Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effectiveness of Argument-Based Inquiry Approach on Grade 8 Students’ Science Content Achievement, Metacognition, and Epistemological Beliefs

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract 

The quasi-experimental, two-group (treatment and comparison), pretest–posttest study of metacognition, epistemological beliefs, and science content achievement explored the effectiveness of argument-based inquiry (ABI) instruction as opposed to traditional teacher-directed lectures and structured activities. Participants included 60 eight-grade students attending two intact classes of a middle school located in an urban area. One class was treated as the treatment group and the other as the comparison group. The students in the treatment group were taught for 13 weeks with the ABI approach while those in the comparison group were taught using traditional instruction. Data were gathered by administering the Epistemological Belief Questionnaire, Metacognitive Awareness Inventory, and Science Content Achievement Test as pretest and posttest and were analyzed using t-test and MANOVA. The findings revealed that the treatment group significantly outperformed the comparison group in terms of science content achievement, metacognition, and epistemological beliefs. Treatment group students’ scores in science content achievement, epistemological beliefs (i.e., justification and development), and most of the dimensions of metacognition (i.e., declarative knowledge, planning, information management, debugging, monitoring, and evaluation) significantly improved as ABI was applied. However, the ABI approach was not found to improve students’ epistemological beliefs concerning the source and tentative nature of scientific knowledge, or their metacognition with respect to procedural knowledge and conditional knowledge.

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 

  • Avargil, S., Lavi, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2018). Students’ metacognition and metacognitive strategies in science education. In Y. J. Dori, Z. Mevarech, & D. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM Education (pp. 33–64). Springer.

  • Caukin, N. S. (2010). Science Writing Heuristic: A writing-to-learn strategy and its effect on students’ science achievement, science self-efficacy, and scientific epistemological view (Publication No. 3439048) [Doctoral dissertation, Tennessee State University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

  • Cavagnetto, A., & Hand, B. (2012). The importance of embedding argument within science classrooms. In M. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 39–53). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_3

  • Chen, Y.-C., Hand, B., & Park, S. (2016). Examining elementary students’ development of oral and written argumentation practices through argument-based inquiry. Science & Education, 25(3–4), 277–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9811-0

  • Chen, Y.-C., Benus, M. J., & Hernandez, J. (2019). Managing uncertainty in scientific argumentation. Science Education, 103(5), 1235–1276. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, A. (2008). A study of student written argument using the science writing heuristic approach in inquiry-based freshman general chemistry laboratory classes (Publication No. 3323405) [Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

  • Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S. W., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670–697. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20424

  • Choi, A., Seung, E., & Kim, D. (2021). Science teachers’ views of argument in scientific inquiry and argument-based science instruction. Research in Science Education, 51(Suppl. 1), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9861-9

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

  • Dogru-Atay, P., & Tekkaya, C. (2008). Promoting students’ learning in genetics with the learning cycle. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(3), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.3.259-280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47–69). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_3

  • Erenler, S., & Cetin, P. S. (2019). Utilizing argument-driven-inquiry to develop pre-service teachers’ metacognitive awareness and writing skills. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 5(2), 628–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georghiades, P. (2004). From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000119401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimberg, B. I. (2008). Promoting higher-order thinking through the use of the science writing heuristic. In B. M. Hand (Ed.), Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic (pp. 87–97). Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087902520_008

  • Hand, B. (2008). Introducing the science writing heuristic approach. In B. M. Hand (Ed.), Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic (pp. 1–11). Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087902520_002

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021–1035. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Shelley, M. C., Laugerman, M., Fostvedt, L., & Therrien, W. (2018). Improving critical thinking growth for disadvantaged groups within elementary school science: A randomized controlled trial using the science writing heuristic approach. Science Education, 102(4), 693–710. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21341

  • Hand, B., Chen, Y.-C., & Suh, J. K. (2021). Does a knowledge generation approach to learning benefit students? A systematic review of research on the science writing heuristic approach. Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 535–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09550-0

  • Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001088

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iordanou, K. (2010). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 293–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2010.485335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaynar, D., Tekkaya, C., & Çakıroğlu, J. (2009). Effectiveness of 5E learning cycle instruction on students’ achievement in cell concept and scientific epistemological beliefs. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37, 96–105.

  • Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 601–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9066-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krettenauer, T. (2005). The role of epistemic cognition in adolescent identity formation: Further evidence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(3), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-4300-9

  • Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 492–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.007

  • Ministry of National Education [MoNE], Turkey. (2018). Elementary science curriculum. Author.

  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/international-results/

  • Nam, J. H., Kwak, K. H., Jang, K. H., & Hand, B. (2008). The implementation of argumentation using science writing heuristic (SWH) in middle school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(8), 922–936.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nam, J. H., Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2011). Implementation of the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach in 8th grade science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5), 1111–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9250-3

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.

  • Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Eskin, H. (2012). Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientific argumentation and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6) 1415–1443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9346-z

  • Ozkan, Ş. (2008). Modeling elementary students’ science achievement: The interrelationships among epistemological beliefs, learning approaches, and self-regulated learning strategies [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Middle East Technical University.

  • Park, J., & Nam, J. H. (2019). Analysis of epistemic thinking in middle school students in an argument-based inquiry (ABI) science class. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(3), 337–348. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.3.337

  • Quarderer, N. A., & McDermott, M. A. (2020). Examining science teacher reflections on argument-based inquiry through a critical discourse lens. Research in Science Education, 50(6), 2483–2504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9790-z

  • Rudd, J. A., II., Greenbowe, T. J., & Hand, B. (2001). Recrafting the general chemistry laboratory report: The Science Writing Heuristic—Producing a better understanding of chemistry. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(4), 230–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandi-Urena, S., Cooper, M., & Stevens, R. (2012). Effect of cooperative problem-based lab instruction on metacognition and problem-solving skills. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(6), 700–706. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed1011844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoerning, E., Hand, B., Shelley, M., & Therrien, W. (2015). Language, access, and power in the elementary science classroom. Science Education, 99(2), 238–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498

  • Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033

  • Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1–2), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8

  • Sungur, S., & Senler, B. (2009). An analysis of Turkish high school students’ metacognition and motivation. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 15(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610802591667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

  • Thomas, G. P. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Past, present and future considerations. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 24, pp. 131–144). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_11

  • Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.

  • Tucel, S. T. (2016). Investigating the effects of science writing heuristic approach on eight grade students’ achievement, metacognition and epistemological beliefs [Unpublished master's thesis]. Middle East Technical University.

  • Ulu, C. (2019). The impact of argumentation based inquiry approach on metacognitive knowledge and skills. International Journal of Science and Education, 2(1), 11–23.

  • van Opstal, M. T., & Daubenmire, P. L. (2015). Extending students’ practice of metacognitive regulation skills with the science writing heuristic. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1089–1112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1019385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villanueva, M. G., Hand, B., Shelley, M., & Therrien, W. (2019). The conceptualization and development of the practical epistemology in science survey (PESS). Research in Science Education, 49(3), 635–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9629-z

  • Walton, D. (2016). Argument evaluation and evidence. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, K. A., McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2022). Characterising immersive argument-based inquiry learning environments in school-based education: A systematic literature review. Studies in Science Education, 58(1), 15–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.1897931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pasternak, D. P., Sangster, C., Grau, V., Bingham, S., Almeqdad, Q., & Demetriou, D. (2009). The development of two observational tools for assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9033-1

  • Wu, H. K., & Wu, C. L. (2011). Exploring the development of fifth graders’ practical epistemologies and explanation skills in inquiry-based learning classrooms. Research in Science Education, 41(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9167-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaman, F. (2018). Effects of the science writing heuristic approach on the quality of prospective science teachers’ argumentative writing and their understanding of scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(3), 421–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9788-9

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article was produced from the first author’s M.Sc. thesis. We are grateful to Senior Editor, Dr. Larry D. Yore, and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback during the revision process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tarsus American College, Mersin, Turkey

    Sabahat Tuğçe Tucel Deprem

  2. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

    Jale Çakıroğlu & Ceren Öztekin

  3. Department of Primary Education, Hacettepe University, 06800, Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey

    Sevgi Kıngır

Authors
  1. Sabahat Tuğçe Tucel Deprem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jale Çakıroğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ceren Öztekin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sevgi Kıngır
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sevgi Kıngır.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

The research was approved by Middle East Technical University Ethics Committee (Date: 13.02.2014, No: 28620816/80) and Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education (Date: 28.03.2014, No: 54850036–300-1495–306).

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 17 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tucel Deprem, S.T., Çakıroğlu, J., Öztekin, C. et al. Effectiveness of Argument-Based Inquiry Approach on Grade 8 Students’ Science Content Achievement, Metacognition, and Epistemological Beliefs. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 21, 1057–1079 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10299-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10299-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation