang, Malaysia, on public contributions for their conservation. This paper considers a standard linear one-shot four-person public good game and the decision of the subjects being to contribute either to a private or to a public account. We devise 4 treatments: a Control treatment, a treatment where subjects are provided with cultural and historical information pertaining to the heritage houses, a treatment that includes a contribution threshold, and finally a treatment that combines the use of cultural and historical information with the contribution threshold. The main finding shows that 60–75 % of the subjects contributed more than what they believed others in the same group would contribute when they were provided with the pertinent cultural and historical information. Most of the subjects contributed less than their belief, while 75–77 % cooperated ‘selfishly’ in treatments without the information. These findings are in agreement with the literature, namely that contributions are higher in treatments with a contribution threshold. Moreover, the combination of a contribution threshold and cultural information could encourage more pro-social behaviours.