Argumentation and participation patterns in general chemistry peer-led sessions

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 50, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 1207-1231

  Kulatunga, Ushiri ^a   Moog, Richard S ^b   Lewis, Jennifer E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b FRANKLIN AND MARSHALL COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

argumentation; chemistry; cooperative grouping; first year undergraduate

Indexed keywords

ARGUMENTATION; ARGUMENTATION MODEL; ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES; CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY; COOPERATIVE GROUPING; FIRST-YEAR UNDERGRADUATE; INDEPENDENT LEARNING; PEER-LED GUIDED INQUIRY;

CHEMISTRY; VIDEO RECORDING;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84887420353     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21107     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. Abi-El-Mona, I., &, Abd-El-Khalick, F., (2011). Perceptions of the nature and 'goodness' of argument among college students, science teachers, and scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 33 (4), 573-605.
2. Amigues, R., (1988). Peer interaction in solving physics problems: Sociocognitive confrontation and metacognitive aspects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 45 (1), 141-158.
3. 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.
4. Barron, B., (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12 (3), 307-359. (Pubitemid 36853158)
5. Bell, P., (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (8), 797-817.
6. Becker, N., Rasmussen, C., Sweeney, G., Wawro, M., Towns, M., &, Cole, R., (2013). Reasoning using particulate nature of matter: An example of a sociochemical norm in a university-level physical chemistry class. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14 (1), 81-94.
7. Berland, L. K., &, Hammer, D., (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (1), 68-94.
8. Berland, L. K., &, Lee, V. R., (2012). In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (12), 1857-1882.
9. Berland, L. K., &, Reiser, B. J., (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93 (1), 26-55.
10. Bianchini, J. A., (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34 (10), 1039-1065. (Pubitemid 127458983)
11. Bianchini, J. A., (1999). From here to equity: The influence of status on student access to and understanding of science. Science Education, 83 (5), 577-601.
12. Chang, S.-N., &, Chiu, M.-H., (2008). Lakatos' scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (13), 1753-1773.
13. Chen, J.-J., Lin, H.-S., Hsu, Y.-S., &, Lee, H., (2011). Data and claim: The refinement of science fair work through argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 1 (2), 147-164.
14. Chin, C., &, Osborne, J., (2010a). Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (7), 883-908.
15. Chin, C., &, Osborne, J., (2010b). Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19 (2), 230-284.
16. Cohen, E. G., (1984). Talking and working together: Status, interaction and learning. In, Peterson P., Wilkinson L. C., &, Hallinan M., (Eds.), Instructional groups in the classroom: Organization and processes (pp. 171-187). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
17. Cole, R., Becker, N., Towns, M., Sweeney, G., Wawro, M., &, Rasmussen, C., (2012). Adapting a methodology from mathematics education research to chemistry education research: Documenting collective activity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10 (1), 193-211.
18. Daubenmire, P. L., &, Bunce, D. M., (2008). What do students experience during POGIL instruction?. In, Moog R. S., &, Spencer J. N., (Eds.), Process-oriented guided inquiry learning. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press.
19. de Lima Tavares, M., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., &, Mortimer, E. F., (2010). Articulation of conceptual knowledge and argumentation practices by high school students in evolution problems. Science & Education, 19 (6-8), 573-598.
20. Drane, D., Smith, H., Light, G., Pinto, L., &, Swarat, S., (2005). The gateway science workshop program: Enhancing student performance and retention in the sciences through peer-facilitated discussion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14 (3), 337-352. (Pubitemid 41168899)
21. Duschl, R., (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In, Erduran S., &, Jiménez-Aleixandre M. P., (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
22. Duschl, R. A., &, Osborne, J., (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38 (1), 39-72.
23. Enderle, P., Walker, J. P., Dorgan, C., Sampson, V., (2010, March 22). Assessment of scientific argumentation in the classroom: An observation protocol. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference for the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
24. 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. (Pubitemid 39558160)
25. Esmonde, I., (2009). Ideas and identities: Supporting equity in cooperative mathematics learning. Review of Educational Research, 79 (2), 1008-1043.
26. Evagorou, M., &, Osborne, J., (2013). Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50 (2), 209-237.
27. Evagorou, M., Sadler, T. D., &, Tal, T., (2011). Metalogue: Assessment, Audience, and Authenticity for Teaching SSI and Argumentation. In, T. D. Sadler, (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media.
28. Evagorou, M., Papanastasiou, E., Osborne J., (2011, September 7). The case of designing and validating a tool to assess 11-14 year old students written argumentation. Paper Presented at the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Lyon, France.
29. Evans, D., (1991). The realities of un-tracking a high school. Educational Leadership, 48 (8), 16-17.
30. Foong, C.-C., &, Daniel, E. G. S., (2011). Assessing students' arguments made in socio-scientific contexts: The considerations of structural complexity and the depth of content knowledge. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1120-1127.
31. Furberg, A., &, Arnseth, H., (2009). The importance of socio-cultural context for understanding students' meaning making in the study of genetics. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4 (1), 211-219.
32. Gillies, R. M., (2004). The effects of communication training on teachers' and students' verbal behaviours during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41 (3), 257-279. (Pubitemid 41213750)
33. Gillies, R. M., (2006). Teachers' and students' verbal behaviours during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271-287. (Pubitemid 43966623)
34. Gosser, D. K., Kampmeier, J. A., &, Varma-Nelson, P., (2010). Peer-led team learning: 2008 James Flack Norris Award address. Journal of Chemical Education, 87 (4), 374-380.
35. Gotwals, A. W., &, Songer, N. B., (2010). Reasoning up and down a food chain: Using an assessment framework to investigate students' middle knowledge. Science Education, 94 (2), 259-281.
36. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodrìguez, A. B., &, Duschl, R. A., (2000). " Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84 (6), 757-792.
37. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., &, Erduran, S., (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In, Jiménez-Aleixandre M. P., &, Erduran S., (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3-28). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
38. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., &, Smith, K. A., (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works ? Change, 30 (4), 26-35.
39. Kaya, E., (2013). Argumentation practices in classroom: Pre-service teachers' conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35 (7), 1139-1158.
40. Keith, W. M., &, Beard, D. E., (2008). Toulmin's rhetorical logic: What's the warrant for warrants ? Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41 (1), 22-50.
41. 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. (Pubitemid 128691682)
42. King, A., (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27 (1), 111-126.
43. King, A., (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10 (1), 57-74.
44. Kuhn, L., &, Reiser, B., (2005). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
45. Kulatunga, U., &, Lewis, J. E., (2013). Exploration of peer leader verbal behaviors as they intervene with small groups in college general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1039/C3RP00081H
46. Lewis, S. E., &, Lewis, J. E., (2005). Departing from Lectures: An evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative. Journal of Chemical Education, 82 (1), 135-139. (Pubitemid 40085199)
47. 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.
48. Lubben, F., Sadeck, M., Scholtz, Z., &, Braund, M., (2009). Gauging students' untutored ability in argumentation about experimental data: A South African case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (16), 2143-2166.
49. Mason, L., (1996). An analysis of children's construction of new knowledge through their use of reasoning and arguing in classroom discussions. Qualitative Studies in Education, 9, 411-433.
50. McNeill, K. L., (2011). Elementary students' views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (7), 793-823.
51. McNeill, K. L., &, Krajcik, J., (2007) Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. Paper presented at the Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, Mahwah, NJ.
52. McNeill, K. L., &, Krajcik, J., (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (1), 53-78. (Pubitemid 351189812)
53. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., &, Sams, C., (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Education Research Journal, 30, 359-377. (Pubitemid 38835119)
54. Micari, M., Streitwieser, B., &, Light, G., (2006). Undergraduates leading undergraduates: Peer facilitation in a science workshop program. Innovative Higher Education, 30 (4), 269-286.
55. Mitchell, S., (1996). Improving the quality of argument in higher education: Interim report. London: School of Education Middlesex University.
56. Moog, R. S., &, Farrell, J. J., (2008). Chemistry: A guided inquiry (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
57. Naylor, S., Keogh, B., &, Downing, B., (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37 (1), 17-39.
58. Nussbaum, E. M., (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33 (1), 345-359.
59. Nussbaum, E. M., (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46 (2), 84-106.
60. Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., &, Poliquin, A., (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (15), 1977-1999.
61. Osborne, J., (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328 (5977), 463-466.
62. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., &, Simon, S., (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (10), 994-1020. (Pubitemid 40002954)
63. 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.
64. Patton, M. Q., (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
65. Plantin, C., (2005). L'argumentation. Histoire, théories et perspectives. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
66. Quitadamo, I. J., Brahler, C. J., &, Crouch, G. J., (2009). Peer-led team learning: A prospective method for increasing critical thinking in undergraduate science courses. Science Educator, 18 (1), 29-39.
67. Rasmussen, C., &, Stephan, M., (2008). A methodology for documenting collective activity. In, Kelly A. E., Lesh R. A., &, Baek J. Y., (Eds.), Handbook of innovative design research in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) education (pp. 195-215). New York: Taylor and Francis.
68. Reusser, K., (2001). Co-constructivism in educational theory and practice. In, Smelser N. J., Baltes P. B., &, Weiner F. E., (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Oxford, UK: Pergamon/Elsevier Science.
69. Richmond, G., &, Striley, J., (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (8), 839-858. (Pubitemid 126420872)
70. Roschelle, J., &, Teasley, S. D., (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In, O'Malley C., (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-197). Berlin: Springer.
71. Rozenszayn, R., &, Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., (2011). When collaborative learning meets nature: Collaborative learning as a meaningful learning tool in the ecology inquiry based project. Research in Science Education, 41 (1), 123-146.
72. Sampson, V., &, Clark, D., (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92 (3), 447-472.
73. Sampson, V., &, Clark, D., (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93 (3), 448-484.
74. Sampson, V., &, Clark, D., (2011). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41 (1), 63-97.
75. Sandoval, W. A., &, Millwood, K., (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence inwritten scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23 (1), 23-55. (Pubitemid 40273028)
76. Simon, S., &, Maloney, J., (2007). Activities for promoting small-group discussion and argumentation. School Science Review, 88 (324), 49-57.
77. Slavin, R. E., (1977). Classroom reward structure: An analytical and practical review. Review of Educational Research, 47 (4), 633-650.
78. Slavin, R. E., (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60 (3), 471-499.
79. Slavin, R. E., (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 46-69.
80. Sperry, R. A., &, Tedford, P., (2008). Implementing Peer-Led Team Learning in introductory computer science courses. Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 23 (6), 30-35.
81. Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., &, Donovan, S. S., (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69 (1), 21-51.
82. Stephan, M., &, Rasmussen, C., (2002). Classroom mathematical practices in differential equations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21 (4), 459-490.
83. Tien, L. T., Roth, V., &, Kampmeier, J. A., (2002). Implementation of a Peer-Led Team Learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (7), 606-632.
84. Toulmin, S., (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
85. Veenman, S., Denessen, E., van den Akker, A., &, van der Rijt, J., (2005). Effects of a cooperative learning program on the elaborations of students during help seeking and help giving. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 115-151. (Pubitemid 40531574)
86. 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.
87. Webb, N. M., (1980). Group process and learning in an interacting group. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 2, 10-15.
88. Webb, N. M., (1984). Sex differences in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (1), 33-44.
89. Weber, K., Maher, C., Powell, A., &, Lee, H. S., (2008). Learning opportunities from group discussions: Warrants become the objects of debate. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68 (3), 241-267.
90. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., &, Fischer, F., (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (4), 506-515.
91. Wittrock, M. C., (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11 (2), 87-95.
92. Yu, S.-M., &, Yore, L., (2012). Quality, evolution, and positional change of university students' argumentation patterns about organic agriculture during an argument-critique-argument experience. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-22.
93. 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.