Unpacking the Use of Talk and Writing in Argument-based Inquiry: Instruction and Cognition

The purpose of this study was to unpack the use of talk and writing to support students’ construction of scientific knowledge in argument-based inquiry. Grounded in interactive constructivism, this sixteen-week study utilized qualitative design and was conducted in one argument-based inquiry classroom with participation of 22 fifth-grade students. The results indicated (a) as students had more opportunities to practice, they developed ore sophisticated understanding for oral argumentation, (b) students’ ability to craft a written argument improved over time, (c) when both talk and writing were used, student knowledge construction occurred more than when only one learning tool was used, (d) students’ higher cognitive processes were facilitated more than when talk or writing were used alone, and (e) the more talk and writing were used together, the more student-centered the classroom was. Introduction Argumentation is a core practice of scientific inquiry in which students engage in reasoning processes of constructing knowledge claims through interpreting data as sound evidence and debating those claims (Ford, 2008; Hand, 2008). Current research indicates that learning how to engage in productive scientific argumentation to build and propose knowledge is difficult for students (Sampson & Clark, 2009). Many scholars advocate strongly the need to create environments where students can talk in order to construct explanations, models, and theories just as scientists use arguments to relate the evidence they select to their claims (e.g., McNeill, & Pimentel, 2010; Mercer, 2008). Nevertheless, Yore and Treagust (2006) argued that talking is necessary for argumentation, “but not sufficient to do and learn science” (p. 296). They noted that writing also play an important role during argumentative processes. Wallace (2007) succinctly concluded about the effect of talking and writing on argumentation: “talk is most important for distributing knowledge, while writing is important for manipulating, consolidating, and integrating knowledge” (p. 11). Talking and writing are therefore complementary tools for argumentative practice. However, Studies in the field of argumentation have investigated talk and writing separately and thus have tended to disconnect the relationship between the two in terms of the argumentative process due to different theoretical frameworks or methodologies adopted by the researchers. For example, some researchers emphasize the impact of engaging students in talking within groups or as a whole class (e.g. McNeill & Pimentel, 2010), while others focus on the important mechanisms for individually scaffolding the construction of students’ written arguments (e.g. Takao & Kelly, 2003). Those studies that point out the challenges, difficulties, and effects of using talk or writing in argumentation have contributed greatly to the field of science education. However, to learn better how to support students in this argumentative practice and to overcome the challenges, an examination of investigating how talk and writing combined can best support students’ construction of scientific knowledge through argumentation and what kinds of cognitive processes might be facilitated by the combination of talk and writing is needed. So far, only two quasi-experimental studies, conducted by Rivard and Straw (2000) and Rivard (2004), have directly reported interesting findings regarding the impact of both talk and writing on students’ conceptual learning. Rivard and Straw (2000) compared the effects of talk alone, writing alone, the combination with talk and writing, and control condition at a posttest and delayed posttest. They found that talk and writing together were more effective than other three groups in contributing to simple and integrated knowledge at a post-test and delayed posttest. They suggested that science teachers should endeavor to include more writing tasks in the classroom after students have had sufficient opportunities for collaborative exploratory talk while being guided by cognitive engagement in argumentative processes. Yet, their research was quantitative and still focused on the outcome of knowledge acquisition. The patterns of the combination of talk and writing that support students’ knowledge construction and cognitive processes still remain unknown. In response to those research deficits, we try to unpack the use of talk and writing in an argument-based inquiry classroom and set up four research questions to guide this qualitative study: (1) How do students develop an understanding of using talk as a learning tool when participating in an argument-based inquiry classroom during two units over sixteen weeks? (2) How do students craft their written arguments over time in an argument-based inquiry classroom? (3) In what ways do talk and writing support scientific knowledge © ISLS 159 ICLS2012 Volume 1: Full Papers