Integrating argumentation in physics inquiry: A design and evaluation study

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Physical Review Physics Education Research Pub Date : 2023-12-28 DOI:10.1103/physrevphyseducres.19.020170
C. F. J. Pols, P. J. J. M. Dekkers, M. J. de Vries
{"title":"Integrating argumentation in physics inquiry: A design and evaluation study","authors":"C. F. J. Pols, P. J. J. M. Dekkers, M. J. de Vries","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.19.020170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This small-scale, qualitative study uses educational design research to explore how focusing on argumentation may contribute to students’ learning to engage in inquiry independently. Understanding inquiry as the construction of a scientifically cogent argument in support of a claim may encourage students to develop personal reasons for adhering to scientific criteria and to use these with understanding rather than by rote. An understanding of the characteristics of scientific evidence may clarify <i>why</i> doing inquiry in specific ways is important, in addition to the <i>how</i>. On the basis of five design principles—derived from literature—that integrate argumentation in inquiry and enhance learning through practical activities, we developed a teaching-learning sequence of five activities aimed at developing inquiry knowledge in lower secondary school students. By means of observations of a grade 9 physics class (<math display=\"inline\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mrow><mi>N</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>2</mn><mn>3</mn></mrow></math>, aged 14–15), students’ answers to worksheets, and self-reflection questions, we explored whether the design principles resulted in the intended students’ actions and attitudes. We studied whether the activities stimulated students to engage in argumentation and to develop the targeted inquiry knowledge. The focus on argumentation, specifically through critical evaluation of the quality of evidence, persuaded students to evaluate whether what they thought, said, or claimed was “scientifically” justifiable and convincing. They gradually uncovered key characteristics of scientific evidence, understandings of what counts as convincing in science, and why. Rather than adopting and practicing the traditional inquiry skills, students in these activities developed a cognitive need and readiness for learning such skills. Of their own accord, they used their gained insights to make deliberate decisions about collecting reliable and valid data and substantiating the reliability of their claims. This study contributes to our understanding of how to enable students to successfully engage in inquiry by extending the theoretical framework for argumentation toward teaching inquiry and by developing a tested educational approach derived from it.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.19.020170","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This small-scale, qualitative study uses educational design research to explore how focusing on argumentation may contribute to students’ learning to engage in inquiry independently. Understanding inquiry as the construction of a scientifically cogent argument in support of a claim may encourage students to develop personal reasons for adhering to scientific criteria and to use these with understanding rather than by rote. An understanding of the characteristics of scientific evidence may clarify why doing inquiry in specific ways is important, in addition to the how. On the basis of five design principles—derived from literature—that integrate argumentation in inquiry and enhance learning through practical activities, we developed a teaching-learning sequence of five activities aimed at developing inquiry knowledge in lower secondary school students. By means of observations of a grade 9 physics class (N=23, aged 14–15), students’ answers to worksheets, and self-reflection questions, we explored whether the design principles resulted in the intended students’ actions and attitudes. We studied whether the activities stimulated students to engage in argumentation and to develop the targeted inquiry knowledge. The focus on argumentation, specifically through critical evaluation of the quality of evidence, persuaded students to evaluate whether what they thought, said, or claimed was “scientifically” justifiable and convincing. They gradually uncovered key characteristics of scientific evidence, understandings of what counts as convincing in science, and why. Rather than adopting and practicing the traditional inquiry skills, students in these activities developed a cognitive need and readiness for learning such skills. Of their own accord, they used their gained insights to make deliberate decisions about collecting reliable and valid data and substantiating the reliability of their claims. This study contributes to our understanding of how to enable students to successfully engage in inquiry by extending the theoretical framework for argumentation toward teaching inquiry and by developing a tested educational approach derived from it.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在物理探究中整合论证:设计与评估研究
这项小规模的定性研究利用教育设计研究来探讨关注论证如何有助于学生学会独立进行探究。将探究理解为构建一个有科学说服力的论证来支持一个主张,可能会鼓励学生为坚持科学标准提出个人理由,并在理解而不是死记硬背的情况下使用这些理由。对科学证据特征的理解,除了说明如何进行探究外,还可以阐明为什么以特定的方式进行探究是重要的。我们从文献中总结出五项设计原则,即在探究中融入论证,并通过实践活动提高学习效果,在此基础上,我们开发了由五项活动组成的教学序列,旨在培养初中生的探究知识。通过对九年级物理课(23 人,14-15 岁)的观察、学生对工作表的回答以及自我反思问题,我们探讨了设计原则是否导致了预期的学生行动和态度。我们研究了这些活动是否激发了学生参与论证和发展目标探究知识。对论证的关注,特别是通过对证据质量的批判性评价,说服学生评价他们的想法、言论或主张是否 "科学 "合理和令人信服。他们逐渐发现了科学证据的关键特征,理解了什么在科学中是令人信服的,以及为什么。在这些活动中,学生们并没有采用和练习传统的探究技能,而是在认知上产生了学习这些技能的需求并做好了准备。他们主动利用自己获得的洞察力,在收集可靠有效的数据和证实其主张的可靠性方面做出深思熟虑的决定。本研究将论证的理论框架扩展到了探究教学中,并从中开发出一种经过测试的教育方法,从而有助于我们理解如何让学生成功地参与探究活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Physical Review Physics Education Research
Physical Review Physics Education Research Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
41.90%
发文量
84
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊介绍: PRPER covers all educational levels, from elementary through graduate education. All topics in experimental and theoretical physics education research are accepted, including, but not limited to: Educational policy Instructional strategies, and materials development Research methodology Epistemology, attitudes, and beliefs Learning environment Scientific reasoning and problem solving Diversity and inclusion Learning theory Student participation Faculty and teacher professional development
期刊最新文献
Erratum: Development and validation of a conceptual multiple-choice survey instrument to assess student understanding of introductory thermodynamics [Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020112 (2023)] Reinforcing mindware or supporting cognitive reflection: Testing two strategies for addressing a persistent learning challenge in the context of air resistance How women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer physics doctoral students navigate graduate education: The roles of professional environments and social networks Evolving study strategies and support structures of introductory physics students Effectiveness of conceptual-framework-based instruction on promoting knowledge integration in learning simple electric circuit
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1