ABSTRACT

This study explores the intersection of gender, sociocultural background, and argumentative socioscientific writing. It focuses on Jewish Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) men and women who were educated in gender-segregated schools separated from the public education (PE) system in Israel. We compared argumentative essays written by these two groups to argumentative essays written by both genders of PE graduates who studied in coed schools. The methodology and analysis were based on both the cognitive and sociocultural perspectives, and relied on both preexisting (‘top down’) and data-derived (‘bottom up’) criteria to compare the argumentative essays of the four groups in 20 different aspects. The analysis revealed that gender differences in argumentation patterns and quality are culturally bound. While PE women and men share similar argumentative patterns and quality, in the Haredi group two distinct argumentative patterns and differences in quality were found. The findings demonstrate the complex intersections of gender, sociocultural background, and argumentation. We discuss these findings and present implications for research and teaching of argumentation and of socioscientific reasoning.

摘要

本研究探讨了性别、社会文化背景和争论性社会科学写作的交叉点。它侧重于在与以色列公共教育 (PE) 系统分开的性别隔离学校接受教育的犹太极端正统派 (Haredi) 男女。我们将这两组人写的议论文与在男女混合学校学习的体育毕业生写的议论文进行了比较。方法论和分析基于认知和社会文化的观点，并依靠预先存在的（“自上而下”）和数据衍生（“自下而上”）的标准来比较四组20个不同方面的议论文。分析表明，辩论模式和质量的性别差异受文化约束。虽然体育女性和男性具有相似的争论模式和质量，但在 Haredi 组中发现了两种截然不同的争论模式和质量差异。调查结果表明，性别、社会文化背景和争论之间存在复杂的交集。我们讨论这些发现，并提出对论证和社会科学推理的研究和教学的影响。