‘Does it answer the question or is it French fries?’: an exploration of language supports for scientific argumentation

ABSTRACT

Reform initiatives around the world are reconceptualising science education by stressing student engagement in science practices. Yet, science practices are language-intensive, requiring students to have strong receptive and productive language proficiencies. It is critical to address these rigorous language demands to ensure equitable learning opportunities for all students, including English language learners (ELLs). Little research has examined how to specifically support ELL students’ engagement in science practices, such as argumentation. Using case-study methodology, we examined one middle school science teacher's instructional strategies as she taught an argumentation-focused curriculum in a self-contained ELL classroom. Findings revealed that three trends characterized the teacher’s language supports for the structural and dialogic components of argumentation: (1) more language supports focused on argument structure, (2) dialogic interactions were most often facilitated by productive language supports, and (3) some language supports offered a rationale for argumentation. Findings suggest a need to identify and develop supports for the dialogic aspects of argumentation. Furthermore, engaging students in argumentation through productive language functions could be leveraged to support dialogic interactions. Lastly, our work points to the need for language supports that make the rationale for argumentation explicit since such transparency could further increase access for all students.     

Organising a culture of argumentation in elementary science

ABSTRACT

Most of the research on argumentation in science education has documented the myriad flaws in students’ argumentation, and the difficulties teachers have organising productive arguments in the classroom. We apply a sociocultural framework to argue that productive argumentation emerges from a classroom culture in which its practice meaningfully serves classroom goals. We present a case study using interaction analysis to contrast two elementary teachers’ efforts to organise productive scientific argumentation in their classrooms. One teacher used discourse moves to orient students to each other’s contributions in ways the other did not, reflecting differences in underlying aims for collective versus individual sense-making. This analysis shows that connecting discourse practices specifically to a goal of collective sense-making promotes productive argumentation.     

Students’ Argumentation Skills across Two Socio-Scientific Issues in a Confucian Classroom: Is transfer possible?

This paper argues the possible simultaneous development and transfer of students' argumentation skills from one socio-scientific issue to another in a Confucian classroom. In Malaysia, the Chinese vernacular schools follow a strict Confucian philosophy in the teaching and learning process. The teacher talks and the students listen. This case study explored the transfer of argumentation skills across two socio-scientific issues in such a Form 2 (8th grade) classroom. An instructional support to complement the syllabus was utilised. The teaching approach in the instructional support was more constructivist in nature and designed to introduce argumentation skills which is uncommon in a Confucian classroom. The two socio-scientific issues were genetically modified foods and deforestation. This paper presents a part of the bigger case study that was conducted. Data collected from written arguments were analysed using an analytical framework built upon Toulmin's ideas. The whole class analysis indicated progression in students' argumentation skills in their ability to give more valid grounds and rebuttals during the transfer. The individual analysis suggests progression in the majority of students' performance, while several students demonstrated non-progression when they faced a different socio-scientific issue.     

Teachers' framing of argumentation goals: Working together to develop individual versus communal understanding

For students to meaningfully engage in science practices, substantive changes need to occur to deeply entrenched instructional approaches, particularly those related to classroom discourse. Because teachers are critical in establishing how students are permitted to interact in the classroom, it is imperative to examine their role in fostering learning environments in which students carry out science practices. This study explores how teachers describe, or frame, expectations for classroom discussions pertaining to the science practice of argumentation. Specifically, we use the theoretical lens of a participation framework to examine how teachers emphasize particular actions and goals for their students' argumentation. Multiple-case study methodology was used to explore the relationship between two middle school teachers' framing for argumentation, and their students' engagement in an argumentation discussion. Findings revealed that, through talk moves and physical actions, both teachers emphasized the importance of students driving the argumentation and interacting with peers, resulting in students engaging in various types of dialogic interactions. However, variation in the two teachers' language highlighted different purposes for students to do so. One teacher explained that through these interactions, students could learn from peers, which could result in each individual student revising their original argument. The other teacher articulated that by working with peers and sharing ideas, classroom members would develop a communal understanding. These distinct goals aligned with different patterns in students' argumentation discussion, particularly in relation to students building on each other's ideas, which occurred more frequently in the classroom focused on communal understanding. The findings suggest the need to continue supporting teachers in developing and using rich instructional strategies to help students with dialogic interactions related to argumentation. This work also sheds light on the importance of how teachers frame the goals for student engagement in this science practice.     

Complexity of Secondary Scientific Data Sources and Students’ Argumentative Discourse

This study examined the learning opportunities provided to students through the use of complex geological data supporting scientific inquiry. Through analysis of argumentative discourse in a high school Earth science classroom, uses of US Geological Survey (USGS) data were contrasted with uses of geoscience textbook data. To examine these differences, we conducted a review of frameworks for argumentation analysis, and through adaptation to the research foci of this study, developed a new analytic approach. Applying this approach to student classroom discourse revealed the affordances and constraints of both the complex USGS datasets and the filtered textbook data sources. The challenges of teaching with complex data are presented.     

Professional development in classroom discussion to improve argumentation: Teacher and student outcomes

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a year-long professional development program in classroom discussion designed to improve students' argumentation skills in language arts classes. Twenty-six fifth-grade teachers and their 471 students at two research sites participated: 14 teachers in the experimental condition, who received the professional development, and 12 teachers in the comparison condition. Results showed that the professional development led to statistically significant improvements in the quality of teachers' facilitation and student argumentation during discussions, and in students' performance on individual argumentative reading and writing tasks following the discussions, at the end of the year. Findings suggest that the professional development for teachers resulted in strengthened student abilities to connect positions with relevant reasons and evidence, and that argumentation skills acquired in the discussions may have transferred to students’ individual argumentation, at least for reading outcomes.     

课堂争论对学生深度学习的影响:基于交互论证分析

课堂话语互动与学习辩证地联接在一起。学习科学的新发展要求不应仅仅研究课堂话语互动环境与结果,更需要实时分析课堂话语互动过程。交互论证分析超越了传统的静态的图尔敏论证模式,能够动态地实时分析课堂话语互动。基于此,本研究聚焦于争论这一典型的课堂话语互动形式,借助交互论证分析,对研究案例进行三步骤分析,不但揭示了学生话语互动中所运用的交互形式,阐明了话语互动质量,而且清晰地描绘了课堂话语互动如何促进个体的深度学习,学生个体的意义构建如何影响小组论断形成,以及作为机构代表的教师如何促进学生的学习。研究表明课堂争论有效促进了学生的深度学习,同时也进一步指出构建新型的教师角色的必要性。     

Collaborative discourse,argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review

This article serves two functions. First, it addresses why studying collaborative discourse and collaborative argumentation is important for promoting students’ deep-level understanding of content. A literature review is presented examining the evidence for this claim, concluding that engaging in collaborative discourse and argumentation might have long-term effects in consolidating learning gains. Second, the various articles in this special issue are introduced. The articles address important directions for research, including (a) how to promote pedagogically useful collaborative discourse in the classroom and in workplace setting (for example by modeling and soliciting elaborative discourse moves or by engendering “polite” behavioral norms), (b) understanding the role of joint representations and mental models in collaborative discourse, and (c) methodological difficulties with analyzing nonindependent and categorical data. The importance for educational psychologists in understanding the interaction of cognitive and social processes is highlighted.     

Teacher Roles of Questioning in Early Elementary Science Classrooms: A Framework Promoting Student Cognitive Complexities in Argumentation

The purpose of this study was to investigate the various roles that early elementary teachers adopt when questioning, to scaffold dialogic interaction and students’ cognitive responses for argumentative practices over time. Teacher questioning is a pivotal contributing factor that shapes the role teachers play in promoting dialogic interaction in argumentative practice and that different roles serve different functions for promoting students’ conceptual understanding. The multiple-case study was designed as a follow-up study after a 4-year professional development program that emphasized an argument-based inquiry approach. Data sources included 30 lessons focusing on whole class discussion from three early elementary teachers’ classes. Data were analyzed through two approaches: (1) constant comparative method and (2) enumerative approach. This study conceptualized four critical roles of teacher questioning—dispenser, moderator, coach, and participant—in light of the ownership of ideas and activities. The findings revealed two salient changes in teachers’ use of questions and the relationships between teachers’ question-asking and students’ cognitive responses: (1) teachers increasingly used multiple roles in establishing argumentative discourse as they persistently implemented an argument-based inquiry approach, and (2) as teachers used multiple roles in establishing patterns of questioning and framing classroom interactions, higher levels of student cognitive responses were promoted. This study suggests that an essential component of teacher professional development should include the study of the various roles that teachers can play when questioning for establishing dialogic interaction in argumentation and that this development should consist of ongoing training with systematic support.     

Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation Instruction in the Context of Socioscientific Issues: An effect on student learning and transfer

The purpose of the study was two-fold: to (a) investigate the influence of explicit nature of science (NOS) and explicit argumentation instruction in the context of a socioscientific issue on the argumentation skills and NOS understandings of students, and (b) explore the transfer of students' NOS understandings and argumentation skills learned in one socioscientific context into other similar contexts (familiar and unfamiliar). Participants were a total of 121 seventh grade students from two schools. The treatment involved an eight-week unit about the water usage and safety, which was taught by two teachers for two intact groups (Treatments I and II). Explicit NOS instruction was integrated for all groups. However, only the Treatment I groups had the additional explicit argumentation instruction. Participants were pre- and post-tested using an open-ended questionnaire and interviews about two socioscientific issues to assess their learning and transfer of argumentation skills and NOS understandings. Results showed improvements in the learning of argumentation practice and NOS understandings for Treatment I group participants. Similarly, there were improvements in the learning and transfer of NOS understandings for Treatment II group participants with only some improvements for the argumentation practice. Further, some of the Treatment I group participants made connections to argumentation when explicating their NOS understandings by the end of the study. Findings were discussed in light of classroom practice that utilizes an explicit approach, contextual approach, as well as an approach that integrates NOS and argumentation simultaneously.     

Supporting Teachers to Attend to Generalisation in Science Classroom Argumentation

In scientific arguments, claims must have meaning that extends beyond the immediate circumstances of an investigation. That is, claims must be generalised in some way. Therefore, teachers facilitating classroom argumentation must be prepared to support students’ efforts to construct or criticise generalised claims. However, widely used argumentation support tools, for instance, the claim-evidence-reasoning (CER) framework, tend not to address generalisation. Accordingly, teachers using these kinds of tools may not be prepared to help their students negotiate issues of generalisation in arguments. We investigated this possibility in a study of professional development activities of 18 middle school teachers using CER. We compared the teachers’ approach to generalisation when using a published version of CER to their approach when using an alternate form of CER that increased support for generalisation. In several different sessions, the teachers: (1) responded to survey questions when using CER, (2) critiqued student arguments, (3) used both CER and alternate CER to construct arguments, and (4) discussed the experience of using CER and alternate CER. When using the standard CER, the teachers did not explicitly attend to generalisation in student arguments or in their own arguments. With alternate CER, the teachers generalised their own arguments, and they acknowledged the need for generalisation in student arguments. We concluded that teachers using frameworks for supporting scientific argumentation could benefit from more explicit support for generalisation than CER provides. More broadly, we concluded that generalisation deserves increased attention as a pedagogical challenge within classroom scientific argumentation.     

Community of Infancy: Suspending the Sovereignty of the Teacher's Voice

While some argue that the only way to make a place for Philosophy for Children (P4C) in today's strict, standardised classroom is to measure its efficacy in promoting reasoning, we believe that this must be avoided in order to safeguard what is truly unique in P4C dialogue. When P4C acquiesces to the very same quantitative measures that define the rest of learning, then the philosophical dimension drops out and P4C becomes yet another progressive curriculum and pedagogy for enhancing argumentation skills that can easily be appropriated by any content area. What we want to offer in this article is a reevaluation of P4C that remains faithful to a radical kernel that we find when we do philosophy with children and young adults. To theorise the potential for P4C, we draw heavily on Agamben's work, and in particular his reflections on speech and infancy. We propose that the redemption of P4C necessitates a shift from a community of inquiry (as the dialogic pedagogical model underlying P4C) to a community of infancy. Such a community is not a community that operates according to predefined rules or standardised assessment protocols but rather is an inoperative community that is defined by letting ends idle. On our account, a community of infancy is an example of dialogic studious play that is neither ritual nor just play, thus avoiding the extreme polarities of the ritualised classrooms of high‐stakes testing and the ‘ludic’ postmodern classroom of free play. What is at stake here is to preserve the last vestige of freedom within the school.     

Student Thought and Classroom Language: Examining the Mechanisms of Change in Dialogic Teaching

Dialogue, as a communication form characterized by its commitment to inclusiveness and rationality, has long been advocated by educators as a mechanism for helping students become better thinkers. Unfortunately, numerous claims about the educational potential of participating in dialogue have not resulted in substantial changes in classroom practices. Studies have consistently shown that in today's schools the dominant discourse remains largely monologic. In this article, we present a testable theory of change that suggests how sociocultural processes in a dialogic classroom influence students’ development. We identify and discuss three learning outcomes of dialogic teaching, including epistemological understanding, argument skills, and disciplinary knowledge. We then critically review empirical research related to the proposed theory, highlighting unsolved questions, inconsistencies, and directions for future studies. Finally, we focus on the implications of the proposed integrated theory and reviewed research for teachers and their language use in a classroom.     

Beyond rote learning in organic chemistry: the infusion and impact of argumentation in tertiary education

ABSTRACT

There exists bias among students that learning organic chemistry topics requires rote learning. In this paper, we address such bias through an organic chemistry activity designed to promote argumentation. We investigated how pre-service science teachers engage in an argumentation about conformational analysis. Analysis of the outcomes concentrated on (a) pre-service teachers’ understanding of conformations of alkanes (b) the nature of the pre-service teachers’ discourse; (c) the quality of pre-service teachers’ argumentation; and (d) pre-service teachers’ spatial ability. Various measures were used to trace (a) conceptual understanding through the answers in the writing frames, (b) the nature of the pre-service teachers’ discourse using two different codes, (c) the quality of pre-service teachers’ argumentation by counting the number of episodes with higher-level argumentation, and (d) spatial ability by Spatial Ability Test. The results showed that high performing groups had multiple rebuttals in their argumentation and low performing groups had problems in evaluating the credibility of evidence. Furthermore, we observed that spatial abilities play an important role in pre-service teachers’ engagement in argumentation. The findings help understanding of how to further enhance pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding and engagement in argumentation regarding organic chemistry concepts.     

The Relationship Between Chinese Students’ Subject Matter Knowledge and Argumentation Pedagogy

Science education in China is Subject Matter Knowledge (SMK) oriented in that SMK understanding is the major benchmark to assess students’ achievement in science learning. Such an orientation causes students to overemphasize the memorization of SMK and neglect other indispensable components of science, such as scientific attitudes and research skills. The central government in China launched an educational innovation known as New Curriculum Reform in 2003. Considerable progress has been made in the past 11 years in regard to theoretical understandings and administrative priorities, but little progress has been made in terms of classroom instruction and scientific literacy cultivation at the secondary level. Under the pressure of nationwide standardized exams, any educational innovations are unlikely to be accepted unless there is robust evidence suggesting their efficacy in promoting students’ achievements on exams, or even attempted unless teachers are assured such attempts will not negatively impact such achievement. Argumentation-integrated curriculum is one such innovation. Scientific argumentation is an essential scientific activity that leads to the development of an explanation based on empirical evidence. An initial foundation of SMK, in terms of the necessary background knowledge, is considered by many to be a vital component of argumentation and an enhanced SMK is one of the intended products of argumentation. The purpose of this sequential explanatory mixed methods study was to investigate the relationship between Chinese students’ SMK levels and argumentation pedagogy and to provide insights into a possible research agenda focused on implementing argumentation in a heavily SMK-oriented context.     

中国英语课堂话语研究——综述与展望

我 国外语教学研究越来越重视外语课堂话语的研究。其焦点是分析外语教师如何为学生参与课堂对话活动提供机会或空间,以完成课堂教与学的任务。而课堂话语质量,策略选择,课堂互动或协商模式,反馈策略等都会直接影响学生学习和认知、语言发展速度和教育成果, 所以外语课堂话语研究是外语教育、语言学和二语习得研究的重要领域。本文首先界定课堂话语的三个主要语用功能,然后根据这三个主要功能对我国英语课堂话语研究进行综述和评价。最后在评价的基础上对我国英语课堂话语的深入研究提出建议, 力求使课堂教学实现本土化和全球化的接轨。     

Enhancing evidence-based argumentation in a Mainland China middle school

While discourse-based educational approaches have become an object of increasing interest in Western countries, they are largely unknown in countries such as China that are characterized by a strong centralized government with limited encouragement of dissent. In the present study, 54 11–12 year-old Chinese students participated in an extended discourse-based curriculum that has been found successful in Western countries in developing skills of both dialogic and individual written argument. Although the curriculum involves activities unfamiliar to Chinese students, they easily became engaged and showed significant gains in post-intervention essays on both the curriculum topics and new ones. An additional component newly added to the curriculum involved explicit reflection on the relations between a claim and evidence and proved effective in enhancing gains relative to a comparison group not experiencing this addition. Underlying mechanisms in the transfer from dialogic to individual skill are considered, and issues with respect to culture and education are addressed.     

Promoting and Scaffolding Elementary School Students' Attitudes Toward Science and Argumentation Through a Science and Society Intervention

This study investigated the effects of a science and society intervention on elementary school students’ argumentation skills and their attitudes toward science. One hundred and eleven fifth grade students volunteered as an experimental group to join a 12-week intervention; another 107 sixth grade students volunteered to be the comparison group. All participants completed the Student Questionnaire at the beginning and end of this study. Observation and interview results were used to triangulate and consolidate the quantitative findings. The data showed that after the intervention, the quality of the experimental group students’ arguments and their attitudes toward science were significantly higher than their comparison group counterparts. In addition, the experimental group boys made significantly greater progress in the quality of their argumentation from the pretest to posttest than the girls; and low achievers made the most significant progress in their attitudes toward science and quality of argumentation. Interviews and observations indicated that their understandings of explanation and argumentation changed over the intervention. This indicated that a science and society intervention can enhance both the ability of students to develop strong arguments and their attitudes toward science.     

Factors impacting teachers' argumentation instruction in their science classrooms

Science education research, reform documents and standards include scientific argumentation as a key learning goal for students. The role of the teacher is essential for implementing argumentation in part because their beliefs about argumentation can impact whether and how this science practice is integrated into their classroom. In this study, we surveyed 42 middle school science teachers and conducted follow-up interviews with 25 to investigate the factors that teachers believe impact their argumentation instruction. Teachers responded that their own learning goals had the greatest impact on their argumentation instruction while influences related to context, policy and assessment had the least impact. The minor influence of policy and assessment was in part because teachers saw a lack of alignment between these areas and the goals of argumentation. In addition, although teachers indicated that argumentation was an important learning goal, regardless of students' backgrounds and abilities, the teachers discussed argumentation in different ways. Consequently, it may be more important to help teachers understand what counts as argumentation, rather than provide a rationale for including argumentation in instruction. Finally, the act of trying out argumentation in their own classrooms, supported through resources such as curriculum, can increase teachers' confidence in teaching argumentation.     

Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure,grounds, and conceptual quality

The national science standards, along with prominent researchers, call for increased focus on scientific argumentation in the classroom. Over the past decade, researchers have developed sophisticated online science learning environments to support these opportunities for scientific argumentation. Assessing the quality of dialogic argumentation, however, has proven challenging. Existing analytic frameworks assess dialogic argumentation in terms of the nature of students' discourse, formal argumentation structure, interactions, and epistemic forms of reasoning. Few frameworks, however, connect these assessments to conceptual quality. We present an analytic framework for assessing argumentation in online science learning environments that relates levels of opposition with discourse moves, use of grounds, and conceptual quality. We then apply the proposed framework to students' dialogic argumentation within a representative online science learning environment to investigate the framework's potential affordances as well as to assess issues of reliability and appropriateness. The results suggest that the framework offers significant affordances and that it also offers high interrater reliability for trained coders. The applicability of the framework for offline contexts and future extensions of the framework are discussed in light of these results. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 45: 293–321, 2008