Students’ Written Arguments in General Chemistry Laboratory Investigations

This study aimed to examine the written arguments developed by college freshman students using the Science Writing Heuristic approach in inquiry-based general chemistry laboratory classrooms and its relationships with students’ achievement in chemistry courses. Fourteen freshman students participated in the first year of the study while 19 freshman students participated in the second year of the study. Two frameworks, an analytical and a holistic argument framework, were developed to evaluate the written argument generated by students. The analytical framework scored each argument component separately and allocated a Total Argument score while the holistic framework evaluated the arguments holistically. Three hundred and sixty-eight samples from 33 students were evaluated. Stepwise regression analyses revealed that the evidence and the claims–evidence relationship components were identified as the most important predictors of the Total Argument and the Holistic Argument scores. Students’ argument scores were positively correlated with their achievement, as measured by the final grade received for the general chemistry laboratory and the general chemistry lecture course.     

Examining Elementary Students’ Development of Oral and Written Argumentation Practices Through Argument-Based Inquiry

Argumentation, and the production of scientific arguments are critical elements of inquiry that are necessary for helping students become scientifically literate through engaging them in constructing and critiquing ideas. This case study employed a mixed methods research design to examine the development in 5th grade students’ practices of oral and written argumentation from one unit to another over 16 weeks utilizing the science writing heuristic approach. Data sources included five rounds of whole-class discussion focused on group presentations of arguments that occurred over eleven class periods; students’ group writings; interviews with six target students and the teacher; and the researcher’s field notes. The results revealed five salient trends in students’ development of oral and written argumentative practices over time: (1) Students came to use more critique components as they participated in more rounds of whole-class discussion focused on group presentations of arguments; (2) by challenging each other’s arguments, students came to focus on the coherence of the argument and the quality of evidence; (3) students came to use evidence to defend, support, and reject arguments; (4) the quality of students’ writing continuously improved over time; and (5) students connected oral argument skills to written argument skills as they had opportunities to revise their writing after debating and developed awareness of the usefulness of critique from peers. Given the development in oral argumentative practices and the quality of written arguments over time, this study indicates that students’ development of oral and written argumentative practices is positively related to each other. This study suggests that argumentative practices should be framed through both a social and epistemic understanding of argument-utilizing talk and writing as vehicles to create norms of these complex practices.     

Editorial

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of scientific arguments developed by pre-service physics teachers.

Sample: The participants were 171 pre-service physics teachers recruited from two universities: 86 from University A and 85 from University B.

Design and method: Participants were prompted to develop a written argument to either support or challenge the Turkish government’s decision to invest in nuclear power plants. Data consist of written arguments developed by the participants and information on participants’ knowledge of the topic, their confidence in their knowledge and the source of their knowledge related to the topic. Data were analyzed using the CER framework.

Results: The results show that participants did not perform at the expected level. The majority of students failed to develop strong scientific arguments. While almost all of the participants provided evidence to justify their claims, they failed to effectively coordinate evidence, claim and theory to develop an argument. Students struggled the most in the warrant/reasoning category of the CER framework. We also identified several misconceptions that students held related to nuclear power plants.

Conclusions: In our discussion we problematize college science teaching and advocate integration of instructional strategies such as argumentation that can effectively engage students in construction, evaluation and justification of knowledge.     

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

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.     

Social perspective taking: a benefit of bilingualism in academic writing

The task of writing arguments requires a linguistic and cognitive sophistication that eludes many adults, but students in the US are expected to produce texts that articulate and support a claim—simple written arguments—starting in the fourth grade. Students from language-minority homes likewise must learn to produce such writing, despite their relatively limited experience with the English language, reflected in the availability of smaller mental lexicons and more restricted syntactic constructions. Yet some features of bilingual children’s cognition, such as precocious development of theory of mind and strong metalinguistic awareness, might support the crafting of arguments in writing, where the explicit consideration of multiple points of view can serve to strengthen one’s case for a claim. In this study we examine the incidence of social perspective-taking acts in the argumentative essays of language-minority and English-only students in Grades 4–6 and find that language-minority students match or surpass the English-only students on two critical measures of perspective taking (perspective acknowledgment and perspective articulation). We also explore possible links between students’ use of perspective taking in their argumentative essays and a validated formal measure of the same skill, uncovering different relationships between them in the two language groups. Links to previously attested bilingual advantages and to the development of argumentation are discussed.     

Experimental evidence for diagramming benefits in science writing

Arguing for the need for a scientific research study (i.e. writing an introduction to a research paper) poses significant challenges for students. When faced with these challenges, students often generate overly safe replications (i.e. fail to find and include opposition to their hypothesis) or in contrast include no strong support for their hypothesis (i.e. relevant, valid evidence). How can we support novice scientists in generating and defending high quality hypotheses? A long history of research supports the affordances provided by structured representations of complex information. More recently, argument diagramming has gained traction in instruction for philosophy, social studies, and law. However, its effectiveness for supporting students in science is relatively untested. The purpose of the current study was to test the effectiveness of a simple argument diagram optimized for supporting students’ research writing in psychology. Two groups of undergraduate students in research methods lab courses were randomly assigned to diagramming support or no support. In the research papers, those given diagramming support were more likely to argue for an appropriately ‘risky’ hypothesis and wrote more about the relevance and validity of cited studies. Some of these gains show signs of transfer to a second paper written later in the course that did not require use of the diagramming tool.     

The Use and Effectiveness of an Argumentation and Evaluation Intervention in Science Classes

This study explored teachers’ use of the Argumentation and Evaluation Intervention (AEI) and associated graphic organizer to enhance the performance of students in middle and secondary science classrooms. The results reported here are from the third year of a design study during which the procedures were developed in collaboration with teachers. A quasi-experimental pretest–posttest design with 8 experimental and 8 control teachers was used with a total of 282 students. An open-ended test assessed students’ abilities to evaluate a scientific argument made in an article. The students were asked to identify the claim and its qualifiers, identify and evaluate the evidence given for the claim, examine the reasoning in support of the claim, consider counterarguments, and construct and explain a conclusion about the claim. The quality of students’ responses was assessed using a scoring rubric for each step of the argumentation process. Findings indicated a significantly higher overall score and large effect size in favor of students who were instructed using the AEI compared to students who received traditional lecture–discussion instruction. Subgroup and subscale scores are also presented. Teacher satisfaction and student satisfaction and confidence levels are reported.     

Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science

This study investigated the potential of students' written and oral questions both as an epistemic probe and heuristic for initiating collaborative argumentation in science. Four classes of students, aged 12–14 years from two countries, were asked to discuss which of two graphs best represented the change in temperature as ice was heated to steam. The discussion was initiated by asking questions about the phenomenon. Working in groups (with members who had differing viewpoints) and guided by a set of question prompts, an argument sheet, and an argument diagram, students discussed contrasting arguments. One group of students from each class was audiotaped. The number of questions written, the concepts addressed, and the quality of written arguments were then scored. A positive correlation between these factors was found. Discourse analysis showed that the initial focus on questions prompted students to articulate their puzzlement; make explicit their claims and (mis)conceptions; identify and relate relevant key concepts; construct explanations; and consider alternative propositions when their ideas were challenged. Productive argumentation was characterized by students' questions which focused on key ideas of inquiry, a variety of scientific concepts, and which made explicit reference to the structural components of an argument. These findings suggest that supporting students in productive discourse is aided by scaffolding student questioning, teaching the criteria for a good argument, and providing a structure that helps them to organize and verbalize their arguments. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47:883–908, 2010     

Synergy Between Teacher Practices and Curricular Scaffolds to Support Students in Using Domain-Specific and Domain-General Knowledge in Writing Arguments to Explain Phenomena

We investigated how 2 different curricular scaffolds (context-specific vs. generic), teacher instructional practices, and the interaction between these 2 types of support influenced students' learning of science content and their ability to write scientific arguments to explain phenomena. The context-specific scaffolds provided students with hints about the task and what content knowledge to use in or incorporate into their writing. The generic scaffolds supported students in understanding a general framework (i.e., claim, evidence, and reasoning) regardless of the content area or task. This study focused on an 8-week middle school chemistry curriculum that was enacted by 6 teachers with 578 students during the 2004–2005 school year. Analyses of identical pre- and posttests as well as videotapes of teacher enactments revealed that the curricular scaffolds and teacher instructional practices were synergistic in that the effect of the written curricular scaffolds depended on the teacher's enactment of the curriculum. The context-specific curricular scaffolds were more successful in supporting students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena, but only when teachers' enactments provided explicit domain-general support for the claim, evidence, and reasoning framework, suggesting the importance of both types of support in successful learning environments.     

Using automatic image processing to analyze visual artifacts created by students in scientific argumentation

Science classes should support students' development of scientific argumentation. While previous studies have analyzed argumentative texts, they have overlooked the ways in which other types of representations, including images, affect the production of such texts. In addition, studies into the use of visual images in science education have offered mostly qualitative analyses. To fill these gaps in the research, this study used techniques of automated image processing to extract relevant information from student-generated visual artifacts. Specifically, it used a series of image-processing algorithms to automatically extract and quantify features of images created by students to serve as evidence in support of scientific arguments. Using various statistical analyses, we identified the relationships between the extracted features and the students' performance levels in constructing scientific arguments. The results revealed that the presence of water in a student's image correlated significantly with that student's claim and explanation scores and that the amount of water present in a student's image correlated significantly with that student's claim score, but not with their explanation score. These results indicate that automatic image processing can successfully identify image features that affect students' performance in scientific argumentation. Using this analysis as an example, we discuss implications for incorporating automated image processing into further research into scientific argumentation and the development of automated feedback.     

Supporting Argumentation Through Students' Questions: Case Studies in Science Classrooms

This study explores how student-generated questions can support argumentation in science. Students were asked to discuss which of two graphs showing the change in temperature with time when ice is heated to steam was correct. Four classes of students, aged 12–14 years, from two countries, first wrote questions about the phenomenon. Then, working in groups with members who differed in their views, they discussed possible answers. To help them structure their arguments, students were given a sheet with prompts to guide their thinking and another sheet on which to represent their argument diagrammatically. One group of students from each class was audiotaped. Data from both students' written work and the taped oral discourse were then analyzed for types of questions asked, the content and function of their talk, and the quality of arguments elicited. To illustrate the dynamic interaction between students' questions and the evolution of their arguments, the discourse of one group is presented as a case study and comparative analyses made with the discourse from the other three groups. Emerging from our analysis is a tentative explanatory model of how different forms of interaction and, in particular, questioning are needed for productive argumentation to occur.     

Providing written feedback on students’ mathematical arguments: proof validations of prospective secondary mathematics teachers

Mathematics teachers play a unique role as experts who provide opportunities for students to engage in the practices of the mathematics community. Proof is a tool essential to the practice of mathematics, and therefore, if teachers are to provide adequate opportunities for students to engage with this tool, they must be able to validate student arguments and provide feedback to students based on those validations. Prior research has demonstrated several weaknesses teachers have with respect to proof validation, but little research has investigated instructional sequences aimed to improve this skill. In this article, we present the results from the implementation of such an instructional sequence. A sample of 34 prospective secondary mathematics teachers (PSMTs) validated twelve mathematical arguments written by high school students. They provided a numeric score as well as a short paragraph of written feedback, indicating the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. The results provide insight into the errors to which PSMTs attend when validating mathematical arguments. In particular, PSMTs’ written feedback indicated that they were aware of the limitations of inductive argumentation. However, PSMTs had a superficial understanding of the “proof by contradiction” mode of argumentation, and their attendance to particular errors seemed to be mediated by the mode of argument representation (e.g., symbolic, verbal). We discuss implications of these findings for mathematics teacher education.     

Identifying patterns in students’ scientific argumentation: content analysis through text mining using Latent Dirichlet Allocation

Constructing scientific arguments is an important practice for students because it helps them to make sense of data using scientific knowledge and within the conceptual and experimental boundaries of an investigation. In this study, we used a text mining method called Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) to identify underlying patterns in students written scientific arguments about a complex scientific phenomenon called Albedo Effect. We further examined how identified patterns compare to existing frameworks related to explaining evidence to support claims and attributing sources of uncertainty. LDA was applied to electronically stored arguments written by 2472 students and concerning how decreases in sea ice affect global temperatures. The results indicated that each content topic identified in the explanations by the LDA— “data only,” “reasoning only,” “data and reasoning combined,” “wrong reasoning types,” and “restatement of the claim”—could be interpreted using the claim–evidence–reasoning framework. Similarly, each topic identified in the students’ uncertainty attributions— “self-evaluations,” “personal sources related to knowledge and experience,” and “scientific sources related to reasoning and data”—could be interpreted using the taxonomy of uncertainty attribution. These results indicate that LDA can serve as a tool for content analysis that can discover semantic patterns in students’ scientific argumentation in particular science domains and facilitate teachers’ providing help to students.

     

Articulating the validity evidence for a science alternate assessment

Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (SCD) are the 1% of the total student population who have a disability or multiple disabilities that significantly impact intellectual functioning and adaptive behaviors and who require individualized instruction and substantial supports. Historically, these students have received little instruction in science and the science assessments they have participated in have not included age‐appropriate science content. Guided by a theory of action for a new assessment system, an eight‐state consortium developed multidimensional alternate content standards and alternate assessments in science for students in three grade bands (3–5, 6–8, 9–12) that are linked to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013 ) and A Framework for K‐12 Science Education (Framework; National Research Council, 2012 ). The great variability within the population of students with SCD necessitates variability in the assessment content, which creates inherent challenges in establishing technical quality. To address this issue, a primary feature of this assessment system is the use of hypothetical cognitive models to provide a structure for variability in assessed content. System features and subsequent validity studies were guided by a theory of action that explains how the proposed claims about score interpretation and use depend on specific assumptions about the assessment, as well as precursors to the assessment. This paper describes evidence for the main claim that test scores represent what students know and can do. We present validity evidence for the assumptions about the assessment and its precursors, related to this main claim. The assessment was administered to over 21,000 students in eight states in 2015–2016. We present selected evidence from system components, procedural evidence, and validity studies. We evaluate the validity argument and demonstrate how it supports the claim about score interpretation and use.     

Quality, Evolution, and Positional Change of University Students’ Argumentation Patterns About Organic Agriculture During an Argument–Critique–Argument Experience

The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality, evolution, and position of university students’ argumentation about organic agriculture over a 4-week argument–critique–argument e-learning experience embedded in a first year university biology course. The participants (N??=??43) were classified into three groups based on their epistemological views. Data collected from individual arguments, group deliberations, and individual critiques were coded and analyzed to establish the quality and evolution of argumentation. Results indicated significant improvement in the quality of their justifications between the first and second arguments. Post-hoc comparison of epistemological groups indicated that the more constructivist-oriented students had a greater significant evolution of their justifications than the more empiricist-oriented students, but there was no significant main effect for epistemological orientation. Qualitative analysis of the intervening critiques indicated that some students incorporated or used other students’ arguments or counter-arguments to change their position or to enhance the justification of their original position on organic agriculture, while others appeared to be locked into a confirmation-bias stance and search for evidence that supported their original position and disregarded contradictory evidence.     

The Roles of Representations and Tools in the Chemistry Laboratory and Their Implications for Chemistry Learning

In this historical and observational study, we describe how scientists use representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory, and we derive implications from these findings for the design of educational environments. In our observations we found that chemists use representations and tools to mediate between the physical substances that they study and the aperceptual chemical entities and processes that underlie and account for the material qualities of these physical substances. There are 2 important, interrelated aspects of this mediational process: the material and the social. The 1st emphasizes the surface features of both physical phenomena and symbolic representations, features that can be perceived and manipulated. The 2nd underscores the inherently semiotic, rhetorical process whereby chemists claim that representations stand for unseen entities and processes. In elaborating on our analyses, we ? Examine the historical origins and contemporary practices of representation use in one particular domain-chemistry-to look at how developments in the design of representations advance the development of a scientific community, as well as the understanding of scientists engaged in laboratory practice. ? Examine representations spontaneously generated by chemists, as well as those generated by their tools or instruments, and look at how scientists-individually and collaboratively-coordinate these 2 types of representations with the material substances of their investigations to understand the structures and processes that underlie them. ? Draw implications from the study of scientists to make recommendations for the design of learning environments and symbol systems that can support the use of representations by students to understand the structures and processes that underlie their scientific investigations and to engage them in the practices of knowledge-building communities.     

Testing one premise of scientific inquiry in science classrooms: Examining students' scientific explanations and student learning

In this study, we analyzed the quality of students' written scientific explanations found in notebooks and explored the link between the quality of the explanations and students' learning. We propose an approach to systematically analyzing and scoring the quality of students' explanations based on three components: claim, evidence to support it, and a reasoning that justifies the link between the claim and the evidence. We collected students' science notebooks from eight science inquiry‐based middle‐school classrooms in five states. All classrooms implemented the same scientific‐inquiry based curriculum. The study focuses on one of the implemented investigations and the students' explanations that resulted from it. Nine students' notebooks were selected within each classroom. Therefore, a total of 72 students' notebooks were analyzed and scored using the proposed approach. Quality of students' explanations was linked with students' performance in different types of assessments administered as the end‐of‐unit test: multiple‐choice test, predict‐observe‐explain, performance assessment, and a short open‐ended question. Results indicated that: (a) Students' written explanations can be reliably scored with the proposed approach. (b) Constructing explanations were not widely implemented in the classrooms studied despite its significance in the context of inquiry‐based science instruction. (c) Overall, a low percentage of students (18%) provided explanations with the three expected components. The majority of the sample (40%) provided only claims without any supporting data or reasoning. And (d) the magnitude of the correlations between students' quality of explanations and their performance, were all positive but varied in magnitude according to the type of assessment. We concluded that engaging students in the construction of high quality explanations may be related to higher levels of student performance. The opportunities to construct explanations in science‐inquiry based classrooms, however, seem to be limited. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47: 583–608, 2010     

Developing an Initial Learning Progression for the Use of Evidence in Decision-Making Contexts

This paper outlines an initial learning progression for the use of evidence to support scientific arguments in the context of decision-making. Use of evidence is a central feature of knowledge evaluation and, therefore, of argumentation. The proposal is based on the literature on argumentation and use of evidence in decision-making contexts. The objective is to develop a construct map describing a trajectory of evidence use in a decision-making context. The levels in the initial learning progression are characterised by students’ performance in practice. The framework is applied to a multiple-case study in 10th grade (66 students), structured around a marine resource management task. Data included audio and video recordings, as well as students’ written artefacts. Five levels of complexity in student performance are described; on the lowest level, students are able to identify and extract information in response to a problem and recognise general features in a set of data; on the uppermost level, they are able to articulate arguments by synthesising evidence from multiple sources and evaluate options based on evidence and scientific content. The framework also shows potential for recognising students’ difficulties in identifying and integrating data and evidence in their justifications and in drawing from domain knowledge to interpret evidence. Implications for educational practice are discussed.     

On fractions and non-standard representations: Pre-service teachers' concepts

The present study examined the reasoning strategies and arguments given by pre-service school teachers as they solved two problems regarding fractions in different symbolic representations. In the first problem, the pre-service school teachers were asked to compare between two different fractions having the same numerical representation, and in the second problem, they were asked to compare between different notational representations of the same fraction. Numeration systems in bases other than ten were used to generate various representations of fractions. All students were asked to provide justifications to their responses. Strategies and arguments relative to pre-service teachers' concepts of fractions and place value were identified and analyzed based on results of 38 individual clinical interviews, and written responses of 124 students. It was found that the majority of students believe that fractions change their numerical value under different symbolic representations.