Argumentation levels of ADI students rise by the end of treatment while control group levels stay unchanged¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? At the end of treatment, the experimental group's argumentation-level mean scores were significantly higher than the control group's, but there was no significant difference at the beginning or middle of treatment. → Tuba Demircioglu 2015

Evidence¶

Tuba Demircioglu 2015¶

Tuba Demircioglu, Sedat Ucar. (2015). Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.1.2324

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Independent samples t-tests compared argumentation-level mean scores of the two groups on reports from the first, fourth, and last experiments. Only the end-of-treatment comparison was significant; no effect size is printed.

"in the beginning ( t(77) = 0.8, p = .43), and the middle (t(77) = 1.6, p = 0.12) of the treatment there was no significant difference between argumentation level scores of the experimental and control group participants. However, at the end of the treatment, the argumentation-level scores of the experimental group were found to be significantly higher than the scores of the control group participants (t(77) = 6.61, p = .00)"

Tuba Demircioglu 2015 (2)¶

Tuba Demircioglu, Sedat Ucar. (2015). Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.1.2324

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Descriptive analysis of student reports coded with the Erduran et al. framework showed the experimental group distributing across Levels 2-4 by the end, while almost all control participants remained at Level 2 throughout, with none at Level 4.

"most of the participants in the experimental group are at level 2 in the beginning and middle of the treatment, and the levels of the participants appear to be evenly distributed among Levels 2, 3 and 4 at the end of the treatment. On the other hand, in the control group, almost all participants are at Level 2 in the beginning, middle and end of the treatment. There are no participants at Level 4."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• ADI-based laboratory instruction does not significantly change pre-service teachers' argumentativeness compared to traditional laboratory instruction — reports the opposite
• Within the experimental group, achievement rose significantly from pre-test to post-test, while the control group's gain was not statistically significant — related
• Interviewed ADI students reported engaging in scientific practices such as identifying variables, finding patterns in data, and developing methods, while no comparison-group students did — related