The Development of Argumentation Skills and Content Knowledge of

Intermolecular forces are an important explanatory paradigm in high school chemistry and are prerequisites for understanding many nanoscale phenomena. However, students struggle to develop normative ideas about this topic. Since new advances in nanoscience offer interesting and motivating contexts, we designed a curriculum focusing on the nanoscale phenomenon of how geckos defy gravity and cling to ceilings in order to contextualize content on intermolecular forces. By structuring the unit as a series of investigations to determine which of several mechanisms explains gecko adhesion, we were also able to develop skills in scientific argumentation. As students learned about potential adhesion mechanisms through inquiry, they utilized their new understanding to evaluate these mechanisms and craft arguments supporting their positions. To describe the development of student content knowledge in concert with argumentation ability, we administered pre/post tests, conducted pre/post interviews, and collected written artifacts. Results indicate significant growth in content knowledge on electrostatic charge, London dispersion forces, and comparisons between different intermolecular interactions. Dramatic improvement (p 1.48) was seen in the ability of students to use intermolecular force concepts to explain phenomena. Improvements in argumentation were more nuanced with students able to form claims and use evidence, but struggling to provide reasoning. Our work offers insights to those seeking to develop problembased instruction that combines challenging content with practice in argumentation.

[1]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Supporting Students' Construction of Scientific Explanations by Fading Scaffolds in Instructional Materials , 2006 .

[2]  A. Collins National Science Education Standards: A Political Document. , 1998 .

[3]  Troy D. Sadler,et al.  Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research , 2004 .

[4]  D. Kuhn,et al.  Effects of Dyadic Interaction on Argumentive Reasoning , 1997 .

[5]  S. Toulmin The uses of argument , 1960 .

[6]  Keith S. Taber The sharing‐out of nuclear attraction: or ‘I can't think about physics in chemistry’ , 1998 .

[7]  C. Hmelo‐Silver Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? , 2004 .

[8]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Development and Application of a Diagnostic Instrument to Evaluate Grade-11 and -12 Students' Concepts of Covalent Bonding and Structure Following a Course of Instruction. , 1989 .

[9]  D. Kuhn THE SKILLS OF ARGUMENT , 2008, Education for Thinking.

[10]  Shirley Simon,et al.  Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science , 2004 .

[11]  M. Linn,et al.  Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE , 2000 .

[12]  Robin Millar,et al.  Students' reasoning about basic chemical thermodynamics and chemical bonding: what changes occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course? , 2000 .

[13]  Susan Goldberg,et al.  Bonding , 1984, The Social Value of Zoos.

[14]  S. Ralph Powers,et al.  National association for research in science teaching , 1931 .

[15]  Mariana P. Pereira,et al.  Pupils’ representations of models of water , 1991 .

[16]  Anat Zohar,et al.  Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics , 2002 .