Table 11 Differences between group E and F during argument construction
From: Promoting productive argumentation through students' questions
Features | Group E | Group F |
|---|---|---|
Number and types of questions generated by groups | ||
Key inquiry questions | 12 | 26 |
Questions seeking for basic information | 6 | 12 |
Questions seeking for missing information | 4 | 1 |
Hypothetical questions | 3 | 18 |
Other questions | 1 | 1 |
Total number of questions | 26 | 58 |
Science concepts addressed | ||
Number of science concepts addressed | 4 | 7 |
Quality of argument constructed | ||
Degree of soundness/ % | 25.5 | 80.0 |
Strength/ % | 20.0 | 80.0 |
Average/ % | 22.8 | 80.0 |
Argumentation processes | ||
Characteristics of discursive interactions | - Lesser deliberations and linear in thinking - Agreed on the claim (cause of death) immediately after answering questions posed. | - Elaborated, meticulous and more divergent in thinking - Agreed on the claim (cause of death) after a long discussion and deliberation. |
Sequence of argumentation | 1. Listed all questions they had about the problem 2. Answered all questions in random order 3. Decided and agreed on the claim (cause of death) 4. Discussed at random about evidence and reasons to support the claim. No specific patterns of discursive interaction was observed | 1. Listed all questions they had about the problem 2. Answered all questions seeking for basic information first 3. Organized answers into a mind map 4. Asked key inquiry questions 5. Identified keywords in key inquiry questions 6. Looked for these keywords in the mind map 7. Traced and backtracked all possible paths that branches from the keywords 8. Asked hypothetical questions (or gave a hypothesis), look for key words in the hypothetical questions and repeat step 6 and 7 above to verify and eliminate the hypothesis |
Use of visual aids | Did not use any form of visual aids | Mind map was constructed by students to organize basic information, tracked the sequence of events, and made linkages between evidences and propositions. |
*Duration of productive discussion | 43 min | 81 min |
Testing strength of arguments | No | Yes by asking hypothetical questions to explore alternatives |