937
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Supporting elementary students’ scientific argumentation with argument-focused metacognitive scaffolds (AMS)

ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon
Pages 1984-2006 | Received 11 Aug 2020, Accepted 21 Jun 2021, Published online: 10 Jul 2021
 

ABSTRACT

Students’ difficulties in scientific argumentation have been widely reported in the literature. Researchers argue that these difficulties result mainly from students’ lack of understanding of the goals and norms of argumentation. Therefore, designing and implementing appropriate instructional scaffolds to facilitate such essential knowledge of argumentation holds pedagogical significance. In this qualitative case study, two kinds of argument-focused metacognitive scaffolds (AMS) – questioning and prompting, and modelling of thinking – were designed and integrated into an elementary science classroom. One science teacher and her 19 students participated in this case study. To explore the pedagogical contributions of AMS, data were collected from multiple sources including classroom observation, interviews with students, and students’ works. AMS in this study supported students to engage in argumentation reflectively, as these scaffolds facilitated the development of students’ understanding of the goals and evidence-related norms of argumentation and abilities of metacognitive monitoring during argumentation. These influences were also recognised and appreciated by students. When AMS gradually reduced, students’ knowledge of argumentation and abilities of metacognitive monitoring were retained and affected how they performed argumentation in new contexts. Pedagogical implications of these findings are discussed.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the teacher and students who participated in this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Availability of data and material

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, [QJ]. The data are not publicly available to protect the privacy of the research participants.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.