ARGUMENTATION SKILLS AND CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF UNDERGRADUATE ...

182 Pages·2008·1.02 MB·English

ARGUMENTATION SKILLS AND CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS IN A PHYSICS BY INQUIRY CLASS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy
in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Omer Acar

*****

The Ohio State University
2008

Dissertation Committee: Approved by

Professor Arthur L. White, Adviser
____________________
Professor Donna F. Berlin
Adviser
Professor Bruce Patton College of Education and
Human Ecology

ABSTRACT

Teaching argumentation skills has been the focus of science education research
which views argumentation instruction as a way to improve scientific reasoning skills in
science classrooms. Argumentation research has mostly focused on examining the quality
of classroom discourse in science classes, scaffolding student argumentation process, and
in-service science teacher development of pedagogical skills related to argumentation.
Yet, there is paucity of studies exist in the literature which has examined prospective
science teacher development of argumentation skills. This study aims to reduce this gap
in the argumentation literature.
This study investigated prospective science teacher development of argumentation
skills and conceptual knowledge, relationship between argumentation skills and
conceptual knowledge, and the relation of argumentation and conceptual knowledge
gains to prospective science teacher initial conceptual knowledge level in an
undergraduate course where argumentation skills were incorporated to the science
curriculum. Initially, data were collected from 125 students who were involved in an
inquiry-based physics course at a midwestern university. Argumentation skills for the
concepts of balancing and sinking and floating were assessed by the use of argumentation
tests which were constructed for this study and administered four times during the course.
In addition to written argumentation tests, argumentation discourse of one small group of
students was audio-taped two times during the course. Physics conceptual knowledge was
ii
administered at the beginning and at the end of the instruction by a conceptual test which
was constructed for this study. A total of 36 students who responded to all the data
collection activities comprised the analysis sample.
It was found that the prospective science teacher argumentation skills regarding
balancing and sinking and floating concepts improved during the course. More
specifically, their counter-argument and rebuttal evidence and justification scores
developed during the course. It was also found that improvement of counter-argument
and rebuttal evidence scores was content independent whereas improvement of counter-
argument and rebuttal justification scores was content dependent.
The results showed that prospective science teacher conceptual physics knowledge
was improved from the beginning to the end of the instruction. More specifically, their
declarative and situational knowledge scores increased from the pretest to the posttest.
The results also showed that prospective science teacher argumentation scores can be
related to physics conceptual knowledge pretest and posttest scores. In addition, it was
found that argumentation gain scores were not related to prospective science teacher
initial conceptual knowledge level. According to these findings, implications regarding
prospective science teacher education and explicit teaching about argumentation were
discussed.
iii
Dedicated to my father
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I wish to thank my advisor, Arthur L. White, for his valuable advice on the
statistical analyses carried out in this study. I am also grateful for his contributions in the
organization of this dissertation document.
Second, I want to thank Dr. Donna F. Berlin for her valuable advice on the
construction of one of the instruments used in this study. I am also grateful for her patient
editing of the drafts of this final document.
Third, I want to thank Dr. Bruce Patton for letting me involve the undergraduate
course which was the focus of this study. Without his support and guidance, it would
have been impossible to collect the data and do the research.
I owe a special thanks to my mentor Dr. Lutfullah Turkmen for his support and
encouragement through this journey.
Lastly, I thank my mother, Fadime, for her support and love through this journey and
all of my life. I want to extend my thanks to my friends: Mustafa Zeki, Koray, Cosku,
Gokhan, Bayram, Sukru, Hakan, Vehbi and Mesut. It would have been very hard to finish
the doctoral study without their friendship.
v
VITA

June 6, 1977………………………............Born-Istanbul, Turkey
2000………………………………………B.A. Physics Education, Gazi University,
Ankara, Turkey

2002-2004…………………………...........Elementary School Teacher, Mardin, Turkey
2004-present…………………................... Research Assistant, Kocaeli University,
Kocaeli, Turkey

FIELD OF STUDY
Major Field: Education
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract........................................................................................................................ii
Dedication...................................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................v
Vita..............................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables...............................................................................................................x
List of Figures...........................................................................................................xiv

Chapters:

1. Theoretical framework.....................................................................................1

Introduction......................................................................................................1
Argumentation theory and science...................................................................2
Argumentation and cognition..........................................................................5
Toulmin’s argumentation pattern as a framework for scientific reasoning.....8
Argumentation and scientific inquiry..............................................................9
Problem statement..........................................................................................12
Research questions................................................................................13
Overview of the methodology.......................................................................14
Definition of terms.........................................................................................15

2. Literature review............................................................................................17

Introduction....................................................................................................17
Classroom discourse: Doing the lesson or doing science..............................18
Scaffolding student argumentation process...................................................19
In-service science teacher development of pedagogical skills about
argumentation................................................................................................23
Pre-service science teacher development of the process of argumentation...26
Physics by inquiry..........................................................................................30
Conceptual understanding and argumentation...............................................32
Toulmin’s argumentation pattern for assessing student reasoning................37
Criteria to evaluate argumentation quality............................................38

3. Methodology..................................................................................................44

Introduction....................................................................................................44
vii
Context and participants................................................................................45
Structure of the intervention..........................................................................46
Instructional modules............................................................................47
Competing theories teaching strategy...................................................52
Data collection procedures.............................................................................53
Instruments............................................................................................55
Argumentation tests.....................................................................55
Physics Conceptual knowledge test.............................................57
Data analyses.................................................................................................69
Data coding...........................................................................................69
Argumentation tests.....................................................................69
Student argumentation discourse.................................................74
Statistical analyses................................................................................76

4. Results............................................................................................................79

Argumentation in the course..........................................................................79
Development of argumentation......................................................................81
Balancing argumentation component scores........................................81
Change in balancing argumentation component scores...............83
Sinking and floating argumentation component scores........................87
Change in sinking and floating argumentation component
scores............................................................................................88
Student argumentation discourse..........................................................92
Summary of the results for research question 1....................................96
Development of physics conceptual knowledge............................................99
Conceptual knowledge gain for posttest subscales...............................99
Summary of the results for research question 2..................................101
Relationship between argumentation skills and conceptual knowledge......101
Balancing argument evidence and justification scores vs. pretest
and posttest balancing item scores......................................................102
Balancing counter-argument evidence and justification scores
vs. pretest and posttest balancing item scores ....................................102
Balancing rebuttal evidence and justification scores vs. pretest
and posttest balancing item scores......................................................102
Sinking and floating argument evidence and justification scores
vs. pretest and posttest sinking and floating item scores....................103
Sinking and floating counter-argument evidence and justification
scores vs. pretest and posttest sinking and floating item scores.........103
Sinking and floating rebuttal evidence and justification scores
vs. pretest and posttest sinking and floating item scores....................103
viii
Summary of the results for research question 3..................................103
Argumentation and conceptual knowledge gains vs. initial
conceptual knowledge level.........................................................................105
Argumentation gains vs. initial conceptual knowledge level.............105
Conceptual knowledge gains vs. initial conceptual knowledge level.107
Summary of the results for research question 4..................................108

5. Discussion....................................................................................................110

Development of argumentation skills..........................................................110
Development of conceptual knowledge.......................................................115
Relationship of argumentation skills to conceptual knowledge..................116
Relation of argumentation and conceptual knowledge gains to
prospective science teacher initial conceptual knowledge level..................117
Limitations of the study...............................................................................119
Implications..................................................................................................121

References................................................................................................................123

Appendices:

A. Argumentation exercises.............................................................................128

B. Argumentation tests.....................................................................................133

C. Conceptual knowledge test..........................................................................148

D. Principal component analyses of the argumentation tests..........................156

E. Correlation tables of argumentation scores with pretest and posttest
knowledge items.........................................................................................161

ix