Skip to main content
Log in

Effect of Scientific Argumentation on the Development of Critical Thinking

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper reports a study that focussed on investigating the effectiveness of Toulmin’s argument pattern (TAP) within Think-Read-Group-Share-Reflect (TRGSR) scientific argumentation strategy on higher secondary students’ critical thinking. A quasi-experimental, pretest-posttest-control group design was deployed. The subjects were 50 twelfth grade students. The experimental group was taught with TAP within TRGSR scientific argumentation strategy, and on the other hand, the control group was taught with the traditional teaching approach (regular way of teaching that happens in the school otherwise). To measure the critical thinking ability, Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal Form–S was administered to both groups as a pre- and a posttest. The test contained 40 items with 5 elements (inference, recognition of assumptions, deduction, interpretation, and evaluation of arguments). After a 9-week-long intervention, analysis of covariance findings showed that there was a significant difference on the students’ critical thinking ability between experimental and control groups. The students who were exposed to TAP within TRGSR scientific argumentation strategy proved to improve the ability of critical thinking. TAP coupled with TRGSR scientific argumentation strategy is relatively more effective in developing critical thinking ability than the traditional teaching approach.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Alliance for Innovative Schools. (2011). Think-Write-Pair-Share: Lyman, 1981. (Online), (http:// allofe.indep.k12.mo.us/gen/indep_generated_bin/ documents/ basic_module/ Cooperative_Learning_ Activities.pdf, retrieved on October 17th 2013).

  • Balci, C., & Yenice, N. (2015). Effects of the scientific argumentation based learning process on teaching the unit of cell division and inheritance to eighth grade students. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 2(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.28130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bathgate, M., Crowell, A., Schunn, C., Cannady, M., & Dorph, R. (2015). The learning benefits of being willing and able to engage in scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1590–1612. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1045958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butchart, S., Forster, D., Gold, I., Bigelow, J., Korb, K., & Oppy, G. (2009). Improving critical thinking using Web based argument mapping exercises with automated feedback. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 268–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R., Taylor, J. et al. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.

  • Cansoy, R., Parlar, H., & Polatcan, M. (2018). Teacher candidates’ critical thinking tendencies research in Turkey: a content analysis. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(9), 1974–1980. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.060916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choy, S. C., Abdul, T., & Cheah, P. K. (2009). Teacher perceptions of critical thinking among students and its influence on higher education. The International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 198–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010a). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www. corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010b). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf

  • D’Souza, A. N. (2018). Enhancing and evaluating scientific argumentation in the inquiry oriented college chemistry classroom. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/2007155938?accountid=48425

  • Dewey, J. (1998) How we think. Dover Publications. (The beginnings of the modern tradition of critical thinking; first published 1909.)

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education.

  • Duschl, R. A., Scweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2016). Argumentation and deliberative democracy: an incompatible mix in school science? Theory Into Practice, 55(4), 302–310.

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran., S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, J. M. (2012). Research on argumentation in science education in Europe. In, D. Jorde, & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science Education Research and Practice in Europe: Retrospective and Prospective, pp. 253–289. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

  • Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, J. (2007). Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research. London: Springer.

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: developments in the use of Toulmin’s argument pattern in studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Union. (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal ofthe EuropeanUnion, 30-12-2006,L394/10-L 394/18.

  • Fisher, A. and Scriven, M. (1997) Critical thinking: its definition and assessment. Edgepress and Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.

  • Geddis, A. (1991). Improving the quality of classroom discourse on controversial issues. Science Education, 75, 169–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • High, M. H. (1991). Assessing the effect of high school lessons in thinking skills. High School Journal, 75(1), 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iordanou, K. (2013). Developing face-to-face argumentation skills: does arguing on the computer help? Journal of Cognition and Development, 14(2), 292–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabatas Memis, E., & Ezberci Cevik, E. (2017). Examination of students’ small groups discussion in argumentation process: scientific and socio-scientific issues. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH), 3(2), 126–137. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.325788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). Metacognition: a bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory Into Practice, 43(4), 268–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larrain, A., Freire, P., Grau, V., López, P., Salvat, I., Silva, M., & Gastellu, V. (2018). The effect of peer-group argumentative dialogue on delayed gains in scientific content knowledge. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 162, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for intermediate statistics: use and interpretation.

  • McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: the impact of professional development on K-12 teachers. Science Education, 97, 936–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. (1996). An analysis of children’s construction of new knowledge through their use of reasoning and arguing in classroom discussions. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(4), 411–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 947–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, M. C. (1998). Can we trace the “efficacy of social constructivism”? Review of Research in Education, 23, 25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: a framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.

  • OECD. Education at a Glance 2009: OECD Publishing.

  • Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2013). PISA 2015 draft science framework. Paris: OECD.

  • Özdem Yilmaz, Y., Cakiroglu, J., Ertepinar, H., & Erduran, S. (2017). The pedagogy of argumentation in science education: science teachers’ instructional practices. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1443–1464. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1336807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimvichai, J., Yuenyong, C., & Buaraphan, K. (2019). Development of grade 10 students’ scientific argumentation through the science-technology-society learning unit on work and energy. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 9(3), 428–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Grooms, J. (2010). Generate an argument: an instructional model. The Science Teacher, 77(5), 32–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: an exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sevgi, Y., & Şahin, F. (2017). The effects of discussion the socio-scientific subject in the newspaper based on argumentation 7th grades students’ critical thinking<p>Gazete haberlerindeki sosyobilimsel konuların argümantasyon yöntemiyle tartışılmasının 7.sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(1), 156. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v14i1.4289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. (1991). Group discussions in the classroom. School Science Review, 72, 29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Songsil, W., Pongsophon, P., Boonsoong, B., & Clarke, A. (2019). Developing scientific argumentation strategies using revised argument-driven inquiry (rADI) in science classrooms in Thailand. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-019-0035-x.

  • States, N. L. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suhartoyo, E., Mukminatien, N., & Laksmi, E. D. (2015). The effect of Toulmin’s model of argumentation within TWPS strategy on students’ critical thinking on argumentative essay. Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora, 3(2), 143–153 Retrieved from http://journal.um.ac.id/index.php/jph. Accessed 10 Sep 2019.

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twardy, C. R. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gelder, T., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 58(2), 142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, C., Hand, B., & Yang, E.-M. (2005). The science writing heuristic: using writing as a tool for learning in the laboratory. In W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, G. B., & Glaser, E. M. (1994). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal form s manual.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zain, A. R., & Jumadi. (2018). Effectiveness of guided inquiry based on blended learning in physics instruction to improve critical thinking skills of the senior high school student. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1097, 12015.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is based on the author’s PhD thesis named “Effect of Scientific Argumentation Strategy of Teaching Biology on Critical Thinking, Metacognition, Academic Achievement among Higher Secondary Students”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vetti Giri.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix. The sample argument

Appendix. The sample argument

Problem: Predict the number of children per woman, to get an appropriate age pyramid by 2050 of the countries like India, China, Iraq, the USA, and Japan

Each group takes a single country to estimate the appropriate population with appropriate age pyramid. Here, for Japan, the illustration is provided as developed by one of the groups.

The fundamental resources used for the above problem are “Annenberg Learner - Teacher resources and professional development across the curriculum”, from this website “Demographics Lab” a simulator was used by students to understand the human population growth, recognize the demographic transition in human history, and gain a sense of how population demographics has a very human impact in all areas of our planet. The following link takes to the demographic lab interactive.

http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/interactives/demographics/demog.html

As explained in Table 2, to begin the teaching learning process, facilitator poses the problem and explains the background of it very briefly, students think of the problem during this point of time, and then, students move on to read the handout individually provided by the facilitator; soon after completion of the reading, they make groups and form the argument.

An argument for appropriate age pyramid of Japan as developed by a group is illustrated below. The following problem is one of the eight activities planned for the experimental group. The researcher presents sample argument of single group; here the argument features only three elements (Claim, Data, and Warrant).

Group 1: Argument

Claim: If Japanese women adopt 2 children per woman their population will be stable.

Data: In Fig. 2a, the data obtained from demographics lab simulator shows that if Japan adopts two children per woman, it shows a stable age pyramid, while in Fig. 2b if the population grows less than 1 child per woman, then the population will be declined (74 M), or if it adopts for 3 children per woman the population density will be too high for Japan. In Fig. 2a, b & c, age pyramids for different numbers of children per woman are shown. From Fig. 2a, it is clear that 2.00 children per woman show a stable age pyramid.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Age pyramids for different numbers of children per woman

Warrant: Japan has always been described as a country with virtually no major natural resources such as natural gas, oil, gold, coal, copper, and iron. Forests in Japan have high-quality and wide varieties of trees. Forty percent of the forests in the country are planted forests. In 2015, the forestry industry in Japan produced approximately 20 million cubic metres of wood, translating to revenue of 436 billion yen (277.22 billion rupees). The industry accounts for 0.04% of the country’s GDP. Agriculture and fishing are the primary sectors of the Japanese economy. However, only 20% of the total land area is suitable for cultivation and agricultural sector is highly subsidized. There are approximately 4 million farm households in Japan. It has a very high standard of living, with its population enjoying the highest life expectancy. Considering all these reasons, 2 or 2.52 children per woman would be appropriate for Japan, to remain self-sufficient. If it goes beyond 3 children per woman, the population age pyramid may be stable but populous density would be very high to such an extent that the country may not support the basic resources of its people, so we conclude that it will be good for Japan to adopt 2.52 children for 1 woman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giri, V., Paily, M.U. Effect of Scientific Argumentation on the Development of Critical Thinking. Sci & Educ 29, 673–690 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00120-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00120-y

Navigation