Examination of science learning equity by argumentation ınstruction between students having different socio-economic status and attending different achievement level schools

Ömer  Acar

doi:10.36681/

Authors

Ömer Acar Kocaeli University, Faculty of Education, Kocaeli-TURKEY

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/

Keywords:

Achievement, Argumentation, Equity, Socio-economic status, Middle school

Abstract

We investigated if argumentation instruction provides equal science learning opportunities to students who have different socio-economic status (SES) and attend different achievement level schools. We selected a disadvantaged school and an advantaged school for this aim. 46 low-SES 8th graders in the disadvantaged school formed the experimental group. 35 low-SES 8th graders in the disadvantaged school formed the control group and 29 high-SES 8th graders in the advantaged school formed the comparison group. While experimental group received argumentation instruction on science topics during one semester, control and comparison groups did not. We compared group performances on conceptual knowledge, utility value of science, beliefs on theory and data, and views on student-centered teaching. Results showed that students of experimental and comparison groups outperformed students of control group on all measures after instruction. In addition, no difference was found between experimental and comparison group after instruction except from beliefs on theory and data measure.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Acar, O. (2008). Argumentation skills and conceptual knowledge of undergraduate students in a physics by inquiry class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Acar, Ö (2015). Examination of science learning equity through argumentation and traditional instruction noting differences in socio-economic status. Science Education International, 26(1), 24-41.

Acar, Ö., Türkmen, L., & Bilgin, A. (2015). Examination of Gender Differences on Cognitive and Motivational Factors that Influence 8th Graders’ Science Achievement in Turkey. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 1027-1040. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1372a

Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745-1765. doi: 10.1080/09500690601075629

Atar, H. Y. (2014). Multilevel effects of teacher characteristics on TIMSS 2011 science achievement. Education and Science, 39(172), 121-137.

Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Cetin, P. S., & Kaya, E. (2012). Argumentation and students’ conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1303-1324. doi: 10.1007/s10763-012-9336-1

Aypay, A., Erdoğan, M., & Sözer, M. A. (2007). Variation among schools on classroom practices in science based on TIMSS-1999 in Turkey. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1417-1435. doi: 10.1002/tea.20202

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. doi: 10.1080/095006900412284

Ceylan, E., & Akerson, V. (2014). Comparing the low- and high-performing schools based on the TIMSS in the United States. Education and Science, 39(173), 299-309.

Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & McDowell, L. (2013). The effects of writing-to-learn activities on elementary students’ conceptual understanding: Learning about Force and motion through writing to older peers. Science Education, 97, 745-771. doi: 10.1002/sce.21067

de Bono, E. (1985). Six thinking hats. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Dincer, M. A., & Uysal G. (2010). The determinants of student achievement in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 30, 592-598. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2010.05.005

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A

Eğitimi Araştırma ve Geliştirme Dairesi Başkanlığı. (2010). Uluslararası öğrenci değerlendirme programı PISA: 2009 ulusal ön raporu [International student assessment program PISA: 2009 national preliminary report]. Ankara, Turkey: Earged.

Engin-Demir, C. (2009). Factors influencing the academic achievement of the Turkish urban poor. International Journal of Educational Development, 29, 17-29. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.03.003

Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education, (pp. 47-69). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Erduran, S., Ardac, D., & Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of pre-service secondery science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14.

Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, Part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689-698. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660230804

Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922-939. doi: 10.1002/tea.20248

Gültepe, N. T., & Kılıç, Z. (2013). Bilimsel tartışma ve lise öğrencilerinin çözünürlük dengesi ve asitler-bazlar konularındaki kavramsal anlamaları. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 10(4), 5-21.

Günel, M., Memiş, E. K., & Büyükkasap, E. (2010). Effects of the science writing heuristic approach on primary school students’ science achievement and attitude toward science course. Education & Science, 35(155), 49-62.

Huppert, J., Lomask, S. M., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high school: Students’ cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 803-821. doi: 10.1080/09500690110049150

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, 757- 792. doi: 10.1002/1098-237x(200011)84:6<757::aid-sce5>3.0.co;2-f Johnson, C. C. (2009). An examination of effective practice: Moving toward elimination of achievement gaps in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 287-306. doi: 10.1007/s10972-009-9134-y

Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871. doi: 10.1080/0950069980200707

Kolsto, S. D. (2001). ‘To trust or not to trust,...’-pupils ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877-901. doi: 10.1080/09500690010016102

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730770306

Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 9(4), 285-327. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci0904_1

Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00605

Leach, J., Millar, R., Ryder, J., & Sere, M. G. (2000). Epistemological understanding in science learning: The consistency of representations across contexts. Learning and Instruction, 10, 497-527. doi: 10.1016/s0959-4752(00)00013-x

Lewis, S. E., & Lewis, J. E. (2008). Seeking effectiveness and equity in a large college chemistry course: An HLM investigation of peer-led guided inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 794-811. doi: 10.1002/tea.20254

Lindman, H. R. (1974). Analysis of variance in complex experimental designs. San Francisco, CA: W. H Freeman & Co. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in science. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.

McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137-1164. doi: 10.1002/tea.20377

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1

National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (2013). Concept cartoons: What have we learnt?. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 10(1), 3-11.

Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384-395. doi: 10.1016/s0361-476x(02)00038-3

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). OECD programme for international student assessment 2006: Student questionnaire. Retrieved October 17, 2013, from http://pisa2006.acer.edu.au/downloads.php.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). PISA 2012 results: Excellence through equity: Giving every student the chance to succeed (Volume II). Paris, France: Author.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004a). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. doi: 10.1002/tea.20035

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004b). Ideas, Evidence and Argument in Science [In-service Training Pack, Resource Pack and Video]. London, England: Nuffield Foundation.

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. doi: 10.1002/tea.21073

Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387-409. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000119456 Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472. doi: 10.1002/sce.20276

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. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2

Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biology inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369-392. doi: 10.1002/tea.10081

Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.

Sun, L., Bradley, K. D., & Akers, K. (2012). A multilevel modelling approach to investigating factors impacting science achievement for secondary school students: PISA Hong Kong sample. International Journal of Science Education, 34(14), 2107-2125. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.708063

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd edition). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Tümay, H., & Köseoğlu, F. (2011). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon odaklı öğretim konusunda anlayışlarının geliştirilmesi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 8(3), 105-119.

Von Secker, C. (2004). Science achievement in social contexts: Analysis from national assessment of educational progress. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(2), 67-78. doi: 10.3200/joer.98.2.67-78

Von Secker, C. E., & Lissitz, R. W. (1999). Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1110-1126. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1110::aid-tea4>3.0.co;2-t

Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410. doi: 10.1080/09500690601068095

Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students’ discussions in practical scientific inquires. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45. doi: 0950069032000072764

Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276-301. doi: 10.1002/tea.20329

Yetişir, M. İ. (2014). The multilevel effects of student and classroom factors on the science achievement of eight graders in Turkey. Education and Science, 39(172), 108-120.

Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483-496. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1098-237x(199707)81:4<483::aid-sce7>3.0.co;2-8

Zeidler, D., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343-367. doi: 10.1002/sce.10025

Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145-181. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1202_1

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. doi: 10.1002/tea.10008