Abstract
This study focused on the use of anticipation guides (AG) as a reading strategy to support science reading and explored the level of students’ scientific written arguments as a result. An AG consists of four components that address the topic of the reading activity: statements about the content, what I think, what the texts say, and evidence in the text. These components create a bridge to explore and assess students’ scientific written arguments at the end of the course. We employed a case study with an embedded quasi-experimental design to analyse the impact of using an AG, along with a thematic analysis to report students’ perceptions. The present study involved 40 college students (prospective physics teachers) in the Department of Physics Education, taking a course in the Fundamentals of Physics. The findings show that the use of an AG significantly affected students’ scientific written arguments, specifically in proposing a claim-reasoning-evidence (CRE) structure. The student participants found that using an AG in reading activities was challenging but interesting because they had to find evidence in the texts to support their initial statements regarding what they thought. We also discuss the implications of this study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Data supporting the findings are available upon request to the corresponding author.
References
Adams, A. E., Pegg, J., & Case, M. (2015). Anticipation guides: reading for mathematics understanding. The Mathematics Teacher, 108(7), 498–504. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacher.108.7.0498
Barton, M. L., Heidema, C., & Jordan, D. (2002). Teaching reading in mathematics and science. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 24–29.
Brown, N. J. S., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010). The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15(3–4), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2010.530551
Bybee, R., McCrae, B., & Laurie, R. (2009). PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865–883. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20333
Cano, F., García, Á., Berbén, A. B. G., & Justicia, F. (2014). Science learning: A path analysis of its links with reading comprehension, question-asking in class and science achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1710–1732. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.876678
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. Routledge.
Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 687–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019452
Deng, Y., Kelly, G. J., & Deng, S. (2019). The influences of integrating reading, peer evaluation, and discussion on undergraduate students’ scientific writing. International Journal of Science Education, 41(10), 1408–1433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1610811
Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms (pp. 47–69). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_3
Fang, Z., Lamme, L., Pringle, R., Patrick, J., Sanders, J., Zmach, C., Charbonnet, S., & Henkel, M. (2008). Integrating reading into middle school science: what we did, found and learned. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 2067–2089. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701644266
Fenty, N. S. (2019). Using anticipation guides to support comprehension of science informational text. Intervention in School and Clinic, 54(3), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451218767902
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Sodian, B., Hussmann, H., Pekrun, R., Neuhaus, B., Dorner, B., Pankofer, S., & Fischer, M. (2014). Scientific reasoning and argumentation: advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Frontline Learning Research, 2(3), 28–45.
Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024338
Giancoli, D. C. (2004). Physics: Principles with applications. Prentice Hall New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1057–1073. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310915
Hall, C. S. (2016). Inference instruction for struggling readers: a synthesis of intervention research. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9295-x
Hoffman, J. L., Collins, M. F., & Schickedanz, J. A. (2015). Instructional challenges in developing young children’s science concepts. The Reading Teacher, 68(5), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1325
King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing and note taking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303–323. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312029002303
Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395
Lazarou, D., & Erduran, S. (2021). “Evaluate what i was taught, not what you expected me to know”: evaluating students’ arguments based on science teachers’ adaptations to Toulmin’s argument pattern. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(3), 306–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1820663
Mateos, M., Cuevas, I., Martín, E., Martín, A., Echeita, G., & Luna, M. (2011). Reading to write an argumentation: the role of epistemological, reading and writing beliefs. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01437.x
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2011). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Pearson.
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
Merkley, D. J. (1996). Modified anticipation guide. The Reading Teacher, 50(4), 365–368.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Michalsky, T. (2013). Integrating skills and wills instruction in self-regulated science text reading for secondary students. International Journal of Science Education, 35(11), 1846–1873. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.805890
Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Allen, E., Baszczewski, S., Swearingen, A., Wei, L., & Butler, A. M. (2018). Fostering high school students’ conceptual understanding and argumentation performance in science through Quality Talk discussions. Science Education, 102(6), 1239–1264. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21471
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
Norris, S., Philips, L., & Osborne, J. (2007). Scientific inquiry: The place of interpretation and argumentation. In J. Luft, R. L. Bell, & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as inquiry in the secondary setting (87–98). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
NRC (National Research Council). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington , D.C.: National Academies Press.
Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: a necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20438
Osborne, J. F., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S.-Y. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 821–846. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21316
Park, M., & Sung, Y.-K. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of the recent curriculum reforms and their implementation: what can we learn from the case of Korean elementary teachers? Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(1), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2012.756391
Patterson, A., Roman, D., Friend, M., Osborne, J., & Donovan, B. (2018). Reading for meaning: the foundational knowledge every teacher of science should have. International Journal of Science Education, 40(3), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1416205
Pegg, J., & Adams, A. (2012). Reading for claims and evidence: using anticipation guides in science. Science Scope, 36(2), 74.
Rojas Rojas, S. P., Meneses, A., & Sánchez Miguel, E. (2019). Teachers’ scaffolding science reading comprehension in low-income schools: how to improve achievement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 41(13), 1827–1847. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1641855
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21037
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(3), 447–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
Shemwell, J. T., Gwarjanski, K. R., Capps, D. K., Avargil, S., & Meyer, J. L. (2015). Supporting teachers to attend to generalisation in science classroom argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(4), 599–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.1000428
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
Smith, B. L., Holliday, W. G., & Austin, H. W. (2010). Students’ comprehension of science textbooks using a question-based reading strategy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20378
Tang, K.-S., & Danielsson, K. (2018). The expanding development of literacy research in science education around the world. In Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education (pp. 1–11). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8_1
Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Edwards, S., & Wu, L. (2009). Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns. Aslib Proceedings, 61(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910932267
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
van Lacum, E., Ossevoort, M., Buikema, H., & Goedhart, M. (2012). First experiences with reading primary literature by undergraduate life science students. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1795–1821. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.582654
Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358
Yang, F.-Y., Chang, C.-C., Chen, L.-L., & Chen, Y.-C. (2016). Exploring learners’ beliefs about science reading and scientific epistemic beliefs, and their relations with science text understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 38(10), 1591–1606. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1200763
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Some ethnic groups in Indonesia do not have family names. Further information about the Indonesian naming system can be found at the following link. https://www.ibtimes.com/sukarno-suharto-megawati-why-do-some-indonesians-have-only-one-name-1408204
Appendices
Appendix 1: Anticipation Guides—Form (Translated) [Electrical Charge and Electric Field]
-
Prior/before reading
Decide whether the statements of contents below are true or false. In the column of the statements of what I think, place a T (true) or an F (false). You must take a decision. Do not leave any blank.
-
During reading
Underline evidence for any statements of contents that was found in the texts.
-
After reading
Review your evidence and place a T (true) or an F (false) in the column of what the texts say and you must write evidence or more that has the same or against meaning to the statements of the contents. You also must write page number and number of rows of evidence location.
No | Statement of content | What I think | What the texts say | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | The charge of an object is quantized in which an object can have a charge of 1/3 of the charge of an electron | F | The electrical charges have to be quantized that means they are discrete such as 1e, 2e, 3e, and so on [lines 21–23, p. 8] | |
2 | If an object suddenly has a positive charge, there are other objects with a negative charge around it | T | The number of total charges that is produced in each process are zero [line 44, p. 3] | |
3 | Two different point charges separated at a certain distance will exert the same electric force | T | The equation of Coulomb’s law shows the third Newton law which two different point charges have to have same quantity [lines 8–10, p. 10] | |
4 | The magnitude of the force of two identical point charges 1C separated by 1 m is equal to the magnitude of weight of the object with a mass of 1000 g | F | The formula of Coulomb’s law is F = kQ1Q2/r2, which is k = 9.109 Nm2/C2 [line 25, p. 10]. The weight of the object is represented by mg, which is g = 9.8 Nm2/kg2 [line 30, p. 10] | |
5 | The presence of an electric field from the source charge can be tested by placing the test charge around the source charge | T | We can investigate electric field around charge source by measuring the electrical force of a positive test charge placed around this charge [lines 25–26, p. 13] | |
… |
-
Write scientific argumentation for a problem below
An undergraduate student found the data of two different point charges. The data can be seen in the table below.
Charge | Type of charge | Amount of charge | Mass |
|---|---|---|---|
A | Negative | e | m |
B | Positive | e | 1000 m |
Write a scientific written argumentation (i.e. CER) that states what would happen to charge A if placed around charge B?
Appendix 2: Example of Written Argument Test Questions (Translated) [Electricity and Magnetism]
-
1.
[Dimmer or brighter] A student arranges an electrical circuit by installing 4 identical lamps, namely A, B, C, and D. The circuit has a voltage source V as seen in the picture.
If the lamp B is removed from the circuit, the other lamps will still be lit.
Write a scientific written argument (i.e. CRE) that states whether the light bulb A will light up brighter, stay the same, or dimmer than the condition before light bulb B was removed.
-
2.
[Motion of charge] The figure below shows charges A and B moving with constant initial velocity. The data of these charges are presented in the table.
Write a scientific written argument (i.e. CRE) that states whether each charge will keep moving straight or not.
Appendix 3: List of Interview Questions Related to the Use of Anticipation Guides (Translated)
-
1.
Do you think the use of AG in physics course can improve your understanding or knowledge in physics concepts? Why?
-
2.
Do you can explain how do the components of AG assist you to improve your acquisition of new knowledge? Why?
-
3.
Do you think the use of AG can support to capability in proposing written arguments? Why?
-
4.
What are the most difficult components in AG when you read the texts using an AG? Why?
-
5.
Do you think your experience in using AG can assist the way you learn independently?
-
6.
How are your feelings when you used an AG during learning process? Please explain.
Appendix 4: a Rubric Framework to Score Students’ Written Arguments
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Gumilar, S., Hadianto, D., Widodo, A. et al. The Use of Anticipation Guides in Reading Activities to Support College Students in Developing Scientific Written Arguments. Sci & Educ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00484-x
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00484-x