Cover Sheet for contribution to SAARMSTE 2010 Conference

I am/we are submitting the following contribution to the Programme Committee for
consideration for presenting at the SAARMSTE 2010 Conference to be held at the
University of KwaZulu-Natal, Edgewood Campus, Pinetown.

NOTE: Please complete a separate cover sheet for each presentation you are
proposing.
Title of Using an Argumentation-based Instructional Model to enhance
presentation: Teachers’ Ability to Co-construct Scientific Concepts
Initials and C.S Siseho and M.B Ogunniyi
surnames of all
authors:
Presentation type: Short Guided
Long Paper X Paper Snapshot
Poster
(select only one
box) Workshop Round Table Symposium
Please indicate if OH Projector Data Projector X Video Other:
required for (please specify)
presentation: Computer X TV DVD

Chemistry X General science X Mathematics

Subject strand: Physics Life sciences Technology
Environment
Curriculum and assessment reform and evaluation in MSTE X

Promising practices in teaching and learning MST X

Equity, access and quality in MSTE X

Theme:
Teacher education and continuous professional development in X
MSTE
Language and MSTE
Research policy and practice in MSTE
Details of corresponding author: (i.e., author to whom feedback must be submitted)
Name: Simasiku Siseho
Institution/ National Research, Science, Technology and Innovation
Organization:

Postal Address: Government Office Park, Luther Street, Private Bag 13186,
WINDHOEK, Namibia
Work telephone +264 61 270 6141/6
number:
Home telephone +264 61 245 361
number:
Fax number: +264 61 270 6143
Mobile phone number: +264 81 127 6876
Email: 1. simasiku.siseho@gmail.com/ 2. 2444238@uwc.ac.za

Please return this cover sheet, together with your extended abstract or Long Paper, by
15 August 2009 either by post, fax or email (highly preferable) to the SAARMSTE
2010 Programme Committee at the following address:
The Conference Secretariat
c/o University of KwaZulu-Natal
Room 119
Innovation Centre
Howard College
Durban
4001
Using an Argumentation-Based Instructional Model to enhance
Teachers’ Ability to Co-construct Scientific Concepts
1
Siseho CS and 2Ogunniyi MB

1
National Research, Science, Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Education,
Namibia 2School of Science and Mathematics Education, Faculty of Education,
University of the Western Cape, South Africa
1
simasiku.siseho@gmail.com: 2mogunniyi@uwc.ac.za

While several studies worldwide have shown that learners encounter great difficulties with many
scientific concepts only a few have been concerned with helping teachers to develop instructional
approaches that can ameliorate such difficulties e.g. through co-constructing such concepts with
their learners. This study underpinned by an argumentation framework is part of a larger study
concerned with enhancing science teachers’ ability to co-construct difficult scientific concepts
with their learners. Specifically, this study involved 13 science teachers who participated in series
of dialogical/argumentation-based workshops aimed at assisting learners to improve their
knowledge of solubility through collaborative laboratory activities and discussions. The findings
showed that the teachers found the new instructional approach to be informative, useful and to
enhance their ability to co-construct scientific concepts with their learners which otherwise might
have been impossible if the latter had been exposed only to the conventional transmission mode
of instruction. The implications of the findings for instructional practice are highlighted in the
paper.

Introduction

Although conjectures and refutations are part and parcel of scientific inquiry very little of this
critical aspect of the nature of science in reflected in most South African classrooms. Also, not
much has been done to examine the effectiveness of teachers’ pedagogic training programs aimed
at equipping them with necessary knowledge and skills to facilitate meaningful discourses in their
classrooms (e.g. Driver et al, 2000). Hence, this study aims at contributing towards efforts made
to fill this research chasm. It is also a response to fulfill the goal of the new South African
curriculum namely, Curriculum 2005 (C2005) which demands that teachers develop process
skills among their learners.

Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern (Toulmin, 1958) schema of argumentation has been adopted as
a pedagogical framework for implementing a science/IKS-based curriculum. Although IKS are
embedded within a metaphysical framework, the Contiguity Argumentation Theory (Ogunniyi,
1997) approach has been adopted in this research, where IKS and science are considered as
equipollent or complimentary cosmologies.

A group of science teachers involved in this study is currently being trained as facilitators for
effective implementation of classroom discourses in their classrooms. The video and audio
archives from focus group discussions, workshops, and classroom-based activities form part of
the process used to assist the teachers in implementing the new science curriculum in South
Africa published by the Department of Education (DOE, 2002). The curriculum urges teachers to
develop critical process skills in their classrooms as a means to facilitate conceptual
understanding among learners. According the new curriculum process skills “refers to the
learner’s cognitive activity of creating meaning and structure from new information and
experiences. Examples of process skills include observing, making measurements, classifying
data, making inferences and formulating questions for investigation.” Argumentation-based
instruction developed in the larger study has been found to create a positive learning environment
which has enabled learners to actively participate in discourses and to engage in high-level
process skills needed in science e.g. hypothesizing, prediction, allocation and decision making
(Ogunniyi, 2007; Ogunniyi & Hewson, 2008).

One of the argumentation models that have been frequently encountered in the current literature
in science education is Toulmin’s (1958) Argumentation Pattern (TAP). The TAP consists of a
claim-an assertion or belief about a subject matter; data-evidence to support the claim; warrant-
the statement links the evidence to the claim; backings-underlying assumptions to the claim;
qualifier-the conditions necessary for the claim to be valid; and rebuttal-statement made to
invalidate a claim. Although the TAP has been useful in clarifying classroom discourse it is not
free from criticisms such as: the inconsistent way in which the validity of an argument has been
presented; the assumption that all arguments can be subjected only to a strictly logical forms of
reasoning at the expense of equally important practical reasoning; the inconsistency in it includes
backings, rebuttals and qualifiers for the warrant but not the data, thus turning a simple argument
into a compound one; the assumption that amassing bits and pieces of evidence is sufficient
grounds for a given claim; etc (Van Eemeren, et al, 1996). But despite these weaknesses the TAP
provided some useful hints about how to assess arguments in a given context. A number of
studies have simplified the structure of the TAP to make it more applicable to the field of science
education (e.g. Erduran, et al, 2004; Simon, Erduran & Osborne, 2004) They have done this by
classifying classroom discourse in terms the complexity of the arguments involved such as: Non-
oppositional; arguments with claims or counterclaims with grounds but no rebuttals; arguments
with claim or counterclaim with grounds but only single rebuttal arguments with multiple
rebuttals challenging the claim but no rebuttal; etc. In this study we have attempted to apply this
approach to interpret teachers’ quality of arguments as they worked on a solubility task.

Purpose of the study

Teachers’ instructional practices are essential for supporting learners’ conceptual development
and critical process skills needed in scientific inquiry. If teachers are trained to develop high-
level argumentation skills they are likely to use such skills later in their instructional practices.
The purpose of the study therefore was to examine possible impact of argumentation-based
activities on teachers’ ability to co-construct the concept of solubility. In pursuit of this aim we
sought answers to the following questions:

1. What sort of arguments is used by the teachers while performing a task on solubility?

2. How effective are argumentation-based laboratory activities on the teachers’ ability to co-
construct the concept of solubility with their counterparts from the unknown substances
placed on their tables?

3. What levels of the TAP are evident in the teachers’ argumentation as they work on
solubility of two unknown substances?
Method

The study involved 13 science teachers who were exposed to a series of bi-weekly three-hour
workshops underpinned the TAP for a period of six months. In addition they were assigned
selected readings based on the works of scholars. The first one and half hour block was in form of
a lecture on socio-scientific topic such as environmental pollution, genetically modified food,
energy conservation, the building of atomic power station at the west coast of Western Cape
province, etc. They were also introduced to the controversies that ensued among early natural
philosophers and scientists from the 20th century to the present period with respect to the nature of
the atom, etc. The purpose additional reading assignments was to create the teachers’ awareness
about how scientists go about constructing knowledge in their various fields and to show teachers
how to reflect the same thing in their classrooms. After the six-month workshops the teachers
were introduced to the argumentation-based laboratory activities. The teacher were confronted
with tasks without suggesting to them the topic other than to brainstorm individually and in
groups with a topic, design an experiment and then co-construct the appropriate concept(s) from
the unknown substances on their tables

The next one hour was used for group presentation followed by the whole class discussion and
summary. The last 30 minutes of the three-hour block was used to identify the levels of
arguments used by the teachers. To reinforce their argumentation skills the teachers were then
given some assignment for the next workshop. All the lab sessions were recorded using both
audio-video- tapes. The transcribed materials were then analyzed in terms the modified TAP’s
levels of argument as suggested by Osborne, Erduran & Simon (2006). Since a greater detail of
the argumentation-based instruction used in the study has already been published (Ogunniyi,
2007) it will not be repeated here. The classification of the teachers levels of argument e.g. as 1,
2, 3, etc were carried by two independent team members. Their scores were then correlated using
Spearman Rank Difference formula. The correlation stood at 0.94. This indicates a high
correlation agreement between the two. It suggests a strong face, content and construct validity of
their classification.

Findings

Since the study involves several activities only one will be presented here as an example of the
challenges faced by teachers in using argumentation as an instructional approach in their
classrooms. The result presented here is based on Activity 2 which required the teachers to
predict the substances and the experiment from the unknown substances placed on their tables.
Table 1 below presents a summary of what transpired in group 1 in the classroom during activity
2. For reasons of anonymity the 13 teachers were given pseudo-names.
Table 1 Group 1 teachers’ arguments as they attempted predict unknown substances A and B

Names (Group 1) Claims Evidence Warrants

Alanaris Substance A = Water • Subs A dissolve Subs B • Odourless
(Leader) Substance B = Sodium • Subs B dissolve and • Melt at 58°C-
acetate melts Subs A 62°C
[Claim: identification of
substances]
Alphonso Substance A = Water or • Hydroscopic/ soluble • Sticky
Ethanol in H2O
Substance B = Sodium • Melting point (65°C)
acetate • Smell
[Claim: identification of
substances]
Cherim Data not available Data not available Data not
available

At the intra-argumentation level Alanaris in group1, identified substance A as water and

substance B as sodium acetate by claiming that A [water] dissolves B [Sodium acetate] and the
latter [Sodium acetate] dissolve and melts in A [water] as evidenced in an endothermic reaction
experiment carried. Alphonso contended but reasoned differently as she argued that since
substances B dissolved in A, A must be water because of its hydroscopic characteristics and
substances B stick on the walls of the container.

Table 2 Group 2 teachers’ arguments as they attempted predict unknown substances A and B

Names (Group 2) Claims Evidence Warrants

Keita (Leader) Subst A = Water • Colorless • Odourless
Subst B = Sodium acetate
[Claim: identification of • Shape of crystals
substances] • Dry crystals
Ruthi Subst A = Water • Transparent • > 62°C
Subst B = Sodium acetate • Melt at 58°C • Smell
• Only soluble in water • stickyness
[Claim: identification of • Shape of crystals
substances] • Dry crystals
Regina Data not available Data not available Data not
available

Keita and Regina in Group 2 claimed that it is all about solubility and to some extent gave
grounds. Both Keita and Regina gave a counterclaim during the identification of substances and
made a subsidiary claim that substance B was salt [NaCl]. Their warrant was based on
physicochemical properties of B. This is a subsidiary claim since it merely expands the earlier
claim of identifying the substances and goes further to identify substance B. Still in the same
group 2, during small group discussion Ruthi made a rebuttal that substance B cannot be salt.
Table 3 Group 3 teachers’ arguments as they attempted predict unknown substances A and B

Names (Group 3) Claims Evidence Warrants

Phillipina Subst A = Water • No odour & transparent • At 52°C alcohol
(Leader) Subst B = Na acetate • Partially dissolve swell
[Claim: • Dissolve at 65°C • Not completely
identification of • Crystallize when soluble
substances] cooled • Smells of vinegar
Lebona Data not available Data not available Data not available

Reubenda Data not available Data not available Data not available
Zabona Data not available Data not available Data not available

Phillipina, the leader of Group 3 contended with Lebona for choosing solubility as their claim
with incoherent grounds. However, Reubenda made a counterclaim that boiling point is the
determination with incoherent grounds too. In the midst of unintelligible grounds, the issue is not
validity of the grounds but the fact that they could attempt to substantiate their respective claims.
Table 4 Group 4 teachers’ arguments as they attempted predict unknown substances A and B

Names (Group 4) Claims Evidence Warrants

Delinda (Leader) Subst A = Water • Subst A sticks • Doesn’t smell
Subst B = Sodium inside glass • Layers of liquid on
acetate • Subst A is a container
clear liquid • Vinegar like smell
[Claim: • Subs B took • Polar solute dissolve in
identification of long to polar solvent
substances] dissolve • If it was NaCl, then there
• White crystals wouldn’t be an acidic
appearance smell

Lorraina Subst A = Water • Subst A is a • Subst A doesn’t smell

Subst B = Sugar clear liquid • Density (76g per 100 cm3)
Crystals [Claim C]
[Claim:
identification of
substances]
Karim-Saleh Subst A = Water • Both sugar and • Solute B did not dissolve
Subst B = not salts dissolve without heat
sugar/salt
[Claim:
identification of
substances]

Lorraina from Group 4, claimed density and boiling point determination to [buttress] Delinda
counterclaim that substance A is water and her identification of substances A is based on
assumptions & based further on physicochemical properties of A. Lorraine made a counterclaim
that it is solubility whereas Karim-Saleh registered a subsidiary claim that substance B is soluble
in A.
Table 5 below interestingly presents the summary of the whole class discussions. What can be
deduced from these statements is that Keita and Regina have made a claim regarding
identification of substances; Phillipina has also made a counterclaim regarding the identification
of substances. After further arguments group 1 finally agreed that the materials provided
suggested the need to find out the solubility of solute B in solvent A. In terms of the TAP the
group argument could be categorized as level 2.

In group 4, Delinda predicted that the materials on the table were concerned with “an experiment
on solubility, identifying types and that “substance B was salt.” She claimed that substance B was
in form of “white crystals shape.” And that it was “colourless and odourless.” Using the
physicochemical properties of A and B as warrants Delinda argued that, “Salt is different from
sugar since sugar is opaque and white, but salt is shiny and translucent.”

Table 5 whole class teachers’ arguments as they attempted predict unknown substances A and B

Group Claims Evidence/Warrants Rebuttals

Group 1 Subst A = Water • No smell
[Claim A] • 76g/100cm3
Alanaris
Alphonso Subst B = Sodium acetate • Characteristic smell
Cherim [Claim B] • Dissolves in solution

Group 2 Subst A = Water • Colorless & Odorless

[Claim A] • Physical changes
Keita • Thermodynamic equilibrium
Regina • Crystalline shape
Ruthi Subst B = Sodium acetate • Drop in temp, 17-13°C
[Claim B] • Condensation on beakers
• Endothermic reactions
Group 3 Subst A = Water • No odour
• Transparent even when heated
Philipina • At 52°C alcohol swell
Reubenda Subst B = Na acetate • Not completely soluble
Lebonaji • Density (76g/100ml)
Zabona • Smells of vinegar
• Partially dissolve at room temp
• Dissolve at 65°C
• Crystallize when cooled
Group 4 Subst A = Water • Odourless and clear • NaCl don’t
[Claim A] • Colourless and transparent smell
Delinda • Incomplete dissolution acidic
Lorraina Subst B = Sodium acetate • Sticky on container sides • Only
Karim-Saleh [Claim B] • Dissolve in bath water dissolve
• Smells acidic when added to completel
substance A y in hot
• Smell is stronger after heating bath water
water
• Smells like vinegar
Like Delinda, Lorraina in group 4 predicted that the experiment was concerned with testing
whether B would dissolve in A. She went further by claiming that substance “B was NaCl and
that substance A is water. She buttressed her claim further by asserting that substance B was
“crystalline shaped” However, Lorraina seems to contradict herself by asserting that, “If you look
at the crystals, they cannot be salt. Shape of crystals.” However, after a heated argument with
members of her group she finally agreed that, “Substance B is salt and substance A is liquid not
organic.” In other words, group 2 like group 1 predicted the correct experiment and identified
substances A and B based on physicochemical characteristics of A and B as evidence. In terms of
the TAP their level of argument was 2.

During the whole class discussion and dialogue Keita, the leader of group 2 rebutted a
counterclaim made by Zabona on the ground that: “Both substances A and B are unknown. After
group activities, the leaders of the four groups made short presentations on how they arrived on
what the experiment to carry out and the conclusions they reached regarding the unknown
substances on their tables. All the four groups represented respectively by Alanaris, Keita,
Phillipina and Delinda indicated that after individual and group brainstorming and discussions
they reached the conclusion that that the items on their tables (despite the distractors or irrelevant
items) were concerned with carrying out an experiment to: (1) identify substances A and B; and
(2) determine the solubility of B in A. Whatever evidence emerged from both activities would
then serve as grounds for their claims about the two unknown substances.

There was a unanimous agreement at the end of the whole class session that the central concern
of the activity was to determine the solubility of substance B in A. In terms of the TAP, the
teachers’ arguments ranged between levels 2 and 3. In the final analysis it became evident that the
teachers had begun to develop some skills in argumentation-based laboratory activities which
hopefully they will be able to implement in their classrooms. At this stage teachers are able to put
up arguments with claims or counterclaims with grounds and some even try to put a single
rebuttal challenging the claim. However, the teachers still have a long way to go in using an
argumentation-based lesson confidently in their classrooms.
References

Department of Education (2002). C2005: Revised national curriculum statement grades

R-9 (schools) policy for the natural sciences. Pretoria: Government Printer
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific
argumentation in classrooms. Science Education. 84(3), 287-312.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Development
in the use of Toulmin’s argumentation pattern in studying science discourse.
Science Education, 88(6), 915-953.
Ogunniyi, M.B. (1997). Science education in a multi-cultural South Africa. In M. Ogawa
(Ed.). Report of an international research program on the effects of traditional
culture on science education (pp. 84-95). Mito: Ibaraki University Press.
Ogunniyi, M. B. (2007a). Teachers’ stances and practical arguments regarding a science-
indigenous knowledge curriculum, paper 1. International Journal of Science
Education, 29(8), 963-985.
Ogunniyi, M. B. (2007b). Teachers’ stances and practical arguments regarding a science-
indigenous knowledge curriculum, paper 2. International Journal of Science
Education, 29(10), 1189-1207.
Ogunniyi M. B. and Hewson M.G. Effect of an Argumentation-Based Course on
Teachers’ Disposition towards a Science-Indigenous Knowledge Curriculum.
International Journal of Environmental & Science Education Vol. 3, No. 4, October
2008, 159-177
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in
school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4(10), 994-1020.
Simon, S., Erduran, S. & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation on:
Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of
Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H.,
Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., &
Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of
historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.