Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction.

AbstractThe aim of this study is to investigate the effect of argument-driven inquiry (ADI) based laboratory instruction on the academic achievement, argumentativeness, science process skills, and argumentation levels of pre-service science teachers in the General Physics Laboratory III class. The study was conducted with 79 pre-service science teachers. The participants in the control group (n = 38) participated in traditional laboratory activities, and the participants in the experimental group (n = 41) participated in laboratory activities based on argumentdriven inquiry. Data was collected through the Optical Achievement Test (OAT), Argumentative Scale (AS), Science Process Skills Test (SPST) and the individual reports of the participants. Qualitative and quantitative techniques were used together to analyze the data. The results showed that argument-driven inquiry was more effective in improving the academic achievement and science process skills of pre-service science teachers compared to traditional laboratory instruction, but no significant difference was observed in the Argumentative Scale scores between the groups that had ADI instruction and those that had traditional laboratory instruction. Towards the end of the treatment, there was an improvement in the argumentative quality of the experimental group, but there was no change in the argumentation quality of the control group. ADI is an effective method for improving the academic achievement and science process skills of students, and it could be adapted for other laboratory classes. Argumentativeness might be improved with a longer argumentation session and more laboratory activities.Keywords: Argumentation * Argument-driven inquiry * Laboratory instruction * Teacher education * Geometrical opticsAfter the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, there was an inquiry about the reasons for the technological gap between the United States and the Soviet Union in the space race. There appeared a need for reform in education, especially in science and mathematics. This led to a revision in educational programs from primary school to institutions of higher education in the United States (Hiatt, 1986). With the post-sputnik era, scientific inquiry and laboratory training became an important part of science education (Anderson, 2007; Hiatt, 1986). Scientific inquiry is the basis for research and study (Anderson, 2007; Cobern et al., 2010), and argumentation is one of the most important processes of scientific inquiry (Sampson, Grooms, & Walker, 2011). The evaluation and interpretation of evidence, the evaluation of the validity of scientific knowledge, and thinking about different ideas are the core elements of argumentation and science. They play an important role in the construction of scientific knowledge (Diver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Duschl & Osborne, 2002). In science education, students should engage in activities that require them to use effective language and perform scientific reasoning with their peers and teachers. This means participating in the construction and evaluation of scientific argumentation (Duschl & Osborne, 2002). Argumentation plays a crucial role in the construction of scientific explanation and creation of theories. Scientists engage in argumentation to create and improve scientific knowledge (Aufschnaiter, Erduran, Osborne, & Simon, 2008; Nussbaum & Sinatra, 2003). Engaging in the process of argumentation requires students to make claims, use data to support their claims, and justify claims with scientific evidence. With this process, students learn science concepts and have the opportunity to practice the methods used by scientists to justify or refute their claims. During scientific argumentation, students reflect their own ideas and learn about the ideas of others. Hence, it helps to correct misconceptions and ensures a meaningful learning experience (Aufschnaiter et al., 2008). Scientific inquiry and argumentation has a crucial place in science education (Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). …