Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148 DOI 10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y
Teaching Strategies for Developing Students’ Argumentation Skills About Socioscientific Issues in High School Genetics Vaille Maree Dawson & Grady Venville
Published online: 7 November 2008 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008
Abstract An outcome of science education is that young people have the understandings and skills to participate in public debate and make informed decisions about science issues that influence their lives. Toulmin’s argumentation skills are emerging as an effective strategy to enhance the quality of evidence based decision making in science classrooms. In this case study, an Australian science teacher participated in a one-on-one professional learning session on argumentation before explicitly teaching argumentation skills to two year 10 classes studying genetics. Over two lessons, the teacher used whole class discussion and writing frames of two socioscientific issues to teach students about argumentation. An analysis of classroom observation field notes, audiotaped lesson transcripts, writing frames and student interviews indicate that four factors promoted student argumentation. The factors are: the role of the teacher in facilitating whole class discussion; the use of writing frames; the context of the socioscientific issue; and the role of the students. It is recommended that professional learning to promote student argumentation may need to be tailored to individual teachers and that extensive classroom based research is required to determine the impact of classroom factors on students’ argumentation. Keywords Argumentation . Genetics education . Socioscientific issues
V. M. Dawson (*) Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley 6102 Western Australia, Australia e-mail:
[email protected] G. Venville Graduate School of Education, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley 6009 Western Australia, Australia e-mail:
[email protected]
134
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148
Introduction Importance of Argumentation in Science Education Throughout our lives we are faced with a myriad of problems, dilemmas and conundrums about which we need to make decisions and choices. In our modern society, many of these issues centre around the products of science and technology. One of the essential outcomes of school science education is to enable students to use their understanding of science to contribute to public debate and make informed and balanced decisions about socioscientific issues that impact on their lives. Socioscientific issues are those that are “based on scientific concepts or problems, controversial in nature, discussed in public outlets and frequently subject to political and social influences” (Sadler and Zeidler 2005, p. 113). Young people are faced with choices related to their personal health and well being. As a society we must make decisions about how to address issues related to limited energy resources, water quality and quantity, pollution and population control. Driver et al. (2000) strongly argue that a central component of science education that will help students make decisions now and in the future is the process of argumentation. It is important that school science provides young people with the understanding, skills and values that are needed to grapple with socioscientific issues. Young people need to be able to weigh up the risks and benefits of alternative solutions, pose questions, evaluate the integrity of evidence and counter evidence and make well informed decisions. They also need the skills to engage in oral debate and discussion about issues (Sadler 2006). One way of providing structure to assist school students to develop and practice decision-making skills is through argumentation. Newton et al. (1999) provide several compelling reasons for the explicit teaching of argumentation in science classrooms. First, argument is the process by which scientific knowledge is developed and verified. Argumentation is the discourse of those who practice science. Scientists make propositions and provide evidence (e.g., observations, inferences, theory) that is then debated, reviewed and criticised within expert scientific communities. This is the process of constructing scientific knowledge. When students engage in argument, they begin to understand the norms and language of scientific debate and how knowledge is constructed in science. Second, by engaging in argumentation students actively participate in discussion and are able to talk about their emerging scientific understandings. It is suggested that developing the ability to argue will promote science learning because speaking and writing about science, whether it be to explain concepts or to support decisions about socioscientific issues, will build conceptual understanding. Third, argumentation skills have value beyond science education. The ability of young people to reason, think critically, understand and present arguments in a logical and coherent way both orally and in writing allows them to fully participate in society and is a desirable outcome of education in a democratic society. What is an Argument? Kuhn (1991) defines an argument as “an assertion with accompanying justification” (p. 12). Similarly, Means and Voss (1996) describe an argument as “a conclusion supported by at least one reason”, (p. 141). Developments in the use of argumentation in science education draw on the work of Toulmin (1958). He developed a model of argumentation which outlines the ‘parts’ or structure of an argument and can be used both to teach students, and their teachers, the skills of argumentation and also to analyse or evaluate students’ argumentation. The main components of Toulmin’s argumentation model are: claims, the
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148
135
conclusion, proposition or assertion; data, the evidence that supports the claim; warrants, an explanation of the relationship between the claim and the data; backings, basic underlying assumptions to support the warrants; qualifiers, specific conditions under which the claim is true; and, rebuttals statements which refute alternative or opposing claims, data and warrants. Argumentation and Conceptual Understanding A review of studies related to argumentation and conceptual understanding suggests that the development of argumentation skills may influence conceptual understanding (e.g., Albe 2008; Harris and Ratcliffe 2005; Kortland 1996; Sadler 2004). However, research exploring a possible relationship between argumentation and conceptual understanding is not straightforward. Some studies suggest a positive relationship (e.g., Aufschnaiter et al. 2008; Zohar and Nemet 2002) while others do not (e.g., Kuhn 1991). Zohar and Nemet (2002) reported on a case study of year 9 (15 year old) students from two schools in Israel who were taught a 12-h unit on genetics that integrated explicit argumentation skills. The aims of the unit were to develop students’ understanding of genetic topics (e.g., genetic counselling, inheritance, gene therapy and genetic cloning) and develop argumentation skills (e.g., developing and justifying arguments and counter arguments). The experimental group of 99 students were taught argumentation skills, bioethical principles and practised using these skills, while debating ten moral dilemmas. When they were compared to a comparison group of 87 students who were taught a traditional genetics topic, the experimental students were more likely to use their biological knowledge to improve the quality of their arguments about bioethical dilemmas AND they scored statistically significant higher scores in a genetics test of 20 multiple choice questions. The authors concluded that teaching of explicit argumentation skills enhances performance in both conceptual understanding and argumentation. Aufschnaiter et al. (2008) used Toulmin’s model to analyse the quality of argumentation demonstrated by groups of year 8 (12–13 year old) students discussing diverse topics including blood pressure, phases of the moon, diet and matter. The teachers had previously participated in professional development using a professional development package called Ideas, evidence and argument in science (IDEAS) (Osborne et al. 2004a). These materials are described in the following section. The teachers explicitly taught argumentation skills to the students. Analysis of audio transcripts showed that groups of students were not capable of composing high quality arguments unless they had some content knowledge. Teaching Argumentation in the Science Classroom The study reported in this paper was informed by the work of Jonathan Osborne and colleagues from King’s College, London. In 2004, Osborne et al. (2004b) reported on a study of the design, implementation and evaluation of a curriculum based on Toulmin’s model and designed to enhance argumentation skills of high school science students. As part of the study, they produced a professional development package for teachers called Ideas, evidence and argument in science (IDEAS) (Osborne et al. 2004a). The kit comprised a video and in-service training pack with instructions and resources for six inservice sessions of half a day each. The sessions, in order, are: introducing argument; managing small group discussions; teaching argument; resources for argument; evaluating argument; and, modelling argument. The video contains excerpts of science teachers teaching aspects of argumentation in a range of contexts and topics.
136
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148
After providing continuous professional development using the IDEAS materials and teaching resources to a group of 12 junior high school science teachers in the UK, the teachers subsequently integrated argumentation into their teaching. The authors collected video and audiotape data about how the teachers developed argumentation skills and how the students’ participated in discussion and argumentation in small groups. A framework based on the components of Toulmin’s argumentation pattern was developed to measure the quality of students’ argumentation in small groups. The transcripts were examined for instances of claims, data, warrants, backings, qualifiers and rebuttals. Osborne et al. (2004b) found that there was an improvement in the quality of students’ argumentation post instruction, but the improvement was not significant when compared with groups not taught argumentation. Rather, the quality of students’ argumentation seemed to be related to the extent to which individual teachers provided opportunities for argumentation. In a different paper based on the same data, Simon et al. (2006) focussed on the argumentation dialogue used by the 12 teachers who taught argumentation. They compared the dialogue of teachers whose students demonstrated improvement in the quality of argumentation skills with those teachers whose students did not. The context of this analysis was a lesson on a socioscientific issue related to keeping animals in zoos. They found that changes in students’ argumentation skills were linked to teachers’ classroom dialogue and that improvement occurred in classes where teachers focussed on helping students understand the importance of talking, listening and reflecting, taking a position and justifying it with evidence, constructing arguments and counterarguments and where the teachers modelled argumentation skills themselves. The role of the teacher in encouraging reflection and developing counter-arguments was found to be particularly important. The crucial role of the teacher also was emphasised by Jimenex-Aleixandre et al. (2001) in a study that examined small group and whole class discussions of 15 year old students studying genetics. They concluded that where the teacher, “created a climate of confidence which encouraged students to express and defend their opinions, combined with the use of tasks that required students to work collaboratively and solve problems” (p. 782) argumentation was more likely to be exhibited. Two other findings from the work of Osborne et al. (2004b) and others (e.g., Sadler and Donnelly 2006; Zohar and Nemet 2002) informed the design of this study. Firstly, Osborne et al. (2004b) found that it was harder to implement argumentation in a scientific context than a socioscientific context. Secondly, prior to instruction in argumentation, high school aged students demonstrate poor argumentation skills. The latter statement is supported by a recent study where 30 Australian high school students (aged 12–17 years) from five different schools were interviewed and asked to justify their views of a range of gene technology processes (Dawson and Venville in press). Without prompting, it was found that, regardless of age, most students (about 75%) expressed low level arguments consisting of either claims only or claims and data. Warrants, backings and qualifiers were rarely present. The findings were consistent with argumentation levels expressed by high school aged students when arguing about socioscientific issues in the US (Sadler and Donnelly 2006). Thus, in this study of year 10 students (14–15 years old) we assumed that without instruction, most students would be unable to construct complex arguments with backings, qualifiers and warrants. In summary, the research reviewed in this section has called attention to the critical importance of the quality of instruction with regard to enhancing students’ argumentation skills. However, little research has explored the implementation of argumentation by science teachers in naturalistic classroom settings. The aim of the study presented in this paper was to identify the types of strategies used by an Australian high school science
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148
137
teacher as he introduced argumentation skills to his year 10 science classes in a genetics context. The research questions were: 1. Following a professional development session on argumentation, what strategies did the teacher use to promote argumentation? 2. What were the students’ perceptions of the argumentation in the post professional development classes?
Research Method The research presented in this paper is part of a larger study to examine the effect of explicit instruction in argumentation on year 10 students’ conceptual understanding of genetics and their argumentation about socioscientific issues in a genetics context. The quality of argumentation used by students before and after explicit instruction and the relationship between argumentation and conceptual understanding are reported elsewhere (Dawson and Venville 2008). An instrumental case study approach (Stake 2000) was the primary research method. It was intended that the findings of this exploratory case study would inform the design of further research and professional development on argumentation. Data were generated through semi-structured pre and post instruction student interviews, teacher interviews, students’ work samples, field notes of a professional learning session on argumentation, classroom observations and audiotaped lesson transcripts. The use of these multiple sources of data allowed triangulation and cross-checking of emergent hypotheses. Sample The research site was a metropolitan co-educational high school with an enrolment of 960 students in years 8 to 12. The school is located in a middle class suburb of Perth, Western Australia. The science department is well resourced with two full time laboratory technicians, computer support and access to a wide range of laboratory equipment. Most of the staff are experienced teachers who regularly participate in science professional development. The research was conducted with Mr. D, a well regarded biology teacher with 19 years experience and his two year 10 classes of 28 and 27 students respectively. Year 10 students (14–15 years) were chosen as the research sample because genetics is typically taught in year 10 in Australian schools. After year 10, science is no longer a compulsory subject and only one third of students continue with biology. Professional Learning Session In July, 2006, Mr. D agreed to trial the introduction of argumentation skills with his two year 10 classes. Initially, Mr. D was given a briefing paper written by the authors which summarised the principles of argumentation and how it could contribute to conceptual understanding and scientific literacy. Mr. D then participated in a 90-min one-on-one professional learning (PL) session with the first author using the Ideas, evidence and argument in science (IDEAS) materials (Osborne et al. 2004a). The session began with a discussion of what an argument is and how scientists argue and debate with their peers in many contexts such as within journals and at conferences. For example, scientists argue and debate about the type of data to be collected, validity and reliability of data, interpretation
138
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148
of data and suitability of models. Resource sheets from the third session of the IDEAS training pack (Teaching argument) were used to introduce Toulmin’s model of argument, examples of arguments and their parts (i.e., data, claim, warrant, backing, qualifier and rebuttal) and the use of argument prompts. Video excerpts showing two teachers introducing and modelling argumentation were viewed and critiqued. The professional learning session was conducted as an interactive discussion with Mr. D having significant input as he discussed his ideas on how best to teach argumentation. The benefit of using argument in decision-making about socioscientific issues was also discussed. Mr. D was offered a choice of three socioscientific issues set in a genetics context that could be used to promote argumentation. The three issues had been used previously with year 10 students. He chose one based on cystic fibrosis (Dawson and Taylor 2000) and the other on genetically modified tomatoes (Lewis 2000) as he believed they best suited the genetics content that the students had recently been taught. Mr. D also suggested the use of a writing frame with guiding questions to scaffold students’ thinking. With input from Mr. D a writing frame with questions was constructed for each socioscientific issue. The questions were designed to act as a mental prompt for students as they worked individually to express their arguments about the issues. Examples of questions on the writing frames included: “What evidence supports your answer?” and, “If someone disagreed with you, how would you convince them that your answer is the best?” Writing frames have been shown to enhance thinking and writing skills in science (Hand et al. 2004b). See Appendix A for a copy of the writing frames with the socioscientific issues and guiding questions. Note that in the version used by students, space was allowed for students to write their responses. Data Sources and Analysis The argumentation lessons were taught towards the end of the genetics topic after students had studied inheritance and some uses of gene technology including genetics testing and genetic modification. The timing of the argumentation lessons was deliberate as it had been shown previously that students of this age displayed better argumentation skills if they have some prior knowledge (Aufschnaiter et al. 2008; Lewis and Leach 2006). Extensive field notes were recorded during the professional development session, a pre lesson, and the lessons on argumentation. Audiotapes of all lessons were transcribed. The transcript sections where Mr. D promoted argumentation were coded using the framework developed by Simon et al. (2006). A summary of this analytical framework follows:
&
Talking and listening ○ Encourages discussion ○ Encourages listening
&
Knowing meaning of argument ○ Defines argument ○ Exemplifies argument
&
Positioning ○ Encourages ideas ○ Encourages positioning ○ Values different positions
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148
&
Justifying with evidence ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
&
139
Checks evidence Provides evidence Prompts justification Emphasises justification Emphasises further justification Plays devil’s advocate
Constructing arguments ○ Uses writing frame or written work/prepares presentations/gives roles
&
Evaluating arguments Encourages argument process—using evidence/content—nature of evidence
&
Counter-arguing/debating ○ Encourages anticipating counter argument ○ Encourages debate (through role play)
&
Reflection on argument process ○ Encourages reflection ○ Asks about mind-change
A sample of 12 students from Mr. Ds two classes, six students from each class, were interviewed before studying the 10-week genetics topic. Ten of these students were reinterviewed after the topic. The remaining two students were absent each time the authors visited the school. Interviewed students were asked questions about their understanding of genetics concepts and their decision-making about two genetics dilemmas. The students were selected by Mr. D using a purposive sampling method (Patton 1990) that allowed for a range of academic abilities. The classes at this school were not streamed for academic ability and the interviewed students were identified by the teacher as being of high, medium and low academic achievement in science. In the post instruction interview, the students also were asked what they thought of the argumentation lessons. A copy of the interview protocol is presented in Appendix B. The interviews were transcribed and the post unit transcript sections on students’ perceptions of argumentation were analysed for emergent themes.
Results The Lessons Mr. D’s classes were observed prior to the argumentation lessons to ascertain his teaching style. Mr. D was a very confident teacher who encouraged independent learning in his students because he wanted them to take responsibility for their learning. Typically, the students worked independently in small groups, with Mr. D calling the class together at intervals to check on progress and provide information. As students worked he circulated from group to group. There was a hum of noise in the class and students were largely on task.
140
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148
Mr. D taught argumentation skills to his two year 10 classes over two consecutive lessons of 50 min each (100 min in total). Both classes were approaching the end of a 10-week genetics topic which covered reproduction, inheritance, Mendelian genetics, human genetic diseases, genetic engineering and genetic screening for single gene disorders. The structure of the argumentation lessons was as follows. After reviewing the previous lesson, Mr. D explained to students that they were going to learn about some strategies for decision-making. A diagram of a tomato was drawn on the white board and inside the diagram were the words, ‘data’, ‘claim’, ‘warrant’, ‘backings’ and ‘rebuttal’. Mr. D explained what each of the words meant in relation to argumentation. He then handed out the writing frame for the genetically modified tomato issue. Students were asked to read about the socioscientific issue by themselves and write down what they would do. Without discussion, they were instructed to answer the first two questions about what further information they needed and about evidence to support their decision. Mr. D then led a whole class discussion interspersed with periods when the students used the writing frames. Students were asked to consider the benefits and risks of their decision and how they would convince someone who disagreed with them. After the discussion, students answered the final question about whether or not they had changed their decision. In the next lesson, Mr. D repeated the same process using the writing frames and whole class discussion with the cystic fibrosis issue. In order to examine more closely the strategies used by Mr. D to promote argumentation, the audiotaped lesson transcripts were analysed using the framework developed by Simon et al. (2006) and outlined in the previous section. As described in the introduction, the framework of Simon et. al. was developed by scrutinising the types of teaching strategies and dialogue used by teachers whose students subsequently displayed better argumentation skills compared with those teachers whose students did not improve their argumentation skills. Table 1 provides exemplars from the audiotaped lesson transcripts of the behaviours exhibited by Mr. D. All behaviours were demonstrated on at least one occasion.
Students’ Perceptions During the argumentation lessons, we observed that the students were engaged and on task. They appeared to enjoy expressing their views about the two socioscientific issues. The students listened to each other and did not tend to talk over or interrupt each other, partly as a result of Mr. D managing the discussion. Apart from when students were using the writing frames, there was a constant dialogue of student–student and student–teacher talk about the issues. During the post interviews, conducted 2 weeks after instruction, all students vividly recalled the socioscientific issues and initially responded by describing the socioscientific issues and outlining their views. For example student S recalled her response to the socioscientific issues. OK, from that lesson I learnt that as much as genetics has a really, really—like some up sides, and it’s also got some really down ones. Like with the Flavr savr—we didn’t know if the tomato would still have like the same nutritional value as like an organic tomato or if it had other problems with it that they hadn’t really told us about. (S, 17/ 806) Yeah, it needs to be like a bit more information on it and with the cystic fibrosis, I don’t think I would have told the parents at first because you could like ruin their
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148
141
Table 1 Examples of argumentation processes exemplified by Mr. D while teaching argumentation Argument process
Codes for teacher facilitation
Example from transcript
Talking and listening
Encourages discussion
p. 3 What was your first initial response to the business about the Flavr Savr tomato? p. 6 So you’re saying that everybody on this planet is so ethically and morally perfect nobody will do the wrong thing? p. 4 Oh that’s good Steph. Yes, so Steph’s also making that comparison. p. 3 So with the tomato, you’ve got a claim and a counter claim. p. 9 So it’s a bit like saying, man never landed on the moon, or man landed on the moon, and the counter claim is, of course, no he didn’t, you look at the flag, there’s no way they could have done it. So we’ve got a claim and a counter claim. p. 14 Good, Bryce is thinking out various scenarios in his head. I think that’s always good. p. 11 If you were the genetics counsellor, would you tell both Mr. and Mrs. C the test results? p. 9 But I think that sometimes we need that, we need people to stand up and give us that other point of view. p. 11 They’ve actually given you that word, Danielle, what is that word? (Danielle—mutation) p. 7 The hostesses or stewards will walk up and down the isle and they’ll say please fill out these quarantine cards and watch the video. p. 11 Teacher—Now because it’s recessive if you have just one of them, can you get the disease? (S—No) Teacher—No, so we’re drawing back on the work we did in genetics. p. 10 Teacher—What do I need more of? (S—Evidence) Teacher—More evidence. So like I need more data. p. 6 Once again another example of where we need a bit more research, a bit more data so we can back up some comments. p. 13 What if you were the father, would you want to know? p. 2 I’m going to hand out a sheet to you. Have a bit of a read first and as you are reading it be critical. p. 2 You know when you read something you should be a little bit critical.
Encourages listening Knowing meaning of argument
Defines argument Exemplifies argument
Positioning
Encourages ideas
Encourages positioning
Values different positions Justifying with evidence
Checks evidence
Provides evidence
Prompts justification
Emphasizes justification Encourages further justification Plays devil’s advocate Constructing arguments Evaluating arguments
Uses writing frame or written work/prepares presentations/gives roles Encourages evaluation
142
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148
Table 1 (continued) Argument process
Counter-arguing/ debating
Codes for teacher facilitation
Example from transcript
Evaluates arguments process—using evidence/ content—nature of evidence
p. 8 …how would you try and convince that your claim, or the way that you thought about a problem, how would you try to convince other people? p. 6 And then we’ve got people who are willing to, and we discussed this one the other day too, you know there is going to be a bit of a rebuttal there to. What are we going to qualify? p. 11 If you were the genetics counsellor, would you tell both Mr. and Mrs. C the test results? p. 13 What if you were the father, would you want to know? p. 10 That’s a really good point. Do you think that’s what schools are trying to do with their science programs though? Is there any way that a school with maybe one lesson of science a day, is going to bring you fully up to speed with what’s happening in the science world?… So we’re not actually asking you to remember absolutely everything. Perhaps we are asking you to remember certain techniques, like we’re doing now. We’re talking about how to create a constructive argument. p. 9 Okay, hand up those people who have changed their mind between the start of the sheet and…. Who heard what somebody else said and maybe changed their mind on it?
Encourages anticipating counter-argument
Encourages debate (through role play)
Reflecting on argument process
Encourages reflection
Asks about mind-change
relationship, but then on the other hand if the father already knew or like they had a sperm donation or whatever you probably wouldn’t know so it probably best to like not say it at first just in case, and maybe talk to the mother about it first and yeah. (S, 17/806) The analysis of the interview transcripts revealed that many of the students identified and discussed critical strategies used by Mr. D in facilitating argument during the lessons. (In order to demonstrate this connection, relevant aspects of the analytical framework are included in square parentheses in text.) When asked what they thought of the lessons, the students were unanimous in stating that they enjoyed and valued whole class discussions and the use of writing frames [encourages discussion, uses writing frames]. Yeah, I thought it was quite fun because I was alright at it and, yeah, it was fun just discussing stuff, like I didn’t do a heap of writing. Yeah, I didn’t find it too hard or anything like that. It was easy to cope with. (J, 17/8/06)
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148
143
I did enjoy it because it was different than just telling the facts and the way Mr. D did it, he asked everybody, we did the sheet first, just the first page of it and that was just making up your mind (C, 17/8/06) Mr. D also provided information to support or rebut their claims and built on their answers by providing more data [provides evidence]. If we gave a reason he’d kind of expand on that and he like helped us understand— lots of people were confused about a few things (R, 17/8/06) Mr. D also asked questions to draw out backings and qualifiers from students [prompts justification, encourages further justification, plays devil’s advocate]. He gave us some scenarios and inside the scenario he’d say like, what if this happened? And then what about if you put this and this and then what would happen? (J, 17/8/06) Mr. D also encouraged students to express a range of views (claims and counter claims) [encourages ideas]. For example: It was good how we like, yeah, everyone had their own input. (R, 17/8/06) The students valued listening to the arguments (counter claims and rebuttals) put forward by their peers [values different positions, encourages debate, encourages reflection]. For example: I learnt that like there are lots of different opinions and it’s kind of good how everyone has their own input—that’s what I liked about it and like yeah, there was lots of different opinions which can twist the way you look at it and some were good and some were bad. (R, 17/8/06) I thought the lesson was good because we all got to discuss and we all like heard different opinions from other people and we all thought about it. (S2, 17/8/06) The students not only listened to, but were influenced by the evidence put forward by their peers [encourages listening, encourages positioning, asks about mind change]. Everyone has their own opinions on certain topics and it kind of changes the way you think about the topic when you hear other people’s opinions so you might be for it and when you hear certain things you might be against it. (S1, 17/8/06) We kind of had a light debate about it—like we’d all give our own opinion and then he was like it’s OK if you change your mind, like if you started off thinking one thing and then changed it, like that’s fine but we all like gave our opinions and then we kind of thought outside the box and how they would feel and how the father would feel and… it kind of brought ideas to your head but then you still had yours—you kind of, you’re fighting with yourself on which one to choose. (V, 17/8/06) Most students recognised the benefits of discussion where evidence was used to support claims (provides evidence, encourages ideas, emphasises justification). For example: We built off each other’s ideas and came up with more ideas than we would have done by ourselves and learnt more about the cystic fibrosis one, DNA testing and with the Flavr Savr one all about how it could be different with climate conditions…It left it up to us to think and then by using our ideas and some of the things Mr D said and
144
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148
everybody else, we were able to understand more of the different effects and everything. (Ca, 17/8/06)
Discussion In this study, an experienced biology teacher introduced his year 10 students to argumentation skills during a genetics topic as they examined two socioscientific issues, one on a genetically modified tomato and the other on prenatal genetic testing for cystic fibrosis. The argumentation lessons were 100 min in total. When the lesson transcripts were analysed according to the framework developed by Simon et al. (2006) we identified multiple instances where Mr. D exhibited the same argumentation processes found in UK teachers who had participated in an extensive professional development program AND were effective in improving students’ argumentation skills. This was despite Mr. D participating in a brief (90-min) targeted professional development session. An analysis of the classroom observations, audiotaped lesson transcripts and the post instruction interview transcripts suggested that four factors that promoted argumentation in Mr. D’s classroom emerged from the data. These factors included: the role of the teacher in facilitating whole class discussion; the use of the writing frames; the context of the socioscientific issue; and, the role of the students. Mr. D regularly used whole class discussion in his teaching. We observed that Mr. D used students’ names whenever they responded to, or asked a question. He called on all students during the lessons. Often he would rephrase or restate a student answer so that the whole class could hear the response. He would then build on the students’ responses by providing more evidence, taking an alternative position, or asking for justification. He encouraged students to answer each others’ questions with himself as the intermediary. He used humour and listened actively to students often asking follow up questions to prompt justification. He exemplified argument by providing examples to illustrate the language of argumentation, reminding students of the importance of providing evidence, using claims and counter claims. When students seemed to be in agreement he would play devil’s advocate by offering a counter argument. Students seemed familiar with the rules of whole class discussion with several being reminded that they had reached their quota of asking questions. The whole class discussion was interspersed with periods when students wrote their answers to questions from the writing frames. The questions were designed to act as argument prompts to encourage students to make a decision and to articulate reasons for their decision. The nature of the questions (e.g., ‘How would you convince someone who disagreed with you?’) encouraged students to use data, warrants and make explicit the underlying assumptions (backings) that supported their claims. We observed that all students wrote answers and Mr. D used the questions as a starting point for the periods of whole class discussion. Another feature of the lesson was that the teacher selected and used socioscientific issues that were set in a genetics context so that students were able to readily apply their newly acquired knowledge. This is similar to the successful use of bioethical dilemmas to promote argumentation used by Zohar and Nemet (2002). Lewis (2000) and Aufschnaiter et al. (2008) both state that students must have some scientific knowledge if they are to successfully engage in argumentation. During discussion, Mr. D was able to draw on his broad biology background knowledge and awareness of students’ content knowledge. This
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148
145
enabled him to provide further information to prompt students’ when required. We observed that students used genetic terms in the discussion, writing frames and post unit interviews. The culture and abilities of the students needs to be considered when developing their argumentation skills in science. If students are unaccustomed to questioning scientific knowledge, evidence, or the teacher, they may be reluctant to engage in argumentation. However, in the classes observed students seemed very comfortable with providing their point of view and were also willing to listen to the teacher and their peers. We observed that the students seemed interested and motivated by the socioscientific issues. The post unit interview comments indicated that students enjoyed the lessons and the activities including the whole class discussion and writing frames. Indeed, as one student left the class he turned and asked Mr. D, “Can we do this again next period?”
Conclusion In this study, Mr. D, after a brief professional development session on teaching argumentation, introduced argumentation to two year 10 science classes in a genetics context. Analysis of pre and post unit questionnaires on these students’ argumentation about a socioscientific issue indicates that their quality of argumentation improved more than students who were not taught argumentation (Dawson and Venville 2008). The two main teaching strategies used by Mr. D were whole class discussion and individual student writing frames. An advantage of whole class discussion was that Mr. D could control and monitor all student input, ensure that students were on task and direct argument strategies to the whole class. Also, unlike writing frames where students were working individually, they were able to articulate their views and listen to rebuttals, warrants, backing, qualifiers and data that they may not have been aware of. Research from the UK has shown that a lack of teacher expertise in facilitating discussions may inhibit students’ ability and opportunity to engage in argumentation (Oulton et al. 2004). Similarly, after interviews with 41 Scottish biology teachers, Bryce (2004) found that they were reluctant to consider social and ethical aspects of controversial issues because they felt that they did not have the skills to effectively use discussion. In contrast, Mr. D had no difficulty using whole class discussion with his students. Both authors of this paper are experienced science education researchers and have conducted numerous classroom observations. After observing Mr. D teach, we agreed that he is an exemplary biology teacher. During the pre-argumentation classroom observations we noted that Mr. D was highly accomplished at facilitating discussion and that he frequently employed the whole class discussion strategy. As a consequence, his students also understood the social conventions and structure of discussion including their roles of listening to the teacher and their peers, answering and asking questions, and sharing their understandings and views. In contrast, when students used the writing frames they wrote and thought individually without input from their peers. The writing frames provided a scaffold to guide students in recording their thoughts about the socioscientific issues. The prompt questions on the writing frames required students to provide evidence and alternative viewpoints. There is some evidence that the activity of writing and recording thoughts can enhance reasoning and critical thinking amongst high school aged students (e.g., Hand et al. 2004a; Keys 1999). The choice of topics for the two socioscientific issues included a genetically modified tomato and genetics testing for cystic fibrosis. Mr. D selected these two issues because he
146
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148
believed that the students had the requisite prior knowledge to engage in meaningful discussion and make a decision. We conclude that the choice of socioscientific issue should be carefully selected by teachers and researchers to ensure that students have sufficient background knowledge to engage in argumentation. The issues should also be about topics likely to be of interest to the students. As stated in the “Research Method” section, both the socioscientific issues used in Mr. D’s class in this research had previously been successfully used with students of similar age.
Implications and Recommendations This study does seem to demonstrate that for this experienced biology teacher, a brief professional development session on argumentation was sufficient for him to develop the skills to successfully introduce his students to argumentation. Simon et al. (2006) claim that teachers’ skills prior to professional development on argumentation are crucial in their ability to develop their own students’ argumentation skills. Thus, it is recommended that professional learning activities may need to be tailored to individual teachers depending on their content knowledge of the topic, experience with whole class discussion, prior teaching of socioscientific issues and familiarity with argumentation skills. If teachers are inexperienced or unfamiliar with any or all of these aspects, they may need an extended period of time prior to introducing argumentation skills to practice whole class discussion using familiar topics. In this study we identified four factors that seem to be important in the teaching of argumentation. The factors were: the role of the teacher in whole class discussion; the use of writing frames; the type of socioscientific issue; and, the role of the students. In this study we were unable to ascertain the relative importance of each of these factors. However, we are currently engaged in a larger scale professional development program working with eight biology teachers in different schools. It is hoped that this study will provide evidence about the relative impact of each of the identified factors. Finally, we recommend that science educators who recognise the importance of developing students’ argumentation skills work with science teachers and focus on classroom based research to provide much needed data about effective strategies to aid in the development of students’ argumentation.
Appendix A Writing Frames on Socioscientific Issues The Flavr Savr Tomato Today, the Flavr Savr tomato went on sale in the USA for the first time. Normal tomatoes rot quickly once ripe. To overcome this, producers pick them when they are green and allow them to ripen during shipping and storage. Many people complain that this makes the tomato tasteless. The Flavr Savr tomato has been genetically altered to prevent it from rotting as quickly as normal tomatoes. It can be picked once ripe and will not rot during transport or storage. Producers claim that this makes the Flavr savr tomato taste better. Should the Flavr Savr tomato be grown and sold in Australia? Yes _________________ I don’t know __________ No___________________
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148
147
Questions What further information would help in making your decision? What evidence supports your answer? What are the possible benefits or advantages of your response? What are the possible risks or disadvantages of your response? Are there other reasons for why your claim is true? Under what conditions is your claim true? If someone disagreed with you how could you convince them that your answer is the best? Has your original decision changed? In what way? Cystic Fibrosis Mr. and Mrs. C come to a genetics clinic for prenatal diagnosis. They have each been tested to determine whether they carry the gene for cystic fibrosis, a hereditary lung disease that causes severe breathing problems. The cystic fibrosis gene is recessive, so a child must inherit a copy from each parent to get the disease. In this case, both Mr. and Mrs. C are carriers for the cystic fibrosis gene. The specific mutations for each parent were identified in earlier tests. Mrs. C, who is pregnant, undergoes prenatal diagnosis to determine if the foetus is affected. DNA analysis indicates that the foetus does have two copies of the cystic fibrosis gene, but one of the mutations it carries is different from that of either Mr. or Mrs. C. That makes it virtually certain that Mr. C is not the baby’s father. If you were the genetics counselor would you tell BOTH Mr. and Mrs. C the test results?
Appendix B Post Unit Interview Questions about Argumentation Lessons I would like to ask you some questions about the lesson where you looked at the Flavr Savr tomato and the cystic fibrosis issues. Can you tell me what you learnt from that lesson? Did you enjoy the lesson? Why/why not? What can be learnt from looking at scenarios like that? What did your teacher do to help you understand and make up your minds about the scenarios? Could scenarios like this help you to learn genetics? Why/why not? Do you have any suggestions about how this lesson could be improved?
References Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: students’ argumentation in group discussion on a socioscientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67–90. doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2. Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131. doi:10.1002/tea.20213. Bryce, T. (2004). Tough acts to follow: the challenges to science teachers presented by biotechnological progress. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 717–733. doi:10.1080/0950069032000138833. Dawson, V. M., & Taylor, P. C. (2000). Do adolescents’ bioethical decisions differ from those of experts? Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 1–5.
148
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148
Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (in press). High school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, accepted February 18th, 2008. Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2008, April). Argumentation and conceptual understanding: Grade 10 students learning about genetics. A paper presented at the annual international conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Baltimore, 30th March–2nd April. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:33.0.CO;2-A. Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2004a). Exploring students’ responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: a study with year 10 science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(2), 186–210. doi:10.1002/tea.10128. Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. (2004b). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory outcomes in seventh-grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131–149. doi:10.1080/0950069032000070252. Harris, R., & Ratcliffe, M. (2005). Socio-scientific issues and the quality of exploratory talk—what can be learned from schools involved in a ‘collapsed day’ project? Curriculum Journal, 16, 439–453. doi:10.1080/09585170500384396. Jimenex-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2001). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”; argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792. doi:10.1002/1098-237X (200011)84:63.0.CO;2-F. Keys, C. W. (1999). Language as an indicator of meaning generation: an analysis of middle school students’ written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1044– 1061. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199911)36:93.0.CO;2-J. Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision-making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6), 673–689. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199611)80:63.0.CO;2-G. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, J. (2000). Making the science relevant: classroom discussion of social issues with a science content. In H. Bayrhuber & U. Unterbruner (Eds.), Lehren and lernen im biologieunterricht (pp. 107–119). Innsbruck-Wein-Munchen: Studien. Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: the role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267–1287. doi:10.1080/09500690500439348. Means, M., & Voss, J. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informed reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–178. doi:10.1207/ s1532690xci1402_1. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576. doi:10.1080/095006999290570. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004a). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. In-service training pack, resource pack and video. London: Nuffield Foundation. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004b). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035. Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411–423. doi:10.1080/0950069032000072746. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. doi:10.1002/tea.20009. Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 323–346. doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138. doi:10.1002/tea.20042. 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. doi:10.1080/ 09500690500336957. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 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.
