Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Developing Primary School Students’ Abilities to Evaluate the Evidence of Written Scientific Arguments

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The engagement of students in processes for evaluating scientific arguments is particularly important for science education of all students. Research studying students’ abilities to evaluate scientific arguments based on their evidence is limited. The present paper investigates the impact of a teaching sequence for temperature and heat, which is based on the teaching science-as-practice approach, on primary school students’ abilities to evaluate the evidence of the written scientific arguments they read. The instructional material developed was implemented to 262 students aged 12 years. A questionnaire was developed and completed by the students before and after the implementation of the teaching–learning sequence. The data analysis showed that the teaching sequence significantly contributed to improving students’ abilities to locate evidence in arguments, identify relevant supporting evidence that should be included in arguments, evaluate whether a piece of evidence is strong or weak, and compare and evaluate two arguments according to the evidence they include. This study provides preliminary evidence that a teaching sequence which is based on the teaching science-as-practice approach may be effective for increasing primary school students’ abilities to evaluate the evidence of scientific arguments. The results of this study and their implications for both research and practice are discussed.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition.  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bravo-Torija, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2018). Developing an initial learning progression for the use of evidence in decision-making contexts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9803-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brook, A., Briggs, H., Bell, B., & Driver, R. (1984). Aspects of secondary students’ understanding of heat. CLISP Report. Leeds, UK: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.

  • Bybee, R. W. (2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Personal reflections and contemporary implications. Science and Children, 51(8), 10–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çetin, P. S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.850071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H. T., Wang, H. H., Lu, Y. Y., Lin, H., & Hong, Z. R. (2016). Using a modified argument-driven inquiry to promote elementary school students’ engagement in learning science and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 170–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1134849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H. T., Wang, H. H., Lu, Y. Y., & Hong, Z. R. (2019). Bridging the gender gap of children’s engagement in learning science and argumentation through a modified argument-driven inquiry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 635–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9896-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherbow, K., Lowell, B. R., & McNeill, K. L. (2021). Redesign or relabel? How a commercial curriculum and its implementation oversimplify key features of the NGSS. Science Education, 105(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2018). What is the value of general knowledge of scientific reasoning? In F. Fischer, C. A. Chinn, K. Engelmann, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation: The Roles of Domain-Specific and Domain-General Knowledge (pp. 77–101). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2020). Students’ construct and critique of claims and evidence through online asynchronous discussion combined with in-class discussion. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18, 1023–1040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10005-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Some features of children’s ideas and their implications for teaching. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 193–201). Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3%3c287::AID-SCE1%3e3.0.CO;2-A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. G., Chinn, C. A., & Barzilai, S. (2018). Grasp of evidence: Problematizing and expanding the Next Generation Science Standards’ conceptualization of evidence. Journal of Research in Science Education, 55(7), 907–937. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (2003). Assessment of inquiry. In J. M. Atkin & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 41–59). National Science Teachers Association Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335–354). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, J. M. (2012). Research on argumentation in science education in Europe. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe: Retrospective and prospective (pp. 253–289). Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in the science classroom. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jimenez- Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47–69). Springer.

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012

  • Erickson, G. L. (1979). Children’s conceptions of heat and temperature. Science Education, 63(2), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730630210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, G. L. (1980). Children’s viewpoints of heat: A second look. Science Education, 64(3), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730640307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, G. (1985). An overview of pupils’ ideas. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & E. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 55–66). Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • González-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. L. (2019). Teachers’ framing of argumentation goals: Working together to develop individual versus communal understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(6), 821–844. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G., Grayson, D. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Investigating a grade 11 student’s evolving conceptions of heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 55–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199901)36:1%3c55::AID-TEA5%3e3.0.CO;2-P

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinning of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663–687. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6%3c757::AID-SCE5%3e3.0.CO;2-F

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, H., Thompson, J., & Windschitl, M. (2014). Creating opportunities for students to show what they know: The role of scaffolding in assessments tasks. Science Education, 98, 674–704. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith, W. M., & Beard, D. E. (2008). Toulmin’s rhetorical logic: What’s the warrant for warrants? Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41(1), 22–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kesidou, S., & Duit, R. (1993). Students’ conceptions of the second law of thermodynamics - An interpretive study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socio-scientific issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5–6), 974–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.832004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G. (2004). The power of intuition. A Currency Book/Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, A. M., Alves, C. B., Cannady, M. A., McNeill, K. L., & Pearson, P. D. (2014, April). Assessing middle school students’ abilities to critique scientific arguments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST).

  • Krajcik, J., & McNeill, K. (2009). Designing instructional materials to support students’ in writing scientific explanations: Using evidence and reasoning across the middle school years. Paper Presented at 2009 Annual International Conference Grand Challenges and Great Opportunities in Science Education National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Hyatt Regency Orange County Garden Grove.

  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. K. (2014). A conceptual change model for teaching heat energy, heat transfer and insulation. Science Education International, 25(4), 417–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E., Cite, S., & Hanuscin, D. (2014). Mystery powders: Taking the “mystery” out of argumentation. Science & Children, 52(1), 46–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2010). What kind of explanation is a model? In M. K. Stein (Ed.), Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp. 9–22). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, J. S. C. (2020). Students’ adherences to epistemic understanding in evaluating scientific claims. Science Education, 104(2), 164–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, E. L., & Linn, M. C. (1994). Heat, energy and temperature concepts of adolescents, adults and experts: Implications for curricular improvements. Journal Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 657–677. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., & Songer, N. B. (1991). Teaching thermodynamics to middle school students: What are appropriate cognitive demands? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(10), 885–918. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lizotte, D. J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Teacher practices that support students’ construction of scientific explanations in middle school classrooms. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2004: Embracing Diversity in the Learning Sciences (pp. 310–317). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lizotte, D.J., Harris, C.J., McNeill, K.L., Marx, R.W., & Krajcik, J. (2003). Usable assessments aligned with curriculum materials: Measuring explanation as a scientific way of learning. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

  • Marshall, J. C., Smart, J. B., & Alston, D. M. (2017). Inquiry-based instruction: A possible solution to improving student learning of both science concepts and scientific practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(5), 777–796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9718-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mastro, G. (2017). Claim, evidence, and reasoning: Evaluation of the use of scientific inquiry to support argumentative writing in the middle school science classroom. Graduate Master's Theses, Capstones, and Culminating Projects. 257. https://doi.org/10.33015/dominican.edu/2017.edu.09

  • Monteira, S. F., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2016). The practice of using evidence in Kindergarten: The role of purposeful observation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(8)1232–1258. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21259

  • McNeill, K. L., & Berland, L. (2017). What is (or should be) scientific evidence use in K-12 classrooms? Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 54(5), 672–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., & Pelletier, P. (2015). Assessing science practices – Moving your class along a continuum. Science Scope, 39(4), 21–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., Marco-Bujosa, L. M., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2018). Teachers’ enactments of curriculum: Fidelity to procedure versus fidelity to goal for scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 40(12), 1455–1475. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1482508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 233–265). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

  • McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

  • McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Harris, C. J., Scott, L. A., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2003). Using backward design to create standards-based middle-school inquiry-oriented chemistry curriculum and assessment materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Miller, E., Manz, E., Russ, R., Stroupe, D., & Berland, L. (2018). Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 1053–1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, M. A. (2010). McNemar’s test. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 780–782). SAGE Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701545919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paik, S. H., Cho, B. K., & Go, Y. M. (2007). Korean 4- to 11-year-old student conceptions of heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 284–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual (4th ed.). McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the reader’s world meets the world on paper? International Journal of Science Education, 21, 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200009)84:5%3c566::AID-SCE2%3e3.0.CO;2-U

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, D., Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2009). The art of argumentation. Science & Children, 47(3), 28–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (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(2), 217–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Cam, A. (2011). Elementary children’s judgments of the epistemic status of sources of justification. Science Education, 95(3), 383–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (1997). Evolving explanations in high school biology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Assn.

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C., Passmore, C., & Reiser, B. J. (Eds.). (2017). Helping students make sense of the world using Next Generation Science and Engineering Practices. NSTA Press.

  • Skoumios, M. (2018). Primary and middle school students' abilities to critique evidence when reading scientific arguments. The International Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Learning, 25(1–2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7971/CGP/v25i01/1-12

  • Skoumios, M., & Hatzinikita, V. (2008). The structure of pupils' written explanations within the framework of the didactic elaboration of pupils' obstacles in science. The International Journal of Learning, 15(5), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v15i05/45768

  • Songer, N. B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2012). Guiding explanation construction by children at the entry points of learning progressions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(2), 141–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Songer, N. B., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2009). How and when does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning in biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 610–631. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strimaitis, A. M., Southerland, S. A., Sampson, V. D., Enderle, P. J., & Grooms, J. (2017). Promoting equitable biology lab instruction by engaging all students in a broad range of science practices: An exploratory study. School Science and Mathematics, 117, 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiberghien, A. (1985). The development of ideas with teaching. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & E. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s Ideas in Science (pp. 66–84). Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tishman, S., & Perkins, D. N. (1997). The language of thinking. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 368–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallon, R. C., Jasti, C., Lauren, H. Z. G., & Hug, B. (2018). Implementation of a curriculum-integrated computer game for introducing scientific argumentation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(3), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9720-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199707)81:4%3c483::AID-SCE7%3e3.0.CO;2-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Primary Education, School of Humanities, University of the Aegean, 1 Dimokratias Ave, 85132, Rhodes, Greece

    Michael Skoumios

Authors
  1. Michael Skoumios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Skoumios.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix

Questionnaire

2.1 Section A

When we put some hot water (100 °C) into an iron container and leave it on a table, the temperature of the water drops. Some people want to make the water temperature drop at a slower pace so that the water can remain warm for a longer period. Mr. Kostas asks from his students to present and support their views on the following question: What affects the change in the temperature of the water inside the iron container?

Maria (a student) used the data included in the following table in order to present her view.

Container material

Wrapping material thickness (in cm)

Kind of wrapping material

Drop of water temperature after 2 min

iron

1

woolen cloth

very fast

iron

3

woolen cloth

fast

iron

5

woolen cloth

slow

iron

7

woolen cloth

very slow

Maria’s text.

A very thick piece of cloth makes the water’s temperature drop a little [sentence 1]. When we wrapped the iron container with the cloth that was 1 cm thick, after 2 min the drop of water temperature was very fast, while when we wrapped it with the cloth that was 5 cm thick, the drop of water temperature was slow [sentence 2]. This is a good example showing that when the cloth is very thick, it makes the temperature of the water drops less [sentence 3].

Question 1.

In which sentence do you think Maria has got evidence supporting her view?

  • Only in sentence 1.

  • Only in sentence 2.

  • In sentences 1 and 2.

  • In none of them.

Question 2.

Maria considers adding more evidence in order to further support her view. Which of the following sentences constitutes a piece of evidence supporting her view?

  • When we wrap the iron container with a cloth, the drop of water temperature after 2 min will be very fast.

  • When we wrap the iron container with a cloth 6 cm thick, the drop of water temperature after 2 min will be very fast.

  • When we wrap the iron container with a cloth 0.5 cm thick, the drop of water temperature after 2 min will be very fast.

  • When we wrap the iron container with a cloth 3.5 cm thick, the drop of water temperature after 2 min will be very fast.

Question 3.

Maria says that a thin piece of cloth makes the drop of water temperature fast. Maria wants to add the following piece of evidence in order to support her view:

When we wrap the iron container with the piece of cloth that is 6 cm thick, after 2 min the drop of water temperature was fast.

This piece of evidence is:

  • weak, because it is irrelevant to Maria’s view.

  • weak, because it supports a view opposite to Maria’s view.

  • strong, because it supports a view opposite to Maria’s view.

  • strong, because it supports Maria’s view.

Question 4.

Kyriakos is also a student in Mr. Kostas’ class. Mr. Kostas asked from Maria and Kyriakos to compare their texts.

Maria’s text.

A very thick piece of cloth makes water temperature drop a little. When we wrapped the iron container with the cloth that was 1 cm thick, after 2 min the drop of water temperature was very fast, while when we wrapped it with the cloth that was 5 cm thick, again after 2 min, the drop of water temperature was slow. This is a good example showing that when the cloth is very thick, it makes water temperature drop less.

Kyriakos’ text.

A very thick piece of cloth makes water temperature drop a little. I once wrapped hot water with a very thick piece of cloth, and it remained hot for quite a long time. This is a good example showing that when the cloth is very thick, it makes water temperature drop less.

Which of the two, Maria or Kyriakos, supports her/his view better? Why?

Section Β

Four containers contain water of the same temperature. We use the same heating source in order to heat up for the same time (2 min) the different amounts of water contained in the containers. Mr Dimitris asks from his students to write their responses on the following question and support them: What affects the change in the temperature of the water contained in the containers?

Helen used the data included in the following Table in order to present her view.

Container material

Material thickness (in cm)

Amount of water (in gr)

Temperature change

iron

1

100

very fast

iron

1

200

fast

iron

1

300

slow

iron

1

400

very slow

Helen’s text.

In the container with the largest amount of water, the temperature increases less [sentence 1]. When we heated up a container with 100 gr of water, after 2 min the water’s temperature increased and the temperature change was very big, while when we heated up, in the same way, a container with 500 gr of water, after 2 min the water’s temperature increased and the temperature change was very small [sentence 2]. This is a good example showing that in a container with lots of water that is heated up, the water’s temperature change increases only a little [sentence 3].

Question 5.

In which sentence do you think Helen has got evidence supporting her view?

  • Only in sentence 1.

  • Only in sentence 2.

  • In sentences 1 and 2.

  • In none of them.

Question 6.

Helen considers adding more evidence in order to further support her view. Which of the following sentences constitutes a piece of evidence supporting her view?

  • When water is heated up in the same way for 2 min in a container, the water’s temperature change is very fast.

  • The amount of water heated up in the same way for 2 min in a container is 400 gr and the temperature change is slow.

  • The amount of water heated up in the same way for 2 min in a container is 80 gr and the temperature change is slow.

  • The amount of water heated up in the same way for 2 min in a container is 200 gr and the temperature change is slow.

Question 7.

Helen says that in the container with the largest amount of water the temperature increases less. Helen wants to add the following piece of evidence in order to support her view:

The amount of water in a glass is 90 gr and the water’s temperature change is very fast.

This piece of evidence is:

  • weak, because it is irrelevant to Helen’s view.

  • weak, because it supports a view opposite to Helen’s view.

  • strong, because it supports a view opposite to Helen’s view.

  • strong, because it supports Helen’s view.

Question 8.

Panagiotis is also a student in Mr Dimitris’ class. Mr Dimitris asks from Eleni and Panagiotis to compare their texts.

Helen’s text.

In the container with the largest amount of water, the temperature increases less. When we heated up a container with 100 gr of water, after 2 min the water’s temperature increased and the temperature change was very big, while when we heated up, in the same way, a container with 500 gr of water, after 2 min the water’s temperature increased and the temperature change was very small. This is a good example showing that in a container with lots of water that is heated up, the water’s temperature change increases only a little.

Panagiotis’ text.

In the container with the largest amount of water the temperature increases less. On a trip we had been on, we met a scientist. We later learned that he was one of the best in the world and had been honored with many awards. This scientist said that because there is a large amount of water in the sea, the water’s temperature change is extremely small. Also, he said that if you have a small glass of water the temperature of the water will change faster. This is a good example showing that in a container with lots of water that is heated up, the water’s temperature change increases only a little.

Which of the two, Helen or Panagiotis, supports her/his view better? Why?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Skoumios, M. Developing Primary School Students’ Abilities to Evaluate the Evidence of Written Scientific Arguments. Sci & Educ 32, 1139–1164 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00352-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00352-0

Search

Navigation