LEARNING ELECTRIC CIRCUITS: THE CONTENT OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ WRITTEN ARGUMENTS

Authors

  • Constantinia Balia University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece
  • Michael Skoumios University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v7i7.3150

Keywords:

content of written arguments, science and engineering practices, learning electric circuits, elementary school

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the impact of a teaching intervention for electric circuits on the content of elementary school students’ written arguments. Educational material was constructed based on the constructivist approach to learning with the use of science and engineering practices and was implemented with 34 students aged 11 years. A questionnaire that was provided to students before and after the teaching intervention (pre-test, post-test) was used to collect the data. Data analysis was carried out by classifying the sufficiency of the components of the arguments into levels. The analysis of written answers (arguments) was performed with a framework for assessing the content of arguments (appropriateness of their components: claim, evidence, and reasoning). The data analysis showed that the students significantly improved the content of their arguments.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

Author Biographies

  • Constantinia Balia, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece

    Constantinia Balia: Elementary school teacher Constantinia Balia obtained a first degree in education from the University of Thessaly in 2004, a second degree in chemistry from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in 2014 and a master’s degree in education from the Hellenic Open University in 2019. His research interests include teaching science in elementary school. He is currently teaching in an elementary school in Greece.

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

    Michael Skoumios: 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 elementary and secondary schools. He is currently teaching science education in the Department of Primary Education of the University of the Aegean.

References

Afra, N. C., Osta, I., & Zoubeir W. (2009). Students alternative conceptions about electricity and effect of inquiry-based teaching strategies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(1), 103-132.

Berland, L., & McNeill, K. (2010). A Learning Progression for Scientific Argumentation: Understanding Student Work and Designing Supportive Instructional Contexts. Science Education, 94, 765-793.

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.

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.

Cherbow, K., McKinley, M., McNeill, K. & Lowenhaupt, R. (2020). An analysis of science instruction for the science practices: Examining coherence across system levels and components in current systems of science education in K‐8 schools. Science Education, 104(3), 446-478.

Chiu, M. H., & Lin, J. W. (2005). Promoting Fourth Graders’ Conceptual Change of Their Understanding of Electric Current via Multiple Analogies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4 (4), 429- 464.

Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Ed.). (1985). Children’s Ideas in Science. Milton Keynes [Buckinghamshire]; Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

Glasersfeld von, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: a way of knowing and learning. Falmer Press.

Glauert, & Esme Bridget (2009). How Children Understand Electric Circuits: Prediction, explanation and exploration. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1025 – 1047.

González-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. L. (2019). Supporting linguistically diverse students in scientific argumentation across writing and talking. In Spycher, P. & Haynes, E. (Eds.). Culturally and linguistically diverse learners and STEAM: Teachers and researchers working in partnership to build a better path forward (pp. 77-94). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

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.

Mastrogiorgaki, M. & Skoumios, M. (2018). Improving the Structure of Students’ Arguments Through a Teaching-Learning Sequence on Newton’s Second Law. European Journal of Education Studies, 5(5), 1-10.

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 (pp. 233–265). 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.

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.

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.

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.

Shipstone, D. (1988). Pupils' understanding of simple electrical circuits. Physics Education, 23, 92-96.

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.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Downloads

Published

2020-06-27

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 7 (2020)

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).