Argumentative writing as a tool to develop conceptual and epistemic knowledge in a college chemistry course designed for non-science majors

ABSTRACT

This study used a quasi-experimental design to examine the effects of argumentative writing on non-science majors’ conceptual understanding and the growth of their writing skills over a semester. To assess gain in conceptual knowledge, tests were given before and after the course; students in the writing group gained significantly more than students in the control group. Results showed that argumentative writing was a predictor of student performance on such tests. Those starting the course with a low level of content knowledge and female students benefited the most from the writing exercises. Regression analysis suggested that four components of writing were predictive of student conceptual performance: the relationship between claim and question, the relationship between claim and evidence, use of multiple examples, and the match between writing type desired and actual writing. Longitudinal growth analysis indicated that the quality of student writing, and thus their understanding of scientific practice, increased modestly over time. Repeated framing of expectations using content-related examples about what constitutes good argumentative writing is an important factor in the improvement of student writing. Pedagogically, instructors planning to implement argumentative writing for conceptual and epistemic development should consider these four components as a pedagogical model.

KEYWORDS:

• Argumentative writing
• language tool
• writing growth
• epistemic knowledge
• interactive online-based simulations

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the feedback of Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Sibel Erduran, two anonymous reviewers, and Terry Christenson at Knowledge Enterprise of Arizona State University, on an earlier version of the paper.

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1 This study refers rhetoric space as epistemic space when writing is used in science learning and instruction (Kelly & Bazerman, 2003).

2 The instructor wished to receive good evaluations from students because they would impact her annual evaluation and tenure promotion. She was very aware of the equity issue related to the two groups.

3 Students in control groups also experience Step 1 and 2, but not Step 3 and 4, described in Section 3.1.