Comparison of Discussion and Disputation in Developing Argumentation Skills in Socio-scientific Context

Author(s):

Duygu Metin(presenting / submitting)Gulsen Leblebicioglu Esra Capkinoglu

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

10. Teacher Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

10 SES 10 D,

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-10

15:30-17:00

Room:

325.Oktatóterem [C]

Chair:

Lilja M. Jonsdottir

Contribution

Science is an important component of progress and development in a society. Fundamental driving force of science makes science education top concern for many countries. Nevertheless, some crucial reports published in Europe pointed out alarming decline in young people’s interest in and attitude toward science (European Commission, 2004, 2007; Nuffield Foundation, 2008; ROSE, 2004). However, the world in which we live is rooted on science and technology more than ever before. Additionally, one of these reports highlighted that “many of the political and moral dilemmas confronting society are posed by the advance of science and technology and require a solution which, whilst rooted in science and technology, involve a combination of the assessment of risk and uncertainty, a consideration of the economic benefits and values, and some understanding of both the strengths and limits of science.” (Nuffield Foundation, 2008). In this case, SETAC (2010) emphasized that “the growing importance of scientific issues in our daily lives demands an insight into science and a willingness to engage in the socio-scientific debate on an informed basis”. Based on this reason, the researchers believed that one of the most suitable pedagogical framework for educating students as critical consumer of scientific knowledge is argument-based pedagogical technique.

Argumentation is a verbal, social and rational activity aimed at convincing a reasonable critic of the acceptability of a standpoint by putting forward a constellation of propositions justifying or refuting the proposition expressed in the standpoint (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). More clearly, argument refers to any information that an individual produces to justify a claim or explanation from an individual perspective, and refers to a dispute or debate between people opposing each other with contrasting sides to an issue from a social perspective (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007). Argumentation studies are done in scientific and socio-scientific context. Since socio-scientific issues are controversial issues, there is a lot to argue. Advantages and disadvantages of socio-scientific issues are not clear yet and people would make estimations about them. Because of interdisciplinary and controversial nature of socio-scientific issues, it is believed that socio-scientific context supports development of argumentation skills such as making informed decision, active participating in debates, and dealing with complexity (Simonneaux, 2007). For these reason, socio-scientific context is chosen for argumentation in this study.

Argumentation is a well-searched area, but most of the research is about understanding argumentation process. Teaching argumentation is studied less. It is important to find effective teaching methods to support students’ argumentation skills. In argumentation process, students’ dialogues may take different forms (Jimenez-Aleixandre, 2007), so that can be implemented in different types of discourse; disputational, cumulative and exploratory talk (Mercer, 2000). All of these techniques are based on classroom discourse and students’ discussion. Discussion can be conducted as small group discussion and/or whole class discussion. Disputation is a kind of discussion. There is thesis and anti-thesis and students are divided into groups to support thesis or anti-thesis. In this process, students defend their own point of view by exchanging their claims, challenges and counterclaims (Jimenez-Aleixandre, 2007). In this study, discussion is compared with disputation in developing students’ argumentation.

In order to compare students’ argumentation quality, several schemes of argumentation levels were applied in the literature. For example; Venville and Dawson (2010) proposed a four level argumentation quality scheme which is used in present study:

Level 1: Claim (statement, conclusion, proposition only)

Level 2: Claim, data (evidence supporting the claim) and/or warrant (relationship between claim and data)

Level 3: Claim, data/warrant, backing (assumptions to support warrant) or qualifier (conditions under which claims are true)

Level 4: Claim, data/warrant, backing and qualifier

Method

The study was applied in Special Topics in Chemistry course (junior year) which has two hours a week. Two classes were randomly assigned as experimental and comparison group. The instructor was by the same. Disputation was applied in experimental, discussion in comparison group. First two weeks were allocated for explicit argumentation training in recycling and energy choice. Then, two weeks were allocated for each of four socio-scientific issues: global warming, chemical additives in foods, use of medicine in the society, and use of chemicals at home. Students were responsible for searching each topic. In first week, instructor introduced the subject and wanted them to share the information that they found. Students shared their views on the issue. Then, problem in the socio-scientific issue was defined and alternative views were established. Application was differed from this point forward. In experimental group, the instructor asked which view they want to defense next week. Students were assigned to thesis and anti-thesis groups on their choice. They were required to search the issue more. In second week, disputation was done in first hour. In second hour, they individually wrote their argumentation. In comparison group, the students were asked to form groups of 5-6 members on their choice. The instructor asked them to discuss the issue and decide which alternative view they support. They discussed the issue and then the instructor asked them to share group’s decisions and their justification. In second week, each group shared what they newly found and state their last decision. The instructor asked groups to react other groups’ claims and justifications. In second hour, students individually wrote their argumentation. The argumentation worksheet was the same for both groups and consisted of three parts: first asking for their claim and warrants, second asking for counter claim and warrants, third is for rebuttals. Each participant’s explanations were first coded for finding warrants, data, backings, qualifiers, and rebuttals. Then, argumentation quality was determined by levels proposed by Venville and Dawson (2010). Before analysis of the data, two researchers coded three questionnaires from each class together to reach a consensus on coding. Then, they coded five questionnaires independently. Inter-rater agreement 88% in training, 81% in global warming, 84% in chemical additives in foods, 80% in medicine use in the society, and 88% in chemicals at home. Since these percentages are high,one researcher coded the data and determined argumentation level.

Expected Outcomes

The analysis of the data is ongoing. Descriptive statistics results will be reported. There were three parts of argumentation work-sheet to scaffold their argumentation process. First part was asking for their claim and justification of their claim. The results of this part showed that level of students’ argumentation in both groups was two, but most of them developed into third level throughout four applications. Fourth level argumentation was less than other levels in both groups. It can be said that both teaching methodologies developed students’ argumentation about their main claim. Second part of the work-sheet was asking for their counter claim and its justification. Students’ argumentation level in comparison group did not change at all. Students’ argumentation were at second and third level and did not increase and there was not any fourth level argumentation. On the other hand, students’ argumentation level developed in experimental group. Percentage of second level argumentation decreased whereas that of third level increased throughout four applications.There were a few fourth level argumentation in some of the applications. Third part of the work-sheet was asking how they convince someone for their claim is better than counter claim. This is called rebuttals in argumentation literature. There was not any clear pattern in both groups. We cannot say rebuttals developed in any group. Indeed, percentage of rebuttals fluctuated in both groups. Rebuttals depended on the subject. In some of the subjects, rather than students did not evaluate warrant of counter claim, they continue to support their claim. These were coded as warrants of the main claim. Thus, percentage of the rebuttals decreased in third and fourth application which was about use of medicine in the society and use of chemical at home.

References

Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. European Commission (EC). (2004). Europe Needs More Scientists. Report by the High Level Group on Increasing Human Resources for Science and Technology. Brussels. European Commission. European Commission (EC). (2007). Science Education Now: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. Report by the High Level Group on Science Education. Brussels. European Commission. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Designing Argumentation Learning Environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. (pp.91-115). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). 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, The Netherlands: Springer. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge. Nuffield Foundation (NF). (2008). Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections. London. ROSE (The Relevance of Science Education) (2004). Sowing the Seeds of ROSE. Report by Schreiner, C. & Sjøberg, S. Oslo. SETAC (Science Education as Tool for Active Citizenship) (2010). Quality Science Education: Where do we stand? Guidelines for practice from a European experience. Report by Xanthoudaki, M. Italy. Simonneaux, L. (2007). Argumentation in Socio-Scientific Contexts. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. (pp.179-199). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. 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), 952–977.

Author Information

Duygu Metin (presenting / submitting)

Abant Izzet Baysal University, Turkey

Gulsen Leblebicioglu

Abant Izzet Baysal University, Turkey

Esra Capkinoglu

Abant Izzet Baysal University, Turkey

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.

Session Information

Contribution

Method

Expected Outcomes

References

Author Information

Search the ECER Programme

Navigation

Info for