Examining the Relationship between a Structured Reading Framework and Students' Critical Thinking Ability within an Argument-Based Inquiry Approach

  • Jang, Jeong-Yoon (University of Iowa) ;
  • Nam, Jeonghee (Pusan National University)
  • Received : 2012.10.16
  • Accepted : 2013.01.09
  • Published : 2013.05.31


This study examined how a Structured Reading Framework (SRF) is related to improving students' critical thinking ability in an argument-based inquiry approach, called the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. A total of 75 $8^{th}$ graders participated in the study, with 34 in the control group and 41 in the treatment group. The gains in critical thinking skills were compared between two groups, and relationships among the components of the reading framework and the critical thinking skills were explored at the group level. Result indicates that the treatment group who used the SRF had larger gains in critical thinking scores than control group who used the Original Reading Framework (ORF). In addition, results show that the correlations between Reading Framework (RF) components and critical thinking scores are statistically significant in the treatment group, while no correlations exist in the control group. It appears that using the SRF have an impact on developing students' critical thinking ability by providing a scaffold to assist argumentation practice.


Reading Framework;Argumentation;Writing-to-learn;Critical thinking;Scaffold;Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach


  1. Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Hurley, M.M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to- learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29-58.
  2. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., & National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  3. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy; a review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371.
  4. Cavagnetto, A. R., & Hand, B. (2012). The Importance of embedding argument within science classrooms : Perspectives on scientific argumentation, Springer, Part 1, 39-53.
  5. Davis, E. A.,&Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students'knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819-837
  6. Ennis, R. H., Millman, J., & Tomka,T. N. (2005). Manual: Cornell Critical Thinking Tests. Pacific Grove,CA: Midwest.
  7. Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007) Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgment. Psychology Press.
  8. Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an identity: The evolution of science education as a field of research. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
  9. Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404-423.
  10. Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1-32.
  11. Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2008). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Recent developments and future directions (pp. 29-47). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
  12. Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high school students conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19 (4), 354- 367.
  13. Hand, B. (Ed.). (2008). Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the Science Writing Heuristic. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
  14. Hand, B., & Keys, C. (1999). Inquiry investigation. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27-29.
  15. Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2004). Exploring students' responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: A study with Year 10 science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(2), 186-210.
  16. Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C, & Yore, L.(1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021-1035.
  17. Hand, B., Shelley, M., Gonwa-Reeves, C., & Baenzinger, J. (2012, March). Student learning through the Science Writing Heuristic: Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests and classroom implementation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of National Association of Science Teachers, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  18. Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 261-289.
  19. Jang, J. (2011). The effect of using a structured reading framework on middle school students'conceptual understanding within the Science Writing Heuristic approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa, Iowa city, IA.
  20. Jang, J., & Hand, B. (2012, March). The impact of using a scaffolded written framework on students'conceptual understanding. Paper presented at International Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Indianapolis, IN.
  21. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Huerisitic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084.<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  22. Mercier, H. (2011). Looking for arguments. Argumentation, 26, 305-324.
  23. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57-74.
  24. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework: Mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Paris: Author.
  25. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463-466.
  26. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
  27. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 609-626.
  28. Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval,W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263-305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  29. Rudd, J. A., Greenbowe, T. J., Hand, B. M., and Legg. M. J. (2001). Using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH ) to move toward an inquirybased laboratory curriculum: An example from physical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(12), 1680-1686.
  30. Shelley, M., Gonwa-Reeves, C., Baenziger, J., Hand, B., & Therrien, W. J. (2012, April). Student learning and inquiry-based science instruction: Testing effectiveness in a randomized trial. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC.
  31. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235-260.
  32. Taylor, J. C., Therrien, W. J., Kaldenberg, E., Watt, S., Chanlen, N., & Hand, B. (2012). Using an inquiry-based teaching approach to improve science outcomes for students with disabilities: Snapshop and longitudinal data. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 15(1), 10-22.
  33. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.
  34. Yore, L., & Treagust, D. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy - empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 291-314.