Tan, Aik-Ling

This study examines the verbal interactions among a group of pre-service teachers as they engaged in scientific discussions in a medicinal chemistry course. These discussions were part of the course that encompassed an explicit instruction of scientific argumentation structures as well as an applied component, whereby the pre-service teachers learned the content of medicinal chemistry through cases developed using the strategy of competing theories. By adopting a case study approach using sociocultural framework of learning, we examined the interactions between the pre-service teachers using video data. We describe 12 possible forms of interactions during discussions ─ (1) seeking clarification, (2) figuring out loud, (3) sharing information, (4) agreement, (5) asking questions, (6) providing explanations, (7) raising strategic and procedural issues, (8) stating claims, (9) disagreement, (10) sharing perspectives, (11) offering alternatives, and (12) persuasion. The pre-service teachers engaged in figuring out aloud and seeking clarifications frequently, and used persuasion least in their discussions. To clarify their ideas and thoughts, pre-service teachers commonly rebut their counterparts and used warrants to support their own assertions. A similar pattern was also observed when figuring their thoughts out loud. Our findings suggest that pre-service teachers were able to carry out rebuttals in the argumentation process. However, the quality and function of their rebuttals can be improved by deepening their understanding of the subject matter knowledge and the science argumentation structure. Implications are discussed.

Questions are important in facilitating the thinking process that leads to learning. There are many research studies examining the use of students’ questions as scaffolds to facilitate argument construction but more needs to be done to understand how these questions are used in generating productive arguments. As such, in this research, we investigate (1) the types of students’ questions generated within a group and how these questions are used in generating productive arguments and (2) strategies used by groups of students who are deemed more successful in generating convincing arguments. Adopting a social constructivist perspective, we examined students’ talk about science within their groups and between groups. We worked with a group of 24 secondary three Biology students to complete a total of seven days of crime scene investigation tasks that required them to make evidence-based decisions to determine the cause of death and solve the crime. The data collected and analyzed included transcripts from students’ oral discourse and written artefacts. We found that asking hypothetical questions promotes the construction of quality arguments. Groups that were more successful in generating quality arguments adopted strategies such as using visible schema constructed from their own questions, testing the strengths of their claims and choosing claims that have the highest number of propositions.