Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Students’ Written Arguments in General Chemistry Laboratory Investigations

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the written arguments developed by college freshman students using the Science Writing Heuristic approach in inquiry-based general chemistry laboratory classrooms and its relationships with students’ achievement in chemistry courses. Fourteen freshman students participated in the first year of the study while 19 freshman students participated in the second year of the study. Two frameworks, an analytical and a holistic argument framework, were developed to evaluate the written argument generated by students. The analytical framework scored each argument component separately and allocated a Total Argument score while the holistic framework evaluated the arguments holistically. Three hundred and sixty-eight samples from 33 students were evaluated. Stepwise regression analyses revealed that the evidence and the claims–evidence relationship components were identified as the most important predictors of the Total Argument and the Holistic Argument scores. Students’ argument scores were positively correlated with their achievement, as measured by the final grade received for the general chemistry laboratory and the general chemistry lecture course.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: the genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1, 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, M., Johnstone, A. H., & Pope, A. (1994). Reasoning in science: a language problem revealed? Secondary Science Review, 75, 103–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28, 235–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charney, D. (1984). The validity of using holistic scoring to evaluate writing: a critical overview. Research in the Teaching of English, 18(1), 65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J., & Hand, B. (2010). Examining arguments generated by Year 5, 7, and 10 students in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 149–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for behavior sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connally, P. (1989). Writing and the ecology of learning. In P. Connally & T. Vilardi (Eds.), Writing to learn mathematics and science (pp. 1–14). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, C. (1977). Holistic evaluation of writing. In C. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: describing, measuring, judging. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, E., & Grady, J. (2010). Recognizing students’ scientific reasoning: a tool for categorizing complexity of reasoning during teaching by inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 31–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2008a). ‘Grasp of Practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science Education, 17, 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2008b). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M., & Forman, E. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom context. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. (2005). Visualization: a metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B. (Ed.). (2008). Science inquiry, argument and language. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hays, W. L. (1994). Statistics (5th ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alvermann, D. E. (1994). The reading–science learning–writing connection: breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 877–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huot, B. (1990). Reliability, validity, and holistic scoring: what we know and what we need to know. College Composition and Communication, 41(2), 201–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo-Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: a rhetorical–semantic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 28–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: an analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., Drucker, S., & Chen, K. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., Regev, J. Prothero, W. (2005). Assessing lines of evidence with argumentation analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas TX, April 4–7.

  • Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J., & Taub, D. (2005). The effect of variations in handwriting and print on evaluation of student essays. Assessing Writing, 10, 134–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knaggs, C., & Schneider, R. (2012). Thinking like a scientist: using vee-maps to understand process and concepts in science. Research in Science Education, 42, 609–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2007). Students becoming chemists: developing representational competence. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrindle, A. R., & Christensen, C. A. (1995). The impact of learning journal on metacognitive and cognitive processes and learning performance. Learning and Instruction, 5, 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R. (1993). Does writing about science improve learning about science? Journal of College Science Teaching, 22, 212–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: what, when and how? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(3). Retrieved Dec 20, 2009 from http:PAREonline.net.

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: a ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (Eds.). (1985). Learning in science: the implications of children’s science. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, E. W. (2001). Structuring the composition process in scientific writing. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: implication for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 969–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, M., & Tao, W. (2004). Effects of handwriting and computer-print on composition scores: a follow-up to Powers, Fowles, Farnum, & Ramsey. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(1).

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93, 448–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanation. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P. H., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 31–56). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: use in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takao, A. Y., & Kelly, G. J. (2003). Assessment of evidence in university students’ scientific writing. Science Education, 12, 341–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1996). Defining science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotshy, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wray, D., & Lewis, M. (1997). Extending literacy: children reading and writing non-fiction. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chemistry Education, Department of Science Education, College of Education, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea

    Aeran Choi

  2. Department of Science Education, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    Brian Hand

  3. Department of Chemistry, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA

    Thomas Greenbowe

Authors
  1. Aeran Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian Hand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Greenbowe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aeran Choi.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOC 74 kb)

ESM 2

(DOC 39 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Choi, A., Hand, B. & Greenbowe, T. Students’ Written Arguments in General Chemistry Laboratory Investigations. Res Sci Educ 43, 1763–1783 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9330-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9330-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation