Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Features of Peer Argumentation in Middle School Students' Scientific Inquiry

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined the features of peer argumentation in middle school students' scientific inquiry. Participants were two boys and six girls in grade 8 of a middle school in Seoul, Korea. Students engaged in open inquiry activities in small groups. Each group prepared the report for peer review and then, during the peer discussion, presented their inquiry results while another group acted as critics, in a way similar to conference presentations by scientists. This study's data sources included audio- and video-tapes of discussions, copies of student reports, questionnaires completed by the students and transcripts of interviews with the students. It was found that the critical peer discussion in general proceeded through the following four stages: Focusing, Exchanging, Debating and Closing. In addition, 75.6% of evidence used in students' arguments was personal evidence and students used various cognitive and social strategies in the critical discussion. For an effective critical discussion, making good use of the Focusing Stage was found to be important factor. Students improved their interpretation and methods of experiment during the argumentation process and this feedback made the inquiry circular. Finally, we identify a model of argumentative scientific inquiry as an open inquiry that has the key components of authentic scientific inquiry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Association for Science Education (1981). Education through science: An ASF policy statement. Hatfield, England: Author.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, A., Mulhall, P., Loughran, J. J., & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). Helping students learn from laboratory work. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45(1), 27–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100, 315–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M., & Helms, J. V. (1998). Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic inclusive science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 483–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific in argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999, March). Promoting argumentation in middle school science students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.

  • Edmondson, K. M., & Novak, J. D. (1993). The interplay of scientific epistemological views, learning strategies, and attitudes of college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(6), 547–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Educatoin, 88(6), 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, A. (1986). The neglect of experiment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (1997). Science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1998). Is this really what scientists do? Seeking a more authentic science in and beyond the school laboratory. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp. 93–108). New York: Routledge.

  • Hodson, D., & Bencze, L. (1998). Becoming critical about practical work: Changing views and changing practice through action research. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 683–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science:’ Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2003). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A., Simon, S., Black, P. J., Fairbrother, R. W., & Watson, J. R. (1992). Open work in science: Development of investigations in schools. Hatfield, England: Association for Science Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., Drucker, S., & Chen, K. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H. & Song, J. (2003). Middle school students' ideas about the purposes of laboratory work. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 23(3), 254–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., & Song, J. (2004). The exploration of open scientific inquiry model emphasizing students' argumentation. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 24(6), 1216–1234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., Kang, T., & Song, J. (2003). The features of practical work for physics in middle school science textbooks based on the 7th national curriculum in Korea. Sae Mulli, 47(6), 387–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teachers Association (1995). A high school framework for national science education standards. Arlington, VA: Authors.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science (C. Botsford, Trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago.

  • Russell, T. L. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: Can teachers' questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(1), 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunal, C. S., Sunal, D. W., & Tirri, K. (2001, April). Using evidence in scientific reasoning: Exploring characteristics of middle school students' argumentation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

  • Sutton, C. R. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1996). Defining science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. S. (2002). Argumentation; Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L., & McRobbie C. (2004). Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J. J. (1998). Practical work in science: Time for a reappraisal. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp. 3–l5). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolnough, B. E. (1998). Authentic science in schools, to develop personal knowledge. In J. J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp. 109–125). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics Education, College of Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea

    Heekyong Kim & Jinwoong Song

Authors
  1. Heekyong Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jinwoong Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heekyong Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, H., Song, J. The Features of Peer Argumentation in Middle School Students' Scientific Inquiry. Res Sci Educ 36, 211–233 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9005-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9005-2

Key Words

Search

Navigation