Abstract
Argumentation is an important practice in science by which knowledge is constructed, evaluated, and modified. Scientific argumentation (SA) is thus a promising activity in science education to enhance students’ understanding of science. However, internationally, the lack of consensus on its nature, especially in the educational context, has led to an under-exploration of its assessment, which limits its integration into the science classroom. In the context of this study, China, there is a dilemma regarding SA. On the one hand, curriculum policy calls for equipping Chinese students with key competences needed in the future world. Accordingly, the high school Physics Curriculum targets SA as a key competence. However, on the other hand, due to the notoriously examination driven approach to education SA tends to be neglected since it is currently not assessed in national examinations. Working on this dilemma, this study sets out to design an assessment instrument for scientific argumentation competence (SAC) in Physics. The instrument is then used to explore Chinese high school students’ current engagement in scientific argumentation.Following a pragmatist orientation, both the students’ overall performance on SAC assessment and their unique experiences of engaging in SA were explored to understand their SAC. Moreover, both the process and product of constructing the SAC assessment were examined through an iterative research design including four pilot studies and a main study. The initial theoretical framework for SAC was derived from a literature review on SA. This was then used to design initial SAC pencil and paper test items which were examined in the first pilot and then were modified to a complete SAC test to use in a second pilot. A third pilot was conducted to prepare the test for a large scale fourth pilot. The final version of the test was administered to 1413 students from seven schools in two regions of China, after which 12 students participated in the interview. Item response theory (IRT) was used to analyse test scores and thematic analysis was used to analyse interview data.
Findings highlight eleven factors to be useful in improving the assessment, such as scenario arrangement and provided information. By examining both the process and product of the assessment, the assessment shows acceptable validity, suggesting the rationality of assessing SA from the three components (i.e., Identification, Evaluation, and Production) and using the test scores. Reflecting on the inconsistencies between the IRT results and initial assumption leads to a possible three-level learning progression of SAC. This is aligned with and further expands previous learning progressions of SA. Most of the students are at level 1 of the learning progression. Students’ assessment performance differs across schools and classes and has weak positive relationships with their school achievement test scores in Physics and Chinese. This study also found that despite the students’ unfamiliarity with SA, knowing the definition of SA elements does not lead to better performances on the test. Interview data shows that students were positive about the idea of integrating SA into teaching and learning of Physics. However, they were pessimistic regarding the practical likelihood of this ever being implemented.
Discussion of the findings highlights the hybrid nature of SA and possible learning progression(s) of SAC, thus contributes theoretically to the possible ways of framing SA. This study advances previous research by providing a guideline for designing SA assessments and therefore, it contributes with theorising the assessment of SA. This study also contributes to knowledge on Chinese high school students’ perceptions, experience, and performance on SA. Implications are drawn for the ways to demonstrate SA in school science/Physics curricula and to improve the students’ SA engagement, highlighting that assessing SA in high stakes examinations, while only part of the effort, is critical for integrating SA into classrooms.
| Date of Award | 27 Sept 2022 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Awarding Institution |
|
| Sponsors | China Scholarship Council |
| Supervisor | William J Browne (Supervisor) & Angeline M Barrett (Supervisor) |