Scientific Argumentation in Biology: 30 Classroom Activities

Preface

What Is Scientific Argumentation?

Scientific argumentation is an important practice in science. We define scientific argumentation as an attempt to validate or refute a claim on the basis of reasons in a manner that reflects the values of the scientific community (Norris, Philips, and Osborne 2007). A claim, in this context, is not simply an opinion or an idea; rather, it is a conjecture, explanation, or other conclusion that provides a sufficient answer to a research question. The term reasons is used to describe the support someone offers for a conclusion. The term evidence is often used to describe the reasons used by scientists, especially when the support is based on data gathered through an investigation. Yet reasons do not have to be based on measurements or observations to be viewed as scientific. Charles Darwin, for example, provided numerous reasons in The Origin of Species to support his claims that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, biological evolution is simply descent with modification, and the primary mechanism that drives biological evolution is natural selection. Some of the reasons that Darwin used were theoretical in nature, such as appealing to population theory from Malthus and the ideas of uniformitarianism advocated by Lyell, while others were more empirical in nature, such as the appeals he made to the data that he gathered during his voyage to Central and South America. What made Darwin’s one long argument (Mayr 1964, p. 459) so convincing and persuasive to others, however, was the way he was able to coordinate theory and evidence in order to validate his claims.

It is also important for teachers and students to understand how an argument (i.e., a written or spoken claim and support provided for it) in science is different than an argument that is used in everyday contexts or in other disciplines such as history, religion, or even politics. In order to make these differences explicit, we use the framework illustrated in Figure 1 (p. x).

In this framework, a claim is a conjecture, conclusion, explanation, or a descriptive statement that answers a research question. The evidence component of the argument refers to measurements, observations, or even findings from other studies that have been collected, analyzed, and then interpreted by the researchers. Biologists, for example, will often examine the data they collect in order to determine if there is (a) a trend over time, (b) a difference between groups or objects, or (c) a relationship between variables, and then they interpret their analysis in light of their research question, the nature of their study, and the available literature. Finally, the justification of the evidence component of the argument is a statement or two that explains the importance and the relevance of the evidence by linking it to a specific principle, concept, or underlying assumption.

Figure 1. A Framework That Can Be Used to Illustrate the Components of a Scientific Argument and Some Criteria That Can and Should Be Used to Evaluate the Merits of a Scientific Argument

It is also important for students to understand that some forms of evidence and some types of reasons are better than others in science. An important component of scientific argumentation involves the evaluation of the acceptability and sufficiency of the evidence or reasons that are used to support or challenge a claim. Therefore, in addition to the structural components of an argument, the framework in Figure 1 also highlights several empirical and theoretical criteria that students can and should use to evaluate the quality or merits of an argument in science. Empirical criteria include (a) how well the claim fits with all available evidence, (b) the sufficiency of the evidence included in the argument, (c) the quality of the evidence (i.e., validity and reliability), and (d) the predictive power of the claim. Theoretical criteria, on the other hand, refer to standards that are important in science but are not empirical in nature. These include criteria such as (a) the sufficiency of the claim (i.e., it includes everything it needs to), (b) the usefulness of the claim (e.g., it allows us to engage in new inquiries or understand a phenomenon), and (c) how consistent the claim and the reasoning is with other accepted theories, laws, or models. What counts as quality within these different categories, however, varies from discipline to discipline (e.g., physics, biology, geology) and within the fields that are found with a discipline (e.g., cell biology, evolutionary biology, genetics) due to differences in the types of phenomena investigated, what counts as an accepted mode of inquiry (e.g., experimentation vs. fieldwork), and the theory-laden nature of scientific inquiry. It is therefore important to keep in mind that the nature of scientific arguments and what counts as quality in science is discipline- and field-dependent.

Why Integrate Argumentation Into the Teaching and Learning of Biology?

A major aim of science education in the United States is for all students to become proficient in science by the time they finish high school. Science proficiency consists of four interrelated aspects (Duschl, Schweingruber, and Shouse 2007). First, it requires an individual to know important scientific explanations about the natural world, to be able to use these explanations to solve problems, and to be able to understand new explanations when they are introduced. Second, it requires an individual to be able to generate and evaluate scientific explanations and scientific arguments. Third, individuals need to understand the nature of scientific knowledge and how scientific knowledge develops over time. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, individuals that are proficient in science should be able to understand the language of science and be able to participate in scientific practices (such as inquiry and argumentation). Empirical research, however, indicates that many students do not develop this knowledge or these abilities while in school (Duschl, Schweingruber, and Shouse 2007; NRC 2005, 2008).

One way to address this problem is to engage students in scientific argumentation as part of the teaching and learning of biology (Driver, Newton, and Osborne 2000; Duschl 2008; Duschl and Osborne 2002). In order to help students develop science proficiency by engaging them in scientific argumentation, however, the focus and nature of instruction inside biology classrooms will need to change from time to time. This change in focus, in part, will require teachers to place more emphasis on how we know in biology (i.e., how new knowledge is generated and validated) in addition to what we know about life on Earth (i.e., the theories, laws, and unifying concepts). Science teachers will also need to focus more on the abilities and habits of mind that students need to have in order to construct and support scientific knowledge claims through argument and to evaluate the claims or arguments developed by others.

In order to accomplish this goal, science teachers will need to design lessons that give students an opportunity to learn how to generate explanations from data, identify and judge the relevance or sufficiency of evidence, articulate and support an explanation in an argument, respond to questions or counterarguments, and revise a claim (or argument) based on the feedback they receive or in light of new evidence. Science teachers will also need to find a way to help students learn, adopt, and use the same criteria that biologists use to determine what counts as warranted scientific knowledge in a particular field of biology. This task, however, can be difficult for teachers to accomplish given the constraints of a science classroom without the development of new instructional strategies or techniques (Price Schleigh, Bosse, and Lee 2011). We have therefore used the available literature on argumentation in science education (e.g., Berland and Reiser 2009; Clark, Schleigh, and Menekse 2008; McNeill and Krajcik 2008a; Osborne, Erduran, and Simon 2004; Sampson and Clark 2008; Sandoval and Reiser 2004) to develop two different instructional models that teachers can use to promote and support student engagement in scientific argumentation in the biology classroom. We have also designed several stand-alone writing activities that teachers can use to help students learn how to write extended arguments that consist of multiple lines of reasoning that will help solidify their understanding of important biology content as part of the process.

All of these activities are designed so they can be used at different points during a biology course and in a variety of grade levels to help students learn how to generate a convincing scientific argument and to evaluate the validity or acceptability of an explanation or argument in science. In fact, we have used these activities included in this book to engage learners in scientific argumentation in middle school classrooms, high school classrooms, and in science teacher education programs. The activities in this book can also be used to help students understand the practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas found in A Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC 2012) and develop the literacy in science skills outlined in the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy (NGA and CCSSO 2010).

Development of the Activities

The integration of scientific argumentation into the teaching and learning of biology can be difficult for both the teachers and students. In fact, teachers often ask for specific instructional strategies and engaging activities based on these instructional activities that would allow students to learn how to engage in scientific argumentation as part of the inquiry process (see Sampson and Blanchard, forthcoming). We have also received many requests to help teachers develop the skills in facilitating this kind of activity inside the classroom. We have designed this book to satisfy these requests. This book’s instructional strategies and the activities based on these strategies are grounded in not only current research on argumentation in science education (Berland and McNeill 2010; Clark et al. 2008; Driver, Newton, and Osborne 2000; Erduran and Jimenez-Aleixandre 2008; Jimenez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez, and Duschl 2000; McNeill and Krajcik 2008b; McNeill et al. 2006; Osborne, Erduran, and Simon 2004; Sampson and Blanchard, forthcoming; Sampson and Clark 2008, 2009; Sampson, Grooms, and Walker 2011) but also our experiences inside the classroom. Each activity has been field-tested in at least one middle school or high school (see Appendix A, p. 367, for a list of field test sites and teachers). The classrooms we used to test the activities were diverse and represented a wide range of student achievement levels (honors, general, advanced, and so on). We used teacher comments and suggestions to refine the activities and to provide the guidance teachers need to implement the activities as Teacher Notes.

References

Berland, L., and K. McNeill. 2010. A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education 94 (5): 765–793.

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

Clark, D., S. P. Schleigh, M. Menekse, and C. D’Angelo. 2008. Improving the quality of student argumentation through the initial structuring of online discussions. Paper presented at the proceedings of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting.

Driver, R., P. Newton, and J. Osborne. 2000. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education 84 (3): 287–313.

Duschl, R. 2008. Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education 32: 268–291.

Duschl, R. A., and J. Osborne. 2002. Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education 38: 39–72.

Duschl, R., H. Schweingruber, and A. Shouse, eds. 2007. Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Erduran, S., and M. Jimenez-Aleixandre, eds. 2008. Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordreht, Neth.: Springer Academic Publishers.

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., M. Rodriguez, M., and R. A. Duschl. 2000. Doing the lesson or doing science: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education 84 (6): 757–792.

Mayr, E., ed. 1964. On the origin of species by Charles Darwin: A facsimile of the first edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McNeill, K., and J. Krajcik. 2008a. Assessing middle school students’ content knowledge and reasoning through written scientific explanations. In Assessing science learning: perspectives from research and practice, ed. J. Coffey, R. Douglas, and C. Stearns. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Press.

McNeill, K., and J. Krajcik. 2008b. Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45 (1): 53–78.

McNeill, K. L., D. J. Lizotte, J. Krajcik, and R. W. Marx. 2006. Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 15 (2): 153–191.

National Governors Association Center (NGA) for Best Practices, and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). 2010. Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy. Washington, DC: National Governors Association for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School.

National Research Council (NRC). 2005. America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council (NRC). 2008. Ready, set, science: Putting research to work in K–8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Norris, S., L. Philips, and J. Osborne. 2007. Scientific inquiry: The place of interpretation and argumentation. In Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting, ed. J. Luft, R. Bell and J. Gess-Newsome. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Osborne, J., S. Erduran, and S. Simon. 2004. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (10): 994–1020.

Price Schleigh, S., M. Bosse, and T. Lee. 2011. Redefining curriculum integration and professional development: In-service teachers as agents of change. Current Issues in Education 14 (3).

Sampson, V., and M. Blanchard. Forthcoming. Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in practice and views. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

Sampson, V., and D. Clark. 2008. Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education 92 (3): 447–472.

Sampson, V., and D. Clark. 2009. The effect of collaboration on the outcomes of argumentation. Science Education 93 (3): 448–484.

Sampson, V., J. Grooms, and J. Walker. 2011. Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education 95 (2): 217–257.

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

Introduction

Many science educators view inquiry as a key component of any effort to help students develop science proficiency (Duschl, Schweingruber, and Shouse 2007; NRC 2008, 2012). Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Inquiry refers to the understanding of how scientists study the natural world as well as the activities that students engage in when they attempt to develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas (NRC 1999). Students who learn science through inquiry are able to participate in many of the same activities and thinking processes as scientists do when they are seeking to expand our understanding of the natural world (NRC 2000). Yet educators seeking to engage students in inquiry inside the classroom do not always emphasize many of the activities and thinking processes used by scientists to generate and evaluate scientific knowledge.

Within the context of schools, scientific inquiry is often conceptualized as a straightforward process of asking a question, devising a means to collect data to answer the question, interpreting this data, and then drawing a conclusion (Sandoval and Reiser 2004, p. 345). Instruction, therefore, tends to focus on helping students master specific skills that are important to this process. Examples of such skills are formulating good research questions, designing controlled experiments, making careful observations, and organizing or graphing data. Although these types of skills are an important part of the inquiry process, they are often overemphasized at the expense of other important practices in inquiry such as proposing and testing alternatives, judging the quality or reliability of evidence, evaluating the potential viability of scientific claims, and constructing scientific arguments. As a result, typical science classrooms tend to place too much emphasis on individual exploration and the importance of experimentation in the inquiry process, which can cause students to develop an inaccurate understanding of how scientists study the natural world and how new knowledge is generated, justified, and evaluated by scientists (Duschl and Osborne 2002; Lederman and Abd-El-Khalick 1998; Osborne 2002; Sandoval 2005).

In light of this issue, A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas highlights a set of practices—such as asking questions, developing and using models, analyzing data, and communicating information—that students need to learn in order to be able to engage in inquiry (NRC 2012). The Framework also calls for explanation and argument to play a more central role in the teaching and learning of science. The Framework views explanation and argument as both the goal of an inquiry and the means to get there; that is, students construct explanations and supporting arguments in order to understand the phenomenon under investigation, and they also use explanation and argument as a guide to engage in the inquiry process (Bell and Linn 2000; Goldman et al. 2002; Sandoval and Reiser 2004). The National Research Council (NRC) made argumentation a foundation of the new framework because:

All ideas in science are evaluated against alternative explanations and compared with evidence; acceptance of an explanation is ultimately an assessment of what data are reliable and relevant and a decision about which explanation is the most satisfactory. Thus knowing why the wrong answer is wrong can help secure a deeper and stronger understanding of why the right answer is right. Engaging in argumentation from evidence about an explanation supports students’ understanding of the reasons and empirical evidence for that explanation, demonstrating that science is a body of knowledge rooted in evidence. (2012, p. 44)

In order to make engaging in argument from evidence an important practice within a science classroom, teachers need to help students develop the abilities and habits of mind needed to generate explanations and evaluate the conclusions or claims put forth by others. Teachers, therefore, need to give students opportunities to learn how to articulate a claim, support it with evidence, respond to critiques, and revise a claim based on feedback or new evidence. This type of focus supports learning by establishing a context for students that allows them to contrast varied forms of evidence, link evidence to methods, explore the criteria for selecting evidence, and reflect on the nature of scientific investigation (Abell, Anderson, and Chezem 2000). Driver et al. (1994) argue that these types of goals are not additional extraneous aspects of science but instead represent an essential element of science education. Jimenez-Aleixandre et al. emphasize the same idea:

Argumentation is particularly relevant in science education since a goal of scientific inquiry is the generation and justification of knowledge claims, beliefs and actions taken to understand nature. Commitments to theory, methods, and aims are the outcome of critical evaluation and debates among communities of scientists. (2000, p. 758)

Current research in science education also supports calls to integrate argumentation in the teaching and learning. First, several studies have demonstrated that students who engage in argumentation as part of an inquiry often change or refine their image of science (Bell and Linn 2000; Price Schleigh, Bosse, and Lee 2011) or enhance their understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge (Yerrick 2000), because learners are able to experience the nature of science firsthand (Driver et al. 1994; Duschl 2000). Second, several studies have shown that students can learn to develop a better understanding of important content knowledge by engaging in argumentation (Bell and Linn 2000; Zohar and Nemet 2002). Third, current research indicates that argumentation encourages learners to develop different ways of thinking, because they have more opportunities to engage in the reasoning and discursive practices of scientists (Brown and Palincsar 1989; Kuhn 1993; Sandoval and Millwood 2005). Finally, research has demonstrated that opportunities to engage in argumentation as part of the inquiry process can improve students’ investigative competencies (Sandoval and Reiser 2004; Tabak et al. 1996). Taken together, these studies provide strong support for efforts to integrate argumentation into science education.

There are a number of strategies or approaches that biology teachers can use to integrate argumentation into the teaching and learning of biology. One approach, which is frequently described in the science education literature, involves engaging students in the production and evaluation of scientific arguments. This approach frames the goal of inquiry as the construction of a good argument that provides and justifies a conclusion, explanation, or some other answer to a research question. Students develop one or more ways to investigate the phenomenon, make sense of the data they gather, and produce an argument that makes clear their understanding. The quality of these arguments then becomes the focal point of discussion in the classroom as students evaluate and critique methods, explanations, evidence, and reasoning (Erduran and Jimenez-Aleixandre 2008; Sandoval and Reiser 2004).

Another common framework for promoting and supporting scientific argumentation in classrooms has focused on designing activities or tasks that require students to examine and evaluate alternative theoretical interpretations of a particular phenomenon (Erduran and Jimenez-Aleixandre 2008; Monk and Osborne 1997; Osborne, Erduran, and Simon 2004). This type of approach provides opportunities for students to examine competing explanations, evaluate the evidence that does or does not support each perspective, and construct arguments justifying the case for one explanation or another.

Finally, teachers can also engage students in argumentation by requiring them to write a refutational essay. A refutational essay—which is designed to give students an opportunity to not only write to learn but also learn how to write at the same time—requires students to explain why a common misconception is inaccurate and then explain why a scientific view is more valid or acceptable from a scientific perspective.

The activities included in this book were designed based on this literature. The first 10 activities were designed using an instructional model called Generate an Argument (Sampson and Grooms 2010). This model requires students to develop a claim that answers a research question based on a supplied data set. The second set of 10 activities were designed using the Evaluate Alternatives instructional model (Sampson and Grooms 2009). This model requires students to collect data in order to test the merits of two or three alternative explanations. The remaining 10 activities are refutational writing activities. These activities are designed to give students an opportunity to write to learn and learn to write at the same time. In the sections that follow, we will describe how each of the models or techniques work.

Generate an Argument Instructional Model

This instructional model is designed to provide an opportunity for small groups of students to develop a claim that answers a research question based on an available data set. As part of this process, groups create a tentative argument that provides this claim and the evidence that supports it, using a medium that can be viewed by others. Each group then has an opportunity to share their ideas during an argumentation session. These sessions are designed to create a need for students to discuss the validity or acceptability of the various arguments based on the available information. Based on the outcomes of these discussions, students refine their claims in order to better explain or describe the phenomenon under investigation. Each student is required to write and submit a final argument to his or her teacher for the purpose of assessment. To conclude the activity, the teacher leads a whole-class reflective discussion and encourages students to consider what they learned about the content and the nature of science. This model consists of five stages (see Figure 2).

Stage 1: The Identification of a Problem and the Research Question

The teacher initiates the activity by identifying a problem to investigate and a research question for the students to answer. The goal of the teacher at this stage is to capture the students’ interest and provide them with a reason to engage in the activity. To do this, the teachers should make photocopies of the activity and distribute to each student in the class. The pages include a brief introduction to a puzzling phenomenon or a discrepant event and a research question to answer. The pages also include information about the nature of the artifact they will need to produce (i.e., an argument), the data set they will use to develop these artifacts, and some criteria that will be used to judge argument quality (e.g., the sufficiency of the explanation, the quality of the evidence, and so on). The classroom teacher should have a different student read each section of the activity aloud and then pause after each section to clarify expectations, answer questions, or provide additional information as needed. Once all the students understand the goal of the activity, the teacher should divide the students into small groups (we recommend three students per group), and move on to the second stage of the model.

Figure 2. Stages of the Generate an Argument Instructional Model

Stage 2: The Generation of a Tentative Argument

The next stage of the instructional model calls for students to use the raw data that is supplied during the first stage of the model to develop an answer to the research question. To do this, each group of students need to be encouraged to first make sense of the provided measurements (e.g., size, temperature) or observations (e.g., appearance, location, behavior) by looking for trends over time, difference between groups, or relationships between variables. Once the groups have examined and analyzed the data, they are instructed to create a tentative argument that consists of (1) their answer to the research question, (2) their evidence (the data that has been analyzed and interpreted), and (3) a rationale (i.e., a statement that explains why the evidence they decided to use is important or relevant) on a medium that can be easily viewed by their classmates (see Figure 3). We recommend using a 2 ft. × 3 ft. whiteboard, such as the example shown in Figure 4, a large piece of butcher paper, or a digital display on a group computer.

The intention of this stage is to provide students with an opportunity to make sense of what they are seeing or doing. As students work together to create a tentative argument, they must talk with each other and determine how to analyze the data and how to best interpret the trends, difference, or relationships that they uncover. They must also decide if the evidence (i.e., data that have been analyzed and interpreted) they decide to include in their argument is relevant, sufficient, and convincing enough to support their claim. This, in turn, enables students to evaluate competing ideas and weed out any claim that is inaccurate, contains contradictions, or does not fit with all the available data.

Figure 3. The Components of an Argument for Stage 2 of the Generate an Argument Instructional Model

Figure 4. An Example of an Argument Created by High School Students

This stage is also designed to focus students’ attention on the importance of argument in science. In other words, students need to understand that scientists must be able to support a conclusion, explanation, or an answer to a research question with appropriate evidence and then justify their use or choice of evidence with an adequate rationale. It also helps students develop new standards for what counts as high-quality evidence and a sufficient or adequate rationale (i.e., statements that explains why the evidence is important or relevant to the task at hand).

This stage of the model can be challenging for students because they are rarely asked to make sense of a phenomenon based on raw data. We therefore recommend that the classroom teacher circulate from group to group in order to act as a resource person for the students. It is the goal of the teacher at this stage of the model to ensure that students think about what they are doing and why. For example, teachers should ask students probing questions to help them remember the goal of the activity (e.g., What are you trying to figure out?), to encourage them to think about whether or not the data are relevant (e.g., Why is that characteristic important?), or to help them to remember to use rigorous criteria to evaluate the merits of an idea (e.g., Does that fit with all the data or what we know about the solar system?). It is also important to remember that students will struggle with this type of practical work at the beginning of the year and will often rely on inappropriate criteria such as plausibility (e.g., That sounds good to me) or personal experience (e.g., But that is what I saw on TV once) as they attempt to make sense of the content. However, over time and with enough practice students will improve their skills. This is an important principle underlying this instructional model.

Stage 3: The Argumentation Session

The third stage in the Generate an Argument instructional model is called the argumentation session. In this stage, students are given an opportunity to share, evaluate, and revise the products or process of their investigations with their classmates (see Figure 5). This stage is included in the model because research indicates that students learn more about the content and how to engage in better critical thinking when they are exposed to the ideas of others, respond to the questions and challenges of other students, articulate more substantial warrants for their views, and evaluate the merits of competing ideas (NRC 2008). It also provides an opportunity for students to learn how to distinguish between ideas using rigorous scientific criteria and to develop more scientific habits of mind (such as treating ideas with initial skepticism, insisting the reasoning and assumptions are made explicit, and insisting that claims are supported by valid reasons).

It is important to note, however, that supporting and promoting this type of interaction among students inside the classroom is often difficult because this type of discussion is foreign to most students. This is one reason why students are required to generate their arguments on a medium that can be seen by others. This helps students to focus their attention on evaluating evidence and reasoning rather than attacking the source of the ideas. We also recommend that teachers use a round-robin format rather than a whole-class presentation format. In the round-robin format, one member of the group stays at the workstation to share the group’s ideas while the other group members will go to different groups one at a time in order to listen to and critique the explanations developed by their classmates. (See Figures 6 below and 7 [p. xxiv]. In Figure 7, students A1, B1, and C1 stay at their table while other students move from table to table in sequence to listen to and evaluate the arguments of the other groups.) This type of format ensures that all ideas are heard and more students are actively involved in the process.

Figure 5. The Argumentation Session

It is also important for the classroom teacher to be involved in