Examining the Use of Talk and Writing for Students' Development of Scientific Conceptual Knowledge Through Constructing and Critiquing Arguments

ABSTRACT

This study developed an analytic framework consisting of four patterns of talk and writing that can support students' engagement in construction and critique: Talk only, writing only, use of talk and writing in sequence, and use of talk and writing simultaneously. This study aimed to examine how each pattern supports students' development of scientific knowledge through the construction and critique of arguments and what cognitive functions are associated with each pattern. To trace students' knowledge development over time using the four patterns, three students were selected as target subjects. Data were analyzed using two approaches: (1) in-depth analysis of a Knowledge Development Trajectory and (2) constant comparative method. This study highlights elementary students' capability of engaging in argumentation that promotes their scientific knowledge development when provided with proper opportunities, facilitation, and time to recognize that talk and writing can be used as epistemic tools for both constructing and critiquing arguments.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Executive Editor Dr. Joseph Polman for his intellectual contribution and constructive feedback on this work. We also appreciate the anonymous reviewers' valuable feedback for improving this article.

Notes

1. We adopted critiquers rather than critics to emphasize that the evaluation or judgment is positive. While the purpose of critique is to improve individual's work and never personalized nor ad hominem, criticism is more about fault finding and negative judgment.

2. Cavagnetto (2010) reviewed 54 articles related to argumentative approaches and identified three types of orientations for scientific argumentation: (1) immersion in science for learning scientific argument (immersion), (2) learning the structure of argument to learn and apply scientific argument (structure), and (3) experiencing the interaction between science and society to learn scientific argument (socioscientific). Cavagnetto categorized the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) as one of the immersive approaches for learning scientific argument.

3. The participating teacher in this study identified six core concepts within the two units: two for the first unit (Ecosystem) and four for the second unit (Human Body System), shown in Appendix A. The 7 KDTs for each target student were mainly created based on these six core concepts. However, the first core concept (A seed needs air, water, and correct temperature to germinate) contained three sub-concepts, and the three target students did not develop this core concept during one KDT. That is, all of the three target students developed this core concept in two KDTs, respectively. They either developed the concept of “A seed needs air and water to germinate” first and “A seed needs correct temperature to germinate” later, or vice versa. Therefore, 3 KDTs for each target student were created in the first unit and 4 KDTs were created in the second unit.

4. Logically, there could have been a fifth pattern in addition to the four named, a combination of sequential and simultaneous use of talk and writing. That is, a student uses talk only or writing only in one event and use both talk and writing together in another event. However, the fifth pattern did not emerge in this study.