IMPROVING THE STRUCTURE OF STUDENTS’ ARGUMENTS THROUGH A TEACHING-LEARNING SEQUENCE ON NEWTON’S 2ND LAW

Authors

  • Melpomeni Mastrogiorgaki University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece
  • Michael Skoumios University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.2021

Keywords:

teaching-learning sequence, science practices, structure of arguments, science learning

Abstract

The present paper intends to investigate the contribution of a teaching-learning sequence on Newton’s 2nd Law to the structure of high school students’ written arguments. Instructional material on Newton’s 2nd Law, based on the constructivist approach towards learning with the use of science practices and the exploitation of the educational software “Interactive Physics”, was developed and was finally implemented to 39 high school students (15 years old). Τhe research data included students’ answers to questionnaires both before and after the teaching-learning sequence. Students’ written arguments were analyzed with the use of a framework for evaluating the presence and the sufficiency of the components of the arguments. The data analysis showed that the teaching-learning sequence significantly contributed to improving the structure of students’ arguments.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

DOI

Author Biographies

  • Melpomeni Mastrogiorgaki, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece
    Physics teacher Melpomeni Mastrogiorgaki obtained a first degree in physics from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens in 1986 and a second degree in education with the use of new technologies from the University of the Aegean in 2018. She is interested in teaching science in secondary schools and combining active learning strategies using technology with learning science. She is currently teaching science in an upper secondary school in Greece. 
  • Michael Skoumios, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece

    Associate Professor Michael Skoumios obtained a first degree in physics from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens in 1987, a second degree in education from the University of Aegean in 1992, and his PhD in science education from the Hellenic Open University in 2005. His research interests include science concept learning and teaching science in primary and secondary schools. He is currently teaching science education in the Department of Primary Education of the University of the Aegean in Greece.

References

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. doi: 10.1080/095006900412284

Bybee R, Taylor J, Gardner A, Van Scotter P, Powell J C, Westbrook A, Landes N, 2006. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness, Colorado Springs

Chen H-T, Wang H-H, Lu Y-Y, Lin H, 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. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1134849

Chinn C A, Brewer W F, 2001. Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction 19(3): 323–393. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI1903_3

Driver R, Newton P, Osborne J, 2000. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education 84(3): 287–312. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098- 237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A

Duschl R A, Osborne J, 2002. Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education 38(1): 39–72. doi: 10.1080/03057260208560187

Heng L L, Surif J, Seng C H, 2015. Malaysian students’ scientific argumentation: Do groups perform better than individuals? International Journal of Science Education 37(3): 505–528. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.995147

Jiménez-Aleixandre M P, Bugallo Rodríguez A, Duschl R A, 2000. Doing the lesson or doing science: argument in high school genetics. Science Education 84(6): 757– 792. doi: 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F

Lizotte D J, Harris C J, McNeill K L, Marx R W, Krajcik J, 2003. Usable assessments aligned with curriculum materials: Measuring explanation as a scientific way of learning. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American educational research association, April, 2003, Chicago, IL

McNeill K L, Krajcik J, 2006. Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanation through generic versus context-specific written scaffolds. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American educational research association, April, 2006, San Francisco

McNeill K L, Krajcik J, 2007. Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett, P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with Data: The proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc

McNeill K L, Krajcik J, 2012. Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing, New York, NY: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

McNeill K L, Lizotte D J, Krajcik J, 2005. Identifying teacher practices that support students’ explanation in science. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American educational research association, April, 2005, Montreal, Canada.

McNeill K L, Lizotte D J, Krajcik J, Marx R W, 2006. Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences 15(2): 153–191. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1

Moje E B, Peek-Brown D, Sutherland L M, Marx R W, Blumenfeld P, Krajcik J, 2004. Explaining explanations: Developing scientific literacy in middle-school project- based science reforms. In D. Strickland, D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the gap: improving literacy learning for preadolescent and adolescent learners in grades (pp 4–12). New York: Carnegie Corporation.

National Research Council (NRC), 2012. A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States, 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Sadler T D, 2004. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(5): 513–536. doi: 10.1002/tea.20009

Sampson V, Enderle P, Grooms J, Witte S, 2013. Writing to learn by learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas: Writing to learn by learning to write in science. Science Education 97(5): 643–670. doi: 10.1002/sce.21069

Sampson V, Walker J P, 2012. Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate students write to learn by learning to write in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education 34(10): 1443–1485.doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.667581

Sandoval W A, 2003. Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences 12(1): 5–51. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2

Sandoval W A, Millwood K A, 2005. The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction 23(1): 23–55. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233896 Accessed 9 July 2017

Skoumios M, Hatzinikita V, 2014. Assessing students’ science written explanations. Natural Sciences in Education 3: 9–19. [in Greek]

Songer N B, Gotwals A W, 2012. Guiding explanation construction by children at the entry points of learning progressions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49(2): 141–165. doi: 10.1002/tea.20454

Zeidler D L, 1997. The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education 81(4): 483–496. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199707)81:4<483::AID- SCE7>3.0.CO;2-8

Downloads

Published

2018-10-22

Issue

Vol 5, No 5 (2018)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).