Research in Science Education

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 211–233 | Cite as

The Features of Peer Argumentation in Middle School Students' Scientific Inquiry

Article

Abstract

This study examined the features of peer argumentation in middle school students' scientific inquiry. Participants were two boys and six girls in grade 8 of a middle school in Seoul, Korea. Students engaged in open inquiry activities in small groups. Each group prepared the report for peer review and then, during the peer discussion, presented their inquiry results while another group acted as critics, in a way similar to conference presentations by scientists. This study's data sources included audio- and video-tapes of discussions, copies of student reports, questionnaires completed by the students and transcripts of interviews with the students. It was found that the critical peer discussion in general proceeded through the following four stages: Focusing, Exchanging, Debating and Closing. In addition, 75.6% of evidence used in students' arguments was personal evidence and students used various cognitive and social strategies in the critical discussion. For an effective critical discussion, making good use of the Focusing Stage was found to be important factor. Students improved their interpretation and methods of experiment during the argumentation process and this feedback made the inquiry circular. Finally, we identify a model of argumentative scientific inquiry as an open inquiry that has the key components of authentic scientific inquiry.

Key Words

argumentative scientific inquiry critical discussion peer argumentation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Association for Science Education (1981). Education through science: An ASF policy statement. Hatfield, England: Author.Google Scholar
  2. 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(8), 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry, A., Mulhall, P., Loughran, J. J., & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). Helping students learn from laboratory work. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45(1), 27–31.Google Scholar
  4. Chinn, C. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100, 315–368.Google Scholar
  5. Cunningham, C. M., & Helms, J. V. (1998). Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic inclusive science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific in argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999, March). Promoting argumentation in middle school science students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  9. Edmondson, K. M., & Novak, J. D. (1993). The interplay of scientific epistemological views, learning strategies, and attitudes of college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(6), 547–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Educatoin, 88(6), 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franklin, A. (1986). The neglect of experiment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fuller, S. (1997). Science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hodson, D. (1998). Is this really what scientists do? Seeking a more authentic science in and beyond the school laboratory. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp. 93–108). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hodson, D., & Bencze, L. (1998). Becoming critical about practical work: Changing views and changing practice through action research. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 683–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science:’ Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2003). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  18. Jones, A., Simon, S., Black, P. J., Fairbrother, R. W., & Watson, J. R. (1992). Open work in science: Development of investigations in schools. Hatfield, England: Association for Science Education.Google Scholar
  19. Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelly, G. J., Drucker, S., & Chen, K. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim, H. & Song, J. (2003). Middle school students' ideas about the purposes of laboratory work. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 23(3), 254–264.Google Scholar
  22. Kim, H., & Song, J. (2004). The exploration of open scientific inquiry model emphasizing students' argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 24(6), 1216–1234.Google Scholar
  23. Kim, H., Kang, T., & Song, J. (2003). The features of practical work for physics in middle school science textbooks based on the 7th national curriculum in Korea. Sae Mulli, 47(6), 387–394.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155–178.Google Scholar
  25. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  29. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy.Google Scholar
  31. National Science Teachers Association (1995). A high school framework for national science education standards. Arlington, VA: Authors.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science (C. Botsford, Trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  35. Russell, T. L. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: Can teachers' questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(1), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Sunal, C. S., Sunal, D. W., & Tirri, K. (2001, April). Using evidence in scientific reasoning: Exploring characteristics of middle school students' argumentation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  38. Sutton, C. R. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Taylor, C. (1996). Defining science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  40. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. S. (2002). Argumentation; Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L., & McRobbie C. (2004). Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wellington, J. J. (1998). Practical work in science: Time for a reappraisal. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp. 3–l5). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Woolnough, B. E. (1998). Authentic science in schools, to develop personal knowledge. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp. 109–125). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. 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(4), 437–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physics Education, College of EducationSeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations