Advertisement

EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENGAGEMENT IN SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION AND CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE

  • Feral Ogan-BekirogluEmail author
  • Handan Eskin
Article

ABSTRACT

Whereas there are some studies presenting the effects of argumentation on science knowledge development, there is still a need for research discovering the interrelationship between knowledge and argumentation. The purpose of this research was to investigate a possible relationship between students’ engagement in argumentation and their conceptual knowledge. A case study design was carried out for this research. The participants of the study were tenth graders studying in an urban all-girls school. There were 5 argumentations promoted in different contexts which were embedded through the dynamics chapter, for a 10-week period. Some of the conclusions drawn from the study are as follows: First, students’ quantity and quality of arguments improve through time as they get more involved with argumentation. Second, students’ knowledge does not improve instantly when they are involved with argumentation activities, that is, knowledge development in an argumentation process takes time. Third, students’ prior knowledge affects their participation in argumentation. Last, there are some patterns that indicate the relationship between argumentation and knowledge. However, students’ arguments and their knowledge do not develop at the same time.

KEY WORDS

argumentation conceptual knowledge physics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2012_9346_MOESM1_ESM.doc (40 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 39 kb)
10763_2012_9346_MOESM2_ESM.doc (36 kb)
ESM 2 (DOC 36 kb)
10763_2012_9346_MOESM3_ESM.doc (36 kb)
ESM 3 (DOC 36 kb)
10763_2012_9346_MOESM4_ESM.doc (33 kb)
ESM 4 (DOC 33 kb)
10763_2012_9346_MOESM5_ESM.doc (32 kb)
ESM 5 (DOC 31 kb)
10763_2012_9346_MOESM6_ESM.doc (30 kb)
ESM 6 (DOC 30 kb)
10763_2012_9346_MOESM7_ESM.doc (32 kb)
ESM 7 (DOC 31 kb)
10763_2012_9346_MOESM8_ESM.doc (32 kb)
ESM 8 (DOC 31 kb)

References

  1. 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
  2. Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Blair, J. A. & Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialetical. Argumentation, 1, 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carey, S. (1985). Are children fundamentally different kinds of thinkers and learners than adults? In S. Chipman, J. Segal & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 2, pp. 485–514). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  5. 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(3), 293–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crossa, D., Taasoobshirazib, G., Hendricksc, S. & Hickeya, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. (1909/1991). How we think. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  8. Driver, R. H., Asoko, J., Leach, E., Mortimer, P. & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.Google Scholar
  9. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duschl, A. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jime’nez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 47–69). The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Faltis, C. (1997). Case study methods in researching language and education. In N. H. Hornberger & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Research methods in language and education (volume 8) (pp. 145–152). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Giere, R. N. (1991). Understanding scientific reasoning (3rd ed.). Forth Worth: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  16. Halloun, I., Hake, R., Mosca, E., & Hestenes, D. (1995). Force concept inventory (revised 1995) in Mazur 1997 and password protected at http://modeling.la.asu.edu/modeling.html accessed on 24 May 2001.
  17. Eskin, H. & Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (in press). Argumentation as a strategy for conceptual learning of dynamics.Google Scholar
  18. Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hogan, K. & Fisherkeller, J. (1996). Representing students’ thinking about nutrient cycling in ecosystems: Bidimensional coding of a complex topic. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 941–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hogan, K. & Fisherkeller, J. (2000). Dialogue as data: Assessing students’ scientific reasoning with interactive protocols. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 95–127). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  21. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, B. A. & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S. & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Krathwohl, D. R. (1997). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. Reading: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229–269). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–178.Google Scholar
  30. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuhn, D., Shaw, W. & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct shared knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26, 359–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J. & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Means, L. M. & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M. & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977–1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A. & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students’ understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86, 505–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perret-Clermont, A., Perret, J. A. & Bell, N. (1991). The social construction of meaning and cognitive activity in elementary school children. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially-shared cognition (pp. 41–62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Quinn, V. (1997). Critical thinking in young minds. London: David Fulton.Google Scholar
  44. Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 85, 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sadler, T. D. & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sampson, V. & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schroeder, P. G. (1996). Science as argument: A context using peer dyads to promote conceptual change among community college chemistry students. Unpublished dissertation, Kansas State University. Manhattan, Kansas.Google Scholar
  50. Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking, and science education. Synthese, 80, 9–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simon, S., Erduran, S. & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case-study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Tavares, M. L., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Mortimer, E. F. (2010). Articulation of conceptual knowledge and argumentation practices by high school students in evolution problems. Science Education, 19, 573–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding: The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Willard, A. (1989). A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  57. Williams, M. (2004). Generalized additive models. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods (volume 2) (pp. 420–421). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  58. Wood, J. M. (2007). Understanding and computing Cohen’s Kappa: A tutorial. WebPsychEmpiricist. Retrieved October 3, 2007 from http://wpe.info/papers_table.html.
  59. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., et al (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  60. Veerman, A., Andriessen, J. & Kanselaar, G. (2002). Collaborative argumentation in academic education. Instructional Science, 30, 155–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J. & Simon, S. (2007). Argumentation and the learning of science. In R. Pinto & D. Couso (Eds.), Contributions from science education research (pp. 377–388). The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J. & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Marmara University, Ataturk Egitim Fakultesi, OFMA Eğitimi Bölümü Fizik Egitimi Anabilim Dalı GöztepeIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Vali Muammer Guler Anatolian Teacher SchoolIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations