Students’ reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis

In this paper a set of methodological procedures to analyse students’ arguments is presented. Normative perspectives from the philosophy of science and naturalistic perspectives from sociolinguistics are brought together to analyse students dyadic discourse. The Toulmin layout of arguments was interpreted and applied to student arguments as they completed an electricity‐based performance assessment. Results showed that in these contexts students could complete the task without warranting all arguments. Conditions leading to the warranted arguments are explored. The paper concludes by suggesting extensions of this methodology for further research in science education.

[1]  J. Gumperz.  Discourse strategies: Subject index , 1982 .

[2]  H. Garfinkel,et al.  I.1 The Work of a Discovering Science Construed with Materials from the Optically Discovered Pulsar , 1981 .

[3]  Richard J. Shavelson,et al.  Indicators of Science Achievement: Options for a Powerful Policy Instrument. , 1990 .

[4]  Leo H. T. West,et al.  How “rational” is rationality? , 1983 .

[5]  William C. Kyle,et al.  The role of research in science teaching: An NSTA theme paper , 1991 .

[6]  J. Lemke.  Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values , 1990 .

[7]  William L. Benoit,et al.  Readings in Argumentation , 1992 .

[8]  N. Webb.  Group Collaboration in Assessment: Multiple Objectives, Processes, and Outcomes , 1995 .

[9]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Qualitative Analysis For Social Scientists , 1987 .

[10]  John J. Gumperz,et al.  Contextualization and Understanding , 1989 .

[11]  D. Kuhn.  Science as argument : Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking , 1993 .

[12]  Thomas Andre,et al.  Student Misconceptions, Declarative Knowledge, Stimulus Conditions, and Problem Solving in Basic Electricity. , 1991 .

[13]  P. Hewitt.  Conceptual Physics : The High School Physics Program , 1992 .

[14]  Tom Russell.  Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: Can teachers' questions distort scientific authority? , 1983 .

[15]  C. Klaassen,et al.  Interpreting students' and teachers' discourse in science classes: An underestimated problem? , 1996 .

[16]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[17]  P. Pintrich,et al.  Beyond Cold Conceptual Change: The Role of Motivational Beliefs and Classroom Contextual Factors in the Process of Conceptual Change , 1993 .

[18]  E. Mishler.  Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative , 1986 .

[19]  William S. Carlsen,et al.  Teacher knowledge and discourse control: Quantitative evidence from novice biology teachers' classrooms , 1993 .

[20]  Thomas Andre,et al.  Conceptual change text versus traditional text and application questions versus no questions in learning about electricity , 1991 .

[21]  R. Shavelson.  Performance Assessment in Science , 1991 .

[22]  Richard J. Shavelson,et al.  Assessing Hands-On Science: A Teacher's Guide to Performance Assessment , 1996 .

[23]  D. Bloome,et al.  The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons , 1993 .

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

[25]  F. H. Eemeren,et al.  Handbook of Argumentation Theory: A Critical Survey of Classical Backgrounds and Modern Studies , 1987 .

[26]  L. Shepard.  Why We Need Better Assessments. , 1989 .

[27]  Never ask a question if you don't know the answer: The tension in teaching between modeling scientific argument and maintaining law and order. , 1997 .

[28]  Israel Scheffler,et al.  Conditions of knowledge , 1965 .

[29]  Peter S. Shaffer,et al.  Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part II: Design of instructional strategies , 1992 .

[30]  David Shipstone,et al.  Pupils' Understanding of Simple Electrical Circuits: Some Implications for Instruction. , 1988 .

[31]  G. J. Kelly,et al.  Student's interaction with computer representations: Analysis of discourse in laboratory groups , 1996 .

[32]  B. Latour,et al.  Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts , 1979 .

[33]  Kenneth A. Strike,et al.  A revisionist theory of conceptual change , 1992 .

[34]  Christoph von Rhöneck,et al.  A Study of Students' Understanding of Electricity in Five European Countries. , 1988 .

[35]  B. Glaser.  The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis , 1965 .

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

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

[38]  Stephen Toulmin,et al.  Human Understanding, Volume I: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts , 1977 .

[39]  K. Strike.  Educational policy and the just society , 1982 .

[40]  Brian M. Stecher,et al.  Performance Assessments in Science , 1996 .

[41]  Lillian C. McDermott,et al.  Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity , 1992 .

[42]  J. Shea.  National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[43]  C. Cunningham,et al.  Science education in sociocultural context: Perspectives from the sociology of science , 1993 .

[44]  R. Duschl,et al.  Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: Implications for educational practice , 1991 .

[45]  H. Mehan,et al.  Learning Lessons, Social Organization in the Classroom , 1979 .

[46]  G. J. Kelly,et al.  An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science , 1997 .