Advertisement

SUCCESS, DIFFICULTY, AND INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY TO ENACT AN ARGUMENT-BASED INQUIRY APPROACH: EXPERIENCES OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS

  • Aeran ChoiEmail author
  • Vanessa Klein
  • Susan Hershberger
Article

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to investigate the successes and difficulties that teachers perceived as they enacted an argument-based inquiry approach; and instructional strategies that teachers used within an argument-based inquiry approach. Nineteen elementary teachers from 14 Midwestern elementary schools were enrolled in an intensive 2-week professional development program along with 2 follow-up workshops focusing on an argument-based inquiry approach, i.e., the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. The teachers implemented at least 1 lesson using the SWH approach during the first semester after the 2-week professional development program and a series of lessons for a unit during the second semester. Data collection consisted of teachers’ written reflection supplemented by their lesson plans. Data analyses indicated that most teachers viewed students’ authentic learning and engagement as the benefits of the argument-based inquiry approach. A majority of the teachers also mentioned students’ lack of decision making ability and difficulty of writing their thoughts. Class discussions, scaffolding, and modeling argumentation were used by the participant teachers as instructional strategies as ways to embrace the argument-based inquiry approach in their science classrooms.

Keywords

argument-based inquiry approach elementary teachers Science Writing Heuristic approach 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abd-EL-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N., Hofstein, R., Niaz, M., Treagust, D. & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 88, 397–419.Google Scholar
  2. Akkus, R., Gunel, M. & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745–1765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asay, L. D., & Orgill, M. (2010). Analysis of essential features of inquiry found in articles published in The Science Teacher, 1998–2007. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 57–79.Google Scholar
  4. Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T. J. & Hand, B. M. (2006). Implementing the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(7), 1032–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. & Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the Science Writing Heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi, A., Hand, B. & Greenbowe, T. (2013). Students’ written arguments in general chemistry laboratory investigations. Research in Science Education, 43, 1763–1783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J. & Hand, B. (2010). Examining arguments generated by year 5, 7, and 10 students in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.CrossRefGoogle 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, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ford, M. (2008). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glen, N. J. & Dotger, S. (2013). Writing like a scientist: Exploring elementary teachers’ understandings and practices of writing in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education. doi: 10.1007/s10972-013-9348-x.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Halliday, M. A. K. & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hand, B. & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Education, 86(6), 737–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hand, B., Wallace, C. W. & Yang, E. (2004). Using a Science Writing Heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Kelly, G. J. & Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: A rhetorical-semantic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keys, C. W. & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V. & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kingir, S., Geban, O. & Gunel, M. (2012). How does the science writing heuristic approach affect students’ performance of different academic achievement levels? A case for high school chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(4), 428–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  30. Martin, A. & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom: A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39, 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Blunk, M., Crawford, B., Kelly, B. & Meyer, K. M. (1994). Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four middle grade teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 517–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nam, J., Choi, A. & Hand, B. (2011). Implementation of the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach in the 8th grade science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1111–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  34. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  35. National Research Council (NRC). (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Opfer, V. D. & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C. & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Patterson, E. W. (2001). Structuring the composition process in scientific writing. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Rudd, J. A., Greenbowe, T. J. & Hand, B. M. (2001a). Recrafting the general chemistry laboratory report. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(4), 230–234.Google Scholar
  44. Rudd, J. A., Greenbowe, T. J., Hand, B. M. & Legg, M. J. (2001b). Using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) to move toward an inquiry-based laboratory curriculum: An example from physical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(12), 1680–1686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sampson, V. & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (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
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J. & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45–93). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  51. Vygotshy, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wallace, C. S., Hand, B. & Prain, V. (2004). Introduction: Does writing promote learning in science? In C. S. Wallace, B. Hand & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the science classroom (pp. 1–8). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wellington, J. & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  54. 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, 1–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science EducationEwha Womans UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Curriculum and InstructionKent State UniversityKentUSA
  3. 3.Chemistry & BiochemistryMiami UniversityOxfordUSA

Personalised recommendations