Effectiveness of Practical Science Activities based on Argumentation

PDF (ελληνικά)
Published: Mar 31, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/codiste.7822
Michael Skoumios
Abstract

This paper studies the effect of practical science activities based on argumentation about electric circuits on primary school students' oral discourse. The sample of the study consisted of four groups of pupils in the fifth grade of primary school. In two groups of students, practical activities based on argumentation were applied and in the other two groups practical activities of "traditional type" were applied. The research data came from the analysis of the students' oral discourse. It emerged that the practical activities based on argumentation are more effective compared to the "traditional type" activities in "transition" of students' oral discourse from the "domain of objects" to the "domain of ideas" and from "monolectic" responses to those that results in further discussion of an idea.

Article Details
  • Section
  • 14th Panhellenic Conference of Didactics in Science Education
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Σκουμιός, Μ. (2025). Η επίδραση πειραματικών δραστηριοτήτων που βασίζονται στην επιχειρηματολογία στις ικανότητες των μαθητών να συγκροτούν επιχειρήματα. Στο Κ.Θ. Κώτσης και Γ. Στύλος, (Επιμέλεια), Πείραμα και Διδασκαλία των Φυσικών Επιστημών (σελ. 223-245), Επετειακός Τόμος για τα 40 χρόνια του ΠΤΔΕ Ιωαννίνων, Εργαστήριο Εκπαίδευσης και Διδασκαλίας της Φυσικής, Πανεπιστημίου Ιωαννίνων. ISBN: 978-618-82063-5-9
Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer‐to‐peer dialog. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 33(3), 374-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01017.x
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1
González-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. L. (2019). Teachers’ framing of argumentation goals: Working together to develop individual versus communal understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(6), 821–844. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21530
Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In N. Lederman, & S. Abel (Eds.). Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393-441). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Millar, R., Tiberghien, A. & Le Maréchal, J. F. (2002). Varieties of labwork: A way of profiling labwork tasks. In D. Psillos, & H. Niedderer (Eds.). Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 9-20). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Niedderer, H., Tiberghien, A., Buty, C., Haller, K., Hucke, L., Sander, F., Fischer, H. E., Schecker, H. V., Aufschnaiter, S., & Welzel, M. (1998). Category Based Analysis of Videotapes from labwork (CBAV)—the method and results from four case studies. Working paper 9 from the European project labwork in science education (Targeted Socio-Economic Research Programme, Project PL 95-2005).
Oliveira, H., & Bonito, J. (2023). Practical work in science education: a systematic literature review. Frontiers in Education, 8:1151641. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1151641
Spaan, W., Oostdam, R., Schuitema, J., & Pijls, M. (2022). Analysing teacher behaviour in synthesizing hands-on and minds-on during practical work. Research in Science & Technological Education, 42(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2022.2098265
Schwarz, C., Passmore, C. & Reiser, B. (2017). Helping Students make Sense of the World through Next Generation Science and Engineering Practices. The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Press. ISBN: 978-1-938946-04-2
Tiberghien, A. (2000). Designing teaching situations in the secondary school. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds). Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 27-47). Open University Press.