Post on 28-Mar-2020
transcript
Title Making thinking visible in classroom via scientific argumentation Author(s) Ning Hwee Tiang and Chang Sook Mei Source Proceedings of the International Science Education Conference 2014 (pp.
1252-1267). Singapore: National Institute of Education Publisher Natural Science and Science Education, National Institute of Education
Copyright © 2014 Natural Science and Science Education, National Institute of Education No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the Natural Sciences and Science Education Academic Group, National Institute of Education. Citation: Ning, H. T., & Chang, S. M. (2014). Making thinking visible in classroom via scientific argumentation. In Y. -J. Lee, N. T -L. Lim, K. S. Tan, H. E. Chu, P. Y. Lim, Y. H. Lim, & I. Tan (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Science Education Conference 2014 (pp. 1252-1267). Singapore: National Institute of Education. This document was archived with permission from the copyright holder.
Visible-Thinking Argumentation
Making Thinking Visible In Classroom Via Scientific Argumentation
NING Hwee Tiang
CHANG Sook Mei
National Junior College, Singapore.
ning hwee tiang@moe.edu.sg. chang soak mei@moe.edu.sg
Abstract
Scientific argumentation is an integral part of learning science. In this small-scale exploratory
study, we attempted to develop students' reasoning skill via the use of thinking routine of
Claim-Support-Question whilst engaging students in the process of scientific argumentation.
Paul's Wheel of Reasoning (1992) is the instrument used as a means to measure the quality of
argument and hence student reasoning. This paper describes how the instrument is used to
evaluate the quality of arguments and reasoning, discusses its strengths and weaknesses and
makes recommendations for classroom instruction and further analyses. Preliminary findings
as gathered from a grade-11 class has showed that by using CSQ routine and evaluating
students' arguments, helped make their thinking visible in both their conceptual
understanding and scientific reasoning, and promote collaborative discourses.
Keywords : scientific argumentation, claim-support-question, wheel of reasoning
1252
Visible-Thinking Argumentation
Making Thinking Visible in classroom via Scientific Argumentation
Introduction
Over the year, we realised that students had difficulties writing effective explanations and
making reasoned arguments. This problem was seen across all subjects. We found there were
gaps in our student's argumentation and each department was solving this issue
independently. This caused confusion among students as differently strategies were adopted
by different subjects. We looked for a solution that could work across all disciplines and we
found that Visible Thinking could be used to overcome all the issues we faced as a college.
We adopted the Claim-Support-Question thinking routine and Paul's Wheel of Reasoning to
scaffold critical thinking in the classroom. The aim was to teach argumentation in a
consistent manner across subjects and to encourage debate, listen, define, question, to justify
and encourage reflection.
Literature Review
Most of the articles on argumentation mentioned the importance of argumentation in science
education. In Leaming to Teach Argumentation (Erduan, Ardac, & Yakmaci-Guzel, 2006),
the authors reiterated that not teaching argumentation in science, 'exposes the weakness of
science education'. Driver, Newton & Osborne (2000) mentioned that argumentation as a
core practice in science, plays a critical role in advancing science knowledge.
Argumentation helps students to think critically. In Nussbaum (2002), he mentioned that the
studying and practicing argumentation was to develop students' capacity to engage in
argumentation and reasoned discourse. In Dawson and Venville (20 I 0), argumentation
allowed individuals to be able to weigh up the risks and benefits, pose questions, evaluate the
1253
Visible-Thinking Argumentation
integrity of information and make decisions. Aduriz-Bravo et al (2005) stressed that
argumentation would allow students to identify problems, formulate hypotheses, contrast
models, provide evidence, explain, justify and argue.
Most authors would recommend the use of a framework to help students scaffold their
reasoning. Nussbaum (2002) mentioned that students require assistance in learning how to
argue in a more explicit manner. Erduran, Ardac and Yakmaci-Guzel (2006) used questioning
prompts and they modelled the strategy in class. While Dawson and Venville (2010) used a
combination of questioning, writing frames and teachers playing the devil ' s advocate and role
play.
Students had difficulty in acquiring conceptual understanding in Physics. They often adopted
the rote-memorization approach to learning Physics as they saw ' "learning" physics simply
meant memorization of information and of problem-solving recipes that applied to highly
specific situations' (Wiemann and Perkins, 2005). Studies (Venville, Dawson, 2010; Erduran,
Simon, & Osborne, 2004) which involved students in argumentative discourses saw gain in
the students' conceptual understanding and reasoning abilities.
Recently, two more popular frameworks in teaching argument explicitly were works
published by IDEAS project (Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004) and the Claim, Evidence
and Reasoning framework (McNeill et al, 2006). Both frameworks used Toulmin' s (1958)
argument (TAP) structure, with some modifications; allowed students to gain experience in
using the argument framework as well as using it to facilitate critical thinking and promote
inquiry. While there were similar components such as claim, evidence (data) and reasoning
which was comparable to warrant with backing; IDEAS framework emphasized on rebuttal.
1254
Visible-Thinking Argumentation
Methodology
Of the numerous and varied interventions done on argument and argumentation in the science
classrooms, this study chose to focus on the means in developing reasoning competency in
students using arguments. This is achieved through explicit teaching of a framework for
argument to the students and then their subsequent applications of the framework. Hence, for
the study, the thinking routine of Claim, Support & Questions was identified to familiarise
students with a structure for making arguments and enhance students' thinking. Our school
has adopted the whole school approach in the use of Visible Thinking in action 1 to enhance
students' learning. The learning goals of this argument activity for the students were: (a) to
provide opportunity to acquire the structure of argument, (b) to construct the explanation to
any given physics task using the CSQ structure, and (c) to have their argument evaluated
using the modified Thinking Grid2•
The following research questions guided the study:
To what extent has the structure of CSQ enabled the students' quality ofreasoning?
What is the quality of students ' argumentative discourse as they immerse in more argument
writing experiences?
What is the learning gain in their conceptual understanding of the topics?
Gabrielsen (2013) cited J Osborne' s (of Stanford Graduate School of Education) argument
that teaching students how to argue based on available evidence engages them in the
scientific process and provides a better idea of how science actually works. He also
highlighted that "argumentation," makes science education more valuable, not just for future
scientists but for the public at large. With this in mind, we wanted to develop in our students
1255
Visible-Thinking Argumentation
the ability to weigh up the risks and benefits, pose questions, evaluate the integrity of
information and make decisions. We embarked on this project to see if our students with the
right instruction and structure would be able to provide necessary evidence to support a claim
and ask questions to test assumptions. Students have a tendency to just attempt questions in
physics without questioning the assumptions or to question validity of the theory used. We
wanted students to be critical thinkers and to make them better science students.
Subjects
Twenty-five Grade 11 students from an intact class that did Physics were involved in this
argument activity. They were subjects of convenience sampling. They had done pure physics
in their secondary school. These students have no idea what constitutes an argument, nor
have experienced it as an instructional strategy, however, they may be familiar with the
common exercise of explaining and have some notion of what is a scientific explanation.
Design
Use of Paul's Elements of Reasoning
In the attempt to define critical thinking, Facione's Delphi Study (1990) arrived at that
critical thinking is a construction and evaluation of arguments (pp.5 - 10). As a result, the
consensus statement has "critical thinking evolved to the 'purposeful, self-regulatory
judgement which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation and inference as well as
explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological or contextual consideration upon
that judgement is based' (Wu, 2008). Hence Paul's Elements ofreasoning (Paul & Elder,
1997) acts as a valid and good proxy to check on the quality of reasoning. The elements of
reasoning (question at issue/claim, evidence, point of view, assumptions, inferences,
implications, concepts)- constitute a central focus in the assessment of student thinking.
1256
Visible-Thinking Argumentation
They are captured through students' writing made on the template and the classroom
discourse as observed by teacher. The identification of claim and how well it is supported,
decide one's scoring in terms of the quality of reasoning. This study adapted the Critical
Thinking Grid2 as the scoring rubric for assessing students' reasoning ability. When it is used
appropriately and graded accurately, it is reliable to give a high degree of consequential
validity2.
As this is a preliminary scan of the level ofreasoning ability amongst the students and the
ease of learning the structure of argument, there was only informal collection of classroom
discourses by the teacher. As such, this study is predominantly quantitative.
The pre-test and post-test used the same questions. The test captured one short structured
question for each topic (Dynamics and Turning effects of forces).
Procedure
The students did the pre-test without being exposed to the structure of thinking routine:
Claim-Support-Question. In the pre-test, they completed the worksheet using the template
(see Appendix 1 ). The completed templates were assessed using the Critical Thinking Grid
rubric with the Elements of reasoning. For the subsequent lessons, teacher demonstrated how
the argument structure is used, in the classroom using a teaching sequence. After a few
weeks, another test was conducted, using the template. The results of the test are discussed in
the next section.
This cycle was repeated for 2 different topics; namely Dynamics and Turning effects of
forces.
1257
Visible-Thinking Argumentation
Result and Data Analysis
A 2-tailed t-test was conducted for the mean scores of the students' responses in terms of (a)
claim, (b) support & ( c) questions on both topics.
Table 1: t-test on mean score of response for (a) claim, (b) support & (c) questions; for
template on the topic of Dynamics
Pre-test Post-test
Ola Olb Ole Ola Qlb Qlc mean 2.08 2.28 1.76 2.84 2.84 0 SD 0.954 0.980 1.16 0.554 0.473 0
0.00514 0.0198 P value
Table 2: t-test on mean score of response for (a) claim, (b) support & (c) questions; for
template on the topic of Turning effects of Forces
Pre-test Q2a Q2b Q2c
mean 2.32 1.76 0.92 SD 0.988 0.831 0.760
P value
3.5 ...------------
3 +------------
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Claim Support Question
Post-test Q2a Q2b Q2c 2.88 2.60 -
0.332 0.577 -0.0162 0.000424
• Pre-test
• Post-test
Graph !_Dynamics: mean scores ofresponses for (a) claim, (b) support & (c) questions for
pre- & post- tests.
1258
1.20 -r-----------
1.00 +-----------
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00 Claim Support Question
Visible-Thinking Argumentation
• Pre-test
• Post-test
Graph 2_ Turning effects of Forces: mean scores of responses for (a) claim, (b) support & (c)
questions for pre- & post- tests.
Findings and Discussion
For Qla, Qlb, Q2a & Q2b, all have P values< 0.05. Hence, there is sufficient evidence to
reject the null hypothesis for alternative hypothesis.
There is no P values for Q 1 c &Q2c as the students did not raise any questions in the Post -
test. Students were confident in their solutions. However, they did question assumptions and
concepts used during lessons.
For problem in the topic of Dynamics,
the mean value for 'claim' in the post test (2.84) is higher than pre-test (2.08) by 0.76. The
increase is due to weaker students (weak in fundamental concepts) who performed better
after the intervention (thinking routine) was introduced. They were able to identify the
problem/issue or make inferences accurately. Stronger students maintained good performance
for both test (not benefiting from the intervention).
the mean value for 'support' in the post test (2.84) is higher than pre-test (2.28) by 0.56.
Weak students were able to give well developed evidence in the problem solving after the
intervention. They were confident in applying concepts (Newton's Second Law) and capable
1259
Visible-Thinking Argumentation
of presenting solutions in a logical way. Stronger students maintained good performance for
both tests (not benefiting from the approach).
Similar results were obtained for the other topic 'Turning effects of forces ' . The post test
results were better than the pre-test results for both 'claim' and ' support' . Weaker students
benefitted a lot from the approach (CSQ). The approach has actually provided a learning
environment that both promotes and facilitates students' construction, representation, and
evaluation of knowledge claims and self-monitoring of scientific reasoning.
Stronger students did benefit from the ' questioning' part. Though they were good at problem
solving, they lacked the ability to accurately identify assumptions initially. Most of the time
they took things for granted without giving reasonable/valid assumptions. When teacher
modelled on how to question assumptions accurately and reasonably during lessons. It was
observed that they could ask deeper thinking questions after a few lessons.
It was also observed that students working in groups and having to reason about their
opinions and teach one another and convince one another using the arguments that apparently
convinced themselves. The approach (CSQ) has created opportunity for students to learn
certain aspects of science that are different from conceptual comprehension.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the students have demonstrated good progress in using the structure of CSQ to
enable their reasoning. Though the quality of students' argumentative discourse has yet to be
established, it is obvious that rich discourses could be expected as they immerse in more
argument writing experiences.
It is observed that students show improvement in conceptual understanding of the topics, and
it remains to ascertain the learning gain.
Limitations and Recommendations
1260
Visible-Thinking Argumentation
Initially the students had difficulty asking questions or to provide evidence to support the
claims because to them this is seen as accurate and true and found it a waste of time. It took a
lot of explanation and coaxing by the teacher to help the students to understand the need to
question. The students had difficulty coming up with questions as they were uncomfortable in
questioning scientific knowledge. As days went on students began to ask questions build on
each other's points of discussion enabling for deeper understanding of the topic.
One way to overcome this problem is to give students a list of question prompts to help them
think of the questions to ask. Teacher could also model the questioning technique in the
classroom and ask questions like ' what if and 'where did you get this idea' . When this is
done, it would help make student's thinking visible and others would start the cyclical
process of examining point raised (which could be a claim, question or reason) through the
CSQ routine.
Teacher could also verbalise the concept to help the students to meta-cogitate - activate their
thinking on what was being verbalized and to further help along the process use Paul's Wheel
of Reasoning to help to facilitate thinking and reasoning.
1261
Visible-Thinking Argumentation
References
Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 815-843.
Agustin Aduriz-Bravo, Leonor Bonan, Leonardo Gonzalez Galli, Andrea Revel Chien, Elsa
Meinard (2005). Scientific Argumentation In Pre-Service Biology Teacher
Education, in Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,
Vol. 1, No. 1.
Chowning J T, Griswold J.C., Carlton J., Kovarik D. N. & Collins, L. J. (2012). Fostering
Critical Thinking, Reasoning, and Argumentation Skills through Bioethics Education,
PLoS ONE 7(5): e36791; retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/ on 17 July 2014.
Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K-12 Science Education Standards;
National Research Council, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,
Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, retrieved from
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record id=13165, on 13 Jan 2014.
Dawson, V.M., Venville, G. J, (2004). Teaching Strategies for Developing Students
Argumentation Skills About Socioscientific Issues In High School Genetics, Research
in Science Education, 40 (2): pp 133-148.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific
argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in
the application ofToulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science
Education, 88(6), 915-933.
1262
Visible-Thinking Argumentation
Erduan, Sibel, Dilek Ardac, Buket Yamaci-Guzel, (2006). Leaming to Teach Argumentation:
Case Studies of Pre-Service Secondary Teachers, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science and Technology Education, Vol. 2, No. 2.
M. Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre, Anxela Bugallo Rodriguez, Richard A Dusch!, (1999). Doing
the Lesson" or "Doing Science": Argument in High School Genetics, 84 (6), pp. 287-
312.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J, Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students'
construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15 (2), 15 3-191.
Nussbaum, E. Michael (2002). Scaffolding Argumentation in Social Studies Classroom, The
Social Studies, 93:2, 79-83.
Paul Gabrielsen (2013), Teach science through argument, Stanford professor says, Stanford
Report, retrieved from http:/ /news.stanford.edu/news/2013/april/science-education
argument-040913 .html, on 1 Aug 2014
Paul, R. & Elder, L. ( 1997). Elements of reasoning & intellectual standards, retrieved from
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/the-elements-of-reasoning-and-the-intellectual
standards/480, on 17 Jan 2014.
Erinosho, Stella Y. (2013), How Do Students Perceive the Difficulty of Physics in Secondary
School? An Exploratory Study in Nigeria International Journal for Cross
Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE), Special Issue, 3(3).
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
C. Ancell, 0. Guttersrud, E., Henriksen, & A. Isnes (2004). Physics: Frightful, but fun.
Pupils' and teachers' views of physics and physics teaching, Science Education, 88(5),
683-706
2The Critical Thinking Grid, (n.d.) Critical Thinking & Assessment, retrieved from
1263
Visible-Thinking Argumentation
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-testing-and-assessment/594, on 17 Jan
2014.
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 (8), pp. 133-148.
1Visible Thinking in action (n. d), retrieved from
http://www.visiblethinkingpz.org/VisibleThinking html files/01 VisibleThinkingln
Action/Ola VTinAction.html, on 17 Jan 2014.
Wieman C. & K. Perkins (2005). Transforming physics education, Physics Today, 58(11),
36-41.
Wu Chun-Ping (2008). Exploring the relationship between self-regulating Intentional
Internet search (IIS) and critical thinking skills. Instructional Design, Development
and Evaluation - Dissertations. Syracuse University.
Chin, C. (2008). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: What approaches stimulate
productive thinking? In Y.-J. Lee & A.-L. Tan, (Eds.), Science education at the nexus
of theory and practice (pp. 203-217). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Lee, Y.-J., & Tan, A. L. (Eds.). (2008). Science education at the nexus of theory and
practice. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] (2012). Education at a
glance 2012. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a
glance-2012 eag highlights-2012-en
Winton, J. N. (1991). Supplementation of wild salmonids: Management practices in British Columbia (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Washington, Washington.
Appendix 1
1264
Visible-Thinking Argumentation
Pre-test Dvnamics
Claim:
Support:
Question:
Turnina effects of forces
Claim:
Support:
Question:
Appendix 2
1265
2014 SH1 Physics Forces
Visible-Thinking Argumentation
Name: ________ _ Class: _______ _ Date: ____ _
A cubic piece of cork of sides 2.00 cm was placed in water as shown in the diagram below.
cork water
Given that the density of cork is 200 kgm-3, calculate the upthrust on the piece of cork.
Calculate the height of the piece of cork above the water. (density of water= 1000 kgm-3)
Appendix 3 - Assessment Rubric
1266
Visible-Thinking Argumentation
Rubrics for CSQ Thinking Routine (ver.2) Competency 3 2 1 0
Identify the Accurately identifies Identifies the Identifies an Does not claim/ problem/ the problem/question. inappropriate identify a question at problem/question problem/question. problem/ issue. Makes insufficient question
Makes accurate inferences Makes inference inaccurate inferences Makes
inappropriate inferences
Identifies and Provides a well- Examines evidence Merely repeats Does not assesses the developed and information identify or quality of examination of the questions the quality. provided. Does not provide relevant supporting evidence and justify position. supporting data/ evidence questions its evidence.
accuracy, relevance, and completeness.
Identify and Identifies and Identifies and Identifies other points Ignores or assess the evaluates relevant evaluates relevant of view but may focus superficially questions raised significant points of points of view on irrelevant or evaluates Points of View view insignificant points of alternate points
view of view
And/Or And/Or And/Or And/Or And/Or
Assumptions Accurately identifies Identifies Fails to identify Fails to identify assumptions (things assumptions.-Makes assumptions, or fails assumptions. -taken for granted). valid assumptions to explain them, or Makes invalid Makes assumptions the assumptions assumptions that are reasonable, identified are valid irrelevant, not clearly
stated, and/or invalid
And/Or And/Or And/Or And/Or And/Or
Interpretation Follows where Follows where Does follow some Uses superficial, evidence and evidence and evidence to simplistic, or reason lead in order reason lead to conclusions, but irrelevant reasons to obtain obtain justifiable, inferences are more and unjustifiable convincing, logical conclusions often than not claims thoughtful, logical unclear, illogical, conclusions or inconsistent, and/or solutions superficial
And/Or And/Or And/Or And/Or And/Or Concepts Identifies and Identifies and Identifies some (not Misunderstands
accurately accurately explains all) key concepts, but key concepts or explains/uses the and uses key use of concepts is ignores relevant key concepts concepts but not superficial and key concepts
with the depth and inaccurate at times altogether. precision of '4'.
1267