Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Developing Students’ Scientific Writing and Presentation Skills through Argument Driven Inquiry: An Exploratory Study Pınar Seda Ç etin† and Gülüzar Eymur*,‡ Department of Elementary Science Education, Abant Iż zet Baysal University, Bolu 14280, Turkey Department of Child Care and Youth Services, Giresun University, Giresun 28200, Turkey
† ‡
S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: In this study, we employed a new instructional model that helps students develop scientific writing and presentation skills. Argument-driven inquiry (ADI) is one of the most novel instructional models that emphasizes the role of argumentation and inquiry in science education equally. This is an exploratory study where five ADI lab activities take place with a group of students guided by their classroom teacher. The main aim of this study was to investigate the effect of laboratory instruction that was designed based on ADI on students’ ability to write and present scientifically. For this purpose, three sets of instruments were used: argumentative writing assessment, poster evaluation checklist, and student assessment of their learning gains (SALG) survey. The results showed that students developed their writing skills in all three aspects: argument structure, argument content, and writing mechanism. However, the highest score in terms of these improvements was obtained in the quality of students’ argument content. Also, the current study findings explicitly showed that ADI activities could help students improve their scientific presentation skills. At the end of the ADI activities, each group got higher than 50 points out of 65 points, while their scores were nearly 30 points at the beginning of activities. KEYWORDS: Laboratory Instruction, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Communication/Writing, Chemical Education Research, High School/Introductory Chemistry FEATURE: Chemical Education Research
■
INTRODUCTION There has been a growing body of research dealing with integrating new instructional approaches into the middle and high school science teaching curriculum with the goal of increasing science literacy.1−5 A scientifically literate person can both comprehend scientific contents and also process and apply this knowledge.6 On the basis of the approaches undertaken to enhance students’ scientific literacy, new instructional models and activities thus become supporters of scientific writing and presentation. Scientific presentation and writing can help students develop deeper understanding in main science concepts.7−9 Furthermore, in the review of Lin, Hsu, Lin, Changlai, Yang, and Lai, it is reported that multiple presentations, including visualizations and scientific writing, develop students’ conceptual understanding, procedural and strategic skills, and metacognition and epistemology.10 However, despite the importance of scientific presentation and writing on developing scientific literacy, studies by many researchers revealed similar results indicating that teachers do not assign much instructional time to the activities that facilitate students’ scientific presentation and writing skills.11−13 Many teachers confront some problems while integrating writing and presentation to their activities,1 and also many students struggle to present their ideas, support their claims, and explain their evidence. There is ample evidence that learning in science increases when students prepare visual presentation to explain and express their understanding.14 Besides, when students prepare presentation, it encourages them to understand and learn explicitly.15 In other words, students have the opportunity © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
to understand difficult scientific concepts and remember what they learn for a longer time when they actively involve visual and verbal presentations.16 Apart from presentation, writing is another vital issue for teachers and students, which inevitably promotes to increase scientific literacy.17 Research indicated that writing leads not only to knowledge, but also to constructing a better understanding of the main ideas of science.18 Also, writing activities such as explanation, analysis synthesis, and conformation require the students to internalize the content and justify their answers. Therefore, writing assists students to develop a better understanding of concepts and scientific literacy.19,20 Given the vast number of studies conducted on the importance of scientific presentation and writing on developing scientific literacy, and the problems encountered during the integration of these activities to instruction, it was seen that very few have argued the empirical results of an instructional strategy. In this study, we employed new instructional models that help students develop scientific writing and presentation skills. Argument-driven inquiry (ADI) is one of the most novel instructional models that underlies the role of both argumentation and inquiry in science education.21 It is based on social cognitive theories of learning, and it is believed to be more effective in developing students’ scientific writing and Received: November 30, 2016 Revised: May 5, 2017
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00915 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Therefore, the main aim of this study is to investigate the effect of ADI on students’ scientific presentation and writing skills and also to find out students’ views about the activities prepared within the frame of ADI.
presentation skills, understanding of scientific concepts, and their scientific practices since it presents more authentic laboratory activities.22 In this form of learning, students actively involve themselves in scientific practices that include social and personal processes. From social perspective, learning means that students learn concepts, representations, and the practices related to science rather than just memorizing an abstract scientific knowledge. Therefore, learning occurs through collaborative and instructional interactions with the other people. The idea that learning science through practice is a profitable issue in research for decades, and what the recent theory favors is that meaningful science learning takes place when students are actively engaged in science.23,24 Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) assert the idea of learning science through practice, locating the practices of science as an important part of learning science, and it helps the conceptualization of core ideas and concepts.25,26 The personal process of learning, on the other hand, includes change and revision of an individual’s own ideas and knowledge based on experiences. Aforementioned theoretical background brings about two results for students to learn science. First, students have to deal with original scientific practices to internalize their experiences. Second, students have to improve specific conceptions about scientific practice to become more fruitful and also benefit from others. The generation of the ADI instructional model is based on this theoretical view and gives students an opportunity to engage in scientific argumentation and written arguments by using laboratory activities that are more original and instructional. As part of the authentic laboratory activities, students are required to be engaged in scientific practices that involve inquiry, argumentation writing, and peer-review. These practices are given great importance and values by the scientific community. This aspect of ADI in which students actively involve in scientific practices and receive feedback about their practices inspires students to understand which techniques, strategies, tools, and activities are more profitable and beneficial. Thus, all contents of ADI also advocate scientific presentation skills by giving students an opportunity to generate evidence to support an explanation, great communication, and scientific writing. ADI includes eight interrelated steps: identification of task, generation and analysis of data, production of a tentative argument, argumentation session, explicit and reflective discussion, creation of written investigation report, double blind peer-review of the reports, and revision of report.27 Researchers dealing with ADI hypothesized that this instructional model improve students’ argumentative writing skills,22 their ability to construct a scientific argument,21 their attitudes toward science,21 and their understanding of core scientific ideas28 by means of the various activities embedded into it. These activities ensure that ADI can be considered both a student-centered and an intensive-writing instructional approach.22 Although there are some studies showing that the ADI facilitates students’ scientific writing skills,22,27 there is only one study29 investigating how students perceive the role of the activities embedded in ADI in improving their scientific writing skills. Yet, there is no study that finds out the impact of ADI instruction on scientific presentation skills of the students in the argumentation session. The literature seems void of studies reporting on the effect of ADI on students’ scientific presentation skills and students’ views of the ADI instruction.
■
RESEARCH DESIGN AND PURPOSE This is an exploratory study in which a group of students conducted five ADI lab activities with their classroom teacher. The study took place in regular laboratory sessions of the class. They attended 2-h lab session each week. The students engaged in ADI activities through 10-week period in a-way that each activity lasted 2 weeks. There were seven groups that were assigned by the teacher randomly, and four groups were composed of five students and the other three groups composed of four students. The students conducted the laboratory activities with guidance of regular chemistry teacher. The teacher was trained about the steps of ADI before the study began. Moreover, we audiotaped all the implementation process to provide data to ensure that the teacher actually implemented the intervention as it was designed. The activities used in this study were related to the chemistry course that the students took at that semester. These activities (translated and adopted from Sampson et al.)30 were designed to explore the concepts of density, periodic trends, bond character and molecular polarity, solution, and gases (Table 1). Eight steps of Table 1. Descriptions of the Activities Name of the Activity Density Periodic trends Bond character and molecular polarity Solution
Gases
Guiding Question What are the identities of unknown matters? Which properties of the elements follow a periodic trend? How does atom electronegativity affect bond character and molecular polarity?
Why do surface area of the solute, the temperature of the solvent, and the amount of agitation that occurs when the solute and the solvent are mixed affect the rate of dissolution? What is the relationship between volume and temperature of a gas?
ADI were successfully accomplished in all activities. Apart from other studies, students prepared scientific posters and presented their posters in the argumentation session as part of this study. The main aim of this study was to investigate the effect of laboratory instruction designed based on ADI on students’ ability to write and present scientifically. The specific research questions were the following: (1) How does students’ ability to write scientifically change as they compete a series of ADI-based lab activities? (2) How does students’ ability to present scientifically via posters change as they compete a series of ADI-based lab activities? (3) What are the views of the students on the various types of activities of the ADI instructional model with respect to their potential to help them learn how to write better scientific reports? Sample
The sample of this study consists of 32 ninth grade students. They were all attending the same chemistry course offered in a public secondary school. Among the participants, 15 of them B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00915 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
were male, and 17 of them were female. Their science backgrounds and socio-economic statuses were similar.
presentation, and oral presentation) with 13 items that were in line with the aim of ADI to evaluate students’ posters. Finally, a language expert checked the items for clarity and grammar. Before this study, the checklist was used throughout a semester to evaluate students’ posters related to the six ADI activities by one of the researchers of this study and an assistant of the course. They did not encounter any problem, and intercoder reliability was calculated as 0.84. Student Assessment of Their Learning Gains (SALG) survey developed by Walker and Sampson was used in the study.29 The survey includes 14, 4 point (0 = not at all; 4 = helped a great deal), Likert-scale items asking students to rate the activities involved in the course with respect to their effectiveness in developing students’ writing skills. The instrument was individually administered to the students at the end of the ten-week instructional period.
Instruments
In this part, three sets of instruments, argumentative writing assessment, poster evaluation checklist, and student assessment of their learning gains (SALG) survey that were used in the study, are described. Argumentative Writing Assessment. The instrument was used, which was developed by Sampson.25 In this instrument, there is a text about a scientist mixing, heating, and observing some amount of acid and alcohol. In addition to the text, there is a table that gives some data observed before and after stirring of acid and alcohol. Then students are given an incorrect claim presented by the scientist to explain the data. At the end of the text, students are desired to disprove the claim of the scientist and put forward their claim by using the data. This instrument was translated into Turkish by both of the researchers separately. Also, the last version of the translated instrument was discussed to arrive at a consensus about the ultimate version of translation. At the end, two high school students were chosen to check the clarity of the Turkish version. The scoring rubric that was also developed by Sampson was used to score the instrument.25 It includes three main parts: argument structure with three items, argument content with five items, and writing mechanics with six items. However, while the two parts of the scoring rubric were the same in two versions, the last two items related to English grammar were excluded from the Turkish version. Therefore, while the total score was 28 in the English version, it was 24 in the Turkish version. The two researchers did the scoring separately. The Cohen’s kappa was computed as 0.80 for the inter-rater reliability. The students finished the assessment in 40 min. Poster evaluation checklist was developed by the researchers to measure students’ ability to communicate scientifically with the help of posters (see the online in Supporting Information). This checklist consists of 13 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale: poor, fair, average, good, and excellent. The checklist includes the following three main parts: content (6 items), visual presentation (3 items), and oral presentation (4 items). Total maximum possible score that can be taken from the checklist was 65. Considering the ADI instructional model, each group prepares and presents a poster related to their own methodology and results. Students are graded according to content, visual design, and oral presentation of the poster. All the students receive the grade as a group. Both researchers were on duty in these sessions to evaluate students’ poster presentations. Researchers scored each group poster by filling out poster evaluation checklist simultaneously while observing the presentations. After the instruction, the researchers came together to compare the grades they gave. The researchers discussed the items that they coded differently and tried to convince each other about the rationale behind their coding each week. The intercoder reliability was calculated as 0.92. The researchers used literature and expert opinions during the construction of items. First of all, the researchers examined the literature and prepared an item pool that included possible items that could be used for the checklist. Then with three experts who were aware of the aim and steps of ADI, the researchers decided on three categories (content, visual
■
RESULTS We presented the results of the study in three parts in a way that each part corresponds to one research question. In the first part, we gave the results related to change in students’ ability to write scientifically as they completed five the ADI activities; in the second part, we presented the results related to change in students’ ability to present scientifically via posters; and in the third part, we included the results related to students’ views of the ADI instruction. Students’ Ability To Write Scientifically
To examine the change in students’ ability to write scientifically, we compare their scores on the argumentative writing assessment before and after the treatment. The total maximum score that can be gained from this instrument is 24. The mean score of the students was 12.7 at the beginning of the intervention and 18.3 after the intervention. The results of the pre- and post-scientific argumentative writing scores that were analyzed by paired sample t-test demonstrated that the students t (31) = 11.8, p < 0.05, d = 1.94 did show increases in their scientific writing skills at the end of the study. To explore whether students improved on all three aspects of scientific writing (argument complexity, content of the argument, and writing mechanism) we conducted a follow-up analysis. In the following table, students’ mean score related to the prewriting scores and postwriting practices with respect to the three main aspects of scientific writing can be seen. Moreover, the results of t-tests and the effect size are also included in Table 2. These t-test analyses show that students have improved their scientific writing in all three aspects. When we compare the effect size, it is seen that content of the argument component of scientific writing is significantly better at the end of the instruction with a large effect size of 1.5. Moreover, writing Table 2. Comparative t-Test Results for Scientific Writing Writing Assessment Mean Score (N = 32)
C
Aspects of Scientific Argumentative Writing
Pre-
Post-
Mean Difference
t
p
d
Argument structure (6) Argument content (10) Writing mechanism (8)
3 5.5 4.2
4.4 8.4 5.6
1.4 2.9 1.4
6.1 8.5 4.0
0.00 0.00 0.00
1.07 1.50 0.70
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00915 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
We also try to figure out whether students improved on all three aspects of scientific communication through posters by presenting the results for the following three parts: content, visual presentation, and oral presentation (Table 3). Table 3 shows that all seven groups increased their scores in the content aspect at least two points. Group 2 showed the maximum gain of six points. The mean content score of seven groups for the first presentation is 16.1, and the mean content score for the last presentation is 25.8 out of 30. Increase at percentage is calculated as 32. When we examine groups’ score on visual presentation, we can see that all seven groups improved their performance. Group 3 showed the maximum improvement of six-point increase, and group 7 showed the minimum increase of one point. The mean visual presentation score of seven groups for the first presentation is 7.86, and the mean content score for the last presentation is 13.8 out of 15, which shows only one percentage increase of 40. Lastly, all groups’ performances increased with respect to oral presentation. Groups 1 and 2 showed the maximum increase of four points, and group 5 showed the minimum increase of one point. The mean oral presentation score of seven groups for the first presentation is 8, 14, and the mean content score for the last presentation is 17.3 out of 20. Percentage increase for the visual presentation is 45.8, which is the highest among the three aspects.
mechanism is the component in which students showed the least amount of growth with a moderate effect size of 0.70. Students’ Ability To Communicate Scientifically via Posters
Students’ ability to communicate scientifically through posters was examined by comparing the first and the last posters prepared by group of students. In the following figures that are line graph and box plot, total groups’ scores taken from first and seventh poster evaluation checklist are seen (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Figure 1. Groups’ scores on first and last posters.
Students’ Views of Argument-Driven Inquiry Instruction
To examine students’ evaluation of aspects of ADI with respect to their potential to help students learn how to write better scientific reports, we examined their scores on SALG. The results of the students’ responses showed that mean ratings for the 11 items out of 14 were higher than 2 (Table 4). The box plots of scores on items also are seen in Figure 2. Moreover, mean ratings for the three items out of 14 were higher than 3. Students evaluated the most effective aspects of the instruction that are developing their writing skills as “critiquing reports written by classmates”, “having detailed instructions about what to include in the reports”, and “revising report” with the means of 3.28, 3.12, and 3.63, respectively. Moreover, students thought that the quality of contact with the teacher and working with classmates out of the class were the least effective aspects of the instruction with the means of 0.90 and 0.68, respectively. The feedback from classmates (M = 2.43) and feedback from the teachers (M = 2.44) revealed almost the equal value by the students. Students rated reading good reports written by classmates (M = 2.62) as more valuable than reading bad reports written by classmates (M = 1.20).
Figure 2. Groups’ scores on posters by box plots.
As can be seen from the figure, all groups increased their poster scores from the first to the last posters. Group 6 showed the maximum increase of 27 points (41.5%), and the group 5 showed the minimum increase of 23 (35.4%). Moreover, the mean score of all groups is 32.0 for the first poster and 57.0 for the seventh poster, which shows that the mean increase in all groups’ poster scores is 25 (38.5%). Group 6 took the highest score from both the first (36) and the last (61) poster presentations. Finally, group 7 took the lowest score from both first (28) and the last (52) poster presentations.
Table 3. Group Scores on First and Last Posters by Assessment Aspects Scores on the First Poster Iteration
a
Student Group
Content
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20 18 22 15 21 24 19
a
Visual Presentation 10 7 9 6 10 12 10
b
Scores on the Last Poster Iteration
Oral Presentation 12 8 14 12 12 16 15
c
Content 25 24 24 20 25 26 22
a
Visual Presentationb
Oral Presentationc
14 12 15 11 12 14 11
16 12 17 15 13 18 17
Content score maximum is 30 points. bVisual presentation score maximum is 15 points. cOral presentation score maximum is 20 points. D
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00915 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
that the ADI activities can help students improve their scientific presentation skills. At the end of the ADI activities, each group got higher than 50 points out of 65 points, while their scores were nearly 30 points at the beginning of activities. Students’ presentation skills were visually and orally developed. We suppose that the ADI model can help students present their activities better in science. This conclusion was drawn based on two components of the ADI model. First, the ADI model gives an opportunity for students to prepare scientific presentations and deal with serious presentation practices of science. Second and perhaps the most vital component is the peer-review that provides students with comprehensive information about what should be included in a poster presentation and the feedback that gives the opportunity to see their weak points. Furthermore, the development of students’ writing skills and their views about the ADI model also support students’ scientific presentation skills. During intervention, students made progress in supporting their ideas by using better evidence and reasoning their claims in their writing reports. These aspects are also significant for the content of poster presentation. Regarding SALG, students’ views showed that students gave great importance to peer-review and revision process. This finding also promoted our suggestion that students’ scientific presentation skills were improved by peerreview and by getting feedback during presenting posters. Lastly, it aimed to investigate students’ views about ADI model on their writing skills. The results indicate that the most valuable aspects of model are “feedback from classmates” and “revising report”. The students believe that when they get feedback from their friends how to write and what should be included for better report, they can improve their scientific writing skills more than before. Apart from these, reading bad and good reports written by their classmates is also an important aspect of improving their writing skills. The least important aspect is working with classmates out of class, which is also out of the ADI model. As Walker and Sampson showed, students give more value to peer feedback than the feedback from instructor.29 Also, the current study supports Walker and Sampson’s study in a way that students’ views of reading good reports written by their classmates are crucial for the improvement of writing skills.
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of Students’ Scores on SALG Scores (N = 32) How Much Did the Following Aspects of the Course Help You To Write Better? The number of the reports you wrote. The feedback you received from the teacher. The feedback you received from your classmates. Reading good reports written by your classmates. Reading bad reports written by your classmates. Critiquing reports written by your classmates. Revising your reports. Having detailed instructions about what to include in the reports. Knowing the criteria that are used to score the reports. Having the same rubric used on all reports. The grading system. Quality of contact with the teacher. Working with classmates inside of class. Working with classmates outside of class.
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
2.00
4.00
2.78
0.65
0.00
4.00
2.43
0.94
0.00
4.00
2.43
1.13
1.00
4.00
2.62
0.87
0.00
3.00
1.21
0.87
2.00
4.00
3.28
0.77
3.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
3.62 3.12
0.49 0.83
0.00
4.00
2.93
1.01
2.00
4.00
2.71
0.68
0.00 0.00 1.00
4.00 3.00 4.00
2.87 0.90 2.59
1.07 0.89 0.91
0.00
2.00
0.68
0.64
■
DISCUSSION In this study, there were three aims. First, it aimed to investigate the effect of ADI on scientific writing skills of students. The results showed that students developed their writing skills in all three aspects, such as argument structure, argument content, and writing mechanism. However, the highest improvements were obtained in the quality of students’ argumentation content. Writing improvement result is not a surprising because many researches showed that the ADI model is an instructional model that is based on and improves students’ scientific writing skills.22,27,28 Sampson, Enderle, Grooms, and Witte22 conducted a study with two middle schools and two high schools and investigated the changes of students’ science-specific argumentative writing skills by the ADI model. They found that the ADI model enhanced students’ science-specific argumentative writing skills. Besides, Sampson and Walker28 examined the effects of ADI model on undergraduate students’ ability to write in science. They also found that students showed important improvement in their ability of scientific writing after the intervention of ADI. The steps of ADI, such as writing report and the peer-review of reports, give feedback to help students write scientifically. Second, and perhaps the most importantly, it aimed to investigate the effect of ADI on scientific presentation skills of students. This was investigated through poster presentations. Students prepared and presented posters for each investigation visually and verbally in the argumentation session. Their posters were scored after the ADI activities in terms of content, visual presentation, and oral presentation by using the poster checklist. The findings showed that students’ scientific presentation skills were improved in all three aspects. To the authors’ best knowledge, there is no study about the effect of ADI model on students’ scientific presentation skills in the literature. However, the current study findings explicitly showed
■
LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Although all research has much strength, there are also some limitations in all research. The current study has two limitations. One of the limitations is that there is no control group. We know that the crucial role of a control group in educational studies to make easy comparisons is necessary. However, we did not need control group in this exploratory study. We think that the presence of a control group was not a necessary in this study because it would not give an idea about comparison of students who are engaged with writing in science and who were not willing to write in science at all. Also, many researches showed that the traditional courses do not improve students’ scientific writing skills.31−34 Second, our intervention was conducted with a small group of students. We had to implement it in an actual and available classroom in school, and its population was limited. Besides, we tried to accord with the ADI activities with lab instruction curriculum of the school. Thus, our results may be context-dependent. The last limitation is that these improvements were observed in laboratory courses that were designed within the frame of the ADI activities. Many available things in laboratory, such as materials, activities, and E
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00915 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
in Literacy and Science Instrcution; Soul, W. E., Ed.; National Science Teachers Association Press: Arrington, VA, 2004. (10) Lin, T.; Hsu, Y.; Lin, S.; Changlai, M.; Yang, K.; Lai, T. A Review of Empirical Evidence of Scaffolding for Science Education. Int.J.Math.Sci. Educ. 2012, 10, 437−455. (11) Yore, L.; Bisanz, G.; Hand, B. Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. Inter. J. Sci. Educ. 2003, 25 (6), 689−725. (12) Fulwiler, B. Writing in science: How to scaffold instruction to support learning; Heinemann: Portsmouth, NH, 2008. (13) Kiuhara, S.; Graham, S.; Hawken, L. Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. J. Educ. Psych. 2009, 101 (1), 136− 160. (14) Carolan, J.; Prain, V.; Waldrip, B. Using representations for teaching and learning in science. Teaching Science 2008, 54, 18−23. (15) Ainsworth, S.; Prain, V.; Tytler, R. Drawing to learn in science. Science 2011, 333, 1096−1097. (16) Mayer, R. Cognitive Theory and the Design of Multimedia Instruction: An Example of the Two-Way Street Between Cognition and Instruction. New Directions in Teaching and Learning 2002, 2002, 55−71. (17) Ackerman, J. M. The promise of writing to learn. Written Communication 1993, 10 (3), 334−370. (18) Hand, B.; Prain, V.; Lawrence, C.; Yore, D. L. A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. Inter.J.Sci.Educ. 1999, 21 (10), 1021−1035. (19) Glynn, S.; Muth, K. Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1994, 31 (9), 1057− 1073. (20) Wallace, C.; Hand, B.; Prain, V. Writing and Learning in the Science Classroom; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004. (21) Walker, J.; Sampson, V.; Grooms, J.; Anderson, B.; Zimmerman, C. Argument-driven inquiry in undergraduate chemistry labs: The impact on students’ conceptual understanding, argument skills, and attitudes toward science. J. Coll. Sci.Teach 2012, 41 (4), 82−89. (22) Sampson, V.; Enderle, P.; Grooms, J.; Witte, S. Writing to learn and learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas. Sci. Educ. 2013, 97 (5), 643−670. (23) Schweingruber, H. A.; Duschl, R. A.; Shouse, A. W. Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through 8th grade; National Research Council: Washington, DC, 2007. (24) Tobin, K. Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. Sch. Sci. Math. 1990, 90 (5), 403−418. (25) National Research Council. National Science Education Standards: Observe, interact, change, and learn. National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996. (26) The Next Generation Science Standards: Executive Summary, June 2013; Next Generation Science Standards, 2013. https://www. nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/ Final%20Release%20NGSS%20Front%20Matter%20-%206.17. 13%20Update_0.pdf (accessed April 2017). (27) Sampson, V.; Grooms, J.; Walker, J. Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Sci. Educ. 2011, 95 (2), 217−257. (28) Sampson, V.; Walker, J. Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help undergraduate students write to learn by learning to write in chemistry. Inter.J.Sci.Educ. 2012, 34 (10), 1443−1485. (29) Walker, J. P.; Sampson, V. Argument-Driven Inquiry: Using the Laboratory To Improve Undergraduates’ Science Writing Skills through Meaningful Science Writing, Peer-Review, and Revision. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (10), 1269−1274. (30) Sampson, V.; Carafano, P.; Enderle, P.; Fannin, S.; Grooms, J.; Southerland, S. A.; Stallworth, C.; Williams, K. Argument-Driven Inquiry in Chemistry: Lab Investigations for Grades 9−12; NSTA Press: Arlington, VA, 2014.
ideas, changed with the ADI intervention. Thus, these aspects may also affect the findings of this study. Therefore, the implementation of this study may be needed to conduct in real conditions of a laboratory course. We are conscious that the current study has some limitations; we will draw the conclusions based on our findings. First, our results suppose that the ADI model helps students improve their scientific writing skills as we predicted. This model gives the opportunity to engage with many scientific writing practices and get some feedback about their writing tasks. The activities and necessary procedures, such as peer-review and getting feedback embedded into the ADI model, support these students to write scientifically. We think that this conclusion is important because many students struggle to write scientifically. Second and perhaps the most valuable, our findings clearly indicate that the ADI model that gives opportunity for students to deal with serious scientific presentation practices, such as preparing, presenting, and revising their presentations, which can help students develop their scientific presentations skills. The steps of the ADI model especially in “production of a tentative argument” and “argumentation session” help students revise written arguments and presentations.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
* Supporting Information S
The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00915. Poster evaluation checklist rubric used to score posters (PDF, DOCX)
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Gülüzar Eymur: 0000-0002-3316-5464 Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Gosser, D.; Roth, K. J. J. The Workshop Chemistry Project: PeerLed Team-Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 185−187. (2) Farrell, J.; Moog, R.; Spencer, J. A Guided-Inquiry General Chemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 570−574. (3) Lewis, S.; Lewis, J. Departing from Lectures: An Evaluation of a Peer-Led Guided Inquiry Alternative. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 135. (4) Cooper, M. Cooperative Chemistry Laboratories. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 307−311. (5) Wallace, C.; Hand, B.; Yang, E.-M. Crossing Borders in Literacy and Science Instruction; Saul, W., Ed.; NSTA Press: Arlington, VA, 2005. (6) Garthwaite, K.; France, B.; Ward, G. The Complexity of Scientific Literacy: The development and use of a data analysis matrix. Inter.J.Sci.Educ. 2014, 36 (10), 1568−1587. (7) Baker, W. P.; Barstack, R.; Clark, D.; Hull, E.; Goodman, B.; Kook, J.; et al. Writing-to-Learn in the Inquiry-Science Classroom: Effective Strategies from Middle School Science and Writing Teachers. Clearing House 2008, 81 (3), 105−108. (8) Carter, M.; Ferzli, M.; Wiebe, E. Writing to Learn by Learning to Write in the Disciplines. J,Bus.Technol.Comm 2007, 21, 278−302. (9) Pratt, H.; Pratt, N. Integrating science and literacy instruction with the common goal of learning science content. In Crossing Borders F
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00915 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
(31) Fallahi, C.; Wood, R.; Austad, C.; Fallahi, H. A program for improving undergraduate psychology students’ basic writing skills. Teach. Psych. 2006, 33 (3), 171−175. (32) Flynn, E.; McCulley, G.; Gratz, R. In Writing across the disciplines: Research into practice; Young, A., Fulwiler, T.; Eds.; Boynton/Cook: Upper Montclair, NJ, 1986; pp 160−175. (33) Gerdeman, R.; Russell, A.; Worden, K. Web-based student writing and reviewing in a large biology lecture course. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2007, 36 (5), 46−52. (34) Walvoord, M.; Hoefnagels, M.; Gaffin, D.; Chemchal, M.; Long, D. An analysis of calibrated peer review (CPR) in a science lecture classroom. J. Coll. Sci. Teach 2008, 37 (4), 66−73.
G
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00915 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
