?Doing the lesson? or ?doing science?: Argument in high school genetics

Abstract

This article focuses on the capacity of students to develop and assess arguments during a high school genetics instructional sequence. The research focused on the locating distinction in argumentation discourse between “doing science” vs. “doing school” or “doing the lesson” (Bloome, Puro, & Theodorou, 1989). Participants in this classroom case study were high school (9th grade) students in Galicia (Spain). Students were observed, videotaped, and audiotaped while working in groups over six class sessions. Toulmin's argument pattern was used as a tool for the analysis of students' conversation and other frames were used for analyzing other dimensions of students' dialogue; (e.g., epistemic operations, use of analogies, appeal to consistency, and causal relations). Instances of “doing science” and instances of “doing the lesson” are identified and discussed as moments when the classroom discourse is dominated either by talking science or displaying the roles of students. The different arguments constructed and co‐constructed by students, the elements of the arguments, and the sequence are also discussed, showing a dominance of claims and a lesser frequence of justifications or warrants. Implications for developing effective contexts to promote argumentation and science dialogue in the classroom are discussed. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 84:757–792, 2000.

Effect of Different Types of Small-Group Activities on Students’ Conversations

“…On average, close to 75% of group talk involved content-related conversations in which students shared and discussed factual knowledge (fact-based talk) but also engaged, to a lesser degree, in higher levels of content processing (meaning-making talk). These findings stand in contrast to results from prior research studies in which small-group conversations were often focused on the procedural aspects of the tasks. , Two major differences in small-group setup between those studies and ours may have contributed to these dissimilar outcomes: the constant presence of a group facilitator and the inclusion of diverse activities beyond experimental hands-on tasks.…”

Effect of Different Types of Small-Group Activities on Students’ Conversations

“…On average, close to 75% of group talk involved content-related conversations in which students shared and discussed factual knowledge (fact-based talk) but also engaged, to a lesser degree, in higher levels of content processing (meaning-making talk). These findings stand in contrast to results from prior research studies in which small-group conversations were often focused on the procedural aspects of the tasks. , Two major differences in small-group setup between those studies and ours may have contributed to these dissimilar outcomes: the constant presence of a group facilitator and the inclusion of diverse activities beyond experimental hands-on tasks.…”

Agriscience Student Engagement in Scientific Inquiry: Representations of Scientific Processes and Nature of Science

“…In addition, the inquiries lacked attention to assumptions aligning with current conceptions of NOS. These findings agree with previous research conducted in science classrooms indicating that students may attend to the mechanical and practical aspects of laboratory experiences, focus on the completion of their experiments, or discuss procedures and facts instead of engaging in the complex reasoning and the substantive discourse that define SI (Carey & Smith, 1993; Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Dolan & Grady, 2009; Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; Jimenez–Aleixandre et al, 2000; Moss et al, 1998; Osborne, 2002; Watson et al, 2004). …”

High School Students Debate the Use of Embryonic Stem Cells: The influence of context on decision‐making

“……”

Effect of Different Types of Small-Group Activities on Students’ Conversations

“…On average, close to 75% of group talk involved content-related conversations in which students shared and discussed factual knowledge (fact-based talk) but also engaged, to a lesser degree, in higher levels of content processing (meaning-making talk). These findings stand in contrast to results from prior research studies in which small-group conversations were often focused on the procedural aspects of the tasks. , Two major differences in small-group setup between those studies and ours may have contributed to these dissimilar outcomes: the constant presence of a group facilitator and the inclusion of diverse activities beyond experimental hands-on tasks.…”

Agriscience Student Engagement in Scientific Inquiry: Representations of Scientific Processes and Nature of Science

“…In addition, the inquiries lacked attention to assumptions aligning with current conceptions of NOS. These findings agree with previous research conducted in science classrooms indicating that students may attend to the mechanical and practical aspects of laboratory experiences, focus on the completion of their experiments, or discuss procedures and facts instead of engaging in the complex reasoning and the substantive discourse that define SI (Carey & Smith, 1993; Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Dolan & Grady, 2009; Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; Jimenez–Aleixandre et al, 2000; Moss et al, 1998; Osborne, 2002; Watson et al, 2004). …”

High School Students Debate the Use of Embryonic Stem Cells: The influence of context on decision‐making

“……”

Effect of Different Types of Small-Group Activities on Students’ Conversations

“…On average, close to 75% of group talk involved content-related conversations in which students shared and discussed factual knowledge (fact-based talk) but also engaged, to a lesser degree, in higher levels of content processing (meaning-making talk). These findings stand in contrast to results from prior research studies in which small-group conversations were often focused on the procedural aspects of the tasks. , Two major differences in small-group setup between those studies and ours may have contributed to these dissimilar outcomes: the constant presence of a group facilitator and the inclusion of diverse activities beyond experimental hands-on tasks.…”

Agriscience Student Engagement in Scientific Inquiry: Representations of Scientific Processes and Nature of Science

“…In addition, the inquiries lacked attention to assumptions aligning with current conceptions of NOS. These findings agree with previous research conducted in science classrooms indicating that students may attend to the mechanical and practical aspects of laboratory experiences, focus on the completion of their experiments, or discuss procedures and facts instead of engaging in the complex reasoning and the substantive discourse that define SI (Carey & Smith, 1993; Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Dolan & Grady, 2009; Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; Jimenez–Aleixandre et al, 2000; Moss et al, 1998; Osborne, 2002; Watson et al, 2004). …”

High School Students Debate the Use of Embryonic Stem Cells: The influence of context on decision‐making

“……”