Improving Students' PISA Scientific Competencies Through Online Argumentation

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 321-339

  Tsai, Chun Yen ^a  

^a CHENG SHIU UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Online argumentation system; PISA; Scientific competencies; Scientific literacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84919842969     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2014.987712     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Areepattamannil, S., & Kaur, B. (2013). Factors predicting science achievement of immigrant and non-immigrant students: A multilevel analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(5), 1183–1207. doi: 10.1007/s10763-012-9369-5
3. 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
4. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. doi: 10.1002/sce.20286
5. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216. doi: 10.1002/sce.20420
6. Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the web: Student evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32(2/3), 191–213. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651598
7. Bybee, R., & McCrae, B. (2011). Scientific literacy and student attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006 science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7–26. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.518644
8. Bybee, R. W. (2008). Scientific literacy, environmental issues, and PISA 2006: The 2008 Paul F-Brandwein lecture. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 566–585. doi: 10.1007/s10956-008-9124-4
9. Chin, C. C., Yang, W. C., & Tuan, H. L. (2010). Exploring the impact of guided tapping scientific reading-writing activity on sixth graders. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 18(5), 443–467.
10. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277. doi: 10.1080/09500690600560944
11. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293–321. doi: 10.1002/tea.20216
12. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484. doi: 10.1002/sce.20306
13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptalizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109–128. doi: 10.1080/00461520.1998.9653294
16. Fensham, P. J. (2009). Real world contexts in PISA science: Implications for context-based science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 884–896. doi: 10.1002/tea.20334
17. Ho, E. S. C. (2010). Family influences on science learning among Hong Kong adolescents: What we learned from PISA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 409–428. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9198-3
18. Huntsinger, C. S., Jose, P. E., Larson, S. L., Krieg, D. B., & Shaligram, C. (2000). Mathematics, vocabulary, and reading development in Chinese American and European American children over the primary school years. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 745–760. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.745
19. Jimenez-Aleisandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In M. P. Jimenez-Aleisandre & S. Erduran (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 3–25). Dordrecht: Springer.
20. Joiner, R., & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 861–871. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2004.11.008
21. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. London: Harvard University Press.
23. Lavonen, J., & Laaksonen, S. (2009). Context of teaching and learning school science in Finland: Reflections on PISA 2006 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 922–944. doi: 10.1002/tea.20339
24. Lee, C. T. (2009). Implications on TIMSS & PISA scientific achievement among junior high school students in Taiwan. Study Information, 26(6), 73–88.
25. Lin, H. S. (2008). Results report of Taiwan participated in PISA 2006 (Report No. NSC 95-2522-S-026-002). Taipei: National Science Council.
26. Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., & Huang, T. C. (2012). The role of emotional factors in building public scientific literacy and engagement with science. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 25–42. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.551430
27. Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., & Lawrenz, F. (2012). Promoting and scaffolding argumentation through reflective asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 59(2), 378–384. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.019
28. Lin, H. S., Lawrenz, F., Lin, S. F., & Hong, Z. R. (2013). Relationships among affective factors and preferred engagement in science-related activities. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 941–954. doi: 10.1177/0963662511429412
29. Linacre, J. M., & Wright, B. D. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370.
30. McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229.
31. Ministry of Education. (2008). Grade 1–9 curriculum guidelines. Taipei: Author.
32. National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators—2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
33. Nentwig, P., Roennebeck, S., Schoeps, K., Rumann, S., & Carstensen, C. (2009). Performance and levels of contextualization in a selection of OECD countries in PISA 2006. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 897–908. doi: 10.1002/tea.20338
34. Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 93(3), 79–83. doi: 10.1080/00377990209599887
35. 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
36. OECD. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris: Author.
37. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do—student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Vol. I). Paris: Author.
38. Olsen, R. V., & Lie, S. (2011). Profiles of students’ interest in science issues around the world: Analysis of data from PISA 2006. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 97–120. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.518638
39. 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. doi: 10.1002/tea.20035
40. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730660207
41. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
42. Renninger, K. A., Ewen, L., & Lasher, A. K. (2002). Individual interest as context in expository text and mathematical word problems. Learning and Instruction, 12(4), 467–490. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00012-3
43. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909–921. doi: 10.1002/tea.20327
44. Sanders, J. A., Wiseman, R. L., & Gass, R. H. (1994). Does teaching argumentation facilitate critical thinking? Communication Reports, 7(1), 27–35. doi: 10.1080/08934219409367580
45. Schneider, W., & Chein, J. M. (2003). Controlled & automatic processing: Behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science, 27, 525–559. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2703_8
46. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
47. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Reprinted 2005).
48. Tsai, C. Y., Jack, B. M., Huang, T. C., & Yang, J. T. (2012). Using the cognitive apprenticeship web-based argumentation system to improve argumentation instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(4), 476–486. doi: 10.1007/s10956-011-9339-7
49. TWPISA National Center. (2012a). Rankings in PISA. Retrieved from http://pisa.nutn.edu.tw/link_rank_en.htm
50. TWPISA National Center. (2012b). PISA released items: Science. Retrieved from http://pisa.nutn.edu.tw/sample_tw.htm
51. Voss, J. F., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2001). Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 89–111. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651593
52. Wang, J., & Lin, E. (2005). Comparative studies on U.S. and Chinese mathematics learning and the implications for standards-based mathematics teaching reform. Educational Researcher, 34(5), 3–13. doi: 10.3102/0013189X034005003
53. Waugh, R. F., & Addison, P. A. (1998). A Rasch measurement model analysis of the revised approaches to studying inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 95–112. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1998.tb01277.x
54. Yeh, K. H., & She, H. C. (2010). On-line synchronous scientific argumentation learning: Nurturing students’ argumentation ability and conceptual change in science context. Computers & Education, 55(2), 586–602. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.020
55. 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