Document Features in Physics Tutorials to Promote College Students’ Use of Argumentation

  • Ozden Sengul Bogazici University

Abstract

Physics Education Research (PER)” groups have designed new teaching and learning environments to give students opportunities to collaborate with their peers. Traditional problem-solving recitations are found ineffective, and they are replaced with research-based course materials to facilitate authentic group discussions in the physics classrooms. For example, “Tutorials in Introductory Physics” or “Physics by Inquiry” were developed to help students make sense of physics concepts and construct their own knowledge via multiple types of representations and group work. In this study, the author explored how “Tutorials in Physics Sense-making” developed by the University of Maryland help students taking algebra-based introductory physics develop conceptual understanding through use of argumentation in small group discussions. The researcher identified physics tutorials’ features through content analysis to understand how these features were helpful in the use of argumentation. This study was built on the analysis of those tutorials and examples of students’ answers for the subjects of Kinematics and Dynamics.

References

Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer‐to‐peer dialog. Cognitive science, 33(3), 374-400.
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), 797-817.
Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of research in science teaching, 49(1), 68-94.
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.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.
Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082-1112.
Campos, E., Silva, L., Tecpan, S., & Zavala, G. (2016). Argumentation during active learning strategies in a SCALE-UP environment. In Physics Education Research Conference.
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.
De Cock, M. (2012). Representation use and strategy choice in physics problem-solving. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(2), 020117.
Docktor, J. L., & Mestre, J. P. (2014). Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 10(2), 020119.
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.
Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., McCaskey, T., Hodges, R., Redish, E. F., Hammer, D., & Bing, T. (2007). Open Source Tutorials in Physics Sensemaking: Suite I.
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.
Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207-245.
Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041-1048.
Goertzen, R. M., Scherr, R. E., & Elby, A. (2009). Accounting for tutorial teaching assistants’ buy-in to reform instruction. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020109.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty‐first century. Science education, 88(1), 28-54.
Jonassen, D. H., Shen, D., Marra, R. M., Cho, Y. H., Lo, J. L., & Lohani, V. K. (2009). Engaging and supporting problem-solving in engineering ethics. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 235-254.
Jimenez- Aleixandre, M. P., & Crujeiras, B. (2017). Epistemic practices and scientific practices in science education. In Science Education (pp. 69-80). Brill Sense.
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), 849-871.
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., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
Meltzer, D. E. (2005). Relation between students’ problem-solving performance and representational format. American Journal of Physics, 73(5), 463-478.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463-466.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of research in science teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Rebello, C. M., Barrow, L. H., & Rebello, N. S. (2013). Effects of argumentation scaffolds on student performance on conceptual physics problems. In Physics Education Conference Proceedings (pp. 293-296).
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
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(3), 447-472.
Sampson, V., Enderle, P., & Grooms, J. (2013). Argumentation in science education. The Science Teacher, 80(5), 30.
Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (2009). Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 27(2), 147-174.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Published
2019-06-07
How to Cite
SENGUL, Ozden. Document Features in Physics Tutorials to Promote College Students’ Use of Argumentation. European Journal of Physics Education, [S.l.], v. 10, n. 2, p. 53-65, june 2019. ISSN 1309-7202. Available at: <http://eu-journal.org/index.php/EJPE/article/view/232>. Date accessed: 17 sep. 2019.
Section
Articles