Constantinia Balia, Michael Skoumios


This study aimed to investigate the impact of a teaching intervention for electric circuits on the content of elementary school students’ written arguments. Educational material was constructed based on the constructivist approach to learning with the use of science and engineering practices and was implemented with 34 students aged 11 years. A questionnaire that was provided to students before and after the teaching intervention (pre-test, post-test) was used to collect the data. Data analysis was carried out by classifying the sufficiency of the components of the arguments into levels. The analysis of written answers (arguments) was performed with a framework for assessing the content of arguments (appropriateness of their components: claim, evidence, and reasoning). The data analysis showed that the students significantly improved the content of their arguments.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter


content of written arguments, science and engineering practices, learning electric circuits, elementary school

Full Text:



Afra, N. C., Osta, I., & Zoubeir W. (2009). Students alternative conceptions about electricity and effect of inquiry-based teaching strategies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(1), 103-132.

Berland, L., & McNeill, K. (2010). A Learning Progression for Scientific Argumentation: Understanding Student Work and Designing Supportive Instructional Contexts. Science Education, 94, 765-793.

Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs.

Chen, H.-T., Wang, H.-H., Lu, Y.-Y., Lin, H., & Hong, Z.-R. (2016). Using a modified argument-driven inquiry to promote elementary school students’ engagement in learning science and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 170–191.

Cherbow, K., McKinley, M., McNeill, K. & Lowenhaupt, R. (2020). An analysis of science instruction for the science practices: Examining coherence across system levels and components in current systems of science education in K‐8 schools. Science Education, 104(3), 446-478.

Chiu, M. H., & Lin, J. W. (2005). Promoting Fourth Graders’ Conceptual Change of Their Understanding of Electric Current via Multiple Analogies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4 (4), 429- 464.

Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Ed.). (1985). Children’s Ideas in Science. Milton Keynes [Buckinghamshire]; Philadelphia: Open University Press.

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

Glasersfeld von, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: a way of knowing and learning. Falmer Press.

Glauert, & Esme Bridget (2009). How Children Understand Electric Circuits: Prediction, explanation and exploration. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1025 – 1047.

González-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. L. (2019). Supporting linguistically diverse students in scientific argumentation across writing and talking. In Spycher, P. & Haynes, E. (Eds.). Culturally and linguistically diverse learners and STEAM: Teachers and researchers working in partnership to build a better path forward (pp. 77-94). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “Doing Science”: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.

Mastrogiorgaki, M. & Skoumios, M. (2018). Improving the Structure of Students’ Arguments Through a Teaching-Learning Sequence on Newton’s Second Law. European Journal of Education Studies, 5(5), 1-10.

McNeill K. L., & Krajcik J. (2007). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with Data: The proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 233–265). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York. NY: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

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

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

Sampson, V., & Walker, J. P. (2012). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate students write to learn by learning to write in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1443–1485.

Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.

Shipstone, D. (1988). Pupils' understanding of simple electrical circuits. Physics Education, 23, 92-96.

Songer, N. B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2012). Guiding explanation construction by children at the entry points of learning progressions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(2), 141–165.

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

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v7i7.3150


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 Constantinia Balia, Michael Skoumios

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2022. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).