Long-Lasting Conceptual Change in Science Education: The Role of U-shaped Pattern of Argumentative Dialogue in Collaborative Argumentation

Abstract

Meaningful learning for conceptual change in science education should aim to help students change their existing misconceptions to develop an accurate understanding of scientific concepts. Although collaborative argumentation is assumed to support such processes, its value for conceptual change is unclear. Moreover, the roles of argumentative dialogue should be considered in studies on collaborative argumentation. In the present study, using a controlled experiment, we examined the value of collaborative argumentation for conceptual change in science education while fully considering the roles of argumentative dialogue. Twenty-three postgraduate students were each allocated to one of two conditions (individual argumentation [control group] and collaborative argumentation [experimental group]) and participated in two argumentation activities. The results revealed that collaborative argumentation had a delayed but long-lasting effect on conceptual change in science education (i.e., conceptual change induced by collaborative argumentation did not immediately indicate a significant improvement at the moments of argumentation but showed a significant improvement during the delay period). Collaborative argumentation provided opportunities for change in cognitive, ontological, intentional, and other aspects of learning. Dialogue protocol analysis revealed that long-lasting conceptual change was associated with a U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue (i.e., two high and one low: both deliberative argumentation and co-consensual construction frequently occurred, while disputative argumentation rarely occurred) in collaborative argumentation. A third argumentation activity was then conducted to confirm this unexpected finding. The results confirmed an association between long-lasting conceptual change and a U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue in collaborative argumentation. The current study sheds light on the value of collaborative argumentation for long-lasting conceptual change, deepening our understanding of whether conceptual gains from argumentation activities were contingent on a particular type of verbal dialogue powered by collaborative argumentation. Implications for science education were discussed.

Fig. 1

Two versions of worksheets. (a) Collaborative argumentation version of worksheet; (b) individual argumentation version of worksheet. Full lines indicate the difference between the two versions of worksheets, and dotted lines indicate the similarity

Fig. 2

The coloring task for the first argumentation activity in the Star of Questionnaires platform. (a) Instructions for the coloring item: please use your pencil to depict the gradual change in wing coloring in the five periods of the Industrial Revolution. (b) The original version of coloring item. (c) Students drew five simple circles to represent the peppered moths and used a pencil to shade the circles to represent the magnitude of change in peppered moth coloring. (d) When students completed the coloring task, they took photos of their work and uploaded the photos to the Star of Questionnaires platform

Fig. 3

Overview of research design

Fig. 4

Procedure of the three argumentation activities

Fig. 5

Example of a two-tier item in a conceptual understanding test. (a) A short description of a species; (b) five true/false statements that targeted five scientific concepts from theories related to the given topic. Students were instructed to judge each statement and further explain why it was correct or incorrect

Fig. 6

Example of an open-ended construction item on a conceptual understanding test. (a) A short description of a natural phenomenon that occurred in a species; (b) students were instructed to give a full explanation of how the given natural phenomenon was generated and developed

Fig. 7

Comparison of conceptual understanding between students in the collaborative argumentation condition and students in the individual argumentation condition for the first and second argumentation activities. (a) The first argumentation activity. (b) The second argumentation activity. *indicates p < .05, **indicates p < .01, ***indicates p < .001

Fig. 8

Comparison of gain scores (conceptual change) between students in the collaborative argumentation condition and students in the individual argumentation condition for the first and second argumentation activities. (a) The first argumentation activity; (b) the second argumentation activity. *indicates p < .05, **indicates p < .01, ***indicates p < .001

Fig. 9

Comparing argumentative dialogue between the high- and low-performing groups for the first and second argumentation activities. (a) For the first argumentation activity, the high- and low-performing groups differed in argumentative dialogue (χ² [1, 2] = 6.973, p < .05), and the high-performing group exhibited a U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue; (b) for the second argumentative activity, high- and low-performing groups differed in argumentative dialogue (χ² [1, 2] = 6.202, p < .05), and the high-performing group exhibited a U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue. *indicates p < .05, **indicates p < .01, ***indicates p < .001

Fig. 10

Comparing argumentative dialogue between the high- and low-performing groups for the third argumentation activities. High- and low-performing groups differed in argumentative dialogue χ² (1, 2) = 14.962, p = .001, and the high-performing group exhibited a U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue. *indicates p < .05, **indicates p < .01, ***indicates p < .001