Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education

Developing the Structure of Junior High School Students’ Arguments about Ohm's Law
Anastasios Smprinis 1, Michael Skoumios 2 *
More Detail
1 Hellenic Open University, GREECE
2 Department of Primary Education, School of Humanities, University of the Aegean, GREECE
* Corresponding Author
Research Article

Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 2021 - Volume 17 Issue 4, Article No: e2256
https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/11137

Published Online: 12 Aug 2021

Views: 213 | Downloads: 110

How to cite this article
APA 6th edition
In-text citation: (Smprinis & Skoumios, 2021)
Reference: Smprinis, A., & Skoumios, M. (2021). Developing the Structure of Junior High School Students’ Arguments about Ohm's Law. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 17(4), e2256. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/11137
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Smprinis A, Skoumios M. Developing the Structure of Junior High School Students’ Arguments about Ohm's Law. INTERDISCIP J ENVIRON SCI EDUC. 2021;17(4):e2256. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/11137
AMA 10th edition
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Smprinis A, Skoumios M. Developing the Structure of Junior High School Students’ Arguments about Ohm's Law. INTERDISCIP J ENVIRON SCI EDUC. 2021;17(4), e2256. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/11137
Chicago
In-text citation: (Smprinis and Skoumios, 2021)
Reference: Smprinis, Anastasios, and Michael Skoumios. "Developing the Structure of Junior High School Students’ Arguments about Ohm's Law". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education 2021 17 no. 4 (2021): e2256. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/11137
Harvard
In-text citation: (Smprinis and Skoumios, 2021)
Reference: Smprinis, A., and Skoumios, M. (2021). Developing the Structure of Junior High School Students’ Arguments about Ohm's Law. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 17(4), e2256. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/11137
MLA
In-text citation: (Smprinis and Skoumios, 2021)
Reference: Smprinis, Anastasios et al. "Developing the Structure of Junior High School Students’ Arguments about Ohm's Law". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, vol. 17, no. 4, 2021, e2256. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/11137
ABSTRACT
While students’ difficulties in constructing scientific arguments have been studied, research on developing the quality of students’ scientific arguments through the implementation of instructional interventions is limited. The present study aims to examine the effects of an instructional intervention for Ohm’s Law, which was designed on a teaching science as practices approach, on the development of the structure of students’ written scientific arguments. Instructional material was constructed for teaching Ohm’s Law and was implemented to 14-year-old students. The research data included students’ written answers (arguments) put down on worksheets during the instructional intervention, as well as students’ answers (arguments) to a questionnaire they were provided with before and after the instructional intervention. Data analysis showed that the instructional intervention contributed to developing the structure of students’ written scientific arguments. The study concludes with a discussion on the results and proposals for further research.
KEYWORDS
REFERENCES
  • 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(8), 797–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284
  • Berland, L., & McNeill, K. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
  • Bybee, R., Taylor, J., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs.
  • Chen, H.-T., Wang, H.-H., Lu, Y.-Y., Lin, H., & Hong, Z.-R. (2016). Using a modified argument-driven inquiry to promote elementary school students’ engagement in learning science and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 170-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1134849
  • Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 19(3), 323–393. https://10.1207/S1532690XCI1903_3
  • Chiu, M.-H. & Lin, J.-W. (2005). Promoting fourth graders' conceptual change of their understanding of electric current via multiple analogies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(4), 429-464. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20062
  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
  • Driver, R., Newton, D., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  • Forbes, C., Lange, K., Möller, K., Biggers, M., Laux, M., & Zangori, L. (2014). Explanation construction in fourth-grade classrooms in Germany and the USA: A cross-national comparative video study. International Journal of Science Education, 36(14), 2367-2390. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.923950
  • Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263
  • González-Howard, M., Marco-Bujosa, L., McNeill, K. L., Goss, M. & Loper, S. (2018). The argumentation toolkit: A resource for integrating argumentation into your science classroom. Science Scope, 42(3), 74-78.
  • Gotwals, A. W., Songer, N. B., & Bullard, L. (2012). Assessing students’ progressing abilities to construct scientific explanations. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions (pp. 183–210). The Netherlands: Sense Publishing.
  • Grooms, J., Enderle, P., & Sampson, V. (2015). Coordinating scientific argumentation and the next generation science standards through argument driven inquiry. Science Educator, 24(1), 45-50.
  • Heng, L. L., Surif, J., & Seng, C. H. (2015). Malaysian students’ scientific argumentation: Do groups perform better than individuals? International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.995147
  • Hernandez, C., & Tecpan, S. (2018). Correct answers with wrong justifications? Analysis of explanations in classical mechanics with FCI test. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1043(1), 012056.
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or" doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
  • Kang, E.J.S., Swanson, L.H., & Bauler, C.V. (2017). ’Explicame’: Examining emergent bilinguals’ ability to construct arguments and explanations during a unit on plate tectonics. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 12–45.
  • Kelly, G. J., Drucker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200707
  • Klieger, A., & Rochsar, A. (2017). Impartation of argumentation skills: Impact of scaffolds on the quality of arguments. Journal of Advances in Education Research, 2(3), 183-190. https://doi.org/10.22606/jaer.2017.23006
  • Knight, A. M., McNeill, K. L., Corrigan, S., & Barber, J. (2013, April). Student assessments for reading and writing scientific arguments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
  • Krajcik, J., Codere, S., Dahsah, C., Bayer, R. & Mun, K. (2014). Planning instruction to meet the intent of the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 157-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9383-2
  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
  • Lee, E. J., Cite, S., & Hanuscin, D. (2014). Taking the “mystery” out of argumentation: A traditional mystery-powders lesson is modified to emphasize argumentation. Science and Children, 52(1), 46-52.
  • Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  • Lizotte, D. J., Harris, C. J., McNeill, K. L., Marx, R. W., & Krajcik, J. (2003, April). Usable
  • assessments aligned with curriculum materials: Measuring explanation as a scientific way of knowing. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
  • McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233-268. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20294
  • McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
  • McNeill K. L., & Krajcik J. (2007). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with Data: The proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 233–265). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20201
  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. Journal of Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903013488
  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York. NY: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
  • McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R. & Pelletier, P. (2015). Assessing science practices – Moving your class along a continuum. Science Scope, 39(4), 21-28.
  • McNeill, K.L., Lowenhaupt, R., & Katsh-Singer, R. (2018). Instructional leadership and the implementation of the NGSS: Principals’ understandings of science practices. Science Education, 102(3), 452-473. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21336
  • Mislevy, R. J., Almond, R. G., & Lukas, J. F. (2004). A brief introduction to Evidence-Centered Design. CSE Technical Report 632, The National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE). LA, CA: University of California, Los Angeles.
  • Moje, E. B., Peek-Brown, D., Sutherland, L. M., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Explaining explanations: Developing scientific literacy in middle-school project-based science reforms. In D. Strickland & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the gap: improving literacy learning for preadolescent and adolescent learners in grades (pp. 4–12). New York: Carnegie Corporation.
  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & 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
  • Osborne, J., & Quinn, H. (2017). The framework, the NGSS, and the practices of science. In C.V. Schwarz, C. Passmore, & B. Reiser (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices (pp. 59-83). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
  • Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: a necessary distinction? Science Education, 95, 627-638. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20438
  • Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21073
  • Psillos, D., Koumaras, P., & Valassiades, O. (1987). Pupils' representations of electric current before, during and after instruction on DC circuits. Research in Science and Technological Education, 5(2), 185-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514870050209
  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
  • Sampson, V., & Walker, J. P. (2012). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate students write to learn by learning to write in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1443–1485. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.667581
  • Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to learn by learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643–670. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21069
  • Sandoval, W.A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Science, 12(1), 5-51. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2
  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
  • Schwarz, C., Passmore, C., & Reiser, B. J. (Eds.). (2017). Helping students make sense of the world using Next Generation Science and Engineering Practices. NSTA Press.
  • Shipstone, D. M. (1984). A study of children’s understanding of electricity in simple D.C. circuits. European Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528840060208
  • Shipstone, D. (1985). On children’s use of conceptual models in reasoning about current electricity. In R. Duit, W. Jung & C. von Rhöneck (Eds.), Aspects of understanding electricity. Proceedings of an international workshop, 1984 (pp. 73–82). Kiel, Germany: Schmidt & Klaunig.
  • Shipstone, D. (1988). Pupils' understanding of simple electrical circuits. Physics Education, 23, 92-96. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/23/2/004
  • Shipstone, D. M., Rhöneck, C. V., Karrqvist, C., Dupin, J., Johsua, S., & Licht, P. (1988). A study of student’ understanding of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 10(3), 303-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100306
  • Skoumios, M. & Hatzinikita, V. (2014). Assessing students’ science written arguments. Natural Sciences in Education, 3, 9–19. [in Greek]
  • Songer, N. B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2012). Guiding explanation construction by children at the entry points of learning progressions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(2), 141–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20454
  • Songer, N. B., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2009). How and when does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 610-631. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20313
  • Su, K-D. (2020). An argumentation-based study with concept mapping approach in identifying students’ scientific performance skills. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 16(4), e2222. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/8544
  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The use of arguments. Weinheim, Germany, Beltz.
  • 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. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/6369
  • von Rhöneck, C., & Grob, K. (1991). Psychological aspects of learning about basic electricity in rural and urban classes. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130108
  • Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 561–596. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21082
  • Widodo, A., Duit, R,, & Müller, C. (2002). Constructivist views of teaching and learning in practice: Teachers’ views and classroom behavior. In: Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, US, 7–10 April 2002. New Orleans: NARST Publications, 1–18.
  • Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 716-730. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20318
  • Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199707)81:4<483::AID-SCE7>3.0.CO;2-8
  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
LICENSE
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.