Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 20, Issue 1, Article 1 (Aug., 2019) Jirutthitikan PIMVICHAI, Khajornsak BUARAPHAN, Chokchai YUENYONG and Chaiyapong RUANGSUWAN Development and implementation of the science-technology-society learning unit to enhance grade 10 student’s scientific argumentation Previous Contents Next

Results and Discussion

This section illustrates the findings and their discussion according to the research phase.

Phase 1 Exploration of current situation of students’ scientific argumentation in real classrooms
This section presents the current situation of students’ scientific argumentation in two different school contexts, i.e. one urban and one rural, in Khon Kaen province, the Northeastern region of Thailand. The results were presented through six argumentation situations: Data, Claim, Warrants, Qualifiers, Rebuttals and Backing.
Component of students’ scientific argumentation: Data
Urban classroom context
The school urban students could provide pieces of data in their arguments but such data was incorrect such as in the case of Law of Conservation of Energy.

	T	:	Regarding the law of the conservation of energy, this is the question: Consider the objects at the highest of vertical plane. The objects drop in the positions X, Y and Z, then compare the kinetic energy of object at each position.
	G2	:	I Think the object at point Y has zero kinetic energy because its velocity is zero.
	T	:	Other groups, do you agree with Group 2?
	G4	:	We agree considering the velocity of the object is continually decreasing until it will be zero at the highest position.
	G2 S7	:	I think when the object dropped, its velocity will be increasing until it has velocity at considered point.
	G2 S8	:	I think the velocity of object at point X is higher than at point Z and velocity at point Y is zero.  Do you agree with me?
	G2 S9	:	Yeah. I agree with her.

Note T = Teacher, G = Group, S = Student; a number represents a code of the participant

The urban school students used the data that the teacher had written on the board. Some students drew a picture to present the data of their arguments. In the Force and Work topic, it was found that the urban school students prepared themselves in advance from the work given by the teacher. The teacher motivated students to participate and concentrate in learning activities by using a score as a reward. Thus, students were motivated to attend the class for their high scores. This situation was common in the urban schools in Thailand.

Rural classroom context
The students in rural school context could generate their arguments by using the data and conclusion from the group in addressing the problem posed by the teacher. Some students had a counter-argument with peers. The teacher in rural school was more likely to provide knowledge to students rather than to require students to study by themselves. The classroom environment tended to be quiet and students were not daring enough to comment or express their arguments with peers in class. Therefore, the teacher tried to encourage students to discuss and listen to students and see how students applied learned knowledge in answering the questions posed.

	T	:	Mr. Red carries basket A and Mr. Black carries basket B; both baskets have equal size and weight. Then, Red climbs a stair vertically and Black climb an inclined stair until reach the same height. Which basket has more energy?
	S	:	…(Silence)…
	T	:	Who can explain that for me? Please.
	G2 S3	:	I think basket A has more energy than basket B because of basket A move farther than basket B.
	G4	:	(Discussion in group before answering) I disagree with Group 2 because energy that both baskets’ potential energy is equal to Ep= mgh. So, both baskets have the same energy. Both baskets have the same weight and height and g is a constant, so both baskets have equal energy; EpA= EpB. But we are not sure and afraid to answer the teacher.
	T	:	Hey! Who can explain to me?  How do you think? Can be right or wrong, never mind.
	S	:	…(Silence)…
	T	:	If no group answers my question, I will choose a random group to answer…Group 4 please.

Component of students’ scientific argumentation: Claims

Urban classroom context
The urban school students were not dare to raise their arguments because they did not want to comment on their peers’ arguments and they were fear of making a mistake. Students agreed with a conclusion that a majority of students believed to be correct. Therefore, most students act as a listener rather than a claim maker. However, some student frequently presented several claims and counter-claims through the brainstorming activity. Students also presented their claims and compare them with the existing data and facts. The teacher compared claims presented by each group and came up with the conclusion.

	T	:	A bungee jumper jumped from the released point, could you please describe energy of the bungee jumper at the points X (before jumping), Y (when a bungee cord is not straight) and Z (when the bungee cord is straight).
	G3 S12	:	(Discussion in group) I think the bungee jumper has the highest gravitational potential energy at point A.
	G3 S13	:	(Discussion in group) I think so. And what about point B?
	G3 S14	:	(Discussion in group) Hmm…at point B, gravitational potential energy of the bungee jumper is decreased, while his kinetic energy is increased. Who did agree with me?
	G3 S15	:	(Discussion in group) I agree. It should be. What about point C?
	G3 S16	:	(Discussion in group) I think  there is the elastic potential energy of the bungee cord and gravitational potential energy of the jumper. Everyone agrees?
	G3	:	We think at point A, there is only gravitational potential energy of the jumper. Then, at point B, gravitational potential energy of the jumper is decreased, while his kinetic energy is increased. Finally, at point C, there are the elastic potential energy of the bungee cord and gravitational potential energy of the jumper.

Rural classroom context
The students in the rural school context could make the arguments from their discussion and brainstorming. However, students waited for other groups’ arguments and waited for encouragement from the teacher. The teacher often said “How do you know that?”  or “Do you have any comments?” to encourage students to generate their scientific argumentation. Students often presented claims by using the supporting data from scientific process, facts and evidence to support their comments. Often, students also referred to their everyday experience.

	T	:	OK. I will start from the review of concept of power. This problem reviews your understanding of power. Can you try to solve this problem?
	G3 S31	:	I think the first path is easiest because the less steep, the less power.
	G3 S32	:	I am not sure. I am afraid to answer that.
	T	:	How do you know?
	G3	:	I think because the less steep, the less power.
	G5	:	We think that the second path has the same work that was changed from gravitational potential energy.
	G2	:	We support Group 5 because ∆Ep = mgh.
	T	:	Anyone want to add comment on it? Do not be silent! You can comment.
	S	:	…(Silence)…
	G1	:	We agree with Group 2. We think mg is weight of a tourist and h is height of the waterfall.
	T	:	Group 4 What do you think?
	G4	:	…(Silence)…
	G4 S34	:	Max! You are the smartest. You should answer the teacher.
	G4 S35	:	Wait a minute. Let me look in the textbook.
	G4	:	OK. I have a question to ask Group 3 How do you know the less steep, the less power?
	T	:	Aha! Group 3 could you please explain to Group 4. How do you know and why do you know that?

Component of students’ scientific argumentation: Warrants

Urban classroom context
When the students in urban school context presented their claims or discussions, they often presented evidence and employed reliable data for supporting the claim. When students claimed something; it consisted of reasoning, assumptions and sources of comment. Some students raised their warrants for their claims or listened to the comments from other groups.

	G4	:	We support Group 1: the car B has more work than car A or FB > FA.
	G4 S2	:	A student warrants the claims by drawing this figure

Rural classroom context
It was found that the students in the rural school used evidence for reasoning their arguments. They did brainstorming of the topic and constructed an argument by using data in a physics textbook. However, such warrants did not contain any rebuttals.

	G3 S24	:	The object at point A has maximum gravitational potential energy and zero kinetic energy.
	G3 S25	:	At point B, the object’s gravitational potential energy is decreased, while kinetic energy is increased. The bungee cord has elastic potential energy and gravitational potential energy, while the jumper has potential energy.
	G3 S26	:	At point C, the bungee cord has elastic potential energy and gravitational potential energy, while the jumper has no kinetic energy.
	T	:	Who would like to comment on these statements?
	S	:	…(Silence)…
	G4	:	We agree with Group 3 but we need more information about why the kinetic energy of the bungee jumper at point C is zero.

Component of students’ scientific argumentation: Qualifiers

Urban and rural classroom contexts
There was no evidence that the students from in both urban and rural school contexts presented any qualifier of their argument. It seemed that the students may not have been aware of providing qualifier to make better argument in physics classrooms.

Component of students’ scientific argumentation: Rebuttals

Urban classroom context
The students in urban school context rarely made rebuttals to their argument. The poor students normally relied on their more expert peers and did not make any rebuttal. The students were afraid to comment on arguments made by others because they were fear their rebuttal went wrong.

	T	:	I would like to review your understanding about Power. Could you try to solve this problem?
	G1	:	We think the first path is easier than the second path because it uses less power. The steep is less.
	T	:	Anything else.
	S	:	…(Silence)…
	G2	:	The second path has the same work from the change of gravitational potential energy, but the use of time is different.
	G1 S35	:	OK. I use this relationship; P = W/ t. When W in both cases are equal, so P1 is more than P2 because t1 is more than t2.
	T	:	Anyone think differently than this?
	G5 S36	:	That’s can’t be right! I think both paths use the same power because they have the same gravitational potential energy. Anyone agree with me?

Rural classroom context
In the rural school context, it was found that sometime students displayed the extension of argumentation with more than one rebuttal. In this case, scientific argumentation contained a series of claims or counterclaims with data, warrants or backings. Although scientific argumentation has a claim with a clear rebuttal, the rural students tended to wait for the teacher to stimulate discussion rather than encourage themselves to answer the question.

	T	:	Please show us your idea. Answer it! Don’ fear of being wrong.
	G1	:	Potential energy of an object is ranged from point Y to point Z and then to point X.
	G4	:	We disagree. At point X, the object has the highest kinetic energy, then point Y and Z.
	T	:	Anyone think differently?
	G5	:	We think the object has the same kinetic energy at all points because there is no external force acting on the object.
	G2	:	…(Silence)…

Component of students’ scientific argumentation: Backings

Urban classroom context
It was found that the urban school students could generate scientific argumentations with a series of claims with data, warrants and backing that were obtained from physics theories. Even though they had reliable reference to support their comment, they tended to support their friends or wait for other groups’ comments more rather than give their comments. 

	G2	:	The baskets A and B have equal energy because they were at the same height.
	T	:	Anyone else think differently?
	S	:	…(Silence)…
	G3	:	We agree with Group 2. Potential energy (Ep = mgh) of basket A is equal to basket B because h (height) and m (mass) are equal.
	T	:	What about other groups? Do you think differently?
	S	:	…(Silence)…
	T	:	It’s OK to answer wrong.
	G1	:	We agree with Group 2 and 3 because energy of the baskets A and B were caused by height or potential energy (Ep).
	G4	:	So, equal height and weight lead to equal energy; EpA = EpB.

Rural classroom context
The students in the rural school context rarely used reasons to support the discussion of arguments. The students tended to agree and support the warrants made by the head of group rather than make comments by themselves. The students were often shy and afraid to raise any argument or comment to the classroom. Most students waited for the teacher to motivate and encourage discussion and argument because they realized that the teacher would give them the correct conclusions at the end. To cope with this, the teacher randomly selected the students who were not brave enough to make comments.

	T	:	How do you think?
	S	:	…(Silence)…
	T	:	If no one answers my question, I will pick you at random. OK. Group 4 please answer me.
	G4	:	We disagree with Group 2 because the energy of basket is potential energy and due to Ep = mgh, so EpA = EpB
	T	:	Anyone think differently or the same?
	S	:	…(Silence)…

 Comparison between urban and rural school students’ scientific argumentation
The students in urban and rural school contexts presented several claims based on various issues raised by the teachers in science classrooms. The common pattern of scientific argumentation for both groups consisted of data (D) and warrants (W). The students rarely presented rebuttals (R) and backing (B) in their scientific argumentation. Interestingly, the more experienced or knowledgeable students showed their ability to generate more complex scientific argumentation including both rebuttals and backing. The students, in particular in the rural school context, tended to rely for scientific argumentation on their more knowledgeable and experienced peers. A majority of students also waited for the teachers to encourage the scientific discussion.

At present, the national science curriculum of Thailand mandates science teachers to employ scientific inquiry in their classrooms and encourage their learners to learn by constructing knowledge by themselves through scientific inquiry process. Regarding this, Berland and Reiser (2009) propose scientific argumentaion as one core element of students’ scientific inquiry. Sampson, Grooms and Walker (2009) also shows that there is a relationship between the scientific argumentation skill and scientific understanding. Learners must utilize their scientific knowledge and cognitive process to generate scientific argumentation and participate in social process to share and defend their arguments with their classmates. This study shows that an undestanding about and skill of argumentation are demanded for students in developing their scientific understanding throgh scientific inquiry and there is a need to develop scientific argumentation skill in the grade 10 students in both urban and rural school contexts (Aufschnaiter, Erduran, Osborne, & Shirley, 2008). Students may be able to conduct scientific inquiry to seek for their scientific knowledge, but they lack an ability to generate appropriate and quality scientific argumentation (Berland & Reiser, 2009).

The current movement of science education in the international contexts needs science learners to attain good argumentative skills because there are lots of controversial social-related scientific issues and conflicts to make arguments on them. This means that students are expected to be able to consider reliable evidence before making an opinion or making a decision. In addition, students should be able to communicate their arguments with their peers who may agree or disagree with them. In argumentative process, students express their efforts in seeking for reliable evidence to confirm and make other side students agree with them (Toulmin, 2003). However, Thailand, at present, still faces the problem relating to a lack of promotion of argumentation in science classrooms that is similar to the international contexts. This study shows that science classroom culture in Thailand does not support student face-to-face argumentation. Students fear to debate their arguments with their peers and teachers. The teacher should create a more appropriate classroom environment in encouraging students explicitly to participate in more scientific argumentation-related interactions in science classrooms. In addition, students should be persuaded to feel more comfortable in debating with their peers and teacher about their scientific arguments. The teacher should also help guide students in what are the characteristics of, and how to generate, good scientific argumentations (Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999). 

To adjust the science classroom environment to become appropriate for promoting students’ scientific argumentation, the STS approach may be one choice (Boulter & Gilbert, 1995; Dawson & Venville, 2010; Yuenyong, 2006). The STS approach generally raises interesting controversial societal issues related to students’ daily lives that are effective in promoting student discussion and debate until they are able to generate related scientific argumentation (Yuenyong, 2006). The STS-related learning activities and curriculum materials should be created as an example for science teachers who are interested in utilizing the STS approach in developing students’ scientific argumentation their science classrooms.

Phase 2 Impacts of the STS learning unit on students’ scientific argumentation

The STS learning unit for enhancing students’ scientific argumentation

The researchers employed the STS framework based on Yuenyong’s (2006) in designing the STS learning unit in the Work and Energy topic for grade 10 students. The STS learning unit was consisted of six lesson plans for seven teaching hours. The main controversial societal issue for the STS learning unit was building safe playground for children. This issue may motivate students to begin to learn science in the realm of society through the utilization of relevant technology. The lesson plans in the STS learning unit are illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2. Lesson plans of the STS learning unit on Work and Energy topic

Lesson plan	STS activities	Hour
1	1. Identification of the social issues stage The teacher asks: What about the playground in your community, do you think is it safe? Students watch three videoclips: Silent disasters from the playground (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55x4l-xZ9X8), Challenging the death swing (source: https://www.tvpoolonline.com/content /226004) The most dangerous slippery boards (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSjG6V9yKJo) 2. Identification of potential solutions stage Students develop possible solutions from their ideas and share with the classroom Students identify knowledge they need	1
2	3. Need for knowledge stage Students do experiment on Potential and Kinetic Energy Students work in group about “How to play safely with some playing equipment in playground”	1
3-4	3. Need for knowledge stage (continued)  Students investigate energy including both potential and kinetic energy	2
5	4. Decision making stage  Students list possible choices to make decisions about how to develop and design playing equipment in playground  Students attend brainstorming for reaching arguments about fun and safe playing equipment Students make decision to agree or disagree with other arguments	2
6	5. Socialization stage Students present works about fun and safe playing equipment to the classroom Students evaluate playing equipment designed by each group to decide whether or not they will buy it Divide students into two groups (buy and not buy) and require them to debate	1

Examining impact of the STS learning unit in enhancing students’ scientific argumentation

The students’ scientific argumentations were examined through their actions and discourse in the STS classroom. The quality of students’ scientific argumentations in each step of STS approach was presented.

Step 1: Identification of the social issues
Students engaged in the societal and technological issues about playground that stimulated students to present their argumentation. They could provide some claims about the dangerous playground.

	T	:	Do you think the playground things are safe for playing?
	S5	:	Yes, they are. They have handles.
	S6	:	They are dangerous sometimes. My friend’s head was injured because they fell down off a slide.
	S9	:	I think that the see saw is probably dangerous because it has no belt. If the player falls down, he or she will be hurt.
	S10	:	No, it is not dangerous, if we do not move up too high.

Students mentioned various basic types of claim related to the danger versus safety of the playground. These claims could be categorized into three types: fact, judgment or value and policy claims. The playground issue allowed students to raise the fact claims to argue about the safety of the playground. They raised empirical evidences about the danger of the playground such as injury of head, legs or hands. It seemed that the judgment claims, which involved opinions, attitudes, and the subjective safety of playground, were provided when they mentioned some subjective issues of careless and other ways of playing in playground. Another basic type of claims is policy claims that involved advocating designing a safe playground and providing play instruction. Their claims mentioned what things should be considered for designing a safe playground such as raw materials used and height and slope of a slide. It revealed that the Identification of social issue stage in the STS learning unit could engage students to develop some argumentation. However, a majority of their scientific argumentation was simple claim without justification or grounds versus another claim or counterclaim. Most students provided claims about fact or evidence of dangerous of playground which had no warrant and qualifier. Also, there were few claims with simple justification or grounds (AG+). This indicates that students could provide some warrant to support their claims about organizing the safe playground. These students’ warrants could be constructed meaning for concepts of work and energy. It revealed few rebuttals on argumentation (AG+R), for example, when students provided a reason as supporting and counter argument to the danger of the swing. It indicated that students could provide some rebuttals to further support their earlier argument about a safe playground. Another rebuttal could be interpreted when students provided reason to oppose the argument of providing water to protect children when they stopped at the bottom of the slide. However, these students’ rebuttals on argumentation addressed the weakness of the opposing argument and providing further support for their earlier argument (AG+R).

Step 2: Identification of the potential solution
Learning activities were provided to support students in clarifying the plausibility of finding possible solutions for the playground issue. Students listed various playground things for their description of design: swing, slide, see-saw, spring board and pull-up workout. They described an overview of designing a playground for children to play with fun and safety. These allowed students to provide scientific argumentation in designing a safe playground during drawing and presenting their tasks.

S1: The slider is too steep. People may hurt their stomach because they moved too fast. S2: So, we should change the slope of slider. S3: Your drawing need to present something to safe people when they slide down till reach the ground. S4: We could put sand at the base of slider. S5: How did you design your slider based on a safety? S1: By providing some instruction or teaching adult to take care of the children when they are playing on it.

Students mentioned various basic types of claims related to a list of possible solutions for safe playground and design description. These claims could be categorized into fact and policy claims. The identification of potential solution stage allowed students to describe designing of the possible solution related to fact and experiences such as water and sand. The policy claims were also often provided when they tried to argue about advocating a design of a safe playground and providing instruction about playing.

It revealed that the Identification of potential solution stage helped students develop some scientific argumentations. However, the quality of argumentation indicated that there was a majority of simple claims and some claims with grounds. Most of them provided claims about fact or experiences to describe the designing of a safe playground without warrant and qualifier (AC). Also, there were few claims with simple justification or grounds (AG+).  Students could provide some warrant supporting their claims about material for designing a safe playground. It seemed that they tried to describe their thinking based on the sense of impulse in order to support the reason for using materials. It revealed few rebuttals on argumentation (AG+R), for example, when students provided reason as supporting and counter argument to the danger of the swing. This indicated that students’ scientific argumentation on the plausibility of designing a safe playground engage students to become aware of what they need for scientific knowledge. These could be grounded (warrants, backing, qualifier) for argumentation on the plausibility of the design of a safe playground.

Step 3: Need for knowledge
Learning activities were provided to support students to develop scientific concepts as reasonable explanations for the safe playground. Experiments, exercises and simulations were provided to help students to construct the meaning of energy formation, velocity, work and so on. The scientific inquiry learning activities allowed students to develop argumentation.

	T: How do you know the experimental car has kinetic energy? S2: The car is moving. T: How much kinetic energy is there? S3: It is two points. S4: No, it doesn’t. The two points are not energy. They are distance. S3: We need to calculate kinetic energy S2: No, we have to calculate the velocity. It will tell us how much the kinetic energy is from the formula: Ek = ½ mv2

Scientific inquiry interactions between teacher and students seemed to enhance students development of scientific argumentation. Teacher tried to ask students questions to help students to construct the meaning of force in the moving cart; where the force comes from, how to measure the velocity and how energy could be explained.  Then, students could provide evidences to support the claims about the kinetic energy of the cart. This indicates that teacher’s questioning support students’ claims with simple justification or grounds (AG+). It could be interpreted that students provided quality argumentation because of evidence or data from experiments which provided grounds for claims about work and energy. The physics exercises were also provided in order to allow students to make sense of physics concepts. For example, the exercise of the roller coaster ride provided students with a chance to apply knowledge about work and energy to predict the roller coaster ride. This could help students to provide more claim with justification or grounds, and with a rebuttal that addresses a weakness of the opposing argument and/or provides further support for their earlier argument (AG+R). The number of good quality scientific argumentations was high because of argumentation with warrants, qualifiers and backing and scientific concepts normally used as grounds.

Step 4: Decision making
Students listed possible ways to make decisions in developing and designing the playground equipment.  Students explain the principles, methods and rationale for deciding the playground design. They then wrote model or designed a model of a fun and safe playground. The teacher then asked students to brainstorm the arguments until they reached a conclusion. The number of good quality scientific argumentation was high in this stage.

G1 S1: If the ground under the seesaw is sand, it will be safer than grass. As you have seen from the videoclip, they use sand under the seesaw as well. It is the same with mine. (Claim Warrant Ground) G1 S2: Or should we use the cushion? (Claim) G1 S1: We have to start from building the metal base, then the arms. I played on one a long time ago. I think the base has to be firm, tight and strong. (Claim Warrant Ground) G1 S3: We have to balance them, even the weights are not equal. Actually, a heavier and a lighter objects must be placed in the opposite side. (Warrant Ground Backing) G1 S1: See the base, there is a hole to put another piece of metal pole to tight it up. (Warrant) G1 S2: The cushion seat is made by the handlers. (Warrant) G1 S1: With the handlers? G1 S2: Without the handlers, you will easily fall. (Claim Warrant) G1 S1: Make the handlers like bicycle handles. (Claim Warrant Backing)

Step 5: Socialization
The socialization process allowed students to validate their values and scientific concepts of their solutions during their sharing in classroom society. Each group of students presented their products or a prototype of a safe playground to the whole classroom. These sharing activities enhanced students’ scientific argumentation through audience reflection. There was a high number of good quality scientific argumentation in this stage.

G4 S1: My group developed the safety slide made from good materials. These include plastics, Grade A metal, galvanizing coating and cement. We provided some playing instruction…The height of slider should be 60 meters that makes people slide down at the speed of 40 km/hr. (Claim Warrant Ground Qualifier) G4 S3:  It probably is dangerous based on that speed of moving down. And, the instrument needs a wide area for installation. G4 S2: At the highest point of slid, gravitational potential energy is greatest. This energy is changed when people are sliding down. Potential energy is changed into kinetic energy. Energy never lost but it can be changed into a new form. (Claim Warrant Ground) T: The 60-meter slide, it is too high. Imagine that, the slider will be as high as many high buildings around us. G4 S3: Yes, but we provide someone to suggest a player how to play. And, we think that it should be ok because we learn from VDO clip of Japanese slider. They also provided the sliders with the same high of our designing. And, we have to provide some playing instruction for more safety. (Claim Warrant Ground Qualifier)

The overall, the quality of students’ scientific argumentation from learning with the STS learning unit at each stage of STS is presented as Table 3. High percentages of good quality scientific argumentation occurred in the Need for knowledge, Decision making and Socialization stages. Interestingly, there was no scientific argumentation in the AG+R category or one or more claim with justification or grounds and with a rebuttal addressing a weakness of the opposing argument and/or providing further support for an earlier argument.
This study shows that the STS approach is effectively help students develop their ability to generate their own argumentations when students try to access knowledge needed to solve problems and make their decision according to derived knowledge, they have more opportunity to develop their scientific argumentation (Abell, Anderson, & Chezem, 2000; Aufschnaiter et al., 2008; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). When students learn how to create scientific arguments and develop the rationale behind such arguments, they will be able to integrate their scientific understanding with the real problem. In argumentation, students must be able to develop a sensible reason to support their argument until reach quality argumentation that greatly helps them solve issues or conflicts (Lin & Mintzes, 2010).
This study supports Driver, Newton and Osborne (2000) that the STS approach helps students realize the importance of supporting their argumentations with reliable data sources. As we have known the degree of reliability of data source can improve the effectiveness of decision-making process. The students learned with the STS approach are beneficial from the development of searching skills for reliable data and creating relevant arguments that enable them to comfortably participate in social discussion and allow them to be responsible for their social responsibility. In addition, this study shows that one effective way to assist students to generate higher quality scientific argumentation skill can occur through a socialization process in classroom between student-student and/or student-teacher (Dawson & Venville, 2010; Vygotsky, 1978).

Table 3. Quality of students’ scientific argumentation from learning with the STS learning unit

Code	Frequency
	Identification of social issues	Identification of potential solutions	Need for knowledge	Decision-making	Socialization
AC	23	12	7	20	35
AG+	12	2	24	120	118
AG++	7	2	19	89	148
AG+R	4	2	14	46	73
Total	46	18	64	275	374

The quality of students’ scientific argumentation from learning with the STS learning unit at each stage of STS in the issue of playground is illustrated by Figure 2.

Figure 2. Quality of students’ scientific argumentation from learning with the STS learning unit

 

 

---

Copyright (C) 2019 EdUHK APFSLT. Volume 20, Issue 1, Article 1 (Aug., 2019). All Rights Reserved.