Primary Students’ Argumentation on Factors Affecting Dissolving
Abstract
The study explored the possibilities to improve students’ argumentation ability concerning factors that affect dissolving, through the implementation of two versions of a teaching scheme, with and without particle theory. The participants (age range 10–11, n = 27) belonged to two fifth-grade classes of a primary school in Northern Greece. Data were collected through an open-ended written test and a semi-structured interview targeting four of the components of an argument: Claims, data, warrants, and rebuttals, for five factors affecting the dissolving of a solid substance in water: Temperature, stirring, amount of the substance, grain size, and nature of the substance itself. Results showed an improvement concerning the structure of students’ arguments, whereas improvements in content quality appeared mainly in some cases where particle theory was implemented. Study limitations and implications for science education are discussed.References
Adadan, E., & Savasci, F. (2012). An analysis of 16–17-year-old students' understanding of solution chemistry concepts using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 34(4), 513-544.
Adadan, E. (2014). Investigating the influence of pre-service chemistry teachers' understanding of the particle nature of matter on their conceptual understanding of solution chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(2), 219-238.
Blanco, A., & Prieto, T. (1997). Pupils’ views on how stirring and temperature affect the dissolution of a solid in a liquid: a crossâ€age study (12 to 18). International Journal of Science Education, 19(3), 303-315.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, Co: BSCS, 5, 88-98.
Çalik, M., Ayas, A., & Ebenezer, J. V. (2005). A review of solution chemistry studies: Insights into students’ conceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 29-50.
Çalik, M., Ayas, A., & Ebenezer, J. V. (2009). Analogical reasoning for understanding solution rates: students’ conceptual change and chemical explanations. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(3), 283-308.
Cetin, P. S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1-20.
Chen, H. T., Wang, H. H., Lu, Y. Y., Lin, H. S., & Hong, Z. R. (2016). Using a modified argument-driven inquiry to promote elementary school students’ engagement in learning science and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 170-191.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883-908.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.
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.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287 – 312.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school. Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran, & M. P. JimenezAleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perpectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159–170). Dordretch: Springer.
Ebenezer, J. V. (2001). A hypermedia environment to explore and negotiate students' conceptions: Animation of the solution process of table salt. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(1), 73-92.
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.
Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In Argumentation in science education (pp. 47-69). Springer Netherlands.
Evagorou, A., Louca, L., & Zacharias, Z. (2008). Elementary school students’ studying strategies during the process of questioning: argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th pancyprian conference of the pedagogical society of Cyprus "Quality in Education: Research and Teaching".
Felton, M. K. (2004). The development of discourse strategies in adolescent argumentation. Cognitive Development, 19(1), 35-52.
Garciaâ€Mila, M. E. R. C. E., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education, 97(4), 497-523.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An Overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3 – 28). Dordrecht: Springer.
Johnson, P., & Papageorgiou, G. (2010). Rethinking the introduction of particle theory: A substanceâ€based framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 130-150.
Kabapinar, F., Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2004). The design and evaluation of a teaching–learning sequence addressing the solubility concept with Turkish secondary school students. International journal of science education, 26(5), 635-652.
Keith, W. M., & Beard, D. E. (2008). Toulmin's rhetorical logic: What's the warrant for warrants? Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41(1), 22-50.
Krajcik, J. (2012). Preparing for NGSS: Engaging in Argument from Evidence. Retrieved on 27/6/2016 from:
https://learningcenter.nsta.org/products/symposia_seminars/NGSS/webseminar11.aspx
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child development, 74(5), 1245-1260.
Kulatunga, U., Moog, R. S., & Lewis, J. E. (2013). Argumentation and participation patterns in general chemistry peerâ€led sessions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1207-1231.
Louca, P. (2009). Prospective primary education teachers’ argumentation skills: interfering variables. Doctoral thesis. Nicosia: University of Cyprus, Department of Educational Sciences.
Mendonça, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2014). An instrument for analyzing arguments produced in modelingâ€based chemistry lessons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(2), 192-218.
Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in science education, 37(1), 17-39.
Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 371-393.
Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Eskin, H. (2012). Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientific argumentation and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-29.
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.
Papageorgiou, G. (2013). Can simple particle models support satisfying explanations of chemical changes for young students? pp. 319-329 in Tsaparlis G. & Sevian H. (eds.) Concepts of Matter in Science Education, Vol. 19, pp. 524, in Series: Innovations in Science Education and Technology; Part IV - Chemical Reactions, Chemical Phenomena: Springer.
Papageorgiou, G., & Johnson, P. (2005). Do particle ideas help or hinder pupils’ understanding of phenomena? International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1299-1317.
Papageorgiou, G., Johnson, P., & Fotiades, F. (2008). Explaining melting and evaporation below boiling point. Can software help with particle ideas?. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(2), 165-183.
Papageorgiou, G., Grammaticopoulou, M., & Johnson, P. M. (2010). Should we teach primary pupils about chemical change? International Journal of Science Education, 32(12), 1647-1664.
Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526.
Sampson, V. D., & Clark, D. B. (2006, June). Assessment of argument in science education: A critical review of the literature. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on learning sciences (pp. 655-661). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations of future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447– 472.
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12 (1), 5–51.
Sandoval, W. A. & Millwood, K.A. 2008. What Can Argumentation Tell Us About Epistemology? Dalam Erduran, S., & Maria, PJ., (Eds) Argumentation in Science Education, London: Springer Science.
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.
Subramaniam, K., & Esprivalo Harrell, P. (2013). Framing prospective elementary teachers’ conceptions of dissolving as a ladder of explanations. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(7), 1177-1199.
Taber, K. S., & Garcia-Franco, A. (2010). Learning processes in chemistry: Drawing upon cognitive resources to learn about the particulate structure of matter. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 99-142.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., & Cowan, B. M. (2008). Urban primaryâ€grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92(1), 65-95.
Vasiliadis, G. (2014). Cultivation of argumentation skills and critical thinking to primary school students through the arguments’ mapping. Doctoral dissertation. Nicosia: University of Cyprus.
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.
