Lower Primary School Students’ Scientific Arguments



Abstract Views
447

Downloads
330

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Dec 12, 2021
Published Feb 18, 2022
10.24018/ejedu.2022.3.1.244

Abstract viewed = 447 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

The present study investigates the structure and the content of oral scientific arguments constructed by the 6-year-old students in Greece when they answered questions about light propagation through objects, the dissolution of substances in water, and the flow of electric current through objects. The research was conducted with the participation of 64 primary school students (6 years old), while the interview served as the data collection tool. Research data included students’ answers (arguments) to the questions of the interview. Students’ scientific arguments were analyzed through rubrics evaluating the sufficiency and the appropriateness of the components of the arguments. The analysis of the data allowed the categories of students’ arguments to be determined. It was found that students’ arguments included sufficient and appropriate claims, some of them included sufficient and appropriate evidence, but they included no reasonings or rebuttals at all.

 

Keywords: Arguments, Primary School, Science Education

References

  1. 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
     Google Scholar
  2. 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
     Google Scholar
  3. Bravo-Torija, B., Jiménez-Aleixandre, MP. (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
     Google Scholar
  4. 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
     Google Scholar
  5. 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
     Google Scholar
  6. 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
     Google Scholar
  7. 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
     Google Scholar
  8. Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 19(3), 323–393. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1903_3
     Google Scholar
  9. 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
     Google Scholar
  10. Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J., & Hand, B. (2010). Examining arguments generated by year 5, 7, and 10 students in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 40, 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9105-x
     Google Scholar
  11. Convertini, J. (2021). An Interdisciplinary Approach to Investigate Preschool children’s Implicit Inferential Reasoning in Scientific Activities. Research in Science Education, 51, 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09957-3
     Google Scholar
  12. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
     Google Scholar
  13. Driver, R., Newton, D., & 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<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
     Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Duschl, R.A., Schweingruber, H.A., & Shouse, A.W. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. National Academies Press.
     Google Scholar
  16. González-Howard, M., & McNeill, K.L. (2019). Supporting linguistically diverse students in scientific argumentation across writing and talking. In Spycher, P. & Haynes, E. (Eds.). Culturally and linguistically diverse learners and STEAM: Teachers and researchers working in partnership to build a better path forward (pp. 77-94). Information Age Publishing.
     Google Scholar
  17. Henderson, J. B., McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Close, K. & Evans. M. (2018). Key Challenges and Future Directions for Educational Research on Scientific Argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21412
     Google Scholar
  18. Heng, L. L., Surif, J., & Seng, C. H. (2015). Malaysian students’ scientific argumentation: Do groups perform better than individuals? International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.995147
     Google Scholar
  19. 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
     Google Scholar
  20. 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<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
     Google Scholar
  21. Klein, G. (2004). The power of intuition. New York: A Currency Book/Doubleday.
     Google Scholar
  22. Knight, A., McNeill, K. & Pearson, P. D. (2014, April). Students’ Abilities to Critique Scientific Arguments Based on the Form of Justification. Paper presented at the annual meeting of NARST, Pittsburg, PA.
     Google Scholar
  23. Knight, A. M., McNeill, K. L., Corrigan, S., & Barber, J. (2013, April). Student assessments for reading and writing scientific arguments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
     Google Scholar
  24. Konstantinidou, A., & Macagno, F. (2013). Understanding students’ reasoning: Argumentation schemes as an interpretation method in science education. Science & Education, 22(5), 1069–1087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9564-3
     Google Scholar
  25. 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 the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Hyatt Regency Orange County, Garden Grove, CA.
     Google Scholar
  26. 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
     Google Scholar
  27. Lizotte, D. J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Teacher Practices that Support Students’ Construction of Scientific Explanations in Middle School Classrooms. In Kafai, Y. B., Sandoval, W. A., Enyedy, N., Nixon, A. S., & Herrera, F. (Eds.), International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2004: Embracing Diversity in the Learning Sciences (pp. 310-317). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     Google Scholar
  28. Lofland, J. (1971). Analyzing social settings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
     Google Scholar
  29. Mastrogiorgaki, M. & Skoumios, M. (2018). Improving the Structure of Students’ Arguments Through a Teaching-Learning Sequence on Newton’s Second Law. European Journal of Education Studies, 5(5), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.2021
     Google Scholar
  30. McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137–1164. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20377
     Google Scholar
  31. 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
     Google Scholar
  32. 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.), Carnegie Mellon symposia on cognition. Thinking with data (pp. 233–265). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
     Google Scholar
  33. 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
     Google Scholar
  34. 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.
     Google Scholar
  35. 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
     Google Scholar
  36. 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
     Google Scholar
  37. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920410001689689
     Google Scholar
  38. Moje, E. B., Peek-Brown, D., Sutherland, L. M., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Explaining explanations: Developing scientific literacy in middle-school project-based science reforms. In D. Strickland & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the gap: improving literacy learning for preadolescent and adolescent learners in grades (pp. 4–12). Carnegie Corporation.
     Google Scholar
  39. National Research Council. [NRC] (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.
     Google Scholar
  40. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. The National Academies Press.
     Google Scholar
  41. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2013). OECD skills outlook 2013: First results from the survey of adult skills. OECD Publishing.
     Google Scholar
  42. Papakonstantinou, M., & Skoumios, M. (2021). Science and engineering practices in the content of Greek middle school physics textbooks about forces and motion. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 11(2), 457-473. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1286
     Google Scholar
  43. 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
     Google Scholar
  44. 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<566::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-U
     Google Scholar
  45. Rodríguez-Mora, F., D. Cebrián-Robles, & Blanco-López, Á. (2021). An Assessment Using Rubrics and the Rasch Model of 14/15-Year-Old Students’ Difficulties in Arguing about Bottled Water Consumption. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09985-z
     Google Scholar
  46. 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
     Google Scholar
  47. Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to learn by learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643–670. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21069
     Google Scholar
  48. 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
     Google Scholar
  49. 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
     Google Scholar
  50. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
     Google Scholar
  51. 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
     Google Scholar
  52. Schwarz, B. & Baker, M. (2017). Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
     Google Scholar
  53. Smprinis, A., & Skoumios, M. (2021). Developing the structure of junior high school students’ arguments about Ohm’s law. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 17(4), e2256. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/11137
     Google Scholar
  54. 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
     Google Scholar
  55. 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 about biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 610-631. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20313
     Google Scholar
  56. Strauss, A. M. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd Edition.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
     Google Scholar
  57. Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
     Google Scholar
  58. Vuola, K. & Nousiainen, M. (2020). Physics knowledge justification: an analysis framework to examine physics content knowledge. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 16(2), 149-166. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.6916
     Google Scholar
  59. 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
     Google Scholar


Similar Articles

1 2 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.