Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining the Value of a Scaffolded Critique Framework to Promote Argumentative and Explanatory Writings Within an Argument-Based Inquiry Approach

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated the value of using a scaffolded critique framework to promote two different types of writing—argumentative writing and explanatory writing—with different purposes within an argument-based inquiry approach known as the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. A quasi-experimental design with sixth and seventh grade students taught by two teachers was used. A total of 170 students participated in the study, with 87 in the control group (four classes) and 83 in the treatment group (four classes). All students used the SWH templates as an argumentative writing to guide their written work and completed these templates during the SWH investigations of each unit. After completing the SWH investigations, both groups of students were asked to complete the summary writing task as an explanatory writing at the end of each unit. All students’ writing samples were scored using analytical frameworks developed for the study. The results indicated that the treatment group performed significantly better on the explanatory writing task than the control group. In addition, the results of the partial correlation suggested that there is a very strong significantly positive relationship between the argumentative writing and the explanatory writing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA] (2011). Australian Curriculum. Retrieved 10 April, 2011, http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Home.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: a review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnetto, A., & Hand, B. (2012). The importance of embedding argument within science classrooms. In perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 39–53). Netherlands: Springer.

  • Davis, E. A. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: the importance of theories and their development. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., & Stevens, D. D. (1991). Making strategies and self-talk visible: writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 337–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. T. (2007). Hypothetical thinking: dual processes in reasoning and judgment. Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/9780203947487

  • Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In D. Galbraith & M. Torrance (Eds.), Knowing what to write: conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139–159). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2007). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (Vol. 35, pp. 29–45). The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Greenbowe, T. J., Poock, J. R., Burke, K. A., & Hand, B. M. (2007). Using the science writing heuristic in the general chemistry laboratory to improve students’ academic performance. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(8), 1371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunel, M., Akkus, R., Hohenshell, L., & Hand, B. (2004, April). Improving student performance on higher order cognitive questions through the use of the science writing heuristic. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

  • Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high school students’ conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19 (4), 354–367.

  • Hand, B. (Ed.). (2008). Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

  • Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C, & Yore, L. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021–1035.

  • Hildebrand, G. M. (1999, March). Breaking the pedagogical contract: teachers’ and students’ voices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Boston, MA.

  • Hildebrand, G. M. (2004, April). Hybrid writing genres: a link between pleasure and engagement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Vancouver, Canada.

  • Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing‐to‐learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: a mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 261–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: an analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, C. W., Yang, E. M., Hand, B. M., & Hohenshell, L. (2001, March) Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning from laboratory activities in seventh grade science: quantitative and qualitative outcomes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St Louis, MO.

  • Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: from the viewpoint of second‐generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 143–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: a study of teaching and learning. NCTE Research Report No. 22. ERIC.

  • Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(02), 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school. Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education. Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims, and evidence: the important place of argument in children’s science writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

  • Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 609–626.

  • Prain, V., & Hand, B. (2005). Science and literacy. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: Issues and practice. Association of Educators of Science Teachers.

  • Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. Cognition and instruction, 25, 263–305.

  • Rijlaarsdam, G., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., & Kieft, M. (2006). Writing experiment manuals in science education: the impact of writing, genre, and audience. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 203–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 227–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J., Therrien, W. J., Kaldenberg, E. R., Watt, S. J., Chanlen, N., & Hand, B. (2013). Using an inquiry-based teaching approach to improve science outcomes for students with disabilities: snapshot and longitudinal data. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 15(1), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, C. S. (2004). Framing new research in science literacy and language use: authenticity, multiple discourses, and the “Third Space”. Science Education, 88(6), 901–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2007). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

  • Walton, D. N. (1996). Argument structure: a pragmatic theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

  • Yore, L., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D., Florence, M. K., Pearson, T. W., & Weaver, A. J. (2006). Written discourse in scientific communities: a conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 109–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA

    Jeong-yoon Jang

  2. N297A Lindquist Center, Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA

    Brian Hand

Authors
  1. Jeong-yoon Jang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian Hand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeong-yoon Jang.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6

Table 6 Analytical frameworks used for analyzing the critique framework and the summary writing task
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jang, Jy., Hand, B. Examining the Value of a Scaffolded Critique Framework to Promote Argumentative and Explanatory Writings Within an Argument-Based Inquiry Approach. Res Sci Educ 47, 1213–1231 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9542-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9542-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation