Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining Elementary Students’ Development of Oral and Written Argumentation Practices Through Argument-Based Inquiry

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Argumentation, and the production of scientific arguments are critical elements of inquiry that are necessary for helping students become scientifically literate through engaging them in constructing and critiquing ideas. This case study employed a mixed methods research design to examine the development in 5th grade students’ practices of oral and written argumentation from one unit to another over 16 weeks utilizing the science writing heuristic approach. Data sources included five rounds of whole-class discussion focused on group presentations of arguments that occurred over eleven class periods; students’ group writings; interviews with six target students and the teacher; and the researcher’s field notes. The results revealed five salient trends in students’ development of oral and written argumentative practices over time: (1) Students came to use more critique components as they participated in more rounds of whole-class discussion focused on group presentations of arguments; (2) by challenging each other’s arguments, students came to focus on the coherence of the argument and the quality of evidence; (3) students came to use evidence to defend, support, and reject arguments; (4) the quality of students’ writing continuously improved over time; and (5) students connected oral argument skills to written argument skills as they had opportunities to revise their writing after debating and developed awareness of the usefulness of critique from peers. Given the development in oral argumentative practices and the quality of written arguments over time, this study indicates that students’ development of oral and written argumentative practices is positively related to each other. This study suggests that argumentative practices should be framed through both a social and epistemic understanding of argument-utilizing talk and writing as vehicles to create norms of these complex practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The results of Chi-square goodness-of-fit test are as follows: χ 2 (5) = 223.52, p < 0.01, from first round to second round; χ 2 (5) = 30.24, p < 0.01, from second round to third round; χ 2 (5) = 47.47, p < 0.01, from third round to fourth round; χ 2 (5) = 18.71, p < 0.01, from fourth round to fifth round; χ 2 (5) = 904.64, p < 0.01, from first round to fifth round.

  2. The results of Chi-square goodness-of-fit test are as follows: χ 2 (4) = 8072.44, p < 0.01, from first round to second round; χ 2 (4) = 95.03, p < 0.01, from second round to third round; not significant at the 0.01 level from third round to fourth round; χ 2 (4) = 21.82, p < 0.01, from fourth round to fifth round; χ 2 (4) = 63112.95, p < 0.01, from first round to fifth round.

  3. The results of Chi-square goodness-of-fit test are as follows: χ 2 (1) = 219.44, p < 0.01 (Defending); χ 2 (1) = 20596.21, p < 0.01 (Supporting); χ 2 (1) = 7663.5, p < 0.01 (Rejecting).

  4. The results of Chi-square goodness-of-fit test are as follows: Defending: not significant at the 0.01 level for first round to second round; χ 2 (1) = 68.3, p < 0.01, for second round to third round; not significant at the 0.01 level for third round to fourth round; χ 2 (1) = 7.79, p < 0.05, for fourth round to fifth round; Supporting: χ 2 (1) = 9728.52, p < 0.01, for first round to second round; χ 2 (1) = 5, p = 0.025, for second round to third round; not significant at the 0.01 level for third round to fourth round and fourth round to fifth round; Rejecting: χ 2 (1) = 45.69, p < 0.01, for first round to second round; χ 2 (1) = 71.69, p < 0.001, for second round to third round; not significant at the 0.01 level for third round to fourth round and fourth round to fifth round.

  5. The results of Wilcoxon signed-rank test are as follows: Ecosystems: Z = −2.38, p = .017; Human Body Systems—the digestive system: Z = −2.28, p = .017; Human Body Systems—the respiratory system: Z = −2.38, p = .018.

  6. In the USA, several states have an emerging and underserved population of students who learn the English language in addition to his or her native language, such as Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas.

References

  • Alexander, R. (2015). Dialogic pedagogy at scale: Oblique perspectives. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 429–440). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arzarello, F., & Sabena, C. (2011). Semiotic and theoretic control in argumentation and proof activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(2–3), 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science (p. 59). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benus, M. J. (2011). The teacher’s role in the establishment of whole class dialogue in a fifth grade science classroom using argument-based inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.

  • Berland, L., & Crucet, K. (2016). Epistemological trade-offs: Accounting for context when evaluating epistemological sophistication of student engagement in scientific practices. Science Education, 100(1), 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bieda, K. N. (2010). Enacting proof-related tasks in middle school mathematics: Challenges and opportunities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(4), 351–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böttcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2011). Argumentation in science education: A model-based framework. Science & Education, 20(2), 103–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, M. (2009). Drawing, visualisation and young children’s exploration of “big ideas”. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 319–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, T., Franke, M., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in elementary school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M., & Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaopricha, S. (1997). Coauthoring as learning and enculturation: A study of writing in biochemistry. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin, Madison.

  • Chen, Y.-C., Hand, B., & McDowell, L. (2013). The effects of writing-to-learn activities on elementary students’ conceptual understanding: Learning about force and motion through writing to older peers. Science Education, 97(5), 745–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.-C., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2016). Teacher roles of questioning in early elementary science classrooms: A framework promoting student cognitive complexities in argumentation. Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-015-9506-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.-C., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the use of talk and writing for students’ development of scientific knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition & Instruction. doi:10.1080/07370008.2016.1145120.

  • Chen, Y. C., & Steenhoek, J. (2014). Arguing like a scientist: Engaging students in core scientific practices. The American Biology Teacher, 76(4), 231–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, A. (2008). A study of student written argument using the science writing heuristic approach in inquiry-based freshman general chemistry laboratory classes. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, A., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2014). Grade 5 students’ online argumentation about their in-class inquiry investigations. Research in Science Education, 44(2), 267–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.

  • Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding Principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition & Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into Argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’ s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1998). “You're going to want to find out which and prove it”: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 527–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraivillig, J. L., Murphy, L. A., & Fuson, K. C. (1999). Advancing children’s mathematical thinking in everyday mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 148–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association and National Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K. (Ed.). (2005). Visualisation in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Nam, C., Cavagnetto, A. R., & Norton-Meier, L. (2013). The science writing heuristic (SWH) approach as an argument-based inquiry. Roundtable discussion at 1st international conference on immersion approaches to argument-based inquiry (ABI) for science classrooms, Busan, South Korea.

  • Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Osborne, J., & Wild, A. (2015). Beyond construction: Five arguments for the role and value of critique in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1668–1697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, D. C. (2013). Statistical methods for psychology (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I.-H., Kuo, L.-J., et al. (2011). Influence of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 91–115). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. (2014). Determinism and underdetermination in genetics: Implications for students’ engagement in argumentation and epistemic practices. Science & Education, 23(2), 465–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, M. E. (2015). Extra! Extra! Read all about it: Teacher scaffolds interactive read-alouds of a dynamic text. The Elementary School Journal, 115(3), 358–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 143–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konstantinidou, A., & Macagno, F. (2013). Understanding students’ reasoning: Argumentation schemes as an interpretation method in science education. Science & Education, 22(5), 1069–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning cognition and instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (Eds.). (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y., & Kinzie, M. (2012). Teacher question and student response with regard to cognition and language use. Instructional Science, 40(6), 857–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive development, 23(4), 512–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87–113). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manz, E. (2014). Representing student argumentation as functionally emergent from scientific activity. Review of Educational Research. doi:10.3102/0034654314558490.

  • Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom: A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’ views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 793–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metz, K. E. (2011). Disentangling robust developmental constraints from the instructionally mutable: Young children’s epistemic reasoning about a study of their own design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(1), 50–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nam, J., Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2011). Implementation of the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach in 8th grade science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5), 1111–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: NGA and CCSSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, K., Gillies, R., & Hedberg, J. (2015). Argumentation-based collaborative inquiry in science through representational work: Impact on primary students’ representational fluency. Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-014-9456-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims, and evidence: The important place of argument in children’s science writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 443–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S. D., Jennings, N. R., Mcburney, P., Parsons, S., & Sonenberg, L. (2003). Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(04), 343–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., & Kuo, L.-J. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. The Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 449–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reznitskaya, A., Glina, M., Carolan, B., Michaud, O., Rogers, J., & Sequeira, L. (2012). Examining transfer effects from dialogic discussions to new tasks and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(4), 288–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryve, A. (2011). Discourse research in mathematics education: A critical evaluation of 108 journal articles. Journal for research in mathematics education, 42(2), 167–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Walker, J. P. (2012). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate students write to learn by learning to write in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1443–1485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Çam, A. (2011). Elementary children’s judgments of the epistemic status of sources of justification. Science Education, 95(3), 383–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., Sodian, B., Koerber, S., & Wong, J. (2014). Developing children’s early competencies to engage with science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheskin, D. (2004). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures (3rd ed.). Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, S. (1957). Nonparametric statistics. The American Statistician, 11(3), 13–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieff, M., Hegarty, M., & Deslongchamps, G. (2011). Identifying representational competence with multi-representational displays. Cognition and Instruction, 29(1), 123–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Open coding. In A. Strauss & J. Corbin (Eds.), Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed., pp. 101–121). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., & Cowan, B. M. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92(1), 65–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher’s role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current Realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy-empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 291–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zangori, L., Forbes, C. T., & Biggers, M. (2013). Fostering student sense making in elementary science learning environments: Elementary teachers’ use of science curriculum materials to promote explanation construction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 989–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Teacher Preparation, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287-5411, USA

    Ying-Chih Chen

  2. Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242-7700, USA

    Brian Hand

  3. STEM Education Department, College of Education, North Carolina State University, 326 K Poe Hall, Campus Box 7801, Raleigh, NC, 27695-7801, USA

    Soonhye Park

Authors
  1. Ying-Chih Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian Hand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Soonhye Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ying-Chih Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, YC., Hand, B. & Park, S. Examining Elementary Students’ Development of Oral and Written Argumentation Practices Through Argument-Based Inquiry. Sci & Educ 25, 277–320 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9811-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9811-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation