Argument Structure in the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) Approach

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate students' written arguments embedded in scientific inquiry investigations using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. Argument components defined in this study are questions, claims, questions-claims relationship, evidence, claims-evidence relationship, multiple modal representations, and reflection. A set of criteria for evaluating each argument component was developed to evaluate writing samples of students from college freshman general chemistry laboratory classes. Results indicate that students produced, on average, moderate to powerful questions, claims, and evidence. They also constructed reasonable questions-claims relationship and claims-evidence relationship. Compared to other component scores, the average score for reflection was relatively low. Overall, the average Total Argument score was 21.4 out of a possible 36, that is, the quality of the written arguments using the SWH approach during a series of inquiry-based chemistry laboratory investigations was moderate to powerful. The findings of this study suggest that students, on average, developed reasonable scientific arguments generated as part of scientific inquiry. In other words, students are capable of putting together reasonable arguments as they participate in inquiry-based laboratory classrooms.