Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

DOI 10.1007/s11165-011-9267-9

Argumentation in the Chemistry Laboratory: Inquiry

and Confirmatory Experiments
Dvora Katchevich & Avi Hofstein &
Rachel Mamlok-Naaman

Published online: 9 November 2011

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract One of the goals of science education is to provide students with the ability to
construct argumentsreasoning and thinking critically in a scientific context. Over the
years, many studies have been conducted on constructing arguments in science teaching,
but only few of them have dealt with studying argumentation in the laboratory. Our
research focuses on the process in which students construct arguments in the chemistry
laboratory while conducting various types of experiments. It was found that inquiry
experiments have the potential to serve as an effective platform for formulating arguments,
owing to the features of this learning environment. The discourse during inquiry-type
experiments was found to be rich in arguments, whereas that during confirmatory-type
experiments was found to be sparse in arguments. The arguments, which were developed
during the discourse of an open inquiry experiment, focus on the hypothesis-building stage,
analysis of the results, and drawing appropriate conclusions.
Keywords Argumentation . Chemistry laboratory . Confirmatory-type experiment .
High-order learning skills . Inquiry-type experiment

Theoretical Background
Learning science in a laboratory has a number of features that have contributed to
establishing its centrality in the learning and teaching of science in general and chemistry in
particular (Hodson 1993; Hofstein and Kind in press; Hofstein and Lunetta 2004;
Lazarowitz and Tamir 1994; Lunetta 1998; Lunetta et al. 2007). Clearly, the science
laboratory, if structured properly, has the potential to develop many important high-order
learning skills such as asking questions, developing critical thinking, and developing
metacognitive skills. It provides a unique opportunity to collaborate, deliberate, and
communicate with peers. In a nut shell, it provides an opportunity to learn science by doing
science: hands-on as well as minds-on science.
D. Katchevich (*) : A. Hofstein : R. Mamlok-Naaman
Department of Science Teaching, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel
e-mail: dvora.katchevich@weizmann.ac.il

318

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

Over the years, the educational effectiveness of science laboratories as a unique learning
environment that enables meaningful student learning has been emphasized in many
research studies (see, for example, Abrahams and Millar 2008; Hodson 1993; Lazarowitz
and Tamir 1994; Lunetta et al. 2007). Moreover, the laboratory provides support for highorder learning skills that include observing, planning an experiment, asking relevant
questions, hypothesizing, and analyzing experimental results (Bybee 2000; Hofstein et al.
2004). In this paper, we define science laboratory activities as learning experiences in
which students interact with materials to observe and better understand the natural world.
Note that assessing the educational effectiveness of the laboratory and its related
learning skills requires distinguishing between the different modes of instruction, namely,
the nature of the experiments in which the students are involved. Laboratory experiments
can be classified into four types: confirmatory, inquiry, discovery, and conducting an
experiment around a specific problem (in this paper, we will relate solely to the first two).
Domin (1999) suggested criteria to define experiments according to the type of results
obtained from the experiment: the inductive or deductive approach to the activity and,
according to who wrote the procedure, either the teacher or the student who must perform
the experiment. Other researchers (Fradd et al. 2001; Herron 1971; Schwab 1962)
suggested characterizing experiments according to their degree of open-endedness. Open
in this sense means that the experiment is performed entirely by the student and closed
means that it is performed entirely by the teacher (e.g. a demonstration). A confirmatory
experiment is considered closed when the students, after learning in the science
classroom, perform an experiment that is planned by the teacher. Its approach is deductive
and the results of the experiment are known to both the teacher and students in advance. In
contrast, an inquiry experiment is considered open when the students plan how it will be
carried out. Its approach is inductive and the results are not known in advance to the
students and sometimes to the teacher.
Argumentation in the Context of Learning Science
One of the goals of science education is to provide students with the ability to formulate
argumentsreasoning and critiquing in a scientific context. Progress in science is partially
based on arguments and their related rebuttal. Formulating arguments is a particular genre of
discourse in which a central epistemological framework is formed as a result of scientific
actions. Upon examining the type of activities, it was found that formulating arguments is
central and significant in developing and conducting science activities. Consequently, it is
reasonable to assume that imparting the meaning of scientific content and the essence of
developing a scientific concept would be a way to formulate arguments (Erduran et al. 2004;
Hofstein and Kind in press; Hofstein et al. 2008). Scientific language is based on arguments;
therefore, students should be provided with opportunities to talk science (Lemke 1990). We
believe that argumentation in a scientific context should be an integral part of this process. In
a classical science lesson teachers ask questions, expect certain answers, and immediately
evaluate the students replies (Cazden 2001). In contrast, working in small groups, in which
the members are exposed to scientific tasks, provides them with an opportunity to become
involved in a debate and to be supported or rejected by their arguments. During a group
debate, sometimes with the teachers intervention, the group has an opportunity to construct
individual as well as group knowledge. Formulating knowledge in this manner is an example
of constructivist socio-cultural knowledge, as described by Vygotsky (1978).
According to Jimnez-Aleixandre (2008), the characteristics of an optimal learning
environment for constructing arguments that relate to students, teachers, curriculum,

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

319

assessment, reflection, and communication are as follows: (1) The students must be active
in the learning process; they must assess knowledge, establish their claims, and be critical
of others; (2) the teachers have to adopt to student-centered learning, act as a role model
regarding the way they verify their claims, support the development of understanding the
nature of knowledge among students, and adopt learning strategies such as inquiry; (3) the
curriculum should incorporate an authentic problem solving approach, which will require
the students to learn by inquiry; (4) students and teachers should be skilled in assessing
claims, and assessing the students should go beyond written tests; (5) the students should be
reflective about their knowledge and understand how it was acquired, and finally (6) the
students should have an opportunity to conduct a dialogue in which cooperative learning
will take place. Combining these six elements encourages the implementation of an
argumentative, interactive learning environment.
From a cognitive perspective, formulating an argument is a conceptual process that can
aid in developing an understanding of these concepts. Furthermore, the skill of reasoning,
which requires creating a link between claims and evidence, is developed (Osborne 2010).
In general, students often have difficulty in formulating arguments; they also have difficulty
in selecting and connecting findings that can be used as evidence in supporting their claims
(Sandoval and Millwood 2005). Furthermore, students do not formulate high-level
arguments on their own. It is therefore necessary to initiate activities that encourage and
support formulating arguments, especially with controversial activities that have diverse
types of solutions (Andriessen and Schwarz 2009; Duschl and Osborne 2002). For
example, Osborne et al. (2004) offered a number of strategies to develop argumentation
skills, e.g., exposing students to several explanations regarding a particular scientific
subject and dealing with claims that the students may accept or reject. They based their
assessments on appropriate professional criteria and expose students to two opposing
theories that can explain a particular phenomenon. The students should: (1) explain what
evidence supports each of the theories, (2) construct arguments using structured patterns
that include guiding questions, and (3) predict the experiments results, based on
appropriate arguments, (4) observe the experiment and explain its results (Predict, Observe,
Explain), and (5) design an experiment, carry it out, and discuss the results. Bell and Linn
(2000) offered a computerized learning environment for integrating knowledge (KIE) that
integrates argument construction, and enables the students to search for evidence in order to
establish their claims online.
Other researchers suggested using socio-scientific dilemmas, because these dilemmas are
ambiguous and enable students to practice the process of simultaneously posing claims and
counter claims (Dawson and Venville 2010; Jimnez-Aleixandre et al. 2000; Sadler 2004;
Zohar and Nemet 2002). Building an argument has significant social importance for
students, in addition to their learning scientific concepts and high-order learning skills.
While students are engaged in activities in which they are provided with opportunities to
develop argumentative skills, they learn how to conduct a meaningful conversation with
peers. Needless to say, these skills are useful for overcoming lifes challenges and are not
used solely in the context of science learning (Jimnez-Aleixandre et al. 2000).
In recent years, several researchers have used Toulmins model (Toulmin 1958) in their
studies. This model includes three basic components: a claim, evidence, and a warrant for
formulating grounded and rational arguments (Bell and Linn 2000; Driver et al. 2000;
Erduran et al. 2004; Jimnez-Aleixandre et al. 2000; Kind et al. 2010; Sandoval 2003). The
claim is an assertion whereby the one who suggests it believes it to be true, e.g., a
conclusion, an answer to a question or a problem. Evidence is scientific data that support
the claim. Scientific data consist of information, such as observations and measurements.

320

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

The claim should be based on evidences and the warrant justifies the link between the
findings and the claim. A higher level of argumentation includes a theoretical basis or
explanation at an elementary level, namely, it also includes backing. Similarly, a conditional
(qualified) argument or counter claim that intended to refute a particular argument. A
rebuttal makes a claim about why certain claims are incorrect and uses additional evidence
and reasoning to justify it.
This model was also adopted for the research study presented in this paper. Walton
(1996) developed an alternative framework for analyzing an argument, which characterizes
arguments in terms of a scheme of 25 common forms of reasoning. Waltons framework
puts more emphasis on the content of an argument, but since this was not the main focus of
our study, we chose not to use it. Note, however, that some researchers have expanded the
term argument and include in it the entire scope of reasoning. For example, Means and
Voss (1996), regarding reasoning, defined argument as a conclusion supported by at least
one reason.
It is assumed that teaching science through inquiry is an effective teaching strategy for
teaching and developing the ability to expand argumentation skills (Duschl and Osborne
2002; Wilson et al. 2010). It is assumed that an inquiry activity stimulates the students to
better understand the research process that scientists undergo. Scientists seek answers to
unclear phenomena; they try to explain them by collecting evidence and by constructing
arguments. The construction of arguments is a sort of discourse that creates an
epistemological framework within the scientific process. When considering the type of
activities in which scientists engage, one realizes that building significant arguments is
central to the development of science (Hofstein et al. 2008). Therefore, it was reasonable to
assume that we would find evidence for argumentation in the laboratory.

Argumentation in the Science Laboratory

Several researchers (e.g., Gott and Duggan 2007; Sampson and Gleim 2009) who focused
on the issue of argumentation suggested that the inquiry-type laboratory in science
education can provide opportunities for students to develop argumentation skills. However,
very little research has been conducted with the goal in mind of accepting or rejecting this
assumption.
For example, Tien and Stacy (1996) found that students who participated in guided
inquiry-type laboratories were better at evaluating evidence obtained from their research.
Kelly et al. (1998) analyzed the discourse in a physics laboratory and found that claims
accompanied by justifications are generally given in response to the claims of a colleague in
light of the experiments findings or of the instructions, which may require an explanation
or reasoning on the part of the student.
Kim and Song (2006) analyzed the argumentation during and after open-ended inquiries
in middle schools in Korea. They suggested adding instructions that encourage students to
support their claims and to act as critics similarly to scientists at a conference. The
instructions refer to the experiment, the writing of the final report, and to the critical
feedback that the students needed to write to other groups.
Richmond and Striley (1996) claimed that the development of argumentation skills in
the laboratory depends on the type of group. They presented a study, conducted among 10th
grade students, who performed a series of experiments dealing with the ability to cope with
the disease cholera. The students worked in small groups; the researchers found that the
argumentation skills that developed depended on the group leaders personality. In the

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

321

groups that had an inclusive leader, all the group members contributed in developing the
argumentation, whereas in the groups that had a persuasive leader, it was the leader who
developed the argumentation.
Watson et al. (2004) reported about the low quantity of arguments in classes in which the
inquiry activities were conducted. Here the laboratory was followed by class discussions in
order to encourage argumentation in the science classroom. They claimed that students in
these situations related to the laboratory as a means by which procedures that would enable
obtaining a result, e.g., writing a report, are performed, but they did not relate to the
laboratory as a medium for discussion and decision-making. However, note that some
reports also claimed that the discourse in the confirmatory laboratories in secondary
education lacks arguments (Abi-El-Mona and Abd-El-Khalick 2006).
Other researchers (Hohenshell and Hand 2006; Keys et al. 1999) suggested a strategy of
best practice in the laboratory whose outcome is a written report: Science Writing Heuristic
(SWH). The lab reports, which are written in this way, should replace the traditional way in
which students prepare laboratory reports (usually after performing the laboratory
experiment). The students receive written guidelines that make connections among the
components of the inquiry process: observations, posing questions, data collection, and
evidence-based claims. The construction of knowledge and the building of relationships are
done by inquiry questions, which help students establish their claims for the data that they
gathered. This strategy enables the students to become more active, especially in classroom
group discussions. Yoon et al. (2010) elaborate on the optimal conditions and specifications
needed for classroom discussions using the SWH strategy. They claim that a nonthreatening learning environment, where students feel comfortable to express themselves, to
accept criticism, to listen to others, and to observe teachers who serve as models, are
optimal conditions for encouraging discourse.

The Study
The main goal of this research study was to explore the high-school chemistry laboratory as
a platform for developing and enhancing argumentation. It follows a series of other studies
conducted in Israel that investigated teaching and learning in inquiry-type chemistry
laboratories. More specifically, it focuses on students ability to ask questions while
conducting an inquiry-type chemistry experiment (Hofstein et al. 2005), developing
metacognitive skills (Kipnis and Hofstein 2008), investigating students attitudes toward
and interest in the chemistry laboratory, and students perceptions of the chemistry
laboratory learning environment (Dkeidek et al. 2009; Hofstein et al. 2001).
Research Question
In order to investigate students argumentative processes in chemistry laboratories, we
decided to investigate how the skills of constructing arguments are expressed in various
types of experiments, namely open-ended inquiry and confirmatory-type experiments.
Research Design
The research design presented will refer to some reasons that led to selecting it, namely,
implementing a pilot study, selecting a research population and its related characteristics as
well as the research procedures.

322

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

The research method is mainly based on the use of qualitative tools. Some of the
qualitative findings were analyzed quantitatively. The qualitative approach enabled us to
describe in detail the phenomena and processes that occurred in the laboratory and that are
related to constructing arguments. Quantitative analysis of the qualitative findings enabled
us to describe the magnitude of the phenomena that we identified, with the goal in mind of
comparing the different types of experiments, namely, the open-ended inquiry experiment
vs. the confirmatory one.
Pilot Study
A small-scale study (pilot study) was conducted in one class that consisted of a population
similar to the one in the main study. The goal of this study was to investigate whether the
discourse held during the experiments procedures initiated argumentation. The discourse,
which was audio-taped, was analyzed. Based on the findings, it was clear that the openended inquiry experiment served as a potential platform for an argumentative discourse.
Therefore, after compiling these initial findings, we planned and conducted the main study.
Research Population of the Main Study
The research population consisted of six classes of 11th and 12th grade chemistry students
(N=116) in 5 different high schools in Israel. Note that each class was taught by a different
teacher. The students study in an advanced placement chemistry program that consists of a
laboratory unit (about 25% of the total program including students final grades in the
matriculation examination). All the teachers involved underwent a continuous and intensive
professional development program. The laboratory unit lasts two years and includes a series
of twelve experiments, some of which are open-ended-type inquiry experiments, whereas
others are confirmatory experiments.
In Israel, the chemistry laboratory provides a unique learning environment that differs
from that in the classroom. In this environment, learning is conducted in small groups (34
students) in which the students are exposed to various levels and types of laboratory
activities (Israel Ministry of Education 2007). The different learning skills in which the
students are involved while conducting the various experiments are detailed in Table 1. As
shown in Table 1, more learning skills are included in the inquiry-type experiment, and they
are more complicated than those used in the confirmatory one.
Laboratory Activities
The experiments in the laboratory include the following: Students perform open-ended-type
inquiry experiments in which they are exposed to a phenomenon; they ask questions about
it, select the research question, write a hypothesis related to the research question, plan an
experiment in order to examine their hypothesis, and then perform the experiment, organize
their results, and draw conclusions, as well as analyze and summarize the inquiry
experiment. For more details about the nature of this type of experiment and the type of
activities in which the students are involved, see Appendix 1.
In contrast, the confirmatory experiments are planned by the teacher with the goal in
mind of confirming the theoretical material studied in class. The students perform the
experiments according to the teachers instructions, then organize their results, analyze
them, and draw conclusions. For more details about the nature of this type of experiment
and the nature of activities in which the students are involved, see Appendix 2.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

323

Table 1 Skills that are involved during the two types of experiments
Learning skills that are involved during the experiment

Confirmatory
experiment

Open-ended inquiry
experiment

Conducting an experiment according to the teachers instructions

Asking questions

Formulating research questions

Constructing a rational hypothesis

Designing an appropriate inquiry experiment

Conducting the experiment that was planned by the students

Organizing the results

Analyzing the results

Drawing conclusions

Summarizing the experiments procedures

These activities, especially throughout the open-ended-type inquiry experiments, encourage

a discourse that enables the students to develop both cognitive and metacognitive skills (Kipnis
and Hofstein 2008). The discourse is based on providing explanations regarding a certain
experimental phenomenon, and as a result, it encourages students to pose arguments.
Furthermore (similar to what is done by scientists), at the conclusion stage of each
experiment, the students must draw conclusionsmake claims based on the experimental
findings, and propose a scientific explanation aligning the findings to the claims.
A confirmatory experiment usually consists of two lessons (45 minutes each), whereas
an inquiry experiment usually consists of six lessons. During the first two lessons, students
are exposed to the phenomenon, ask questions, choose a research question, formulate a
hypothesis, and plan an experiment to test the hypothesis. In the next two lessons, the
students perform the experiment that they designed, collect and analyze the data, draw
conclusions, and critically summarize the experiment. At the end of these laboratory
activities, the students submit a group report. During these four lessons, different kinds of
interactions between the groups and the teacher take place. Some are initiated by the
students, who ask for feedback or advice, and others are initiated by the teacher, who is
interested in following up the progress, and in guiding or listening to the group discussion.
The groups present their summary to their peers in the last 2 lessons, followed by a
summary discussion, in which the teacher emphasizes certain points of the subject matter,
as well as the background of the experiment.
Research Tools
The research tools consisted of the following: criterion-based observations in the laboratory,
the students laboratory reports (hot reports), and semi-structured interviews held with the
students.
Observations in the Laboratory Laboratory observations were conducted during laboratory
sessions involving different types of experiments; they focused on the discourse related to
the experiments that took place in the laboratory while students performed the experiments.
The discourse was audio-taped and the parts constructing a rational hypothesis,
analyzing the results, and drawing conclusions were transcribed. The beginning of
the various parts was set according to the discourse: students tended to announce when they

324

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

began a particular part. These parts included interactions between the group members, and
sometimes interactions between the group members and the teacher, who approached and
interacted with them.
The discourse was analyzed according to the following criteria: the components of the basic
argument: claims, evidence, and scientific explanations. The components of the argument were
identified using Toulmins model (Toulmin 1958). Toulmins model places more emphasis on
the generic features of the argument, in line with our general interest in argumentation. In
addition, Toulmins model has been used to characterize argumentation in science lessons and
is implicit in using the coding system of others (Bell and Linn 2000; Driver et al. 2000;
Erduran et al. 2004; Jimnez-Aleixandre et al. 2000; Kuhn et al. 1997; Sandoval 2003).
Following these researchers, we adopted Toulmins framework to focus on the epistemic and
argumentative operations adopted by students. In order to assess the level of the arguments,
we chose a tool that refers to the various elements of an argument (see Table 2). This tool was
chosen from among many assessment tools appearing in the literature reviewed by Sampson
and Clarks (2008). This tool is aligned with the discourse style of the laboratory experiments
and with Toulmins model; it is based on other tools suggested in former studies (Erduran et
al. 2004; Osborne et al. 2004; Simon and Johnson 2008). During the discourse, the students
suggest different explanations for the various phenomena that they observed during the
experimental procedure and then analyze the data and present arguments. The reliability of
the coding of the argumentation discourse components was tested in two ways: encoding the
components of the argumentation in 20% of the transcribed discourse and checking the
reliability using three experts. The percentage of agreement between the experts ranged from
85% to 90%. For encoding in which the experts did not agree, judges discussed the issue until
they reached a consensus. In addition, the authors repeated the encoding; after a while the
correlation between the early and late coding was 0.95.
The levels of the arguments raised by the students are presented in Table 2. Two major
aspects are referred to: (1) those components that form the basis of the argument (claim
evidence and scientific explanations), and (2) the presence of rebuttals or counterclaims.
When the argument includes many components, its level is significantly higher. An argument
at level 3 includes the classic elements of an argument: a claim, evidence, and a scientific
explanation that connects them. On the other hand, during an argumentative discourse, there
is an additional dimension that includes a counterclaim or refutation, the presence of which
serves as evidence of a high argumentative discourse level. Consequently, this element was
taken into account when determining argument levels. The highest level of an argument, level
5, included a refutation based on accompanying scientific evidence and explanations. The
discourse analysis was validated by 3 experts. Note that during the analysis of the arguments
components, we used a scientific explanation expression instead of a warrant, because
students tend to explain the evidence supporting their arguments by using scientific
explanations based on their previous chemistry content knowledge.
The Students Laboratory Reports The students laboratory reportshot reportsare
group reports generally written during (or immediately after) the laboratory session
(Hofstein et al. 2004). These written reports were collected throughout the year. The report
sections, describing the hypothesis and delineating the rational conclusions, were analyzed
in order to determine the components of the arguments and their respective level.
Interviews with the Students A semi-structured interview was conducted at the end of the
laboratory unit, in order to enable us to triangulate the other findings obtained from the
laboratory observations and the students laboratory reports. The interviews were conducted

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

325

Table 2 The key to assessing the level of arguments based on (Erduran et al. 2004; Osborne et al. 2004;
Simon and Johnson 2008), and some examples
The components

Symbol Level Examples of arguments at different levels

Claim

Nurit: The more powder there is the faster the raisins move, and
over time [claim].

Claim+Data or
Claim+Warrant

CD

Nira: The more reactants that there are in the system, the greater
the concentration of solution B, more products will be obtained,
more gas will be generated, more bubbles will be created, and
more raisins will rise [claim+explanation].
Moriah: As we increased the concentration of the solution, there
was a greater amount of sediment [evidence].

CW

CDW
Claim+Data+
Warrant or Claim+
Data+Rebuttal or
Claim+Warrant+
Rebuttal

Claim+Data+
Warrant+Backing

Gil: The more we increased the concentration of the solution, the

more the quantity of the products increased. We found this by
analyzing the quantity of the solid [claim+evidence].

CDR

Moriah: Because the reaction has more reactants, there are more
collisions between the particles of the reactants and consequently,
there are more fertile collisions [explanations].

CWR

Gil: And then more of the product that forms the solid that we
obtained is created and the solution obtained is more turbid
[continued explanation combined with evidence].

CDWB

Noam: I want to state that a higher temperature will result in a

more frequent occurrence of the reaction [claim]. [He draws a
graph] there is an increase in H since this is an endothermic
process [evidence].
Alon: There is an increase in S as gas is generated; thus, this is
a descending graph [evidence+claim].
Noam: At a higher temperature G is more negative and the
reaction will be more spontaneous, according to the graph [he
points to the graph that was drawn in the report].
Alon: The spontaneity will be expressed in a broader dispersion of
the gas and, as a result, the gas spreads more, because it has
greater energy.
Ohad: The greater dispersion of the Iodine will be expressed in a
greater area that crystallized on the large test-tube [explanation+
backing].

Rebuttal that
includes Claim+
Data+Warrant

CDWR

Yarden: In the first system, there was no reaction at all [claim]

Bennie: Not so! There was a reaction, but not like in the other
systems. Insufficient gas was generated in order to raise the
raisins [refutation based on evidence+explanation].

in pairs and included questions about the laboratory unit; they focused on the discourse
when various types of experiments were performed. A sample of the questions asked and
the interviewed students responses will be presented later. The interview was content
validated and inter-reliability was performed by 3 experts (researchers) from the
Department of Science Teaching, the Weizmann Institute of Science. The content validity
was related to questions that were asked, as well as to the categories established by the
researcher (the first author of this paper). The categories were based on the students
answers. The reliability between judges regarding adjusting the classification of students
answers to the categories was done later. The reliability correlation revealed an average of
85% among the judges. If there were answers for which the judges did not agree, then they
met and discussed the problems until a consensus was reached.

326

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

The Research Procedure

One of the authors of this paper participated in the laboratory lessons, observed them, and
recorded the discourse of the work groups. The teacher determined the work groups, which
were permanent throughout the research. One or two groups were chosen in each class and
their discussions were analyzed. The group selections were based on verbalismgroups in
which a productive discourse took place. These groups were analyzed through different
types of experiments: the open-ended inquiry experiments and the confirmatory ones. The
analyzed laboratory reports belong to the same groups, whose discourses were analyzed as
well. Note that the teachers who participated in this study selected the experiments and their
sequence by themselves and according to the inspection requirements of the laboratory unit.
The sequence differed from one teacher to another, but all the teachers distributed the
confirmatory experiments among the inquiry ones.
The results of the classroom laboratory observations and their related analyses reflected
5 open-ended inquiry-type experiments and 6 confirmatory-type experiments. In total, 13
observation scenarios were collected (part of the experiments were conducted in more than
one class). The classification of the experiments into 2 groups was based on skills specified
in Table 1. Again, this classification was validated by three experts from the Department of
Science Teaching.

Results and Discussion

With the goal in mind of providing answers to the research question, the results and the
discussion are presented as follows:

&
&
&
&

An analysis of a series of the various types of experiments (an open-ended experiment

versus a confirmatory experiment).
The results obtained from interviewing the students.
An analysis of the discourse of an open-ended experiment.
An analysis of the discourse of a confirmatory experiment.

As described in the methods section of this paper, the discourses held in different types of
experiments were analyzed. The students responses (audio recorded) in the various
argumentative parts were transcribed and encoded according to Toulmins model (examples
will be presented later). Thereafter, the transcribed data were divided into episodes. Each
episode was ranked according to its level of argument (see Table 2). The results of this analysis
were accumulated in order to compare the number of arguments and their related level
resulting from open-ended inquiry-type and confirmatory-type experiments (see Table 3).
As shown in Table 3, which integrates data regarding observations in 11 different groups
in experiments of an open-ended experiment and a confirmatory-type experiment, the
average number of arguments in an open-ended experiment is significantly larger than that
in a confirmatory study (N is the number of observations made). Furthermore, the average
argumentative level is significantly higher (N is the total number of arguments in the 11
observations that were conducted).
As shown in Fig. 1, most of the arguments in the confirmatory-type experiment are
indicated as level 1. In other words, the students claim it but do not feel the need to establish
it. However, in the inquiry-type experiments most of the arguments are at the 2 and 3 levels
specified in Table 2 (CD/CW/CDW/CWR/CDR). These are arguments that include a claim
based on evidence, or a scientific explanation or a combination of both of them or one that

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

327

Table 3 The average level and the average number of arguments that appeared during the discourse in the
open-ended and confirmatory experiments
Type of experiment

Mean no. of arguments (SD)

Mean level of arguments (SD)

Open-ended experiment

6.0 (2.1) (N=11)

2.41 (1.12) (N=66)

Confirmatory experiment

1.9 (1.2) (N=11)

1.48 (0.60) (N=21)

# 21 p

12.1 (0.001)

13.5 (0.001)

N in the middle column represents the number of observations related to the average number of arguments
(describing the number of observations conducted)
N in the right column represents the average number of arguments (describing the total number of arguments
that arose during 11 observations)

includes a refutation. Arguments such as these definitely exemplify an argumentative

discourse. In an open-end experiment, about 14% include refutation (CDR/CWR/CDWR),
compared with a confirmatory study experiment, which does not include a discourse that
includes refutation. There was a significant difference between the frequencies of the various
levels of the arguments in the discourse of the two types of experiments: # 24 =13.7 (p=0.001).
The main contributions to the difference are levels 1 and 3.
In order to neutralize intervening variables (the teacher, group size, and group
composition), which can affect the argumentation discourse, we present in Fig. 2 openended inquiry experiments as well as confirmatory ones, which were conducted in the same
school, same class, taught by the same teacher. Experiments 1 and 2 are open-ended inquiry
experiments, whereas experiments 3 and 4 are confirmatory ones. Figure 2 presents the
distribution of the arguments at different levels of the experiments. As shown, the number
of arguments and their level in the open-ended inquiry experiments are higher than in the
confirmatory ones. Since other intervening variables were neutralized (as previously
mentioned), we can conclude that regarding the experiments performed in the present study,
the number of arguments and their level depend on the characteristics of the experiments.
From the analysis of the student interviews conducted at the end of the laboratory unit,
we also realized that from the students viewpoint, open inquiry experiments serve as a
trigger for generating discourse. Those interviewed noted that the scope of the discussions
is much larger in the inquiry experiments than in the confirmatory experiments. The
students discussions can be characterized as argumentative discourse. In other words,
discourse that includes differences of opinion, attempting to persuade others using critical
thinking, and establishing claims based on scientific explanations (Glassner and Schwarz
2007; Osborne and Chin 2010), as presented in Table 4.

60.0

Frequency (%)

Fig. 1 The frequency of the

arguments by level during the
discourse (N=66 arguments
refer to open-ended inquiry
experiments, and N=21
arguments refer to confirmatory
experiments)

The Frequency of the Arguments by Level During the

Discourse

inquiry
confirmatory

50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0

level 1

level 2

level 3

level 4

The level of the argument

level 5

328

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

Fig. 2 Arguments by level that were raised during the discourse in the open-ended and confirmatory
experiments, by the same group. Experiments 1 and 2 are inquiry type, and experiments 3 and 4 are
confirmatory experiments

Table 4 presents quotes from interviews with students (N=40) at the end of the
laboratory learning unit, with regard to discussions related to the various research activities.
We will refer to one question from the interview regarding the nature of the discussions.

Table 4 A summary of students typical answers (quotes) to the question: Can you explain how the
discussions were conducted in the group during the experiment? This was based on the categories and their
frequency, which emerged from the interviews (N=40)
Categories

Frequency Sample answer (quotation)

percentage

The group members 67.5%

attempted to
persuade each
other.

Shani: You and I have had differences of opinion on many occasions;

you said this and that and I had a different opinion. From my point of
view, everyone said what they wanted and all of us spoke about the
decisions, such as choosing the research question and a scientific basis
for the hypothesis. Thus, if there was no consensus, we attempted to
persuade each other. In some cases, I also felt that the scientific basis
was insufficient and then we sought a solution with the teachers help.

Critical Thinking

67.5%

Ron: When we faced a problem, we tried to see what was happening;

each person raised an idea. If someone thinks that this is correct he
agrees; if someone else thinks that this is incorrect, he must explain his
reasoning. If everyone thinks differently, and if we cannot persuade
each other, we ask the teacher.

Mutual
Contributions to
the Discussion

95%

Lior: During the open-ended experiment, there were discussions

especially because of the necessity to construct a hypothesis that could
be established scientifically. Because the hypothesis has to be acceptable
to all the group members, each member explains his rationale and why
he/she thinks this is correct, namely, persuading the group members
why the hypothesis is correct.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

329

From the students answers, we identified three categories that characterize the discourse
during the performance of the open-ended experiments:
1. There were different opinions during the discourse, and group members attempted to
persuade each other.
2. The students displayed critical thinking during the discourse.
3. The students reported that there was a mutual contribution to the discourse.
The frequencies presented in Table 4 describe the prevalence of specific categories of
students answers. The students answers usually represent more than one category.
As shown in Table 4, 95% of the students reported a mutual contribution to the discourse
and to the group product. Almost 70% indicated that the discourse was an argumentativetype discourse that includes a variety of opinions, an attempt to persuade others, and/or
critical thinking.
Note that a few students occasionally reported some kind of discourse that was not
characterized as argumentative.
Ron: Someone presents a hypothesis, and if one agrees with it there is almost no
discussion but sometimes when there is no consensus, there is a discussion.
Arnon: I must say that our group has smart people, if I may say so and we generally
agree on the content of the hypothesis, and we think together how to define it.
Sometimes there are discussions going on, but usually we agree.
Levi: Most of the time, the group accepted my opinion without any argument and
thats not right. Id rather be with students who can argue with me, and then I can
learn from them.

Distribution of the Various Parts of Arguments during the Experiments

Based on both the analysis of the discourse as well as the interviews held with the
students (as was shown in the above section), it is clear that during the various steps of
an inquiry-type experiment one observes different levels of arguments. In the following
section we will present and describe the distribution of the arguments in different parts
of the experiments.
Eleven observations conducted in 5 classes and 4 different open-ended inquiry-type
experiments (in terms of the number of arguments and their level in the various parts of the
ongoing discourse) were analyzed in order to determine the distribution of argumentation in
different parts of the experiments (stages in writing the hypothesis, analyzing the results,
and writing conclusions). A total of 66 arguments were found, with a distribution of 31.8%
in the hypothesis stage and 68.2 in the analysis stage (including drawing conclusions).
Overall, the scopes of the analysis phase and the drawing conclusions phase are larger,
although in observing a single experiment, one may obtain other results.
Figure 3 shows the distribution of 21 arguments for the hypothesis stage and 45
arguments for the analysis and drawing conclusions stages. The main differences can be
seen in the distribution of the arguments in Levels 1 and 3. In the analysis phase the
arguments were proven better. This was reflected in the use of artifacts that became
evidence. About 14% of the arguments in the hypothesis phase included the use of
evidence, but 53% of the arguments in the data analysis and the drawing conclusions phase
were evidence-based. This finding reinforces our assumption that the experiments
implemented in this study have the potential to serve as a suitable platform for building

330

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

Fig. 3 Distribution of the arguments, by levels, in different parts of the discourse during the open-ended inquiry
experiments: 21 arguments for the hypothesis stage and 45 for the analysis and drawing conclusions stages

evidence-based arguments, unlike other studies that indicate that students find it difficult to
adopt evidence-based argumentation.
Written Arguments
Various levels of arguments were found in the laboratory written reports (hot reports) of
the inquiry-type experiments, both in the written hypothesis and regarding the part in which
the conclusions were drawn. The arguments written in the reports originated from the group
discourse and they, in fact, reflect the groups knowledge. A breakdown of the arguments
found in the reports shows that 36.4% are hypotheses and 63.6% are conclusions. Examples
of arguments at various levels from the reports of the experiment, an open-ended
inquiry experiment that dealt with the phenomena The contact between liquids, are
presented in Table 5. The written arguments do not include any rebuttal components,
Table 5 Examples of written arguments from the reports of students of an open-ended-type inquiry
experiment, and their related arguments (component and level)
Argument from the reports

Argument
Level
components

Hypothesis: The higher the ethanol/water ratio, the smaller the waters surface tension CW
[claim]. The ethanol breaks the hydrogen bonds of the water; this proves that it has a
small hydrophobic tail and a hydrophilic part that breaks the bonds and dissolves in
them. The greater the quantity of ethanol, the greater the number of hydrogen bonds
that are broken and the waters surface tension decreases [scientific explanation].

CW
Conclusion: The solubility level falls when the length of the hydrophobic residue
increases [claim]. The residue rejects the water and cannot connect with it. The
hydrophobic residue rejects the water because it has van der Waals bonds, in contrast
to the water, which has hydrogen bonds. [Explanation]

Conclusion: Acids react with water more rapidly than the other substances [claim]. In the
experiment that we conducted, we used two acids that took the least amount of time to
create a uniform mixture with water [evidence]. The acid molecules have more contact
centers for creating hydrogen bonds with the water, because of their functional group
(COOH) [scientific explanation]. Therefore, it follows that acids are the substances that
react most rapidly with water in creating a homogeneous mixture [repeat claim].

CDW

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

331

since the report was written after the stage in which the students agreed upon the
hypothesis or the conclusions.
The existence of arguments in the reports, resulting from the confirmatory-type
experiments, was highly dependent on the type of instructions that were given to the
students by their teacher. Sometimes the arguments that appeared in the reports were
shallow but only at a basic claim level, for example, in the experiments Determining the
formula of a hydrate, or Determining the percentage of sugar in soft drinks:
The hydrate formula is CuSO45H2O [claim].
It can be deduced that as the concentration of the sugar solution rises, the solution
density rises together with it [claim].
In experiments in which the laboratory sheet also included appropriate questions, the
arguments appeared at a high level. An example of this is in the confirmatory experiment
during which the students determined the concentration of chloride ion in different types of
water. The following instructions appeared as part of the sheet of instructions for
performing the experiment:
1. Do the experiments results form the basis for determining an opinion regarding the
quality of the water?
2. Draw conclusions from the experiment.
Examples of written arguments from the reports of a confirmatory experiment are
presented in Table 6. These examples represent relatively high-level arguments
arguments written as answers to the questions in the sheet of instructions for performing
the experiment.
The findings in Table 7 integrate data from the written arguments in the student reports
of 11 different groups regarding an open-ended and a confirmatory-type experiment. No
significant difference was found regarding the frequency of the arguments in the students
reports at the various levels in both types of experiments: # 22 =2.5 (p=NS). However, most
of the arguments in the open inquiry experiments (N=44) are at levels 23, whereas most
arguments in the reports on the confirmatory experiments (N=16) were at levels 12. It is
noteworthy that in the reports of the confirmatory experiments, approximately 25% of the
arguments were written as level 3, namely arguments that include; claim, evidence, and
scientific explanations, similarly to the level 3 arguments appearing in the reports of the
open inquiry experiments (29%). One possible explanation for this finding is that the
Table 6 Examples of written arguments from the reports of students of a confirmatory experiment, their
related arguments (component and level)
Argument from the reports

Argument
Level
components

The results obtained form the basis for determining an opinion regarding the quality of the CDW
water [claim]. During the experiment, we conducted titration studies a number of times for
the same sample. Therefore, one can assume that the results that we obtained were logical
because of the repeated results [explanation]. Our investigation focused on finding the
ionic concentration of chlorine that we discovered [evidence]. All the tests conducted
indicated that the water complies with the Israeli standard, i.e., it is suitable for drinking
but the ionic concentration of other metals must be examined in order to estimate the
quality of the water tested [an additional qualified claim].
The tap water at Kibbutz Givat Brenner is preferable for drinking [claim] because the ionic CW
concentration of the chlorine in it is smaller than that at Beth Elazari [explanation].

332

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

Table 7 The percentage frequency of arguments according to their level (N=44 arguments refer to openended inquiry experiments, N=16 arguments refer to confirmatory experiments), the average argument level,
and the average number of arguments in the reports of 11 observations of open-ended inquiry and
confirmatory experiments
Type of experiment

Frequency (%)

Mean level (SD)

Mean no. (SD)

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Open-ended

18.2

52.3

29.5

2.11 (0.69)

4.0 (1.5)

Confirmatory

37.5

37.5

25

1.87 (0.80)

1.5 (1.0)

questions that appear in the confirmatory experiments instruction sheet could induce
students to write answers regarding the structure of a high-level argument (see Table 6).
Furthermore, another possible explanation for this finding can be seen in the process that
the students undergo as part of a laboratory unit for acquiring skills. At least in some cases,
students who had been trained to draw conclusions in open inquiry experiments also apply
this skill in confirmatory experiments. Despite the discourse, which contained relatively
few high-level arguments, when the students write their conclusions, some of them are
similar to those that they recorded in the open inquiry experiments. In the reports of the
open inquiry experiments the arguments include hypotheses and conclusions, whereas in
the reports of the confirmatory experiments, the arguments only include conclusions
(because the hypotheses are not part of the requirements in these experiments).
We found a significant difference between the average number of arguments in the
reports of the two types of experiments: # 22 =12.5 (p=0.001). However, the difference
between the average argument levels in the reports of the two types of experiments failed to
reach a significant level.
In order to obtain a more in-depth perception regarding the source for the differences
obtained in the inquiry-type and confirmatory-type experiments, we decided to present the
analysis of the discourse recorded and analyzed in two experiments: The contact between
two fluids, representing an inquiry-type experiment, and Solubility of a solid in water and
in nonaqueous solvents, representing a confirmatory-type experiment. It is suggested that
such an analysis can provide us with the opportunity to follow the nature of the tasks and as
a result, the discourse held by the students in the various groups.
Analysis of the Discourse of an Open-ended-type inquiry Experiment
The activity, the contact between fluids (see Appendix 1), was conducted in an 11th
grade class in a regular academic high school in Israel. The activity, an open-ended
inquiry experiment, was conducted in small collaborative groups (34 students). In the
pre-lab phase the teacher, Orly, clarified the objective of the experiment as part of the
topic that the students learned: This experiment is intended to summarize the concept of
structures of molecules and bonding, which was studied in class. At the beginning of the
lesson, the students received equipment, materials, and instructions for performing the
experiment (see Appendix 1).
In the experiment entitled, the contact between fluids, the students observed the
contact between two fluids, namely, water and ethanol. They were asked to carefully
observe any changes that occur. At the beginning of the contact between the fluids,
irregular behaviors were observedsharp movements of fluids, whereby each fluid
attempted to prevent a mixture of the two. Finally, a drop of soap in the irregular region,

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

333

after a few seconds, resolved the problem and the fluids mixed. Prior to the contact between
the fluids, the students observed how water and ethanol spread differently on the surface.
Following their observations, the students were asked: (1) to pose questions regarding
the phenomena, (2) to select the inquiry-type question for further investigation, (3) to
suggest a hypothesis, and (4) to plan an experiment that would investigate the hypothesis.
One of the groups proposed studying the following research question: How does the
ethanol/water relationship affect the waters surface tension?
All members of the group participated in the group discourse. They completed and
expanded each others explanations by establishing evidence that originated in observing
the preliminary experiment. The following will exemplify one of the discourse segments.
(The numbers in parentheses show the sequence number during the discourse.)
(1) Alon: Our hypothesis is that the greater the quantity of ethanol, the smaller the
surface tension will be [claim].
(3) Arnon: Ethanol has a smaller surface tension than water does, so if we mix it with
water, the mixture will have a lower surface tension [evidence+claim].
(6) Nir: The ethanol will create hydrogen bonds with the water [scientific
explanation].
(18) Arnon: Then if it dissolves, the mixture obtained has a new surface tension that
is less and we have a basis for a hypothesis [evidence+claim].
(19) Alon: We have a new substance inside the water, which dissolves; what does this
mean? It also has hydrogen bonds; we will have hydrogen bonds between the water
and the ethanol molecules [scientific explanation
(30) Nir [Writes]: The ethanol breaks the waters hydrogen bonds. This can be
proved, because it dissolves, and this occurs because of the small hydrophobic tail,
which breaks the bonds and dissolves in them. The greater the quantity of ethanol, the
hydrogen bonds will be broken to a greater extent, and the waters surface tension
decreases [claim+evidence+scientific explanation].
The level of the argument in this discourse is 3 (CDW), namely, an argument that
includes a claim, evidence, and a scientific explanation that links the evidence to the claim.
The argument is agreed upon by all group members. The observations of the preliminary
experiment provide evidence for the argument, and the group members define and structure
the scientific explanation that will underlie their claim. The explanations in the arguments
posed integrate the macro level (solubility, surface tension) with the micro level (molecules,
bonds). The source of the evidence that the students incorporate is the preceding experiment
in which they observed the usual spreading of water and ethanol on the Petri dish.
Furthermore, we noted that the students knew the contents and concepts required for
establishing the hypothesis (hydrogen bonds, hydrophilic, hydrophobic, solubility, and
surface tension). They understood the requirements of the taskconstructing a rational
hypothesis and therefore, after Alon had presented the hypothesis that included only a
claim: Our hypothesis is that the greater the quantity of ethanol, the less the surface
tension will be, Nir said to his colleagues: Come on, lets rationalize our hypothesis.
And when his colleague proposed a reason that was unacceptable to him, he criticized him
by saying: This is not a reason; we have to give a reason.
After writing the hypothesis, the students were required to plan an experiment that
would investigate the hypothesis. Planning the experiment included preparing solutions that
contain water and ethanol in various proportions and examining the diameter of the area
obtained after putting 6 drops of the resulting mixture on a glass surface. The students
assumed that if the surface tension drops as a result of the mixing, the area in which the

334

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

drops spread would be larger. To their surprise, the results did not correlate with their
hypothesis. Alon said: It lost volume It didnt work, it shouldve spread out more;
therefore, we have to do it another way.
The group discourse revolved around finding an explanation for the unexpected results.
The experiments results, which constitute the evidence to which the group members relate,
was the focus of the discourse and therefore, all the arguments include evidence. The
discourse included five episodes in which an argument was formulated. The argument level
of four of them is 2CD. These arguments include claims based on evidence. The primary
argument in the discourse, the argument that caused the students to understand an aspect of
the experiments results, is an argument at level 3, which includes the refuting CDR. The
refutation of the argument relates to an erroneous interpretation of the results obtained. A
description of the development of the discourse follows:
The teacher, who was not present when the error that the students made in planning the
experiment occurred, advised them to conduct an additional experiment to interpret their
findings. She said: Do you remember that I did an experiment in class in which I
examined the volume of a mixture of water and ethanol? (14) The students performed the
experiment and discovered that the volume of the mixture was smaller than the volume of
its ingredients. As a result of the experiment, they thought that this was why they obtained
the unexpected results. Alon said:
The results that we obtained in the experiment did not refute our hypothesis but
rather the manner in which we decided to measure it, which was not good (17). We
discovered that our method of testing the surface tension of the water does not work
because the diameter was smaller and because the volume was smaller. And we
proved this by performing an additional experiment in which we examined the total
volume of water and ethanol (20).
At this stage Arnon and Alon discussed the interpretation of the results. Alon was
convinced that the volume loss stemmed from creating the mixture, whereas Arnon tried to
convince him that the volume loss in creating the mixture indeed exists, but that it is not
significant and cannot explain the results that they obtained.
(21) Arnon: When referring to three drops and not 20 cc, then the volume loss is
insignificant [claim].
(22) Alon: But we noticed this; we noted the loss of volume [evidence].
(24) Arnon: We had a substantial loss [claim]; our loss was not because of a change
in the volume that took place [rebuttal].
(25) Alon: It is impossible to argue with the facts regarding what happened. We
added only water and the volume reached 1 cm. We added water with something else,
which resulted in less volume than before [evidence].
(26) Arnon: There is no connection [claim]. Drops of just water are higher and drops
of other substances are lower in terms of volume [evidence].
When Arnon was aware that he had not convinced his colleague, he resorted to
additional evidence based on his calculation in order to clarify to Alon that his explanation
for the volume loss was incorrect.
(34) Arnon: But the volume loss is insignificant [claim]. Of 10 and 10 we lost 0.4;
how many extra percentage points? [calculative evidence]
(35) Alon: 0.4 out of 20 is 2%.
(36) Arnon: So what is lost in 3 drops? [a question that expresses a claim].

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

335

(37) Alon: When there is a loss of volume, it is impossible to relate to the diameter as
a measure for the loss of surface tension [claimconclusion].
Alon began to understand his mistake. From his statements he understood that it was
impossible to explain the results using the volume lost, since the phenomenon of volume lost
disqualifies the method as a way of determining surface tension. Furthermore, later during the
discourse, the group finally understood that the volumes of a drop of water and a drop of ethanol
are not identical. Arnon said: Our mistake was that we related to the drops as a given volume
and a drop of each substance is different in size [claim] (53). And Yuval added: The
change in the size of the drop was visible and we did not relate to this [evidence] (54).
The discourse was very productive since the students elucidated things for themselves
why the planning of the experiment as it was suggested was erroneous. However, the
discourse lacked a scientific explanation at the micro level. The group members discovered
that the volume of a drop taken from different fluids is different. They thought that this
phenomenon was associated with surface tension, but they did not try to explain why
surface tension affects the volume of the drop and whether there are additional factors that
could affect it. Even when Arnon raised the question, Alons answer was based on an
observationexperimental evidence, and it was not based on a scientific explanation:
(62) Arnon: In our experiment it was impossible to measure the diameter, but it was
possible to conclude, in principle, that the change in volume of each drop constitutes
evidence of a decrease in the drops surface tension. But why?
(63) Alon: Try to see a drop of water and a drop of alcohol from the same pipette;
can you see the difference?
Other groups that performed the experiment in this class and another 11th grade class
conducted productive discourses that included a large number of episodes in which group
or individual arguments developed. On the one hand, the students had knowledge of
content suitable for coping with the experiment (the intermolecular bond and its effect on
the solubility of substances). However, on the other hand, they were exposed to an
experiment involving phenomena such as surface tension and surface active agents that they
had not previously studied in class and which required a group discussion in order to
elucidate these phenomena. A breakdown of the quantity and the level is shown in Fig. 4. It
can be seen that there is no uniform pattern. The number of arguments and their level differ

level2
level3
level4
level5

No. of Arguments

The Quantity and Level of Arguments in Different

Groups
level1
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

group 1

group 2

group 3

group 4

Fig. 4 The quantity and level of arguments in the four different groups (with two different teachers) in the
experiment The contact between fluids

336

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

from one group to another. However, an argumentative discourse was developed in each
group. In the four groups, 71% of the arguments include integration of evidence, 52%
include the three basic ingredients of an argument (claim, evidence, and scientific
explanations), and 14.3% include refutation at some other level.
Based on a detailed description of the discourse, one can conclude that the inquiry
experiments used in the present study evoked arguments that focus on the hypothesis
phrasing stage, an analysis of the results, and drawing appropriate conclusions. A
distinction must be made, however, between arguments at the individual level and those
developed by the group during the discourse. Generally, both the personal and group
arguments are constructed from claims that integrated scientific explanations or/and
evidence (CD/CW/CDW see Table 2). The counter claim or rebuttals become part of the
arguments when the results obtained do not correlate with the groups hypothesis, are not
understood automatically, or when the groups members hold different views. Note that the
discourse that develops between the group members is highly dependent on the inquiry
question selected for examination by the group. Sometimes the answer to the research
question is so clear that no profound discourse develops between the group members and
this is even more so with an argumentative discourse. Similar findings related to discourse
that lacks arguments in the framework of junior high-school students laboratory
assignments were found in a study conducted by Kind et al. (2010). These assignments
were classified by Chinn and Malhotra (2002) as simple inquiry assignments in which only
2 variables are dependent on each other.
For example, the discourse that was conducted while writing the groups conclusions
that examined the process of popping corn kernels in order to obtain popcorn investigated:
How does temperature affect the time that the popping begins?
(10) Tamir: According to the graph, the higher the strength of the flame, the shorter
the popping time of the kernels [evidence].
(11) Bar: One can conclude that the higher the strength of the flame, the higher the
temperature of the oil [claim].
(12) Tamir: The higher the strength of the flame, the faster the temperature of the oil
reaches the final temperature [explanation].
(13) Anat: The oil reaches the boiling point faster. And then the time that it takes the
first kernel to pop is shorter [continued explanation].
Since there was no disagreement among the group members, and everything was
logically clear, the discourse was rather short.
Analysis of the Discourse during a Confirmatory-type Experiment
The findings and analysis in this section relate to the experiment Solubility in water and in no
aqueous solvents, which was conducted in an 11th grade class at another high school. This is
a confirmatory experiment in which the students work according to the teachers instructions
and afterward, they have to record and organize the experiments results, analyze them, and
draw conclusions. The teacher, Dorit, defined the goal of the experiment as a goal in the
content field: The objective of the experiment is to revise the subjects of structure and
chemistry bonds, with an emphasis on the intermolecular bonds and solubility. These subjects
have already been studied in class. At the beginning of the lesson, the students received
equipment, materials, and instructions for performing the experiment (see Appendix 2).
The experiment is designed in the style of a classic confirmatory experiment, which
is intended to confirm what was studied in class regarding the solubility of substances.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

337

When one of the observations does not correlate with what is expected (as a result of a
mishap in preparing the substances), the teacher said: The previous observations that
you obtained did not correlate with what we studied. Up to three carbon atom alcohol
types should have completely dissolved in water; therefore, the resulting turbidity does
not correlate with the theory.
In the first section of the experiment, the students examined the solubility of various
substances in water and Cyclohexane. At this stage they were asked to interpret and
explain, and afterward to draw conclusions. The interpretation of the results stage was very
routine. Evidence was based on the experiments results and on a scientific explanation
(correct or incorrect) of the result.
Clear explanations were revealed at the declaration level. The following will serve as
examples of utterances that were heard in class during the teachers explanations or when
students solved exercises:
(9) Nili: Avner, why doesnt the iodine dissolve in water?
(10) Avner: Because it does not create hydrogen bonds.
(23) Nili: Ethanol is dissolved in water because the two substances are molecular
and create new hydrogen bonds between them.
There were explanations at a higher level, but they also repeat and confirm what was
studied in class:
(26) Neta: Does it dissolve in both water and Cyclohexane?
(27) Nili: Yes, it also has a hydrophobic part that can create van der Waals bonds
with Cyclohexane.
(28) Avner: In ethanol there is a hydrophilic part, the OH, and a hydrophobic part.
Despite the fact that the students still had time at the end of the lesson, the stage of
drawing conclusions in a group discourse did not take place. The students related to the
analysis and the interpretation of the results as conclusions. Only one argument was made
during the discourse: So both can create van der Waals bonds [claimconclusion] (18).
Similarly, no generalization was made during the discourse. The discourse included
evidence based on the results of the experiment as well as scientific explanations by
integrating concepts studied in class. In the other groups, the discourse was at an even
lower level. Confirmatory experiments should not be neglected because they provide an
additional opportunity to learn concepts, and to incorporate visual demonstrations that
contribute to understanding the concepts.
An analysis of the group discourse during both the open-ended-type inquiry experiments
and the confirmatory-type experiments revealed a difference in the nature and extent of the
discourse. The discourse during the open-ended inquiry experiments used in this study was
found to be rich in arguments, whereas the one during the confirmatory experiments was
found to be sparse to the point that it completely lacked arguments. The findings about the
confirmatory experiments are similar to those obtained by Abi-El-Mona and Abd-ElKhalick (2006).

Summary, Limitations and Recommendations

Over the past decade, many studies have been conducted with the goal in mind of
developing students ability to construct arguments in the context of science learning, but
only a few dealt with studying argumentation in the laboratory.

338

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

No general agreement exists among researchers regarding the laboratorys ability to

serve as an appropriate platform for constructing arguments. Some researchers argue that in
their laboratory activities, students spend much time gathering data, and as a result, their
cognitive skills are less emphasized (Abrahams and Millar 2008; Kind et al. 2010; Watson
et al. 2004). This is in contrast to other researchers (Kelly et al. 1998; Kim and Song 2006;
Tien and Stacy 1996; Hohenshell and Hand 2006; Richmond and Striley 1996) who
reported that the laboratory has potential to encourage the construction of arguments and
serves as a medium where evidence can be evaluated.
In view of our research, which focuses on student argument processes in the laboratory,
it appears that some inquiry experiments (such as those used in the present study) have the
potential to serve as a platform for formulating arguments because of the unique features of
the learning environment: working in small groups, which enables group discourse
(Lazarowitz and Tamir 1994).
Note that a learning environment, in which open-ended inquiry experiments are
performed, consists of the characteristics indicated by Jimnez-Aleixandre (2008), namely,
encouraging the construction of arguments in which the student is at the center of the
process. The nature of the assignments in the open-ended inquiry experiments encourages
students to construct arguments as individuals or in small groups. The requirement to
explain certain phenomena, to choose a research question, to formulate a hypothesis, and to
analyze and draw conclusions are triggers for the group discourse, which consists of
arguments constructed either by the individual or by the group. The arguments combine
evidence from laboratory observations with explanations that are usually based on
classroom lessons or were constructed during the groups discourse concerning concepts
they learn beyond the classroom. Moreover, students have time to discuss these concepts,
so that the potential of the assignment can indeed be expressed.
The assignment requests are expressed in the students written reports. The
reasoning underlying the hypothesis as well as the explained conclusions provides a
basis for constructing written arguments. The students reports consisted of different
argument levels; however, no significant difference existed between the average levels
of the arguments in the reports that referred to different inquiry levels. One possible
explanation for this could be that the appropriate questions that appear in the
confirmatory experiments instruction sheet could induce students to write answers
regarding the structure of a high-level argument. Another possible explanation could lie
in the process that the students undergo in writing reports. Despite the discourse, which
was relatively scant in high-level arguments, when the students write their conclusions
in the laboratory reports, some of them draw conclusions similar to those in the open
inquiry experiments.
However, the responses to the tasks and their requirements during the experiment
and in writing the report on the experiment are not clear cut. We reiterate that the
level of the inquiry in the experiment has the potential to affect the nature of the
discourse. In other words, the higher the inquiry level, the more open the task is, and
the group discourse is therefore able to integrate more arguments and counter
arguments.
In order to eliminate intervening variables such as the teacher and the type of
group, we selected one group and compared the students argumentation level when
they conducted open-ended inquiry experiments vs. confirmatory experiments. Based
on the findings, we can conclude that there were differences, which we believe are
due to the different assignments given to the student open-ended inquiry experiments
or confirmatory ones.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

339

In order that the students will enter into a discourse during which they will construct
well-established arguments, they must have knowledge of the content that supports the
scientific background of the experiment, but, on the other hand, there must be something
beyond this knowledge in the experiment. The understanding required for an experiment
has to be in the ZPD (Zone of Proximal Development), so that during the discourse, the
group can discuss the subject and advance the knowledge and understanding of its members
(Vygotsky 1978).
In the interviews conducted with students when the laboratory learning unit ended, they
emphasized that the laboratory contributed to a better understanding of the material taught
in class during the group discourse. Moreover, they claimed that the discussions focused
especially on choosing a research question, writing a hypothesis, and analyzing the results.
By describing the nature of the discourse, the students indicated that they occasionally
conducted an argumentative discourse.
Note (and this is one of its limitations) that this study was carried out in different
classes, taught by different teachers. Although the socio-economic background of the
students who participated in the study was similar, the teachers had different styles of
teaching, and different views regarding their role in the laboratory in general and
inquiry laboratories in particular. The teacher is a significant intervening factor in the
inquiry-type experiments. Indeed, the experiments instructions are the same but the
actual requirements of each of the teachers, as well as the teachers place in the group
discourse are different. Another limitation stems from the variety of research
experiments. The laboratory experiment that is chosen and its timing are intervening
variables in the study. The teachers have autonomy in choosing their own sequence of
laboratory units for two years. Different experiments require a different level of
constructing arguments, and within a particular experiment the level of arguments
depends on the research question chosen by the group.
One should be aware of the fact that the duration of an inquiry-type experiment is
significantly longer than a confirmatory one. The inquiry-type experiment is conducted
over at least 4 lessons, whereas the confirmatory one is conducted over 2 lessons.
Therefore, we checked the discourse during the confirmatory experiment from its beginning
until its endover the 2 lessons. Regarding the inquiry-type experimentswe referred to
the discourse only when creating a hypothesis, analyzing the data, or drawing conclusions.
Another clarification relates to the tool selected for assessing the level of the arguments.
It focuses on the arguments components and gives great weight to refutation discourse, but
it does not provide an answer related to the complexity of the argument, nor to the time
devoted to the students discussions. A follow-up study should combine additional
assessment tools, in order to provide a more complete assessment of the quality of the
argument.
More research is needed in order to obtain better insight regarding constructing
arguments in the laboratory. Such research should analyze a wider range of experiments in
the context of their inquiry level and in the context of their scientific background. It would
be interesting to investigate whether the timing of the experiment in the teachers teaching
sequence (before or after teaching the subject in class) affects the level of the arguments
raised by the students. In addition, we recommend conducting research in which the
research population consists of two groups: (1) students who will perform inquiry-type
experiments, and (2) students who will perform confirmatory experiments, and who did not
acquire any inquiry skills. We believe that by following this recommendation, we will be
able to better explore the difference between those students who obtained inquiry skills and
those who were not exposed to them at all.

340

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

Appendices
Appendix 1Open-ended Inquiry Experiment
The Contact between Liquids
Note: Protective glasses and gloves must be worn!
General Instructions:

&
&

Read all the instructions well before beginning the experiment.

Check that you have all the necessary equipment and materials at your disposal in order
to conduct the experiment.
Pay strict attention regarding:

&
&
&
&
&

fulfilling the instructions for carrying out stage A precisely

recording as many observations as possible
reporting the observations clearly and in a well-organized manner
participation of all group members in carrying out the various tasks
using correct and precise scientific language throughout the course
Equipment and materials:
A Petri dish
About 30 ml of colored water
About 30 ml ethanol
3 Pasteur pipettes
A bottle of liquid soap

Stage A: The Pre-inquiry Experiments

1. Drip colored water with a Pasteur pipette into a Petri dish until it will cover about half
the area of the base of the plate. Be sure that the other regions are dry.
2. Drip Ethanol with a new Pasteur pipette into the dry part of the plate until the two
fluids meet.
3. Describe all the observations. If necessary you can add Ethanol.
4. Drip a drop of soap solution into the part where the colored water meets the Ethanol.
5. Describe what happens
Stage B: The Inquiry Step
I
1. Formulate 5 varied, relevant questions that arose following the observations that
were made.

&
&

Choose one of the questions that you would like to investigate.

Formulate this question clearly as an inquiry question, and to the extent possible,
as a link between two variables.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

&
&

341

Clearly formulate a hypothesis that relates to the question that you chose to
investigate.
Give reasons for your hypothesis, based on correct and relevant scientific
knowledge.

2. Plan an experiment that will check the validity of your hypothesis.

&
&
&
&

Detail all the steps of the experiment, including the control stage.
List the equipment and materials needed on the equipment request form.
Consult with the teacher and make changes if necessary.
Submit the list of equipment and materials to the laboratory technician.

II
3. Get the teachers approval for the proposed experiment.

&
&
&
&
&

Carry out the experiment that you proposed after receiving the teachers approval.
Present the observations and the results in an organized form (table, diagram,
graph, etc.)
Analyze and interpret the results.
Draw conclusions as much as possible based on the experimental results and
rationalize them.
Examine the connection between the inquiry question and the conclusions.

4. In the summarizing group discussion

&

Express your opinion about all the stages of the inquiry (limitations, precision,
etc.).
& To the extent necessary, point out the changes desirable in the inquiry process.
& List additional questions that arose following the whole process.
& Prepare your groups summary of the experiment for presentation before the
class.
5. In the summarizing class discussion
Relate to our experiment by considering the reports of all the other work groups.
6. Ensure that the report is well organized, aesthetic, and readable.
Enjoy the work!
Appendix 2Confirmatory Experiment
Solubility in Water and in non Aqueous Solvents
Note: Protective glasses and gloves must be worn!
General Instructions:
Read all the instructions well before beginning the experiment.
Check that you have all the necessary equipment and materials at your disposal before
conducting the experiment

342

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

Equipment and materials:

3 test tubes
Test tube support
CyclohexaneC6H12(l)
EthanolC2H5OH(l)
Distilled water
IodineI2(s)
Copper SulphateCuSO4(s)
Pay attention to:

&
&
&
&
&

precisely fulfill the instructions for carrying out stage A

record as many observations as possible
report the observations clearly and in a well-organized manner
have all the group members participate in carrying out the various tasks
use correct and precise scientific language throughout the course
The experimental procedure

1. Fill a test tube with distilled water up to one-third its height.

2. Add a few grains of Copper SulphateCuSO4(s) and describe what you observe.
3. Add to the same test tube CyclohexaneC6H12(l), in a volume similar to the volume of
the water. Mix and describe what you observe.
4. Add a few grains of IodineI2(s) and describe what you observe.
5. Fill the second test tube with water up to one-third its height.
6. Add to the same test tube EthanolC2H5OH(l) in a volume similar to the volume of the
water. Describe what you observe.
7. Fill the third test tube with CyclohexaneC6H12(l) up to one-third its height.
8. Add to the same test tube EthanolC2H5OH(l), in a volume similar to the volume of
the Cyclohexane. Mix and describe what you observe.
Analyze and interpret the results based on correct and relevant scientific
knowledge.
Draw conclusions as much as possible based on the experimental results and give
your reasons.
Questions following the experiment
a.

What can we learn from the results of the experiment about the solubility of
Cyclohexane in water, and the solubility of Copper Sulphate and Iodine in water or in
Cyclohexane?
b. Write down the equations of the dissolution reactions.
c. What can we learn from the results of the experiment about the solubility of Ethanol in
water and Cyclohexane?
d. Write down the equations of the dissolution reactions.
e. Explain the results of the experiment using concepts belonging to the subject structure
and bonding.
The summarizing group discussion
Express your opinion critically about all the results of the experiment (limitations,
precision, etc.).

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

343

References
Abi-El-Mona, I., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Argumentative discourse in a high school chemistry
classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 349361.
Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical
work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education,
30, 19451969.
Andriessen, J., & Schwarz, B. (2009). Argumentative design. In N. Muller-Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont
(Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 145174). New York: Springer.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the Web
with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797817.
Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry
learning and teaching in science (pp. 2046). Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical
framework for evaluation inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175218.
Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students argumentation skills
about socio-scientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40, 133148.
Dkeidek, M., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Hofstein, A. (2009). Inquiring about the inquiry chemistry laboratory
in Arab high schools in Israel: A comparative study. Paper presented at the meeting of the European
Science Education Research Association, Istanbul, Turkey.
Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 543547.
doi:10.1021/ed076p543.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in
classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287312.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science
education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 3972.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application
of Toulmins Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915933.
Fradd, S. H., Lee, O., Sutman, F. X., & Saxton, M. K. (2001). Promoting science literacy with English
language learners through instructional materials development: a case study. Bilingual Research Journal,
25, 479501.
Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking?
Argumentation? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 1018.
Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (2007). A framework for practical work in science and scientific literacy through
argumentation. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25, 271291.
Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. The School Review, 79, 171212.
Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: toward a more critical approach to practical work in school
science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85142.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundation for the 21st century.
Science Education, 98, 2854.
Hofstein, A., & Kind, P. (in press). Learning in and from science laboratories. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C.
McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hofstein, A., Levy, N. T., & Shore, R. (2001). Assessment of the learning environment of inquiry type
laboratories in high-school chemistry. Learning Environments Research, 4, 193207.
Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to
develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: a case study. International Journal of Science
Education, 26, 4762.
Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students ability to ask
more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 42, 791806.
Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Kind, P. (2008). Learning in and from science laboratories: Enhancing students
meta-cognition and argumentation skills. In C. L. Petroselli (Ed.), Science education issues and
development (pp. 5994). New York: Nova Science.
Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: a mixed
method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 261289.
Israel Ministry of Education. (2007). New chemistry curriculumlaboratory unit: Teachers guide.
Jerusalem: Author. in Hebrew.

344

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

Jimnez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. P.

Jimnez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based
research (pp. 91115). Dordrecht: Springer.
Jimnez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing
science: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757792.
Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students reasoning about electricity: combining
performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education,
20, 849871.
Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for
learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
36, 10651084.
Kim, H., & Song, J. (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students scientific inquiry.
Research in Science Education, 36, 211233.
Kind, P., Wilson, J., Hofstein, A., & Kind, V. (2010). Stimulating peer argumentation in the school science
laboratory: Exploring the effect of laboratory task formats. Paper presented at the meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia.
Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive
skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 601627.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning.
Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287315.
Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.),
Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 94130). New York: Macmillan.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Westport: Ablex.
Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and context for contemporary
teaching. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249262).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in school laboratory: An
analysis of research, theory and practice. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research
on science education (pp. 393441). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informed reasoning among children of
different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139178.
Osborne, J. F. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328,
463466.
Osborne, J. F., & Chin, C. (2010). The role of discourse in learning science. In K. Littleton & C. Howe
(Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 88102).
London: Routledge.
Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 9941020.
Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: social processes in small-group
discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839858.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: a critical review of research.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513536.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of ways students generate arguments in science education:
current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447472.
Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of important
concepts & practices in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 71, 465472.
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students scientific explanations. The Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 12, 551.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students use of evidence in written scientific
explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 2355.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The
teaching of science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Simon, S., & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science.
International Journal of Science Education, 30, 669688.
Tien, L. T., & Stacy, M. (1996). The effects of instruction on undergraduate students inquiry skills. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:317345

345

Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students discussions in practical scientific inquiries.
International Journal of Science Education, 26, 2545.
Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of
Inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 276301.
Yoon, S. Y., Bennett, W., Mendez, C. A., & Hand, B. (2010). Setting up conditions for negotiation in science.
Teaching Science, 56, 5155.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in
human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 3562.