Scientific argumentation is a key
means by which students make
sense of content and processes in inquiry-based instruction. In scientific
argumentation students make a claim that they support
with evidence and provide reasoning as to how the evidence supports the claim. Integrating the different
aspects of scientific argumentation can be challenging for students
especially if they need to make a claim change to accommodate new
evidence. This study examines student argumentation within a two-semester
general chemistry laboratory sequence at a minority-serving, comprehensive
university in the Midwest, which employed the Argument-Driven Inquiry
(ADI) instructional model for laboratory instruction. Video recordings
of group argumentation from four investigations, two each semester,
were coded using the Assessment of Scientific Argumentation in the
Classroom (ASAC) observation protocol. On the basis of the data, students
did not tend to change their claims or reasoning even when provided
with contradictory evidence. Semistructured interviews with students
also coded with the ASAC revealed that students did not view claim
change as a valid component of argumentation.
Current research suggests that students
often fail to focus equally
on the three aspects of scientific argumentation (cognitive, epistemic,
and social) when they are given an opportunity to engage in argumentation.
This study examined student argumentation within a two-semester general
chemistry laboratory sequence at East Carolina University to explore
how the three aspects of argumentation change over time with repeated
exposure through the Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) instructional model
for laboratory instruction. Video recordings of group argumentation
across five investigations were transcribed and coded using the Assessment
of Scientific Argumentation in the Classroom (ASAC) observation protocol.
A positive increase was seen in the total ASAC scores for each of
the experiments. A significant increase was seen within each of the
three subcategories of the ASAC observation protocol, cognitive, epistemic,
and social, over the two-semester sequence. These results support
the idea that increased opportunities to engage in argumentation improves
an essential scientific practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.