EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENGAGEMENT IN SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION AND CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE
Tóm tắt
Whereas there are some studies presenting the effects of argumentation on science knowledge development, there is still a need for research discovering the interrelationship between knowledge and argumentation. The purpose of this research was to investigate a possible relationship between students’ engagement in argumentation and their conceptual knowledge. A case study design was carried out for this research. The participants of the study were tenth graders studying in an urban all-girls school. There were 5 argumentations promoted in different contexts which were embedded through the dynamics chapter, for a 10-week period. Some of the conclusions drawn from the study are as follows: First, students’ quantity and quality of arguments improve through time as they get more involved with argumentation. Second, students’ knowledge does not improve instantly when they are involved with argumentation activities, that is, knowledge development in an argumentation process takes time. Third, students’ prior knowledge affects their participation in argumentation. Last, there are some patterns that indicate the relationship between argumentation and knowledge. However, students’ arguments and their knowledge do not develop at the same time.
Tài liệu tham khảo
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.
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blair, J. A. & Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialetical. Argumentation, 1, 41–56.
Carey, S. (1985). Are children fundamentally different kinds of thinkers and learners than adults? In S. Chipman, J. Segal & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 2, pp. 485–514). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Clark, D. B. & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293–321.
Crossa, D., Taasoobshirazib, G., Hendricksc, S. & Hickeya, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837–861.
Dewey, J. (1909/1991). How we think. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Driver, R. H., Asoko, J., Leach, E., Mortimer, P. & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
Duschl, A. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.
Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jime’nez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 47–69). The Netherlands: Springer.
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.
Faltis, C. (1997). Case study methods in researching language and education. In N. H. Hornberger & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Research methods in language and education (volume 8) (pp. 145–152). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Giere, R. N. (1991). Understanding scientific reasoning (3rd ed.). Forth Worth: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Halloun, I., Hake, R., Mosca, E., & Hestenes, D. (1995). Force concept inventory (revised 1995) in Mazur 1997 and password protected at http://modeling.la.asu.edu/modeling.html accessed on 24 May 2001.
Eskin, H. & Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (in press). Argumentation as a strategy for conceptual learning of dynamics.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–151.
Hogan, K. & Fisherkeller, J. (1996). Representing students’ thinking about nutrient cycling in ecosystems: Bidimensional coding of a complex topic. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 941–970.
Hogan, K. & Fisherkeller, J. (2000). Dialogue as data: Assessing students’ scientific reasoning with interactive protocols. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 95–127). San Diego: Academic.
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.
Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kelly, G. J., Druker, S. & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871.
Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (1997). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. Reading: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc.
Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229–269). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674–689.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–178.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, W. & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.
Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct shared knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26, 359–389.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J. & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
Means, L. M. & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–178.
Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M. & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977–1999.
Newton, P., Driver, R. & Osborne, J. (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, 505–525.
Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
Perret-Clermont, A., Perret, J. A. & Bell, N. (1991). The social construction of meaning and cognitive activity in elementary school children. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially-shared cognition (pp. 41–62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Quinn, V. (1997). Critical thinking in young minds. London: David Fulton.
Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications.
Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 85, 71–93.
Sadler, T. D. & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.
Sampson, V. & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447–472.
Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 102–119.
Schroeder, P. G. (1996). Science as argument: A context using peer dyads to promote conceptual change among community college chemistry students. Unpublished dissertation, Kansas State University. Manhattan, Kansas.
Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking, and science education. Synthese, 80, 9–41.
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.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case-study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Tavares, M. L., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Mortimer, E. F. (2010). Articulation of conceptual knowledge and argumentation practices by high school students in evolution problems. Science Education, 19, 573–598.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding: The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Willard, A. (1989). A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
Williams, M. (2004). Generalized additive models. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods (volume 2) (pp. 420–421). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Wood, J. M. (2007). Understanding and computing Cohen’s Kappa: A tutorial. WebPsychEmpiricist. Retrieved October 3, 2007 from http://wpe.info/papers_table.html.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., et al (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Veerman, A., Andriessen, J. & Kanselaar, G. (2002). Collaborative argumentation in academic education. Instructional Science, 30, 155–186.
von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J. & Simon, S. (2007). Argumentation and the learning of science. In R. Pinto & D. Couso (Eds.), Contributions from science education research (pp. 377–388). The Netherlands: Springer.
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.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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.