Students' Argumentation Skills: Does It Need Strengthening?

Viyanti

1,2

, Cari

, Widha Sunarno

, Zuhdan Kun Prasetyo

Program Studi Doktor Pendidikan IPA, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Indonesia

Program Studi Pendidikan Fisika, Universitas Lampung, , Bandar Lampung, Lampung, Indonesia

Program Studi Pendidikan IPA, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Indonesia

Program Studi Pendidikan IPA, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Keywords: Physics Learning, Archimedes Principle, Assessment Argumentation, Production Argumentation,

Understanding Concept

Abstract: Physics learning is directed at ways of thinking and submitting scientific statements. Students' understanding

of how to think and propose scientific statements change better as argumentation skills are strengthened. The

purpose of this study was to analyse the construction of the decomposition of quality argumentation

production in strengthening argumentation skills using the argued skills assessment instrument. The method

used in this research is descriptive survey method. The subjects of this study were high school students in

Bandar Lampung City Region, amounting to 50 class XI students and had obtained Archimedes principle

material. Data was collected using reasoned multiple choice tests and interviews. The specific role of the

argumentation skill assessment instrument in this study shows that: the structure or complexity of the

argument strengthened 51.7%; fill in the argument 27.3% and the nature of the statement of reason 24.0%.

The results of this study allow researchers to develop learning strategies to strengthen argumentation skills

and improve learning environment technology to promote and support more productive arguments in the

classroom.

1 INTRODUCTION

One of the objectives of learning science is to

generate new knowledge about natural phenomena.

NRC (2012) science education standards need to

incorporate practices, concepts and arguments.

Physics is one of the subjects in the science cluster;

therefore physics is expected to provide direct

experience to students. One study of physics that

provides direct experience to students is the material

of Archimedes' principles. But in fact, teachers have

difficulty to provide direct experience in learning.

This is consistent with the results of the study which

are: 1) (Knight, Wise and Southard, 2013) teachers

are doubts to get out of conventional learning as a

result (1) teachers lose class control, (2 ) if the

discussion activity takes a lot of time, and

An attitude of scepticism: whether students are

able to learn on their own. The limitations of teachers

providing direct experience to students (learning

outcomes as in Figures 1a, 1b, and 1c) are allegedly

caused by: (1) the lack of mastery of information on

how Archimedes principle material can be visualized

and (2) learning leads to memorization resulting in a

lack of mastery of students' concepts.

Students' abilities presented in Figures 1a, 1b, and

1c are built from cognitive abilities and discourse of

transfer of knowledge from teacher to student. This

results are a lack of: (1) the ability to visualize

statements, (2) students' awareness of the theory

being studied; (3) knowledge compiles statements

related to the theory being studied; (4) learning

variation (only transmission of knowledge and

opinion); (5) explain the reason for the statement; (6)

involves initial knowledge in preparing statements;

(7) conceptual understanding; (8) time to produce

statements; and (9) reasoning with logical

confirmation. This data is in line with research

(Driver, Newton and Osborne, 2000) that students are

not ready to analyse knowledge to build statements.

This illustrates that the existence of learning

complexity that needs to be evaluated in order to help

students contribute to mastering the concept with the

processes suggested in learning.

258

Viyanti, V., Cari, C., Sunarno, W. and Prasetyo, Z.

Students’ Argumentation Skills: Does It Need Strengthening?.

DOI: 10.5220/0008410802580266

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Innovation (ICLI 2018), pages 258-266

ISBN: 978-989-758-391-9

Figure 1: The example of students’ note.

The complexity of learning can be overcome by

strengthening argumentation skills in order to expand

understanding of facts and concepts, where the

emphasis is on cognitive processes. Learning that

focuses on strengthening the skill of arguing produces

unlimited impact leads to complex and challenging

pedagogical changes. Strengthened argumentation

skills are related to what students know about

knowing, not at the level of skills which needed to

acquire knowledge. Strengthened argumentation

skills require the ability of students to construct and

evaluate scientific arguments and for scientific

reasons. In addition, it requires reasoning ability to

present statements regarding boundary constraints.

(Cobb, 2002) sequential activities in producing

argumentation as a step to observe students'

conceptual understanding. (Lemke, 1990; Driver,

Newton and Osborne, 2000) arguing skills play a role

in education and scientific evaluation. (Sandoval,

2003; Sandoval and Reiser, 2004) arguing skills have

explicitly considered the purpose of explanation,

described the phenomenon in question, and used data

to compile statements. (Driver et al., 1994)

argumentation skills help students to focus on

understanding the goals of science learning by

supporting their knowledge. It claim and illustrate

how to know knowledge.

Based on the explanation above, students'

argumentation skills need to be strengthened in a

planned manner so that the production of student

arguments can be monitored. Therefore, efforts

should be made to improve the strengthening pattern

of argumentation skills by prioritizing the preparation

of informative argumentation skills instruments. The

priority to strengthen argumentation skills is directed

in order to prepare students to be strong and creative

in solving problems. One of the efforts to strengthen

argumentation skills by striving for a pattern of

developing argumentation skills that can be

accelerated. In order to accelerate the strengthening

of students' argumentation skills, researchers have

conducted a research entitle "Student Argumentation

Skills: Does it need to be strengthened?. The purpose

of this study was to analyse the construction of the

decomposition of quality argumentation production

in strengthening argumentation skills using the

argumentation skills assessment instrument.

Strengthened argumentation skills have an impact on:

Students’ Argumentation Skills: Does It Need Strengthening?

259

(1) skilled students submit statements (Kuhn, Clark

and Huang, 2000) and (2) understanding of the

concept is based on quality argumentation (Kuhn and

Reiser, 2005). Strengthening argumentation skills

requires consistency in the production of quality

arguments that are acceptable.

2 METHOD

The method used in this research is descriptive survey

method. The research population was high school

students in the Bandar Lampung City Region, with a

sample of 50 class XI students who had received fluid

material. Data was collected using reasoned multiple

choice tests and interviews. The multiple choice test

models describe the student's initial statement while

the reason used in the second pattern is the reason that

can support the statement in the first pattern.

Strengthening students 'argumentation skills is

assessed and analysed from the choice of students'

answers in the first patter. And their reasons in is the

second pattern. Argumentation skills have been

strengthened if students have the correct conception

indicated by the statement and the right reasons. This

test consists of 20 items. Interviews are used to clarify

and strengthen students' answers. Interviews are

conducted after students complete the test. The

indicators of strengthened argumentation skills are

shown in Table 1.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Arguing skills do not occur spontaneously and are

very difficult to maintain because they are related to

student knowledge. The process of strengthening

argumentation skills requires complex knowledge as

a fact of exploring ideas about physics phenomena.

This process contributes to conceptual understanding

and allows students to integrate thinking skills with

initial knowledge. (Von Aufschnaiter et al., 2008)

reveal that when students strengthen their arguments,

students have taken advantage of initial experience

and knowledge. In line with (Von Aufschnaiter et al.,

2008) statement, the argumentation skill: (1)

facilitating statements to clarify goals (Osborne and

Patterson, 2011), (2) modifying beliefs, expanding

and deepening statements (Baker, Hope and

Karandjeff, 2009) and (3) facilitating conceptual

change (Chinn, 2006).

Table 1: Learning indicator and item test.

Concepts of

Material

Elements of

Argumentati

Skills

Indicators of

Argumentation

Skills Questions

Item

Test

Archimedes

principle

The Claim

describes the

structure /

complexity

of the

argument

Revealing the

phenomenon

Establish

knowledge

Repair

knowledge

1, 2,

3, 4,

12,

and

Claim

describes the

contents of

the

argument

Statement with

empirical

evidence

Describe

cognitive

processes

Provides more

than one

relevant proof

6, 8,

10,

11,

and

Claim

describes the

nature of the

reason

statement

Adequacy of

evidence

supporting the

claim

Submitting

several

multivariate

claim supporting

the phenomenon

Construction of

conceptual

understanding

12,

13,

15,

16,

and

Figure 2 is an example of a problem with a

settlement pattern containing three categories

producing statements in the context of science (1) the

structure or complexity of the argument (your

statement ...), (2) the content of the argument (what

do you think your statement means ...), and ( 3) the

nature of the reasoning (why do you think that ...).

This pattern influences the type and quality of

arguments developed by students to determine

whether students understand the theory or how well

the data supports the statement. In line with research

(1) (Kuhn, 1999) student knowledge can be seen from

the relationship between data and statements

supported by alternative frameworks; (2) (Sandoval,

2003) structured explanation patterns help students

understand learning; (3) (Kuhn and Reiser, 2005)

indicates that students need work patterns to produce

argumentation.

ICLI 2018 - 2nd International Conference on Learning Innovation

260

Figure 2: Examples of problems and patterns of completion.

Figure 3: Distribution of the process of strengthening students' argumentation skills.

Figure 4: Example statement of student A.

Figure 3 illustrates the achievement of the process

of strengthening students' argumentation skills in the

material of Archimedes principle facilitated by the

argumentation skills assessment instrument.

Based on Figure 3, almost all students have

aspects of the process of strengthening argumentation

skills. Students who have the greatest average for the

argumentation production indicator describe the

structure and complexity of the statement by 51.7%;

27.3% illustrates that the production of argumentation

is strengthened for the content of the argument and

24.0% for production argues describing the nature of

the reasoning. The elaboration example related to the

achievement of the average process of strengthening

argumentation skills in item number 2 is explained

below.

3.1 The Argumentation Production

Describes the Structure and

Complexity of the Statement

Examples of problem solving Students A in

producing arguments that describe the structure and

Students’ Argumentation Skills: Does It Need Strengthening?

261

complexity of statements related to Figure 2 are

presented in Figure 4.

The ability of Student A to produce a statement

pattern in Figure 4 based on the problems in Figure 2

suggests strengthening the skill of arguing with

patterns describing the structure and complexity of

statements. The statement made by Student A is "a,

floating wood & over time it will stay afloat". This

statement describes the ability of students to process

information implied in the problem and the ability to

identify the causal factors of the problem. The

statement of Student A focuses on justification and

the criteria used to determine statements that arise

based on knowledge as a thought process. Structured

Student A statement is classified as a statement with

level 1 quality level because it only includes claims

and does not contain commentary reasons for the

statement. That is, Students A should define the

overall quality of the statement by focusing on the

presence of data. And then the phenomena as an

alternative statement will not stop at the statement

provided in the main problem. The alternative

statement that can be produced by Student A is

"floating wood and over time, it will stay afloat.

Wood that was not given a hole initially has a floating

nature. When the wood is given a hole using a drill,

the natural nature of the wood will remain attached to

the hollow wood, which is floating if placed in a

container filled with water. Alternative statements

that should be produced by Student A illustrate the

knowledge of students' cognitive knowledge. This

statement is an important part of argumentation

because ''building knowledge are based on problems,

data sources, and reasoning as objects of cognition''.

(Linn and Eylon, 2006) revealed that students must

learn how to submit scientific claims and explore

scientific knowledge

3.2 Production Arguments that

Describe the Structure of the

Content of the Argument

Science learning standards promoting science

knowledge are not limited to explanations of

phenomena but include the ability to establish,

extend, and improve knowledge through cognitive

conflicts and arguments. (Osborne, Erduran and

Simon, 2004) revealed that data-based statements

support the development of conceptual concepts.

Associated with the second statement pattern

produced by Student A as a science learning standard

in which illustrates how the statements produced

contain the structure of the content of the argument.

In this study to build a pattern that describes the

structure of the content of the argument assisted by

the keyword "Do you think the meaning of your

statement". Keywords used as a pattern to produce

knowledge construction on maps based on the ability

to define knowledge and potential observations of the

problems presented. Keywords also help build

student responses. The statement of Student A is:

"Perforated wood will remain floating but the

position of the top of the wood will be the same as a".

The statement produced by Student A is dominated

by the view of justification for the piece of

information obtained from the problem. This

statement is simple because it only contains: (1)

statements that are not supported by justification

(supporting theories or relevant articles); (2) there is

no data to support the statement: the statement is not

supported by two reasons; (3) the statement includes

consequential reasons; the reasons include weak

scientific knowledge. As a result the arguments

produced by student A cannot be accepted part by a

continued claim. These results are consistent with

research (1) (Kuhn and Reiser, 2005) that students

focus on the relationship of claims, points of view, or

explanations rather than trying to explain;

justification of arguments students rely on personal

opinions; and (2) (Sandoval and Millwood, 2005)

when students submit a reason for the statement often

the reasons given do not include reasons, points of

view, or explanations of the statement submitted. The

second pattern of Student A's statement needs to be

built in the process of strengthening argumentation

skills so that it can describe the structure of the

content of quality arguments.

The statement that can describe the structure of

the content of the argument as a standard of learning

science in order to strengthen the ability to argue is

"floating wood and over time will remain afloat

(describing the ability to reveal phenomena). The

wood that was not given a hole before has a floating

nature. When the wood is given a hole using a drill,

the natural nature of the wood will remain attached to

the hollow wood. Wood which is floating and if it is

placed in water which is filled container (describing

the ability to establish, extend, and improve

knowledge). The existence of changes in the shape of

objects will not affect the nature of floating objects /

sinks. In floating events, only a part of the volume of

the object is immersed in a container filled with water

so that the volume of water that moves is smaller than

the total volume of objects (reflecting the cognitive

conflict process). Based on this, the wood that has

been perforated by the teacher using a drill will

remain floating in a container filled with water ". In

the event of flooding the wood is not affected by

ICLI 2018 - 2nd International Conference on Learning Innovation

262

changes in the shape of the wood in a container filled

with water (intact / perforated), provided that it meets

the requirements of a floating object, that is if the

object has a density less than 1 g/cm

(containing a

thought process to produce justification from the

previous statement)". When associated with

statements that contain the structure of the content,

the argument as a science learning standard needs to

focus on the "thought process" with various forms of

reasoning in science (produces alternative statement).

Based on this, it takes the ability of students who are

able to produce valid statement predictions (Lawson,

2003), sourced from observations of concrete

problems into abstract statements in an argument

(Kelly, Regev and Prothero, 2005), or use rhetoric

according to reference (prove) when producing

statements or acceptance of explanations of

statements (Sandoval and Millwood, 2005).

3.3 Production Argumentation as a

Depiction of the Nature of the

Reason Statement

The truth of an argument from the perspective of the

framework structure describes the nature of the

reason statement. The nature of the reason statement

can be produced by students in this study by using the

keyword "Why do you think so". This keyword as an

illustration involves accepting the reasons provided

and the relevance of the reasons. As for the results of

Student A's statement "because the wood density is

smaller than water. And the wood will float.

However, because the wood is perforated, the water

will enter the wood cavities. And it will cause the

wood to float but the top of the wood will be in the

same position as the surface of the water (fluid)". The

statement of Student A indicates that the statement

has reached an accurate conclusion, indicated by

Student A's opinion on the problem enough to prove

the correct idea but unfortunately does not involve

initial knowledge as a way to prove the statement and

involve data to support the claim. The truth of an

argument as a description of the nature of the reason

statement requires rhetorical references that make

detailed interpretation of the data by explaining how

the data supports the claim. Here is seen the

negligence of Student A who provide data to support

his statement. The statement produced by Student A

constructively includes the nature of the reason

statement as a way to strengthen his argumentation

skills, namely: 1) statement of the form of articulation

of statements with empirical evidence; 2) relevant

supporting evidence means that the data is reasonable

based on initial knowledge, 3) the adequacy of

evidence means whether the evidence supports the

claim, 4) some claims mean whether students use

multivariate claims to reveal the phenomenon, and 5)

the structure of the text means that the construction

assesses students' abilities. However, students have

attempted to produce statements based on the

phenomena presented in the problem (McNeill et al.,

2006) and students have tried to link and connect

meaningful statements (Kelly, Regev and Prothero,

2005).

The statement that describes the construction of

the nature of the reason statement as a way of

strengthening argumentation skills is presented as

follows: floating wood and over time will remain

afloat (the ability to reveal phenomena). Wood that

was not given a hole initially has a floating nature

(ability to set). When the wood is given a hole using

a drill, the natural nature of the wood will remain

attached to the hollow wood, which is floating if

placed in a container filled with water (the ability to

extend and improve knowledge). The existence of

changes in the shape of objects will not affect the

nature of floating objects/sinks (statement of the form

of the meaning of ratification of statements with

empirical evidence). In floating events, only a portion

of the volume of the object is immersed in a container

filled with water, so that the volume of water that

moves is smaller than the total volume of objects

(describing the cognitive conflict process). Based on

these phenomena, the wood that has been perforated

using a drill will remain floating in a container filled

with water "(relevant supporting evidence means that

the data makes sense based on initial knowledge). In

the event of flooding the wood is not affected by

changes in the shape of the wood in a container filled

with water. To provide that it meets the requirements

of a floating object. If the object has a density of less

than 1 g/cm

(the adequacy of the evidence means

whether the supporting evidence supports the claim)

then the position of the wood will remain equilibrium

(floating). It is because of the two forces acting that

are the force pushed up by the water and pull down

(gravity). (Some claims mean whether students use

multivariate claims to uncover phenomena). The

pressure by the water also causes the wood to remain

floating where the pressure applied has two

properties. Firstly, the direction of the pressure on the

surface is always perpendicular to the surface.

Secondly, the pressure exerted by water increases

when objects are placed in water. Based on this,

hollow wood will remain floating (the structure of the

text means construction assesses the ability of

students to follow the organization of the argument)

Students’ Argumentation Skills: Does It Need Strengthening?

263

Thus the nature of the reason statement produced

by Student A does not take into account all the

information available when producing an argument.

In addition, scientific justification claims are based on

the interpretation of data collected in several

statements. (Chinn and Brewer, 1998) that students

often failed to see patterns of data anomalies to

construct statements. As a result, students "A" assume

that the statement produced has contained relevant

justifications including scientific knowledge, but

actually the statement is not accurate because it does

not coordinate claims with available data. A full

explanation should be given to strengthen the

students' argumentation skills which illustrate the

construction of the nature of the reason statement. It

contains: (a) clarification of the statement how:

floating wood and over time will stay afloat at

different levels, (b) a description of the statement of

how the wood was not given a hole has a floating

nature: When the wood is given a hole using a drill,

the natural nature of the wood will remain attached to

the perforated wood which is floating if it is placed in

a container filled with water, and (c) an illustration of

the statement how changes in the shape of objects will

not affect the nature of floating objects : In a floating

event, only a portion of the volume of the object is

immersed in a container filled with water so that the

volume of water that moves is smaller than the total

volume of the object.

3.4 The Process to Strengthen the

Ability to Send Arguments

Strengthening Bearings Skills

Process

Based on the justification of claim simple knowledge

generated by Student a shows the difference between

evidence for claim and explanation of the theory

resulting in an alternative statement. Supposedly, a

justification claim A student is able to process the

purpose of the keywords provided: "Your statement",

"Do you think the meaning of your statement", and

"Why do you think so" join into a single statement

representation. But the results show students tend to

choose data from what happened as a guide to the

explanation of "why it happened". In addition,

students only use data when supporting certain

statements even though students understand the

importance of statement and data relationships.

The argument made by student A also has not

shown the ability to apply students' conceptual

understanding of Archimedes principles. It produces

arguments that can be used to explain phenomena in

accordance with these principles. Overall Student A

has not been able to map the development of the skills

to produce his argument. This shows that Student A

does not understand the structure and purpose of the

argument to be achieved. Student's "A" statement

results correspond to previous research that students

often produce simple arguments (Sadler, 2006) and

do not attempt to support statements with data

(Sandoval and Millwood, 2005) or try to show why

statements are acceptable (Kuhn and Reiser, 2005).

Related to this, the way to strengthen the

argumentation skill is: (a) to raise and criticize the

problem to produce a statement, (b) to direct the

statement according to the results of the

interpretation. The other effective strategies need to

be raised, namely: adding and using case-based

questions, submitting clarification statements,

interpreting, using a sequence of statements based on

problems and data interpretation. As a result, when

students are specifically asked to produce arguments

in this form, they tend to produce confusing

arguments because the loss of elements strengthens

the argument.

The process of strengthening students' arguments

using the skill assessment instrument argues focusing

on justification considerations and criteria for

developing argumentative skills indicators. This

indicator is used to determine whether or not the

information in the statement or whether the statement

contains scientific reasons. The diversity of

perspectives that can be assessed from this

argumentation skills assessment instrument has

provided a way to strengthen students' argumentation

skills. Strengthening the skills of argumentation

focused on the components of evidence proving that

students tend to rely on limited information to justify

statements. This study shows that students tend to

focus on statement relationships rather than

suggesting statements (McNeill et al., 2006).

Students tend to draw conclusions based on

experience and practical theory (Kuhn and Reiser,

2005). In addition, students submit statements that do

not use data to support the statement (Sandoval and

Millwood, 2005). This research focuses more on the

"thinking process" where students tend to rely on

reasoning. Students compete to produce quality

arguments (Lawson, 2003), from concrete

observations to more abstract ideas (Kelly, Regev and

Prothero, 2005).

The learning environment greatly influences

learning objectives to strengthen argumentation

skills. This is a complex challenge for researchers

when researchers apply an argumentation skill

assessment instrument in a learning environment that

is not familiar with argumentation skills. Related to

ICLI 2018 - 2nd International Conference on Learning Innovation

264

this, thinking skills are needed that must be trained

periodically so that students are able to develop and

assess quality arguments. Some experts suggest how

to train thinking skills related to strengthening

argumentation skills in the learning process: 1) train

students to solve problems (Norman, 1980; Hutchins,

1995). The problem in question is able to provoke

students to collect, organize; understand information

related to problem solving (Reiser et al., 2001).

(Norman, 1980), when cognitive knowledge is used

to manipulate information, cognitive knowledge is a

means to interact with problems. The quality of the

test argument students have (a) sufficient data in

guaranteeing a claim, (b) coherent explanation for a

phenomenon (Sandoval, 2003), and (c) combined

according to data references (Sandoval and

Millwood, 2005) synthesizing structure, and content.

Regarding content, this development instrument

offers a pattern of reinforcement so that students

produce arguments to uncover phenomena using

relevant theories, such as Archimedes' principles, and

ensure the statements produced are connected with

data. Explicitly a good instrument is capable of

forcing students to produce quality statements and

how well supported by data (Sandoval, 2003;

Sandoval and Reiser, 2004). The instrument helps

students focus on understanding knowledge and ways

of supporting statements (Driver et al., 1994).

However, further research is needed to analyze the

relationship between the structure and relevance of

statements, the adequacy and accuracy of statements

and learning strategies that strengthen computer-

assisted argumentation skills.

4 CONCLUSION

Students’ have the skills to submit statements that

focus on justifying the content or how well the

statement component supports the understanding of

students' concepts. Students have also succeeded in

generating arguments in response to problems related

to the phenomenon of "hollow wood will remain

afloat but the position of the top of the wood will be

the same as wood a." The success of students

involved in producing arguments facilitated by

argumentation skill instruments broadly and precisely

guides the thinking process of connecting relevant

information to a coherent explanation, and it is also

able to articulate and justify student explanations

regarding why objects float and sink. The results of

this study illustrate the importance of strengthening

argumentation skills in science. This study describes

students' arguments that provide a lot of information

about understanding concepts and students' ability to

communicate and justify written statements. This

study has also guided how to analyze student

argumentation production focusing on statement

structure, content, and relationships between

components.

REFERENCES

Von Aufschnaiter, C. et al. (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: The Official

Journal of the National Association for Research in

Science Teaching, 45(1), pp. 101–131.

Baker, E. D., Hope, L. and Karandjeff, K. (2009)

‘Contextualized Teaching & Learning: A Faculty

Primer’. Academic Senate for California Community

Colleges.

Chinn, C. A. (2006) ‘Learning to argue’, Collaborative

learning, reasoning, and technology, pp. 355–383.

Chinn, C. A. and Brewer, W. F. (1998) ‘An empirical test

of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in

science’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The

Official Journal of the National Association for

Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), pp. 623–654.

Cobb, P. (2002) ‘Reasoning with tools and inscriptions’,

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2–3), pp. 187–

215.

Driver, R. et al. (1994) Making Sense of Secondary Science:

Research into Science Ideas. London & New York:

Routledge.

Driver, R., Newton, P. and Osborne, J. (2000) ‘Establishing

the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms’,

Science education, 84(3), pp. 287–312.

Hutchins, E. (1995) Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA:

MIT press.

Kelly, G. J., Regev, J. and Prothero, W. (2005) ‘Assessing

lines of evidence with argumentation analysis’, in In

annual meeting of the National Association for

Research in Science Teaching. Dallas, TX.

Knight, J. K., Wise, S. B. and Southard, K. M. (2013)

‘Understanding Clicker Discussions: Student

Reasoning and the Impact of Instructional Cues’, CBE-

Life Sciences Education, 12(4), pp. 645–654.

Kuhn, D. (1999) ‘A developmental model of critical

thinking’, Educational researcher, 28(2), pp. 16–46.

Kuhn, D., Clark, D. and Huang, T. (2000) lntellectual

values: Patterns of generational and subcultural

variation and their implications for values as a

mechanism of cultural transmission. Teachers College,

Columbia University.

Kuhn, L. and Reiser, B. (2005) Stude nts construc ting and

defend ing evidence- based scient ific explanations.

Dallas, TX.

Lawson, A. (2003) ‘The nature and development of

hypothetico‐predictive argumentation with

Students’ Argumentation Skills: Does It Need Strengthening?

265

implications for science teaching’, International

journal of science education, 25(11), pp. 1387–1408.

Lemke, J. L. (1990) Talking science: Language, learning,

and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Linn, M. C. and Eylon, B.-S. (2006) Science education:

Integrating views of learning and instruction.

Handbook o. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McNeill, K. et al. (2006) ‘Fading scaffolds for

argumentation and explanation’, Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 15(2), pp. 153 – 191.

Norman, D. A. (1980) ‘Twelve issues for cognitive

science’, Cognitive science, 4(1), pp. 1–32.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S. and Simon, S. (2004) ‘Enhancing

the quality of argumentation in school science’, Journal

of research in science teaching, 41(10), pp. 994–1020.

Osborne, J. and Patterson, A. (2011) ‘Scientific argument

and explanation: A necessary distinction?’, Science

Education, 95(4), pp. 627–638.

Reiser, B. J. et al. (2001) ‘BGuILE: Strategic and

conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology

classrooms’, Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five

years of progress, pp. 263–305.

Sadler, T. (2006) ‘Promoting discourse and argumentation

in science teacher education.’, Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 17, pp. 323 – 346.

Sandoval, W. A. (2003) ‘Conceptual and epistemic aspects

of students’ scientific explanations’, Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 12(1), pp. 5–51.

Sandoval, W. A. and Millwood, K. A. (2005) ‘The quality

of students’ use of evidence in written scientific

explanations’, Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), pp.

23–55.

Sandoval, W. A. and Reiser, B. J. (2004) ‘Explanation‐

driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic

scaffolds for scientific inquiry’, Science Education,

88(3), pp. 345–372.

ICLI 2018 - 2nd International Conference on Learning Innovation

266