Development and implementation of the science-technology-society learning unit to enhance grade 10 student’s scientific argumentation

This study employs a case study (Sturman, 1997) as research methodology to holistically study the complex phenomenon of students’ scientific argumentation bounded in the science classrooms in the Northeastern region of Thailand. There were two phases in this study: a) Exploring current situation of grade 10 students’ scientific argumentation in real classrooms, and b) Developing and Implementing the STS learning unit on the Work and Energy topic to enhance grade 10 students’ scientific argumentation. The topic of work and energy was selected as the content and context of STS approach in this study because there are several socio-scientific issues and problems explicitly included in this topic and they are valuable enough for students to make arguments on them such as the issues about safety of children in playground and alternative choices of generating electricity. The STS learning unit on work and energy is consisted of two sub-units. The contents of first sub-unit covers the Work and Energy theorem, Kinetic energy (Ek), and potential energy (Ep) and took seven hours of teaching. The second sub-unit covers the conservation of energy and took 6 hours of teaching.

Data collection

In the first phase, the researchers spent four months in observing two voluntary science classrooms located in urban and rural areas in Khon Kaen province, Thailand. The teaching and learning in those two science classrooms were videotaped and audiotaped. Also, the researchers collected related teaching and learning documents such as student worksheets and products.
In the second phase, the researchers developed the STS learning unit on the Work and Energy topic to enhance grade 10 students’ scientific argumentation. Then, the learning unit was implemented with one grade 10 science classroom with 20 students in Khon Kaen province, Thailand. The participating students aged about 16 to 17 years old and there were 13 males and 7 females. The first author of this paper herself taught the STS learning unit on Work and Energy to the participating students. In addition, there were two persons involved in this phase. One person was a science teacher who graduated in a bachelor degree in Physics and was an owner of the class. Another person was a research assistant who graduated in a master degree in Science Education to help cross-check the data from classroom observation. The researchers also collected data from informal interview with students and collection of related documents.

Data analysis

The researchers transcribed verbatim all videotapes and audiotapes. Then, the scientific argumentation-related interactions in the classrooms were coded by employing the Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP) framework (2003).

Figure 1. TAP analytical framework

Figure 1 shows the TAP analytical framework. Claim (C) is a viewpoint student would like to express and aims to persuade others to agree with. Warrant (W) establishes a cognitive interaction between the claim and the grounds. Therefore, W demands an implication to the underlying meaning that sheds light on the claim thanks to the grounds. The warrant’s responsibility as a link is achieved by the Qualifiers (Q), which, in contrast, states the degree of strength or probability that the claim is true, indicating how sure the argument is. The next element is Rebuttals (R), counter-arguments or statements depicting situations where the argument fails to prove itself. A list of limitations and exceptions could be embedded in the R. Backing (B) further justifying the W with evidence arguing for the reasoning of the W. The types of scientific argumentation can be classified into four types according to its complexity and how elaborate the evidence or grounds are, how compatible they are with examples given as justification and the appearance of any rebuttals to counter-arguments.

Table 1. Types of scientific argumentation

Type of scientific argumentation	Code	Description
1	AC	A simple claim without justification or grounds versus another claim or counterclaim.
2	AG+	One or more claim with simple justification or grounds (comprising data, warrant, and/or qualifier and backing) but no rebuttal.
3	AG++	One or more claim with more detailed justification or grounds (comprising data, warrant, and/or qualifier and backing) but no rebuttal.
4A	AG+R	One or more claim with justification or grounds and with a rebuttal that addresses a weakness of the opposing argument and/or provides further support for one’s earlier argument.
4B	AG+RS	One or more claim with justification or grounds and with a self-rebuttal that considers the limitation or weakness of one’s own argument.

Source: Chin and Osborne (2010)

The numbers in the codes of scientific argumentation are not hierarchical levels. Rather, the numerical order indicates the degree of complexity; Type 1 is the most rudimentary, while Type 4 is more advanced. On the other hand, in some cases, the complexity is less prominent between Type 3 and Type 4 as Type 3 may embody better established justifications with more extensive grounds than Type 4, whereas Type 4 may contain a very basic justification, but include rebuttal.