Improving Students' PISA Scientific Competencies Through Online Argumentation

The scientific competencies advocated by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) focus on the abilities needed in students' adult lives. This study investigated how such scientific competencies could be improved by using online argumentation. One hundred and thirty-eight 8th grade high school students took part in the study, with 69 in the experimental group and 69 in the control group. A quasi-experimental design was adopted and qualitative and quantitative analyses were used. An online argumentation system served as an aid for argumentation instruction and activities among experimental group students during the experiment. The results showed that using online argumentation could improve the students' scores for the PISA scientific competencies. The experimental group students outperformed their counterparts in terms of overall mean scores for the scientific competencies. On the one hand, the individual competencies of ‘using scientific evidence’ and ‘identifying scientific issues’ of the experimental group were higher than those of the control group. On the other hand, the experimental group students did not outperform their counterparts in terms of competency in ‘explaining phenomena scientifically’. Using an online environment to complement argumentation instruction and organizing argumentation activities focused on related topics may be a potential direction to consider for improving students’ PISA scientific competencies.

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

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

[3]  R. Olsen,et al.  Profiles of Students’ Interest in Science Issues around the World: Analysis of data from PISA 2006 , 2011 .

[4]  Shaljan Areepattamannil,et al.  FACTORS PREDICTING SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT OF IMMIGRANT AND NON-IMMIGRANT STUDENTS: A MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS , 2013 .

[5]  Robert H. Gass,et al.  Does Teaching Argumentation Facilitate Critical Thinking , 1994 .

[6]  Douglas B. Clark,et al.  Personally‐Seeded Discussions to Scaffold Online Argumentation , 2007 .

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

[8]  Janice,et al.  Reconceptalizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge , 1998 .

[9]  Leslie Smith.  Education for thinking , 2006 .

[10]  Troy D. Sadler,et al.  Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education , 2009 .

[11]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[12]  Karin Baier,et al.  The Uses Of Argument , 2016 .

[13]  Zuway-R. Hong,et al.  The Role of Emotional Factors in Building Public Scientific Literacy and Engagement with Science , 2012 .

[14]  D. Eignor.  The standards for educational and psychological testing. , 2013 .

[15]  Claus H. Carstensen,et al.  Performance and levels of contextualization in a selection of OECD countries in PISA 2006 , 2009 .

[16]  Chun-Yen Tsai,et al.  Using the Cognitive Apprenticeship Web-based Argumentation System to Improve Argumentation Instruction , 2011, Journal of Science Education and Technology.

[17]  Brian J. Reiser,et al.  Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation , 2011 .

[18]  Peter J. Fensham,et al.  Real world contexts in PISA science : implications for context-based science education , 2009 .

[19]  Rodger W. Bybee,et al.  Scientific Literacy, Environmental Issues, and PISA 2006: The 2008 Paul F-Brandwein Lecture , 2008 .

[20]  P. Jose,et al.  Mathematics, vocabulary, and reading development in Chinese American and European American children over the primary school years , 2000 .

[21]  Susan E. Newman,et al.  Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Craft of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. Technical Report No. 403. , 1987 .

[22]  E. Ho.  FAMILY INFLUENCES ON SCIENCE LEARNING AMONG HONG KONG ADOLESCENTS: WHAT WE LEARNED FROM PISA , 2010 .

[23]  Jian Wang,et al.  Comparative Studies on U.S. and Chinese Mathematics Learning and the Implications for Standards-Based Mathematics Teaching Reform , 2005 .

[24]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled & automatic processing: behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[25]  R. Waugh,et al.  A Rasch measurement model analysis of the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory. , 1998, The British journal of educational psychology.

[26]  K. A. Renninger,et al.  Individual interest as context in expository text and mathematical word problems , 2002 .

[27]  Sarah K. Brem,et al.  Science on the Web: Student Evaluations of Scientific Arguments , 2001 .

[28]  Katherine L. McNeill,et al.  Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation , 2009 .

[29]  E. Michael Nussbaum,et al.  Argument and conceptual engagement , 2003 .

[30]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[31]  R. Joiner,et al.  The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking , 2003 .

[32]  Frances Lawrenz,et al.  Relationships among affective factors and preferred engagement in science-related activities , 2013, Public understanding of science.

[33]  Douglas B. Clark,et al.  Assessing Dialogic Argumentation in Online Environments to Relate Structure, Grounds, and Conceptual Quality , 2008 .

[34]  B. Wright.  Reasonable mean-square fit values , 1994 .

[35]  Hsiao-Ching She,et al.  On-line synchronous scientific argumentation learning: Nurturing students' argumentation ability and conceptual change in science context , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[36]  Rodger Bybee,et al.  Scientific Literacy and Student Attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006 science , 2011 .

[37]  James F. Voss,et al.  Argumentation in Psychology: Background Comments , 2001 .

[38]  Georg Rasch,et al.  Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests , 1981, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[39]  Frances Lawrenz,et al.  Promoting and scaffolding argumentation through reflective asynchronous discussions , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[40]  Alija Kulenović,et al.  Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing , 1999 .

[41]  Andreas Schleicher,et al.  PISA 2009 Assessment Framework: Key Competencies in Reading, Mathematics and Science. , 2009 .

[42]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[43]  Amy M. Hightower,et al.  Science and Engineering Indicators , 1993 .

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

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

[46]  P. Hewson,et al.  Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change , 1982 .

[47]  J. Lavonen,et al.  Context of teaching and learning school science in Finland: Reflections on PISA 2006 results , 2009 .

[48]  S. Erduran,et al.  Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview , 2007 .

[49]  E. Nussbaum.  Scaffolding Argumentation in the Social Studies Classroom , 2002 .

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