Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Grade 5 Students’ Online Argumentation about Their In-Class Inquiry Investigations

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

Abstract

This study examined the extent to which fifth-grade students participate in online argumentation and the argument patterns they produced about the inquiry-based investigations completed using the Science Writing Heuristic approach in their science classes. One hundred twenty-nine students from five classes of two teachers in a Midwestern public school completed two inquiry-based investigation units, one per semester, followed by asynchronous online discussions using the Moodle forum. Among the 129 students, 107 students produced 739 notes in the plant investigation online discussion and 111 students produced 686 notes in the human health investigation online discussion. Results indicate that students were actively engaged in the online discussions about inquiry investigations with comments being focused on providing more evidence and backing for claims and negotiating evidence in both investigations. The students also engaged in challenging and querying the test procedures and reference sources as the basis for evidence. Implications are discussed for science teaching and learning and further study on argument-based inquiry in online environments.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abell, S., Anderson, G., & Chezem, J. (2000). Science as argument and explanation: Exploring concepts of sounds in third grad. In J. Minstrell & E. Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 65–79). Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J., Erkens, G., Van de Laak, C., Peters, N., & Coirier, P. (2003). Argumentation as negotiation in electronic collaborative writing. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 79–115). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Chapter  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 

  • Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnetto, A. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument intervention in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.

    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 

  • Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 343–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    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., & Oaborne, 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(6), 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2006). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17, 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J., & Kniff, K. J. (2006). Groundwork for progress supporting scientific literacy: An expert–novice study. San Francisco: Poster presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, P. L. (1980). The identification of specific difficulties with logical connectives in science among secondary school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(3), 223–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., & Keys, C. W. (1999). Inquiry investigation: A new approach to laboratory reports. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27–29.

  • Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Education, 86(6), 737–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgs, J. (2001). Charting standpoints in qualitative research. In H. Byrne-Armstrong, J. Higgs, & D. Horsfall (Eds.), Critical moments in qualitative research (pp. 44–67). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663–687.

    Article  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(2–3), 261–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsi, S., & Hoadley, C. (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23–36.

    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 

  • Joiner, R., & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(8), 861–971.

    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., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 691–718.

    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 

  • Keys, C. W. (1999). Language as an indicator of meaning generation: An analysis of middle school students’ written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1044–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674–689.

    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 

  • Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94, 810–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

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

  • 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 

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.

    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 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, CA pp 46.

  • Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95, 217–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.

    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 

  • Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46, 349–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online course: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication and Information, 2(1), 23–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiene, D. (2000). Online discussions: A survey of advantages and disadvantages compared to face-to-face discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4), 371–384.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tu, C., & Corry, M. (2003). Building active online interaction via a collaborative learning community. Computers in the Schools, 20(3), 51–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92:941-967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q., & Woo, H. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 271–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science Education, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea

    Aeran Choi

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

    Brian Hand

  3. Reading Education, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA

    Lori Norton-Meier

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. Lori Norton-Meier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aeran Choi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Choi, A., Hand, B. & Norton-Meier, L. Grade 5 Students’ Online Argumentation about Their In-Class Inquiry Investigations. Res Sci Educ 44, 267–287 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9384-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9384-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation