Scientific Argumentation as an Epistemic Practice: Secondary Students’ Critique of Science Research Posters

Ong, Yann Shiou; Duschl, Richard A.; Plummer, Julia D.

doi:10.1007/978-981-15-5155-0_6

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, argumentation can be seen as a distribution of authority and accountability across the discussion. Ong, Duschl, and Plummer [33] viewed scientific argumentation as an epistemic practice benefitting from the PDE-critique and construction (PDE-CC) model. Their results showed that students' critique skills in the science classroom were improved using this approach.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentation within Upper Secondary School Student Groups during Virtual Science Learning: Quality and Quantity of Spoken Argumentation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many studies, the focus has been on students’ written scientific argumentation rather than on their spoken argumentation. The main aim of this study was to relate the quality of spoken argumentation to groups’ learning achievement during a collaborative inquiry task. The data included video recordings of six groups of three upper secondary students performing a collaborative inquiry task in a virtual learning environment. The target groups were selected from a larger sample of 39 groups based on their group outcome: two low, two average, and two high-outcome groups. The analysis focused on argumentation chains during the students’ discussions in the planning, experimentation, and conclusion phases of the inquiry task. The core of the coding scheme was based on Toulmin’s levels of argumentation. The results revealed differences between the different groups of students, with the high-performing groups having more argumentation than the average and low-performing groups. In high-performing groups, the students asked topic-related questions more frequently, which started the argumentative discussion. Meanwhile, there were few questions in the low-performing groups, and most did not lead to discussion. An evaluation scheme for the quality of the arguments was created and the spoken argumentation was analyzed using a computer-based program. The results may be used to benefit subject teacher education and to raise teachers’ awareness of their students’ scientific, topic-related discussions.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentation within Upper Secondary School Student Groups during Virtual Science Learning: Quality and Quantity of Spoken Argumentation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, structuring science education to focus on arguments makes students experience science as it is. Argumentation is an epistemic practice in science that involves students in their argumentation (McNeill et al, 2017;Ong et al, 2020).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Undergraduate Science Education Students’ Argumentation Skills through Debates on Socioscientific Issues

Martini

Widodo

Qosyim

et al. 2021

JPII

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research aims to examine undergraduate students’ argumentation skills during and after the learning process in the classroom setting and their responses toward the implementation of socioscientific issues (SSI) through debate in the learning process. This research involved 32 undergraduate students and implemented design-based research with pretest and posttest in a natural classroom setting using three topics of SSI debate that widely discussed in Indonesia: Nuclear Powerplant (Topic 1), Food Preservation (Topic 2), and Genetically Modified Organism (Topic 3). Data was collected using observation sheets, tests, and questionnaires. Observation is to measure argumentation ability when applying the debate method in class settings, the test measures the improvement of argumentation skills, and questionnaires measure students’ responses to the application of the debate method. In this study, argumentation scores were obtained from six indicators and divided by a maximum score of 24 times 100. Normalized gain (N-gain) was calculated to determine the effectiveness of the intervention in the classroom. T-test was also conducted to test the significance of the differences in the pretest and posttest results on argumentation skills. The results obtained in this study are: the argumentation skills score during the learning process for six groups were 95, 80.6, 90.3, 95, 83.3, and 77.5; the mean score of pretest and posttest were 52.22 ± 6.62 and 85.78 ± 4.72. The consistency of opinions shows the change from “agree” to “disagree” for Topics 1 and 3. The undergraduate students agree and consistently agree toward Topic 2. The paired t-test result also shows that the intervention statistically has a significant difference between the two means, indicating that the undergraduate students’ argumentation skills are better than before the intervention. Otherwise, most of the undergraduate students respond positively toward the implementation of the debate related to SSI. Despite some limitations, the debate on SSI can improve argumentation skills in classroom settings, especially in science education majors.

show abstract

“…It is driven by considerations of where students are in relation to a complex set of intersecting goals, practices and outcomes of argumentative dialog. Indeed, recommending a specific dialogic stance, independent of these aims, ignores key considerations when working with students, particularly when scaffolding practices like critical questioning and epistemic talk (Ong et al, 2020). Our data support the contention that teachers' moment‐to‐moment shifts in overarching goals, pedagogical aims, and dialogic stance can help open up unique opportunities for authentic disciplinary engagement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific argumentation and responsive teaching: Using dialog to teach science in three middle‐school classrooms

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite broad consensus on the value of classroom dialog for promoting scientific argumentation, tensions have emerged in the literature regarding the degree to which teachers should guide the dialogic process (dialogic stance). We use the lens of responsive teaching to examine how one teacher adjusts his instruction to foster dialog in three middle‐school science classrooms. Applying grounded theory to classroom dialogs and teacher interview data, we examine the dynamic interplay of the teacher's overarching goal and moment‐to‐moment pedagogical aims to understand shifts in his dialogic stance. Our findings illustrate the value of foregrounding responsiveness to students' disciplinary thinking when offering guidance to teachers about when and how to support students in peer‐based argumentative dialog.

show abstract

Scientific Argumentation as an Epistemic Practice: Secondary Students’ Critique of Science Research Posters

Cited by 8 publications

References 18 publications

Argumentation within Upper Secondary School Student Groups during Virtual Science Learning: Quality and Quantity of Spoken Argumentation

Argumentation within Upper Secondary School Student Groups during Virtual Science Learning: Quality and Quantity of Spoken Argumentation

Improving Undergraduate Science Education Students’ Argumentation Skills through Debates on Socioscientific Issues

Scientific argumentation and responsive teaching: Using dialog to teach science in three middle‐school classrooms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About