Peer argumentation in the school science laboratory - exploring effects of task features

Per Morten Kind (1) , Vanessa Kind (2) , Avi Hofstein (3) , Janine Wilson (1)

1 School of Education
2 School of Education
3 Weizmann Institute

Argumentation is believed to be a significant component of scientific inquiry: introducing these skills into laboratory work may can be regarded as a goal for developing practical work in school science. This study explored the impact on the quality of argumentation among 12 - 13 year old students undertaking three different designs of of laboratory-based tasks of three different designs. The tasks involved students collecting and making sense of complex data; collecting data to address conflicting hypotheses; and, in a paper-based activity, discussing pre-collected data about an experiment. Significant differences in the quality of argumentation prompted by the tasks were apparent. The most argumentation units per unit time were generated by the paper-based task. Where students had to carriedy out an experiment, argumentation was often briefshort, as reliance on their data was paramount. Measurements were given credence by frequency and regularity of collection, while possibilities for error were ignored. These data point to changes to existing practices being required in order to achieve authentic, argumentation-based scientific inquiry in school laboratory work.

Mots clés: Social Sciences & Humanities

Domaines: Education

Per Morten Kind, Vanessa Kind, Avi Hofstein, Janine Wilson. Peer argumentation in the school science laboratory - exploring effects of task features. International Journal of Science Education, 2011, pp.1. ⟨10.1080/09500693.2010.550952⟩. ⟨hal-00692132⟩