Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education

Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 2020 - Volume 16 Issue 4, Article No: e2222
https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/8544

Published Online: 18 Sep 2020

Views: 842 | Downloads: 592

The application for burning incenses case study both indoors and outdoors is a controversial issues of value-laden and moral dilemma in Taiwan. This research aimed at using the argumentation-based case study as burning incenses with concept mapping approach in identifying students’ learning performances towards scientific process skills. It was followed by an argumentation-based approach of pre-tests, post-tests and interviews designed for 139 qualified participants. All data collected from two experimental group students’ argumentation-based learning performances and feedback was further analyzed by means of open-ended achievement tests, descriptive statistical analysis of learning attitude and the narration of students’ interviews. Analytical results indicated that the argumentation-based texts were successfully designed for students’ learning guidance by instructor. An evaluation tools with content validity and good reliability (Cronbach’s α > .9) were developed to assess students’ argumentation-based learning performances. The achievement posttest finding revealed that two experimental group students enhanced their science argumentation skills of higher level than pretests. The further t-test of achievement posttest didn’t indicate any significant differences (p> .05) for two experimental group students. Students’ positive learning feedbacks also provided the predominant advantage for activating responsive reasons, promoting their critical thinking, enhancing self-confidence of science process skills and supporting teachers in argumentation teaching.

argumentation-based concept mapping burn incenses learning performance

• Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2013). Animated and static concept maps enhance learning from spoken narration. Learning and Instruction, 27, 1-10.
• Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626-639.
• Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Aydeniz, M., Pabuççu, A., Çetin, P. S., & Kaya, E. (2012). Argumentation and Students’ conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 1303-1324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9336-1
• Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D. T., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry and inscriptions: Supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 59-82.
• 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.
• Çetin, P. S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.850071
• Chin, C. C., Yang, W. C., & Tuan, H. L. (2016). Argumentation in a Socioscientific Context and its Influence on Fundamental and Derived Science Literacies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14, 603–617.
• Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D., T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837-861. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701411567
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
• Eichler, J. F.; Peeples, J. (2016). Flipped classroom modules for large enrollment general chemistry courses: a low barrier approach to increase active learning and improve student grades. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17 (1), 197−208.
• Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers’ adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 48(2), 149-169.
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: an overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
• Knight-Bardsley, A., & Mcneill, K. L. (2016). Teachers’ pedagogical design capacity for scientific argumentation. Science Education, 100, 645–672.
• Lin, L., & Atkinson, R. K. (2011). Using animations and visual cueing to support learning of scientific concepts and processes. Computers & Education, 56(3), 650-658.
• McNeilla, K. L., Katsh-Singera, R., González-Howarda, M. & Loper, S. (2016). Factors impacting teachers’ argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 2026–2046.
• Nicoll, G., Francisco, J., & Nakhleh, M. (2001). An investigation of the value of using concept maps in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1111-1117.
• Nielsen, J. A. (2012). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96, 428–456.
• Norris, S. P., & Philips, L. M. (2012). Reading science: How a naïve view of reading hinders so much else. In A. Zohar. & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp 37-56). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463-466.
• Peng, H. Y., Su, Y. J., Chou, C., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). Ubiquitous knowledge construction: mobile learning re-defined and a conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(2), 171–183.
• Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463e1489.
• Sadler, T. D., Klosterman, M. L., & Topcu, M. S. (2011). Learning science content and socio-scientific reasoning through classroom explorations of global climate change. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 45–77). New York: Springer.
• Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., & Topçu, M. S. (2016). Learning science content through socio-scientific issues-based instruction: a multi-level assessment study. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 1622-1635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1204481
• Salta, K., & Tzougraki, C. (2004). Attitudes toward chemistry among 11th grade students in high schools in Greece. Science Education, 88, 535-547.
• Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1122–1148. doi: 10.1002/tea.21037.
• Schultz, E. (2008). Dynamic reaction figures: An integrative vehicle for understanding chemical reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 386-392.
• Schalk, H. H., van der Schee, J. A., & Boersma, K. T. (2013). The development of understanding of evidence in pre-university biology education in The Netherlands. Research in Science Education, 43, 551–578.
• Selvaratnam, M., & Canagaratna, S. G. (2008). Using problem-solution maps to improve students’ problem-solving skills. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 381-385.
• Su, K. D. (2008).The effects of a chemistry course with integrated information communication technologies on university students’ learning and attitudes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 225-249.
• Su, K. D. (2016). Strengthening strategic applications of problem-solving skills for Taiwan students’ chemistry understanding. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(6), 662-679.
• Su, K. D. (2017). Tactic fulfilments of three correlations for problem-solving maps and animated presentations to assess students’ stoichiometry performances. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(5), 733-745.
• Su, K. D. (2018). Enhancing students’ corresponding reasoning of cognitive performances by animated concept mapping in electrochemistry. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(4), 662-673.
• Taber, K. S. (2014). Ethical considerations of chemistry education research involving ‘human subjects’. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, 109-113.
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Tsai, C. Y. (2018). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientific issues on students’ scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Computers & Education, 116, 14-27.
• Ural, E., & Gençoğlan, D. M. (2020). The Effect of Argumentation-Based Science Teaching Approach on 8th Graders’ Learning in the Subject of Acids-Bases, their Attitudes towards Science Class and Scientific Process Skills. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 16(1), e02207, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/6369
• Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 952–977.
• Weng, W. Y., Lin, Y. R. & She, H. C. (2017). Scaffolding for argumentation in hypothetical and theoretical biology concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 39(7), 877–897.

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.