promoting argumentation in primary science contexts: an analysis of students' interactions in...

Promoting argumentation in primary sciencecontexts: an analysis of students’ interactions informal and informal learning environmentsjcal_451 1..14

S. Simon,* S, Johnson,* S. Cavell† & T. Parsons**Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK†Techniquest, Cardiff, At-Bristol, Bristol, UK

Abstract The paper reports on the outcomes of a study that utilized a graphical tool, Digalo, to stimulateargumentative interactions in both school and informal learning settings. Digalo was developedin a European study to explore argumentation in a range of learning environments. The focushere is on the potential for using Digalo in promoting argumentative interactions of students inprimary science, first, in a school-based context of students investigating and learning aboutelectricity, and second, in a hands-on science discovery centre where students are interactingwith different scientific phenomena. Data sources included observations of students usingDigalo in the two contexts and the resultant Digalo maps. Analysis of observations focused onstudents’ engagement and interactions, and of Digalo maps in terms of the process and contentof argumentation. A previously developed level system was used to evaluate the process ofargumentation. The study has revealed some limitations of Digalo as a teaching resource, buthas provided insights into ways in which students build their knowledge with the help of Digaloas they interact with each other and with scientific phenomena.

Keywords argumentation, Digalo, informal learning, interactions, science.

Introduction

School science teaching in the UK has traditionallybeen focused on the content of science – that establishedbody of scientific knowledge that forms the bedrock ofthe curriculum and school science examinations. Yetover the last two decades, debates about science educa-tion have placed more emphasis on the importanceof the nature of science and the processes of criticalreasoning and argument (Driver et al. 1996; Millar &Osborne 1998; Driver et al. 2000; Duschl & Osborne2002). Such a shift in emphasis requires that the

teaching of science should focus more on the evidenceand arguments for scientific ideas, and help studentsdevelop the skills needed for engaging in fruitfulargumentation for science learning. Research shows,however, that only if argumentation is specifically andexplicitly addressed in the curriculum will studentshave the opportunity to explore its use in science (Kuhn1991; Hogan & Maglienti 2001; Zohar & Nemet 2002;Osborne et al. 2004a). The teaching of argumentationthrough the use of appropriate activities and teachingstrategies can provide a means of promoting socialskills, reasoning skills, and knowledge building. Thedevelopment of the graphical tool, Digalo, provides astrategy for stimulating argumentative interactions.This paper reports on its use in two different primaryscience contexts; the study was designed to explore thepotential of using Digalo in the two settings.

Accepted: 18 August 2011Correspondence: Shirley Simon, Institute of Education, University ofLondon, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H OAL, UK. Email: [email protected]

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00451.x

Original article

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 1

The research builds on previous studies undertakenby one of the authors (Osborne et al. 2004a; Simonet al. 2006) that aimed to enrich learning environmentsin both primary and secondary science by using activi-ties where students could explore ideas, discussevidence, and construct scientific arguments (Maloney& Simon 2006). These studies adopted a theoreticalperspective on argument derived from the work ofToulmin (1958), which informed analytical proceduresfor assessing the quality of argumentation (Erduranet al. 2004; Simon 2008). The analytical frameworkhas now been widely used to provide indicators forargumentation quality in different contexts, some usingcomputer-based resources (e.g. Joiner et al. 2008). Thetwo studies were designed to see whether the use ofDigalo would engage students in argumentation andenhance students’ use of scientific explanation in thetwo contexts. The first study focused on the implemen-tation of Digalo by a primary teacher, Kate, after shehad attended a series of workshops for a group ofteachers on the teaching of argumentation (Osborneet al. 2004b). Kate’s aim was to enhance the learningof electricity by using Digalo to promote discussion ofideas, argumentation, and explanation of concepts inthe topic. The analysis of her experience representshow Digalo was used in a school setting. The second,separate, study was undertaken by three of the authorsin partnership with the science educators at a hands-onscience discovery centre, Techniquest, and was anexploration in the use of Digalo with exhibits. The aimhere was to see how Digalo, supported by members ofthe research team, might help focus students on thescience explanations behind the exhibits as theyengaged in experiencing the phenomena.

Background

Argumentation in science learning

With an increasing emphasis in the English nationalcurriculum on the nature of science (Q.C.A. 2005),school science can now provide more opportunities forthe development of scientific reasoning through thecoordination of theory with evidence (Kuhn 1991), andof epistemological understanding through the evalua-tion of scientific knowledge claims (Sandoval & Reiser2004). By engaging collaboratively in argumentationactivities that make reasoning public, students can gainexperience of constructing arguments, justifying argu-

ments with evidence, evaluating alternative arguments,and reflecting on the outcomes of argumentation.Although the role of argumentation has become morehighly valued in science education, there is a need todesign appropriate tasks that enable students to gainthe skills needed to explore its use in science and socio-scientific contexts (Osborne et al. 2004a; Jiménez-Aleixandre & Erduran 2008).

One design for argumentation tasks is that of com-peting theories, which involve analysing and evaluatingevidence to argue for a position. A popular source forlessons that use competing theories with students inprimary schools is concept cartoons (Naylor & Keogh2000), where students express alternative explanationsas speech bubbles for a phenomenon represented in pic-tures. The articulation of alternative ideas by ‘other’students serves to stimulate different positions of stu-dents studying the cartoon, encouraging them to findreasons to justify alternative views. Other ideas forargumentation activities for primary school studentshave been developed by Maloney in a study to see howgroups of students evaluated and used evidence in deci-sion making (Maloney & Simon 2006). The most suc-cessful activities were those that provided limitedoptions, as students found it more difficult to constructwell-supported arguments when the decision was moreopen-ended.

Using carefully designed tasks that engage students’interest and promote argumentative interactions,researchers have studied the quality of the resultantargumentation (Erduran et al. 2004; Osborne et al.2004a). A suitable analytic framework used in previousresearch is based on Toulmin’s (1958) argumentpattern, which has been used as a basis in other codingschemes (e.g. Jiménez-Aleixandre et al. 2000). Fea-tures of a Toulmin analysis of argumentation include: aclaim, data that support the claim, warrants that providea link between the data and the claim, backings thatstrengthen the warrants, and rebuttals that indicatethe circumstances under which the claim would not betrue. Toulmin also considered qualifiers as showing thedegree of reliance that can be placed on conclusionsarising from arguments. The analysis of argumentationalso includes the extent to which students engagein claiming, justifying, and opposing the argumentsof each other. Toulmin’s framework was used in theresearch conducted by Simon and colleagues todevelop a system of levels for evaluating the quality of

2 S. Simon et al.

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

oral argumentation (Erduran et al. 2004). These levelswere applied to episodes of oppositional discourse,which provide opportunities for extended argumenta-tion through the use of counterclaim and rebuttal:

• Level 1 argumentation consists of arguments that area simple claim versus a counterclaim or claim versus aclaim.

• Level 2 argumentation has arguments consisting ofclaims with either data, warrants, or backings but donot contain any rebuttals.

• Level 3 argumentation has arguments with a series ofclaims or counterclaims with either data, warrants, orbackings with the occasional weak rebuttal.

• Level 4 argumentation shows arguments with a claimwith a clearly identifiable rebuttal. Such an argumentmay have several claims and counterclaims.

• Level 5 argumentation displays an extended argumentwith claims supported by data and warrants with morethan one rebuttal.

In the research reported here, this level system wasused to evaluate the process of argumentation, as themore elaborate use of warrants, backings, and rebuttalswas thought to help students in their understanding ofscientific explanations; previous research has shownthat students engaging in argumentative discourse canimprove their knowledge and understanding (Zohar &Nemet 2002).

Digalo

The argumentation tool, Digalo, was originally devel-oped for an EU-funded project, Dialogic and argUmen-tative Negotiation Educational Software, in an iterativecollaboration between technologists and teachers. TheDigalo tool represents argumentative moves graphicallyand enables discussants to collectively construct a dis-cussion map either synchronously or asynchronously(Andriessen & Schwarz 2009). It has two variables thatcan be manipulated, an argumentative ontology andfloor control. Floor control can provide synchronouscommunication where participants wait for their turnwhile following other entries on other computers asthese take place. In asynchronous mode, Digalo can beused by a small group of students (two to three) takingturns to use the floor control on one computer. The tech-nical difficulties of using Digalo synchronously were

never overcome in our UK contexts, but in a study inIsrael, Schwarz and Glassner (2007) showed thatsynchronous communication with floor control wasproductive for collective argumentation.

Digalo subsequently became the focus for promot-ing argumentation in science in the EU-fundedESCALATE project (http://escalate.org.il/engsite/home/default.asp), where the aim was to integrateDigalo into the learning process in science, using a widerrange of schools and also informal learning environ-ments (Schwarz 2009). The ESCALATE studies under-taken at the Institute of Education, London, focusedon extending previous research and development onargumentation in science by using Digalo to enhanceargumentation practices.

Using Digalo in asynchronous mode, tasks weredesigned where a small group of students engaged inargumentative activity took turns with the floor controlto enter their arguments using the ontology. The Digaloscreen consists of a pad on which discourse can bemapped as argumentation proceeds among the membersof the groups. The argumentative ontology is seen as aseries of boxes that represent structural elements ofan argument; each of these elements is labelled on thetoolbar and has a different shape. During a Digalosession, participants review evidence collaborativelybefore typing in their remarks, clarifications, explana-tions, or questions in argumentation text boxes. The endproduct is an argument map, which, ideally, has recog-nizable features of a structured argument. The argumen-tative ontology, demonstrated in a simple Digalo map inFig 1, has features in common with Toulmin’s argumentcomponents. It was envisaged, therefore, that argu-ments could be evaluated by applying the level systemoutlined above. Once a claim is made, there is directsupport for that claim with evidence or information(data); further elaboration within an argument includeshow the data are related to the claim (warrant) and canalso include backing. Arguments that counter the sup-porting data, warrants, or backings are rebuttals, whichcan be posed as questions or oppositional arguments.A qualifier may be included relating to pertaining con-ditions. As argumentation proceeds, students link theirarguments in the various shapes with arrows of supportor opposition. By using shapes and arrows, a sequenceor chain of reasoning emerges, and students have toclarify their ideas while talking about the meaning ofthe topic under discussion.

Analysis of students’ interactions 3


The text used in the boxes is recorded in the lowerright-hand section of the screen and can be printed out.It includes details of who made each contribution andthe time of input. An additional feature is a replay func-tion, which allows the whole argument to be replayed ina plenary. Students can be questioned about their rea-soning and encouraged to justify their arguments to theclass.

Teaching argumentation

Initiating the kind of change that was attempted inESCALATE was reliant on teachers trying out newapproaches, sharing their experiences, and reflecting ontheir own practice. A training programme for teachingargumentation grew out of previous research on teach-ers’ use of argumentation in science classrooms (Simonet al. 2006) and from the in-service training materialscalled Ideas, Evidence, and Argument in Science Edu-cation (IDEAS, Osborne et al. 2004b). The training pro-gramme was led by the research team and was attendedby teachers, including Kate, taking part in school-basedprojects using Digalo. The programme included expert

inputs based on these materials, tasks using Digalo, andsessions for sharing and reflecting on practice. TheToulmin framework was a feature of the way in whichteachers were helped to conceptualize and evaluateargumentation. Previous work had led to a distinctionbeing made between argument and argumentation,argument referring to the substance of claims, data,warrants, and backings that contribute to the contentof an argument, whereas argumentation to the processof assembling these components, in other words, ofarguing. Through providing students with tasks thatrequire discussion and debate, teachers can support stu-dents in the construction of arguments through theprocess of argumentation.

The inputs led by the research team began with ses-sions that helped Kate and the other teachers to becomefamiliar with the rationale for teaching argumentationin science, in that for students to appreciate the originsof scientific belief and the nature of science, they mustexplore some of the reasons why theories have becomeestablished and why alternative theories are consideredto be ‘wrong’. Teachers discussed activities that invitestudents to evaluate the evidence that is used in such

Fig 1 The Digalo pad showing the main icons and arrows used by students.

4 S. Simon et al.


arguments, and became immersed (Loucks-Horsleyet al. 2003) in these activities themselves in order toappreciate their impact and extend their understandingof the possible teaching goals associated with argumen-tation. Video materials and workshop sessions fromIDEAS were incorporated that would help teachersto model argument and communicate its meaning tostudents.

Exercises using Toulmin’s framework were intro-duced with the aim of helping teachers to evaluateargument. Teachers were encouraged to develop crite-ria for assessing the quality of students’ argumentsfocusing on how evidence was used to justify claimsand how argumentation incorporated rebuttals, andthe level system referred to previously was introducedto the teachers. It was of interest to see whether teach-ers would draw on these criteria in their teaching ofargument, or whether they would focus on alternativecriteria for judging pedagogical outcomes and the useof Digalo. To encourage counterargument, teacherswere introduced to strategies that they could use toinvolve students in a conflict situation that can stimu-late rebuttals (e.g. a pair taking one position in anargument works with a pair taking an opposing posi-tion). Teachers began their development of a teaching‘case’ using Digalo through identifying aspects of theirscience curriculum that could include an argumentationelement.

Informal learning in science discovery centres

Visits to interactive science and technology centres,museums, aquaria, and zoos provide valuable motiva-tional opportunities for students to learn science and canhave an impact on learning. Research suggests that stu-dents usually find visits enjoyable, but the amount andnature of their cognitive learning and affective responsecan vary (Rennie & McClafferty 1995), are unique toeach individual (Falk & Dierking 2000), and oftenbecome more prominent in the long term in the contextof subsequent activities (Falk et al. 2004). Learning isinfluenced by the extent to which students are familiarwith the setting, their prior knowledge, the matchbetween the cognitive level of the students and thethought processes required by the exhibits, the degree ofstructure of the visit, the provision and nature of thecues for learning, and the social aspects of the visit(Rennie & McClafferty 1995, 1996).

For school students, a visit to a science centre canaddress aspects of science education that might bemissing in more formal, class-based science learning.Science centres can also generate a sense of wonder,interest, enthusiasm, and motivation to learn, whichmay be neglected in formal school science (Jarvis &Pell 2005). Hands-on science centres offer an opportu-nity to shape and develop students’ attitudes to science,stimulating curiosity, inventiveness, respect for evi-dence, cooperation, perseverance, and sensitivity to theenvironment (Braund 2004). Ideally, the learning thattakes place on a well-organized school visit facilitatesintrinsic motivation, where students engage in learningfor its own sake. These students are most likely to inter-act with hands-on exhibits and pursue personal learningagendas (Braund 2004).

The study using Digalo in a hands-on science centrewas informed by previous research into evidence oflearning in museum settings (Griffin 1999). Griffinfound it difficult to isolate and measure cognitive learn-ing outcomes for a 1-day museum visit, as learning ininformal settings is nondirected, exploratory, and per-sonal. Griffin suggests that looking at how learningtakes place can be as informative as determining whatlearning is taking place. She used indicators of engage-ment, such as manipulating and playing with objectsand ideas, and sharing learning with peers and experts,to examine students’ behaviours, and was able to con-clude that such an analysis provides evidence forwhether the conditions for learning were present. Oneof the problems of science discovery centres is how toencourage students to engage with the hands-on exhib-its. Students often rush up and push a button withoutever finding out what the exhibit does or what scientificconcept it illustrates. The aim of using Digalo with thehands-on exhibits was to stimulate students’ engage-ment and promote understanding of particular conceptsby requiring them to enter their ideas and reasoningonto a Digalo map set up next to an exhibit.

Research design

The two studies were designed to evaluate the potentialof using Digalo to stimulate argumentative interactionsand science learning in different contexts and were setup with different purposes. In the school-based study,the teacher, Kate, designed a teaching sequence to seewhether the use of Digalo could help students progress



in their science explanations of electricity. The secondstudy conducted by the research team in the hands-onscience centre aimed to see whether questions posed onDigalo could help students engage with exhibits andexplore the scientific explanations behind them.

The school study involving Kate took place in a ruralprimary school with 256 students. Kate had receivedencouragement and support for her work on the projectfrom her head teacher who wanted to improve the roleof information and communications technology (ICT)in the school. She was the science coordinator at theschool and had been teaching for 3 years. She initiatedher use of Digalo with a small group of nine gifted stu-dents aged 10 to 11 years in sessions after school, over aperiod of 4 weeks that coincided with teaching the topicof electricity with their class. She chose to introduceDigalo this way to reduce technical issues by using asmall number of computers, and to assess its potentialfor use with a wider group of students.

The topic of electricity is included in the Englishnational curriculum for students aged 10 to 11 andbuilds on previous work on electricity and circuitsencountered in earlier years. Students are expectedto work with circuits, draw them, assemble them, andtest them. The Digalo activity was planned to beincluded in the last part of the scheme of work calledinvestigating circuits. Kate designed this case herself tofit in with the national curriculum, to engage able stu-dents in argumentation about alternative explanations,to include ICT in science, and to practice her own skillsin developing argumentation lessons using Digalo inthe process. She began the work with Digalo by model-ling argumentation through an activity about fundinga new zoo (Osborne et al. 2004b). This activity wasdesigned for the students to become familiar withthe Digalo features. Kate’s idea was to then introduceconcept cartoons to generate discussion and exploremisconceptions, after which the students would useDigalo to express arguments for and against differentexplanations offered for the phenomena presented inthe cartoons. In this way, she aimed to enhance thechildren’s understanding of science explanations in thetopic. The students would take part in normal lessons toexperience the teaching of electricity in the curriculum,revisit their Digalo maps and cartoons, undertake apractical inquiry and finally work with new students ina discussion on Digalo, explaining the science behindtheir cartoon.

The students were video-recorded in each Digalosession to ascertain engagement, but the main source ofdata for analysis was the Digalo maps. Although therewas an opportunity to analyse the maps using criteria forquality of argument, that is, the level system (1 to 5)introduced in the workshops, Kate used the maps toascertain the extent to which students showed evidenceof progressing in their understanding about electricityas the maps were revisited throughout the teaching ofthe topic. She used the argumentation on Digalo as ameans of identifying the students’ misconceptions andemergent scientific explanations for phenomena pre-sented in the cartoons. It was of interest to the researchteam to see how quality of argumentation related toquality of scientific explanation, so we also analysed themaps using the level system.

The second study of Digalo aimed to engage studentsaged 10–11 years in discussion and argumentation inrelation to three exhibits at the science discovery centre,Techniquest, in Cardiff, Wales. Through constructingarguments, it was hoped that students would developtheir understanding of explanations of how each exhibitworked, that is, what scientific concept it illustrated andhence why the exhibit did what it did.The occasion was a1-day visit by a whole class of students (24) from a localprimary school. The students were accompanied by theirteacher and assistants, who were all observers during theday. The students came from a mixture of ethnic back-grounds, and some had limited skills with English. Themorning was spent with the students in the teachingroom, in a session led by the research team, where theyworked in pairs on an exercise to model the use ofDigalo. Each pair worked asynchronously on a laptopcomputer. For students this age, a suitable modellingactivity can be based on the question ‘what is the bestpet?’, because students usually have something to con-tribute to this topic. In developing their arguments fortheir best pet, students can draw on their knowledge andviews to provide the data and warrants for their argu-ments. The session began with a demonstration on awhiteboard, where the pad map began with the question– ‘which is the best pet?’An argument was initiated byinserting a claim, for example, ‘my best pet is a cat’, andsupported by an argument icon, ‘because I can stroke thecat’. Such modelling needs to be well planned if thearguments are to demonstrate data, warrants, backings,and rebuttals. The linking arrows were explained andinserted, and alternative claims added, for example, ‘I

6 S. Simon et al.


like hamsters’ supported by, ‘because they are easypets’. Then, a counterargument was included, ‘catsmight bite’, and this was arranged to oppose ‘I can strokethe cat’. Once the students had all constructed their ownarguments, they were asked to consider their maps anddiscuss whether they had a good argument, then to sharetheir evaluation with the rest of the class. The studentsextended their maps having heard more ideas, andhaving had the argumentation process articulated fromtheir examples by the session leader. By the end of themorning, the groups of students had all produced Digalomaps showing basic arguments and links between data(information boxes) and claims, where students differedin their views about which pet was best and why theirmaps also included counterarguments with backings.This session served as a preparation for using Digalowith exhibits in the afternoon, by introducing the notionof argument and the Digalo tool to all the students.

After a lunchbreak, the students were introduced tothe Techniquest exhibits, and a rotation was structuredwhere two groups of four students each spent 20 min onone of the three hands-on exhibits, Whisper Dish, Ber-noulli Blower, or Modes of Vibration. The choice ofexhibits was determined by reference to variablesincluding difficulty, popularity, and ease in whichobservations of behaviour could take place and a laptopcomputer could be installed. Whisper Dishes, whichconsist of two large dishes separated by the length of aroom, demonstrate the principles of sound reflectionand focusing, and have been shown to be difficult tounderstand (Rennie & McClafferty 1996).

While not working on the selected exhibits, the stu-dents spent time engaging in a free choice of otherexhibits; the loudspeaker was used to attract them, bycolour (i.e. Green Group), to their allotted space on oneof the three selected exhibits. It was envisaged thata group of four would enable a wider collaborationinvolving engaging in the hands-on exhibit and contrib-uting to Digalo. A laptop computer set up with Digalowas situated by each exhibit, and each was accompaniedby a member of the research team who drew students’attention to questions on the Digalo pad.Avideo camerawas also installed to capture student behaviours andinteractions. The researchers interacted with the stu-dents to keep them focused on the exhibit and Digaloscreen. Questions had been set up on Digalo with theaim of stimulating collaborative argumentation aboutthe concepts illustrated by the three exhibits.

At the end of the day, the students gathered again inthe teaching room and filled in a questionnaire abouttheir perceptions of argument and its usefulness, andabout their perceptions of learning from the exhibits.The analysis of video recordings provided an indicationof the students’ engagement in both Digalo and theexhibit, and the Digalo maps were analysed for evi-dence of argumentation and scientific explanations ofthe exhibits.

Results: study 1, the school-based caseusing Digalo

The objectives and sequencing of the activities in theelectricity topic involved the use of concept cartoons(Naylor & Keogh 2000) to explore students’ ideas andthen Digalo to argue from conflicting positions. Evi-dence of knowledge outcomes could be identifiedthrough the way in which students discussed theconcept cartoons, constructed arguments related totheir positions using Digalo, and the reasoned jointresolution of the initial conflict. Each group of two orthree students used a different concept cartoon tostimulate discussion: one cartoon focused on length ofwire, another on thickness of wires, and a third on thecircuitry used in street lamps. The results for the groupusing the first cartoon are presented here to illustratethe kinds of interactions and arguments that weretypical of all three groups. This cartoon shows threestudents discussing the brightness of a lamp connectedby wires to a battery. The three students have speechbubbles and show different ideas about the effect of thelength of the wires. One child is saying, ‘if you havelonger wires going to the lamp it will be brighter’, asecond child is saying, ‘if you have shorter wires goingto the lamp it will be brighter’, and the third child issaying, ‘the length of the wires doesn’t make any differ-ence to the lamp’. Students often suppose that if thewires in a circuit are long, the electricity will take alonger time to go around the circuit, and so the bulb willbe dimmer than if shorter wires are used. The factordetermining the flow of electricity is actually the thick-ness of the filament in the bulb. Flow of electricity inlong and short wires in a circuit can be investigated inpractical experiments.

The students had very little knowledge of electricityinitially but, after discussion, each pair put forwardideas on Digalo about solutions relevant to their concept



cartoon. The following extract shows the students’initial ideas about electricity in the length of wirecartoon as displayed on the Digalo map, and codedaccording to argumentation components, with an addi-tional code indicating the kind of questioning used bythe students, that is, easy or provocative. The numberindicates the order in which the statement was enteredon Digalo, and the initial is of the student’s name(throughout the examples are taken from the Digalomaps without changes to spelling or grammar). Thegroup showed the misconception expected:

5 S [claim] There is more electric coming from the lamp6 A [claim] There is more electric going to the lamp7 A [claim + backing] There is more electric going to thelamp because the wire is shorter8 S [claim + backing] There is more electricity in thelarge wire because it can store more electricity9 A [claim] The battery is closer to the lamp11 S [easy question] What differnce does that make?13 A [claim + backing] It takes less time to get to thelamp

Following this initial exploration of ideas withDigalo, the students experienced lessons with their

whole class where they undertook practical work build-ing circuits. Kate used the language associated withelectricity: power, wires, current, watts, amps, and volts,and the components they added to the circuit and batterywere a bulb, buzzer, or switch. The Digalo groups wereencouraged to reconsider the concept cartoons and dis-cussed their new ideas in the light of what they had learntin this whole class lesson, and how they could test thecircuits practically. They constructed circuits relevant tothe concept cartoons and tested them to find evidence touse in another Digalo session. Each group was joined inthis session by a new member, and the original group hadto explain via Digalo how they had reached their conclu-sion about the correct interpretation of the conceptcartoon. The new students read the concept cartoon andthe on-screen arguments before asking questions of theoriginal pair. The aim was for the original pair to explainhow they knew that the conclusion they had entered onDigalo was correct. The length of wire group showed anunderstanding of the circuit and components and couldexplain their findings to a newcomer. Figure 2 shows theDigalo map that illustrates the layout of this interaction

Fig 2 Study 1: Digalo map that illustrates the layout of arguments about the length of wire.

8 S. Simon et al.


shown below. In this case, the newcomer is student R,who adds provocative questions onto the Digalo map:

19 R [provocative question] Is there more electric currentin the wire?22 A [claim] the electric current is the same in both wires23 R [provocative question] how did you find that out?25 S [backing] Because we used an AMM meter.28 R [easy question] what is a AMM metre?29 A [backing] A AMM metre is a tool that you mersureelectric current in31 R [provocative question] ok.would it matter if thelamp had more volts?32 S [claim + backing] Yes becuase it would take upmore power in the wire

All nine students developed their arguments after thewhole class lesson on electrical circuits and after theyhad engaged in practical construction of circuits. Theyall added to their Digalo maps, which show individualschanging their ideas on the same map over time. Thefinal maps reflect further progress because students hadto express their ideas clearly to another student. Byanswering the newcomers’ questions, students clarifiedtheir understanding of the argument already set out onDigalo and in the practical testing experience. The newparticipants had also studied electricity (in a differentclass) and had some grasp of the concepts being dis-cussed. Kate suggested that using Digalo could havebeen a whole class activity, with better computer facili-ties, although she thought that those with poor readingand writing ability would not have participated in thesame way. They would have needed a lot more support.

Because Kate was more interested in constructingsubject knowledge as a learning outcome rather thanargumentation skills, she did not attempt a formal intro-duction to what an argument is or how to construct anargument, other than familiarization with Digalo in asimple exercise. For the electricity work, she had con-figured the Digalo tool with a broad range of options:Claim, Information, Argument, Question, Comment,Idea, and Explanation, although the only shapes usedrepeatedly by most groups were Claim, Argument,

Question, and Explanation. There was no consistency intheir use either within groups or between groups. SeeTable 1.

When the students began to use Digalo, Kateexplained how to start; that one person sets out an argu-ment, and the other provides a counterargument. Shereminded them that if they were supporting or opposingpoints, they should use the linking arrows. She sug-gested that if they were providing an explanation, itshould go into an explanation shape. Because the stu-dents could edit the shapes, she suggested a change ofshape to several students if, for instance, they were notputting an explanation in its appropriate shape. She didnot clarify use of the shapes on the Digalo toolbarfurther except when she asked in the last session that theconclusion be put in an explanation shape. Kate’sapproach and the results in Table 1 show how the teach-er’s primary goal determines the use of the tool. Themain learning objective here was to gain an understand-ing of the correct scientific explanation by using Digaloas a means of stimulation argumentative discourseabout alternative explanations, and for recording ideasthat could be revisited and changed over time. To thatend, it worked well for Kate and her electricity topic. Adeeper appreciation of the potential use of the ontologycould have allowed her to extend her criteria to evaluat-ing quality of argument and to encourage the students toconsider more carefully how they were using argumen-tative components. Providing students with a broadrange of options on the Digalo toolbar that they couldinterpret as they wished probably explains why onegroup had ten information boxes and another had eightexplanation boxes.

The research team did attempt an analysis of the mapsfor quality of argument, although it became evident thatas the students created arguments, they did not alwayschange the user, which made analysis problematic. Thename of the contributor, the linking arrows that are used,and the timing of arguments created on the maps areimportant for analysing the level of argumentation as it

Table 1. Use of configured shapes on Digalo.

Group Claim Information Argument Question Comment Idea Explanation

Street lamp 2 1 10 7 0 0 5Long/short wire 2 0 5 5 0 0 8Thick/thin wire 2 2 6 10 0 0 5



unfolds. The levels of argumentation were determinedusing the analytical framework described earlier. Theresults show an anomaly between level of argument anddegree of conceptual understanding; for example, twogroups achieving level 2 were able to express their ideasmore accurately once they had completed the hands-onexperience. Another achieving level 3 from more elabo-rate use of warrants and rebuttals continued to demon-strate misconceptions because the initial claim was notchanged. The evaluation of argumentative maps usingthe analytical framework only provides informationabout the argumentation process; advances in scientificunderstanding have been assessed by the robustness ofscientific ideas when exposed to cross-questioning bypeers, much of which was not committed to the Digalomap. Digalo provided a stimulus rather than a tool forcapturing all the interactions, yet it has provided the plat-form for enabling and recording a dialogic experience.

Results: study 2, using Digalo in a sciencediscovery centre

In setting up Digalo for use with exhibits, we focusedon questions that we thought would stimulate both dis-cussion and interaction with each exhibit. Our analysisof the video recordings and Digalo maps constructed atthe science exhibits provided evidence of the extent ofengagement, argumentation, and scientific explanation.The final questionnaire to students provided someevidence for how they perceived their own learning atthe end of the visit. The following accounts summarizethe findings for each exhibit and an analysis of thequestionnaire.

Whisper dish

We video-recorded two groups of students as theyengaged with the Whisper Dish exhibit and the Digalopad set up nearby. Both groups used the Whisper Dish totalk to each other, but few showed evidence of investi-gating what was happening, or providing explanationsof how it works, either orally or on the pad. The Digalomap included the questions, ‘Why can we hear voicescoming from the other Whisper Dish?’and ‘What wouldhappen if the air was removed from the room?’ Thesequestions were designed to prompt discussion aboutpossible explanations for how the Whisper Dishworked, in terms of sound travelling and requiring a

medium through which to travel. One entry for the firstquestion was: ‘they are facing each other which makes ita satalite (sic)’. It may be that the curved shape of theWhisper Dish reminded this student of a satellite dish.Asecond student wrote, ‘is facing each other horizontallywhich makes the viose (sic) go louder’. Another studentshowed a better understanding although this was moregenerally about how sound travels than how theWhisper Dish works: ‘they are facing directly towardseach other’ and ‘the sound travels straight towards eachother’. In response to the second Digalo question, stu-dents’ entries were unrelated to the Whisper Dish; forexample, one student wrote, ‘our voices would go rely(sic) high and we could’nt (sic) breathe’.

Overall, students were reluctant to write on the com-puter, but when encouraged by the researcher, they didattempt to set up some discussion on the Digalo maps.Although they made some statements in boxes, theymade few links between statements with arrows thatcould be analysed as constructing a reasoned argument.From observing and listening to the students, it could beconcluded that the match between the cognitive level ofthe students and the thought processes required by thisexhibit in order to understand it was weak (Rennie &McClafferty 1995), and that conditions for learningmay not have been present in spite of opportunities forpeer discussion (Griffin 1999). This would appear to besupported by the recording on the Digalo map. Thepost-activity questionnaire, where students were askedwhat they had learned, was examined to see whetherthe combination of exhibit and Digalo had stimulatedany conceptual understanding of sound travelling. Onestudent stated, ‘the whisper dish lets sound bounces(sic) off it to the other dish’, thus demonstrating someunderstanding of how sound gets from one dish to theother. Similarly, another said, ‘it bounces off the dishand straight to the other’. Perhaps the clearest under-standing was demonstrated by the student who wrote,‘The whisper dish works from 1 end of the room to theother end of the room in sound waves. It helps you talklong distance’. Although encouraging, such learningcould not be directly attributed to the use of Digalo asthe maps showed little evidence of such thinking.

Bernoulli blower

In setting up the Digalo map for the Bernoulli Blower,which consists of a ball held up by a stream of air, we

10 S. Simon et al.


hoped to stimulate some discussion about forces actingon the ball. Two statements were presented on theDigalo map: ‘The ball stays still when there are noforces acting on it’ and ‘The ball stays still when theforces acting on it are balanced’, with a question, ‘Whatdo you think and why?’ The students attempted toanswer the Digalo question and experimented with theball in the stream of air. Although the Digalo questionmay have prompted the investigation, the students’maps show no use of argumentation, simply statementsof facts or ideas, with only one arrow of support for thefirst claim, as shown in Fig 3.

One group of students demonstrated some under-standing of the forces above and below the ball and howit relates to an aeroplane (prompted by the researcher).The statements ‘As the plane moves forward the airoutside push is (sic) it’, ‘because the plane is moving sofast the air presure (sic) goes under and obove (sic) theplane then keeps the plane in the air’, and ‘When theplane is in the air the air goes underneth (sic) the planeand on the two sides of it’ all show some understandingof how the ball stays in the air.

Overall, the students demonstrated a reluctance touse the computer but were willing to state their ideasverbally to the researcher. There was some evidence ofunderstanding the science since the students focused onthe forces acting on the ball, why it stays in the air, andexperimented with the ball in the stream of air. Evidenceof understanding science concepts was apparent inquestionnaire responses by some students. One studentstated, ‘The air goes underneath and on the two sidesand that keeps it up’, and another wrote, ‘It works whenthe air is pushing over and under it and leaves it in theair’. These students have shown some understanding ofwhat is happening. A third student wrote, ‘as the ballmoves forward air pushes it back’. This student does notshow a clear understanding, but appears aware that theair and opposing forces are involved in keeping the ballin the air. The observation, Digalo map, and question-naire responses for Bernoulli Blower lead us to a similarconclusion as for the Whisper Dish; that is, for mostchildren the match between their cognitive level andthe thought processes involved in the exhibit wasweak. However, the use of Digalo in combination with

Fig 3 Study 2: students’ Digalo map constructed with the Bernoulli Blower.



discussion with the researcher suggests that an opportu-nity to articulate their ideas could have helped studentsto begin to engage with the science. It is unlikely thatuse of Digalo alone with the exhibit would have beensufficient to prompt discussion.

Modes of vibration

At this exhibit, the students were heavily distracted bythe attractions of the surrounding exhibits. Moreover,the conceptual aspects of the exhibit were very demand-ing as understanding the exhibit required students torelate frequency of vibration to pitch and size of vibra-tion to loudness. One group showed more evidence ofpositive engagement than the other with this exhibit,although again it was difficult to persuade the studentsto write their ideas in the Digalo maps. Some studentsconfused ‘frequency’ and ‘loudness’, and thought thatthe knob to increase the frequency of drum skin vibra-tions just made it louder. One girl wrote, ‘when youturn the speaker down it vibrat (sic) more’. Some stu-dents also demonstrated a misunderstanding about theinvolvement of ‘air’ in the vibration of the drum skin.

The students experimented with the drum but did notrelate it to the Digalo questions, which included, ‘whatmakes the drumskin vibrate faster?’ They turned theknob to make the drum skin vibrate and felt the vibra-tions by putting their heads on the side of the drum.However, the majority appear not to understand whatwas happening. The second group were better focusedbut again confused frequency and loudness. In the ques-tionnaire, very few students responded to the questionabout what they had learnt from the exhibit. One studentwrote simply, ‘If you hit the drum it won’t vibrate thatmuch because there is a speaker inside the drum so that(sic) why it vibrates’; and another said, ‘Because if youshake it will make a vibration if you don’t shake it but hitit nothing will happen’. These are statements of obser-vation only and do not demonstrate an understanding ofwhat is happening. The match between cognitive leveland thinking required to understand the exhibit waseven weaker.

Looking for evidence of learning such as providingscience explanations that has taken place from engage-ment with the exhibits is not easy, as Griffin (1999)clearly points out in her study. In many cases, the stu-dents have simply made a statement about the exhibitand what happened rather than demonstrating an under-

standing of the science. Although the conditions forlearning included peer discussion, prompted by aresearcher and the use of Digalo, very little evidence ofunderstanding the science involved was apparent fromthe discussion recorded on the maps.

Discussion

Both studies reported here were designed to see howDigalo might stimulate argumentative interactions thatwould lead to science learning in different contexts. Inthe school-based study, Kate’s use of Digalo was suc-cessful in conjunction with the use of a concept cartoonand in the pattern of revisiting the Digalo map forfurther thinking and discussion about scientific explana-tions. The aim of the Digalo activity was to stimulateargumentative interactions in which students had anopportunity to put forward their ideas about electricalcircuits, which they could then explore practically. Asthe activity progressed, the students discussed circuits,adding to their knowledge and applying that knowledgeas they engaged in practical lessons. Because they wereusing Digalo, the students had a means of recording thedevelopment of their knowledge and the arguments theyused to construct their understanding. Eventually theycould share their maps with other students who couldask questions and further the discussion and explanationof the science. Kate’s pattern of using Digalo, blendedwith other modes of teaching, was important to thesuccess of using Digalo. The concept cartoon providedan initial focus for discussion that the Digalo tool couldcapture. By using Digalo, the students articulated theirreasoning, which was then visual for others to see andrecorded for future reflection. Once a map had beencreated, it could be revisited after teaching sessions andpractical activity, to re-evaluate original stances andencourage further reasoning.

The quality of argumentation on all maps was low interms of a Toulmin-based level system of argumentcomponents.Yet these levels are common with childrenin the 11–14 age range (Osborne et al. 2004a), assophisticated sequences of rebuttals require a more evi-dential knowledge base that these students did not have.The content of arguments showed enhanced explana-tions of the science, which was the main aim for Digaloin this case. The capture of students’ reasoning on theDigalo maps also informed the teacher of progressbeing made, and thus provided her with a formative

12 S. Simon et al.


assessment instrument. The potential for enhancingargumentative discourse through a more guided use ofthe Digalo ontology was not explored by Kate, but couldbe useful in more complex scientific and socio-scientificscenarios.

The second study in the hands-on science centre wasset up to see whether questions posed on Digalo couldhelp students engage with exhibits and explore the sci-entific explanations behind them. This study was ambi-tious in its aims, but the experience provided us withmuch to consider in the use of Digalo and the expecta-tions we held of how to stimulate more discussion andpromote scientific understanding of exhibits. Althoughthe group of students were more limited in their lan-guage and reasoning abilities than the group at Kate’sschool, they engaged well with Digalo in the pets activ-ity while in the teaching room. The majority showedinterest and were able to construct simple maps of‘which is the best pet’. However, the resultant argumen-tation and scientific explanations may have been moresophisticated with a more able group.

Moving to the exhibition floor in the afternoon pro-vided many distractions, and we underestimated howthese would impact on the students’ use of Digalo. Ineach case, particularly the Bernoulli Blower, the ques-tions on the map provided a stimulus for discussionabout the exhibit and a focus for observation. The stu-dents attempted to capture some of their thinking on themaps. However, the students’ showed great variations intheir prior knowledge, ability to use computers, abilityto focus, tendency to be distracted by other exhibits orrespond to the prompts of the researchers. As Rennieand McClafferty (1995) found, there are many influ-ences that can impact on learning in these settings. Weconcluded that a follow-up session using Digalo in theteaching room could have helped with reflection anddiscussion about the science. The research has shown usthe importance of exploring prior knowledge and build-ing on that, with appropriate questions or positions pre-sented on the initial map. The questions we set up on themaps were too demanding for the majority of these stu-dents. The slowness with which students could type intoDigalo made using it on the exhibition floor very cum-bersome. Those not engaged in the typing and who had‘pushed all the buttons’became easily distracted by sur-rounding exhibits.

The use of Digalo did provide an opportunity topromote social skills as students had to collaborate

in constructing a map. The experience of workingtogether, listening to each other, and reading others’entries was a promising outcome, even thoughthe resultant maps showed limited understanding of thescience. For a more productive investigation of theexhibit, a higher level of intervention than occasionalprompts would have been needed. However, the kindsof learning that take place in informal settings, identi-fied as nondirected, personal and exploratory (Griffin1999), would seem to be in tension with a more struc-tured and formal intervention. Yet the aim of informaleducation in science centres must embrace the under-standing of science through interaction with exhibits.Our experience with Digalo in the science centre didprovide us with ideas of how it could be used in differentways. Were we to repeat the study, we would try usingDigalo before interacting with exhibits to stimulatethinking in the relevant science domain, and after, toreflect on that thinking and produce science explana-tions. Such an enterprise would require more planningand structure than we were able to invest in this explor-atory study.

Our overall conclusion is that using Digalo needscareful planning and resourcing, but has the potential tobe effective in enhancing small group discussion andcollaboration. It can stimulate argumentation and hasthe possibility of helping science learning. Its use doesneed to be modelled for students, particularly thosewith little experience of constructing arguments. Theresearch has contributed to our understanding of howdifferent resources can be used to stimulate argumenta-tive interactions in primary science.

References

Andriessen J. & Schwarz B. (2009) Argumentative design. InArgumentation and Education (eds N. Muller Mirza &A.-N. Perret-Clermont), pp. 145–174. Springer, New York,NY.

Braund M. (2004) Learning science at museums and hands-oncentres. In Learning Science Outside the Classroom (edsM. Braund & M. Reiss), pp. 113–128. RoutledgeFalmer,London.

Driver R., Leach J., Millar R. & Scott P. (1996) YoungPeople’s Images of Science. Open University Press,Buckingham.

Driver R., Newton P. & Osborne J. (2000) Establishing thenorms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. ScienceEducation 84, 287–312.



Duschl R. & Osborne J. (2002) Supporting and promotingargumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education 38,39–72.

Erduran S., Simon S. & Osborne J. (2004) TAPping into argu-mentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’sargument pattern for studying science discourse. ScienceEducation 88, 915–933.

Falk J.H. & Dierking L.D. (2000) Learning from Museums:Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. AltaMiraPress, Walnut Creek, CA.

Falk J.H., Scott C., Dierking L.D., Rennie L.J. & Cohen JonesM. (2004) Interactives and visitor learning. Curator 47,171–198.

Griffin J. (1999) Finding evidence of learning in museum set-tings. In Communicating Science Contexts and Channels(eds E. Scanlon, E. Whitelegg & S. Yates), pp. 110–119.Open University Press, Buckingham.

Hogan K. & Maglienti M. (2001) Comparing the epistemo-logical underpinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoningabout conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teach-ing 38, 663–687.

Jarvis T. & pell A. (2005) Factors influencing elementaryschool children’s attitudes toward science before, during,and after a visit to the UK National Space Centre. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching 42, 53–83.

Jiménez-Aleixandre M.P. & Erduran S. (2008) Argumenta-tion in science education: an overview. In Argumentation inScience Education (eds S. Erduran & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre), pp. 3–27. Springer, London.

Jiménez-Aleixandre M.P., Rodríguez A.B. & Duschl R.(2000) ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘Doing science’: argument inhigh school genetics. Science Education 84, 757–792.

Joiner R., Jones S. & Doherty J. (2008) Two studies examin-ing argumentation in asynchronous computer mediatedcommunication. International Journal of Research &Method in Education 31, 243–255.

Kuhn D. (1991) The Skills of Argument. Cambridge Univer-sity Press, Cambridge.

Loucks-Horsley S., Love N., Stiles K., Mundry S. & HewsonP. (2003) Designing Professional Development for Teach-ers of Science and Mathematics. Corwin Press, ThousandOaks, CA.

Maloney J. & Simon S. (2006) Mapping children’s discus-sions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and

argumentation. International Journal of Science Education28, 1817–1841.

Millar R. & Osborne J.F., eds (1998) Beyond 2000: ScienceEducation for the Future. King’s College London, London.

Naylor S. & Keogh B. (2000) Concept Cartoons in ScienceEducation. Millgate House Publishers, Sandbach.

Osborne J., Erduran S. & Simon S. (2004a) Enhancing thequality of argument in school science. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching 41, 994–1020.

Osborne J., Erduran S. & Simon S. (2004b) Ideas, Evidenceand Argument in Science. In-Service Training Pack,Resource Pack and Video. Nuffield Foundation, London.

Q.C.A. (2005) Programme of Study for Key Stage 4 from2006. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, London.

Rennie L.J. & McClafferty T.P. (1995) Using visits to interac-tive science and technology centres, museums, aquaria andzoos to promote learning science. Journal of ScienceTeacher Education 6, 175–185.

Rennie L.J. & McClafferty T.P. (1996) Science centres andscience learning. Studies in Science Education 27, 53–98.

Sandoval W. & Reiser B. (2004) Explanation driven inquiry:integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientificinquiry. Science Education 88, 345–372.

Schwarz B. & Glassner A. (2007) The role of floor control andof ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. International Journal of Computer SupportedCollaborative Learning 2, 449–478.

Schwarz B. (2009) Argumentation and learning. In Argumen-tation and Education (eds N.M. Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont), pp. 91–126. Springer, NewYork, NY.

Simon S. (2008) Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in theevaluation of argumentation in school science. Interna-tional Journal of Research & Method in Education 31,277–289.

Simon S., Erduran S. & Osborne J. (2006) Learning to teachargumentation: research and development in the scienceclassroom. International Journal of Science Education 28,235–260.

Toulmin S. (1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge Univer-sity Press, Cambridge.

Zohar A. & Nemet F. (2002) Fostering students’ knowledgeand argumentation skills through dilemmas in humangenetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39,35–62.

14 S. Simon et al.


promoting argumentation in primary science contexts: an analysis of students' interactions in...

Documents