The benefits of facilitating argumentation in science education have been well reported (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007). Engaging in argumentation has shown to model authentic scientific inquiry as well as promote development of content knowledge. However, less emphasis has been placed on facilitating argumentation in upper level undergraduate courses, though it is important for evaluating undergraduate curricula to characterize upper level students’ scientific reasoning. This work considers two implementations of the POGIL physical chemistry curriculum and evaluates the classroom argumentation. The researchers aimed to consider the content of the arguments and dialectical features characteristic of socially constructed arguments (Nielson, 2013). To do this, whole class sessions were videotaped and Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP) was used to identify the arguments generated during the class (Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004). A learning progression on chemical thinking (Sevian & Talanquer, 2014) was used as a domain-specific measure of argument quality. Results show differences in argumentation between and across both classrooms that can be explained by analysis of instructor facilitation and the POGIL curriculum. The results from this work will be used to make recommendations for instructor facilitation of argumentation and reform of the POGIL curriculum.
","abstract_html":"<p>The benefits of facilitating argumentation in science education have been well reported (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007). Engaging in argumentation has shown to model authentic scientific inquiry as well as promote development of content knowledge. However, less emphasis has been placed on facilitating argumentation in upper level undergraduate courses, though it is important for evaluating undergraduate curricula to characterize upper level students’ scientific reasoning. This work considers two implementations of the POGIL physical chemistry curriculum and evaluates the classroom argumentation. The researchers aimed to consider the content of the arguments and dialectical features characteristic of socially constructed arguments (Nielson, 2013). To do this, whole class sessions were videotaped and Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP) was used to identify the arguments generated during the class (Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004). A learning progression on chemical thinking (Sevian & Talanquer, 2014) was used as a domain-specific measure of argument quality. Results show differences in argumentation between and across both classrooms that can be explained by analysis of instructor facilitation and the POGIL curriculum. The results from this work will be used to make recommendations for instructor facilitation of argumentation and reform of the POGIL curriculum.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Moon, Alena C."],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Chemistry","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Marcy Towns","George M. Bodner","Shelley Claridge","Lyudmila Slipchenko"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2016,"date_issued":"2016-04-01T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2016-04-01T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:53:47Z","subjects":["Pure sciences","Education","Discourse analysis","POGIL curriculum","Physical chemistry","Scientific argumentation","Chemistry","Science and Mathematics Education"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations/684","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Marcy Towns","George M. Bodner","Shelley Claridge","Lyudmila Slipchenko"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Moon, Alena C."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Chemistry"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Pure sciences","Education","Discourse analysis","POGIL curriculum","Physical chemistry","Scientific argumentation","Chemistry","Science and Mathematics Education"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations/684"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The benefits of facilitating argumentation in science education have been well reported (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007). Engaging in argumentation has shown to model authentic scientific inquiry as well as promote development of content knowledge. However, less emphasis has been placed on facilitating argumentation in upper level undergraduate courses, though it is important for evaluating undergraduate curricula to characterize upper level students’ scientific reasoning. This work considers two implementations of the POGIL physical chemistry curriculum and evaluates the classroom argumentation. The researchers aimed to consider the content of the arguments and dialectical features characteristic of socially constructed arguments (Nielson, 2013). To do this, whole class sessions were videotaped and Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP) was used to identify the arguments generated during the class (Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004). A learning progression on chemical thinking (Sevian & Talanquer, 2014) was used as a domain-specific measure of argument quality. Results show differences in argumentation between and across both classrooms that can be explained by analysis of instructor facilitation and the POGIL curriculum. The results from this work will be used to make recommendations for instructor facilitation of argumentation and reform of the POGIL curriculum.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Analysis of scientific argumentation in two physical chemistry classrooms using the POGIL approach"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Marcy Towns","George M. Bodner","Shelley Claridge","Lyudmila Slipchenko"],"dc:creator":["Moon, Alena C."],"dc:description.abstract":["The benefits of facilitating argumentation in science education have been well reported (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007). Engaging in argumentation has shown to model authentic scientific inquiry as well as promote development of content knowledge. However, less emphasis has been placed on facilitating argumentation in upper level undergraduate courses, though it is important for evaluating undergraduate curricula to characterize upper level students’ scientific reasoning. This work considers two implementations of the POGIL physical chemistry curriculum and evaluates the classroom argumentation. The researchers aimed to consider the content of the arguments and dialectical features characteristic of socially constructed arguments (Nielson, 2013). To do this, whole class sessions were videotaped and Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP) was used to identify the arguments generated during the class (Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004). A learning progression on chemical thinking (Sevian & Talanquer, 2014) was used as a domain-specific measure of argument quality. Results show differences in argumentation between and across both classrooms that can be explained by analysis of instructor facilitation and the POGIL curriculum. The results from this work will be used to make recommendations for instructor facilitation of argumentation and reform of the POGIL curriculum.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations/684"],"dc:subject":["Pure sciences","Education","Discourse analysis","POGIL curriculum","Physical chemistry","Scientific argumentation","Chemistry","Science and Mathematics Education"],"dc:title":["Analysis of scientific argumentation in two physical chemistry classrooms using the POGIL approach"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Chemistry"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:53:47Z"}