Impact of argumentation and English language proficiency on Lebanese students’ argumentation skills and conceptual understanding of genetics -

Abstract

Scientists have long used argumentation to make a case for their claims about the natural world. Researchers claim that the lack of incorporation of argumentation in science education contributes to the misrepresentation of science and to students having no sense of how scientific ideas came to be. They also claim that the incorporation of argumentation in science classes yields larger gains in conceptual understanding of a scientific topic than do traditional teaching methods (Osborne, 2010). According to Dawson and Venville (2013), the interaction between argumentation and conceptual understanding is vague and requires further investigation. Sadler and Fowler (2006) claim that argumentation is effective for college students only. A study conducted by Torres and Zeidler (2002) has also shown that English language proficiency is a critical aspect which affects students’ acquisition of science content knowledge. Thus, the purpose of this study was to further investigate the interaction between argumentation and conceptual understanding in a scientific context. The study also examined the effect of English language proficiency on Lebanese students’ acquisition of argumentation skills, specifically because English is the language of instructions of science in Lebanon while the mother tongue is Arabic. Hence, the study investigated the following questions: (a) does explicit argumentation instruction impact secondary students’ argumentation abilities; (b) does the English language proficiency of Lebanese secondary students impact their acquisition of argumentation skills?; (c) does explicit argumentation instruction in teaching genetics impact secondary students’ conceptual understanding of genetics as compared with conventional instruction that covers the same content? The research design of this study was quasi-experimental. Subjects in this study were 11th grade scientific section students in a K-12 co-educational private school. The experimental group received explicit argumentation instru