Isaac Scientific Publishing
Journal of Advances in Education Research
JAER > Volume 2, Number 3, August 2017

Impartation of Argumentation Skills: Impact of Scaffolds on the Quality of Arguments

Download PDF  (209.1 KB)PP. 183-190,  Pub. Date:July 31, 2017
DOI: 10.22606/jaer.2017.23006

Author(s)
Aviva Klieger, Amira Rochsar
Affiliation(s)
Beit Berl College, Israel; Beit Berl College, Israel
Abstract
Teaching via inquiry has been found to be a strategy suitable for the development of argument skills. The influence of the impartation of argumentation skills on the quality of the High school students’ written argumentation was tested in the present study. Twenty written arguments in bio-inquiry papers were analysed by using two complementary tools: Toulmin’s Argument Pattern to analyse the components and a modification of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern to evaluate the quality of the written arguments. The various tools enabled us to pinpoint the differences between two groups: one group that did not receive scaffolds for constructing arguments and a group that received scaffolds for writing arguments. The findings indicate that impartation of argumentation skills improves the argumentation abilities and level. Students who received scaffolds for writing an argument wrote more and different types of arguments for each claim and wrote a higher quality argumentation in bio-inquiry papers.
Keywords
Argumentation; argument level; scientific inquiry; scaffolds
References
  • [1]  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.
  • [2]  Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.
  • [3]  Efrat, N. (2002). Teaching biology by inquiry: difficulties, complex, emphases and teacher involvement. Ministry of Education (in Hebrew).
  • [4]  Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, J. M. (2012). Research on argumentation in science education in Europe. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe: Retrospective and prospective(pp. 253–289). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  • [5]  Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.) (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • [6]  Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.
  • [7]  Glassner, A. (2009). Constructing and evaluating arguments in learning and teaching. In A. Glassner, A. BenDavid, & E. Iger (Eds.), Development of high-order thinking: A literature review (pp.122-130). Jerusalem: Ministry of Education (Hebrew).
  • [8]  Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students and scientists’reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663–687.
  • [9]  Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “Doing science”: Arguments in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
  • [10]  Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 317–345.
  • [11]  Kaya, E., Erduran, S., & Seda- Cetin, P. (2010). High school students' perceptions of argumentation. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3971–3975.
  • [12]  Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools? Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  • [13]  McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007a). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data: The Proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 233–265). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • [14]  McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007b). Relationship between teacher instructional practices and curricular scaffolds in supporting students in writing scientific explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
  • [15]  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.
  • [16]  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.
  • [17]  Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (Eds.) (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning (Chapter 2, p. 18). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • [18]  Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
  • [19]  Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82(301), 63–70.
  • [20]  Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socio scientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
  • [21]  Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472.
  • [22]  Sandoval, W. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.
  • [23]  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.
  • [24]  Simon, S., & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5), 669–688.
  • [25]  Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • [26]  Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M, & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquirybased and commonplace science teaching on students' knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276–301.
  • [27]  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.
Copyright © 2017 Isaac Scientific Publishing Co. All rights reserved.