Infusing explicit argumentation in science reading activities: Helping prospective science teachers reduce misconception and foster argumentation skills

Authors

  • Siswanto Siswanto Semarang State University
  • Hartono Hartono Semarang State University
  • Bambang Subali Semarang State University
  • Masturi Masturi Semarang State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.12.03.19

Keywords:

argumentation skills, misconceptions, science reading activities, anticipation guides

Abstract

Science reading activities play an important role in shaping and constructing new knowledge. The enactment of these activities was commonly used to develop scientific literacy and enhance students’ understanding. However, lack of the study focuses on reducing misconceptions and developing argumentation skills. This study, therefore, aimed to investigate the effect of reading activities infusing argumentation activities in reducing misconceptions and advancing argumentation skills. We employed a quasi-experimental (non-equivalent control group design) by involving 72 prospective science teacher students as participants divided into experimental and control groups in the same proportion. The participants in the experimental group were involved to do science reading activities infusing argumentation activities whilst the control group was engaged in only science reading activities. All the groups did these activities for four meetings of which each meeting took 90 minutes. To elicit data, we used a three-tier test to measure students’ misconceptions and a student survey to measure argumentation skills; both of which were tested before and after the learning process. The findings of the research showed argumentation activities infused in science reading activities have succeeded to reduce significantly students’ misconceptions and develop argumentation skills. In addition, argumentation activities in science reading activities also succeed to drive students to propose comprehensive arguments and to improve the scientific quality of students’ arguments. We ultimately discussed the implications arising from this study.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Hartono Hartono, Semarang State University

Profesor on science education, semarang state university.

References

Arslan, H. O., Cigdemoglu, C., & Moseley, C. (2012). A three-tier diagnostic test to assess pre-service teachers' misconceptions about global warming, greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion, and acid rain. International journal of science education, 34(11), 1667-1686.

Aydeniz, M., A. Pabuccu, P. S. Cetin, and E. Kaya. (2012). Impact of Argumentation on College students' Conceptual Understanding of Properties and Behaviors of Gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10: 1303–1324.

Cano, F., García, Á., Berbén, A. B. G., & Justicia, F. (2014). Science learning: A path analysis of its links with reading comprehension, question-asking in class and science achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1710-1732.

Cetin, P. S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1-20.

Clark, D. B., and V. Sampson. (2008). Assessing Dialogic Argumentation in Online Environments to Relate Structure, Grounds, and Conceptual Quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (3): 293–321.

Duschl, R. (2008). Science Education in Three-Part Harmony: Balancing Conceptual, Epis-temic, and Social Learning Goals. Review of Reasearch in Education, 32, 268-291.

Duschl, R., and J. Osborne. (2002). Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38: 39–72.

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.

Fang, Z., Lamme, L., Pringle, R., Patrick, J., Sanders, J., Zmach, C., & Henkel, M. (2008). Integrating reading into middle school science: What we did, found and learned. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 2067-2089.

Fenty, N. S. (2019). Using Anticipation Guides to Support Comprehension of Science Informational Text. Intervention in School and Clinic, 54(3), 141-148.

Ford, D. J., Brickhouse, N. W., Lottero‐Perdue, P., & Kittleson, J. (2006). Elementary girls' science reading at home and school. Science Education, 90(2), 270-288.

Giancoli, D. C. (2016). Physics: principles with applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Giri, V., & Paily, M. U. (2020). Effect of scientific argumentation on the development of critical thinking. Science & Education, 29(3), 673-690.

Glassner, A., M. Weinstock, and Y. Neuman. 2005. "Pupils’ Evaluation and Generation of Evidence and Explanation in Argumentation.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 75: 105–118.

Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 19–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Herber, H. L. (1978). Teaching reading in content areas (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.-P., and C. Pereiro-Munoz. (2002). Knowledge Producers or Knowledge Consumers? Argumentation and Decision Making about Environmental Management. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (11): 1171–1190.

Kachan, M. R., Guilbert, S. M., & Bisanz, G. L. (2006). Do teachers ask students to read news in secondary science?: Evidence from the Canadian context. Science Education, 90(3), 496- 521.

Kendeou, P., & Van Den Broek, P. (2005). The Effects of Readers' Misconceptions on Comprehension of Scientific Text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 235.

Kloser, M. (2016). Alternate text types and student outcomes: an experiment comparing traditional textbooks and more epistemologically considerate texts. International Journal of Science Education, 38(16), 2477-2499.

Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-179.

Kuhn, D., and W. Udell. (2007). The Development of Argument Skills. Child Development, 74 (5): 1245–1260.

Lammers, A., Goedhart, M. J., & Avraamidou, L. (2019). Reading and synthesising science texts using a scientific argumentation model by undergraduate biology students. International Journal of Science Education, 41(16), 2323-2346.

Martinez-Borreguero, G., Pérez-Rodríguez, Á. L., Suero-López, M. I., & Pardo-Fernández, P. J. (2013). Detection of misconceptions about colour and an experimentally tested proposal to combat them. International Journal of Science Education, 35(8), 1299-1324.

McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’ Views of Explanation, Argumentation and Evidence and Abilities to Construct Arguments over the School Year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (7): 793–823.

Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and instruction, 14(2), 139-178.

Meneses, A., Escobar, J. P., & Véliz, S. (2018). The effects of multimodal texts on science reading comprehension in Chilean fifth-graders: text scaffolding and comprehension skills. International Journal of Science Education, 40(18), 2226-2244.

Michalsky, T. (2013). Integrating skills and wills instruction in self-regulated science text reading for secondary students. International Journal of Science Education, 35(11), 1846–1873.

Moreira, M., & Greca, I. (2003). Cambio Conceptual: Ana´lisis crı ´tico y propuestas a la luz de la Teorı ´a del Aprendizaje Significativo [Conceptual change: A critical analysis and proposals in the light of the Theory of Meaningful Learning]. Retrieved May 7, 2012, from http://www.if.ufrgs.br/~ moreira/cambioconceptual.pdf

Muthiraparampil, S. T. (2012). Misconceptions in Electrostatics Among Learners at University Entry Point: A South African Case Study (Doctoral dissertation, Walter Sisulu University).

National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC.: Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.

Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Eskin, H. (2012). Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientific argumentation and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1415-1443.

Osborne, J (2019, January 29). Reading to learn in science: using anticipation guides. Retrieved from https://serpmedia.org/rtls/anticipation.html

Osborne, J., S. Erduran, and S. Simon. (2004). Enhancing the Quality of Argument in School Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41: 994–1020.

Pegg, J., & Adams, A. (2012). Reading for claims and evidence: using anticipation guides in science. Science Scope, 36(2), 74.

Patterson, A., Roman, D., Friend, M., Osborne, J., & Donovan, B. (2018). Reading for meaning: The foundational knowledge every teacher of science should have. International Journal of Science Education, 40(3), 291-307.

Probosari, R. M., Widyastuti, F., Sajidan, S., Suranto, S., & Prayitno, B. A. (2018). Reading for tracing evidence: developing scientific knowledge through science text. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1022, No. 1, p. 012019.

Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research. John Wiley & Sons.

Rojas Rojas, S. P., Meneses, A., & Sánchez Miguel, E. (2019). Teachers’ scaffolding science reading comprehension in low-income schools: how to improve achievement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 41(13), 1827-1847.

Romance, N., & Vitale, M. (2017). Implications of a cognitive science model integrating literacy in science on achievement in science and reading: Direct effects in grades 3–5 with transfer to grades 6–7. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(6), 979-995.

Sampson, V., & Gerbino, F. (2010). Two instructional models that teachers can use to promote & support scientific argumentation in the biology classroom. The American Biology Teacher, 72(7), 427-431.

Snow, C. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328, 450–452.

Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge university press.

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), 952-977.

Von Aufschnaiter, C., S. Erduran., J. Osborne, and S. Simon. (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, 45 (1): 101–131.

Vosniadou, S., & Skopeliti, I. (2017). Is it the Earth that turns or the Sun that goes behind the mountains? Students’ misconceptions about the day/night cycle after reading a science text. International Journal of Science Education, 39(15), 2027-2051.

Wright, K. L., Franks, A. D., Kuo, L. J., McTigue, E. M., & Serrano, J. (2016). Both theory and practice: Science literacy instruction and theories of reading. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1275-1292.

Yang, F. Y., Chang, C. C., Chen, L. L., & Chen, Y. C. (2016). Exploring learners’ beliefs about science reading and scientific epistemic beliefs, and their relations with science text understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 38(10), 1591-1606.

Downloads

Published

2022-07-01

How to Cite

Siswanto Siswanto, Hartono Hartono, Bambang Subali, & Masturi Masturi. (2022). Infusing explicit argumentation in science reading activities: Helping prospective science teachers reduce misconception and foster argumentation skills. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 12(3), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.12.03.19