Examining students’ quality and perceptions of argumentative and summary writing within a knowledge generation approach to learning in an analytical chemistry course
Fatma
Yaman
Faculty of Education, Science Education Department, Yozgat Bozok University, Yozgat, 66100, Turkey. E-mail: fatma.yaman@bozok.edu.tr
First published on 19th July 2021
Abstract
This study investigated the perceptions and quality of argumentative and summary writing of the Pre-service Science Teachers (PSTs) who participated in a knowledge generation approach to learning, which is known as the SWH approach, and who had had experience with it across different time periods. A total of 41 PSTs were divided into three groups based on their experience with the SWH approach in the courses entitled General Chemistry Laboratory I and II. An embedded single-case study design was employed for this study. The data sources included the PSTs’ argumentative writings, summary writings and semi-structured interviews. The results were analyzed using both statistical and content analysis. The findings showed that the argumentative and summary writing activities were positively correlated with each other and the PSTs in the three groups benefited from these writing activities when implemented in analytical chemistry. However, the quality of the PSTs’ argumentative and summary writings was affected by time. The PSTs who had a shorter time between writing experiences in their chemistry lab and analytical chemistry courses were more successful in both argumentative and summary writing activities in analytical chemistry than the other PSTs. The PSTs in the groups realized that writing tasks were epistemological and reasoning tools that enabled them to understand the topic better and indicated that the writing process was a learning process through which they were able to construct new knowledge. They were aware of the cognitive demands involved in the writing, and realized how this would enhance their future teaching careers and their overall conceptual understanding of analytical chemistry. This study suggests that PSTs should be engaged in argumentative and summary writing activities in knowledge generation environments for both their own learning and future teaching career.
In striving to increase science literacy, current science education curricula emphasize how important language is when it comes to learning and implementing science; such curricula suggest that students need to engage with such practices as asking questions, defining problems, developing and using models, planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and interpreting data, engaging arguments from evidence, and obtaining, evaluating and communicating information (NRC, 2012; MoNE, 2018). To replicate these practices in the science classroom, teachers need to understand and teach in a way that allows students to grapple with language and argumentation practices that are situated in rich dialogical opportunities that are reflective of a generative learning environment so that they might better understand natural phenomena (Hand et al., 2020). Despite these objectives, however, incorporating language within science and argument-based science inquiry has been somewhat limited in teacher education programs (Yore and Treagust, 2006). As such, current studies must strive to implement language and argumentation practices within the context of pre-service science teacher training to ensure that this population is able to appreciate the complexity of science and teach in a way that allows students to grapple with these complex elements.
Language is used to practice science, to build an understanding of science, to foster communication about science, and to inform and persuade others about scientific ideas. For this reason, language itself is an integrated part of science and science literacy, as well as an epistemic tool that enables learners to understand science (Hand and Prain, 2006; Hand, 2017). As language use requires reading, writing, speaking, and listening, it is no surprise that previous studies suggest that writing should be used as a learning tool in the process of building scientific knowledge and creating students’ understanding of science (Hand et al., 2004; Hand, 2017; Jang and Hand, 2017). For this reason, writing-to-learn strategies have been heavily implemented within the science classroom, especially at the K-12 level (Hand et al., 2004; Hohenshell and Hand, 2006; Chen et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2016; Jang and Hand, 2017). In contrast, writing-to-learn strategies are used in limited ways in undergraduate science classes, especially in pre-service science classes; indeed, a number of different writing activities—including argumentative writing and summary writing for learning—are also limited (Tynjälä, 2001; Graham et al., 2020). These discrepancies continue despite there being an essential need for pre-service science teachers to be exposed to various types of writing activities. Given that teachers generally teach in the way they learned, it is important to provide pre-service science teachers with writing-to-learn activities for both their own learning and their future teaching career.
Studies have revealed that writing-to-learn activities prompt students’ cognitive operations, particularly those that lend themselves to facilitating learning, increasing conceptual understanding, and developing critical thinking skills (Günel et al., 2009; McDermott and Hand, 2010; Graham et al., 2020). Review studies related to writing-to-learn activities indicate that student achievement is linked to the amount of time that the student dedicates to writing as well as the overall treatment length (Bangert-Drowns et al., 2004), thereby suggesting that the effects of writing on students’ learning over time should be further investigated (Graham et al., 2020). In addition, Hand et al. (2020) contended that time is critical for achieving student outcomes, meaning that teachers should develop their own proficiency in how the knowledge generation approach caters to writing-to-learn activities. This suggests that not only time is an essential factor when it comes to learning, but also there is a need for pre-service science teachers to engage in knowledge generation environments that promote writing-to-learn activities.
The Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach is one generative learning approach that promotes writing-to-learn activities including argumentative and summary writing by linking argument-based inquiry with language practices (Klein et al., 2014; Hand et al., 2020). Indeed, when pre-service science teachers’ (PSTs’) development and utilization of argumentative writing and language were investigated over two semesters in General Chemistry I and II in the SWH learning environment, the results indicate that (1) the quality of argument and language are intertwined and (2) PSTs are able to construct high-quality arguments over time even when they experience challenges at the beginning of the first semester (Yaman, 2018a; Yaman, 2020). However, few studies have investigated whether the argumentative writing of pre-service teacher changes over a period of time, with Graham et al. (2020) suggesting that writing activities should be implemented in groups that are delineated by prior knowledge and writing skills. This study tracked PSTs whose sustained writing experiences within the SWH approach varied over a certain period of time while taking undergraduate-level analytical chemistry, which is a course that requires students to think critically that many have difficulty passing. The study investigated the PSTs’ quality of writing-to-learn activities including argumentative and summary writing activities, and assessed whether time has any effect on the PSTs’ argumentative writing and summary writing, as well as their overall perception of these writing-to-learn activities. The research questions that guided this study are as follows:
1. Does the time spent between experiencing the SWH approach in general chemistry lab and analytical chemistry courses have an impact on the PSTs’ quality of argumentative writing in the analytical chemistry course?
2. Does the time spent between experiencing the SWH approach in general chemistry lab and analytical chemistry courses have an impact on the PSTs’ quality of summary writing in the analytical chemistry course?
3. Is there a relationship between the PSTs’ quality of argument and summary writing in the analytical chemistry course?
4. How do the PSTs perceive argumentative and summary writing activities in the analytical chemistry course?
Theoretical background
Writing-to-learn in science education
Writing-to-learn approaches are generally based on the concept that students can learn about the concept under study in the process of using it (Norton-Meier et al., 2008; McDermott and Hand, 2010). With this type of writing, students are provided with opportunities to connect their previous knowledge with everyday language, scientific knowledge and the technical vocabulary of science (McDermott and Hand, 2010). Moreover, students are introduced to scientific argumentation as a consequence of having to discuss, debate, and defend their results and conclusion (Norton-Meier et al., 2008). Research highlights that writing-to-learn approaches provide opportunities for promoting students’ learning, improve conceptual understanding by unpacking meanings and are more cognitively demanding than learning to write approaches (Bangert-Drowns et al., 2004; Günel et al., 2009; McDermott and Hand, 2010).To improve writing-to-learn activities in science classrooms, Prain and Hand (1996) framed five criteria: topic, type (e.g. narrative, journal), purpose (e.g. to explore ideas, to persuade others), audience (e.g. younger students, parents) and method of text production (e.g. individually, in pairs, with pen, or computer). Later, Klein (2006) added sources (such as experimental results, observations, previously existing texts or prior knowledge) as the sixth criterion, because when students synthesise different sources, they learn more about the topic when compared to a single source. Hand (2017) contended that these criteria are separate but interlocked with each other. For instance, if one's aim is to summarize the topic at the end of the unit, then the audience of this writing task can be younger students by asking them to write a narrative story as an individual effort after a whole class discussion (Hand, 2017). Thus, students are able to focus on the process of knowledge construction rather than knowledge replication such as laboratory reports (Hand, 2017). Such writing-to-learn activities align more with Galbraith's (1999) knowledge constitution model where writing is viewed as a process that produces new knowledge because of an interaction between the writer's content knowledge and their rhetorical knowledge (Hand, 2004).
The science writing heuristic (SWH) approach
There are knowledge generation environments that have been identified as promoting students’ learning through writing-to-learn activities (Klein et al., 2014; Hand et al., 2020). The Science Writing Heuristic approach is one of the examples of a knowledge generation learning environment that links inquiry and argumentation with an emphasis on science language (reading, writing, talking, and listening). It includes three phases: development of an epistemic framework, an argument phase, and a summary writing phase. The phase of development of underpinning epistemic framework is centered on a number of factors, including: the big ideas of science, the role of language, negations, building unit plans based on the prior knowledge, the development of a pro-social environment, and scientific epistemic practices (e.g., question generation, research design, and the question/claim/evidence structure) (Hand et al., 2018; Hand et al., 2020).Scientific inquiries are conducted in the argument phase, and its function is to persuade. In this phase students incorporate individual, small group, and whole class negotiations. Students start their inquiry with questions generated during class, determine the design to be used, gather data from the execution of the design, and analyze data to generate evidence which requires active use of the reasoning process of construction and critique. Subsequently, students use external evaluation of evidence to generate claims. In this regard, students who need to defend reasoning engage with the whole class evaluation of small group claims and evidence, and then students engage with evaluation against disciplinary norms which also requires active use of reasoning between groups’ generated claims/evidence and disciplinary norms. As a part of this phase, students are required to write a laboratory report, which can be considered as argumentative writing, consisting of question, design, observation, claim, evidence, reading and reflection components.
The summary writing phase is another writing practice completed at the end of scientific inquiry, and its function is to inform others. In this phase students write to an authentic audience of peers or younger learners, and engage with translation of science ideas into audience language. Since students are required to use different sources, they select relevant materials, organize related materials together in some order and generate links to integrate two or more propositions, ideas, facts or claims. This phase also includes representational demands (e.g. use of appropriate modes to explain concepts) and complex epistemic activity (e.g. critical analytical thinking) (Hand et al., 2018).
This knowledge generation environment provides students with power and agency for their learning (Schoerning et al., 2015), and students are active in knowledge generation as a function of learning (Cavagnetto et al., 2020). In promoting agency, this learning environment supports a safe classroom learning environment, embraces the complexity of science, and emphasizes the language practices of science (Cavagnetto et al., 2020). With this in mind, the current study adapted the work of Lemke (1990) and Kress (2010), wherein all semiotic systems part of the language used by learners as such this incorporates equations, diagrams, graphs, and text. Students are immersed in living the language that requires a range of knowledge bases and practices: knowledge of science, knowledge of science arguments, knowledge of language and knowledge of learning environments (Hand, 2017). While the knowledge base of science is associated with the concepts being studied, the knowledge bases of science arguments, language and learning environments are associated with practices that enable learners to be successful in living the language of science. The knowledge base of science forms the context for which the other knowledge bases and practices can be utilized. In other words, learners need a context (science concept) to generate an argument, to use language and to participate in a learning environment. Therefore, the concepts studied provide context for students to participate in the argumentative practices of discourse (requiring language) needed to construct and criticize ideas presented in a non-threatening learning environment (Hand, 2017). Moreover, these knowledge bases and practices can serve as intellectual resources for future learning in any learning situation (Hand, 2017).
Argumentative writing
Argumentation typically occurs when reasoning is used in goal directed dialogical exchanges, which may take an oral or a written form (Walton, 1990; 2016). In argumentative writing, the writer does not expect a direct response from the audience, but provides a line of reasoning to support his/her claims and counterclaims which are directed towards the audience (Klein, 2006; Asterhan and Schwarz, 2016). Research has shown that argumentative writing increases students’ science learning (Berland and Reiser, 2009; Walker and Sampson, 2013; Hand et al., 2020), science process skills (Günel et al., 2016; Metin-Peten, 2019), and argumentative writing skills (Walker and Sampson, 2013; Yaman, 2018a). Moreover, students use a more connected level of representations in argumentative writing activities (Hand and Choi, 2010; Yaman, 2018b). Ryu and Sandoval (2012) further suggested that students need to be engaged in sustained argumentative writing activities to improve their epistemic understanding. When students are engaged in sustained argumentative writing activities, results indicate that they improve their argumentative writing (Ryu and Sandoval, 2012; Walker and Sampson, 2013; Yaman, 2018a; Yaman, 2020). However, none of these studies tracked the PSTs across time after using such approaches to investigate if they are able to utilize their abilities that were developed within these environments. Therefore, this study investigated if the PSTs who developed these abilities are still able to utilize these skills when they are no longer in these environments.Summary writing
Summary writing involving summarizing, explaining, and note taking is traditionally used to summarize conceptual ideas or to convey information about a phenomenon (Rivard, 1994; Gil et al., 2010). It may include informal writings such as journals and diaries (Rivard, 1994; Hand and Prain, 1996; Gil et al., 2010; McDermott and Hand, 2010). On the other hand, contemporary summary writing activities include analyzing, evaluating and judging statements from memory and external sources (Lamb et al., 2019; 2020), organizing, selecting and linking multiple sources (Hand et al., 2018), and writing to inform audiences other than teachers (Hand et al., 2018; Lamb et al., 2019; Lamb et al., 2020). Even though summary writing has been implemented at the K-12 educational level (Hohenshell and Hand, 2006; McDermott and Hand, 2010; Jang and Hand, 2017), it is not a common type of assignment in higher education (Tynjälä, 2001) especially in pre-service science teacher education.Review studies including summary writing tasks contend that students using appropriate summary writing activities showed enhanced science learning (Rivard, 1994), showed small improvement in school achievement (Bangert-Drowns et al., 2004), demonstrated better recall, and showed more complex thinking (Rivard, 1994). In analyzing grade 7–13 students’ perceptions of summary writing tasks over a ten-year period, McDermott and Hand (2010) revealed that writing tasks are useful for students’ science learning, and students perceived cognitive demands and benefits for conceptual understanding. Researchers have indicated that audience and purpose played important roles in summary writing because when students write to the teacher they assume that the teacher will understand the scientific concepts they write. However, when students are asked to write to an audience other than a teacher, a series of translation processes occurs, because in this situation students need to break down big words. In this regard, students first translate scientific knowledge into their everyday life language so that they can understand the concepts and then translate the language for a larger audience so that they can inform and explain the scientific knowledge (Günel et al., 2009; McDermott and Hand, 2010; Hand, 2017; Jang and Hand, 2017). Studies using virtual reality simulations reported that when students are asked to write to younger audiences in summary writing tasks, the students’ critical thinking and memory retrieval increase because their prefrontal cortex is activated (Lamb et al., 2019; Lamb et al., 2020). However, there are a limited number of studies implementing this type of writing in pre-service science teaching programs. There appears to be a need for studies to investigate how PSTs construct their summary writing activities in science.
Differences and similarities of summary and argumentative writing
Research suggests that summary and argumentative writing are similar, in that they are both acts of reasoning that have comparable syntactic and structure, including such phrases as “because”, “therefore”, “as a result of” and “since” (Asterhan and Schwarz, 2016). Some researchers indicate that an argument and an explanation (or a summary) are not the same thing (Osborne and Patterson, 2011; Walton, 2016). Others note that the two are complementary to each other (Berland and Reiser, 2009; Reiser, Berland and Kenyon, 2012). To grasp the difference between argumentative and summary writing, it is necessary to see that an argument is inherently different from a summary or an explanation (Walton, 2016). Summary writing and argumentative writing are differentiated in terms of their purpose, audience, nature of knowledge and type (Jang and Hand, 2017). In this regard, the purpose of argumentative writing is to persuade, whereas the purpose of summary writing is to inform. While the audience of argumentative writing is the self or teacher, summary writing is generally written to younger audiences. There is unsettled knowledge in argumentative writing, but there is settled knowledge in summary writing (Jang and Hand, 2017). The type of argumentative writing could be the structure of a question, a claim and evidence, whereas summary writing could be narrative, such as stories and letters.Some studies examined summary and argumentative writing in science education and reported that these two writing activities improved students’ conceptual understanding (Hohenshell and Hand, 2006; Jang and Hand, 2017; Yaman, 2018b; 2019; Lamb et al., 2019a; 2019b). When the same students engaged with argumentative and summary writing within a virtual reality experience, the results showed that students who wrote to a younger audience in summary writing showed increased critical thinking and memory retrieval skills when compared with those who wrote to a peer in argumentative writing (Lamb et al., 2019a; Lamb et al., 2019b, Lamb et al., 2020). When argumentative and summary writing tasks were used as a sequence, the results indicated that students who undertook a sequence of two connected writing tasks performed better on higher order questions (Hand et al., 2001). Research also indicates that while there was no statistical difference between control and experimental group students’ conceptual understanding after completing argumentative writing, there was a statistical difference in summary writing (Hohenshell and Hand, 2006). On the other hand, students who implemented argumentative and summary writing subsequently within the SWH approach had significantly better conceptual understandings (Yaman, 2018b; Yaman, 2019) and views on using representations when compared to control group students (Yaman, 2019). Research also reported that there is a positive correlation between students’ argumentative and summary writings when they are used as a sequence (Jang and Hand, 2017). However, none of these studies investigated the quality and perceptions of PSTs’ argumentative and summary writings when they are used as a sequence within the SWH approach.
Method
Research design
This study employed an embedded single-case study design in order to examine the overall quality of PSTs’ argumentative and summary writings, as well as how the PSTs perceived these writings (Yin, 1994). In the embedded single-case study design, there are two or more sub-units of analysis within the case and context (Yin, 1994). Similar to a case study, the embedded single case study design allows researchers to integrate qualitative and quantitative data into a single case. In this regard, the case of the study is the quality and perceptions of the argumentative and summary writings of PSTs who enrolled in an analytical chemistry course. There are three sub-units of analysis within this single case because the PSTs had different writing experiences with the SWH approach in general chemistry lab courses before they enrolled in the analytical chemistry course (Merriam, 2009). The researcher selected the whole PSTs as a single case because the information that will emerge from this study will provide some insights into and feedback related to the PSTs’ abilities that they developed within these learning environments as well as their understanding and quality of different writing activities. Moreover, the PSTs were arranged into three sub-units based on their writing experiences that they had in general chemistry lab courses while analyzing the results. The embedded single-case study design was deemed an appropriate method for examining the argumentative and summary writing activities of the PSTs in further depth as it enabled the researcher to compare both qualitative (interview) and quantitative (statistical analysis) data. This comparison is described further in the Results section.Participants
The sample of the study consisted of 41 PSTs enrolled in the science teaching program of a university in the Central Anatolia Region of Turkey. The PSTs engaged with the SWH approach and participated in two sequential writing, argumentative and summary, activities within the SWH approach in their analytical chemistry course. The participants in the study were divided into three groups based on their sustained argumentative writing experiences with the SWH approach in General Chemistry Lab I and II courses as SWH1, SWH2 and SWH3. Moreover, the times spent between their last (20th experiment) chemistry lab writing experiences and analytical chemistry writing experiences were taken into consideration while grouping the PSTs. As shown in Table 1, the PSTs in the SWH1 and SWH2 groups had experience with the SWH approach in the Chemistry Laboratory I and II courses and they participated in a total of 20 SWH activities. There was a period of 6 months between the last argumentative writing activity (20th experiment) in the general chemistry laboratory and the argumentative writing activity in the analytical chemistry course for the PSTs in the SWH1 group. On the other hand, there was a period of 18 months between these writing activities for the PSTs in the SWH2 group. In the general chemistry lab courses, the majority of the PSTs started with weak argument coherence in the first experiment in the SWH1 (78%) and SWH2 (73%) groups, but each group ended up with a stronger ability to make coherent arguments at the end of the 20th experiment for the SWH1 (80%) and SWH2 (86%) groups. The argument coherence levels of the first and twentieth experiments were scored in the same way as the PSTs’ analytical argument coherence scores were analyzed as described in the analysis section. In the SWH3 group, the PSTs used the SWH approach for the first time within the analytical chemistry course and there were 30 months between their traditional lab experience and analytical chemistry. However, all PSTs participated in summary writing activities for the first time, and they participated voluntarily in the study.| Groups | Participants | Experience with SWH in Chemistry Lab I and II courses | Time difference between the last (20th) lab experiments of the chemistry lab and analytical chemistry | Argument quality of the 1st and 20th experiments in chem labs | Summary writing experience |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a WC: weak coherence; SC: strong coherence. | |||||
| SWH1 | 10 (1 male, 9 female) | Experienced | 6 months | 1st exp = WCa (78%) | None |
| 20th exp = SCa (80%) | |||||
| SWH2 | 15 (2 male, 13 female) | Experienced | 18 months | 1st exp = WC (73%) | None |
| 20th exp = SC (86%) | |||||
| SWH3 | 16 (8 male and 8 female) | Traditional lab experience | 30 months | None | None |
For the current study, ethics approval was obtained from the university, and informed consent was obtained from each participant. The participants (pre-service science teachers, PSTs) were informed about the purpose of the research along with a description of the procedures to be followed and the time it would take to complete the study and were informed that their participation in the study was voluntary. They were free to withdraw their consent and discontinue participation at any time without penalty. They were also informed that their participation or nonparticipation in the research would not affect their grade.
All PSTs in the analytical chemistry course and the PSTs in the SWH1 and SWH2 groups in the General Chemistry Laboratory I and II courses were taught by the same instructor who was also the researcher of this study. To ensure the separation between instructor and researcher roles, all the materials used as data for the project were gathered at the completion of the semester, after the grades were submitted.
Context
The study was carried out within the scope of an analytical chemistry course which is a 4 hour per week course, with 2 hours for theory lecture and 2 hours for practical work. In the theoretical part, the PSTs were taught about techniques used in analytical chemistry, steps of chemical analysis, solution chemistry, chemical equilibrium (acid–base equilibrium, dissolution–precipitation reactions, complexing balances, redox equilibrium), equilibrium in complex systems, kinetic and thermodynamic equilibrium constants, and classical (volumetric titration and gravimetric) and instrumental quantitative analysis techniques. In the practical part, all PSTs in the sample were asked to do the argumentative writing and summary writing activities included in the SWH approach. For the argumentative writing activities, the PSTs were asked to form a group of three or four individuals, resulting in twelve groups being formed. The PSTs were asked to find the questions related to the daily life that they were interested in and wanted to investigate within the scope of the analytical chemistry course and to determine the designs to answer these questions. In this context, six different SWH activities were determined as a result of group and class discussions. Five of these activities involved volumetric experiments, while one involved a gravimetric experiment. The PSTs were provided with basic materials that they wanted to use for their design as shown in Table 2.| Topic | The typical research questions | The basic materials for the activities |
|---|---|---|
| Protein analysis in milk | What is the amount of protein in protein milk? | 10 mL formaldehyde, 2 mL potassium oxalate, 0.1 M NaOH, 0.5 mL %2 phenolphthalein, 50 mL buret, 250 mL Erlenmeyer flask, Pasteur pipette, glass stirring bar, chemical balance, distilled water, 50 mL protein milk |
| How is this amount compatible with the quantity on the packaging? | ||
| Vitamin C analysis in fruit juices | What is the amount of vitamin C in the different brands of fruit juices? | 8 different brands of fruit juices, Pasteur pipette, 50 mL Erlenmeyer flask, iodine, starch, oxalic acid, spatula, buret, 100 mL graduated cylinder, ethyl alcohol, distilled water, clamp |
| How is this amount compatible with the quantity on the packaging? | ||
| Which fruit juice has more quantity of vitamin C? | ||
| Acid content in vinegar | How to find the amount of acetic acid in vinegar? | 250 mL Erlenmeyer flask, 100 mL graduated cylinder, 50 mL beaker, 50 mL buret, support bar, 1 M 50 mL NaOH, two different brands of vinegar, phenolphthalein, distilled water, chemical balance, clamp |
| How is the acetic acid content of the two different brands of vinegar? | ||
| Determination of hardness in water | How to determine the hardness of drinking water and tap water? | EDTA solution, Eriochrome Black T indicator, water samples from the city center and surrounding villages. Volumetric flask, chemical balance, distilled water, concentrated NH3, NH4Cl, 250 mL Erlenmeyer flask, support bar, clamp, chemical balance |
| What are the hardness levels of waters of the city we live in and the surroundings? | ||
| Is the amount of EDTA used effective in determining the hardness of the water? | ||
| Determination of acetyl salicylic acid | How much is the amount of salicylic acid in aspirin? | 0.1 M NaOH, 10 mL ethyl alcohol, distilled water, phenolphthalein, aspirin, 50 mL buret, 250 mL Erlenmeyer flask, support bar, clamp, chemical balance |
| How is this amount compatible with the quantity on the packaging? | ||
| Determination of SiO2 in cement | How to determine the amount of SiO2 in cement? | 0.5 g cement sample, filter paper, NH4Cl, beaker, watch glass, glass stirring bar, Pasteur pipette, 100 mL graduated cylinder, porcelain crucible, Bunsen burner, exsiccator, kiln, chemical balance |
| What is the relationship between the amount of SiO2 written on the cement package that was produced in the city we live and the amount of SiO2 calculated as a result of the experiment? |
For the summary writing activity, the PSTs were asked to write an article in a local newspaper aimed at raising public awareness, with a consideration for their own research topics after the argumentative writing activities. The implementation of the SWH activities including the argumentative and summary writings took four weeks in total, with one week between the argumentative and summary writings.
Data collection
The PSTs’ argumentative writing, summary writing and interviews were used as data collection tools in the study. The SWH student template (argumentative writing) consists of initial question, design, observation, claim, evidence, reading and reflection components. The argumentative writings, created by the PSTs as a result of their laboratory activities on the subjects they determined, were collected for analysis.In the summary writing activities, the PSTs were asked to write an article to raise awareness in a local newspaper using the information they obtained from the SWH approach. After these articles were written by the PSTs, they were used as a data collection tool. A total of 82 writing activities, including 41 argumentative and 41 summary writing products, were analyzed within the scope of the study. Semi-structured interviews with 12 PSTs in total, four of which were in each group, were conducted to get their perceptions on argumentative and summary writing activities and analytical chemistry. The interviews lasted around 20–25 minutes. The PSTs were asked about their perceptions of writing activities and how they observed this impacting their learning and future teaching career objectives. The PSTs were asked to provide reasons if they had any difficulties with the argumentative and summary writing tasks, if these writing tasks helped them understand the topic they investigated, if there were any changes in their ideas towards analytical chemistry, and if they would consider implementing these writing activities in their future career. The semi-structured interview protocol can be seen in Appendix A.
Description of the setting
The argumentative writing and summary writing used in the study were conducted in the implementation part of the analytical chemistry course. To familiarize the PSTs in the SWH3 group with the SWH approach, they were first given an introduction to the approach and then they were asked to participate in an example implementation. Subsequently, they were provided with the SWH student reports written within the scope of General Chemistry I and II courses in previous years as examples.The SWH approach requires that the students engage in pre-writing, during, and post-writing activities. The PSTs were required to have identified their individual research question(s) regarding the subject they would study before coming to the laboratory. They determined the final questions they would work with their group mates at the end of their discussion and were then required to investigate the design they would use to find answers to the research questions they determined. After deciding which design to use with their group mates, they examined whether the necessary tools and chemical materials to carry out the activity were in the laboratory one week before they started the implementation. If the materials or chemicals to be used were not available in the laboratory, they tried to procure them from outside. When the PSTs came to the laboratory, they tried to find answers to their research question(s) by implementing the design they had determined. They collected their data on their activities by distributing work between their group mates, justified the data they obtained and formed their evidence. Afterwards, they presented the claims and evidence in the whole-class discussion for critique. After they left the laboratory, they read from at least three different sources in post-lab activities and wrote about the information they investigated, especially if it supported their claims and evidence or refuted them. Finally, they stated in the reflection part whether their initial thoughts had changed or remained the same.
In the summary writing activities, the PSTs were asked to write an article in a local newspaper to inform people about their results in the laboratory. Since the PSTs in both groups would be performing their summary writing activities for the first time, a journalist working in the local newspaper was invited to the class and provided information to the PSTs about how to write a journal article.
Data analysis
Data analysis of argumentative writings, summary writings and semi-interviews is provided below in detail.| Beginning question | What are the hardness levels of waters for the city of Xa and its surrounding areas? | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| a The official names of the city and its surrounding villages were anonymously given in the text. | ||||
| Claim | The hardness levels of the tap waters for the city of X and the tap water taken from their villages are either hard or extremely hard. | |||
| Evidence | We claimed that the hardness levels of the tap waters for the city of X and the tap water taken from their villages are either hard or extremely hard. For this, we prepared a 0.01 M EDTA solution to investigate the hardness of the water. Then we took the eriochrome black T indicator and prepared a buffer solution. To be able to prepare buffer solution, we took a 50 mL volumetric flask, then put some water in it, and added 3.375 grams of NH4Cl, and 27 mL of concentrated NH3 to prepare an alkaline buffer. We filled the distilled water up to the level line. We took 50 mL of water from the city center and surrounding villages and put it into an erlenmeyer flask which is 250 milliliter. We added 1 or 2 drops of eriochrome black T indicator into it. We added 1 mL of buffer solution. Then we titrated with EDTA solution. We observed the water sample until it turned sky blue and noted how many milliliter of EDTA we used. We calculated the hardness of the water using the formula of total of hardness (ppm CaCO3)  |
|||
| V EDTA = volume of EDTA consumed, NEDTA = normality of EDTA, MCaCO3 = molecule weight of CaCO3. | ||||
In the titration, we used 6 mL EDTA for water sample of M village, 4 mL EDTA for water sample of A village, 5 mL EDTA for water sample of city center. Based on this, we calculated the water sample of Ma village as  . We calculated the water sample hardnes of Aa village as  . We calculated the water sample hardness of city center as  . The following table shows hardness levels of water for different units. |
||||
| French hardness | German hardness | British hardness | Quality of the water | |
| 0–7 | 0–4 | 0–5 | Very soft | |
| 7–14 | 4–8 | 5–10 | Soft | |
| 14–22 | 8–12 | 10–15 | Slightly hard | |
| 22–32 | 12–18 | 15–22 | Moderate Hard | |
| 32–54 | 18–30 | 22–35 | Hard | |
| >54 | >30 | >35 | Very hard | |
| Since we used the French hardness to determine the hardness level of the waters, we can say that the hardness level of water for M village and city center is very hard, and the hardness level of water for A village is hard. Because we calculated the hardness level of water of city center and M village as 63.55 and 76.763 ppm (mg L−1) CaCO3 and French hardness is described as very hard if the value is higher than 54 ppm (mg L−1) CaCO3. The water of A village is hard because its value is 50.84 ppm (mg L−1) CaCO3 when we considered the French hardness is between 32–54 ppm (mg L−1) CaCO3 is hard. | ||||
| Reading and reflection | In this experiment, we examined the hardness levels of the water samples in the city of X where we live and the surrounding villages. Therefore, we collected various water samples from city center and its surroundings. We were assuming that the waters in the province of X were hard. After our investigation, we observed that the water of city of X was hard and we claimed that the waters in the city center and surrounding villages were either hard or very hard. “According to the studies carried out in the City center of X, the hardness levels of underground and surface waters were calculated and then experts turned to inform the public about these findings. As a result of the studies conducted, the following findings have emerged. Tap water (144.12) is very hard. Snow water (24) is too hard. Drinking water (12) and lake water (12) are soft. These values were determined according to the German hardness.” (www.acikders.ankara.edu.tr). According to this source, the hardness level of water of city X is very hard. In our experiment, we calculated hardness of water in city center as 63.55, M village as 76.763 and A village as 50.84. Even though result of this source used German hardness, it supports our claim that water of city center of X is very hard. Another study found that “The water used in the city center of X has changed. Now people of X drink surface water, not ground water. The water in M village dam, which was built by the state waterworks and which will meet the water needs of city of X, started to be supplied to the city network at full capacity. The system in the B village will be kept in reserve just in case” (Xhakimiyet.com.tr). By looking at these statements, it can be understood that the waters in the center and villages of X city have different hardness levels. It is understood that with the new arrangement, the water started to be supplied from the same source. This source also supports our claim. | |||
| Scoring | Analytic framework score: Question: 5; Claim: 5; Evidence: 10; Reflection: 10 | |||
| Holistic framework score: 10 | ||||
| Overall score: 40 | ||||
| Which water is more desirable? The soft one or the hard one? | |
| Dear people of X, as students of X University, Faculty of Education, Department of Science Teaching, we designed a project within the scope of the analytical chemistry course. As investigative students, we tried to provide you with information about the waters we use by measuring the hardness levels of water samples from different sources in the city of X. We conducted a rigorous research of the water quality of the region. We collected samples of tap water from the city center and its surrounding villages, and analyzed these samples in our chemistry laboratory using a method called titration as you see in the pictures. We repeated this process 3 times for each sample to provide you reliable results, and then calculated the obtained measurement results as you can see the table below. As a result of our work with the water we have obtained from the center of X and villages, the following data have emerged: |
|
| While the hardness levels of water of M village (76.763) and the city center (63.55) were found to be extremely hard, the hardness level of water of A village (50.84) was found to be hard. | |
| The water sample of M* village |
|
| The water sample of A* village |
|
| The water sample of city center |
|
| Our results indicate that the water in the city center and surrounding villages is hard or very hard. A French degree of hardness is used in our country to define waters. According to this measurement, one degree of hardness is equal to 10 mg of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) per liter. Very soft waters are 0–7, soft waters 7–14, light hard waters 14–22, medium hard waters 22–32, hard waters 32–54, very hard waters 54 and more. So what do these results mean? Do these hardness levels to the region's waters have any effects to our daily life and health? As a matter of fact, waters with large amounts of Ca and Mg salts are hard waters. This means that more magnesium (Mg) and calcium (Ca) elements are found in the tap waters in the city center of X and the surrounding villages. I have good and bad news for you about hard waters. The bad news is that your devices may break down due to deposits in devices using hard water. Your washing machines, dishwashers and kettles can get lime scale. It may lead to more soap consumption in both bathing and laundry applications. The good news is that there is no evidence that hard water is harmful to health. In fact, it is thought that hard water is better than soft water. Because adequate calcium intake is essential for normal growth and health, these waters are beneficial for growing children. In addition, harmful substances such as lead, copper and cadmium are typically found in lower quantities in hard water. It is believed that the calcium in the water also plays an important role in this protective effect. Biologically, calcium prevents toxic ions from being absorbed from the intestines and entering the blood. However, some studies do point to an inverse relationship between water hardness and mortality rates due cardiovascular diseases. But there is no definitive evidence for this whether any of the Ca or Mg in the water is found. Although there are no restrictions on softening city waters or recommendations for achieving minimum Ca and Mg levels, their presence is required. | |
| If I try to summarize this article that I wrote in order to raise your awareness, the water of our city is in a hard structure. Therefore, it is necessary to consider hard waters as they can be beneficial but also harmful for some situations. Considering these, we need to be careful while using our tap water. | |
| Scoring: quality of content: 10; representations used 10; cohesiveness: 5; accuracy: 10; audience: 10; overall: 45 | |
| *The official names of the city and its surrounding villages were anonymously given in the text. | |
Results
Three major assertions emerged as a result of the analysis regardless of the number and order of research questions. Several steps were followed to generate the assertions. First, the PSTs’ argumentative and summary writings were categorized (e.g. no coherence, weak coherence, moderate coherence or strong coherence) and scored, after which the interviews were analyzed. The statistical analysis was conducted, and graphs were generated. Both qualitative and quantitative results were compared and contrasted. Several tactics (including noting patterns, noting the relationship between variables, and building a logical chain of evidence) were used to draw and verify conclusions (Miles, Huberman and Saldana, 2013). Finally, the assertions were assigned with different numbers and letters. Assertions 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d were generated to examine argumentative and summary writings separately or their correlation. Assertions 2a and 2b were generated to examine argumentative and summary writings together for the PSTs’ own learning, and Assertion 3 was designated while thinking argumentative and summary writings together for the PSTs’ future teaching career.Assertion 1a. Time elapsed between the PSTs’ writing experiences caused a statistically significant difference in both argumentative and summary writings
This assertion emerged as a response to the first and second research questions, which investigated if the time spent between experiencing the SWH approach in general chemistry lab and analytical chemistry courses has an impact on the PSTs’ quality of argumentative and summary writings in the analytical chemistry course. As previously indicated, all of the PSTs were engaging in summary writing activities for the first time. The PSTs’ quality of argumentative and summary writings was scored based on the rubrics, and the statistical analysis was run using the Kruskal–Wallis test. The Kruskal–Wallis test results for the quality of the argumentative and summary writings of the PSTs across the three different groups are shown in Table 5. The analysis results indicate that the PSTs’ quality of argumentative writings (χ2 (sd = 2, n = 41) = 14.909, p < 0.01) and summary writings (χ2 (sd = 2, n = 41) = 6.385, p < 0.05) differed significantly between groups. These findings show that the argumentative writing activities completed after the SWH activities were implemented in analytical chemistry, and the summary writings had different effects on the groups. Considering the mean rank of the groups, the PSTs in the SWH1 group had the highest writing quality after practicing writing activities based on argumentative and summary writing, followed by the PSTs in the SWH2 and SWH3 groups. The significant difference between the groups was determined by using the Mann–Whitney U-test. The results of the Mann–Whitney U-tests indicate that there was a significant difference between (1) the SWH1 and SWH2 groups (U = 39.000, p = 0.044, p < 0.05), (2) the SWH1 and SWH3 groups (U = 10.500, p = 0.00, p < 0.01) in favor of SWH1, and (3) the SWH2 and SWH3 groups (U = 65.000, p = 0.027, p < 0.05) in favor of SWH2 in the argumentative writing activities. In other words, the PSTs who had a shorter amount of time elapsed (6 months) between their experiences with the SWH approach in the general chemistry lab and analytical chemistry (SWH1 group) produced argumentative writings that were statistically significantly better than those of the PSTs who had a longer time elapsed (18 months) between experiences (SWH2 group) as well as the PSTs who had only experienced the SWH approach in analytical chemistry (SWH3 group). In a similar vein, the PSTs who had a longer amount of time elapsed (18 months) between experiencing the SWH approach in the general chemistry lab and analytical chemistry (SWH2 group) did statistically and significantly better in argumentative writing than the PSTs who had only experienced the SWH approach in analytical chemistry (SWH3 group).| Implementations | Groups | n | Mean rank | sd | χ 2 | p | Significant differences |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argumentative writing | SWH1 | 10 | 31.55 | 2 | 14.909 | 0.001 | SWH1–SWH2, SWH1–SWH3, SWH2–SWH3 |
| SWH2 | 15 | 22.27 | |||||
| SWH3 | 16 | 13.22 | |||||
| Summary writing | SWH1 | 10 | 28.40 | 2 | 6.385 | 0.041 | SWH1–SWH3 |
| SWH2 | 15 | 20.83 | |||||
| SWH3 | 16 | 16.53 | |||||
As shown in Table 5, the Mann–Whitney U-tests reveal a significant difference between the summary writing activities of the SWH1 and SWH3 groups in favor of the SWH1 group (U = 35.000, p = 0.014, p < 0.05). These results show that although the PSTs did not have previous experience with writing summary activities, the PSTs who experienced a short time gap (6 months) between writing argumentatively in the general chemistry lab and analytical chemistry wrote statistically and significantly better summary writings (SWH1) than the PSTs who had no previous argumentative writing experience (SWH3). Taken together, these findings show that the PSTs’ previous experiences with the SWH approach and the amount of time that elapsed between these experiences caused a statistically significant difference between their argumentative and summary writings.
Assertion 1b. Although the PSTs’ time and experience with the SWH approach affected the quality of argumentative and summary writings, they performed better in summary writing than argumentative writing
This assertion emerged as a response to the first and second research questions. In this regard, the PSTs’ quality of written arguments and summary writings were categorized as having strong (SC), moderate (MC), weak (WC) or no coherence (NC).Fig. 1 shows the category percentages of the PSTs’ argumentative and summary writings. As evidenced, the PSTs in the SWH1 group mostly constructed their written arguments at a strong coherence (62%) level. This means that the majority of the PSTs were able to make strong connections between their question, claim, evidence, reading and reflection sections. In this regard, the PSTs determined two or more testable and meaningful questions and demonstrated an understanding of dependent and independent variables and their appropriate application. They made claims that were sound and provided accurate and valid evidence to explain and interpret data and observations using different modes; they also used proper Turkish with logical statements to support their claims. In reflection, the PSTs used more than one source and linked them directly to their claims and evidence. These results also show that the PSTs were able to use their knowledge base of argumentation and language to construct sound arguments. Though the PSTs in the SWH2 group constructed most of their arguments at a moderate coherence (33%) level, most of the PSTs in the SWH3 group constructed their arguments at a weak coherence (50%) level. This finding shows that the PSTs (SWH1) who were familiar with the SWH approach and who took less time (6 months) between general chemistry lab applications and analytical chemistry applications generally constructed better quality arguments than those in the SWH2 group. Having established this, it appears that time is a critical factor in writing quality arguments, in that the shorter the amount of time between the two applications, the better the PSTs were at writing argumentative writing even though the PSTs were familiar with the SWH approach. This would suggest that the PSTs’ previous experiences with the SWH approach (SWH1 and SWH2) helped them construct a better level of argumentation than the PSTs who were previously unfamiliar with this approach (SWH3).
 | ||
| Fig. 1 Category percentages of the PSTs’ argumentative and summary writings. | ||
With regard to the summary writing activities, the PSTs in the SWH1 (84%) and SWH2 (55%) groups wrote at strong coherence levels and the PSTs in the SWH3 group mainly wrote at strong (38%) and moderate coherence (39%) levels. This may suggest that the PSTs in these groups took their audience into account, used and connected more accurate modes, and had better conceptual understandings related to the topic being investigated. Even though the PSTs had no previous experience with summary writing, all of them wrote at a better level of coherence of summary writing when compared to their argumentative writing activities. In addition, the PSTs who had previous experience with the SWH approach and had a shorter time gap between their experiences (SWH1) formed a better level of summary writing than the PSTs with no previous experience (SWH3).
Assertion 1c. The PSTs had difficulty engaging with argumentative writing, but not with summary writing
This assertion emerged as a response to the fourth research question, which investigated the PSTs’ perceptions of argumentative and summary writing activities. The PSTs were asked what they thought of the argumentative and summary writing activities they used in the analytical chemistry course; if applicable, they were asked to consider why they had difficulty completing the activities. The interview results showed that 75% (3 out of 4) of the PSTs in the SWH1 and SWH3 groups and 50% of the PSTs (2 out of 4) in the SWH2 group who participated in the interview had difficulties with argumentative writing. The PSTs in the SWH1 group (particularly those who preferred to choose gravimetric analysis) admitted that they had difficulties outlining a design because, unlike their experience in Chemistry Laboratory I and II, they were not provided with a lab manual in analytical chemistry. In this regard, Annabelle said, “Honestly, even though I knew how to use lab materials in the chemistry lab courses we had, I had difficulty in planning the design because we were not provided with a lab manual that guided us like chemistry lab courses.” These results indicate that the difficulties that the PSTs experienced were not necessarily related to constructing arguments, and can explain why the PSTs wrote at a strong coherence level. The PSTs in the SWH2 group stated that they had difficulties forming argumentative sentences. For instance, Irma from the SWH2 group felt that “it was a little difficult for [her] to make argument sentences while writing the text.” This result indicates that a longer lapse of time (18 months) between the PSTs’ argumentative writing experiences may affect their argumentative writing skills because (as indicated in Assertion 1b) most of the PSTs wrote at a moderate level. Interviewed students from the SWH3 group stated that they were not experienced with using this approach before, and thus they had difficulty implementing the SWH approach at the beginning. Amelia expressed, “I had a hard time at the beginning as I have not used this method much before.” The interview results may also support the results of Assertion 1b because the PSTs in SWH3 primarily wrote their arguments at a weak coherence level.The PSTs were also asked how they perceived summary writing and whether they had any difficulties implementing summary writing activities. The interview results revealed that 50% of the PSTs in the SWH1 group and 75% of the PSTs in the SWH2 and SWH3 groups did not face difficulties in their summary writing activities. These results may also support Assertion 1b, as most of the PSTs in the SWH1 and SWH2 groups wrote at a strong coherence level, while the PSTs in the SWH3 group wrote at a level between strong and moderate coherence. The PSTs in the SWH1 group stated that they did not have any difficulties because they had faced similar tasks in the reflection part of their lab reports for General Chemistry Lab I and II courses the previous year. The PSTs were supposed to write their lab reports to someone who did not know the topic, which shows that the PSTs in the SWH1 group considered their audience's needs when writing the journal article. As one of the PSTs in the SWH1 group, Natalia clarified her opinion as follows:
I didn’t have any difficulty because we used to write like this in the reflection part of our lab reports earlier in the general chemistry lab class. I was trying to explain the information that would support or refute my claims and evidence in the simplest way in the reflection part. Since the journal I wrote should be written in a way that everyone can understand from daily life, I tried to write it in the most correct way with my previous knowledge. (Interview with Natalia, SWH1 group, February 8, 2019.)
The PSTs in SWH2 stated that considering the audience's needs and using claims and evidence when implementing the SWH approach in analytical chemistry helped them with their summary writing. An exemplary quotation from one of the PSTs in the SWH2 group is given below:
I did not have difficulty in writing the journal article because we did an experiment before writing the article and I created my journal article based on this experiment. During the experiment, I collected data to write the article, and using that data I made and justified the claim. While writing the journal article, I considered the audience of local people to write this data in a way to inform them better and included the claims and evidence I made in my article. (Interview with Monica, SWH2 group, February 7, 2019.)
The PSTs in the SWH3 groups stated that they did not have much difficulty writing a journal for a local newspaper because they used the results they had obtained from the SWH activity and examined many articles related to the subject. One of the PSTs in the SWH3 group, Amelia said, “While writing the journal article, we didn’t have many difficulties in writing because we analyzed many articles previously published on our topic.” However, she admitted that she had some struggles while writing to the audience by stating that “the only part we struggled with was how to interpret the data we obtained from the experiment to the local people in our article.” This may demonstrate that the PSTs in the SWH3 group had difficulty translating science language into general audience language. Taken together, all of the PSTs took into account the audience's needs in writing about summary writing and they did not have difficulties in summary writing because of the experiences that they had in implementing the SWH approach in analytical chemistry.
Assertion 1d. There is a positive correlation between the PSTs’ argumentative and summary writings
This assertion emerged as a response to the third research question that investigated a potential correlation between the PSTs’ argumentative and summary writing. The Spearman–Brown Rank Difference correlation coefficient was used to determine if there was any relationship between the PSTs’ argumentative writing and summary writing activities in the groups. As a result of the analysis, there is evidence of a positive relationship between the argumentative writing and summary writing activities of the students in the groups (r = 0.515 for the SWH1 group; r = 0.701 for SWH2, p < 0.01; for SWH3 r = 0.323).Assertion 2a. The PSTs considered argumentative and summary writing tasks they participated in beneficial to their learning of analytical chemistry
This assertion emerged as a response to the fourth research question that investigated the PSTs’ perceptions on their learning of analytical chemistry after engaging in two different writing activities. The twelve PSTs who participated in the interviews were asked to consider if the argumentative and summary writing activities helped them understand the subject, and were asked to provide a rationale for their answer. All of the PSTs stated that both argumentative and summary writing activities helped them learn and understand the topics better they investigated in the analytical chemistry course. The PSTs in the SWH1 group highlighted that attending two writing activities provided them with different perspectives of the topic because they were doing research, making claims and evidence and informing others based on the knowledge they constructed. In the SWH1 group, Brianna indicated, “Doing research on a topic you are curious about, learning the content of the subject by experimenting, and making claims and evidence, and informing what we have learned in our own words gave a very different perspective to the content of the course.” The PSTs in the SWH2 group recognized the importance of the learning environment because it enabled the PSTs to be active in it and gave them freedom to express their ideas and construct their knowledge by questioning and justifying through the research process. Mary of the SWH2 group stated, “There is an environment where students are active, can express their thoughts easily and learn by doing and experiencing. At the same time, the students construct the knowledge by questioning and justifying it.” In a similar vein, the PSTs in the SWH3 group highlighted that being active in the activities contributed to their learning as Scarlett claimed, “Being active in these activities, doing research and writing contributed to us in a different and positive way.”Assertion 2b. The PSTs in all SWH groups perceived cognitive action leading to benefits for their conceptual understanding and a positive change in their thoughts on analytical chemistry when participating in argumentative and summary writing tasks
This assertion emerged as a response to the fourth research question. The PSTs were asked whether their argumentative and summary writing activities helped them understand the subject or whether it caused a change in their thoughts about analytical chemistry, and were asked to provide their reasoning. A majority, 75% (3 out of 4), of the PSTs in the SWH1 and SWH3 groups and 50% of the PSTs in the SWH2 group perceived that different writing activities helped them think from different perspectives and increased their critical thinking. One of the PSTs in SWH1 stated her opinion as follows:Writing based on argumentation taught us to think, to notice, to analyze, to present the reasons while thinking, that is to think effectively. In the writing process, thinking of us as investigative journalists and writing with the duty and responsibility to raise public awareness ensured the permanence of the subject. (Interview with Brianna, SWH1 group, February 8, 2019.)
Emilie from the SWH2 group also highlighted the different perspective and critical thinking ability she gained, “These writing activities enabled me to examine the subject better and see it as a whole from different aspects and helped me think critically.” In a similar vein, Samantha from the SWH3 group emphasized how different writing activities led her group to grasp different perspectives, to which she said, “These writing activities we did were different from other activities we did before and doing different activities made us think about the subject from different perspectives.”
A majority of the PSTs indicated that the writing activities positively changed their thoughts on analytical chemistry, with 75% of the students in the SWH1 and SWH3 groups and 100% of the students in the SWH2 group affirming this change. Most of the PSTs in the groups indicated that they had imagined that analytical chemistry was a very difficult discipline and this had thus prejudiced them against it. However, after practicing the writing activities, the PSTs revealed that doing research, making claims and providing evidence, and writing activities activated their interest and curiosity and they found the activities to be entertaining and to be useful for their learning. This result may also indicate that not only do the PSTs’ writing activities, but also their ownership over their laboratory experiences, have positive effects on their thoughts particularly as the PSTs selected their own topics and designed their own experiments. The PSTs from the different groups revealed a more positive outlook on the course and expressed their ideas as follows:
My ideas have changed positively. Analytical chemistry may be the hardest chemistry course I’ve ever taken. It definitely became more enjoyable and fun with these writing activities. In other words, it was pleasing to participate in the research process, make claims and evidence and write the journal article. I would do it again if I took the lesson again. (Interview with Sophia, SWH1 group, February 8, 2019.)
I thought the course was difficult for me, but with the experiments we conducted, the claim and evidence we made and the articles we wrote, the course became more concrete and understandable for me. It thus led to a positive change in my thinking. (Interview with Mary, SWH2 group, February 7, 2019.)
These activities we did influenced my thoughts against analytical chemistry. I thought the lesson was difficult, but these activities enabled me to do research, understand the subject better and be successful in the lesson. In this way my opinion that the lesson was difficult, changed. (Interview with Sonya, SWH3 group, February 6, 2019.)
Assertion 3. The PSTs perceived that writing activities were beneficial for their future teaching career
This assertion emerged as a response to the fourth research question that sought to determine if the PSTs would implement these writing activities in their future teaching career. All PSTs in the groups indicated that they would use the writing activities in their future teaching career because they had benefited from these activities and experienced them. Moreover, they wanted their future students to have similar beneficial experiences to promote richer learning outcomes. Natalia from the SWH1 group stated, “I will definitely implement these two writing activities in my teaching life. I have experienced it myself.” She also recognized the association between argumentative and summary writing for their permanence and meaningful learning by indicating that “while researching and questioning with SWH, you associate the information you learn with the summary writing with daily life, thus increasing its permanence and providing meaningful learning.” Mary from the SWH2 group indicated, “In my teaching life, I will implement SWH approach and summary writing activity because the students learn in a more permanent way by doing and experiencing information.” Likewise, Aimee from SWH3 stated that she would use these writing activities because “with argumentative writing and summary writing activities, students will be more active in the lesson, they will be interested and curious about research, exploring. Thus, a more permanent and effective learning will be created.”Discussion, implications and limitations
This study investigated the argumentative and summary writing activities of the PSTs who participated in a knowledge generation approach to learning, known as the SWH approach, and who had experience with it in different time periods. In this generative-learning environment, the PSTs were required to predict, generate questions, generate answers (claims and evidence), and provide explanations underpinned by negotiating publicly and privately (Hand et al., 2018; Hand et al., 2020). The results show that argumentative and summary writing activities were positively correlated with each other and the PSTs in the three groups benefited from these writing activities. The PSTs in the groups understood that writing tasks were epistemological and used reasoning tools that enabled them to understand the topic better (McDermott and Hand, 2010; Prain and Hand, 2016). They also indicated that the writing process was a learning process through which they were able to construct new knowledge (McDermott and Hand, 2010). The researcher believes that time, audience, benefits and authorship are factors that should be considered when arriving at these conclusions.One of the salient results of the study is that time appeared to be an important factor in the quality of PSTs’ writing activities. The PSTs who had a shorter time between writing experiences in their chemistry lab and analytical chemistry courses were more successful in both argumentative writing and summary writing activities in analytical chemistry. In the general chemistry lab courses, while these PSTs initially had difficulties in using the SWH approach, they were able to later develop their argumentative writing skills, and then became more capable of utilizing these argumentative and language skills. This may show that in this knowledge-generation-to-learning environment the PSTs developed and utilized some intellectual resources such as content knowledge, reasoning, language and argumentative tools (Hand, 2017; Hand et al., 2020). In analytical chemistry, the PSTs’ interview results reveal that they utilized these intellectual resources such as making claims and evidence, reasoning, and questioning. Moreover, the findings of this study indicate that when the PSTs were tracked after certain periods of time prior to analytical chemistry, they were still able to utilize knowledge bases and practices (knowledge of science, knowledge of science argument, knowledge of language, and knowledge of the learning environment). This may show that the different knowledge bases and practices that the PSTs engaged in General Chemistry Laboratory I and II courses might have served as intellectual resources for their learning in analytical chemistry. The researcher would suggest that providing opportunities for pre-service teachers to have these experiences would be an important way to help them develop intellectual resources such as arguments, language, and reasoning that can be used for their own learning, as well as creating these opportunities for their future students to develop these resources.
The findings of this study indicate that the PSTs in the groups were able to consider the value of their audience when engaged in the summary writing activity. The researcher would argue that the PSTs who had previously sustained writing experience with SWH might have utilized these experiences from writing to a different audience as part of their general chemistry lab course to writing for a local audience in analytical chemistry. By doing so, the PSTs translated their understandings of the language within analytical chemistry into a language which their audience (the local people) could engage with (McDermott and Hand, 2010). As a result of this translation, the PSTs may come to know the topic in a way that they have not previously constituted (Hand, 2017). The researcher would argue that the writing became an epistemic tool (Prain and Hand, 2016) for the PSTs since it helped the PSTs in constituting knowledge in a way that did not previously exist (Galbraith, 1999). Research indicates that writing to an audience other than teachers is cognitively demanding (Günel et al., 2009; McDermott and Hand, 2010; Lamb et al., 2020) and this may also explain why the PSTs cognitively benefited from these writing activities. The researcher would suggest that the use of different audiences is important when setting these tasks within these chemistry courses. Requiring PSTs to writing to someone beyond the instructor helps them to generate a richer engagement with the conceptual ideas of the topic.
As a result of the analysis of the PSTs’ perceptions about both writing activities, several benefits were revealed including cognitive, professional and self-learning. The PSTs stated that they thought more effectively as a result of the writing activities and that more effective learning took place. The PSTs also found these writing activities valuable and indicated that in their future teaching career these writing activities could serve them as useful resources in helping their future students construct their own understanding. As stated by Galbraith and Baaijen (2018), this may have resulted from the knowledge-constituting processes of writing which promote cognitive operations and structures that operate the level of conscious thought because the PSTs expressed that they learned to think more critically and effectively in this writing process. In addition, as a result of these writing activities, PSTs’ general cognitive awareness might have increased because, in these writing activities, the PSTs reviewed and reflected on their old ideas in the light of their new knowledge (Graham et al., 2020). Different kinds of writing-to-learn activities promote different kinds of thinking and resulting in different types of learning (Langer and Applbee, 1987; Tynjälä et al, 2001; Klein and Boscolo, 2016; Graham et al., 2020). Argumentative writing and summary writing are two different writing activities that are used for learning purposes (Walton, 2016; Jang and Hand, 2017). As noted in the PSTs' interviews, argumentative and summary writing activities may have helped them think about the subject in different ways and understand the subject as a whole. Finally, the researcher suggests that pre-service science teachers should utilize both types of writing in their courses to promote different types of learning and thinking.
The majority of the PSTs who participated in the interview stated that active participation in the activities helped them learn better, and they believed that the environment was both comfortable and safe for them. As such, this situation enabled the PSTs to have both agency and authorship (Cavagnetto et al., 2020). In science classrooms, this authorship requires that students need to be involved in explaining and justifying in ways that take on the authentic characteristics of scientific inquiry, and thus be active in generative learning (Hand et al., 2020). Cavagnetto et al. (2020) reported that some learning environments provide higher levels of authorship than others, which occurs when students feel ownership over their learning activities. In terms of the SWH learning environment, as the PSTs selected their own topic and designed their own experiments, this may indicate that the PSTs had ownership over their laboratory activities (Corwin et al., 2018). In this study, as the PSTs indicated in their interviews, they made claims and gathered evidence by doing research, and performed questioning within the scope of the SWH approach. They then tried to explain and justify and support or refute these claims and evidence with information from different sources, which might have shown that writing became a reasoning tool for the PSTs (Prain and Hand, 2016). A critical implication of these outcomes for educators is that providing students with ownership and authorship of their ideas is important when engaging in these writing activities. Simply completing pre-determined lab activities and traditional lab report writing does not necessarily allow students to explore and utilize these qualities of ownership and authorship.
The argumentative and summary writing activities were sequentially implemented in this study. The findings indicate that the PSTs’ argumentative and summary writings were positively correlated with each other, and the PSTs used their experiences they had in argumentative writing for summary writing. This result suggests that the PSTs used the ideas constructed as a part of their argumentative writing for their summary writing, so they would appear to be complementary to each other (Berland and Reiser, 2009; Reiser et al., 2012). The result also shows that when the PSTs are provided a sequence of two connected writing tasks, it can increase their understanding and learning on the topic being investigated. This result is consistent with the findings of other research studies (Hand et al., 2001; Jang and Hand, 2017). Hand and his colleagues also reported that students’ higher order thinking increased when students engaged in a sequence of two connected writing tasks. In this study, after engaging in the two writing activities the PSTs revealed that these writing activities helped them think effectively and critically. This may also explain why the PSTs benefited cognitively from these writing activities.
Taken together, despite this study's recognized limitations, this research does add to our understanding and complements existing research. The results of the study are useful for providing evidence of how argumentative and summary writing activities help PSTs’ learning and thinking and how time affects their argumentative and summary writing. This study suggests that it is important to provide pre-service science teachers with argument and language experiences for both their own learning and their future teaching career when we consider that teachers teach in the way they learned. For future research, the researcher would suggest two potential studies. First, a longitudinal study can be conducted with these PSTs when they become in-service teachers. The second would focus on expanding the population of students. The participants in this study generally come from middle- and low-income families who live in rural areas in Turkey, so the population of this study may not represent all students in the field of chemistry. Therefore, further research is needed to examine different cultural and social-economic settings.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts to declare.Appendix A. Semi-structured interview questions
1. What do you think about the argumentative writing activity you used in the analytical chemistry class? Have you had any difficulty in doing? Why?2. What do you think of the article (written in the local newspaper) that you used in the analytical chemistry course? Have you had difficulty in writing? Why?
3. Do you think these two writing activities that you do help you understand the subject? Why?
4. Have these two writing activities you used caused any change in your thoughts on analytical chemistry? Why?
5. Would you apply these two writing activities in your future teaching career? Why?
Appendix B. Analytic and holistic frameworks
| Quality of argument | Criteria | Scoring matrix | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 5 | 10 | 15 | |||
| Analytic of argument (element component) | Question | Can the question be answerable after carrying out the lab experiment? | • One question | • One question | • Two or more questions | • Two or more questions |
| • Not testable | • Testable | • Testable and meaningful | • Testable and meaningful | |||
| • Inappropriate | • Show an understanding of what lab could result in | • Demonstrate an understanding of dependent and independent variables or appropriate application | ||||
| Claim | • Are the claims a direct result of the data and observation? | • One claim | • One claim | • Two or more claims | • Two or more claims | |
| • Are the claims adequate and accurate? | • Not based on any data/observation | • Based on only a portion of data/observation | • Based on all data but do not grasp a big picture | • Based on all data and grasp a big picture | ||
| • Invalid and inaccurate | • May not be valid or accurate | • May be valid and sound | • Valid, sound, accurate | |||
| Evidence | How well are the data and observation used in the evidence? | • Referred to some of the data | • Restate data/observation | • Interpret data/observation | • Explain and interpret data/observation | |
| • Do students reflect on how the evidence did or did not support the claim? | • Invalid, inaccurate, and unreliable | • May not be accurate, valid, and reliable | • May be valid, accurate, and reliable | • Write using proper Turkish with logical statements | ||
| • Accurate, valid, rich | ||||||
| Reflection | • How well are reading and reflection connected? | • One source | • One source | • More than one source | • More than one source | |
| • Do students reflect on how the evidence did or did not support the claim? | • Linked poorly | • Linked well | • Linked well to evidence | • Linked directly claims and evidence | ||
| • Very weak explanation for how ideas changed or did not change | • Weak explanation for how ideas changed or did not change | • Explain most of the evidence and discuss initial questions | • Write using proper Turkish with logical statements, explain most of the evidence, and discuss initial questions | |||
| • Moderate understanding about how ideas changed or did not change | • Strong understanding about how ideas changed or didn’t change | |||||
| Holistic framework (relationship component) | • How well are question, claim, evidence, reading, and reflection components connected? | • Very weak connection | • Weak connection | • Moderate connection | • Strong connection | |
| • Does SWH flow smoothly from one area to another area? | • Does not fit | • Fits loosely | • Fits reasonably | • Fits strongly | ||
| • How strong are the arguments developed by the student? | • Do not flow smoothly | • May not flow smoothly | • May flow smoothly | • Flows smoothly | ||
| • Very weak argument | • Weak argument | • Moderate argument | • Strong argument | |||
Appendix C. Summary writing framework
| Criteria | Scoring matrix | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 5 | 10 | 15 | ||
| Quality of content | How well do students explain the concept logically? | • No conceptual understanding | • Weak conceptual understanding | • Moderate conceptual understanding | • Strong conceptual understanding |
| • Irrelevant/incorrect/unrelated information included | • Relevant information included but weakly explained | • Relevant information included but some parts of the concept explained | • Relevant information included and explained logically | ||
| • No logical connection | |||||
| Representations used | How many different representations do students use to reflect their idea? | • Only text used | • Text plus one representation (one of these representations: picture, graph, table, list, diagram or math) | • Text plus two representations (two of these representations: picture, graph, table, list, diagram or math) | • Text plus three or more representations (three or more of these representations: picture, graph, table, list, diagram or math) |
| Cohesiveness | How well are representations connected to one another? | • There is no connection | • Weak connection | • Moderate connection | • Strong connection |
| How well the students explained, unpacked and contextualized the representations in the text? | • Weak explanation, unpacking and conceptualization | • Moderate explanation, unpacking and conceptualization | • Strong explanation, unpacking and conceptualization | ||
| Accuracy | Are modes valid or accurate? | • Irrelevant mode used | • Modes may not be valid or accurate | • Modes may be valid or accurate | • Modes are valid or accurate |
| Audience | Is the writing appropriate for the audience? | • Inappropriate for the audience | • Weak accuracy | • Moderate accuracy | • Strong accuracy |
| • The audience not mentioned | • The audience mentioned implicitly | • The audience mentioned explicitly | • The audience mentioned explicitly | ||
| • May not be appropriate for the audience | • May be appropriate for the audience | • Appropriate for the audience | |||
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Dr Brian Hand and Dr Nesli Kala for their valuable input and insight in preparing this manuscript.References
- Asterhan C. S. and Schwarz B. B., (2016), Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories, Educ. Psychol., 51(2), 164–187.
- Bangert-Drowns R. L., Hurley M. M. and Wilkinson B., (2004), The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis, Rev. Educ. Res., 74(1), 29–58.
- Berland L. K. and Reiser B. J., (2009), Making sense of argumentation and explanation, Sci. Educ., 93(1), 26–55.
- Cavagnetto A. R., Hand B. and Premo J., (2020), Supporting student agency in science, Theory Into Pract., 59(2), 128–138.
- Chen Y. C., Hand B. and McDowell L. E. A. H., (2013), The effects of writing-to-learn activities on elementary students’ conceptual understanding: Learning about force and motion through writing to older peers, Sci. Educ., 97(5), 745–771.
- Chen Y. C., Hand B. and Park S., (2016), Examining elementary students’ development of oral and written argumentation practices through argument-based inquiry, Sci. Educ., 25(3–4), 277–320.
- Corwin L. A., Runyon C. R., Ghanem E., Sandy M., Clark G., Palmer G. C., … and Dolan, E. L., (2018), Effects of discovery, iteration, and collaboration in laboratory courses on undergraduates’ research career intentions fully mediated by student ownership, CBE – Life Sci. Educ., 17(2), 1–11.
- Galbraith D., (1999), Writing as a knowledge-constituting process, Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production, vol. 4, pp. 139–164.
- Galbraith D. and Baaijen V. M., (2018), The work of writing: Raiding the inarticulate, Educ. Psychol., 53(4), 238–257.
- Gil L., Bråten I., Vidal-Abarca E. and Strømsø H. I., (2010), Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better for whom?, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 35(3), 157–173.
- Graham S., Kiuhara S. A. and MacKay M., (2020), The effects of writing on learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A Meta-Analysis, Rev. Educ. Res., 90(2), 179–226.
- Günel M., Hand B. and McDermott M. A., (2009), Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school students' conceptual understanding of biology, Learn. Instr., 19(4), 354–367.
- Günel M., Kingir S. and Aydemir N., (2016), The effect of embedding multimodal representation in non-traditional writing task on students’ learning in electrochemistry, Using multimodal representations to support learning in the science classroom, Cham: Springer, pp. 59–75.
- Hand B., (2004), Cognitive, constructivist mechanisms for learning science through writing, Writing and learning in the science classroom, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 21–31.
- Hand B., (2017), Exploring the role of writing in science: A 25-year journey, Literacy Learn., 25(3), 16–23.
- Hand B. and Choi A., (2010), Examining the impact of student use of multiple modal representations in constructing arguments in organic chemistry laboratory classes, Res. Sci. Educ., 40(1), 29–44.
- Hand B. and Prain V., (2006), Moving from border crossing to convergence of perspectives in language and science literacy research and practice, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 28(2–3), 101–107.
- Hand B. M., Prain V. and Yore L., (2001), Sequential writing tasks’ influence on science learning, Writing as a Learning Tool, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 105–129.
- Hand B., Wallace C. W. and Yang E. M., (2004), Using a Science Writing Heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 26(2), 131–149.
- Hand B., Shelley M. C., Laugerman M., Fostvedt L. and Therrien W., (2018), Improving critical thinking growth for disadvantaged groups within elementary school science: A randomized controlled trial using the Science Writing Heuristic approach, Sci. Educ., 102(4), 693–710.
- Hand B., Chen Y. C. and Suh J. K., (2020), Does a knowledge generation approach to learning benefit students? A systematic review of research on the science writing heuristic approach, Educ. Psychol. Rev., 1–43.
- Hohenshell L. M. and Hand B., (2006), Writing-to-learn Strategies in Secondary School Cell Biology: a mixed method study, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 28(2–3), 261–289.
- Jang J. Y. and Hand B., (2017), Examining the value of a scaffolded critique framework to promote argumentative and explanatory writings within an argument-based inquiry approach, Res. Sci. Educ., 47(6), 1213–1231.
- Klein P. D., (2006), The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 28(2–3), 143–178.
- Klein P. D. and Boscolo P., (2016), Trends in research on writing as a learning activity, J. Writing Res., 7(3), 311–350.
- Klein, P. D., Boscolo, P., Kirckpatrick, L. C. and Gelati, C. (ed.), (2014), Writing as a Learning Activity (studies in writing), Leiden/Boston: Brill.
- Kress G. R., (2010), Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication, Routledge.
- Lamb R., Hand B. and Yoon S. Y., (2019a), An exploratory neuroimaging study of argumentative and summary writing, Theorizing the Future of Science Education Research, Cham: Springer, pp. 63–82.
- Lamb R. L., Etopio E., Hand B. and Yoon S. Y., (2019b), Virtual reality simulation: Effects on academic performance within two domains of writing in science, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 28(4), 371–381.
- Lamb R., Hand B. and Kavner A., (2020), Computational Modeling of the Effects of the Science Writing Heuristic on Student Critical Thinking in Science Using Machine Learning, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 1–15.
- Langer J. and Applebee A., (1987), How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning, National Council of Teachers of English.
- Lemke J. L., (1990), Talking science: language, learning and values, Ablex Publishing Corporation.
- McDermott M. and Hand B., (2010), A secondary reanalysis of student perceptions while participating in non-traditional writing in science, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 47(5), 518–539.
- Merriam S. B., (2009), Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Miles M. B., Huberman A. M. and Saldana J., (2014), Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook, 3rd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- MONE (Ministry of National Education), (2018), Curriculum of science courses for grade 3–8, Ankara, Turkey: Head Council of Education and Morality.
- National Research Council, (2012), A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, Washington: The National Academy of the Sciences.
- Norton-Meier L., Hand B., Hockenberry L. and Wise K., (2008), Questions, claims, and evidence: The important place of argument in children's science writing, Heinemann.
- Osborne J. F. and Patterson A., (2011), Scientific argument and explanation: a necessary distinction?, Sci. Educ., 95(4), 627–638.
- Peten D. M., (2019), Comparison of the effect of peer and teacher assessment in the development of written arguments of preservice teachers, J. Educ. Life, 33(2), 121–139.
- Prain V. and Hand B., (1996), Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices, Teach. Teach. Educ., 12(6), 609–626.
- Prain V. and Hand B., (2016), Coming to know more through and from writing, Educ. Res., 45(7), 430–434.
- Reiser B. J., Berland L. K. and Kenyon L., (2012), Engaging students in the scientific practices of explanation and argumentation, Sci. Teach., 79(4), 34.
- Rivard L. O. P., (1994), A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 31(9), 969–983.
- Ryu S. and Sandoval W. A., (2012), Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation, Sci. Educ., 96(3), 488–526.
- Saldana J., (2013), The coding manual for qualitative researchers, London, United Kingdom: Sage.
- Schoerning E., Hand B., Shelley M. and Therrien W., (2015), Language, access, and power in the elementary science classroom, Sci. Educ., 99(2), 238–259.
- Tynjälä P., (2001), Writing, learning and the development of expertise in higher education, Writing as a learning tool, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 37–56.
- Tynjälä P., Mason L. and Lonka K., (2001), Writing as a learning tool: An introduction, Writing as a learning tool, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 7–22.
- Walker J. P. and Sampson V., (2013), Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 50(5), 561–596.
- Walton D. N., (1990), What is reasoning? What is an argument?, J. Philos., 87(8), 399–419.
- Walton D, (2016), Argument evaluation and evidence, The Netherlands: Springer.
- Yaman F., (2018a), Effects of the science writing heuristic approach on the quality of prospective science teachers’ argumentative writing and their understanding of scientific argumentation, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 16(3), 421–442.
- Yaman F., (2018b), The effect of the science writing heuristic approach on middle school students’ conceptual understanding and views on using representations in science, Abant İzzet Baysal Univ. J. Fac. Educ., 19(1), 399–413.
- Yaman F., (2019), The effect of writing-to-learn strategies on 6 grade students’ conceptual understanding of matter and heat unit, Sakarya Univ. J. Educ., 8(4), 89–108.
- Yaman F., (2020), Pre-service science teachers’ development and use of multiple levels of representation and written arguments in general chemistry laboratory courses, Res. Sci. Educ., 50 (6), 2331–2362.
- Yin R. K., (1994), Case study research: Design and methods, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
- Yore L. D. and Treagust D. F., (2006), Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy—empowering research and informing instruction, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 28(2–3), 291–314.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2021 |