Predicting Components of Argumentative Writing and Achievement Gains in a General Chemistry Course for Nonmajor College Students

Abstract

Argumentative writing advances students' understanding of scientific concepts, ability to communicate, and scientific literacy. However, it remains unclear which components of argumentative writing drive such advancement. Further, most studies on argumentative writing have focused on students majoring in science, rather than in the nonsciences. The purpose of this study was to determine which components of argumentative writing are predictors of academic achievement in a general chemistry course designed for nonscience majors. The participants included 163 undergraduates at a public university. The quality of argumentative writing was positively and significantly correlated with student academic achievement. Five components of argumentative writing were predictors of success on student achievement tests: accuracy of the claim, relationship between claim and question, relationship between claim and evidence, use of multiple modes to represent an argument, and the degree to which writing style aligns with the writing type desired. Therefore, results from this study would allow teachers to modify their approaches to emphasize components of argumentative writing that can predict student academic achievement. Results from open-ended questionnaires reveal that students viewed argumentative writing as a tool that improves their conceptual understanding, advances their epistemic understanding of an argument, and can be applied in their future careers. Implications of this pedagogy for chemistry teaching and learning are discussed.

Developing deep learning in science classrooms: Tactics to manage epistemic uncertainty during whole‐class discussion

“…Table 2 summarizes four sources of student epistemic uncertainty identified in the events. Building on the definition of epistemic uncertainty and the purpose of the study focusing on student development of scientific understanding, the four sources especially focus on the process of how students construct and represent scientific understanding from raw data, prior knowledge, and ideas to scientific argument (Aguirre‐Mendez et al, 2020; Kelly & Takao, 2002; McNeill & Berland, 2017).…”

Exploring Adaptations of the VisChem Approach: Advancements and Anchors toward Particle-Level Explanations

“…Teachers’ ontologies of evidence and models may also contribute to the mangle of instructional planning. For example, multiple studies in chemistry education typically refer to evidence as analyzed, empirical results from an experiment. , Although evidence encompasses data, prior knowledge, and/or lived experiences analyzed within a specific conceptual frame, the nature of traditional science instruction may reappropriate data as unconditional answers to inquiry questions . Duncan and colleagues state that, even in the NGSS, quality and strength of evidence are underspecified and undifferentiated, resulting in a perfunctory implementation of evidence-based practices.…”

Examining pre-service science teachers’ development and utilization of written and oral argument and representation resources in an argument-based inquiry environment

“…In supporting engagement in scientific practices, written and oral argumentation practices have received attention in how it helps develop students' knowledge and understanding of disciplinary core concepts and epistemic practices (Driver et al, 2000;Manz, 2015;Chen et al, 2016). To date, even though there have been some studies that have examined students' oral argumentation in small or whole class discussions (Erduran et al, 2004;Osborne et al, 2004;Duschl, 2007;Berland and Reiser, 2011;O ¨zdem et al, 2013;Chen, 2020;Gonza ´lez-Howard and McNeill, 2020), studies have overwhelmingly investigated students' written arguments (Takao and Kelly, 2003;Hohenshell and Hand, 2006;McNeill et al, 2006;Choi et al, 2013;Sampson et al, 2013;Manz, 2015;Aguirre-Mendez et al, 2020;Chen et al, 2020;Yaman, 2020Yaman, , 2021. In oral argumentation, the studies have focused on assessing science teachers' argument development (Erduran et al, 2004;Osborne et al, 2004), students' reasoning (Duschl, 2007;O ¨zdem et al, 2013), developing a learning progression for argumentation (Berland and McNeill, 2010), or managing uncertainty in scientific argumentation (Chen et al, 2020).…”