Learning to Argue and Arguing to Learn: Argument‐Driven Inquiry as a Way to Help Undergraduate Chemistry Students Learn How to Construct Arguments and Engage in Argumentation During a Laboratory Course

Abstract

This study examines whether students enrolled in a general chemistry I laboratory course developed the ability to participate in scientific argumentation over the course of a semester. The laboratory activities that the students participated in during the course were designed using the Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) an instructional model. This model gives a more central place to argumentation and the role of argument in the social construction of scientific knowledge. The development of the students' ability to construct a scientific argument and to participate in scientific argumentation was tracked over time using three different data sources. These data sources included a performance task, which was administered at the beginning, middle, and end of the course, video recording of the students participating in episodes of argumentation, and the lab reports the students wrote as part of each lab activity. As time was the independent variable in this study, a repeated measure ANOVA was used to evaluate changes in the ways students performed on each task over the course of the semester. The results of the analysis indicate that there was significant growth in the quality of the students' written arguments and nature of their oral argumentation. There also was a significant correlation between written and oral arguments. These results suggest that the use of an integrated instructional model that places emphasis on argument and argumentation can have a positive impact on the quality of the arguments students include in their investigation reports, the argumentation they engage in during lab activities, and their overall performance on tasks that require them to develop and support a valid conclusion with genuine evidence. # Science educators, with the goal of increased science literacy, have developed numerous new curricula and instructional approaches over the last decade in order to give students a more

Students' Argumentative Writing Skills in Science and First-Language Education: Commonalities and differences

“…In the field of science education, numerous research studies have focused on the description of argumentation, the empirical investigation of the structure of argumentation, or the advancement of argumentative skills in science lessons at schools, at universities, or in teacher training (Choi, Notebaert, Diaz, & Hand, 2008;Dawson & Venville, 2009;Foong & Daniel, 2013;Osborne et al, 2004;Simon, Erduran, & Osborne, 2006;Walker & Sampson, 2013). Written and spoken language is an integral part of science and science literacy and enables learners to communicate scientific understanding to other people so that they can make informed decisions and take informed action (Yore, Bisanz, & Hand, 2003).…”

“…In the last two decades, there has been increasing interest in argumentation in science education and, accordingly, an increasing number of theoretical approaches and empirical studies on this topic (Kuhn, 1996;Sampson & Clark, 2008;Sampson, Enderle, Grooms, & Witte, 2013;Walker & Sampson, 2013;Zohar & Nemet, 2002). Above all else, this trend is due to vivid discussions of the results of international and national student assessments in science (e.g.…”

Teaching and learning physics using technology: Making a case for the affective domain

“…Lessons to be taught are carefully planned, designed and pitched at the appropriate level so that learners can construct purposeful and misconception-free knowledge structures through argumentation (Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004;Berland & Hammer, 2012;Sampson & Blanchard, 2012;Walker & Sampson, 2013) and through evaluative behaviours. Argumentation offers both teachers and students the opportunity to interact and value shared information and technology can precisely contribute to this role of argumentation in the classroom (Mirza & Perret-Clemont, 2009).…”

In Search of Dialogicity: A Comparison of Curricular Documents and Classroom Interactions from Finland and Hong Kong

“…The teacher in Hong Kong demonstrates the purposeful use of different interactional and instructional approaches, such as argument-driven inquiry (ADI) [52]. First, the characteristics of the task are discussed and the students' interest in the problem at hand is raised, which is congruent with the first phase of the ADI model and brings strategic purposefulness to the classroom interaction.…”

“…This episode links the previous (assignment of inquiries) and forthcoming (inquiry-phase) episodes meaningfully together. The teacher opens up the floor for student inquiry, adopting the structure of an Argument-Driven-Inquiry (ADI) [52] and dialogic inquiry-based learning [42]. The common point for both approaches is that pre-existing ideas are considered before the actual inquiry phase.…”