Melpomeni Mastrogiorgaki, Michael Skoumios


The present paper intends to investigate the contribution of a teaching-learning sequence on Newton’s 2nd Law to the structure of high school students’ written arguments. Instructional material on Newton’s 2nd Law, based on the constructivist approach towards learning with the use of science practices and the exploitation of the educational software “Interactive Physics”, was developed and was finally implemented to 39 high school students (15 years old). Τhe research data included students’ answers to questionnaires both before and after the teaching-learning sequence. Students’ written arguments were analyzed with the use of a framework for evaluating the presence and the sufficiency of the components of the arguments. The data analysis showed that the teaching-learning sequence significantly contributed to improving the structure of students’ arguments.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter



teaching-learning sequence, science practices, structure of arguments, science learning

Full Text:



Bell P, Linn M C, 2000. Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the Web with Kie. International Journal of Science Education 22(8): 797–817. doi: 10.1080/095006900412284

Bybee R, Taylor J, Gardner A, Van Scotter P, Powell J C, Westbrook A, Landes N, 2006. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness, Colorado Springs

Chen H-T, Wang H-H, Lu Y-Y, Lin H, Hong Z-R, 2016. Using a modified argument- driven inquiry to promote elementary school students’ engagement in learning science and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education 38(2): 170– 191. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1134849

Chinn C A, Brewer W F, 2001. Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction 19(3): 323–393. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI1903_3

Driver R, Newton P, Osborne J, 2000. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education 84(3): 287–312. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098- 237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A

Duschl R A, Osborne J, 2002. Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education 38(1): 39–72. doi: 10.1080/03057260208560187

Heng L L, Surif J, Seng C H, 2015. Malaysian students’ scientific argumentation: Do groups perform better than individuals? International Journal of Science Education 37(3): 505–528. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.995147

Jiménez-Aleixandre M P, Bugallo Rodríguez A, Duschl R A, 2000. Doing the lesson or doing science: argument in high school genetics. Science Education 84(6): 757– 792. doi: 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F

Lizotte D J, Harris C J, McNeill K L, Marx R W, Krajcik J, 2003. Usable assessments aligned with curriculum materials: Measuring explanation as a scientific way of learning. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American educational research association, April, 2003, Chicago, IL

McNeill K L, Krajcik J, 2006. Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanation through generic versus context-specific written scaffolds. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American educational research association, April, 2006, San Francisco

McNeill K L, Krajcik J, 2007. Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett, P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with Data: The proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc

McNeill K L, Krajcik J, 2012. Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing, New York, NY: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

McNeill K L, Lizotte D J, Krajcik J, 2005. Identifying teacher practices that support students’ explanation in science. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American educational research association, April, 2005, Montreal, Canada.

McNeill K L, Lizotte D J, Krajcik J, Marx R W, 2006. Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences 15(2): 153–191. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1

Moje E B, Peek-Brown D, Sutherland L M, Marx R W, Blumenfeld P, Krajcik J, 2004. Explaining explanations: Developing scientific literacy in middle-school project- based science reforms. In D. Strickland, D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the gap: improving literacy learning for preadolescent and adolescent learners in grades (pp 4–12). New York: Carnegie Corporation.

National Research Council (NRC), 2012. A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States, 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Sadler T D, 2004. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(5): 513–536. doi: 10.1002/tea.20009

Sampson V, Enderle P, Grooms J, Witte S, 2013. Writing to learn by learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas: Writing to learn by learning to write in science. Science Education 97(5): 643–670. doi: 10.1002/sce.21069

Sampson V, Walker J P, 2012. Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate students write to learn by learning to write in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education 34(10): 1443–1485.doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.667581

Sandoval W A, 2003. Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences 12(1): 5–51. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2

Sandoval W A, Millwood K A, 2005. The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction 23(1): 23–55. Accessed 9 July 2017

Skoumios M, Hatzinikita V, 2014. Assessing students’ science written explanations. Natural Sciences in Education 3: 9–19. [in Greek]

Songer N B, Gotwals A W, 2012. Guiding explanation construction by children at the entry points of learning progressions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49(2): 141–165. doi: 10.1002/tea.20454

Zeidler D L, 1997. The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education 81(4): 483–496. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199707)81:4<483::AID- SCE7>3.0.CO;2-8



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Melpomeni Mastrogiorgaki, Michael Skoumios

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2022. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).