Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Argument Structure in the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) Approach

  • Choi, Ae-Ran (Science Education School of Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Studies Kent State University)
  • Received : 2010.02.08
  • Accepted : 2010.04.29
  • Published : 2010.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate students' written arguments embedded in scientific inquiry investigations using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. Argument components defined in this study are questions, claims, questions-claims relationship, evidence, claims-evidence relationship, multiple modal representations, and reflection. A set of criteria for evaluating each argument component was developed to evaluate writing samples of students from college freshman general chemistry laboratory classes. Results indicate that students produced, on average, moderate to powerful questions, claims, and evidence. They also constructed reasonable questions-claims relationship and claims-evidence relationship. Compared to other component scores, the average score for reflection was relatively low. Overall, the average Total Argument score was 21.4 out of a possible 36, that is, the quality of the written arguments using the SWH approach during a series of inquiry-based chemistry laboratory investigations was moderate to powerful. The findings of this study suggest that students, on average, developed reasonable scientific arguments generated as part of scientific inquiry. In other words, students are capable of putting together reasonable arguments as they participate in inquiry-based laboratory classrooms.

Keywords

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  2. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
  3. Bell, P. & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284
  4. Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T. J. & Hand, B. M. (2006). Implementing the Science Writing Heuristic in the chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education. 83(7), 1032-1038. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p1032
  5. Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J., & Hand, B. (2010). Examining Arguments Generated by Year 5, 7, and 10 Students in Science Classrooms. Research in Science Education. 40(2), 149-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9105-x
  6. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  7. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. Teacher's College Press, New York.
  8. Gardner, P. L. (1980). The identification of specific difficulties with logical connectives in science among secondary school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(3), 223-229. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660170306
  9. Giere, R. N. (1991). Understanding scientific reasoning ($3^{rd}$ ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  10. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  11. Hand, B., & Keys, C. W. (1999). Inquiry Investigation: A new approach to laboratory reports. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27-29.
  12. Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing to learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Education, 86(6), 737-755. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10016
  13. Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. (2004). Using a Science Writing Heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh grad science: quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070252
  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336965
  15. Keys, C. W. (1999b). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science, Science Education, 83, 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)83:2<115::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Q
  16. Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676-690. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<676::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-6
  17. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
  18. Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 691-718. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<691::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-G
  19. Kelly, G. J. & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: an analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314-342. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024
  20. Klein, P. (2000). Elementary students' strategies for writing to learn in science. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 317-348. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1803_2
  21. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
  22. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  23. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  24. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
  25. Newton, P., Driver. R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
  26. Norris, S. P., and Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224- 240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
  27. Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640220147559
  28. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., and Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  29. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood. K. A. (2005) The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanation. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
  30. Sandoval, W. A. & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry, Science Education, 88, 345-372. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130
  31. Shymansky, J. A., Kyle, W. C., Jr., & Alport, J. M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 387-404. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200504
  32. Taylor, C. (1996). Defining science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
  33. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning ($2^{nd}$ Ed.) New York: Macmillan.
  35. Wallace, C. S. (2004). An illumination of the roles of hands on activities, discussion, text reading, and writing in constructing biology knowledge in seventh grade, School Science and Mathematics, 104(2), 70-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2004.tb17984.x
  36. Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Introduction: Does writing promote learning in science? In C. S. Wallace, B. Hand, & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the science classroom (pp.1-8). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  37. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
  38. Willett, J. B., Yamashita, J. M., & Anderson, R. D. (1983). A meta analysis of instructional systems applied in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 405-417. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200505
  39. Wise, K. C., & Okey, J. C. (1983). A meta analysis of the effects of various science teaching strategies on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 419-435. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200506
  40. Wu, H., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465-492. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10126
  41. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305018
  42. Yore, L. D & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 291-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336973

Cited by

  1. 읽기전략으로 사용된 읽기틀이 중학생들의 반성 글쓰기에 미치는 영향 vol.33, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.2.249
  2. 논의기반 탐구 과학 글쓰기 수업 적용에서 나타나는 초임 과학 교사들의 수업에 대한 인식 및 수업실행 변화 vol.33, pp.7, 2010, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.7.1329