Peer Argumentation in the School Science Laboratory—Exploring effects of task features

Argumentation is believed to be a significant component of scientific inquiry: introducing these skills into laboratory work may be regarded as a goal for developing practical work in school science. This study explored the impact on the quality of argumentation among 12- to 13-year-old students undertaking three different designs of laboratory-based task. The tasks involved students collecting and making sense of complex data, collecting data to address conflicting hypotheses, and, in a paper-based activity, discussing pre-collected data about an experiment. Significant differences in the quality of argumentation prompted by the tasks were apparent. The paper-based task generated the most argumentation units per unit time. Where students carried out an experiment, argumentation was often brief, as reliance on their data was paramount. Measurements were given credence by frequency and regularity of collection, while possibilities for error were ignored. These data point to changes to existing practices being required in order to achieve authentic, argumentation-based scientific inquiry in school laboratory work.

[1]  Gail Richmond,et al.  Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small‐group discourse and scientific knowledge building , 1996 .

[2]  Ian Abrahams,et al.  Does Practical Work Really Work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science , 2008 .

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

[4]  Heekyong Kim,et al.  The Features of Peer Argumentation in Middle School Students' Scientific Inquiry , 2006 .

[5]  Elizabeth Hegarty-Hazel.  The Student laboratory and the science curriculum , 1990 .

[6]  J. Osborne,et al.  The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science , 1999 .

[7]  Robin Millar,et al.  Investigating in the school science laboratory: conceptual and procedural knowledge and their influence on performance , 1994 .

[8]  D. Kuhn.  Thinking as Argument , 1992 .

[9]  D. Klahr,et al.  Heuristics for Scientific Experimentation: A Developmental Study , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  Clark A. Chinn,et al.  Children's Responses to Anomalous Scientific Data: How Is Conceptual Change Impeded?. , 2002 .

[11]  Troy D. Sadler,et al.  Beyond STS: A research‐based framework for socioscientific issues education , 2005 .

[12]  Derek Hodson,et al.  Re-thinking Old Ways: Towards A More Critical Approach To Practical Work In School Science , 1993 .

[13]  Stuart Naylor,et al.  Argumentation and Primary Science , 2007 .

[14]  Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar,et al.  Developing Scientific Communities in Classrooms: A Sociocognitive Approach , 1999 .

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

[16]  C. Chinn,et al.  Epistemologically Authentic Inquiry in Schools: A Theoretical Framework for Evaluating Inquiry Tasks , 2002 .

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

[18]  Vincent N. Lunetta,et al.  The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century , 2004 .

[19]  María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre,et al.  Designing Argumentation Learning Environments , 2007 .

[20]  Wolff‐Michael Roth,et al.  The Social Construction of Scientific Concepts or the Concept Map as Conscription Device and Tool for Social Thinking in High School Science. , 1992 .

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

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

[23]  Shirley Simon,et al.  Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom , 2006 .

[24]  Paul J. Germann,et al.  Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting scientific inquiry , 1996 .

[25]  James D. Klein,et al.  The effects of cued interaction and ability grouping during cooperative computer-based science instruction , 1995 .

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

[27]  Randy Yerrick,et al.  Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction , 2000 .

[28]  Uri Zoller,et al.  The disposition toward critical thinking of high school and university science students: an interintra Israeli-Italian Study , 2000 .

[29]  William A. Sandoval,et al.  What Can Argumentation Tell Us About Epistemology , 2007 .

[30]  Derek Hodson,et al.  Practical work in school science: exploring some directions for change , 1996 .

[31]  Learning about the Nature of Scientific Knowledge: The Imitating-Science Project , 2005 .

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

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

[34]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  The Social Construction of Scientific Concepts or the Concept Map as Device and Tool Thinking in High Conscription for Social School Science , 1992 .

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

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

[37]  Brian Hand,et al.  Factors Affecting the Implementation of Argument in the Elementary Science Classroom. A Longitudinal Case Study , 2009 .

[38]  Julian Swain,et al.  Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries , 2004 .

[39]  Abbie Brown,et al.  Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in c , 1992 .

[40]  Laurence Simonneaux.  Role-play or debate to promote students' argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis , 2001 .

[41]  B. Koslowski.  Theory and Evidence: The Development of Scientific Reasoning , 1996 .

[42]  Patrick Fullick.  Investigations by Order: Policy, curriculum and science teachers' work under the Education Reform Act , 1997 .

[43]  Andy Cavagnetto,et al.  Argument to Foster Scientific Literacy , 2010 .

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

[45]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[46]  Sonja M. Mork.  Argumentation in science lessons: Focusing on the teacher’s role , 2012 .

[47]  Sibel Erduran,et al.  Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research , 2007 .

[48]  M. Baker,et al.  Computer-Mediated Epistemic Dialogue: Explanation and Argumentation as Vehicles for Understanding Scientific Notions , 2002 .

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

[50]  Avi Hofstein,et al.  Learning In and From Science Laboratories , 2012 .

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

[52]  Gregory J. Kelly,et al.  Inquiry, Activity and Epistemic Practice , 2008 .

[53]  Sibel Erduran,et al.  Methodological Foundations in the Study of Argumentation in Science Classrooms , 2007 .

[54]  L. S. Vygotskiĭ,et al.  Mind in society : the development of higher psychological processes , 1978 .

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

[56]  Rachel Mamlok-Naaman,et al.  Argumentation in the Chemistry Laboratory: Inquiry and Confirmatory Experiments , 2013 .

[57]  Jazlin Ebenezer,et al.  Chemistry students' conceptions of solubility: A phenomenography , 1996 .

[58]  B. Lazerick.  Third international mathematics and science study , 1997 .

[59]  F. Toates,et al.  Science in Schools , 1878, Nature.