Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

DOI 10.1007/s11165-012-9339-5

Argumentation as a Strategy for Conceptual Learning

of Dynamics
Handan Eskin & Feral Ogan-Bekiroglu

Published online: 22 December 2012

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Abstract Researchers have emphasized the importance of promoting argumentation in

science classrooms for various reasons. However, the study of argumentation is still a young
field and more research needs to be carried out on the tools and pedagogical strategies that
can assist teachers and students in both the construction and evaluation of scientific arguments. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of argumentation on students
conceptual learning in dynamics. True-experimental design using quantitative research
methods was carried out for the study. The participants of the study were tenth graders
studying in two classes in an urban all-girls school. There were 26 female students in each
class. Five argumentations promoted in the different contexts were embedded through the
dynamics unit over a 10-week duration. The study concludes that engaging in the argumentative process that involves making claims, using data to support these claims, warranting
the claims with scientific evidence, and using backings, rebuttals, and qualifiers to further
support the reasoning, reinforces students understanding of science, and promotes conceptual change. The results suggest that argumentation should be employed during instruction
as a way to enable conceptual learning.
Keywords Argumentation . Conceptual learning . Physics education . High school students

Introduction
The need to educate students and citizens about how we know and why we believe requires a
focus (1) on how evidence is used in science for the construction of explanations, and (2) on
the criteria used in science to evaluate the selection of evidence and the construction of

F. Ogan-Bekiroglu (*)
Ataturk Egitim Fakultesi OFMA Eitimi Blm Fizik Egitimi Anabilim Dal, Marmara Universitesi,
Gztepe, 34722 Istanbul, Turkey
e-mail: feralogan@yahoo.com
H. Eskin
Vali Muammer Guler Anadolu Ogretmen Okulu, Buyuksehir C Mahallesi, Leylak Sokak No. 16,
Beylikduzu, Istanbul, Turkey
e-mail: handaneskin@yahoo.com

1940

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

explanations (Duschl and Osborne 2002). Critical thinking and reasoning play important
roles in identification, selection, use, and evaluation of evidence. It is in argument that we
are likely to find the most significant way in which higher-order thinking and reasoning
figure in the lives of most people (Kuhn 1992, p. 156). Therefore, argumentation can
facilitate construction of explanations.
Research on argumentation in science education has expanded and intensified considerably over the past two decades (Leito 2000; Sampson and Clark 2008). However, the study
of argumentation is still a young field and more research needs to be carried out on the tools
and pedagogical strategies that can assist teachers and students in both the construction and
evaluation of scientific arguments (Duschl and Osborne 2002). Thus, the aim of this
study was to evaluate the impact of scientific argumentation on students conceptual
understanding.

Argument and Argumentation

There are several definitions for argument and argumentation in the literature. Argument is
the intentional explication of the reasoning of a solution during its development or after it
(Krummheuer 1995). Thus, argumentation is held to be a reasoning strategy and, thus,
comes under the reasoning domains of informal logic and critical thinking (JimnezAleixandre et al. 2000). Zohar and Nemet (2002) state that an argument consists of either
assertions or conclusions and of their justifications, or of reasons or supports. According to
Simon et al. (2006), argument refers to the substance of claims, data, warrants, and backings
that contribute to the content of an argument, whereas argumentation refers to the process of
assembling these components. The common feature of the definitions given above is that
argument includes producing an idea and giving the reason or the evidence behind that idea
while argumentation is the process of arguing.
van Eemeren et al. (1996) identify three types of argument: analytical, rhetorical, and
dialectical. Analytical arguments are grounded in the theory of logic, proceeding inductively
or deductively from a set of premises to a conclusion, and include examples, such as
deduction, material implications, syllogisms, and fallacies. Rhetorical arguments are oratorical in nature and are represented by the discursive techniques employed to persuade.
Dialectical arguments occur during discussion or debate, involving reasoning with premises
that are not evidently true; they are a part of the informal logic domain (van Eemeren et al.,
1996). According to Boulter and Gilbert (1995), the teachers purpose is to build an
understanding with children for that time and place so that the teacher and the children
themselves raise the questions and discuss their investigation in dialogical argument. Thus,
dialectical argument is dialogical. Driver et al. (2000) state that rhetorical argument is one
sided and has limitations in educational settings while dialogical argument is involved when
different perspectives are being examined and the purpose is to reach agreement on
acceptable claims or courses of action.

Why Do We Need Argumentation

Scientists, the public, and students need argumentation for different purposes.
Argumentation is central to scientific practice because scientists frame arguments, weigh
evidence, construct warrants in support of hypotheses, and discuss alternative explanations
(Kuhn 1993; Toulmin 1958). In other words, scientists engage in argumentation to develop

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

1941

and improve scientific knowledge (Erduran et al. 2004; Kitcher 1988; von Aufschnaiter et al.
2008). Science is a process in which scientific knowledge is socially constructed and in
which discursive activity is central to the process of science (Driver et al. 2000; Pera 1994).
Therefore, the argumentative practices of the scientific community are pivotal in the
establishment of knowledge claims (Newton et al. 1999). The public has to use
argumentation to evaluate information deriving from different sources and to assess
the validity and reliability of evidence (Simon et al. 2003; von Aufschnaiter et al.
2008). Students need argumentation to learn science by articulating reasons behind
their views and presenting alternative ideas to or claims about others views (Newton
et al. 1999; von Aufschnaiter et al. 2008). Students construct knowledge with the help of
conceptual, cognitive, epistemic, and social aspects of generating and evaluating arguments
(Duschl 2008).

Conceptual Change
One corollary of constructivist theory is that learning can be viewed as a process of
conceptual change (Palmer 2003). This view was developed into a model of learning as
a conceptual change (CCM) by Posner et al. (1982) by taking the literature on the history
and philosophy of science as well as cognitive theory and research into account. From this
point of view, learning involves an interaction between new and existing conceptions with
the outcome being dependent on the nature of the interaction (Hewson 1992). The key
metaphor of the CCM is that students are scientists. There are two major components to
the CCM (Hewson 1992). The first of these components is the conditions that need to
be met (or no longer met) in order for a person to experience conceptual change. The
second component is the persons conceptual ecology (following Toulmin 1972).
Learners use their conceptual ecology to determine whether different conditions are
met, that is whether a new conception is intelligible (knowing what it means), plausible
(believing it to be true), and fruitful (finding it useful) (Hewson 1992). It is particularly
difficult to achieve conceptual change that requires the revision of ontological and
epistemological presuppositions (Vosniadou 1994). However, conceptual change is possible when students become highly engaged with the issues and arguments (Dole and
Sinatra 1998).

Literature Review on the Role of Argumentation in Science Learning

Argumentation has been a focus of attention for numerous studies. Some studies explored
the components of knowledge and skills needed to reach a decision in socio-scientific
contexts (Jimnez-Aleixandre and Pereiro-Muoz 2002; Patronis et al. 1999; Sadler and
Fowler 2006; Zeidler 1997) while others paid attention to epistemic levels in argument
(Duschl 2008; Kelly and Takao 2002). The literature review for this paper consists of
argumentation research on student learning carried out in scientific contexts.
Mason (1998) studied 12 students attending fifth grade to determine whether the students
could construct more advanced knowledge about the ecological concepts by sharing cognition. Over a 3.5-month period, she gathered data from group discussions, the students
individually written productions and their individual pre- and postinstruction interviews.
Mason revealed that sharing cognition through collective reasoning and arguing was
an important pedagogical strategy to be promoted for knowledge construction and

1942

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

reconstruction in the classroom. Bell and Linn (2000) investigated the effects of argumentation on 172 middle school students conceptual understanding of light, who constructed
their arguments about evidence on the web. Since comparison of pre- and posttests data
demonstrated that students acquired a more normative and robust understanding after a 2week debate project, they concluded that argument-building could promote knowledge
integration. Zohar and Nemet (2002) explored the learning outcomes following the biology
unit in which explicit teaching of argumentation skills was merged into the teaching of
human genetics. The participants in their study were 186 ninth-grade students divided into
experimental and comparison groups in two schools. Their knowledge was assessed by an
open-ended item and 20 multiple-choice items. Due to the fact that students in the experimental group scored significantly higher than students in the comparison group in the test,
the researchers came to the conclusion that integrating explicit teaching of argumentation
into the teaching enhanced performance in biological knowledge. Niaz et al. (2002) aimed to
facilitate freshman general chemistry students understanding of atomic structure with the
help of argumentation. The experimental group had 83 students and the control group had 77
students. After giving instruction to both groups in the traditional manner, the experimental
group argued in discussions while the control group solved traditional problems. After
3 weeks of discussion, both groups presented a monthly exam and after another 3 weeks a
semester exam. The results of Niaz and his colleagues showed that given the opportunity to
argue and discuss, the experimental group exhibited contradictions, resistances, and progressive conceptual change with considerable and consistent improvement. Nussbaum and
Sinatra (2003) searched for the impact of the construction of an argument on the quality of
participants reasoning and their choice of a physics problems solutions. They worked
with 41 undergraduates, most of whom had nave physics knowledge. There were 26
students in the experimental group. The researchers compared the experimental groups
answers to 22 multiple-choice items with the control groups answers that did not argue
the opposite side but rather simply solved the problems and were shown the correct
solutions. Based on the finding that the quality of reasoning used by the experimental
group was significantly better, they suggested that argumentation had potential as a
conceptual change intervention.
Though existing research indicates the contributions of argumentation to students
science learning, research that examines the effects of scientific argumentation by constructing a control group is not a commonly used approach. That is, only the last three studies
mentioned above chose this experimental design. This current study contributes toward a
better understanding of whether argumentation facilitates conceptual knowledge of science
by using a control group.

Purpose of the Study

Reviewing the literature indicates the significant role of argumentation on students knowledge development. However, more empirical research investigating the products of students
learning after they were engaged in argumentation is needed to support the theoretical
assertions about why we need argumentation. Experimental-based approaches could investigate whether regular use of argumentation in science classrooms does lead to significant
gains in conceptual development and cognitive reasoning in science (Duschl and Osborne
2002). Therefore, the research question explored in this current study is as follows: How
does instruction with and without the use of an argumentation intervention affect students
conceptual learning of dynamics?

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

1943

Methodology
True-experimental design using quantitative research methods was carried out for this
study (Krathwohl 1997). A pretest/posttest control group design was conducted to
monitor the development of students understanding of the concepts of dynamics over
time and to measure the impact of implementation of argumentations on students
conceptual learning.
Participants and Settings
Participants in the study were tenth graders studying in an urban all-girls school. The
research was conducted in two physics classrooms, one was experimental and one was
control. The experimental class was randomly selected by drawing lots. There were 26
female students in each class. Their ages were between 16 and 17 years. Since the
educational system, which forms the context of this study, has a national curriculum in all
grades, the participants were taught the concepts of force, motion, velocity, displacement,
time, inertia, frictional force, and resultant force and effects of force on moving and nonmoving objects in the seventh grade. Newtons Laws, kinematics, gravitation and centripetal
force were the subjects taught in 10th grade. The students in both classes took physics for
4 h/week and worked as groups. Studies show that different types of groupings, in terms of
ability levels, gender, and the number of participants affect group discussion and individuals
behavior (amount of verbal participation, giving and receiving explanations, etc.) (Alexopoulou
and Driver 1996). Thus, the students stayed in the same group throughout the research. Gender
effect was eliminated because all the participants were female.
Treatment and Instructional Context
Both the experimental and control classes were taught the same dynamics concepts with the
same teaching methods by the same teacher. Data were collected from the control and
experimental classes by using the same methods. The only difference between the experimental and control classes was that argumentation sequences were employed in the instruction given to the experimental class.
The students in both classes responded to the Force Concept Inventory (FCI)
(Halloun et al. 1995) before and after the instruction.
Five argumentations developed by the researcher and teacher by working together were
embedded through the 10-week dynamics unit. These argumentations were promoted in the
different contexts. Each argumentation lasted almost 80 min, which equates to two lessons.
All of the argumentations were dialogical where different perspectives were being examined
and the purpose was to reach agreement on acceptable claims or courses of action (Driver et
al. 2000). The following findings were taken into account while preparing and promoting the
argumentations:
1. If both the number of argumentations and the length of the intervention time are raised,
the quality of participants argumentation increases (Kuhn et al. 1997). Therefore, the
students in the experimental class engaged in five argumentations and spent considerable amount of time in discussion.
2. The context and content of argumentation affect participants argumentation quality
(Duschl and Osborne 2002; Kelly et al. 1998). Thus, each argumentation was conducted
in a different context. In addition, each argumentation had different content.

1944

3.

4.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

Triggering argumentation is not the main issue; it is much more important to create
environments in which it is rewarding to have a meaningful argument (Veerman et al.
2002). Hence, the teacher behaved very carefully and did not do anything to discourage the
students involvement with argumentations. Instead, the teacher tried to provide opportunities for students to express themselves without fear of ridicule, and to ensure that she was
not the only authority of what counted as an acceptable idea in the classroom.
Activities that encourage dialogical argumentation can provide a context whereby
individuals are able to use each others ideas to construct and negotiate a shared
understanding of a particular phenomenon in light of past experiences and new information (Clark and Sampson 2008). Consequently, all the argumentations were prepared
as dialogical.

Topics that were related to the content of the argumentations are as follows: free fall,
Newtons Second Law, Newtons Third Law, motion in the space, and circular motion. The
students in both classes did activities after the concepts were introduced. Argumentations in
the experimental class were incorporated into the activities. The students in the control class
also did activities without arguing. The activities are summarized in Table 1. The students in
both classes worked in groups during the activities. The group members in both classes were
identified by the authors according to their pretest scores for the purpose of constituting
heterogeneous groups. There were three or four students in each group in both classes. As
mentioned above, the group members remained unchanged through the instruction in order
to keep the group dynamics constant. After group working, the experimental class expressed
their ideas in a whole-class discussion whereas the control group stated their ideas in
question-answer format as whole class.
The first argumentation was about free fall and in the context of eliciting alternative
conceptions. Zeidler (1997) found that students had difficulty in constructing argumentation
in an instructional environment. Besides, the participants were not used to generating
arguments in the classroom. For these reasons, the students were handed worksheets with
various claims for each step. The students were required to choose their claims related to the
stages of motion of a falling ball dropped from a flying plane and to explain the reason
behind their choices. Then, they argued with each other about their claims and wrote their
final thoughts on their worksheets before whole class discussion. The students in the control
class also completed worksheets where the claims were presented to the students as multiple
choices. They talked about their choices with their group members; however, they were not
required to present reasons for their choices. Then, the teacher asked the whole class what
their answers were. They neither criticized nor revised each others choices.
The second argumentation was related to Newtons Second Law and in the context of
designing an experiment. Several researchers indicated the role of argumentation for scientists to develop and improve scientific knowledge (Alexopoulou and Driver 1996; Driver et
al. 1994). Hence, the second argumentation was used in the inquiry process where the
students were asked to design and conduct an experiment to demonstrate the relationship
between force and acceleration. The students in both classes worked in groups and presented
their designs to the whole class at the end. The students in the experimental class argued
about their designs, measurements, and differences in their findings with the help of openended questions in their worksheets. The students in the control class also had worksheets
but they did not argue during the process. That is, they were not required to present
justifications for their designs. Also, the teacher did not want them to show evidence for
their explanations. The first and second argumentations were promoted after the teacher
taught Newtons First Law, Newtons Second Law, and inertial mass.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

1945

Table 1 Activities in the experimental and control classes

Topic of the
activity

Experimental classs activity (argumentation)

Control classs activity

Context of the argumentation

Free fall

Eliciting alternative
conceptions

Newtons
Second Law

Designing an
experiment

Choosing claims, explanation Choosing answers from

multiple choices, stating their
of reasons behind their
choices without presenting
choices, arguing with each
data, and whole class
other about their claims, and
questioning
whole class discussion
Designing and setting an
Arguing about designs,
experiment without giving
measurements, and differences
justifications and showing
in the findings; giving
evidence and making
justifications for their designs;
presentations to whole class
showing evidence for their
explanations; and making
presentations to whole class

Prediction of the results of the

Newtons Third Predictionobservation Prediction of the results of the
contests, explanation of what
Law
explanation
contests by giving reasons,
had happened in their
discussion about what had
observations, and making
happened in their observations,
presentations to whole class
construction of explanations
with evidence, and making
presentations to whole class
Competing theory

Producing alternative solutions Producing alternative solutions

without arguing about them,
for the physics problems and
answering the questions, and
arguing about the solutions,
whole class questioning
answering the questions,
discussion of their answers
by providing data, and whole
class discussion

Circular motion Explanation for a

phenomenon

Determination of the centripetal Determination of the

centripetal force acting on the
force by giving justifications
objects and finding out the
and finding out the
relationship between
relationship between
centripetal force, velocity,
centripetal force, velocity, and
and radius and indication of
radius and indication of the
the directions of the
directions of the parameters by
parameters
presenting reasons

Motion in the
space

The third argumentation was about Newtons Third Law and in the context of prediction
observationexplanation just after teaching of Newtons Third Law. In this argumentation,
the students were given worksheets about a rope-pulling contest between two people in three
different situations. The first situation included two contesting people both of whom were
wearing roller skates, the second situation was related to two contesting people one of whom
was wearing shoes and one of whom was wearing roller skates, and the third situation was
about two contesting people both of whom were wearing shoes. The students were asked to
predict the results of the contests for three different situations and discuss their predictions as
well as their reasons with their peers. Then, demonstrations were done for all the situations
and the students were required to discuss their observations about what had happened and to
construct explanations with evidence. The control class made predictions first and then
explained their observations in a question-answer format. Nevertheless, they neither constructed warrants to support their predictions nor made any discussions about the situations.

1946

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

The groups in both classes presented their previous predictions and explanations to the
whole class. The groups in the experimental class also presented their arguments.
The fourth argumentation was related to motion in the space and in the context of
competing theory after the teacher taught forces of friction. According to Karplus and
Butts (1977), students are not good at thinking and reasoning about abstract concepts.
Motion in a frictionless area is an abstract phenomenon, which cannot be easily observed
and examined in the daily life of students. Hence, some scenes from the movie called
Mission to Mars were used in this argumentation. The students were divided into groups
and watched some parts about some problems from the science fiction movie. After that,
they were asked to argue about alternative solutions of the physics problems that they came
across in the movie because a common framework for encouraging students to engage in
argumentation inside the classroom has focused on providing opportunities for students to
investigate and make sense of complex problems (Sampson and Clark 2009). The students
wrote their explanations into their worksheets followed by the argumentation. Moreover,
they answered some open-ended questions and discussed their answers by providing data.
Examples from the questions were as follows: (a) Could you please explain what the
astronaut did when he ran out of fuel? Why?, (b) What would happen if the astronaut in
the space was a more bulky person? Please explain. The students in the control class were
also required to produce alternative solutions but they did not argue about them. They were
not given opportunities to discuss their answers to the open-ended questions. At the end, the
experimental class engaged in whole class discussion while the control class answered the
teachers questions.
The fifth argumentation was about circular motion and in the context of explanation for a
phenomenon. Students might need some knowledge of dynamics and motion to join the
activity; for that reason, this activity was done at the end of the dynamics unit after teaching
about circular motion. The students were divided into groups. They were shown various
objects in circular motion and asked to determine the centripetal force acting on the objects.
They were also requested to find out the relationship between centripetal force, velocity, and
radius and to indicate the directions of the parameters. The students in the experimental class
were required to give justifications for their assertions. On the other hand, the students in the
control class just identified the centripetal force acting on the objects and established the
relationship without declaring their supports or their claims. Video-based examples were
used in the fourth and fifth argumentation since Schafer et al. (2003) found that providing
students with video-based examples increased the proportion of conversational turns during
feedback. The students in both classes wrote their answers and ideas on their worksheets.
Writing frames provide time for students to think and reflect on their personal views (Rivard
and Straw 2000). Hence, oral work was supported by the use of writing both during debate
and as follow-up work through all the argumentations (Rivard and Straw 2000). Equal time
(80 min) was given to each activity in both classes.
Teacher Preparation
The role of the teacher in helping to facilitate students argumentation appears to be crucial
(Crossa et al. 2008; Veerman et al. 2002). In addition, the teachers ability to implement
argumentation in the classroom is important (Simon et al. 2006). Thus, it is important to
explain how the teacher learned argumentation. The teacher had 7 years of teaching
experience. Meanwhile, she was a graduate student of Science Education. She had completed
graduate courses related to constructivist philosophy, nature of science and educational
research. While she was taking the graduate courses, she had become interested in

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

1947

argumentation and wanted to learn more about argumentation to use it as a teaching strategy
in her classrooms. She was not the kind of teacher who always followed the textbook
closely. She had used various teaching methods and been open for improvement in her
teaching practice before this study. After reading numerous articles about the theory of
argumentation, she had studied examples for promoting argumentation from the book
written by Osborne et al. (2004) and watched their video. Then, she had prepared several
lesson plans to support argumentation, implemented them in her classes and recorded her
teaching. Following the implementation of each lesson, she and her professor (the second
author) had discussed her performances and attitudes as well as her behaviors during her
teaching. They also had talked about her reflections on the lesson. Therefore, the teacher had
been using an argumentation strategy with different students for a year before the study. As a
result, the teacher was quite confident in her abilities to promote argumentations in the
experimental class.
Role of the Researcher and Teacher Intervention
The teacher of both classes was the first author. She had two roles. One was as a teacher and
the other one was as a researcher. However, she was only a teacher throughout the
instruction of dynamics. She did not analyze any data until the dynamics unit was over.
The teacher had known the students for a 1.5 year. This situation enabled her to establish
good communication with the students and to create an environment where the students felt
comfortable about stating their views. One of the roles of the teacher during the argumentations was guidance. She observed the groups, directed the students to the next step,
facilitated argumentations, started and led the whole class discussion, and prevented
irrelevant talk.
Even though the teacher did not adopt her researcher role through the instruction, some
precautions were taken in order to prevent the teachers possible researcher bias. First, the
two researchers prepared the lesson plans and worksheets together both for the control class
and for the experimental class to make sure that the only difference between the classes was
argumentation. Second, each lesson in both classes was videotaped and the two researchers
watched and discussed the teachers acts and performances before the next lesson to prevent
any action that might affect student learning apart from the instruction. There was not any
threat identified in the video recordings regarding research bias. Third, the reliability of
coding was measured. Last, the teachers behaviors were the same during the administrations
of the FCI in both classes.
Data Collection Methods
The students in both classes and the teacher were videotaped during the instruction.
Additionally, the groups were tape-recorded while they were working on the activities.
Furthermore, the FCI was administered in the pre- and posttests. The FCI was developed
by in Hestenes et al. (1992) and revised by Halloun et al. (1995), as cited in Mazur 1997).
This inventory has been translated to many languages and used in much international
research to measure learning of dynamics concepts (Savinainen and Scott 2002). The FCI
measures the following six fundamental concepts in general: kinematics, Newtons First
Law, Newtons Second Law, Newtons Third Law, superposition principle, and kinds of
force. Some of the questions measure more than one concept. There are 30 multiple-choice
questions in the FCI. In order to assess the students conceptual learning in detail, the
students were required to give their reasons for their choices of each question during both

1948

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

administrations of the inventory. The 10-week duration between the pre- and posttests
helped the researchers to control the effect of retesting (Krathwohl 1997). Internal consistency computed by the Kuder Richardson formula 20 was high, with reliability coefficients
of 0.81 for the pretest and 0.83 for the posttest.
Data Analysis
One group from the experimental class was selected randomly and their tape- and videorecordings during the argumentation were analyzed to show that the students in the treatment
class actually argued and provided reasons when they were discussing the claims. Toulmins
Argument Pattern was used to evaluate argumentations. Regarding the components of
Toulmins Argument Pattern, data support the claim, warrant provides a link between the
data and the claim, backing strengthens the warrant, qualifier is a phrase that shows what
kind of degree of reliance is to be placed on the conclusions, and rebuttal points to the
circumstances under which the claim would not hold true (Erduran et al. 2004). The
argumentation was divided into episodes. When the topic was changed during the argumentation or the students moved on to a different question, a new episode was generated. An
excerpt from the motion in the space (the fourth) argumentation is given below as an
example. In this example, the students excerpts and their argumentation codes illustrate
how they argued. The students were working on the following question: What would
happen if the astronaut trying to reach the satellite was three times heavier? Please describe
his motion (from the scene of Mission to Mars movie).
Denise: If the mass of the astronaut increases, his acceleration will decrease (claim).
Denise: If we use F0m.a, the velocity of the astronaut will change. This is more
logical. For example, if the force is 10 and the mass is 1, an object will move with
the acceleration of 10. OK? If the force is 10 but the mass is 2, an object will
move with the acceleration of 5. OK? (data). Therefore, he (the astronaut) would
move slower (warrant).
Olivia: To me, velocity does not change according to mass (rebuttal). I will say
something: If we leave a hammer and a feather at the same time, both of them will
drop with the same velocity, right? (rebuttal).
Mary: They will drop at the same time in the space (qualifier).
Olivia: Their velocity will be the same in the frictionless area I mean, if there is air
maybe their velocity will be different (qualifier). There need to be gravitation in
order to be acceleration, right? (claim). They will drop at the same time in the
frictionless area (warrant).
A bidimensional coding scheme developed by Hogan and Fisherkeller (1996) was used to
analyze the participants responses in the pre- and posttests. In order to do statistical
analysis, numbers were assigned to the codes. If a student chose the correct answer, her
explanation was consistent with scientific knowledge and it was detailed or adequate, her
response was coded as compatible elaborate and given 6. If a student chose the correct
answer, her explanation was consistent with scientific knowledge but it was superficial or
inadequate, her response was coded as compatible sketchy and given 5. If a student
chose the correct choice but her explanation was not scientific, her response was coded as
compatible/incompatible and given 4. On the other hand, if a students choice was not
correct, her explanation was inconsistent with scientific knowledge and it was shallow, her
response was coded as incompatible sketchy and given 3. If a students choice was not
correct, her explanation was inconsistent with scientific knowledge and it was detailed with

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

1949

unrelated concepts, her response was coded as incompatible elaborate and given 2. If a
student made a choice, whether it was correct or not, but she did not explain the reason, her
response was coded as no evidence and given 1. If a student neither made a choice nor
gave an explanation, her response was coded as no response and given 0.
Question 28 is provided as an example for each response code. The question is as
follows: Student a has a mass of 95 kg and student b has a mass of 77 kg. They sit in
identical office chairs facing each other. Student a places his bare feet on the knees of
student b. Student a then suddenly pushes outward with his feet, causing both chairs to
move. During the push and while the students are still touching one another:
A Neither student exerts a force on the other
B Student a exerts a force on student b, but b does not exert any force on a.
C Each student exerts a force on the other, but b exerts the larger force.
D Each student exerts a force on the other, but a exerts the larger force.
E Each student exerts the same amount of force on the other.
Compatible elaboration The correct answer is E. Because mass does not have any
effect here. Based on Newtons third law of motion, when student a exerts the force on
student b, student b exerts the equal and opposite force on student a (response of
student 16 in the control class during the posttest (response of 16C-post)). Student 16s
knowledge level was coded as compatible elaborate because her choice was correct and her
explanation was scientific and adequate.
Compatible sketchy: The correct answer is E because both students exert the same
amount of force on each other (response of 19C-post). Student 19s knowledge level was
coded as compatible sketchy because her choice was correct but her explanation was not
adequate. She just repeated the statement in the choice.
Compatible/incompatible: The correct answer is E. Because the same amount of force
during the interaction makes the students stop (response of 25C-post). Student 25s
knowledge level was coded as compatible/incompatible because her choice was correct
but her explanation was not consistent with the scientific knowledge.
Incompatible sketchy: The correct answer is D. As a slim person, you lost the
rope-pulling contest (response of student 2 in the experimental class during the posttest
(response of 2E-post)). Student 2s knowledge level was coded as incompatible sketchy
because she neither selected the correct choice nor made a clear explanation. She just
simply presented her observation during the third activity.
Incompatible elaboration: The correct answer is D. Because student a was heavier
than student b and also because there was a pushing force, student a exerts the larger
force (response of 13E-post). Student 13s knowledge level was coded as incompatible
elaborate because she gave the wrong answer with a clear explanation.
No evidence: The correct answer is E (response of 18E-post). Student 18s knowledge
level was coded as no evidence because she selected the correct choice but did not make any
explanation. She might have given the correct answer by chance.
The coding scheme of the students knowledge before and after the instruction was made
by the first author. To assess the reliability of this coding, the second author randomly
selected 20 % of the questions from the pre- and posttests and coded the participants
knowledge. Then, the two authors compared their coding and were able to reach 90 %
agreement. The reliability measured by Cohens was 0.69. There seems to be general
agreement that Cohens value should be at least 0.60 or 0.70 (Wood 2007). Consequently,
the coding done for the participants knowledge had adequate reliability. The authors

1950

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

Table 2 Argument components generated by one group during the Newtons Second Law argumentation
Episode

CE

Mary

Denise

Olivia

Zoe

E1

C.D.W.

D.W.

E2

C.D.W.R.

C.D.W.R.

C.D.W.

D.

R*.R*.C.W.

R.

E3

C.D.W.R.

C.D.

R.

W.

E4
E5

C.D.W.R.
C.D.W.R.B.

W.
C.D.W.

R.
B.W. R.

C.D.W.
C.D.

E6
E7

C.D.W.Q.R.B.

R.C.B.W.

Q.C.D.W.

C.D.W.

C.Q.D

C.W.D.R.

C.D.W.

D.R*.

C.W.

E8

D.W.C.R.

D.W.

R*.

C.

D.C.

E episode, CE all components of the episode (if the episode has more than one same component, it is written once),
C claim, D data, CC counter claim, W warrant, Q qualifier, B backing, R rebuttal; R* weak rebuttal

re-coded the knowledge levels that they could not have agreement on and the final coding
scheme was constructed by reaching consensus. The first author then revised all the codes of
the participants conceptual knowledge one more time.
Independent samples t tests were used to compare the experimental classs performances
with the control classs performances. Paired samples t tests were performed in order to
make comparisons within the classes. Effect size was computed to quantify the effectiveness
of the argumentation intervention on students conceptual learning. Moreover, frequency
analysis was done between the classes posttest codes to compare their conceptual understanding question by question for the concepts related to the topics handled during the
activities. The concepts were mentioned in both classes but they were mentioned during the
argumentations in the experimental class.

Results and Discussion

Table 2 gives the argument components generated during the Newtons Second Law
argumentation to provide evidence that the students in the experimental class argued during
the activities. This table can be representative of the class in a way that many of the students
generated arguments. However, this table cannot represent the class from the perspectives of
argumentation quality and student participation. Students quality and quantity of arguments
and their participation changed through time (see Authors, 2012).
The whole data gathered from both classes in pre- and posttests were almost normally
distributed with skewness of 0.71 (SE00.23) and kurtosis of 0.01 (SE00.46) and with
close mean and median values (M02.98, median02.86).
Table 3 The results of independent samples t tests for the classes
Group
Pretest
Posttest

Mean (standard deviation)

Control class

2.76 (0.29)

Experimental class

2.58 (0.22)

Control class

3.02 (0.40)

Experimental class

3.55 (0.38)

*p00.013; **p<0.001

df
2.58*

50

4.77**

50

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

1951

Table 4 The results of paired samples t tests for the classes

Group

Measurement

Mean difference (standard deviation)

df

Control class

Pretestposttest

0.25 (0.42)

3.11*

25

Experimental class

Pretestposttest

0.97 (0.40)

12.10**

25

*p00.005; **p<0.001

The results of independent samples t tests given in Table 3 show that the control classs
performance (M02.76, SD00.29) was a little higher than the experimental classs performance ((M02.58, SD00.22), t (50)02.58, p00.013) before the instruction. Nonetheless,
Table 3 also shows that the experimental classs achievement on the FCI (M03.55,
SD00.38) was significantly higher compared with the control classs achievement
((M03.02, SD 00.40), t (50)04.77, p<0.001) after the instruction.
The results of paired samples t tests given in Table 4 supported the results of independent
samples t-tests. According to Table 4, the control classs post FCI scores were better than
their pre-FCI scores ((Mprepost 00.25), t (25)03.11, p00.005). Similarly, the experimental
class showed significantly higher performance in the posttest than they showed in the pretest
((Mprepost 00.97), t (25)012.10, p<0.001). The increase in the students performances
from pretest to posttest was higher for the experimental class than the increase for the control
class. Figure 1 illustrates the mean values of the classes pre- and posttests in the graphic.
Effect size (Hedges and Olkin 1985) for the post-application of the FCI (d01.29) was found
to exceed Cohens (1988) convention for a large effect (d00.80). This large effect size value
indicated that the mean of the experimental class was at the 90th percentile of the control
class and there was a non-overlap of 65.3 % in the two distributions (Cohen 1988).
Comparisons of the students performances on the FCI between the experimental and
control classes and within the classes revealed that construction of arguments supported the
learning process in the classroom. These findings suggest that when students were given a
chance to generate arguments about scientific concepts, they tended to select the scientific

3,8

3,6

Mean

3,4

3,2

3,0

2,8

2,6

2,4
CONTPRE

CONTPOST

Fig. 1 Mean values of the classes pre- and posttests

EXPPRE

EXPPOST

1952

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

Table 5 The coding scheme of the students conceptual knowledge assessed in the posttest based on the
concepts mentioned during the activities
Questions and measured concepts

Codes

Control class
frequency
(%; N026)

Experimental
class frequency
(%; N026)

Q4: Third Law for impulsive forces

Compatible elaborate
Compatible sketchy

46
8

88
4

Incompatible sketchy

Incompatible elaborate

27

Q7: First Law with no force

Q9: Second Law with impulsive force.

Kinematics (vector addition of velocities)

Q10: First Law with constant speed

Q15: Third Law for continuous forces

Q19: Kinematics: Velocity discriminated

from position

Q20: Kinematics: acceleration discriminated

from velocity

Q22: Kinematics: changing speed. Second Law:

constant force implies constant acceleration

Q27: Kinds of force: friction opposes motion

Q28: Third Law for impulsive forces

Q29: Kinds of force: solid contact passive

Compatible elaborate

27

Compatible sketchy

15

Incompatible sketchy

35

23

Incompatible elaborate

39

31

Compatible elaborate
Compatible sketchy

4
12

19
31

Incompatible sketchy

39

12

Incompatible elaborate

27

12

Compatible elaborate

15

39

Compatible sketchy

12

27

Incompatible sketchy

62

Incompatible elaborate

12

15

Compatible elaborate
Compatible sketchy

8
12

50
4

Incompatible sketchy

27

12

Incompatible elaborate

46

15

Compatible elaborate

12

62

Compatible sketchy

15

Incompatible sketchy

31

Incompatible elaborate

31

23

Compatible elaborate
Compatible sketchy

19
19

54
12

Incompatible sketchy

31

Incompatible elaborate

12

15

Compatible elaborate

27

Compatible sketchy

Incompatible sketchy

54

46

Incompatible elaborate

35

23

Compatible elaborate
Compatible sketchy

12
12

35
15

Incompatible sketchy

50

35

Incompatible elaborate

23

15

Compatible elaborate

31

42

Compatible sketchy

19

23

Incompatible sketchy

Incompatible elaborate

35

19

Compatible elaborate

27

50

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

1953

Table 5 (continued)
Questions and measured concepts

Codes

Control class
frequency
(%; N026)

Experimental
class frequency
(%; N026)

Compatible sketchy

15

Incompatible sketchy

23

39

Incompatible elaborate

27

choices of the questions from the FCI, made better explanations for their choices and
reached higher level of conceptual understanding.
Table 5 demonstrates the frequency values of the codes developed based on the students
conceptual understanding of the concepts stated in both classes activities and assessed in the
posttest. The codes of compatible/incompatible, no evidence and no response are not
presented due to the length of the table. Regarding the posttest results given in Table 5,
the frequency value of the compatible elaborate code in the experimental class was higher
than the frequency value of this code in the control class for the following questions of the
FCI in the post-application: Q4, Q7, Q9, Q10, Q15, Q19, Q20, Q22, Q27, Q28, and Q29.
These questions were related to the concepts handled in the activities. Consequently,
although the students in both groups used the same concepts in their activities, the students
who discussed the concepts in the argumentation context could develop more scientific and
detailed knowledge of the concepts than the students in the control class could.
All the findings presented in Tables 3 through 5 support the idea that there can be
significant gains in students conceptual understanding by giving reasons behind their ideas,
defending their claims while showing evidence and producing rebuttals while countering
their peers arguments. Controlling of the variables provided the means of ensuring that the
conceptual gain in the experimental class compared with the control class was due to the
argumentation intervention. This result is compatible with the results presented by a number
of researchers (Bell and Linn 2000; Mason 1998; Niaz et al. 2002; Nussbaum and Sinatra
2003; Zohar and Nemet 2002). However, the result obtained by von Aufschnaiter et al.
(2007) is opposite to the result of this current study. According to von Aufschnaiter et al.
(2007), although argumentation seems to have a strong potential for students engagement in
science context, the learning of new science concepts via lessons based on argumentation
seems to be limited. Differences in the contexts of the studies could cause this discrepancy.
The teacher also acted as a researcher in this study. Nevertheless, the two researchers
worked together from the beginning to the end and watched video recordings of the lessons.
Furthermore, two researchers coded student learning separately. All these processes might
eliminate the researcher bias. Besides, previous studies presented no significant differences
in the performance of argumentation skills based on gender (Zohar and Nemet 2002). For
these reasons, the results of this study could represent an important reference point for
further research.

Conclusion and Implications of the Study

Research suggests that experimental-based approaches can be used to investigate the effects
of using argumentation on conceptual development. This study examined the students
learning when argumentation was promoted in the classroom. It can be concluded from

1954

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

the study that engaging in the argumentative process that involved making claims, using data
to support these claims, warranting the claims with scientific evidence, and using backings,
rebuttals, and qualifiers to further support the reasoning, reinforced students understanding
of science and promoted conceptual change. In other words, the argumentation process
facilitated the construction of scientific conceptions. The reason for this facilitation might be
that students became aware of their existing knowledge and revised their representations
while they were arguing. Writing during the argumentation episodes, moreover, might give
students opportunity to think through arguments and foster learning.
Hogan et al. (1999) state that students do not always spontaneously develop hypotheses,
reason, explain, elaborate, and justify through their verbal interactions and they do not
clarify their own or their peers understandings. This study shows that promoting argumentation might help to create such an environment in the classrooms. Vosniadou et al. (2001)
made the following recommendations for designing a learning environment to promote
conceptual change in science: breadth of coverage of the curriculum, order of acquisition
of the concepts involved, taking into consideration students prior knowledge, facilitating
metaconceptual awareness, addressing students entrenched presuppositions, motivation for
conceptual change, cognitive conflict, and providing models and external representations.
The results of this study demonstrate that embedding argumentation in instruction might
involve almost all of these recommendations because more conceptual change was produced
by the students who argued about dynamics concepts. In parallel to this conclusion,
Jimnez-Aleixandre and Erduran (2008) explain that argumentation supports the access
to the cognitive and metacognitive process, the development of communicative competences, the achievement of scientific literacy, the enculturation into the practices of
the scientific culture, and the development of reasoning.
This study has several implications. The results suggest that argumentation should be
disseminated through instruction as a way to enable conceptual learning. Additionally, the
contexts and contents of the five argumentations in this study could be examples for others
who want to implement argumentation into their teaching. This study adds to the current
science education literature by demonstrating empirically the link between argumentation
and learning. Further studies would trace students involvement with scientific argumentations during argumentation process and thus, they would explore how argumentation
improves knowledge.

References
Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: peer interaction modes in pairs and
fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 10991114.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web
with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797817.
Boulter, C. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (1995). Argument and science education. In P. J. M. Costello & S. Mitchell
(Eds.), Competing and consensual voices: the theory and practice of argumentation (pp. 8498).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate
structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293321.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence
Earlbaum Associates.
Crossa, D., Taasoobshirazib, G., Hendricksc, S., & Hickeya, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: a strategy for
improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education,
30(6), 837861.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

1955

Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge.
Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 109128.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the
classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 512.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287312.
Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimnez-Aleixandre
(Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 155179). Dordrecht: Springer.
Duschl, A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education.
Studies in Science Education, 38, 3972.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation:d in the application of Toulmins
argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915933.
Halloun, I., Hake, R., Mosca, E., & Hestenes, D. (1995). Force concept inventory. Available from http://
modeling.la.asu.edu/modeling.html. Accessed 24 May 2001 (password protected)
Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3),
141151.
Hewson, P. W. (1992). Conceptual change in science teaching and teacher education. Paper presented at a
meeting on Research and Curriculum Development in Science Teaching, Madrid, Spain, June
Hogan, K., & Fisherkeller, J. (1996). Representing students thinking about nutrient cycling in ecosystems:
bidimensional coding of a complex topic. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 941970.
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Presley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in
peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379432.
Jimnez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodrguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science:
argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757792.
Jimnez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Muoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers?
Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science
Education, 24(11), 11711190.
Jimnez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: an overview.
In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimnez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 327).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Karplus, R., & Butts, D. P. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 14(2), 169175.
Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students reasoning about electricity: combining performance
assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849871.
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: an analysis of university oceanography
students use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314342.
Kitcher, P. (1988). The child as parent of the scientist. Mind and Language, 3(3), 215228.
Krathwohl, D. R. (1997). Methods of educational and social science research: an integrated approach.
Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The
emergence of mathematical meaning: interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229269). Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155178.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science
Education, 77, 319337.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, W., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning.
Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287315.
Leito, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332360.
Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: the role of oral and
written discourse. Instructional Science, 26, 359389.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: a users manual. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science.
International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553576.
Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86, 505525.
Nussbaum, M., & Sinatra, G. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 28, 384395.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, evidence and argument in science: in-service training
pack, resource pack and video. London: Nuffield Foundation.

1956

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:19391956

Palmer, D. H. (2003). Investigating the relationship between refutational text and conceptual change. Science
Education, 87, 663684.
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students argumentation in decision-making on a socioscientific issue: implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745754.
Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific
conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211217.
Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study.
Science Education, 84, 566593.
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific
argumentation. Science Education, 90, 9861004.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science
education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92,
447472.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation.
Science Education, 93, 448484.
Savinainen, A., & Scott, P. (2002). The force concept inventory: a tool for monitoring student learning.
Physics Education, 37(1), 4552.
Schafer, N. J., Hickey, D. T., Zuiker, S., Kruger, A. C., & Russell, H. A. (2003). Using videofeedback to
facilitate classroom assessment conversation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, April
Simon, S., Osborne, J., & Erduran, S. (2003). Systemic teacher development to enhance the use of argumentation in school science activities. In J. Wallace & J. Loughran (Eds.), Leadership and professional
development in science education: new possibilities for enhancing teacher learning (pp. 198217).
London: Routledge.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in
the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2/3), 235260.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding: the collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Wood, J. M. (2007). Understanding and computing Cohens Kappa: A tutorial. WebPsychEmpiricist.
Available from http://wpe.info/papers_table.html. Accessed 3 October 2007
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W.,
Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: a handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Veerman, A., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2002). Collaborative argumentation in academic education.
Instructional Science, 30, 155186.
von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2007). Contributions from science education
research. In R. Pinto & D. Couso (Eds.), Argumentation and the learning of science (pp. 377388).
Dordrecht: Springer.
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), 101131.
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4,
4569.
Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11, 381419.
Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483496.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in
human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 3562.