Abstract
The purpose of the study was to explore the differences between sixth graders with different levels of academic achievement after they experienced the construction of background knowledge about a socioscientific issue — The establishment of high-speed rail. The researcher adopted a causal-comparative research design. The participants were an elementary science teacher and 68 students. The data were collected through an argumentation questionnaire and participant observation. The findings indicated that there was no statistically significant difference (p > .05) among low, middle and high achievers on the posttest for argumentation skills and for the score differences between pretest and posttest. However, middle achievers were significantly different (p < .05) from low achievers on the scores for formulating supportive arguments. Most students elaborated their arguments after the construction of background knowledge. High achievers were inclined to use rebuttals or rebuttals with supplementary warrants or with elaborated warrants as supportive arguments. Low achievers tended to only use supplementary warrants or elaborated warrants as supportive arguments. Meanwhile, low and middle achievers could make arguments, counterarguments or rebuttals like high achievers did when they were asked to have oral argumentations in the classes.
| Keywords: | argumentation; socioscientific issues; elementary school students; academic achievement |
|---|
[Chinese Version | Index | Chinese Journal of Science Education | Other Journals | Subscription form | Enquiry ]
Mail any comments and suggestions to
hkier-journal@cuhk.edu.hk .