Perceptions of the Nature and ‘Goodness’ of Argument among College Students, Science Teachers, and Scientists

Abi-El-Mona, Issam; Abd‐El‐Khalick, Fouad

doi:10.1080/09500691003677889

Cited by 33 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Members of Group C1 simply told their ideas to the teacher to receive feedback on the quality of the ideas. This lack of experience evaluating ideas may be why lower-achieving control students gained less on argument evaluation than lower-achieving experimental students, and is akin to research that shows that lack of experience creating arguments likely indicates low argument creation ability (Abi-El-Mona and Abd-El-Khalick 2011;Jonassen and Kim 2010). But this does not indicate why there was no difference among higher-achieving students.…”

Section: Influence According To Prior Science Achievementmentioning

confidence: 69%

Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: a mixed-method study in a rural middle school

Belland

Armbrust

et al. 2015

Education Tech Research Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common way for students to develop scientific argumentation abilities is through argumentation about socioscientific issues, defined as scientific problems with social, ethical, and moral aspects. Computer-based scaffolding can support students in this process. In this mixed method study, we examined the use and impact of computer based scaffolding to support middle school students' creation of evidence-based arguments during a 3-week problem-based learning unit focused on the water quality of a local river. We found a significant and substantial impact on the argument evaluation ability of lowerachieving students, and preliminary evidence of an impact on argument evaluation ability among low-SES students. We also found that students used the various available supportcomputer-based scaffolding, teacher scaffolding, and groupmate support-in different ways to counter differing challenges. We then formulated changes to the scaffolds on the basis of research results.

show abstract

Section: Influence According To Prior Science Achievementmentioning

confidence: 69%

Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: a mixed-method study in a rural middle school

Belland

Armbrust

et al. 2015

Education Tech Research Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Abi‐El‐Mona and Abd‐El‐Khalick () discard the use of the TAP for the analysis of arguments in science, even with the caveat that the argumentative elements should be evaluated in the light of their production. In their study, from the use of the TAP, the arguments produced by scientists were not classified as high quality ones because they lacked emphasis on the qualifier or on the rebuttal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We must also consider whether the analytical instrument is sensible enough to favor the analysis of the arguments. This is so because, depending on the instrument, the richness of classroom discussions might not be captured, and the students' arguments might not be thoroughly evaluated (Abi‐El‐Mona & Abd‐El‐Khalick, ).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

An instrument for analyzing arguments produced in modeling‐based chemistry lessons

Mendonça

Justi

2013

J Res Sci Teach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research on argumentation in science education has focused on the understanding of relationships between modeling and argumentation (an important topic that only recently has been addressed in few empirical studies), and the methodological difficulties related to the analysis of arguments produced in classrooms. Our study is related to these two aspects. This paper introduces an instrument to analyze arguments produced by students involved in modeling‐based lessons, and discusses the instrument in the light of the current literature. This instrument has been successfully used to analyze arguments in modeling‐based contexts through focus on analysis of plausibility of arguments regarding a given idea or model, and a documentation of the main elements (justification, evidence) and goals of an argument (explanation and persuasion). It has some advantages over other proposals found in the literature, mainly the consideration of the notion of scientific curricular argument (that allows the analysis of arguments in the light of student's knowledge and evidence available in the modeling process), and the distinction between the types of justification (that are important for monitoring the understanding of abstract phenomena). Therefore, it supports the analysis of argumentative situations that occur in regular classes, showing how the quality of students' arguments varies when they participate in distinct activities. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 51: 192–218, 2014

show abstract

“…Having arrived at initial solutions to such problems, argumentation is also how such solutions are iteratively improved, as well as the evidential support for the solutions (Ford, 2012;Osborne, 2010). K-12 (Belland et al, 2008;Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000;Glassner, Weinstock, & Neuman, 2005;McNeill & Pimentel, 2010) and college students (Abi-El-Mona & Abd-El- Khalick, 2011;Cho & Jonassen, 2002;Uskola, Maguregi, & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2010) often struggle with argumentation, and thus it is important to help them learn this skill. But rather than teaching such didactically, it is important to put them in a situation about which to argue (Aufschnaiter, Erduran, Osborne, & Simon, 2008;Belland et al, 2008;Driver et al, 2000;Jonassen & Kim, 2010) and support them with such tools as scaffolding (Belland et al, 2008;Cho & Jonassen, 2002;Clark & Sampson, 2007;Nussbaum, 2002).…”

Section: Argumentation Abilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is important because many individuals have the mistaken impression that scientific investigations always take place in a theoretical vacuum. To the contrary, theoretical frameworks always drive the design, conduction of, and interpretation of the results of research (AbiEl-Mona & Abd-El- Khalick, 2011;Ford, 2012;Giere, 1990;D. Kuhn, 2010).…”

Section: Interpret Data and Other Information Appropriatelymentioning

confidence: 99%

Intended Learning Outcomes and Assessment of Computer-Based Scaffolding

Belland

2016

Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter, I describe the intended learning outcomes of scaffolding-content knowledge and higher-order thinking abilities-and link these to the goals advanced by the Next Generation Science Standards and related documents from recent curricular revisions in STEM education. Furthermore, I address different ways in which scaffolding's effect can be measured (assessment level), and explore whether there are differences in the magnitude of scaffolding's effect according to assessment level. Meta-analysis results show that there is no difference in effect size magnitude on the basis of intended learning outcome (i.e., content knowledge or higher-order thinking abilities). Scaffolding's effect was greater when measured at the principles level than when measured at the concept level. But scaffolding's effect was statistically greater than 0 and substantial for all three assessment levels (i.e., concept, principles, and application). These results are then discussed.

show abstract

Perceptions of the Nature and ‘Goodness’ of Argument among College Students, Science Teachers, and Scientists

Cited by 33 publications

References 26 publications

Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: a mixed-method study in a rural middle school

Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: a mixed-method study in a rural middle school

An instrument for analyzing arguments produced in modeling‐based chemistry lessons

Intended Learning Outcomes and Assessment of Computer-Based Scaffolding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About