ARTICLE

EFFECT OF ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSE BASED INTERVENTION ON ARGUMENTATION ABILITY A STUDY OF DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS

  1. HOME
  2. ARTICLE

13 Pages : 114-124

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/glr.2021(VI-I).13      10.31703/glr.2021(VI-I).13      Published : Mar 2021

Effect of Argumentative Discourse based Intervention on Argumentation Ability: A Study of Demographic Factors

Abstract

    Argumentation can be viewed as an important activity in science education aiming at a better understanding of science topics. This article is drawn from doctoral research aiming to assess the effect of an argumentative coursebased intervention on argumentation ability in complement with other variables. This section highlights how students with demographic variations differ in their argumentation ability and how do they respond to the intervention. The population of the study comprised of school students in their transition stage of cognitive development from concrete to abstract thinking; correspondingly, Grade 5 students were selected. An argumentative discourse framework was developed for the contents of the school Science subject adapting to the Toulmin model. 18 weeks of intervention was provided, including 4 weeks introductory training phase followed by a pretest of argumentation ability. Analysis revealed that demographics like gender, age order among siblings, family type, and achievement level play their innate role in determining argumentation ability, and students respond to the intervention correspondingly.

    Argumentation, Science, Demographics, Gender, Achievement

    (1) Sumaira Majeed
    PhD Scholar, Institute of Education and Research, University of the Punjab, Punjab, Pakistan.
    (2) Nighat Sana Kirmani
    Assistant Professor, Institute of Education and Research, University of the Punjab, Punjab, Pakistan.
Fulltext PDF

References

  • Abi‐El‐Mona, I., & Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2011). Perceptions of the nature and ‘goodness' of argument among college students, science teachers, and scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 573-605.
  • Asterhan, C. S., Schwarz, B. B., & Gil, J. (2012). Small‐group, computer‐mediated argumentation in middle‐school classrooms: The effects of gender and different types of online teacher guidance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 375-397.
  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.
  • Campbell, D. T., & Riecken, H. W. (1968). Quasiexperimental design. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 5(3), 259- 263.
  • Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & Park, S. (2016). Examining elementary students' development of oral and written argumentation practices through argument-based inquiry. Science & Education, 25(3), 277-320.
  • Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian school students' understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 57-69.
  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268-291.
  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72
  • Emig, B. R., McDonald, S. C. O. T. T., Zembal‐Saul, C. A. R. L. A., & Strauss, S. G. (2014). Inviting argument by analogy: Analogical‐mapping‐ based comparison activities as a scaffold for small‐group argumentation. Science Education, 98(2), 243-268.
  • Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-Based research. Dordre-cht: Springer.
  • Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J. Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: a journal content analysis from 1998-2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 1-12.
  • 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(6), 915-933.
  • Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socio-scientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237
  • Faize, F. A. (2015). Introducing Argumentation at Higher Education in Pakistan-A New Paradigm of Teaching Ethic based Topics. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 9(1), 8-13.
  • Galotti, K. M., Drebus, D. W., & Reimer, R. L. (2001). Ways of knowing as learning styles: Learning MAGIC with a partner. Sex Roles, 44(7), 419- 436.
  • Heyman, G. D., & Legare, C. H. (2005). Children's evaluation of sources of information about traits. Developmental Psychology, 41(4), 636.
  • Hong, Z. R., Lin, H. S., Wang, H. H., Chen, H. T., & Yang, K. K. (2013). Promoting and scaffolding elementary school students' attitudes toward science and argumentation through a science and society intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1625-1648.
  • Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2015). Supporting use of evidence in argumentation through practice in argumentation and reflection in the context of SOCRATES learning environment. Science Education, 99(2), 282- 311.
  • Jeong, A., & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2006). The effects of gender interaction patterns on student participation in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 543-568.
  • Jeong, A., & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2006). The effects of gender interaction patterns on student participation in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 543-568.
  • Jiménez‐Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000).
  • Kathpalia, S. S., & See, E. K. (2016). Improving argumentation through student blogs. System, 58, 25-36.
  • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child development, 74(5), 1245-1260.
  • Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007. International Mathematics Report. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College
  • O'Hare, L., & McGuinness, C. (2009). Measuring critical thinking, intelligence, and academic performance in psychology undergraduates. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 30(3-4), 123-131.
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: a framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.
  • Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627-638
  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of research in science teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
  • Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell‐ Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315-347
  • Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526.
  • Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122-1148.
  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2011). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41(1), 63-97.
  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International journal of science education, 28(3), 235-260
  • Van Gelder, T., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 58(2), 142.
  • 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: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
  • Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In argumentation in science education. Springer, Dordrecht.

Cite this article

APA

    APA : Majeed, S., & Kirmani, N. S. (2021). Effect of Argumentative Discourse based Intervention on Argumentation Ability: A Study of Demographic Factors. Global Language Review, VI(I), 114-124. https://doi.org/10.31703/glr.2021(VI-I).13

CHICAGO

    CHICAGO : Majeed, Sumaira, and Nighat Sana Kirmani. 2021. "Effect of Argumentative Discourse based Intervention on Argumentation Ability: A Study of Demographic Factors." Global Language Review, VI (I): 114-124 doi: 10.31703/glr.2021(VI-I).13

HARVARD

    HARVARD : MAJEED, S. & KIRMANI, N. S. 2021. Effect of Argumentative Discourse based Intervention on Argumentation Ability: A Study of Demographic Factors. Global Language Review, VI, 114-124.

MHRA

    MHRA : Majeed, Sumaira, and Nighat Sana Kirmani. 2021. "Effect of Argumentative Discourse based Intervention on Argumentation Ability: A Study of Demographic Factors." Global Language Review, VI: 114-124

MLA

    MLA : Majeed, Sumaira, and Nighat Sana Kirmani. "Effect of Argumentative Discourse based Intervention on Argumentation Ability: A Study of Demographic Factors." Global Language Review, VI.I (2021): 114-124 Print.

OXFORD

    OXFORD : Majeed, Sumaira and Kirmani, Nighat Sana (2021), "Effect of Argumentative Discourse based Intervention on Argumentation Ability: A Study of Demographic Factors", Global Language Review, VI (I), 114-124

TURABIAN

    TURABIAN : Majeed, Sumaira, and Nighat Sana Kirmani. "Effect of Argumentative Discourse based Intervention on Argumentation Ability: A Study of Demographic Factors." Global Language Review VI, no. I (2021): 114-124. https://doi.org/10.31703/glr.2021(VI-I).13