Using a modified argument-driven inquiry to promote elementary school students’ engagement in learning science and argumentation

This study explored the effects of a modified argument-driven inquiry approach on Grade 4 students’ engagement in learning science and argumentation in Taiwan. The students were recruited as an experimental group (EG, n?=?36) to join a 12-week study, while another 36 Grade 4 students from the same schools were randomly selected to be the comparison group (CG). All participants completed a questionnaire at the beginning and end of this study. In addition, four target students with the highest and the other four students with the lowest pretest engagement in learning science or argumentation to be observed weekly and interviewed following the posttest. Initial results revealed that the EG students’ total engagement in learning science and argumentation and the claim and warrant components were significantly higher than the CG students. In addition, the EG students’ anxiety in learning science significantly decreased during the study; and their posttest total engagement in learning science scores were positively associated with their argumentation scores. Interview and observation results were consistent with the quantitative findings. Instructional implications and research recommendations are discussed.     

Cognitive load of critical thinking strategies

Argument–counterargument integration (Nussbaum, 2008) refers to the process of evaluating, refuting, and synthesizing arguments on two sides of an issue when creating justification for an overall conclusion. This study compared the cognitive load of two critical thinking strategies related to argument–counterargument integration: (a) constructing design claims that minimize disadvantages of an alternative, and (b) weighing refutations (which weaken an argument by arguing that there are more important values at stake). College students (N = 285) first completed the Need for Cognition (NFC) scale and were then presented with materials summarizing arguments and counterarguments on the topic of grading class participation. Participants completed a small, integrative essay justifying a stand on the issue, and completed the Mental Effort Rating Scale (Paas, 1992). Participants who generated complex weighing refutations reported more mental effort than those constructing complex design claims (and the control group), with a stronger relationship with those high in NFC. The need to coordinate disparate elements in working memory may explain the higher load associated with constructing weighing refutations. Students may need more (and different types of) scaffolding in using this strategy than when constructing a design claim, which is a more sequential process.     

Pre-service teachers’ attempts at debating contemporary issues in science education: A case study from Botswana

This paper constitutes an attempt to explore trends, issues and challenges that emerge when three different cohorts of pre-service teachers debate contemporary issues in science education at the University of Botswana. Apart from the author's experience of teaching the course, the impetus for this study also comes from a growing interest in the contemporary literature in the need for teachers who, in the context of globalization and knowledge economy, are ‘self-reforming’ through continually addressing the key issues of their profession. Unfortunately, the current situation is such that this burden of interrogation falls heaviest on teachers, despite their lack of skills in undertaking the task.     

试论法律论证的充分性

法律论证的充分性问题时下已引起学术界和实务界的关注,人们对法律论证是否存在充分性,以及如何判断一个法律论证是充分的还存在较大争议。研究表明,法律论证的充分性是存在的,并且是可判定的。     

Using argumentation as a learning strategy to improve student performance in engineering Statics

ABSTRACT

Research suggests that a significant reason that a large number of students earn low grades in the fundamental engineering science course Statics is that they may be entering the course with incorrect conceptual knowledge of mathematics and physics. The self-explanation learning approach called collective argumentation helps k-12 students to understand their misconceptions of mathematical principles that often appear abstract to them. This study investigated collective argumentation as an instructional approach that helps engineering students identify and correct their misconceptions of topics taught in Statics. Results suggest that argumentation improves student performance as measured by grades earned on semester exams. Survey and focus group results suggest that students did not understand the argumentation process. Therefore, the students did not like using it as a learning approach.     

The analysis and reconciliation of students’ rebuttals in argumentation activities

The present study investigated the guidance provided by science teachers to resolve conflicts during socioscientific issue-based argumentation activities. A graphical representation (GR) was developed as a tool to code and analyze the dialogue interaction process. Through the GR and qualitative analysis, we identified three types of dialogue reconciling strategies. The first one consists of teacher management, in which the teacher temporarily maintains the right to speak when students get mired in an emotional rebuttal situation. The second strategy involves the use of qualifiers to identify the strengths and weaknesses of an opposing argument. The third strategy consists of providing students with guidance to keep both parties (i.e. the students taking, respectively, the affirmative and negative positions) on the same discussion topic and can be used to assist teachers with forming broad questions that prompt students to conduct deeper discussions. These reconciling strategies were beneficial in that they helped students to argue in a more reflective way.     

Teachers’ enactments of curriculum: Fidelity to Procedure versus Fidelity to Goal for scientific argumentation

Fidelity of implementation (FOI) has received attention in calls for funding and research; however, there are numerous ways of conceptualising and measuring this construct. We argue that this conceptualisation is important for recent reform efforts focused on science practices. Consequently, we explored FOI in the context of the enactment of a middle-school curriculum focused on one particular science practice, argumentation. We coded videos of five teachers’ enactments of argumentation lessons using two different fidelity coding schemes. First, Fidelity to Procedure targeted teachers’ adherence to the order and types of procedures. Second, Fidelity to Goal examined teachers’ adherence to the overarching argumentation goals. This analysis resulted in case studies that illustrate distinct patterns in the teachers’ curriculum enactments. One case in particular, Ms Newbury, received a low score for Fidelity to Procedure, but a high score for Fidelity to Goal. She altered procedures to provide her students, all of whom were English Language Learners, with different linguistic supports, but maintained the overarching argumentation goals. Consequently, we argue that FOI for goals may better capture whether teachers’ enactments are supporting students in the science practices. Furthermore, the results suggest the importance of educative curriculum including rationales for the curricular goals.     

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.