Research in Science Education

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 149–169 | Cite as

Examining Arguments Generated by Year 5, 7, and 10 Students in Science Classrooms

  • Aeran Choi
  • Andrew Notebaert
  • Juan Diaz
  • Brian Hand
Article

Abstract

A critical component of science is the role of inquiry and argument in moving scientific knowledge forward. However, while students are expected to engage in inquiry activities in science classrooms, there is not always a similar emphasis on the role of argument within the inquiry activities. Building from previous studies on the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH), we were keen to find out if the writing structure used in the SWH approach helped students in Year 5, 7, and 10 to create well constructed arguments. We were also interested in examining which argument components were important for the quality of arguments generated by these students. Two hundred and ninety six writing samples were scored using an analysis framework to evaluate the quality of arguments. Step-wise multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine important argument components. The results of this study suggest that the SWH approach is useful in assisting students to develop reasonable arguments. The critical element determining the quality of the arguments is the relationship between the student’s written claims and his or her evidence.

Keywords

Arguments Writing-to-learn 

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.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, 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fellows, N. J. (1994). A window into thinking: using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 985–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Greenbowe, T. J., & Hand, B. (2005). Using the science writing heuristic to improve students’ understanding of chemistry. In N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemists guide to effective teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hand, B., & Keys, C. W. (1999). Inquiry investigation: a new approach to laboratory reports. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27–29.Google Scholar
  11. Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grad science: quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2007). Examining the effect of multiple writing tasks on Year 10 biology students’ understandings of cell and molecular biology concepts. Instructional Science, 35, 343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kelly, G. J., & Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: a rhetorical-semantic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keys, C. W. (1994). The development of scientific reasoning skills in conjunction with collaborative writing assignment: an interpretive study of six ninth-graders. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1003–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keys, C. W. (1999a). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keys, C. W. (1999b). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing huerisitic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klein, P. (2000). Elementary students’ strategies for writing-to-learn in science. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  27. National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning science: a generative process. Science Education, 67, 489–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1999). Students perceptions of writing for learning in secondary school science. Science Education, 83, 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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(8), 839–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. W. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science: The teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass Correlations: use in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Takao, A. Y., & Kelly, G. J. (2003). Assessment of evidence in university students’ scientific writing. Science & Education, 12, 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Wallace, C. S. (2004). Evidence from the literature for writing as a mode of science learning. In C. S. Wallace (Ed.), Writing and learning in the science classroom (pp. 9–19). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  45. Wray, D., & Lewis, M. (1997). Extending literacy: Children reading and writing non-fiction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aeran Choi
    • 1
  • Andrew Notebaert
    • 2
  • Juan Diaz
    • 2
  • Brian Hand
    • 2
  1. 1.Science Education, Department of Teaching, Leadership and Curriculum Studies, College of EducationKent State UniversityKentUSA
  2. 2.Science Education, Department of Teaching and Learning, College of EducationUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations