Analysing the relationships between argumentative reasoning and justification beliefs and the effects of prior experience of scientific information

This study explored the relationships between argumentative reasoning, justification beliefs, and prior experience with scientific information. Over 300 engineering students from India, aged 20–23, participated. An online science reading and reasoning survey with open-ended questions assessed reasoning behaviours. Prior experience with scientific information was assessed through self-reported measures of reading frequency and the number of sources consulted. The Justification for Knowledge Questionnaire (JFK-Q) measured students’ justification beliefs. Content analysis evaluated reasoning performance while descriptive statistics, correlation, regression, cluster analyses, and ANOVA identified key relationships. The results showed that students struggled to use evidence and consider counterarguments, but could identify certain knowledge to support their claims. Justification by research-based authority was the most agree-upon beliefs. Personal justification and justification by research-based authority both significantly predicted reasoning performance but in contrasting ways. Cluster analysis identified four types of information experience. Students with moderate experience exhibited more adaptive justification beliefs and better argumentative reasoning.