Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, L. A. (1998). Effect size calculators. University of Colorado Colorado Springs. Retrieved from http://www.uccs.edu/~lbecker/.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cetin, P. S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Research, 32(1), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, J. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2013). Teachers’ implementation of a game-based biotechnology curriculum. Computers in Education, 66, 11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: what we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gaydos, M. J., & Squire, K. D. (2012). Role playing games for scientific citizenship. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(4), 821–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketelhut, D. J., & Nelson, B. C. (2010). Designing for real-world scientific inquiry in virtual environments. Educational Research, 52(2), 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science. New York: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: a necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1310 South 6th St, Champaign, IL, 61820, USA

    Robert C. Wallon, Chandana Jasti, Logan Hillary Lauren & Barbara Hug

Authors
  1. Robert C. Wallon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chandana Jasti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Logan Hillary Lauren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Barbara Hug
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert C. Wallon.

Electronic supplementary material

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)

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)

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)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wallon, R.C., Jasti, C., Lauren, L.H. et al. Implementation of a Curriculum-Integrated Computer Game for Introducing Scientific Argumentation. J Sci Educ Technol 27, 236–247 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9720-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9720-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation