The skills to make claims based on evidence, i.e. argumentation skills are important for scientists to carry out their work as these skills help them to challenge scientific discoveries and theories, enhance their scientific literacy and solve problems, and ultimately allow science to progress and develop further. The importance of argumentation skills therefore necessitates that such practices be encouraged and developed among students in science classroom learning environments. A number of empirical research has studied the different ways argumentation is developed in the science classrooms as well as the ways of motivating students to participate in argumentation (Kuhn, 2012; Osborne, 2012; Osborne et al., 2004b; Tiberghien, 2007). However, only a few of these have researched into argumentation in practical work (Katchevich et al., 2013). Practical work is an important context for scientific argumentation (Driver et al., 2000). According to Osborne (2012), there are four consequences for school science in the absence of construction of scientific explanations and participation in argumentative discourse within the classroom practice including in practical work. Firstly, it disregards the epistemic teaching and learning in science which is the basic characteristic of science that has contributed to the identification of science practice and the significance of evidence in the culture of improvement in science education. Secondly, restricting student’s opportunity to think about ideas of science and carrying out exploration of the ideas might detach students from being interested or wanting to be involved in science. Thirdly, it constricts the amount of learning routes accessible to students, leading to science teaching and learning that is ineffective or less effective than it could be. Fourthly, it confines the potential of science in school to provide possibilities for students to collaborate, to think critically and creatively, and to support one another in the process of learning. This is because during scientific inquiry, students will acquire greater understanding of scientific ideas when they are able to recognise mistakes in their own arguments and the reasonings of others. Irene Lue Leh Ping, Lilia Halim, Kamisah Osman National University of Malaysia, Malaysia Abstract. Science educational standards are increasingly emphasising on argumentation skills. However, students’ argumentation skills are often not developed well as their experience of science knowledge in schools is often in the form of uncontested facts. This research asserts that argumentation skills should be developed through explicit teaching of argumentation while engaged in practical work that draws on students’ science process skills. In turn, developing argumentation skills also improves their science process skills. Thus, this research sought to examine the effect of the Modified Argument-Driven Inquiry approach (MADI), Inquiry without Argument approach (IWA), and the conventional practical work approach (CON) on the development of argumentation and science process skills of Grade 10 students in practical biology. This research employed the quasi-experimental methodology involving Pre-test Post-test Non-equivalent Control Group design. The data were collected through tests on argumentation skills, science process skills and diffusion and osmosis concepts’ understanding. The MANOVA results showed that there was a significant improvement in the argumentation skills, science process skills and biology understanding among the students who experienced the MADI approach in practical biology. In contrast, students who experienced the IWA approach in practical biology showed significant improvement only in biology understanding.

中文翻译：

---

科学论证的显式教学作为发展论证技能、科学处理技能和生物学理解的一种方法

基于证据提出主张的技能，即论证技能对于科学家开展工作很重要，因为这些技能帮助他们挑战科学发现和理论，提高他们的科学素养和解决问题，最终让科学进步和发展. 因此，论证技巧的重要性需要在科学课堂学习环境中鼓励和发展学生的这种做法。许多实证研究研究了科学课堂中论证的不同发展方式以及激发学生参与论证的方式（Kuhn，2012；Osborne，2012；Osborne 等，2004b；Tiberghien，2007）。然而，其中只有少数研究了实际工作中的论证（Katchevich 等，2013）。实际工作是科学论证的重要背景（Driver 等，2000）。根据 Osborne (2012) 的说法，在课堂实践中，包括在实际工作中，如果没有科学解释的构建和争论性话语的参与，学校科学会产生四种后果。首先，它忽视了科学的认知性教学和学习，这是科学的基本特征，有助于识别科学实践和证据在改善科学教育文化中的意义。其次，限制学生思考科学思想的机会并对其进行探索可能会使学生对科学产生兴趣或不想参与科学。第三，它限制了学生可以使用的学习路线的数量，导致科学教学和学习效率低下或效率低下。第四，它限制了学校科学的潜力，为学生提供合作、批判性和创造性思考以及在学习过程中相互支持的可能性。这是因为在科学探究过程中，当学生能够识别自己论点和他人推理中的错误时，他们将对科学思想有更多的理解。Irene Lue Leh Ping, Lilia Halim, Kamisah Osman 马来西亚国立大学，马来西亚 摘要。科学教育标准越来越强调论证技巧。然而，学生的辩论技巧往往没有得到很好的发展，因为他们在学校的科学知识经验往往是无可争议的事实。本研究断言，应通过明确的论证教学来发展论证技能，同时参与利用学生科学过程技能的实际工作。反过来，发展论证技能也提高了他们的科学过程技能。因此，本研究试图检验改良论证驱动探究法 (MADI)、无论证探究法 (IWA) 和传统实践工作法 (CON) 对 10 年级辩论和科学过程技能发展的影响实用生物学的学生。本研究采用准实验方法，包括前测后测非等效控制组设计。这些数据是通过对论证技巧、科学过程技巧以及扩散和渗透概念的理解的测试收集的。MANOVA 结果表明，在实践生物学中体验 MADI 方法的学生在论证技能、科学过程技能和生物学理解方面有显着提高。相比之下，在实践生物学中体验过 IWA 方法的学生仅在生物学理解方面表现出显着提高。