Title Making thinking visible in classroom via …...Paul's Wheel of Reasoning (1992) is the instrument used as a means to measure the quality of argument and hence student reasoning

Title Making thinking visible in classroom via scientific argumentation Author(s) Ning Hwee Tiang and Chang Sook Mei Source Proceedings of the International Science Education Conference 2014 (pp.

1252-1267). Singapore: National Institute of Education Publisher Natural Science and Science Education, National Institute of Education

Copyright © 2014 Natural Science and Science Education, National Institute of Education No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the Natural Sciences and Science Education Academic Group, National Institute of Education. Citation: Ning, H. T., & Chang, S. M. (2014). Making thinking visible in classroom via scientific argumentation. In Y. -J. Lee, N. T -L. Lim, K. S. Tan, H. E. Chu, P. Y. Lim, Y. H. Lim, & I. Tan (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Science Education Conference 2014 (pp. 1252-1267). Singapore: National Institute of Education. This document was archived with permission from the copyright holder.

Visible-Thinking Argumentation

Making Thinking Visible In Classroom Via Scientific Argumentation

NING Hwee Tiang

CHANG Sook Mei

National Junior College, Singapore.

ning hwee [email protected]. chang soak [email protected]

Abstract

Scientific argumentation is an integral part of learning science. In this small-scale exploratory

study, we attempted to develop students' reasoning skill via the use of thinking routine of

Claim-Support-Question whilst engaging students in the process of scientific argumentation.

Paul's Wheel of Reasoning (1992) is the instrument used as a means to measure the quality of

argument and hence student reasoning. This paper describes how the instrument is used to

evaluate the quality of arguments and reasoning, discusses its strengths and weaknesses and

makes recommendations for classroom instruction and further analyses. Preliminary findings

as gathered from a grade-11 class has showed that by using CSQ routine and evaluating

students' arguments, helped make their thinking visible in both their conceptual

understanding and scientific reasoning, and promote collaborative discourses.

Keywords : scientific argumentation, claim-support-question, wheel of reasoning

1252


Making Thinking Visible in classroom via Scientific Argumentation

Introduction

Over the year, we realised that students had difficulties writing effective explanations and

making reasoned arguments. This problem was seen across all subjects. We found there were

gaps in our student's argumentation and each department was solving this issue

independently. This caused confusion among students as differently strategies were adopted

by different subjects. We looked for a solution that could work across all disciplines and we

found that Visible Thinking could be used to overcome all the issues we faced as a college.

We adopted the Claim-Support-Question thinking routine and Paul's Wheel of Reasoning to

scaffold critical thinking in the classroom. The aim was to teach argumentation in a

consistent manner across subjects and to encourage debate, listen, define, question, to justify

and encourage reflection.

Literature Review

Most of the articles on argumentation mentioned the importance of argumentation in science

education. In Leaming to Teach Argumentation (Erduan, Ardac, & Yakmaci-Guzel, 2006),

the authors reiterated that not teaching argumentation in science, 'exposes the weakness of

science education'. Driver, Newton & Osborne (2000) mentioned that argumentation as a

core practice in science, plays a critical role in advancing science knowledge.

Argumentation helps students to think critically. In Nussbaum (2002), he mentioned that the

studying and practicing argumentation was to develop students' capacity to engage in

argumentation and reasoned discourse. In Dawson and Venville (20 I 0), argumentation

allowed individuals to be able to weigh up the risks and benefits, pose questions, evaluate the

1253


integrity of information and make decisions. Aduriz-Bravo et al (2005) stressed that

argumentation would allow students to identify problems, formulate hypotheses, contrast

models, provide evidence, explain, justify and argue.

Most authors would recommend the use of a framework to help students scaffold their

reasoning. Nussbaum (2002) mentioned that students require assistance in learning how to

argue in a more explicit manner. Erduran, Ardac and Yakmaci-Guzel (2006) used questioning

prompts and they modelled the strategy in class. While Dawson and Venville (2010) used a

combination of questioning, writing frames and teachers playing the devil ' s advocate and role

play.

Students had difficulty in acquiring conceptual understanding in Physics. They often adopted

the rote-memorization approach to learning Physics as they saw ' "learning" physics simply

meant memorization of information and of problem-solving recipes that applied to highly

specific situations' (Wiemann and Perkins, 2005). Studies (Venville, Dawson, 2010; Erduran,

Simon, & Osborne, 2004) which involved students in argumentative discourses saw gain in

the students' conceptual understanding and reasoning abilities.

Recently, two more popular frameworks in teaching argument explicitly were works

published by IDEAS project (Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004) and the Claim, Evidence

and Reasoning framework (McNeill et al, 2006). Both frameworks used Toulmin' s (1958)

argument (TAP) structure, with some modifications; allowed students to gain experience in

using the argument framework as well as using it to facilitate critical thinking and promote

inquiry. While there were similar components such as claim, evidence (data) and reasoning

which was comparable to warrant with backing; IDEAS framework emphasized on rebuttal.

1254


Methodology

Of the numerous and varied interventions done on argument and argumentation in the science

classrooms, this study chose to focus on the means in developing reasoning competency in

students using arguments. This is achieved through explicit teaching of a framework for

argument to the students and then their subsequent applications of the framework. Hence, for

the study, the thinking routine of Claim, Support & Questions was identified to familiarise

students with a structure for making arguments and enhance students' thinking. Our school

has adopted the whole school approach in the use of Visible Thinking in action 1 to enhance

students' learning. The learning goals of this argument activity for the students were: (a) to

provide opportunity to acquire the structure of argument, (b) to construct the explanation to

any given physics task using the CSQ structure, and (c) to have their argument evaluated

using the modified Thinking Grid2•

The following research questions guided the study:

To what extent has the structure of CSQ enabled the students' quality ofreasoning?

What is the quality of students ' argumentative discourse as they immerse in more argument

writing experiences?

What is the learning gain in their conceptual understanding of the topics?

Gabrielsen (2013) cited J Osborne' s (of Stanford Graduate School of Education) argument

that teaching students how to argue based on available evidence engages them in the

scientific process and provides a better idea of how science actually works. He also

highlighted that "argumentation," makes science education more valuable, not just for future

scientists but for the public at large. With this in mind, we wanted to develop in our students

1255


the ability to weigh up the risks and benefits, pose questions, evaluate the integrity of

information and make decisions. We embarked on this project to see if our students with the

right instruction and structure would be able to provide necessary evidence to support a claim

and ask questions to test assumptions. Students have a tendency to just attempt questions in

physics without questioning the assumptions or to question validity of the theory used. We

wanted students to be critical thinkers and to make them better science students.

Subjects

Twenty-five Grade 11 students from an intact class that did Physics were involved in this

argument activity. They were subjects of convenience sampling. They had done pure physics

in their secondary school. These students have no idea what constitutes an argument, nor

have experienced it as an instructional strategy, however, they may be familiar with the

common exercise of explaining and have some notion of what is a scientific explanation.

Design

Use of Paul's Elements of Reasoning

In the attempt to define critical thinking, Facione's Delphi Study (1990) arrived at that

critical thinking is a construction and evaluation of arguments (pp.5 - 10). As a result, the

consensus statement has "critical thinking evolved to the 'purposeful, self-regulatory

judgement which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation and inference as well as

explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological or contextual consideration upon

that judgement is based' (Wu, 2008). Hence Paul's Elements ofreasoning (Paul & Elder,

1997) acts as a valid and good proxy to check on the quality of reasoning. The elements of

reasoning (question at issue/claim, evidence, point of view, assumptions, inferences,

implications, concepts)- constitute a central focus in the assessment of student thinking.

1256


They are captured through students' writing made on the template and the classroom

discourse as observed by teacher. The identification of claim and how well it is supported,

decide one's scoring in terms of the quality of reasoning. This study adapted the Critical

Thinking Grid2 as the scoring rubric for assessing students' reasoning ability. When it is used

appropriately and graded accurately, it is reliable to give a high degree of consequential

validity2.

As this is a preliminary scan of the level ofreasoning ability amongst the students and the

ease of learning the structure of argument, there was only informal collection of classroom

discourses by the teacher. As such, this study is predominantly quantitative.

The pre-test and post-test used the same questions. The test captured one short structured

question for each topic (Dynamics and Turning effects of forces).

Procedure

The students did the pre-test without being exposed to the structure of thinking routine:

Claim-Support-Question. In the pre-test, they completed the worksheet using the template

(see Appendix 1 ). The completed templates were assessed using the Critical Thinking Grid

rubric with the Elements of reasoning. For the subsequent lessons, teacher demonstrated how

the argument structure is used, in the classroom using a teaching sequence. After a few

weeks, another test was conducted, using the template. The results of the test are discussed in

the next section.

This cycle was repeated for 2 different topics; namely Dynamics and Turning effects of

forces.

1257


Result and Data Analysis

A 2-tailed t-test was conducted for the mean scores of the students' responses in terms of (a)

claim, (b) support & ( c) questions on both topics.

Table 1: t-test on mean score of response for (a) claim, (b) support & (c) questions; for

template on the topic of Dynamics

Pre-test Post-test

Ola Olb Ole Ola Qlb Qlc mean 2.08 2.28 1.76 2.84 2.84 0 SD 0.954 0.980 1.16 0.554 0.473 0

0.00514 0.0198 P value

Table 2: t-test on mean score of response for (a) claim, (b) support & (c) questions; for

template on the topic of Turning effects of Forces

Pre-test Q2a Q2b Q2c

mean 2.32 1.76 0.92 SD 0.988 0.831 0.760

P value

3.5 ...------------

3 +------------

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Claim Support Question

Post-test Q2a Q2b Q2c 2.88 2.60 -

0.332 0.577 -0.0162 0.000424

• Pre-test

• Post-test

Graph !_Dynamics: mean scores ofresponses for (a) claim, (b) support & (c) questions for

pre- & post- tests.

1258

1.20 -r-----------

1.00 +-----------

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00 Claim Support Question


• Pre-test

• Post-test

Graph 2_ Turning effects of Forces: mean scores of responses for (a) claim, (b) support & (c)

questions for pre- & post- tests.

Findings and Discussion

For Qla, Qlb, Q2a & Q2b, all have P values< 0.05. Hence, there is sufficient evidence to

reject the null hypothesis for alternative hypothesis.

There is no P values for Q 1 c &Q2c as the students did not raise any questions in the Post -

test. Students were confident in their solutions. However, they did question assumptions and

concepts used during lessons.

For problem in the topic of Dynamics,

the mean value for 'claim' in the post test (2.84) is higher than pre-test (2.08) by 0.76. The

increase is due to weaker students (weak in fundamental concepts) who performed better

after the intervention (thinking routine) was introduced. They were able to identify the

problem/issue or make inferences accurately. Stronger students maintained good performance

for both test (not benefiting from the intervention).

the mean value for 'support' in the post test (2.84) is higher than pre-test (2.28) by 0.56.

Weak students were able to give well developed evidence in the problem solving after the

intervention. They were confident in applying concepts (Newton's Second Law) and capable

1259


of presenting solutions in a logical way. Stronger students maintained good performance for

both tests (not benefiting from the approach).

Similar results were obtained for the other topic 'Turning effects of forces ' . The post test

results were better than the pre-test results for both 'claim' and ' support' . Weaker students

benefitted a lot from the approach (CSQ). The approach has actually provided a learning

environment that both promotes and facilitates students' construction, representation, and

evaluation of knowledge claims and self-monitoring of scientific reasoning.

Stronger students did benefit from the ' questioning' part. Though they were good at problem

solving, they lacked the ability to accurately identify assumptions initially. Most of the time

they took things for granted without giving reasonable/valid assumptions. When teacher

modelled on how to question assumptions accurately and reasonably during lessons. It was

observed that they could ask deeper thinking questions after a few lessons.

It was also observed that students working in groups and having to reason about their

opinions and teach one another and convince one another using the arguments that apparently

convinced themselves. The approach (CSQ) has created opportunity for students to learn

certain aspects of science that are different from conceptual comprehension.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the students have demonstrated good progress in using the structure of CSQ to

enable their reasoning. Though the quality of students' argumentative discourse has yet to be

established, it is obvious that rich discourses could be expected as they immerse in more

argument writing experiences.

It is observed that students show improvement in conceptual understanding of the topics, and

it remains to ascertain the learning gain.

Limitations and Recommendations

1260


Initially the students had difficulty asking questions or to provide evidence to support the

claims because to them this is seen as accurate and true and found it a waste of time. It took a

lot of explanation and coaxing by the teacher to help the students to understand the need to

question. The students had difficulty coming up with questions as they were uncomfortable in

questioning scientific knowledge. As days went on students began to ask questions build on

each other's points of discussion enabling for deeper understanding of the topic.

One way to overcome this problem is to give students a list of question prompts to help them

think of the questions to ask. Teacher could also model the questioning technique in the

classroom and ask questions like ' what if and 'where did you get this idea' . When this is

done, it would help make student's thinking visible and others would start the cyclical

process of examining point raised (which could be a claim, question or reason) through the

CSQ routine.

Teacher could also verbalise the concept to help the students to meta-cogitate - activate their

thinking on what was being verbalized and to further help along the process use Paul's Wheel

of Reasoning to help to facilitate thinking and reasoning.

1261


References

Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 815-843.

Agustin Aduriz-Bravo, Leonor Bonan, Leonardo Gonzalez Galli, Andrea Revel Chien, Elsa

Meinard (2005). Scientific Argumentation In Pre-Service Biology Teacher

Education, in Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,

Vol. 1, No. 1.

Chowning J T, Griswold J.C., Carlton J., Kovarik D. N. & Collins, L. J. (2012). Fostering

Critical Thinking, Reasoning, and Argumentation Skills through Bioethics Education,

PLoS ONE 7(5): e36791; retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/ on 17 July 2014.

Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K-12 Science Education Standards;

National Research Council, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,

Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, retrieved from

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record id=13165, on 13 Jan 2014.

Dawson, V.M., Venville, G. J, (2004). Teaching Strategies for Developing Students

Argumentation Skills About Socioscientific Issues In High School Genetics, Research

in Science Education, 40 (2): pp 133-148.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific

argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.

Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in

the application ofToulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science

Education, 88(6), 915-933.

1262


Erduan, Sibel, Dilek Ardac, Buket Yamaci-Guzel, (2006). Leaming to Teach Argumentation:

Case Studies of Pre-Service Secondary Teachers, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,

Science and Technology Education, Vol. 2, No. 2.

M. Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre, Anxela Bugallo Rodriguez, Richard A Dusch!, (1999). Doing

the Lesson" or "Doing Science": Argument in High School Genetics, 84 (6), pp. 287-

312.

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J, Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students'

construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials.

The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15 (2), 15 3-191.

Nussbaum, E. Michael (2002). Scaffolding Argumentation in Social Studies Classroom, The

Social Studies, 93:2, 79-83.

Paul Gabrielsen (2013), Teach science through argument, Stanford professor says, Stanford

Report, retrieved from http:/ /news.stanford.edu/news/2013/april/science-education

argument-040913 .html, on 1 Aug 2014

Paul, R. & Elder, L. ( 1997). Elements of reasoning & intellectual standards, retrieved from

http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/the-elements-of-reasoning-and-the-intellectual

standards/480, on 17 Jan 2014.

Erinosho, Stella Y. (2013), How Do Students Perceive the Difficulty of Physics in Secondary

School? An Exploratory Study in Nigeria International Journal for Cross

Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE), Special Issue, 3(3).

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

C. Ancell, 0. Guttersrud, E., Henriksen, & A. Isnes (2004). Physics: Frightful, but fun.

Pupils' and teachers' views of physics and physics teaching, Science Education, 88(5),

683-706

2The Critical Thinking Grid, (n.d.) Critical Thinking & Assessment, retrieved from

1263


http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-testing-and-assessment/594, on 17 Jan

2014.

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), pp. 133-148.

1Visible Thinking in action (n. d), retrieved from

http://www.visiblethinkingpz.org/VisibleThinking html files/01 VisibleThinkingln

Action/Ola VTinAction.html, on 17 Jan 2014.

Wieman C. & K. Perkins (2005). Transforming physics education, Physics Today, 58(11),

36-41.

Wu Chun-Ping (2008). Exploring the relationship between self-regulating Intentional

Internet search (IIS) and critical thinking skills. Instructional Design, Development

and Evaluation - Dissertations. Syracuse University.

Chin, C. (2008). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: What approaches stimulate

productive thinking? In Y.-J. Lee & A.-L. Tan, (Eds.), Science education at the nexus

of theory and practice (pp. 203-217). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Lee, Y.-J., & Tan, A. L. (Eds.). (2008). Science education at the nexus of theory and

practice. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] (2012). Education at a

glance 2012. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a

glance-2012 eag highlights-2012-en

Winton, J. N. (1991). Supplementation of wild salmonids: Management practices in British Columbia (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Washington, Washington.

Appendix 1

1264


Pre-test Dvnamics

Claim:

Support:

Question:

Turnina effects of forces

Claim:

Support:

Question:

Appendix 2

1265

2014 SH1 Physics Forces


Name: ________ _ Class: _______ _ Date: ____ _

A cubic piece of cork of sides 2.00 cm was placed in water as shown in the diagram below.

cork water

Given that the density of cork is 200 kgm-3, calculate the upthrust on the piece of cork.

Calculate the height of the piece of cork above the water. (density of water= 1000 kgm-3)

Appendix 3 - Assessment Rubric

1266


Rubrics for CSQ Thinking Routine (ver.2) Competency 3 2 1 0

Identify the Accurately identifies Identifies the Identifies an Does not claim/ problem/ the problem/question. inappropriate identify a question at problem/question problem/question. problem/ issue. Makes insufficient question

Makes accurate inferences Makes inference inaccurate inferences Makes

inappropriate inferences

Identifies and Provides a well- Examines evidence Merely repeats Does not assesses the developed and information identify or quality of examination of the questions the quality. provided. Does not provide relevant supporting evidence and justify position. supporting data/ evidence questions its evidence.

accuracy, relevance, and completeness.

Identify and Identifies and Identifies and Identifies other points Ignores or assess the evaluates relevant evaluates relevant of view but may focus superficially questions raised significant points of points of view on irrelevant or evaluates Points of View view insignificant points of alternate points

view of view

And/Or And/Or And/Or And/Or And/Or

Assumptions Accurately identifies Identifies Fails to identify Fails to identify assumptions (things assumptions.-Makes assumptions, or fails assumptions. -taken for granted). valid assumptions to explain them, or Makes invalid Makes assumptions the assumptions assumptions that are reasonable, identified are valid irrelevant, not clearly

stated, and/or invalid

And/Or And/Or And/Or And/Or And/Or

Interpretation Follows where Follows where Does follow some Uses superficial, evidence and evidence and evidence to simplistic, or reason lead in order reason lead to conclusions, but irrelevant reasons to obtain obtain justifiable, inferences are more and unjustifiable convincing, logical conclusions often than not claims thoughtful, logical unclear, illogical, conclusions or inconsistent, and/or solutions superficial

And/Or And/Or And/Or And/Or And/Or Concepts Identifies and Identifies and Identifies some (not Misunderstands

accurately accurately explains all) key concepts, but key concepts or explains/uses the and uses key use of concepts is ignores relevant key concepts concepts but not superficial and key concepts

with the depth and inaccurate at times altogether. precision of '4'.

1267

Documents

Title Making thinking visible in classroom via …...Paul's Wheel of Reasoning (1992) is the instrument used as a means to measure the quality of argument and hence student reasoning