Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Argumentation in the Chemistry Laboratory: Inquiry and Confirmatory Experiments

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

Abstract

One of the goals of science education is to provide students with the ability to construct arguments—reasoning and thinking critically in a scientific context. Over the years, many studies have been conducted on constructing arguments in science teaching, but only few of them have dealt with studying argumentation in the laboratory. Our research focuses on the process in which students construct arguments in the chemistry laboratory while conducting various types of experiments. It was found that inquiry experiments have the potential to serve as an effective platform for formulating arguments, owing to the features of this learning environment. The discourse during inquiry-type experiments was found to be rich in arguments, whereas that during confirmatory-type experiments was found to be sparse in arguments. The arguments, which were developed during the discourse of an open inquiry experiment, focus on the hypothesis-building stage, analysis of the results, and drawing appropriate conclusions.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abi-El-Mona, I., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Argumentative discourse in a high school chemistry classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 349–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1945–1969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J., & Schwarz, B. (2009). Argumentative design. In N. Muller-Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 145–174). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. (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 

  • Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20–46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluation inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socio-scientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40, 133–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dkeidek, M., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Hofstein, A. (2009). Inquiring about the inquiry chemistry laboratory in Arab high schools in Israel: A comparative study. Paper presented at the meeting of the European Science Education Research Association, Istanbul, Turkey.

  • Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 543–547. doi:10.1021/ed076p543.

    Article  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 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.

    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, 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fradd, S. H., Lee, O., Sutman, F. X., & Saxton, M. K. (2001). Promoting science literacy with English language learners through instructional materials development: a case study. Bilingual Research Journal, 25, 479–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? Argumentation? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 10–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (2007). A framework for practical work in science and scientific literacy through argumentation. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25, 271–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. The School Review, 79, 171–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: toward a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundation for the 21st century. Science Education, 98, 28–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Kind, P. (in press). Learning in and from science laboratories. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Hofstein, A., Levy, N. T., & Shore, R. (2001). Assessment of the learning environment of inquiry type laboratories in high-school chemistry. Learning Environments Research, 4, 193–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 791–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Kind, P. (2008). Learning in and from science laboratories: Enhancing students’ meta-cognition and argumentation skills. In C. L. Petroselli (Ed.), Science education issues and development (pp. 59–94). New York: Nova Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: a mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 261–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Israel Ministry of Education. (2007). New chemistry curriculum—laboratory unit: Teacher’s guide. Jerusalem: Author. in Hebrew.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 91–115). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & 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., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849–871.

    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, 1065–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., & Song, J. (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students’ scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36, 211–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kind, P., Wilson, J., Hofstein, A., & Kind, V. (2010). Stimulating peer argumentation in the school science laboratory: Exploring the effect of laboratory task formats. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia.

  • Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 601–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 94–130). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Westport: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and context for contemporary teaching. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249–262). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in school laboratory: An analysis of research, theory and practice. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–441). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informed reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F., & Chin, C. (2010). The role of discourse in learning science. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 88–102). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts & practices in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 71, 465–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 669–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tien, L. T., & Stacy, M. (1996). The effects of instruction on undergraduate students’ inquiry skills. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students’ discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 25–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of Inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 276–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, S. Y., Bennett, W., Mendez, C. A., & Hand, B. (2010). Setting up conditions for negotiation in science. Teaching Science, 56, 51–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science Teaching, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, 76100, Israel

    Dvora Katchevich, Avi Hofstein & Rachel Mamlok-Naaman

Authors
  1. Dvora Katchevich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Avi Hofstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rachel Mamlok-Naaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dvora Katchevich.

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 1—Open-ended Inquiry Experiment

The Contact between Liquids

Note: Protective glasses and gloves must be worn!

General Instructions:

  • Read all the instructions well before beginning the experiment.

  • Check that you have all the necessary equipment and materials at your disposal in order to conduct the experiment.

Pay strict attention regarding:

  • fulfilling the instructions for carrying out stage A precisely

  • recording as many observations as possible

  • reporting the observations clearly and in a well-organized manner

  • participation of all group members in carrying out the various tasks

  • using correct and precise scientific language throughout the course

Equipment and materials:

  • A Petri dish

  • About 30 ml of colored water

  • About 30 ml ethanol

  • 3 Pasteur pipettes

  • A bottle of liquid soap

Stage A: The Pre-inquiry Experiments

  1. 1.

    Drip colored water with a Pasteur pipette into a Petri dish until it will cover about half the area of the base of the plate. Be sure that the other regions are dry.

  2. 2.

    Drip Ethanol with a new Pasteur pipette into the dry part of the plate until the two fluids meet.

  3. 3.

    Describe all the observations. If necessary you can add Ethanol.

  4. 4.

    Drip a drop of soap solution into the part where the colored water meets the Ethanol.

  5. 5.

    Describe what happens

Stage B: The Inquiry Step

  • I

    1. 1.

      Formulate 5 varied, relevant questions that arose following the observations that were made.

      • Choose one of the questions that you would like to investigate.

      • Formulate this question clearly as an inquiry question, and to the extent possible, as a link between two variables.

      • Clearly formulate a hypothesis that relates to the question that you chose to investigate.

      • Give reasons for your hypothesis, based on correct and relevant scientific knowledge.

    2. 2.

      Plan an experiment that will check the validity of your hypothesis.

      • Detail all the steps of the experiment, including the control stage.

      • List the equipment and materials needed on the equipment request form.

      • Consult with the teacher and make changes if necessary.

      • Submit the list of equipment and materials to the laboratory technician.

  • II

    1. 3.

      Get the teacher’s approval for the proposed experiment.

      • Carry out the experiment that you proposed after receiving the teacher’s approval.

      • Present the observations and the results in an organized form (table, diagram, graph, etc.)

      • Analyze and interpret the results.

      • Draw conclusions as much as possible based on the experimental results and rationalize them.

      • Examine the connection between the inquiry question and the conclusions.

    2. 4.

      In the summarizing group discussion

      • Express your opinion about all the stages of the inquiry (limitations, precision, etc.).

      • To the extent necessary, point out the changes desirable in the inquiry process.

      • List additional questions that arose following the whole process.

      • Prepare your group’s summary of the experiment for presentation before the class.

    3. 5.

      In the summarizing class discussion

      • Relate to our experiment by considering the reports of all the other work groups.

    4. 6.

      Ensure that the report is well organized, aesthetic, and readable.

      • Enjoy the work!

Appendix 2—Confirmatory Experiment

Solubility in Water and in non Aqueous Solvents

Note: Protective glasses and gloves must be worn!

General Instructions:

  • Read all the instructions well before beginning the experiment.

  • Check that you have all the necessary equipment and materials at your disposal before conducting the experiment

Equipment and materials:

  • 3 test tubes

  • Test tube support

  • Cyclohexane—C6H12(l)

  • Ethanol—C2H5OH(l)

  • Distilled water

  • Iodine—I2(s)

  • Copper Sulphate—CuSO4(s)

Pay attention to:

  • precisely fulfill the instructions for carrying out stage A

  • record as many observations as possible

  • report the observations clearly and in a well-organized manner

  • have all the group members participate in carrying out the various tasks

  • use correct and precise scientific language throughout the course

The experimental procedure

  1. 1.

    Fill a test tube with distilled water up to one-third its height.

  2. 2.

    Add a few grains of Copper Sulphate—CuSO4(s) and describe what you observe.

  3. 3.

    Add to the same test tube Cyclohexane—C6H12(l), in a volume similar to the volume of the water. Mix and describe what you observe.

  4. 4.

    Add a few grains of Iodine—I2(s) and describe what you observe.

  5. 5.

    Fill the second test tube with water up to one-third its height.

  6. 6.

    Add to the same test tube Ethanol—C2H5OH(l) in a volume similar to the volume of the water. Describe what you observe.

  7. 7.

    Fill the third test tube with Cyclohexane—C6H12(l) up to one-third its height.

  8. 8.

    Add to the same test tube Ethanol—C2H5OH(l), in a volume similar to the volume of the Cyclohexane. Mix and describe what you observe.

    • Analyze and interpret the results based on correct and relevant scientific knowledge.

    • Draw conclusions as much as possible based on the experimental results and give your reasons.

Questions following the experiment

  1. a.

    What can we learn from the results of the experiment about the solubility of Cyclohexane in water, and the solubility of Copper Sulphate and Iodine in water or in Cyclohexane?

  2. b.

    Write down the equations of the dissolution reactions.

  3. c.

    What can we learn from the results of the experiment about the solubility of Ethanol in water and Cyclohexane?

  4. d.

    Write down the equations of the dissolution reactions.

  5. e.

    Explain the results of the experiment using concepts belonging to the subject “structure and bonding”.

The summarizing group discussion

Express your opinion critically about all the results of the experiment (limitations, precision, etc.).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A. & Mamlok-Naaman, R. Argumentation in the Chemistry Laboratory: Inquiry and Confirmatory Experiments. Res Sci Educ 43, 317–345 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9267-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9267-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation