Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 236–247 | Cite as

Implementation of a Curriculum-Integrated Computer Game for Introducing Scientific Argumentation

  • Robert C. Wallon
  • Chandana Jasti
  • Hillary Z. G. Lauren
  • Barbara Hug
Article

Abstract

Argumentation has been emphasized in recent US science education reform efforts (NGSS Lead States 2013; NRC 2012), and while existing studies have investigated approaches to introducing and supporting argumentation (e.g., McNeill and Krajcik in Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78, 2008; Kang et al. in Science Education, 98(4), 674–704, 2014), few studies have investigated how game-based approaches may be used to introduce argumentation to students. In this paper, we report findings from a design-based study of a teacher’s use of a computer game intended to introduce the claim, evidence, reasoning (CER) framework (McNeill and Krajcik 2012) for scientific argumentation. We studied the implementation of the game over two iterations of development in a high school biology teacher’s classes. The results of this study include aspects of enactment of the activities and student argument scores. We found the teacher used the game in aspects of explicit instruction of argumentation during both iterations, although the ways in which the game was used differed. Also, students’ scores in the second iteration were significantly higher than the first iteration. These findings support the notion that students can learn argumentation through a game, especially when used in conjunction with explicit instruction and support in student materials. These findings also highlight the importance of analyzing classroom implementation in studies of game-based learning.

Keywords

Game-based learning Scientific argumentation Curriculum 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research and curriculum materials described in this publication were supported by Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH) under Award Number R25OD011144 and a supplement to the parent grant. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). We thank everyone—Project NEURON members and others—who developed, tested, and offered feedback on the Why Dread a Bump on the Head? curriculum unit and The Golden Hour game. We realize this study would not be possible without teachers who are willing to test our materials, and we are extremely grateful to the teacher in this study for welcoming us into her classroom. We are also grateful to Claire Scavuzzo and Emily Serblin, for assistance with data transcription and analysis.

Supplementary material

10956_2017_9720_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (27 kb)
Online Resource 1 A flowchart diagram of the dialogue between the physician (gray boxes) and student (yellow boxes) in Scene 1 of The Golden Hour. The dialogue is intended to model the CER framework by prompting students to select a (a) claim and (b) provide evidence and (c) reasoning (PDF 26 kb)
10956_2017_9720_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (308 kb)
Online Resource 2 Rubric used in scoring CER components of student arguments of scientific arguments from Scene 1 of The Golden Hour; adapted from McNeill and Krajcik (2012) (PDF 308 kb)
10956_2017_9720_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (116 kb)
Online Resource 3 Student post-test used to measure science content knowledge covered by the curriculum unit and The Golden Hour game (PDF 115 kb)

References

  1. Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, L. A. (1998). Effect size calculators. University of Colorado Colorado Springs. Retrieved from http://www.uccs.edu/~lbecker/.
  3. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2012). For whom is argument and explanation a necessary distinction? A response to Osborne and Patterson. Science Education, 96(5), 808–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cetin, P. S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Research, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eastwood, J. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2013). Teachers’ implementation of a game-based biotechnology curriculum. Computers in Education, 66, 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: what we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaydos, M. J., & Squire, K. D. (2012). Role playing games for scientific citizenship. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(4), 821–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kang, H., Thompson, J., & Windschitl, M. (2014). Creating opportunities for students to show what they know: the role of scaffolding in assessment tasks. Science Education, 98(4), 674–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ketelhut, D. J., & Nelson, B. C. (2010). Designing for real-world scientific inquiry in virtual environments. Educational Research, 52(2), 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: an effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li, M. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Game-based learning in science education: a review of relevant research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(6), 877–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lizotte, D. J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Teacher practices that support students’ construction of scientific explanations in middle school classrooms. In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 310–317). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science. New York: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  27. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  28. National Research Council. (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. Committee on science learning: computer games, simulations, and education. In M. A. Honey & M. L. Hilton (Eds.), Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  29. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K–12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  30. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  32. Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977–1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: a necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2012). Authors’ response to “For whom is argument and explanation a necessary distinction? A response to Osborne and Patterson” by Berland and McNeill. Science Education, 96(5), 814–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Research, 40(7), 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rivet, A., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: leveraging students’ prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., Menon, D., Ferdig, R. E., & Annetta, L. (2015). Learning biology through innovative curricula: a comparison of game- and nongame-based approaches. Science Education, 99(4), 696–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Squire, K. D., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad City Mystery: developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Watson, W. R., Mong, C. J., & Harris, C. A. (2011). A case study of the in-class use of a video game for teaching high school history. Computers in Education, 56(2), 466–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Webb, A. W., Bunch, J. C., & Wallace, M. F. G. (2015). Agriscience teachers’ implementation of digital game-based learning in an introductory animal science course. Journal of Science Education and Technology.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9571-7.
  44. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations