Jonathan Osborne

By Getachew Tarekegn, Jonathan Osborne and Mesfin Tadesse

This study explores the effect of dialogic argumentation on grade 8 students’ epistemic knowledge of science in physics. A quasi-experimental design was employed to compare experimental (239) and control (240) groups’ epistemic knowledge of science. A pre-intervention and post-intervention physics reasoning test was administered, and small group classroom discussions were also video recorded. Physics teachers in the intervention group had trained for three days about dialogic argumentation and Talking Physics Students Activities manual was also distributed and used in this yearlong intervention. Mann-Whitney U test results indicated that the post-test scores of grade 8 students in the argumentation lessons significantly increased in their level of epistemic knowledge compared to the non-argumentation groups, z =−4.509, p = .000, and r = .21, but not in the pre-test scores, z =−1.038 and p = .299. However, both pre- and post-test scores of both groups were relatively low. The intervention groups showed significant improvements in the quality of their argumentation on the ASAC scale, z = 2.111, p = .035, and r = .56, but not the control groups, z = 1.068 and p = .285. The study found evidence that argumentation-based lessons improved both the epistemic knowledge and the quality of dialogic argumentations of grade 8 students and that students’ level of epistemic knowledge and the quality of their dialogic argumentations were strongly correlated.

Part of the book: Advances in Research in STEM Education