International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2014, Vol. 10(1) 59-72

Impact of Model-Based Teaching on Argumentation Skills

Feral Ogan-Bekiroglu, & Deniz Eren Belek

pp. 59 - 72   |  Manu. Number: ijpe.2014.059

Published online: February 15, 2014  |   Number of Views: 2  |  Number of Download: 23


Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine effects of model-based teaching on students’ argumentation skills. Experimental design guided to the research. The participants of the study were pre-service physics teachers. The argumentative intervention lasted seven weeks. Data for this research were collected via video recordings and written arguments. Results show that construction of concrete models and using them in their discussions and explanations provide learners with more quality (accurate, consistent, appropriate, and relevant) arguments. In addition, models’ quality affects the number of claims, evidences and reasoning that are produced during argumentation. The closer learners’ models are to the real situations, the more argument components they generate.

Keywords: Model-based teaching, argumentation, pre-service teachers


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. & Belek, D.E. (2014). Impact of Model-Based Teaching on Argumentation Skills . International Journal of Progressive Education, 10(1), 59-72.

Harvard
Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. and Belek, D. (2014). Impact of Model-Based Teaching on Argumentation Skills . International Journal of Progressive Education, 10(1), pp. 59-72.

Chicago 16th edition
Ogan-Bekiroglu, Feral and Deniz Eren Belek (2014). "Impact of Model-Based Teaching on Argumentation Skills ". International Journal of Progressive Education 10 (1):59-72.

References
  1. Aduriz-Bravo, A. (2011). Fostering model-based school scientific argumentation among prospective science teachers. US-China Education Review, 8(5), 718-723. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bell, P. (2002). Using argument map representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 449-485). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  3. Boulter, C. J. (2000). Language, models and modelling in the primary science classroom. In J. [Google Scholar]
  4. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 289- 305).  Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  5. Boulter, C. J., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Constructing a typology of models for science education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 41–57). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  6. Boulter, C., Buckley, B., & Walkington, H. (2001, April). Model-based teaching and learning during ecological inquiry. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED454048). [Google Scholar]
  7. Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 895–935. [Google Scholar]
  8. Buty, C., & Mortimer, E. F. (2008). Dialogic/Authoritative Discourse and Modelling in a High School Teaching Sequence on Optics. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1635-1660 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041-1053. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22. [Google Scholar]
  11. Crawford, B. A., & Cullin, M. J. (2003, August). Dynamic assessment of prospective teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling. Paper presented at the Fourth Conference of the European Science Education Research Association, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  12. Crossa, D., Taasoobshirazib, G., Hendricksc, S., & Hickeya, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837-861. [Google Scholar]
  13. Duschl, A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72. [Google Scholar]
  14. 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, 915– 933. [Google Scholar]
  15. Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2008). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jime´nez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordrecht: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gilbert, J. K., & Osborne, R. J. (1980). The use of models in science and science teaching. European Journal of Science Education, 2(1), 3-13. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (2003). Learning science through models and modelling. In B. [Google Scholar]
  18. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 53– 66). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gobert, J. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891–894. [Google Scholar]
  20. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026. [Google Scholar]
  21. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., Pereiro Muñoz, C., & Aznar Cuadrado, V. (1999, November). Promoting reasoning and argument about environmental issues. Research in Didaktik of Biology. University of Göteborg, Sweden. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, B. A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “Doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as a sociocultural practice through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883-915. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kindfield, A. C. H. (1993). Biology diagrams: tools to think with. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 1-36. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kitcher, P. (1988). The child as parent of the scientist. Mind and Language, 3(3), 215-228. [Google Scholar]
  26. Krathwohl, D. R. (1997). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  27. Mandinach, E. B. (1989). Model-building and the use of computer simulation of dynamic systems. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 221-243. [Google Scholar]
  28. Marsh, G., Willimont, G., & Boulter, C. J. (1999). Modelling the solar system. Primary Science Review, 59, 24-26. [Google Scholar]
  29. McNeill, K. L. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations through curricular scaffolds and teacher instructional practices. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. [Google Scholar]
  30. 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. [Google Scholar]
  31. Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 157-169. [Google Scholar]
  32. 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. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2007). Effects of model-based teaching on pre-service physics teachers’ conceptions of the Moon, Moon phases and other lunar phenomena. International Journal of Science Education, 29(5), 555-593. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Eskin, H. (2012). Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientific argumentation and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1415-1443. [Google Scholar]
  35. Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 203-215. [Google Scholar]
  36. Passmore, C., Stewart, J., & Cartier, J. (2009). Model-based inquiry and school science: Creating connections. School Science and Mathematics, 109(7), 394–402. [Google Scholar]
  37. Passmore, C. M., & Svoboda, J. (2012). Exploring Opportunities for Argumentation in Modelling Classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1535- 1554. [Google Scholar]
  38. Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision- making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754. [Google Scholar]
  39. Sadler, P. M., Haller, D., & Garfield, E. (2000). Observational journals: An aid to sky watching. Journal of College Science Teaching, 2, 245–254. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sampson, V. (2007). The effects of collaboration of argumentation outcomes. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. [Google Scholar]
  41. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447-472. [Google Scholar]
  42. Sandoval,W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. [Google Scholar]
  43. Schwarz, C.V., Reiser, B.J., Davis, E.A., Kenyon, L., Ache´r, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y, Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 632–654. [Google Scholar]
  44. Simon, S., Osborne, J., & Erduran, S. (2003). Systemic teacher development to enhance the use of argumentation in school science activities. In J. Wallace & J. Loughran (Eds.), Leadership and professional development in science education: New possibilities for enhancing teacher learning (pp. 198-217). London & New York: RoutledgeFalmer. [Google Scholar]
  45. Suzuki, M. (2003). Conversations about the moon with prospective teachers in Japan. Science Education, 87, 892–910. [Google Scholar]
  46. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  47. Willard, A. (1989). A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press. [Google Scholar]
  48. Wood, J. M. (2007). Understanding and computing Cohen’s Kappa: A tutorial. WebPsychEmpiricist. Retrieved October 3, 2007 from http://wpe.info/papers_table.html. [Google Scholar]
  49. Viennot, L. (2001). Reasoning in physics: The part of common sense. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  50. von 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. [Google Scholar]
  51. Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337-350. [Google Scholar]
  52. Yeh, S. S. (1998). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 49-83. [Google Scholar]
  53. 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. [Google Scholar]