The Impact of Argumentation on High School Chemistry Students’ Conceptual Understanding, Attitude towards Chemistry and Argumentativeness
 
More details
Hide details
1
Gazi University, Gazi Faculty of Education, Ankara, Turkey
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Ayşe Yalçın Çelik   

Gazi University, Gazi Faculty of Education, Ankara, Turkey
Publish date: 2017-10-10
 
International Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education 2014;6(1):58–75
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Argumentation activities, which have become prominent in the education literature, are an important process to improve conceptual understanding. According to researchers there is a relationship between the argumentation and conceptual change, and thus argumentation enhances conceptual understanding since an argument deals with disagreement, which is the first step of conceptual change. The purpose of this research is to explore the impact of classroom-based argumentation on high school students’ conceptual understanding of chemistry concepts, their attitude towards chemistry, and argumentativeness when compared to traditional teaching approach. A quasi-experimental, pretest-posttest, control group design was used. The study was conducted with 53 students in Grade 9 and with the same students in the Grade 10. Implementations lasted 13 weeks in the first year and 8 weeks in the second year. The concept tests, attitude scale towards the chemistry, and argumentativeness scale were applied on both groups. Interviews to reveal the level of student understandings not defined by the concept tests were conducted at the end of each year with 6 students from each group. According to multivariate analysis of variance results, it was found that the experimental group students’ conceptual understanding, attitude toward chemistry, and argumentativeness were significantly higher than those of the control group students.
 
REFERENCES (60)
1.
Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussion on a socioscientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67-90.
 
2.
Asterhan, C.S.C. (2008). Process of Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Results from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. ICLS'08 Proceedings of the 8th International conference for the learning sciences - Volume 1.Utrecht University Press.
 
3.
Asterhan, C.S.C. & Schwarz, B.(2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog. Cognitive Science, 33(3), 374-400.
 
4.
Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Çetin, P.S. & Kaya, E. (2012). Impact of argumentation on college students’ conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1303-1321.
 
5.
Bell, P. & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
 
6.
Bricker, L.A. & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473-498.
 
7.
Chang, S.-N., & Chiu, M.H. (2008). Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753-1773.
 
8.
Cheung, D. (2009). Developing a scale to measure students’ attitudes towards chemistry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 2185-2203.
 
9.
Clark, D.B. & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
 
10.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 
11.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1998). Research Methods in Education. (Fourth Edition). Routledge. London and New York.
 
12.
Cross, D.I. (2009). Creating optimal mathematics learning environments: Combining argumentation and writing to enhance achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(5), 905-930.
 
13.
Cross, D.I., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendrick, S. & Hickey, D. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837-861.
 
14.
Dawson, V.M. & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40, 133-148.
 
15.
Dole, J.A. & Sinatra G.M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109-128.
 
16.
Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
 
17.
Duschl, R.A. & Osborne J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education 38, 39-72.
 
18.
Erduran, S., Simon, S. & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
 
19.
Eskin, H. & Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2007). Effects of promoting argumentation on students’ reasoning physics. Paper presented at the annual international conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. New Orleans, Louisiana.
 
20.
Fraenkel, G.R. & Wallen, N.E. (1996). How to Desingn and Evaulate Research in Science Education. (Third Edition). McGraw-Hill, Inc. USA.
 
21.
Geban, Ö., Aşkar, P. & Özkan, İ. (1992). Effects of computer simulations and problemsolving approaches on high school students, Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 5– 10.
 
22.
Hong, Z., Lin, H., Wang, H.H., Chen, H. & Yang, K. (2013). Promoting and scaffolding elementary school students’ attitudes towards scince and argumentation through a science and society intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1625-1648.
 
23.
Infante, D.A. (1982). The argumentative student in the speech communication classroom: An investigation and implications. Communication Education, 31,141-148.
 
24.
Infante, D.A. & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80.
 
25.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodriguez, B.A. & Duschl, R.,A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”. Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
 
26.
Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation practices in classroom: Pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.770935.
 
27.
Klosterman, M.L. & Sadler, T.D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socio scientific issues based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1017-1043.
 
28.
Levine T.R. & Boster, F.J. (1991). The impact of self and other’s argumentativeness on talk about controversial issues. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, Illinois..
 
29.
Lin, H.-S; Hong, Z.-R; Wang, H.-H. & Lee, S.-T. (2011). Using reflective peer Assessment to promote students’ conceptual understanding through asynchronous discussions. Educational Technology & Society, 14(3), 178-189.
 
30.
Lin, S-S & Mintzes, J.J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: the effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993-1017.
 
31.
McCroskey, J.C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78-96.
 
32.
Nam, J., Choi, A. & Hand, B. (2011). Implementation of the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach in 8th grade science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5), 1111-1133.
 
33.
Niaz, M., Augilera, D., Maza, A. & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students’ understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86(4), 505-525.
 
34.
Nussbaum, E.M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345-359.
 
35.
Nussbaum, E.M. & Bendixen, L.D. (2003). Approaching or avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological belief, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 573-595.
 
36.
Nussbaum, E.M. & Sinatra, G.M. (2003). Argument & conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384-395.
 
37.
Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. & Eskin, H. (2012). Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientificargumentation and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1415-1443.
 
38.
Ogunniyi, M.B., & Hewson, M.G. (2008). Effect on argumentation-based course on teachers’ disposition towards a science-indigenous knowledge curriculum. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(4), 159-177.
 
39.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41(10), 994-1020.
 
40.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitude towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049- 1079.
 
41.
Rancer, A.S. & Infante, D.A. (1985). Relations between motivation to argue and argumentativeness of adversaries. Communication Quarterly, 33, 209-218.
 
42.
Rancer, A.S, Kolsberg, R.L. & Baukus, R. A. (1992). Beliefs about arguing as predictors of trait argumentativeness: Implications for training in argument and conflict management. Communication Education, 41, 375-387.
 
43.
Rancer, A.S., Whitecap, V.G., Kosberg, R.L. & Avtgis, T.A. (1997). Testing the efficacy of a communication training program to increase argumentativeness and argumentative behavior in adolescent. Communication Education, 46, 273-286.
 
44.
Sadler, T.D. & Fowler, S.R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6) 986-1004.
 
45.
Sadler, T.D. & Zeidler, D.L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socio scientific issues: Applying genetic knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education. 89(1), 71-93.
 
46.
Sampson, V. & Clark, D.B. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484.
 
47.
Sampson, V. & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts and practices in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 71(8), 465-472.
 
48.
Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s argumentation pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research & Methods in Education, 31(3), 277-289.
 
49.
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.
 
50.
Skoumois, M. (2009). The effect of socio cognitive conflict on students’ dialogic argumentation about floating and sinking. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(4), 381-399.
 
51.
Su, K-D. (2008). The effects of a chemistry course with integrated information communication technologies on university students’ learning and attitudes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 225-249.
 
52.
Toulmin, S.E. (2003). The uses of argument (updated ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
 
53.
Uluçınar Sağır, Ş. (2008). The effect of argumentation-based teaching approach on elementary students’ science course achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
 
54.
Uluçınar Sağır, Ş. & Kılıç, Z. (2012). Analysis of the contribution of argumentation based science teaching on students’ success and retention. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 4(2), 139-156.
 
55.
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.
 
56.
Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
 
57.
Walker, J.P., Sampson, V., Grooms, J., Anderson, B. & Zimmerman, C.O. (2012). Argumentdriven inquiry in undergraduate chemistry labs: The impact on students’ conceptual understanding, argument skills, and attitude toward science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(4), 74-81.
 
58.
Yalcin-Celik, A., Bektas, O., & Kilic, Z. (2008). The understanding of the nature of science and overcoming misconceptions by using the course material activity: Competing theories with evidence and ideas. Paper presented at the annual international conference of the International Organization of Science and Technology Education. Kusadasi, Izmir.
 
59.
Zhou, G. (2010). Conceptual change in science: A process of argumentation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 6(2), 101-110.
 
60.
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.
 
eISSN:1306-3049