Improving Argumentative Writing of Sixth-Grade Adolescents Through Dialogic Inquiry of Socioscientific Issues
Keywords:dialogic inquiry, socioscientific issues, argumentative writing, transfer
This study investigated the effect of a four-week socioscientific issues (SSI)-based intervention on sixth-grade students’ argumentative writing and transferability of argument skills across topics. Students in three treatment classrooms engaged in an SSI unit on space exploration while students in three comparable classrooms continued regular space science lessons. Argumentation skills were assessed by individual decision letters about space exploration. Argument transfer was assessed by an essay to address a novel SSI. Treatment students wrote more elaborated decision letters with stronger arguments, relied less on personal ideas, and transferred argument skills to a novel SSI after the intervention. The implications of using SSI as a promising approach to integrating science and literacy learning for diverse adolescents were discussed.
Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (2015). The effects of cognitive acceleration. In L.R. Resnick, C.S.C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 127-140). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-43-1_10
Ardasheva, Y., Norton-Meier, L., & Hand, B. (2015). Negotiation, embeddedness, and non-threatening learning environments as themes of science and language convergence for English language learners. Studies in Science Education, 51(2), 201–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2015.1078019
Atabey, N., & Topcu, M.S. (2017). The development of a socioscientific issues-based curriculum unit for middle school students: Global warming issue. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 5(3), 153-170.
August, D., Branum-Martin, L., Cardenas-Hagan, E., Francis, D. J., Powell, J., Moore, S., & Haynes, E. F. (2014). Helping ELLs meet the common core state standards for literacy in science: The impact of an instructional intervention focused on academic language. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(1), 54–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2013.836763
Barzilai, S., Tzadok, E., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). Sourcing while reading divergent expert accounts: Pathways from views of knowing to written argumentation. Instructional Science, 43, 737–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9359-4
Belland, B. R., Gu, J., Armbrust, S., & Cook, B. (2015). Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: A mixed-method study in a rural middle school. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 325-353.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9373-x
Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26-55.https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953
Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 631–658.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21015Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 1-40.https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1501_1
Chen, Y.C., Hand, B., & Park, S. (2016). Examining elementary students’ development of oral and written argumentation practices through argument-based inquiry. Science & Education, 25, 277–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9811-0
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Chowning, J.T., Griswold, J. C., Kovarik, D. N., & Collins, L. J. (2012). Fostering critical thinking, reasoning, and argumentation skills through bioethics education, Plos One, 7(5), e36791. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036791
Clark, A. M., Anderson, R. C., Archodidou, A., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Kuo, L.-J., & Kim, I. (2003). Collaborative reasoning: Expanding ways for children to talk and think in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 181-198
Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development 15(2), 363–381.
de Oliveira, L. C., & Lan, S. (2014). Writing science in an upper elementary classroom: A genre-based approach to teaching English language learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.001
Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2020). Introducing argumentation about climate change: Socioscientific issues in a disadvantaged school. Research in Science Education 50, 863–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9715-x
Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The Social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press (originally published, 1981).
Dolan, T., Nichols, B., & Zeidler, D. (2009). Using socioscientific issues in primary classrooms. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174719
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar R., & Scott P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol,
PA: Open University Press.
Duhalongsod, L. (2017). Classroom debates in middle school social studies: Moving from personal attacks to evidence and reasoning. Middle Grades Research Journal, 11(2), 99-115.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Engle, R. A., Nguyen, P. D., & Mendelson, A. (2011). The influence of framing on transfer: Initial evidence from a tutoring experiment. Instructional Science, 39(1), 603–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9145-2
Engle, R. A., Lam, D. P., Meyer, X. S., & Nix, S. E. (2012). How does expansive framing promote transfer? Several proposed explanations and a research agenda for investigating them. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 215-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.695678
Enriquez-Andrade, A., Wui, M.G., Zhang, J., Relyea, J., & Wong, S. (under review). Teachers' Language Ideologies and Practices on the Use of Spanish in Middle School Science Classrooms.
Foong, C., & Daniel, E.G.S. (2013). Students’ argumentation skills across two socio- scientific issues in a Confucian classroom: Is transfer possible?. International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2331-2355. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.697209
Garza, T., Huerta, M., Lara-Alecio, R., Irby, B. J., & Tong F. (2018). Pedagogical differences during a science and language intervention for English language learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(4), 487-496. https://doi.org 10.1080/00220671.2017.1302913
George, R. (2000). Measuring change in students' attitudes toward science over time: An application of latent variable growth modeling. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(3), 213-225.
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
González-Howard, M., McNeill, K. L., Marco-Bujosa, L. M., & Proctor, C. P. (2017). ‘Does it answer the question or is it French fries?’: an exploration of language supports for scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 39(5), 528-547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1294785
Gutierez, S. B. (2015). Integrating socio-scientific issues to enhance the bioethical decision-making skills of high school students. International Education Studies, 8(1), 142-151. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n1p142
Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L. A., Gunel, M., & Akkus, R. (2016). Aligning teaching to learning: a 3-year study examining the embedding of language and argumentation into elementary science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 847–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9622-9
Herman, B. C., Newton, M. H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2021). Impact of place-based socioscientific issues instruction on students' contextualization of socioscientific orientations. Science Education, 105, 585– 627. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21618
Huerta, M., & Garza, T. (2019). Writing in science: Why, how, and for whom?: A systematic literature review of 20 years of intervention research (1996–2016). Educational Psychological Review, 31, 533–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09477-1
Iordanou, K. (2010). Developing argumentative skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 293-327.
Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific Issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36 (6), 974-1016. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09500693.2013.832004
Khishfe, R. (2013). Transfer of nature of science understandings into similar contexts: Promises and possibilities of an explicit reflective approach. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2928-2953. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.672774
Kim, S. L., & Kim, D. (2021). English learners’ science-literacy practice through explicit writing instruction in invention-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2, 100029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100029
Koedinger, K.R., & Wiese, E. S. (2015). Accounting for socializing intelligence with the knowledge-learning-instruction framework. In L.B. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S.N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 275-286). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-43-1_22
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York, NY: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/ 10.3102/0013189X15569530
Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545-552.
Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016). Tracing the development of argumentive writing in a discourse-rich context. Written Communication, 33(1), 92–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088315617157
Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentative competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 456-496. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.830618
Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Guerrero, C., Huerta, M., & Fan, Y. (2012). The effect of an instructional intervention on middle school learners’ science and English reading achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 987–1011. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21031.
Lee, O., Mahotiere, M., Salinas, A., Penfield, R. D., & Maerten-Rivera, J. (2009). Science writing achievement among English language learners: Results of three-year intervention in urban elementary schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 32(2), 153-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235880903170009
Lee, O., Penfield, R. D., & Buxton, C. (2011). Relationship between “form” and “content” in science writing among English language learners. Teachers College Record, 113(7), 1401–1434.
Licona, P. R., & Kelly, G. J. (2019). Translanguaging in a middle school science classroom: Constructing scientific arguments in English and Spanish. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15, 485–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09946-7
Mather, N., Hammill, D. D., Allen, E. A., & Roberts, R. (2004). Test of silent word reading fluency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Mayer, R. E. (1985). Structural analysis of science prose: Can we increase problem solving performance? In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding of expository text (pp. 65-87). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315099958-3
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.
McNeill, K.L., & J. Krajcik, J. (2011). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York: Pearson, Allyn, and Bacon.
McNeill, K.L., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20364
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the class room. Learning and Instruction, 6, 359-378.
Morris, J. A., Miller, B. W., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K. T., Lin, T.-J., Scott, T., . . . Ma, S. (2018). Instructional discourse and argumentative writing. International Journal of Educational Research, 90(1), 234-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.03.001
Murphy P. K., Greene J. A., Allen, E., Baszczewski, S., Swearingen, A., Wei, L., & Butler, A. M. (2018). Fostering high school students' conceptual understanding and argumentation performance in science through Quality Talk discussions, Science Education, 102, 1239-1264. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21471
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2011). Writing 2011. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012470.pdf
National Research Council. 2015. Guide to implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18802.
Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 273–304. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.46.3.4
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79-106.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2016). The psychology of far transfer from classroom argumentation. In F. Paglieri, L. Bonelli, & S. Felletti (Eds.), The psychology of argument: cognitive approaches to argumentation and persuasion (pp. 407-423). London: College Publications, Studies in Logic and Argumentation series.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004), Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
Relyea, J. E., Zhang, J., Wong, S. S., Samuelson, C., & Wui, Ma. G. L. (2022). Academic vocabulary instruction and socio-scientific issue discussion in urban sixth-grade classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.2022584
Resnick, L. B., Asterhan C. S. C., & Clarke S. (2015). Introduction: Talk, learning, and teaching. In L.R. Resnick, C.S.C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 1-12). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-43-1_1
Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., Clarke, S., & Schantz, F. (2018). Next Generation Research in Dialogic Learning. In G. E. Hall, L. F. Quinn, & D. M. Gollnick (Eds.), Wiley handbook of teaching and learning (pp. 323-338). Wiley-Blackwell.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R.C., Dong, T., Li, Y., Kim, I., & Kim, S. (2008). Learning to think well: Application of argument schema theory. In C. C. Block & S. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 196 – 213). New York, NY: Guilford.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., Mcnurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. Y. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2), 155-175.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3202&3_04
Sadler, T.D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
Sadler T.D. (2011) Situating socio-scientific issues in classrooms as a means of achieving goals of science education. In Sadler T. (Ed.) Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Contemporary trends and issues in science education, 39, 1-9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4_1
Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
Shi, Y., Matos, F., & Kuhn, D. (2019). Dialog as a bridge to argumentive writing. Journal of Writing Research, 11(1), 107-129.https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.11.01.04
Soter, A., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Murphy, P. K., Rudge, L., Reninger, K., & Edwards, M. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 47 (372–391). https://doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.ijer.2009.01.001
Squire, A. & Clark, S. K. (2020). Exploring how fourth-grade emerging bilinguals learn to write opinion essays, Literacy Research and Instruction, 59 (1), 53-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2019.1686093
The Texas Tribune. (2017-18). Budewig Intermediate School. Retrieved from https://schools.texastribune.org/districts/alief-isd/budewig-intermediate-school/
Turner, S. L., & Lapan, R. T. (2005). Evaluation of an intervention to increase non-traditional career interests and career-related self-efficacy among middle-school adolescents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(3), 516-531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.02.005
Venville, G.J., & Dawson, V.M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 952-977.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Studies in communication. Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-000
Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09500690601068095
Wells, G. (1999) Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, X., Anderson, R.C., Morris, J., Miller, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Lin, T., Zhang, J., …Hsu, J. Y. (2016). Improving children’s competence in decision making: Contrasting effects of collaborative interaction and direct instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 53 (1), 194-223. https://doi.org/ 10.3102/0002831215618663
Zhang, J., Niu, C., Munawar, S., & Anderson, R. C. (2016). What makes a more proficient discussion group in English language learners’ classroom? Influence of teacher talk and student backgrounds. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(2), 183-208.
Zhang, J., Lee, G., Iluore, A. C., Relyea, J. E., & Wui, M. G. L. (2022). Fostering civic reasoning through disciplinary literacy. The Reading Teacher. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2143
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 Jie Zhang, Ma. Glenda Lopez Wui, Rosa Nam, Jackie Eunjung Relyea, Sissy S. Wong
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported License.