Argument‐Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study

This exploratory study examines how a series of laboratory activities designed using a new instructional model, called Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI), influences the ways students participate in scientific argumentation and the quality of the scientific arguments they craft as part of this process. The two outcomes of interest were assessed with a performance task that required small groups of students to explain a discrepant event and then generate a scientific argument. Student performance on this task was compared before and after an 18-week intervention that included 15 ADI laboratory activities. The results of this study suggest that the students had better disciplinary engagement and produced better arguments after the intervention although some learning issues arose that seemed to hinder the students' overall improvement. The conclusions and implications of this research include several recommendations for improving the nature of laboratory-based instruction to help cultivate the knowledge and skills students need to participate in scientific argumentation and to craft written arguments. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed95: 217–257, 2011

[1]  R. Duschl,et al.  "Doing the Lesson" or "Doing Science": Argument in High School Genetics , 2000 .

[2]  William A. Sandoval,et al.  The Quality of Students' Use of Evidence in Written Scientific Explanations , 2005 .

[3]  W. Sandoval,et al.  Explanation-Driven Inquiry: Integrating Conceptual and Epistemic Scaffolds for Scientific Inquiry , 2004 .

[4]  Brigid Barron.  When Smart Groups Fail , 2003 .

[5]  Douglas B. Clark,et al.  The Impact of Collaboration on the Outcomes of Scientific Argumentation. , 2009 .

[6]  Anton E. Lawson,et al.  Sound and faulty arguments generated by preservice biology teachers when testing hypotheses involving unobservable entities , 2002 .

[7]  P. Scott,et al.  Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom , 1994 .

[8]  L. Schauble,et al.  Design Experiments in Educational Research , 2003 .

[9]  James P. Birk,et al.  The persistence of the candle-and-cylinder misconception , 1999 .

[10]  S. Erduran,et al.  TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse , 2004 .

[11]  Merrilee H. Salmon,et al.  Reasoning in Conversation , 1993 .

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

[13]  L. Schauble,et al.  Students' transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation , 1991 .

[14]  Kathleen Hogan,et al.  Comparing the Epistemological Underpinnings of Students' and Scientists' Reasoning about Conclusions. , 2001 .

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

[16]  Michael Ford,et al.  Disciplinary Authority and Accountability in Scientific Practice and Learning , 2008 .

[17]  J. Osborne,et al.  Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education , 2002 .

[18]  R. Duschl.  Science Education in Three-Part Harmony: Balancing Conceptual, Epistemic, and Social Learning Goals , 2008 .

[19]  Jim Garrison,et al.  Realism, Deweyan Pragmatism, and Educational Research , 1994 .

[20]  Cynthia Passmore,et al.  A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools , 2002 .

[21]  J. Osborne,et al.  Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms , 2000 .

[22]  Leema K. Berland,et al.  Making sense of argumentation and explanation , 2009 .

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

[24]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  Test-Enhanced Learning , 2006, Psychological science.

[25]  D. Hestenes.  Modeling games in the Newtonian World , 1992 .

[26]  Douglas B. Clark.  Longitudinal Conceptual Change in Students' Understanding of Thermal Equilibrium: An Examination of the Process of Conceptual Restructuring , 2006 .

[27]  Brigid Barron.  Achieving Coordination in Collaborative Problem-Solving Groups , 2000 .

[28]  D. Kuhn.  Children and adults as intuitive scientists. , 1989, Psychological review.

[29]  R. A. Engle,et al.  Guiding Principles for Fostering Productive Disciplinary Engagement: Explaining an Emergent Argument in a Community of Learners Classroom , 2002 .

[30]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  Explanation and evidence in informal argument , 2000 .

[31]  C. Pontecorvo,et al.  Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics , 1993 .

[32]  David Hestenes,et al.  A modeling method for high school physics instruction , 1995 .

[33]  D. Zeidler.  The central role of fallacious thinking in science education , 1997 .

[34]  Douglas B. Clark,et al.  Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions , 2008 .