Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the Quality of Written Scientific Arguments in Different Laboratory Environments

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although physical hands-on laboratory experiments are commonly used in schools, virtual laboratory environments are also being used in science classrooms. Their possibilities and impact on students’ achievement, conceptual understanding, and inquiry skills have been investigated by other researchers. Yet, it is difficult to find studies about the effect of virtual learning environments on written argumentation in science classrooms. In the current study, the influence of hands-on and virtual laboratories on pre-service science teachers’ scientific writing was investigated using the science writing heuristic. The participants were 52 pre-service science teachers who were assigned to two conditions. One group used the hands-on laboratory to design and implement experiments and used a paper-based worksheet to write their arguments; the other group did their investigations through a computer-based virtual-tool laboratory and wrote their arguments on the online learning platform. Pre-service science teachers’ written arguments were evaluated using content analysis. The findings revealed that the overall quality of written arguments created by pre-service science teachers in both laboratory environments was at an intermediate level. Furthermore, pre-service science teachers who learned in the virtual laboratory posed better testable questions, presented strong and valid evidence, and used multiple representations better than their counterparts in the hands-on laboratory. An important conclusion of the current study is that the science writing heuristic can be used effectively in both virtual and hands-on laboratory environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Achuthan, K., & Murali, S. S. (2015). A comparative study of educational laboratories from cost and learning effectiveness perspective. In R. Silhavy, R. Senkerik, Z. K. Oplatkova, Z. Prokopova, & P. Silhavy (Eds.), Software engineering in intelligent systems (pp. 143–153). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S., & van Labeke, N. (2002). Using a multi-representational design framework to develop and evaluate a dynamic simulation environment. Paper presented at the Dynamic Information and Visualization Workshop, Tübingen, Germany.

  • Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745–1765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, C., & Scanlon, E. (2007). Reconsidering simulations in science education at a distance: Features of effective use. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(6), 491–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bretz, S. L. (2019). Evidence for the importance of the laboratory courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(2), 193–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bumbacher, E., Salehi, S., Wieman, C., & Blikstein, P. (2018). Tools for science inquiry learning: Tool affordances, experimentation strategies, and conceptual understanding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(3), 215–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T. J., & Hand, B. (2006). Implementing the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(7), 1032–1038.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkett, V. C., & Smith, C. (2016). Simulated vs. hands-on laboratory position paper. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 8–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cakir, M., & Dogan, O. K. (2015). Teaching Mendelian genetics with a virtual Drosophila laboratory. School Science Review, 97(358), 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. C. (2019). Writing as an epistemological tool: Perspectives from personal, disciplinary, and sociocultural landscapes. In V. Prain & B. Hand (Eds.), Theorizing the future of science education research (pp. 115–132). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & McDowell, L. (2013). The effects of writing-to-learn activities on elementary students’ conceptual understanding: Learning about force and motion through writing to older peers. Science Education, 97(5), 745–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & Park, S. (2016a). Examining elementary students’ development of oral and written argumentation practices through argument-based inquiry. Science & Education, 25(3–4), 277–320.

  • Chen, Y. C., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2016b). Examining the use of talk and writing for students’ development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100–147.

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, A. (2008). A study of written argument using the science writing heuristic approach in inquiry-based freshman general chemistry laboratory classes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/304609585

  • Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2020). Students’ construct and critique of claims and evidence through online asynchronous discussion combined with in-class discussion. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(6), 1023–1040.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, A., Hand, B., & Greenbowe, T. (2013). Students’ written arguments in general chemistry laboratory investigations. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1763–1783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Angelo, C. M., Rutstein, D., & Harris, C. J. (2016). Learning with STEM simulations in the classroom: Findings and trends from a meta-analysis. Educational Technology, 56(3), 58–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: The Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(3), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, J. T. (1988). The remedial status of student questioning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20(3), 197–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J. Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998-2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, M. M. (1999). The role of evidence in argumentative writing. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15(1), 81–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Go-Lab Sharing and Authoring Platform. (2015). https://www.golabz.eu Accessed 27 January 2020.

  • Hand, B. (2017). Exploring the role of writing in science: A 25-year journey. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 25(3), 16–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Chen, Y. C., & Suh, J. K. (2020). Does a knowledge generation approach to learning benefit students? A systematic review of research on the science writing heuristic approach. Educational Psychology Review, 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09550-0.

  • Hand, B., Nam, J., & Choi, A. (2012). Argument-based general chemistry laboratory investigations for pre-service science teachers. Educación Química, 23(1), 96–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohenshell, L., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 261–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, H.-W., & Chiou, G.-F. (2012). The types, frequency and quality of elementary pupils’ questions in an online environment. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 325–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huerta, M., & Garza, T. (2019). Writing in science: Why, how, and for whom? A systematic literature review of 20 years of intervention research (1996-2016). Educational Psychology Review, 31, 533–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jang, J. Y., & Hand, B. (2017). Examining the value of a scaffolded critique framework to promote argumentative and explanatory writings within an argument-based inquiry approach. Research in Science Education, 47(6), 1213–1231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. (2007). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 137–158). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollöffel, B., & de Jong, T. (2013). Conceptual understanding about electrical circuits in secondary vocational engineering education: Combining traditional instruction with inquiry learning in a virtual lab. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), 375–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kontra, C., Lyons, D. J., Fischer, S. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2015). Physical experience enhances science learning. Psychological Science, 26(6), 737–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2009). Do students need to be taught how to reason? Educational Research Review, 4(1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, R. L., & Etopio, E. (2019). Virtual reality simulations and writing: A neuroimaging study in science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(5), 542–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, R. L., Etopio, E., Hand, B., & Yoon, S. Y. (2019). Virtual reality simulation: Effects on academic performance within two domains of writing in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(4), 371–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leinonen, T., Keune, A., Veermans, K., & Toikkanen, T. (2016). Mobile apps for reflection in learning: A design research in K-12 education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 184–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G., & Claassen, L. A. (2001). Improving students’ questions in inquiry labs. The American Biology Teacher, 63(6), 410–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFarlane, A., & Sakellariou, S. (2002). The role of ICT in science education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 219–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nam, J., Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2011). Implementation of the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach in 8th grade science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5), 1111–1133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nivalainen, V., Asikainen, M. A., Sormunen, K., & Hirvonen, P. E. (2010). Preservice and inservice teachers’ challenges in the planning of practical work in physics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(4), 393–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S. Y. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 821–846.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5, part 2), 1189–1208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., Gnesdilow, D., Tissenbaum, C. D., Narayanan, N. H., & Rebello, N. S. (2020). Supporting middle school students’ science talk: A comparison of physical and virtual labs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21664.

  • Pyatt, K., & Sims, R. (2012). Virtual and physical experimentation in inquiry-based science labs: Attitudes, performance and access. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 133–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rau, M. A. (2020). Comparing multiple theories about learning with physical and virtual representations: Conflicting or complementary effects? Educational Psychology Review, 32, 297–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to learn by learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seoane, M. E., Arriassecq, I., & Greca, I. M. (2018). Epistemological debate underlying computer simulations used in science teaching: The designers’ perspective. In M. E. de Brzezinski Prestes & C. C. Silva (Eds.), Teaching science with context (pp. 405–417). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, N. S., & Sadler-McKnight, N. P. (2016). Developing critical thinking skills using the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(1), 72–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, S., Gnesdilow, D., Puntambekar, S., & Kim, J. S. (2017). Middle school students’ learning of mechanics concepts through engagement in different sequences of physical and virtual experiments. International Journal of Science Education, 39(12), 1573–1600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trundle, K. C., & Bell, R. L. (2010). The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1078–1088.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students’ learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 199–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vekli, G. S., & Nazli, C. (2020). Examining the effect of reporting based on science writing heuristic approach on written argument quality in general biology laboratory. Journal of Biological Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2020.1785924.

  • Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students to learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 561–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaman, F. (2018). Investigation of multiple levels of representations in students’ written argument using virtual chemistry laboratory. Elementary Education Online, 18(1), 207–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaman, F. (2019). Effects of the science writing heuristic approach on the quality of prospective science teachers’ argumentative writing and their understanding of scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(3), 421–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, F. Y., Liu, Y. H., Chan, & T. W. (2005). A web-based learning system for question-posing and peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(4), 337–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. C. (2015). Examining whether touch sensory feedback is necessary for science learning through experimentation: A literature review of two different lines of research across K-16. Educational Research Review, 16, 116–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, M., Liu, O. L., & Lee, H. S. (2020). The effect of automated feedback on revision behavior and learning gains in formative assessment of scientific argument writing. Computers & Education, 143, 103668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Faculty of Education, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Hasan Ozgur Kapici & Hakan Akcay

  2. Ministry of National Education, Ankara, Turkey

    Ece Ebrar Koca

Authors
  1. Hasan Ozgur Kapici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hakan Akcay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ece Ebrar Koca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hasan Ozgur Kapici.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kapici, H.O., Akcay, H. & Koca, E.E. Comparison of the Quality of Written Scientific Arguments in Different Laboratory Environments. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 20, 69–88 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10147-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10147-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation