Analysis of the Contribution of Argumentation-Based Science Teaching on Student Success and Retention
Abstract views: 250
/ 
PDF downloads: 154
Keywords:
Argumentation, science education, primary school, student success, success retentionAbstract
Observing the argumentation of a scientific event and understanding skill is an important component of scientific literacy. In this paper, the effect of lecturing with argumentation-oriented activities in science classes on student success and the retention of knowledge has been analyzed. The study was conducted between 2006 and 2008 academic years in an elementary school in Amasya, Turkey. The study employed a quasi-experimental research method. Argumentation based teaching method was used in experimental group. Traditional teaching method was used in control group. Two different tests were developed for data collection in the study. A subject-related success test was developed in order to determine the success of students and a preliminary knowledge test was developed to check whether the classes were equivalent and to determine their preliminary knowledge. It has been found out that there was a significant difference in favor of the experimental group in terms of student success and the retention of knowledge. When experimental groups worked on for two years were compared, no significant difference was detected between student success rates; however, the scores of second year experimental group were found to be higher. It can be said that argumentation based teaching model affects students’ development of conceptual understanding and their information permanence. Argumentation can also be employed in teaching other subjects. Class activities have to be developed and argumentation norms have to be applied in science teaching so that young individuals can gain confidence in employing argumentation.
References
Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemologygical and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67-90.
Asterhan, C.S.C. & Schwarz, B.B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Andications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog. Cognitive Science, 33, 374-400.
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, A.M., Anderson, R.C., Kuo, L., Kim, I.H., Archodidou, A. & Jahiel, K.N. (2003). Collaborative reasoning: Expanding ways for children to talk and think in school. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 181-197.
Clark, D.B. & Sampson, V.D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253 – 277.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design. Sage Publication, California.
Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S. & Hickey, D.T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837-861
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.
Dole, J.A. & Sinatra, G.M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109–128.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Druker, S.L., Chen, C. & Kelly, G.J. (1996). Introducing content to the Toulmin model of argumentation via error analysis. Paper Presented at Narst Meeting, Chicago, II.
Duit, R. & Treagust, D.F. (1998). Learning in science: From behaviorism towards social constructivism and beyond. In Fraser, B. & Tobin, K. (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education. Dordrecht the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Duschl R.A. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
Ebenezer, J.V. & Haggerty, M.S. (1999). Becoming a secondary school science teacher. Merill Press, New Jersey.
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(6), 915–933.
Eryılmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students’ misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 1001–1015.
Jeong, A. & Davidson-Shivers, G. (2006). The effects of gender interaction patterns on student participation in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Educational Communications and Technology, 54(6), 543-568.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P. & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190.
Jiménez-Aleıxandre, M.P., Rodríguez, A.B. & Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "Doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
Kelly, G.J. & Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81, 533–560.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673–689.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
McAlister, S.R. (2001). Argumentation and a design for learning. (Calrg Report No.197). Retrieved March 3, 2004 From Http://iet.Open.Ac.Uk/Pp/S.R.Mcalister/Personal/197.Pdf
Means, M.L. & Voss, J.F. (1996). Who reason well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139-179.
Mitchell, S. (1997). The teaching and learning of argument in sixth forms and higher education: Final report. Hull:University Of Hull, Centre For Studies In Rhetoric
Mitchell, S. & Riddle, M. (2000). Learning to argue in higher education. Portsmouth, Nh: Heinemann/Boynton-Cook.
Newton, P. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A. & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances and conceptual change in students’ understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86(4), 505-525.
Nussbaum, E.M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345–359.
Nussbaum, E.M. & Bendixen L.D. (2003). Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 573–595.
Nussbaum, E.M. & Sinatra, G.M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384-395.
Okada, A. & Buckingham Shum, S. (2008). Evidence-based dialogue maps as a research tool to investigate the quality of school pupils’ scientific argumentation. International Journal of Research and Method In Education, 31(3), 291-315.
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.
Paglieri, F. (2006). Coding Between The lines: on the implicit structure of arguments and its import for science education. Working Paper, Istc-Cnr Roma. Preprint:Http://Kmi.Open.Ac.Uk/Projects/Hyperdiscourse/Docs/İjrme2008.Pdf
Patronis, T., Potari, D. & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision making on a socio-scientific issue: implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745–754.
Richmond, G. & Shriley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: social processes in small group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839–858.
Riddle, M. (2000). Improving argument by parts. In learning to argue in higher education. S. Mitchell and R. Andrews (Eds.), (Pp 53-64). Portsmouth, Nh: Heinemann/Boynton-Cook.
Sadler, T.D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Technology, 41(5), 513-536.
Sadler, T.D. & Zeidler, D.L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.
Sampson, V. & Clark, D.B. (2011). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41:63–97.
Schweizer, D. (2002). Heating up the science classroom trough global warming: an investigation of argument in earth system science education. Univesity of California. Doctorate Thesis.
Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin's argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 277- 289.
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.
van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R. & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. a handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, Nj: Erlbaum.
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.
Wandersee, J.H., Mintzes, J.J. & Novak, J.D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science (177-210). In D.L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Science Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan.
Yan, X. & Erduran, S. (2008). Arguing online: case studies of pre-service science teachers’ perceptions of online tools in supporting the learning of arguments. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 5(3), 2-31.
Yerrick, K.R. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838.
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.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright © Authors
