2021 - Weiss, McDermott, Hand 2021 Cha

Studies in Science Education
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsse20
Characterising immersive argument-based inquiry

learning environments in school-based education:
a systematic literature review
Kathleen A. Weiss, Mark A. McDermott & Brian Hand
To cite this article: Kathleen A. Weiss, Mark A. McDermott & Brian Hand (2021): Characterising
immersive argument-based inquiry learning environments in school-based education: a systematic
literature review, Studies in Science Education, DOI: 10.1080/03057267.2021.1897931
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.1897931
Published online: 13 Mar 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 191
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsse20
STUDIES IN SCIENCE EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.1897931
Characterising immersive argument-based inquiry learning

environments in school-based education: a systematic
literature review
a
Kathleen A. Weiss , Mark A. McDermottb and Brian Handb
a
Center for Educational Enhancement, Des Moines University, Des Moines, IA, USA; bScience Education,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Educational initiatives in multiple disciplinary areas call for student Received 21 September 2020
engagement in the practice of argumentation (CCSSI, 2010a, 2010b; Accepted 26 February 2021
Mullis & Martin, 2017; NGSS Lead States, 2013; OECD, 2018). In KEYWORDS
science education, immersive argument-based inquiry (ABI) is one Generative Learning;
category of approaches which integrates argumentation in all class Argument-Based
room activity in order to support conceptual understanding in Approaches; Immersion
science. Previous research has reported details of specific immer
sive ABI approaches but has failed to summarise the characteristics
common to all approaches categorised this way and the critical
components underlying the learning environments supporting
these approaches. This study identified common elements of
immersive ABI learning environments through a systematic litera
ture review of 16 existing approaches. Open and axial coding led to
the identification of three categories of common elements, includ
ing student actions, teacher actions, and generative opportunities.
Implications and potential steps to build further understanding of
the common elements are discussed.
Introduction
During the last two decades there has been a major shift in orientation to the learning of not
only science, but also of other discipline areas such as mathematics and language. This shift
places the epistemic practice of argumentation as a central component of learning for all
students (Winn et al., 2016). For example, the Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) cites ‘argument from evidence’ as an important cognitive practice for
global understanding, referencing the role argument plays in the development of epistemic
knowledge in science (OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), 2018). The TIMSS Science Framework includes ‘making an argument from evidence’
as one of five foundational scientific inquiry practices with which students need to engage
in order to better understand the world around them as well as how science operates as
a process (Mullis & Martin, 2017, p. 55). This perspective appears in other discipline areas, for
example, the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSSM) cite ‘argument and
critique’ as one of the eight standards for mathematical practice (Common Core State
CONTACT Kathleen A. Weiss kathleen.weiss@dmu.edu.

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 K. A. WEISS ET AL.
Standards Initiative (CCSSI), National Governors Association Center for Best Practices &
Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010a); the Common Core English Language Arts
Standards (CCSS-ELA) contain language about writing arguments in support of claims
throughout multiple grade levels(CCSSI, 2010b); and A Framework for K-12 Science
Education and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) take on argumentation as
one of the eight science and engineering practices, which are integrated with core content
ideas and crosscutting concepts to promote three-dimensional learning (NGSS Lead States,
2013; National Research Council (NRC), 2012). Argumentation is a central practice of critical
thinking and, more specifically, the scientific endeavour of understanding the world. Thus,
students need to understand the process of argumentation as well as engage in it as an
epistemic tool as they seek to understand scientific concepts (Mercier et al., 2017).
Even though this shift to emphasise argumentation within science classrooms is
emphasised in new curricula, unfortunately, past studies have found argument rarely
occurs in science classrooms (Newton et al., 1999). The response to this call to implement
argumentation has seen the generation of a range of different approaches utilised in
classrooms. For example, Osborne and colleagues focus on argument based on a Toulmin
structure of claims, evidence, backing, and warrants (Erduran et al., 2004; Osborne et al.,
2004); Krajick, McNeill, and colleagues focus on the Claim, Evidence, Reasoning approach
(Lizotte et al., 2004; McNeill & Krajcik, 2008); Sampson and colleagues use an Argument-
Driven Inquiry approach (Sampson, Grooms & Walker, 2011); and Hand and colleagues,
the Science Writing Heuristic approach (Keys, Hand, Prain & Collins, 1999; Martin & Hand,
2009). Cavagnetto (2010) in reviewing these approaches has classified them into three
distinct categories: structured, socio-scientific and immersive. While socio-scientific
approaches do incorporate some forms of argument they tend to incorporate cultural
and political perspectives as part of the inquiry process. Cavagnetto differentiates
between structured and immersive approaches by the way they engage with argumenta
tion use within the classroom. Structured approaches are centred around the concept of
students having to know the structure of the argument before they can use it within an
inquiry setting. Immersive approaches are based on the concept that students need to be
using argumentation processes as a means of simultaneously learning about argument
and the science concepts. Table 1 summarises key differences among the three classroom
argumentation perspectives (Cavagnetto, 2010).
This distinction between structured and immersive approaches is important because it
aligns with the work of Norris and Phillips (2003) who highlight two different forms of
science literacy – the derived and fundamental. They argue that the focus of much of science
education is on the derived sense which is centred on the outcomes or products of inquiry.
This focus addresses the ability of students to be able to replicate the structure of argument
as a means of demonstrating understanding of argument. However, Norris and Phillips
(2003) have argued for the need to engage with the fundamental processes of science,
that is, on the ways in which knowledge is generated. This reflects the immersive argument
put forward by Cavagnetto (2010) and aligns with the idea that students should be able to
use the epistemic practices of science as a means to understand how science knowledge is
constructed. As argued by Cavagnetto and Norris and Phillips, there is a need for more
research to better understand how these immersive environments support the fundamental
processes involved in helping students generate understanding of science. Immersive
STUDIES IN SCIENCE EDUCATION 3
Table 1. Summary of classroom argumentation perspectives in school-based science classroom

environments.
Argumentation Perspectives
Structured Socio-scientific Immersive
Key Characteristics Emphasis on structure of Emphasis on social and cultural Emphasis on practice of
defined by argument and explanatory influences argumentation
Cavagnetto contexts
(2010) Argument as product End-of-unit activity Argument as process
Embedded throughout unit
Example Student Explain phenomena, learn and Engage in end-of-unit “policy- Use argument to design and
Outcomes or apply argument structure making debate” (p. 345), decide within investigation,
Learning Goals understand ethical explain phenomena
from influences of applying
Cavagnetto science knowledge
(2010)
Examples of Students first learn argument Students engage in various unit Students are invited to
Implementation components through activities. At the end of the experience cognitive
explicit instruction, then unit, students apply conflict and investigate
apply these ideas by knowledge learned a phenomenon. Throughout
creating written or verbal throughout the unit towards the learning activities, they
explanations for a class debate or role-play. engage in argumentation as
phenomena. a practice of science, often
prompted by questions.
approaches are rich with opportunities for students to generate knowledge. This knowledge
generation will be defined and described in depth within the theoretical framework.
We believe the emerging evidence of student gains in content knowledge within the
discipline of science, within other disciplines, and in regards to critical thinking support
the need for immersive approaches (Adey & Strayer, 2015, Hand, Chen, & Suh, 2020).
Therefore, we think immersive argument-based inquiry (ABI) approaches have the most
potential to help students accomplish the generative learning goals of current science
education reform initiatives. While previous work has been done to define the learning
environments which support argument-based science learning as a whole (Duschl &
Osborne, 2002) and the learning environments associated with online (Andriessen et al.,
2003; Clark et al., 2007) and structured (Berland, 2011; McNeill, 2011) argument-based
approaches, we have been unable to find studies which specifically characterise immer
sive argument-based learning environments. The unique way in which immersive
approaches support students in the practice of argumentation embedded within inves
tigation requires a narrower, focused review to uncover what characterises these unique
learning environments. While commonalities across the various types of argument-based
approaches likely exist, we argue it is imperative to clearly understand their distinctions.
Studies related to one particular immersive ABI approach have clearly shown that
students benefit from these learning environments, with relationship to students’
achievement (Choi et al., 2013; Hand, Chen & Suh, 2020), critical thinking skills (Hand
et al., 2018, Hand, Chen & Suh, 2020), science process skills (Hand, Chen & Suh, 2020), and
student access and power (Schoerning, Hand, Shelley& Therrien, 2015). However, little
research exists that synthesises the findings related to the diverse set of immersive ABI
approaches that are utilised in classrooms. This systematic literature review of immersive
ABI approaches seeks to identify common characteristics. We believe such a review will
provide a foundation for future efforts designing these learning environments and asses
sing student engagement within them.
Theoretical framework
The practice of argumentation is first considered broadly, then at the classroom level, and
finally at the individual student level.
Argumentation
Consideration of argument-based inquiry (ABI) begins with a clear definition of what is
meant by argumentation. For many in science education, the definition of argumentation
originally developed by Toulmin (Toulmin, 1958, as cited in Erduran et al., 2004) empha
sises a structural perspective which appeals for its analytical utility. The Toulmin model
breaks argument down into the components of data, claim, warrant, backing, and
rebuttal. Many researchers use these components to analyse student and teacher dialo
gue or written work in their studies (eg. Erduran et al., 2004; McNeill & Knight, 2013). Some
find it difficult to teach these components to students, due to confusion in the structure
and definition of components (McNeill & Knight, 2013). While the utility of defined
components of argumentation is recognised, this study is instead aligned with the work
of Cavagnetto and Hand (2011), who note that Toulmin’s argument pattern may be too
structured for practical use in learning situations. This study is framed by the ideas of Ford
(2008) in emphasising the importance of student understanding of scientific practice
instead of explicit instruction on argument structure.
Walton (1990), in contrast to Toulmin, approaches argumentation from a reasoning
standpoint, defining reasoning as a process of ‘making premises and moving towards
conclusions’ (p. 403). He places reasoning within the framework of argument, noting the
goal-directed and dialogic nature of argumentation. Asterhan and Schwarz (2016) further
define types of argumentation based on goals, including co-consensual, disputative, and
deliberative argumentation. For co-consensual argumentation, the goals are agreement
and explanation or expansion of ideas. Disputative argumentation involves competition
and the weakening of one another’s ideas. Deliberative argumentation, however, allows for
disagreement in a non-confrontational way, in which people seek understanding of one
another’s ideas, collaboration, and persuasion. This study draws from both Walton’s (1990)
model of argumentation as a reasoning process and Asterhan and Schwarz (2016) delib
erative goal of argumentation, along with Ford’s (2008) ideas emphasising the practices of
science. This study integrates important components of these perspectives of argumenta
tion to support a general view of argument as a reasoning tool which can be naturally
combined with other science practices with students working in a collaborative manner to
seek explanations for answers to questions about nature. Now, we consider how these
perspectives of argumentation play out in the science classroom by considering three
classifications of argument-based approaches in more depth (Cavagnetto, 2010).
Argumentation practices in science classrooms

Cavagnetto (2010) highlights the importance of argumentation in the historical develop
ment of scientific understanding by offering the following connection to the work of
Kuhn: ‘facts, theories, and laws . . . are only the products of a rich process’ which involves
scientific investigation and argumentative dialogue among scientists (p. 339). Therefore, if
argumentation is critical in the development of science understanding in general, it would

follow that it is a critical component of science classrooms. This section builds on the
general perspective of argument elucidated in the previous section, describing specific
argumentation practices in science classrooms.
Two classifications of specific ABI approaches include structured and socio-scientific
(Cavagnetto, 2010). Structured approaches emphasise argument as used in ‘explanatory
contexts’ (Cavagnetto, 2010, p. 349) and are ‘designed to aid in the transfer of an
argument structure to diverse situations’ (p. 351). In these approaches, argument is
treated more like a product than a process, with a focus on a specifically formatted
written or verbal argument. Examples of structured approaches include the IDEAS project
(Erduran et al., 2004) which uses the Toulmin model, and the Claims Evidence Reasoning
(CER) approach, in which explicit instruction and prompts are provided to emphasise
argument structure (McNeill, 2009). Alternatively, socio-scientific approaches emphasise
the ‘social and cultural influences to understanding argument in science’ (Cavagnetto,
2010, p. 349). They typically include an end-of-unit activity involving a debate or role-play
(e.g. Sadler et al., 2004; Walker & Zeidler, 2007), which again exhibits a focus on an
argumentation product at the end of a science unit: the debate. However, it is difficult
to parse out the science learning taking places during debates, as they engage students in
various areas beyond science concepts, including ethical, political, religious, and cultural
knowledge. It is difficult, then, to gauge the impact of the epistemic product of debate on
student understanding of science concepts (Ford, 2008).
Teaching and learning approaches which embed argumentation within an investigation
context are classified in a third category by Cavagnetto (2010) as immersive approaches to ABI.
In all three approaches as cited in Cavagnetto (2010), argumentation is used as an epistemo
logical tool in some way. However, in immersive ABI approaches, argumentation is empha
sised as a process, not just a product or structure to learn. An immersive ABI approach engages
students in learning science concepts through engaging in the process of argumentation.
Cavagnetto and Hand (2011) describe the aim of immersive ABI approaches as ‘embedding’
science argument into an investigation context, in which students use argument to build
content understanding (p. 43) and in this way, science conceptual understanding and under
standing of argumentation can be simultaneously developed. The systematic literature review
conducted in this study will focus on the characteristics of immersive ABI learning environ
ments. In order to provide theoretical context at the individual student level, the concepts of
student ownership of learning and knowledge generation will be considered next.
Student ownership of learning and knowledge generation

In this section, the goals of the systematic literature review are further clarified through
consideration of specific student actions which immersive argument-based learning envir
onments encourage. Ultimately, in immersive argument-based science classrooms, students
are viewed as constructors of knowledge. Two foundational ideas of knowledge construc
tion will be discussed here: student ownership of learning and knowledge generation.
Within the constructivist perspective of learning, learners make sense of the world by
developing tentative explanations and comparing them against experiences, making
changes in their understandings as needed. Learners bring valuable insights into learning
situations and actively construct meaning as they interact with their environments. This
active role recognises the learner as being in control of their own learning (Driver &
Oldham,1986). This control can also be thought of as ownership of learning, an idea which
research has shown to be related to student motivation (Kentish, 1995; O’Neill, 2010;
O’Neill & Barton, 2005), autonomy (Fleming & Panizzon, 2010; Mortimer & Scott, 2003;
O’Neill & Barton, 2005), interest (Fleming & Panizzon, 2010), attitude (Prain & Hand, 1999),
and engagement in learning (Bandura, 1997, as cited in Kentish, 1995; O’Neill, 2010;
O’Neill & Barton, 2005).
The operational definition for student ownership of learning used in this study is: student use
of self-developed questions, ideas, or processes which drive student learning. This definition
emphasises student control and choice (Enghag & Niedderer, 2008), responsibility (Milner-
Bolotin, 2001), and agency (O’Neill & Barton, 2005), as well as power balance, dialogue, and safe
or non-threatening learning environment (Ardasheva et al., 2015; Rainer & Matthews, 2002).
Rainer and Matthews (2002) locate student ownership of learning as ‘a central and cohesive
element of knowledge construction’ (p. 22). In practice, many immersive ABI approaches
engage students in active learning strategies, or those which require learners to do something
with the ideas under consideration instead of simply memorising them. This active construc
tion of understanding can be defined as knowledge generation. In other words, learners
generate knowledge, in this case, of science concepts using previous knowledge and experi
ence. This definition draws from multiple models, including Wittrock’s (1974) generative model
of learning, Chi and Menekse’s ICAP (Interactive, Constructive, Active, Passive) Framework for
engagement activities (Chi & Menekse, 2015), and Fiorella and Mayer’s work on generative
learning (Fiorella & Mayer, 2016), which references Mayer’s Select-Organise-Integrate (SOI)
model of generative learning (Mayer, 2014, as cited in Fiorella & Mayer, 2016).
This study explores approaches aligned with the constructive cognitive processes in
which knowledge generation takes place, where the ‘student generates some new knowl
edge and inferences beyond what was presented in the materials’ (Chi & Menekse, 2015,
p. 264) and consistent with what Fiorella and Mayer (2016) call ‘generative learning tasks.’
According to these researchers, ‘generative learning involves actively constructing mean
ing from to-be-learned information, reorganizing it and integrating it with one’s existing
knowledge’ (Fiorella & Mayer, 2016, p. 717). Knowledge generation can be thought of on
a continuum of ‘less generative’ to ‘more generative.” ‘Less generative’ learning oppor
tunities may involve reproduction, repetition, or copying of information or processes.
These may include rote memorisation of facts, copying notes down verbatim from
a lecture, or following a pre-defined set of experimental procedure steps.
For this paper, the ‘more generative’ side of the knowledge generation continuum will
be represented by generative opportunities. We operationalise generative opportunities as
learning opportunities which enable students to engage in knowledge generation and
those in which the teacher recognises and plans for student authorship or ownership of
ideas. A concrete example in science classrooms cited in literature includes student
generation of questions and investigation procedures to answer their questions.
Students take roles ‘as participants become investigators collaborating in search of
understanding’ (Enghag & Niedderer, 2008, pp. 650–651), and they develop important
practices similar to those employed by scientists. Designing an investigational procedure
requires students to actively construct ideas beyond those given to them. Through this
process, they build cognitive connections with previous (internal) knowledge and new
(external) knowledge (Wittrock, 1974).
Methods
Systematic literature review search
In order to achieve the goal of this study, which is to identify common characteristics of
immersive argument-based inquiry learning environments, an education database search
was conducted, providing a sufficiently large set of articles using the search term combi
nations ‘argument’ and ‘science’ (4997 articles) and ‘argumentation’ and ‘science’ (1115
articles), with many overlapping articles between the two sets. The Education Source –
EBSCOHost database was chosen because it is well-known and indicated as one of the two
‘Best Bet’ education databases within the institution’s library. Other databases were
considered initially, but sufficient overlap was observed between preliminary database
searches, and Education Source provided the most focused coverage of full-text, educa
tion-related, peer-reviewed journal articles.
Five inclusion criteria were developed to narrow the list of articles by requiring articles
to address: (1) School-based education, (2) ‘argument-based inquiry’ or argumentation, (3)
scientific investigation, (4) in-person learning environments, and (5) a detailed description
of the learning or teaching approach.
Articles were narrowed based on the inclusion criteria through title, abstract, and
article content scans. After title and article scans aimed to narrow articles based on
criterion one, 331 research journal articles remained which potentially described immer
sive ABI approaches, while 45 positional or theory papers remained. Theory papers and
articles from practitioner journals (29) were excluded at this stage, as they rarely included
a sufficient description of an instructional approach (criterion 5). The remaining articles
went through content scans and were excluded if they did not fit inclusion criteria two
and three. Assessment and professional development articles were excluded as they did
not relate as closely to the learning processes occurring within the school-based science
classroom (criterion 1) nor were they likely to include descriptions of learning or teaching
approaches (criterion 5). School-based science classrooms were identified as those which
involve primary students, secondary students, or both. This designation was not intended
to exclude school systems which use various classification systems for school levels, but
merely to exclude higher education and non-school-based learning environments.
Criteria 2 and 3 were considered together to designate an approach as immersive ABI.
The definition of ‘immersion-oriented’ or immersive was based upon a previous literature
review conducted by Cavagnetto (Cavagnetto, 2010, p. 351), which classified ABI inter
ventions or approaches into three categories as described in the theoretical foundation
for this study. These approaches best matched the theoretical perspective described in
the previous section. After applying the inclusion criteria, eight of the immersive articles
from Cavagnetto’s review (Cavagnetto, 2010) were included in this review, while others
were excluded because they addressed virtual learning environments (criterion 4).
Outside of the articles included from Cavagnetto’s review, all remaining articles were
narrowed further to only those published in or after 2013, aligned with the publication year
of one major international reform document, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS
Lead States, 2013). The NGSS is an important policy document that continues to inform the
study and development of immersive ABI approaches and learning environments. While this
narrowing based solely on the NGSS has potential to limit the scope of this review, it was
determined that the NGSS was adequately representative of similar international reform
initiatives occurring at the time, including those in the United Kingdom and Australia. Each
of these reform initiatives sought common goals including embedding scientific practices
within content learning and integration of ‘strands’ or ‘dimensions’ (Australian Curriculum,
Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2010; Department for Education, United Kingdom, 2014).
In addition, the NGSS focuses explicitly on the scientific practice of argumentation, which
aligns with the aim of this study.
We recognise that the literature review search method and inclusion criteria imposed
limits the breadth of literature we considered for this systematic review. Our review is also
limited by the preference of articles written in English, as well as our emphasis on the
NGSS versus other international science initiatives. As described above, we argue that the
core aspects of the recent curriculum initiatives have many similarities, with the NGSS
using language associated with argumentation more than the others. In the midst of
these limitations, we argue the reasoning we have provided for these decisions and the
variety of articles resulting from our search enable a rigorous and a fruitful analysis of the
immersive ABI literature.
Thirty-nine peer-reviewed research articles representing a total of 16 unique immersive
ABI approaches were ultimately selected for this systematic literature review. Articles were
grouped by approach to allow for approach-level analysis. Some approaches had a name
provided in the articles (e.g. ADI, Concept Cartoons, Promoting Argumentation, SWH).
Approaches without an assigned name were given a title for use in this review (e.g. ‘Open
inquiry instruction,’ ‘Small group work’). Articles were arranged alphabetically by
approach title, then in order by year of publication within each approach, as year of
publication informed the order in which articles were analysed. The article(s) which
provided the most in-depth description of each approach were identified as ‘primary’
for that approach. A list of primary articles and their associated approaches is shown in
Table 2. A more complete list of articles included in this review is available in the reference
section (marked with asterisks (*)).
Systematic literature review analysis

To achieve the purpose of this study, coding was conducted in three phases, phase 1:
article level, phase 2: approach level, and phase 3: cross-approach level. This order of
analysis provided an inductive approach to coding, which we argue is important for
minimising bias from existing learning environment frameworks which may cloud the
characterisation of unique aspects of immersive argument-based approaches. In addition,
this order of analysis aimed to minimise analysis bias between approaches due to unequal
article representation (see ‘Number of Articles’ in Table 2). Figure 1 provides a visual
overview of the analysis and coding processes.
Phase 1: Article-level analysis

Article-level analysis began with open coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Ryan & Bernard,
2000) emphasising gerunds through ‘process coding’ (Saldana, 2016). Open coding was
conducted in two rounds, with 1st-level codes resulting from the 1st round and 2nd-level
codes resulting from the 2nd round. First-level codes were directly applied to the article
Table 2. Articles included in systematic literature review.

Approach Name Number of Publication
(Targeted Grade Level) Articles Year Authors
ADI: 6 2011 Sampson, Grooms, & Walker
Argument-Driven Inquiry
(Secondary grades)
CC: 3 1999 Keogh & Naylor
Concept Cartoons 2007 Naylor, Keogh, & Downing
(Elementary grades)
epiSTEMe: 2 2015 Howe, Ilie, Guardia, Hofmann,
Effective Principled Improvement in STEM Education Mercer, & Riga
(Elementary, 7th grade) 2017 Larraín, Moreno, Grau, Freire,
Salvat, López, & Silva
FCL as example for PDE: 1 2002 Engle & Conant
Fostering Communities of Learners as example of
Productive Disciplinary Engagement
(5th grade)
ICS: 2 2014 Swanson, Bianchini, & Lee
Integrated Coordinated Science
(5th, 7th grades)
Inquiry-based argumentation activity 1 2006 Kim & Song
(11th, 12th grades)
‘Inquiry-type chemistry experiment’ 1 2013 Katchevich, Hofstein, &
(8th grade) Mamlok-Naaman
MMD-based: 3 2013 Mendonça & Justi
Model of Modelling Diagram-based
(Secondary grades)
Open inquiry instruction 1 2000 Yerrick
(Secondary grades)
Paper chain inquiry 1 2004 Watson, Swain, & McRobbie
(8th grade)
Promoting Argumentation 1 2013 Herrenkohl & Cornelius
(for Science)
(5th, 6th grades)
Representational approach 1 2013 Waldrip, Prain, & Sellings
(10th grade)
Small group work 1 2015 Yun & Kim
(8th grade)
Stanford Project 1 2014 Holthuis, Lotan, Saltzman,
(Climate Change) Mastrandrea, & Wild
(Secondary grades)
SWH: 11 1999 Keys, Hand, Prain, & Collins
Science Writing Heuristic 2009 Martin & Hand
(Grades K-8) 2015 Schoerning, Hand, Shelley, &
Therrien
Wild Backyard Investigation 2 2016 Manz
(Elementary grades)
text, typically to the beginnings of statements. For example, these included statements
implying student actions or opportunities (e.g. ‘Students were given the opportunities
to . . . ’). Statements were collected from the first round of coding and placed in an Excel
spreadsheet. Then, the second round of coding was conducted to seek more clarity and
detail about the processes or actions taking place in the learning environments. In this
way, the 1st-level codes were broader, while the 2nd-level codes helped narrow the focus.
This broad to narrow approach is depicted by two ‘funnel’ lines in Figure 1. The 2nd-level
codes were typically applied to the ends of the statements, where actions were described.
For example, the statement which began ‘Students were given opportunities to . . . ’ was
be followed with actions such as ‘engage in argumentation, conduct investigations, and
discuss with classmates.’ Therefore, the 2nd-level codes of ‘engage in argumentation,’
Figure 1. Overview of coding and analysis.
‘conduct investigation,’ and ‘discussion’ were applied to this statement. After the two
rounds of coding, the compiled list of resulting 1st- and 2nd-level codes were inspected
together for how they characterised the learning environments (examples provided in
Table 3). At this time, ‘priority codes’ were selected from the compiled code list because
they most clearly and comprehensively addressed the nature of the learning environ
ments. These ‘priority codes’ were used in phase 2, approach-level analysis and are
explained further in the following paragraph.
Through the open coding process, five priority codes emerged which most directly
characterised the learning environment. These priority codes included: (1) learning envir
onment (LE), (2) teacher role (TR), (3) scientific community (SC), (4) group dynamics (GD),
and (5) immersive ABI (iABI). The LE code was applied to statements which most directly
described the learning environment created with the approach. The TR code was applied
when the author discussed teacher roles, either by naming them directly (e.g. facilitator
role), or by describing their nature theoretically or through study findings. The SC code
was developed for use with any statement which addressed how the purpose of the
approach or actions of students were meant to parallel the actions of the scientific
community or be in line with scientific disciplinary norms. While authors typically used
these statements to qualify the nature of their learning environments, it was helpful to
isolate these statements from those coded with LE to allow for more detailed analysis. The
GD code was used when authors’ statements directly addressed the nature of student
interactions within group work. In this way, students’ actions were more directly influen
cing the learning environment. Finally, a few articles directly defined and addressed
immersive ABI approaches and learning environments. Therefore, the iABI code was
established as a priority code to identify these explicit descriptions.
After identifying priority codes from the open coding process, further analysis was
needed in order to make sense of how these codes characterised immersive argument-
Table 3. Sample 1st-level, 2nd-level, and priority codes.

Sample 1st-level codes Sample 2nd-level codes
G General (not pertaining to specific Misconceptions Address/avoid misconceptions
approach under study)
A Approach (pertaining to specific Consider prior Elicit prior knowledge or experiences from
approach under study) knowledge students, value their use in learning
SO/SA Student opportunities or actions Discussion Students engaging in discussion or some
type among themselves or with teacher
I Intent of approach Explain Students asked to explain understanding,
sometimes using models
SGA Small group action Justify with Students use evidence, generate evidence
evidence using data and reasoning, or support
claims with evidence
LE* Learning Environment (explicitly Scientific understanding
addressed by author) conceptual
Students are
expected to
learn scientific
content or
concepts
TA Teacher action TR* Teacher Role, often a summary of teacher
actions or how the teacher exists in
relation to students
SC* Scientific Community or scientific Scientific Students engage in thinking, critical
disciplinary norms (explicitly thinking thinking, or scientific thinking
addressed by author)
iABI* Immersive ABI (explicitly addressed GD* Group Dynamics, roles of students in group
by author of article) work are examined in depth
*Priority codes marked with an asterisk.
based learning environments. Up to this point, analysis was conducted with the unit of
analysis of the article. However, the number of articles varied between approaches. In
order to avoid representation bias among approaches, approach-level analysis was con
ducted next.
Phase 2: Approach-level analysis

Articles within one approach were analysed chronologically by publication year, with
most in-depth approach description often occurring within the first few published articles.
When two or more articles were analysed for the same approach, the article-level findings
were compiled for that approach, which allowed for priority code reporting at the
approach-level in the results. Articles were grouped by approach to allow for more
equal comparison between approaches. The approach-level analysis helped to organise
the data for the following comparative phase of analysis.
Phase 3: Cross-approach analysis

In order to characterise common aspects of learning environments across all identified
immersive ABI approaches, axial coding was employed. The process of axial coding
involved organising the open code data and ‘assembling data into an explanation or
solution’ (LeCompte, 2000, p. 147). While the open coding process allowed for discovery
of meaning about the approaches, axial coding allowed for data verification or meaning-
making (Ryan & Bernard, 2000). Axial coding allowed for inductive grouping of open
coding results, as meaning emerged from the data.
Axial grouping of the data built upon the goal of the initial open coding, with a focus
on actions or opportunities for action, in line with ‘process coding’ (Saldana, 2016). As
findings from the open-coding phase were compared, the role of the actor was consid
ered as a way to make meaning of the action. Two actors emerged: students and teachers.
In addition, both actors were observed playing roles within generative opportunities in
the learning environments, a foundational aspect of our theoretical framework. These
observations informed the formation of the axial groups, which provided an organisa
tional frame to better understand the nature of immersive argument-based learning
environments. The axial groups and examples will be provided within the results section.
Results
Approach-level findings
The approaches studied within this review spanned primary and secondary school grades,
with articles from 6 approaches targeting primary or elementary grade levels, and articles
from 12 approaches targeting secondary grade levels. Within these, articles from 2
approaches spanned both elementary and secondary grade levels (epiSTEMe, SWH).
Some approaches represented pre-designed curricula or textbooks (epiSTEMe, ICS,
Stanford Project, Inquiry-type chemistry experiment), while others represented frame
works informing teacher planning or creation of the learning environment (FCL as ex of
PDE, SWH). Two approaches emphasised model development (MMD-based,
Representational approach), while one approach addressed scientific processes over
content (Paper Chain Inquiry). Some of the articles focused on ideas unique to the teacher
or classroom in which the approach was implemented (Open inquiry instruction, Small
group work, Wild Backyard, Paper Chain Inquiry, Inquiry-based argumentation), while
others attempted to address more widely applicable materials (FCL as ex of PDE,
ICS, SWH).
Priority codes identified within each approach are displayed in Table 4. Priority codes
are indicated if they are mentioned at least once within the article(s) associated with each
approach. The priority code iABI, which most directly addressed immersive ABI learning
environments, was left out of the approach-level findings as it was only found in one
approach. Examples of findings relevant to the iABI code will be provided within the cross-
approach findings.
At the approach level, the main findings stemmed from the priority codes referenced
within the articles representing each approach. However, these findings on their own
proved insufficient in characterising immersive ABI learning environments because of the
variability inherent across the approaches. The findings of the cross-approach analysis
served to deepen and clarify the approach-level findings and are reported in the following
section.
Table 4. Approach-level findings.

Priority Codes
Approach Name LE SC TR GD
Argument-Driven Inquiry X X X
Concept Cartoons X X X
epiSTEMe X X
Fostering Communities of Learning as example of Productive Disciplinary Engagement X X X
Integrated Coordinated Science X X X X
Inquiry-based argumentation X X X
Inquiry-type chemistry experiment X X X
Model of Modelling Diagram-based X
Open inquiry instruction X X X
Paper chain inquiry X X X X
Promoting Argumentation X X X
Representational approach X X X
Small group work X X X X
Stanford Project X X X
Science Writing Heuristic X X X
Wild Backyard X X X
Note: Priority codes are abbreviated as follows: LE: learning environment, SC: scientific community, TR: teacher role, GD:
group dynamics. If the content relevant to a priority code was referenced within the article(s) for that approach, an ‘X’
was placed in the column for that priority code.
Cross-approach findings and common elements of immersive ABI learning

environments
During axial group coding across approaches, three axial groups emerged: student
actions, teacher actions, and generative opportunities. Taken together, the axial group
findings address the aim of the systematic review by identifying important characteristics
of immersive argument-based inquiry learning environments. The axial groups provide an
organisational frame for understanding these learning environments. The student and
teacher actions most commonly seen across immersive ABI approaches and the genera
tive opportunities identified serve as ‘common elements’ of immersive ABI learning
environments, but are not meant to be an exhaustive list. While some interdependency
between the groups of common elements is possible, the purpose of this study was more
preliminary, with a focus on individual common elements.
A summary of findings for each axial group is presented below with further detail
given on each student action, teacher action, and generative opportunity. The common
elements within each axial group are presented in order of frequency based on the
analysis performed in this study. An overall diagram of the common elements is shown
in Figure 2.
Common elements group 1: Student actions

The axial group ‘student actions’ was defined as actions in which students engaged within
an immersive ABI learning environment. Data relevant to this axial group was charac
terised by first inspecting common codes identified across approaches, then by consider
ing the ‘Group Dynamics’ priority code (GD). In this section, the frequency of each student
action coded among the 16 approaches is reported in Table 5. Taken as a whole, the list of
common student actions helps to inform the overall nature of actions which occur in an
immersive ABI learning environment.
Figure 2. Common elements of immersive ABI learning environments.
Below, each student action is defined as addressed in this study. Then, examples of
indicator or identifier words from the articles are provided. If the action is directly related
to the inclusion criteria for the review, that is addressed next. Examples are given from the
approaches in order to better characterise the student action and its underlying purpose.
When applicable, quotations are provided from the literature which explicitly define
‘immersive ABI’ (SWH).
Engage in argumentation (16 approaches)

Engaging in argumentation was defined as any student involvement in argumentative
dialogue, social negotiation of meaning, or development of arguments or claims
supported by evidence. Example indicator words within the articles included ‘make
claims,’ ‘construct argument,’ ‘argumentation session,’ and combined use of the words
‘claim’ and ‘evidence.’ The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013)
were used in some of the articles to emphasise the need for engagement in argumen
tation. Of the 39 articles reviewed in this study, 15 referenced the NGSS, from 5 of the
16 total approaches. The NGSS was referenced in the articles to emphasise learning
Table 5. Common student actions.

Common Student Actions Frequency (number of approaches)
Engage in argumentation 16
Work as small group 16
Discuss 16
Investigate 16
Share/present ideas 16
Justify with evidence 15
Focus on science concepts 14
science through practice (ADI, Wild Backyard), language learning through science
literacy practices (ICS, SWH), and argumentative reasoning or discourse as a central
focus (ICS, SWH, Wild Backyard). More specifically, the NGSS included a science and
engineering practice dedicated to ‘Engaging in Argument from Evidence’ (NGSS Lead
States, 2013).
This study’s inclusion criterion of argument-based inquiry or argumentation guided
the definition of this student action. As a result, all 16 approaches included in the review
referenced the student action of ‘engage in argumentation.’ Within these approaches,
students engaged in verbal argumentation through discussion (epiSTEMe), written
argument (ADI), small group or whole class work (Promoting Argumentation), construc
tion of claims (Paper chain inquiry), evaluation of arguments based on evidence (ICS),
and successful engagement in argumentation without formal training (Concept
Cartoons). The purpose behind engaging in argumentation included improving argu
mentative writing skills (ADI), considering different views (Concept Cartoons, epiSTEMe),
explaining phenomena (ICS, Inquiry-type chemistry experiment), and developing gen
eral skills in argumentation as a scientific process (Promoting Argumentation, Stanford
Project, SWH).
‘Immersive ABI,’ when directly referenced in the SWH articles, most frequently meant
student engagement in argumentation in conjunction with another student action of
investigation. For example, Ardasheva et al. (2015) defined immersive ABI approaches as
those ‘focusing on helping students grasp scientific practices while simultaneously gen
erating understandings of disciplinary big ideas through reasoning and argumentation’
and those which ‘reflect the nature of science as inquiry and argument’ (p. 206). Students
need to ‘live argument as they learn about argument’ (Ardasheva et al., 2015, p. 232).
Other SWH authors referenced Cavagnetto’s (2010) definition of argument ‘as an
embedded component to scientific practice’ (p. 350).
Work as small group (16 approaches)

Small group work was defined as any small group, lab group, or pair work done by
students. The main indicator word used was ‘group.’ Small group sizes cited in the
approaches ranged from two to six students per group. Whole class group work was
not included as ‘work as small group,’ though often small group work led to sharing
ideas at the whole class level. The nature of group work found in the approaches
included working together in a laboratory environment (ADI), creating reports (ADI,
FCL as example of PDE, Inquiry-based argumentation activity, Inquiry-type chemistry
experiment), negotiating understanding or ideas (Stanford Project, SWH), and con
ducting investigations (Open inquiry instruction, Promoting Argumentation, SWH).
Discuss (16 approaches)

Discussion was defined as any small or large group discourse, mainly identified using the
words ‘discuss’ or ‘debate.’ Some approaches referenced small group discussions among
students (epiSTEMe, Small group work), while others referenced whole class discussions
involving the students and teacher (Paper chain inquiry, Representational approach,
SWH). Discussions were student-led, teacher-led or both (Representational approach –
both, SWH – student-led), with some studies acknowledging that students engaged in
more productive discussion when the teacher did not interfere (Small group work).
Within the approaches considered in this study, discussions focused on challenging

one another’s ideas (Concept Cartoons) or coming to a group consensus
(Representational approach, Small group work). Discussions directly sparked investigation
(Concept Cartoons, SWH), some considering the data from investigations and constructed
evidence (Stanford Project, Wild Backyard), and others summarising ideas from the
lessons (Inquiry-type chemistry experiment). Within the definition of ‘immersive ABI’
explicitly referenced in the SWH approach, discussion or discourse was a central compo
nent. For example, Suh& Park(2017) described students being ‘immersed as members of
a scientific discourse community’ (p. 247).
Investigate (16 approaches)

Investigation was defined as any opportunity students had to conduct scientific tests
including observation, measurement, or data collection. Indicator words included ‘inves
tigation,’ ‘test ideas,’ ‘experiment,’ ‘laboratory,’ and ‘empirical.’ These could have been
generally referenced within the articles or described with more detail regarding students’
roles. Investigation was one of the inclusion criteria from the systematic literature review.
Therefore, it was anticipated that all approaches included some opportunity for students
to investigate. While most approaches directly referenced investigation in some way,
others included more implicit references to investigation. All types of investigations were
considered to allow for a variety of student- and teacher-led approaches and for later
consideration of generative opportunities available to students. Approaches which uti
lised pre-designed investigations included epiSTEMe, Representational approach, and
Stanford Project. Approaches which used more open-ended investigations included
ADI, Concept Cartoons, Inquiry-based argumentation activity, Open inquiry instruction,
and SWH. Further findings related to opportunities for student knowledge generation
within more open-ended investigations were considered separately under Common
Element Group 3: Generative Opportunities.
Investigations were used to expose students to a scientific phenomenon in order to
make comparisons (Inquiry-type chemistry experiment, MMD-based) or for students to
test their ideas or predictions (Concept Cartoons, epiSTEMe, Paper chain inquiry,
Promoting Argumentation). Other approaches emphasised collecting data to generate
evidence (Open inquiry instruction, Small group work, SWH). The SWH approach, which
explicitly referenced ‘immersive ABI,’ emphasised the integration between argument and
investigation (Suh& Park, 2017), and called for ‘students to conduct their own inquiry to
enable them to begin to understand how science is done and how it is learned’ (Hand
et al., 2018, p. 694).
Share/present ideas (16 approaches). Sharing or presenting ideas was defined as any
opportunity students had to orally or visually represent their ideas for others, whether
for classmates or an external audience. This included both informal sharing of ideas
and formal presentations. Indicator words included ‘share,’ ‘present,’ ‘plenary,’ ‘poster,’
and ‘report.’ Most approaches involved whole class sharing of ideas (Concept
Cartoons, MMD-based, Open inquiry argumentation), while others referenced small
group sharing (Small group work). Ideas shared included investigation findings
(Inquiry-based argumentation, Promoting Argumentation, SWH, Wild Backyard) and
many ideas were questioned or challenged by others (ADI, Concept Cartoons, Wild
Backyard).
Justify with evidence (15 approaches)

Justification with evidence was defined as any defence or support students gave for their
ideas, whether oral or written. Indicator words included ‘justify,’ ‘use evidence,’ ‘support with
evidence,’ ‘defend,’ and ‘backing up.’ Due to the previous definition of ‘engage in argu
mentation’ as involving both claims and evidence, there was significant overlap between
the student actions of ‘justify with evidence’ and ‘engage in argumentation.’ However,
‘justify with evidence’ was considered separately to emphasise the use of evidence on its
own outside the contexts of claims or argumentation. For instance, justification was also
used to support student views or opinions (Concept Cartoons, epiSTEMe), scientific theories
(Promoting Argumentation), and representations of understanding (Representational
approach). In one approach, evidence was considered, but only as a way of assessing
a model. In other words, the model was tested in light of new evidence. This was not
considered as using evidence to justify an idea or explanation and, therefore, was excluded
from the ‘justify with evidence’ student action. The purpose behind the student action of
justifying with evidence included learning argumentation (ICS), accounting for new under
standings (Concept Cartoons, Representational approach, SWH), making an explanation
(ICS, Paper chain inquiry), answering a question (Wild Backyard), and convincing others
(Inquiry-based argumentation activity, Small group work, Wild Backyard).
Focus on science concepts (14 approaches)

Focusing on science concepts was defined as considering science concepts to gain a better
understanding of them through engagement in an immersive ABI learning environment.
Within the articles considered in this literature review, identifying words included ‘under
standing,’ ‘science concepts,’ or some indication of addressing science concepts like ionic
bonding (Inquiry-type chemistry experiment) or plant growth (Wild Backyard). When inten
tional consideration of science concepts was evident within the planned learning activities
of an approach, it was counted as ‘focus on science concepts.’ However, when a learning
activity focused solely on the nature of science, engineering, or learning the process of
investigating without a consideration of the underlying science concepts, it was not
counted as ‘focus on science concepts.’ As one example which did not count as ‘focus on
science concepts,’ the Paper Chain Inquiry approach simply focused on testing the strength
of the links of a paper chain, without considering the science concepts which may explain
the underlying scientific phenomenon. Furthermore, the definition of ‘focus on science
concepts’ in this study did not seek to make any claims about the quality or level of student
understanding achieved through use of the approach.
The approaches in which students focused on science concepts involved a variety of
science content areas such as chemical bonding (MMD-based), climate change (Stanford
Project), and ecology (Wild Backyard). Students engaged in observation of science phe
nomena to uncover prior understanding and spark investigation (SWH, Wild Backyard)
and developed understanding as they sought to explain a phenomenon (Inquiry-type
chemistry experiment, Representational approach, Small group work). Learning activities
helped students to demonstrate or apply their science conceptual understanding
(Concept Cartoons, ICS), some specifically in the context of argumentation (ADI). From
the SWH approach articles, Chen et al. (2016) described how ‘students who learn science
in [an] immersive environment engage in learning about the concepts and content of the
unit while arguing with each other’ (p. 312).
Common elements group 2: Teacher actions

Teacher actions emerged as a second axial group of common elements of immersive ABI
learning environments. Included in this group were 7 of the most common teacher
actions described within the 16 approaches addressed in this systematic literature review.
Seven actions were chosen to parallel the number of student actions and to similarly
characterise the most typical teacher actions present in immersive ABI learning
environments.
The frequency of each teacher action addressed among the approaches was reported
in Table 6. Taken as a whole, the list of common teacher actions helps to inform the overall
nature of actions which occur in an immersive ABI learning environment.
Below, each teacher action is defined as used within this study. Then, typical indicator
words and examples are given from the approaches in order to better characterise the
teacher action and its underlying purpose. When applicable, quotations are provided
from the literature which explicitly define ‘immersive ABI’ (SWH).
Encourage argumentation (11 approaches)

Encouraging argumentation included the prompting of student problem solving, and/or
thinking and was defined as a teacher’s focus, support, or scaffolding of student engage
ment in argumentation, problem solving, or thinking. Indicator words included ‘promote
thinking,’ ‘encourage reasoning,’ and ‘scaffolded argumentation.’
One common focus for this teacher action was an overall shift in the teacher’s view of
learning from that of knowledge transmission from teacher to student to knowledge
construction or generation by students (ADI, FCL as ex. of PDE, Open inquiry instruction,
SWH). In some approaches, teachers did not focus on giving students the correct answer
but, instead encouraged open dialogue and sharing of ideas among students (epiSTEMe,
MMD-based). While some approaches described teachers prompting argumentation (i.e.
Open inquiry instruction, Small group work, SWH, Wild Backyard), others focused on
promoting student thinking and reasoning (epiSTEMe, Representational approach).
Specific scaffolds or supports for students were described (i.e. Representational approach),
as well as more general opportunities provided for students to engage in argumentation
(MMD-based, Open-inquiry instruction). Within the SWH approach, which explicitly defined
‘immersive ABI,’ teachers were encouraged to support ‘students’ critical thinking, scientific
reasoning and problem-solving through guided dialogue, reading, and writing as thinking
tools’ (Ardasheva et al., 2015, p. 202), and ‘develop multiple opportunities for students to
negotiate knowledge both publicly and privately’ (Hand et al., 2018, p. 694).
Table 6. Common teacher actions.

Common Teacher Actions Frequency (number of approaches)
Encourage argumentation 11
Provide resources 10
Ask questions 9
Share authority 8
Communicate norms 8
Model dialogue or language use 7
Emphasise important ideas 7
Provide resources (10 approaches)

Providing resources was defined as the teacher’s intentional planning for management-
related items or time for students. These included tasks or activities initiated by the
teacher, physical supplies for investigations, handouts or worksheets, templates to
prompt or organise student thinking, reading materials, and time for argumentation or
thinking. Indicator words included ‘worksheet,’ ‘template,’ ‘time,’ ‘resources,’ ‘materials,’
and ‘supplies.’ These resources also included any planned activities that were intended to
spark student questioning or discussion. While it was recognised that this was a broad set
of resources, they were all resources which the teacher provided to support student
learning. The use of these resources could have been anticipated in advance by the
teacher and planned ahead of time. In contrast, some aspects of immersive ABI learning
environments were difficult to anticipate, such as specific student ideas that would be
shared during an open-ended inquiry.
Specific tasks or activities were provided to spark student investigation or thinking
(Concept Cartoons, Paper chain inquiry, Wild Backyard). Physical resources were provided
to students such as templates to guide thinking (ICS, Promoting Argumentation), and
students were given general access to materials (MMD-based, Small group work, SWH).
Other approaches simply mentioned that the teacher introduced the topic for the lesson
(Small group work, SWH).
Ask questions (9 approaches)

Asking questions was defined as the teachers’ use of questioning in some way to promote
student learning, typically indicated within the articles by the word ‘question.’ Questions
were used to initiate student learning or discussion (Stanford Project), promote the
continuation of student discussion (Concept Cartoons, Open inquiry instruction), elicit
student prior knowledge (SWH), assess student model representations (Representational
approach), support and challenge students (MMD-based), model ways to participate in
dialogue (Stanford Project), and direct authority of dialogue back to the student (Stanford
Project). Types of questions included directed questions (Concept Cartoons), open-ended
questions (Wild Backyard), and metacognitive questions (Small group work).
Share authority (8 approaches)

Sharing authority included the support of student agency and was defined as valuing
student ideas, positioning students as ‘authors of ideas’ (Wild Backyard; \Manz & Renga,
2017, p. 586), and stepping back in some way from being the ‘intellectual authority’ in the
classroom (Stanford Project; Holthuis et al., 2014, p. 384). Other indicator words included
‘agency,’ ‘give up control,’ and ‘give freedom to students.’ As the adult primarily in charge
of management and instruction in the classroom, the teacher typically carries a certain
level of authority, whether to direct activity in the room or assess accuracy of information
being shared. While this is valuable, it can also inhibit students’ own sharing of ideas and
problem-solving. For example, when students were able to discuss in groups without the
teacher present in the Concept Cartoons approach, they participated freely in dialogue
and argumentation. However, when the teacher entered the group, student dialogue
halted and students seemed to need permission from the teacher to share (Concept
Cartoons; Clark et al., 2007). Alternatively, some teachers encouraged free expression of
student ideas, but continued to evaluate the correctness of ideas and, thus, undermined
attempts to ‘share authority’ (epiSTEMe). Without intentional intervention by the teacher

to ‘share authority’ in a consistent manner, students often defaulted to the teacher’s
authority.
Teachers in some approaches intentionally created a ‘climate of respect’ (FCL as ex. of
PDE; Engle & Conant, 2002, p. 410) in which the teacher ensured all students’ ideas were
valued and held accountable to the learning community, not solely the teacher’s author
ity. Alternatively, an example is provided where a teacher ‘delegated some of her role as
the intellectual authority’ and ‘deferred authority to the data’ (Stanford Project; Holthuis
et al., 2014, p. 384). In this way, students’ ideas were held accountable to or checked
against the data available from investigations or other resources, such as textual resources
(SWH, Keys, Hand, Prain & Collins, 1999). In addition, students were positioned as ‘authors
of ideas’ (Manz & Renga, 2017, p. 586, Wild Backyard), and ‘stakeholders’ (SWH;
Schoerning, Hand, Shelley & Therrien, 2015, p. 255).
Communicate norms (8 approaches)

Communicating norms was defined as the teacher’s modelling, framing, or explicitly
stating of the norms of science within the classroom or expectations for an activity or
performance. Indicator words include ‘disciplinary norms,’ and ‘expectations.’ Approaches
described teachers promoting students to follow the disciplinary norms of science (FCL as
ex. of PDE), and more specifically norms of scientific discourse (Open inquiry instruction)
and inquiry (Promoting Argumentation, Paper chain inquiry). Additionally, teachers
framed or shaped argumentative discourse, emphasising the importance of supporting
claims with evidence, some through explicit instruction (Promoting Argumentation,
Stanford Project, SWH).
Model dialogue or language use (7 approaches)

Modelling dialogue or language use was defined as teachers providing explicit instruc
tion, questioning, or language development support intended to support students’
engagement in dialogue or use of terminology. Indicator words included ‘scaffold,’
‘model,’ ‘meta-talk,’ ‘give examples,’ and ‘explicit guidance.’ Modelling was done explicitly
through assigned vocabulary practice (ICS), instruction on how to provide reasoning or
evidence to support a claim (FCL as ex. of PDE, Stanford Project), or real-time ‘meta-talk’
during discussion which involved pointing out types of evidence (Wild Backyard; Manz &
Renga, 2017, p. 592). Specific resources were co-created by teacher and students in order
to model practices like asking questions (Promoting Argumentation). In other cases,
teachers participated in discussions by probing student ideas with questions and posing
ideas in order to give students examples of how to contribute to the discussion (Stanford
Project, SWH).
Emphasise important ideas (7 approaches)

Emphasising important ideas was defined as teachers’ pointing out of certain practices or
examples to highlight them, either through feedback, during discussion, or during direct
instruction. Indicator words included ‘emphasise,’ ‘point out,’ ‘re-voice student ideas,’
‘provide feedback,’ and ‘highlight ideas.’ Teachers emphasised certain aspects of science,
like scepticism, by praising students (Promoting Argumentation), and specific scientific
practices like identifying variables (Paper chain inquiry). Teachers pointed out important
ideas at the beginning of the unit or lesson (Small group work), while others restated
student statements within dialogue to direct the discussion (Wild Backyard). The purpose
behind highlighting important ideas was to avoid student misconceptions
(Representational approach, Small group work), summarise thoughts at the end of
a discussion (Inquiry-type chemistry experiment), or lead students in constructing evi
dence or arguments (Wild Backyard).
Common elements group 3: Generative opportunities

Generative opportunities were the final axial group of common elements which emerged
from this study. These opportunities were defined as those which provided students with
a chance to generate knowledge. Knowledge generation, as described earlier in this
paper, was defined as the active construction of knowledge based on prior knowledge
and experience. On a continuum of ‘less generative’ to ‘more generative,’ ‘less generative’
was defined as the passive reproduction, repetition, or copying of information or process.
Two types of generative opportunities were identified within the approaches considered
within this study: student authorship of initial activity, and student design of investiga
tion. While other generative opportunities were possible within each approach as well as
within individual teacher implementation of each approach, the data available within the
articles only addressed these two.
Out of the 16 approaches studied, 6 included evidence of student authorship in the
initial activity. Eight of the remaining approaches described more teacher-directed initial
activity, and 2 approaches had insufficient data to determine initial activity authorship.
Nine of 16 approaches included evidence of student design of investigation, with 5 of the
remaining approaches describing investigations with pre-determined procedures, and 2
approaches with insufficient data to determine whether the student had a role in
designing the investigation.
In the following paragraphs, each generative opportunity is described, with examples
of approaches provided for explanation. Frequencies are included within the headings.
Student authorship of initial activity (6 approaches)

Student authorship of an initial activity was defined as students having some stake in
devising questions or problems which were then used to direct the next steps of the
learning in the lesson or unit. In addition to the example of Concept Cartoons described in
more detail under the ‘more generative’ classification below, prime examples of this
generative opportunity included those from the Open inquiry instruction, SWH, and
Wild Backyard approaches. Examples from each are provided below to better characterise
this common element of immersive ABI learning environments.
Within the Open inquiry instruction approach, students were asked to come up with
questions relevant to the topic. The teacher then ‘used students’ individual questions to
guide and temper instruction for future class investigations’ (Yerrick, 2000, p. 815).
Similarly, the initial activity in the Wild Backyard approach elicited student ideas. While
the phenomenon under observation was defined for students, they were encouraged to
make observations and these, then, were used by the teachers to drive the next steps of
learning in the classroom. SWH was the most ‘generative’ example within this generative
opportunity, because student ideas elicited at the beginning of the unit through concept
maps and question brainstorming served as the foundation for the unit. Being able to use
their own questions gave students authorship and ownership of exploration and learning
in the unit.
Student-designed investigation procedure (9 approaches)

Students’ designing of investigation procedures was defined as the opportunity for
students to devise what they would test in an investigation and the method they
would use to test it. Approaches which exemplified this generative opportunity included
ADI, Concept Cartoons, FCL as example of PDE, Inquiry-based argumentation, Inquiry-
type chemistry experiment, Open inquiry instruction, and SWH. In the ADI approach, the
students ‘develop a method to generate data’ and ‘develop a way to test [the scientific
explanation]’ (Sampson, Grooms & Walker, 2011, pp. 219, 227). For the Concept Cartoons
approach, the ‘nature of investigation was left up to [the students]’ (Clark et al., 2007,
p. 21). The Fostering Communities of Learners (FCL) example provided for Productive
Disciplinary Engagement (PDE) describes ‘students having an active role, or agency, in
defining, addressing, and resolving . . . problems’ (Engle & Conant, 2002, p. 404). In the
Inquiry-based argumentation approach, the ‘main characteristic of experiment activity . . .
was open activity that places an emphasis on autonomy in making decisions . . . ’ (Kim &
Song, 2006, p. 215). For the Inquiry-type chemistry experiment, students ‘are exposed to
a phenomenon; they ask questions about it, select the research question, write
a hypothesis, and then perform the experiment . . . ’ (Katchevich et al., 2013, p. 322). The
expectation for students within the Open inquiry instruction approach was to ‘design and
carry out experiments in groups . . . to test their claims’ (Yerrick, 2000, p. 816). A last
example came from the SWH approach, which ‘allows students the opportunity to set
their own investigative questions, propose methods to address these questions and to
carry out the investigations’ (Martin & Hand, 2009, p. 22).
Classification of approaches: Continuum of knowledge generation

Based on the generative opportunities identified above, each approach was classified as
‘more generative,’ ‘less generative,’ and ‘intermediate’ along a continuum of knowledge
generation, as seen in Figure 3. If an approach showed evidence for both generative
opportunities, it was classified as ‘more generative,’ with the number 2 included in
parentheses after the title of the approach to indicate 2 pieces of data supporting
‘both’ generative opportunities (i.e. ‘Concept Cartoons (2)’). If an approach showed
evidence for neither of these opportunities, it was classified as ‘less generative.’ Again,
the number 2 was included to indicate that there were two pieces of data used as
evidence to support the ‘less generative’ designation (i.e. ‘MMD-based (2)’). And, if an
approach showed evidence for both ‘more generative’ and ‘less generative’ designations,
it was classified as ‘intermediate.’ Some approaches were categorised as ‘more generative’
based on only 1 piece of data, indicated with the number 1 following the title of the
approach (i.e. ‘Promoting Argumentation (1)’). In these cases, there was no data available
to determine the other generative opportunity’s presence or absence, as would be
characteristic of ‘intermediate’ approaches. Selected examples are provided in the follow
ing paragraphs to better explain placement of each approach within one of these three
groups.
Figure 3. Classification of approaches on continuum of knowledge generation.
The classification of approaches along the continuum was determined first based on
the articles reviewed by this study. When article descriptions were insufficient to code the
initial activity and investigations involved in the approach as ‘less generative,’ or ‘more
generative,’ additional teaching materials were sought. Only those additional teaching
materials which were freely available online were considered. It is possible that, if the full
intent and sets of materials from the various approaches were to be considered, the group
placement would have shifted slightly. In addition, it is acknowledged that individual
teacher implementation of each approach could vary greatly, with some teachers imple
menting the approach in a way which provided more generative opportunities and others
limiting the generative opportunities available to students, even when based on the same
curriculum materials. In fact, one approach considered in this study explicitly gave
teachers the choice of whether to have students design their own investigation or follow
a set of predefined steps (Stanford Climate Change Project; Holthuis et al., 2014). While
the explicit mention of varying implementation was rare within these studies, when it did
arise, the approaches were classified as ‘intermediate,’ with evidence for both ‘more
generative’ and ‘less generative’ designations.
Example: ‘More generative’
The Concept Cartoons approach (Keogh & Naylor, 1999) was provided as an example of
a ‘more generative’ approach, specifically with two pieces of data which support oppor
tunities for student knowledge generation. In an initial activity, Concept Cartoons were
used to present various ideas in pictorial form with dialogue bubbles. Each dialogue
bubble contained an alternate idea about the science phenomenon and how it worked. In
addition, a blank bubble was left to allow for student ideas to be added. In effect, there
was not a focus on one ‘correct’ answer. The overall initial activity involved students using
the existing dialogue bubbles and their own ideas to shape their understanding of the
science phenomenon. This provided support for the approach to be classified as ‘more
generative,’ as students played a significant role in authoring the ideas and problems to
be considered for the initial activity and, thus, the remainder of the unit. Concept
Cartoons were used as tools to encourage students to figure out their own understanding
of the scientific phenomenon. When considering the investigation design, the author
stated that students were eager to test their ideas through designing an investigation.
Naylor, Keogh, & Downing (2007) noted that the ‘nature of investigation was left up to
[the students]’ (p. 21). This provided support for the approach to be classified as ‘more
generative,’ as students generated their own procedure or ways of testing their ideas
through investigation. Taken together, these data indicated that Concept Cartoons would
be characterised as ‘more generative’ with support of two pieces of data (‘more gen
erative (2)’).
Example: ‘Less generative’
Next, the Model of Modelling Diagram (MMD)-based approach (Mendonça,& Justi,

2013) was used as an example of an approach classified as ‘less generative,’ specifically
with two pieces of data. The initial activity of the sequence gave students ‘the opportunity
to know about existence of two chemical substances’ (Mendonça & Justi, 2013, p. 2416).
Students were expected to make observations and comparisons during this activity, with
a defined question or goal in mind. This provided support for the approach to be classified
as ‘less generative,’ as a predefined activity precluded students from authoring their own
question or problem to guide further learning. When considering an investigation,
students collected observations as data and then were expected to explain their observa
tions through creating a model. Though the exact procedural steps were not available
within the text of Mendonça & Justi’s (2013) article, their description and analysis of it
implied a defined goal and direction, to ‘build the idea that ionic bonds are formed
through electrostatic attractions between positive and negative ions’ (p. 2416). For further
support, an article referenced within their study, but not included in this study’s systema
tic literature review analysis, was considered to confirm these findings (Mendonça & Justi,
2011, as cited in Mendonça, & Justi, 2013). In this additional article, descriptions of
experiments implied defined steps, and teacher demonstrations were often used as the
basis of student observation. These descriptions confirmed the previously-anticipated
classification of the MMD-based approach as ‘less generative.’ Taken together, these data
indicated that this approach would be characterised as ‘less generative’ with support of
two pieces of data (‘less generative (2)’).
Example: ‘Intermediate’
Finally, the Representational approach (Waldrip et al., 2013) was used as an example of
a ‘intermediate’ approach, with data supporting both sides of the knowledge generation
continuum. Though the initial activity began with a particular science concept for con
sideration, it purposefully provided opportunity for students to author ideas. For example,
the students were asked to record their own definitions for certain scientific terms. Then,
they ‘negotiated the meaning of these terms’ and used materials within the classroom to
demonstrate their definitions in a hands-on way (Waldrip et al., 2013, p. 172). Within this
activity, students had the opportunity to generate knowledge about their understanding
of the terms. Therefore, the initial activity was considered ‘more generative.’ The process
of the investigation within this approach was ‘less generative,’ as it involved guided
inquiry. The students were to ‘re-represent/explain causal accounts arising from guided
inquiry into practical topics’ (Waldrip et al., 2013, p. 169). While student representations or
ideas were student-authored, the process in which they engaged was dictated by the
teacher and the ideas frequently clarified by the teacher. Therefore, since the initial
activity and investigation ideas could be considered ‘more generative’ and the investiga
tion process ‘less generative,’ this approach was classified as ‘intermediate’ along the
continuum of knowledge generation. Other approaches classified in this group could

have had a ‘less generative’ initial activity and ‘more generative’ investigation.
The characterisation of immersive ABI approaches along this scale was not meant to
measure effectiveness of the approaches. Instead, it was designed to build upon the
findings from axial groups one and two about student and teacher actions, respectively,
to further characterise potential shifts that could make a learning environment more
aligned with the common elements of immersive ABI learning environments.
Discussion
Following Cavagnetto’s (2010) review on argument-based approaches, we recognised
a need for a more in-depth analysis of immersive ABI approaches and the characteristics
underlying the learning environments which support them. We chose immersive argu
ment-based approaches because they enable students to use the epistemic practices of
science to not only learn science concepts but also understand how science knowledge is
constructed. We think immersive ABI approaches have the most potential to help stu
dents accomplish the generative learning goals of the NGSS and similar international
reform documents.
The findings of this study not only provide insights into immersive ABI learning
environments, but also provide a basis for comparison among other argument-based
learning environments. First, the findings of this systematic literature review clearly show
that not all immersive ABI approaches are equal. For example, while all approaches
engage students in small group work, some include a focus on science concepts, with
others emphasising science process (see Table 5). While all approaches engage students
in the integrated epistemic practices of investigation and argumentation, some provide
more generative opportunities than others. This is evident by the continuum of knowl
edge generation presented in Figure 3. Ultimately, all sixteen approaches analysed in this
systematic review have potential to support students’ immersive argument-based learn
ing. However, some may better enhance the learning benefits associated with knowledge
generation than others.
Our list of common elements of immersive ABI learning environments presents key
actions and opportunities characteristic of sixteen existing immersive approaches. While
rooted in theory around argumentation, student ownership of learning, and knowledge
generation, the list of common elements is presented as a practical, concise list which can
bridge the gap between theory and practice within the science classroom. When com
pared to previously developed frameworks addressing argument-based learning environ
ments, some similarities arise. For instance, the common element discuss aligns with
‘context which fosters dialogic discourse’ in Duschl and Osborne (2002, p. 61). The
common element share authority may relate to ‘provide students access to plural
accounts of phenomena’ (Duschl & Osborne, 2002, p. 61), as students engage in compar
ison of those accounts and play a role in authoring knowledge instead of merely accept
ing the teacher as the central knowledge authority. Clark et al. (2007) compiled a list of
conditions for supporting student argumentation, which builds upon Duschl & Osborne’s
work and adds conditions similar to the common elements work as small group, focus on
conceptual understanding, among others. When comparing these frameworks of general
argument-based learning environments to our list of characteristics specific to immersive
ABI, there are clearly similar elements or conditions among the various types of argument-
based interventions. However, the relative emphasis on more generative common ele
ments may set immersive ABI learning environments apart, which requires further study.
In addition, the ways in which the common elements work together to shape student
argumentation may provide further insight into the differences between immersive ABI
and other varieties of argument-based learning environments.
Rather than seeking the complex connections underlying immersive ABI learning
environments, we were interested in the broad categories that can help simplify an
understanding of these environments and can be utilised by educators. We argue that
the simplicity of the list of common elements sets it apart from other frameworks or lists of
conditions to support student argumentation. Not only does it narrow the focus to
immersive ABI learning environments, but it also provides a concrete list of actions and
opportunities to support, enact, or look for within a classroom. The list of common
elements of immersive ABI learning environments (Figure 2), along with the continuum
of knowledge generation (Figure 3) transform the ideas put forth by theoretical frame
works into practical tools which can be used by various educational stakeholders. We
believe these actions may help educators better adopt and adapt the required learning
environments that will help achieve the aims of the new national curricula that have been
put forward in a range of countries.
Conclusion
The central aim of this study was to develop a better understanding of immersive ABI
learning environments based on a systematic literature review of current approaches.
Three main ideas have emerged. First, while all immersive ABI approaches provide
students the opportunity to engage in the practices of argumentation and investigation
in an integrated way, some provide more opportunities for student ownership of learning
and knowledge generation than others. Second, with its roots in a rigorous literature
review analysis, the broad categories of the resulting common elements list give it
potential to be a bridge between theory and practice, simplifying the understanding of
these learning environments. Third, the common elements list and continuum of knowl
edge generation can be used by various stakeholders within primary and secondary
school education, including researchers, professional development leaders, principals,
and teachers. Further research is needed to better understand what makes immersive
ABI learning environments unique from other argument-based interventions. However,
the findings of this study can help move the field forward towards a better understanding
of these argument-based learning environments and their impact on student learning of
science.
Implications
The common elements of immersive ABI learning environments can be used by three
main stakeholders in education: researchers, professional development leaders, and
school-based principals and teachers.
Researchers
Researchers can use the common elements to identify unique aspects of different
immersive ABI approaches, making comparisons between approaches to measure their
differential impacts on student learning. For example, approaches which emphasise
writing (ADI, SWH) can be compared to those which emphasise representational models
(Representational approach). In the same way, these approaches can be compared for the
generative opportunities they provide students, identifying additional generative oppor
tunities and exploring their impact on student learning. Immersive ABI approaches which
have been previously shown to promote student learning or conceptual understanding
can be examined in light of the generative opportunities they provide and how these may
help explain the benefits afforded to students.
Further study can be conducted on the potential interactions between common
elements. It can be predicted that the student action of ‘engage in argumentation’ is
related to the teacher action of ‘encourage argumentation,’ however further research is
needed to uncover the most effective ways for teachers to introduce and support student
argumentation. Another potential interaction exists between the generative opportu
nities and the teacher action of ‘share authority.’ Future study can explore ways in which
teachers share their intellectual authority and recognise student ownership in their
learning. This study could then examine the generative opportunities provided to the
students within these learning environments and explore the interaction between the
teacher’s role and student engagement in knowledge generation. More comprehensively,
interactions between various common elements can help point to ideal combinations of
elements which promote specific student benefits, targeted to certain grade levels and
school contexts.
Professional development leaders

At a broader level of professional development design, an understanding of the common
elements of immersive ABI could inform the development of sample units or activities
which teachers can engage in as learners in order to gain a student perspective of
knowledge generation. At a more individual level, the continuum of knowledge genera
tion could be used as a reflection or measurement tool for assessment of curricular
materials. The professional development (PD) leader could collect data about teacher’s
intended unit plans and investigate the generative opportunities available. Additional
data could be collected via conversations between the teacher and the PD leader or
through teacher reflection journals in order to uncover the teacher’s ideas surrounding
use of different learning opportunities. The PD leader can use this information to spark
further conversation with the teacher and make comparisons between data collected at
different points in time. This could provide a way to measure a teacher’s growth in
identified goal areas related to various common elements. In addition, the PD leader
can give pointed feedback on specific areas of a teacher’s planning documents in order to
encourage the teacher to make a shift towards knowledge generation. In this way, the PD
leader can use the examples of generative opportunities and approaches listed on the
continuum of knowledge generation to tailor their PD supports for certain teacher needs.
Principals and teachers

A principal could use the common elements of immersive ABI as the basis for observa
tional evaluation of science teachers. The list of common elements provides distinct
student and teacher actions which could be quickly identified during an observation or
within teachers’ submitted unit plans. The common elements also provide a common
language for discussion between principals and teachers.
An individual teacher who wants to infuse more knowledge generation opportunities
into their classroom could use the continuum presented in Figure 3 to identify ways to
enhance their existing units. For example, they may have a unit with a step-by-step lab
procedure that could be transformed into a student-designed investigation procedure,
enabling deeper knowledge generation for learners. When introducing a new unit, the
teacher could share the common elements or specific student and teacher actions with
the students as a way to communicate classroom expectations and clarify student and
teacher roles. This may support students new to immersive ABI as they become accus
tomed to more active learning actions like engaging in argumentation, discussing, and
justifying with evidence.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Kathleen A. Weiss is an Instructional Design and Educational Support Specialist in the Center for
Educational Enhancement at Des Moines University. Her current work is focused on development of
faculty and student supports in medical and health science education. Her research focuses on
generative learning environments.
Mark A. McDermott is a clinical professor of Science Education at the University of Iowa. His
research focuses on STEM education and methods for improving pre-service teacher learning.
Brian Hand is a professor of Science Education at the University of Iowa. His research interests are
centred on improving learning through understanding the complexity of generative learning
environments.
ORCID
Kathleen A. Weiss http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5890-8853
References
Adey, P., & Strayer, M. (2015). The effects of cognitive acceleration. In Socializing intelligence through
academic talk and dialogue (127–142). American Educational Research Association
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educa
tional context of confronting cognitions. In Arguing to learn (pp. 1–25). Springer
Ardasheva, Y., Norton-Meier, L., & Hand, B. (2015). Negotiation, embeddedness, and
non-threatening learning environments as themes of science and language convergence for
English language learners. Studies in Science Education, 51(2), 201–249 https://doi.org/10.1080/

03057267.2015.1078019
*Articles included in the systematic literature review
Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and
unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187 https://doi.org/10.1080/
00461520.2016.1155458
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2010). The Australian curriculum:
Science. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/science/
Bandura, A. (1997). The anatomy of stages of change. American Journal of Health Promotion12(1), 8–
10.
Berland, L. K. (2011). Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of
scientific argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences 20(4), 625–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10508406.2011.591718
Cavagnetto, A., & Hand, B. (2011). The importance of embedding argument within science class
rooms. In Perspectives on scientific argumentation(pp. 39–53). Springer.
Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in
K–12 science contexts.Review of Educational Research 80(3), 336–371. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0034654310376953
*Çetin, P. S., & Eymur, G. (2017). Developing students’ scientific writing and presentation skills
through argument driven inquiry: An exploratory study. Journal of Chemical Education 94(7),
837–843. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00915
*Chen, Y.-C., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2017). Teacher roles of questioning in early elementary
science classrooms: A framework promoting student cognitive complexities in argumentation.
Research in Science Education47(2), 373–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9506–6
*Chen, Y.-C., Hand, B., & Park, S. (2016). Examining elementary students’ development of oral and
written argumentation practices through argument-based inquiry. Science & Education 25(3–4),
277–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9811-0
Chi, M. T., & Menekse, M. (2015). Dialogue patterns in peer collaboration that promote learning.
Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue, 263–274. American Educational
Research Association.
Choi, A., Hand, B., & Greenbowe, T. (2013). Students’ written arguments in general chemistry
laboratory investigations. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1763–1783. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11165-012-9330-1
*Choi, A., Klein, V., & Hershberger, S. (2015). Success, difficulty, and instructional strategy to enact an
argument-based inquiry approach: Experiences of elementary teachers. International Journal of
Science & Mathematics Education 13(5), 991–1011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9525-1
Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing
dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review 19(3),
343–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9050-7
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. Basics of qualitative research.
Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 3. Sage Publications.
Department for Education, United Kingdom. (2014). National curriculum in England: Science pro
grammes of study. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-
england-science-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-
study.
Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A Constructivist Approach to Curriculum Development in Science.
Studies in Science Education 13(1), 105-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268608559933
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science
education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03057260208560187
Enghag, M., & Niedderer, H. (2008). Two dimensions of student ownership of learning during
small-group work in physics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 6(4),
629–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9075-x
*Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engage
ment: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and
Instruction 20(4), 399–483. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the
application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education 88
(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
*Eymur, G. (2018). Developing High School Students’ Self-Efficacy and Perceptions about Inquiry
and Laboratory Skills through Argument-Driven Inquiry. Journal of Chemical Education 95(5),
709–715. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00934
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology
Review 28(4), 717–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9
Fleming, K., & Panizzon, D. (2010). Facilitating students’ ownership of learning in science by
developing lifelong learning skills.Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science
Teachers Association 56(3), 27–32.
Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science
Education 92(3), 404–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263
*Grooms, J., Sampson, V., & Enderle, P. (2018). How concept familiarity and experience with scientific
argumentation are related to the way groups participate in an episode of argumentation. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching 55(9), 1264–1286. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21451
Hand, B., Chen, Y. C., & Suh, J. (2020) Does a knowledge generating approach benefit students: A
systematic review of the science writing heuristic approach. Educational Psychology Review., 1–
43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09550-0
Hand, B., Park, S., & Suh, J. K. (2018). Examining teachers’ shifting epistemic orientations in improving
students’ scientific literacy through adoption of the science writing heuristic approach. In Tang,
K.-S. & Danielsson, K (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp.
339–355). Springer.
*Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students‘ ability to ask
more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 42, 791–806. 7 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20072
*Herrenkohl, L. R., & Cornelius, L. (2013). Investigating elementary students‘ Scientific and historical
argumentation Journal of the Learning Sciences 22(3), 413–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10508406.2013.799475
*Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Gunel, M. M., & Akkus, R. (2016). Aligning teaching to learning: A 3-year
study examining the embedding of language and argumentation into elementary science
classrooms. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education 14(5), 847–863. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10763-015-9622-9.
*Hand, B., Shelley, M. C., Laugerman, M., Fostvedt, L., & Therrien, W. (2018). Improving critical
thinking growth for disadvantaged groups within elementary school science: A randomized
controlled trial using the science writing heuristic approach. Science Education 102(4), 693–710.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21341
Holthuis, N., Lotan, R., Saltzman, J., Mastrandrea, M., & Wild, A. (2014). Supporting and under
standing students‘ Epistemological discourse about climate change. Journal of Geoscience
Education 62(3), 374–387. https://doi.org/10.5408/13-036.1
*Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry labora
tory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 317–345. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9267-9
*Howe, C., Ilie, S., Guardia, P., Hofmann, R., Mercer, N., & Riga, F. (2015). Principled improvement
in science: Forces and proportional relations in early secondary-school teaching.
International Journal of Science Education 37(1), 162–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.
2014.975168
*Jang, J. Y., & Hand, B. (2017). Examining the value of a scaffolded critique framework to promote
argumentative and explanatory writings within an argument-based inquiry approach. Research
in Science Education 47(6), 1213–1231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9542-x
*Kang, E. J., Swanson, L. H., & Bauler, C. V. . (2017). “Explicame”: Examining emergent bilinguals’
ability to construct arguments and explanations during a unit on plate tectonics. Electronic
Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 12–45. mhttp://ejse.southwestern.edu
Kentish, B. (1995). Hypotheticals: Deepening the understanding of environmental issues through
ownership of learning. Australian Science Teachers Journal 41(1), 21–25.
*Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evaluation.
International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/
095006999290642
*Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for
learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 36(10), 1065–1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-
TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
*Kim, H., & song, J. (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students’ scientific
inquiry. Research in Science Education 36(3), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9005-2
*Larraín, A., Moreno, C., Grau, V., Freire, P., Salvat, I., López, P., & Silva, M. (2017). Curriculum materials
support teachers in the promotion of argumentation in science teaching: A case study. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 67, 522–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.07.018
Lead States, N. G. S. S. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National
Academies Press.
LeCompte, M. D. (2000). Analyzing qualitative data. Theory into Practice 39(3), 146–154. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_5
Lizotte, D. J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Teacher practices that support students’ construction
of scientific explanations in middle school classrooms. In Kafai, Y.B, Sandoval, W.A., Enyedy, N.,
Scott Nixon, A., & Herrera F., (Eds.), Embracing diversity in the learning sciences: Proceedings of the
sixth international conference of the learning sciences (p. 310). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Martin, A. M., and Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the
elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1),
17–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9072-7
*Manz, E. (2016). Examining evidence construction as the transformation of the material world into
community knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1113–1140. https://doi.org/
10.1002/tea.21264
*Manz, E., & Renga, I. (2017). Understanding how teachers guide evidence construction
conversations. Science Education, 101(4), 584–615. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21282
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In edited by R. E. Mayer, The cambridge
handbook of multimedia learning (Second Ed., pp. 43–71). Cambridge University Press.
McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers‘ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments
to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93, 233–268. 2 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20294
McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students‘ views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and
their abilities to construct arguments over the school year Journal of Research in Science Teaching
48(7), 793–823. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20430
McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific
argumentation: The impact of professional development on K–12 teachers. Science Education
97(6), 936–972. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21081
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence
and reasoning. Science as inquiry in the secondary setting, 121–134. primaryconnections.org.au.
Mendonça, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2011). Contributions of the Model of Modelling Diagram to the
learning of ionic bonding: Analysis of A case study. Research in Science Education, 41(4), 479–503.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9176-3
*Mendonça, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2013). The relationships between modelling and argumentation from
the perspective of the model of modelling diagram. International Journal of Science Education 35
(14), 2407–2434. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.811615
*Mendonça, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2014). An instrument for analyzing arguments produced in
modeling-based chemistry lessons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 51(2), 192–218.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21133
Mercier, H., Boudry, M., Paglieri, F., & Trouche, E. (2017). Natural-born arguers: Teaching how to make
the best of our reasoning abilities. Educational Psychologist 52(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00461520.2016.1207537
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2001). The effects of topic choice in project-based instruction on undergraduate
physical science students’ interest, ownership, and motivation. University of Texas at Austin.
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. McGraw-Hill
Education.
Mullis, I. V., & Martin, M. O. (2017). TIMSS 2019 Assessment Frameworks. International Association for
the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Herengracht 487, Amsterdam, 1017 BT, The
Netherlands.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers.
(Common Core Standards Initiative (CCSSI), 2010a). Common Core State Standards for
Mathematics: Mathematical practices. http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice/
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers.
(Common Core Standards Initiative (CCSSI), 2010b). Common Core State Standards for English
Language Arts: Writing, Grades 9–10. http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/WHST/9-10/
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, cross
cutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
*Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science
Education, 37, 17–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9002-5
*Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (2013). Concept cartoons: What have we learnt? Journal of turkish science
education (TUSED), 10(1), 3–9. tused.org.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. F. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school
science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/
095006999290570
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific
literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
*Oliveira, D. K. B. S., Justi, R., & Mendonça, P. C. C. (2015). The use of representations and argumen
tative and explanatory situations. International Journal of Science Education 37(9), 1402–1435.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1039095
O’Neill, T. B. (2010). Fostering spaces of student ownership in middle school science. Equity &
Excellence in Education 43(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680903484909
O’Neill, T. B., & Barton, A. C. (2005). Student ownership in an urban middle school science video
project. School Science and Mathematics 105(6), 292–302.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2018). Preparing our youth for
an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework. https://www.
oecd.org/education/Global-competency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.
20035
Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1999). Students perceptions of writing for learning in secondary school
science. Science Education, 83(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)
83:2<151::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-S
Rainer, J. D., & Matthews, M. W. (2002). Ownership of learning in teacher education. Action in Teacher
Education 24(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2002.10463264
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Techniques to identify themes in qualitative data. Handbook of
qualitative research. (2nd ed., pp.1–15) Sage Publications.
Sadler, T., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science
in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387–409. 4
https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000119456
Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers / Johnny Saldana. (3rd ed.). SAGE.
*Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421
*Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to learn by learning to write during
the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative
writing skills as they learn core ideas. Science Education 97(5), 643–670. https://doi.org/10.1002/
sce.21069
*Swanson, L. H., Bianchini, J. A. ., & Lee, J. S. (2014). Engaging in argument and communicating
information: A case study of english language learners and their science teacher in an urban high
school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 51(1), 31–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21124
*Schoerning, E., Hand, B., Shelley, M., & Therrien, W. (2015). Language, access, and power in the
elementary science classroom. Science Education 99(2), 238–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.
21154
*Suh, J. K., & Park, S. (2017). Exploring the relationship between pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK) and sustainability of an innovative science teaching approach. Teaching & Teacher
Education 64, 246–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.021
*Çetin, S. P., Eymur, G., Southerland, S. A., Walker, J., & Whittington, K. (2018). Exploring the
effectiveness of engagement in a broad range of disciplinary practices on learning of Turkish
high-school chemistry students. International Journal of Science Education 40(5), 473–497. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1432914
Toulmin, S. (1958). The layout of arguments. The uses of argument, 94–145.
*Waldrip, B. B., Prain, V. V., & Sellings, P. P. (2013). Explaining Newton’s laws of motion: Using student
reasoning through representations to develop conceptual understanding. Instructional Science
41(1), 165–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9223-8
Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through
scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1387–1410. 11 https://doi.org/
10.1080/09500690601068095
Walton, D. N. (1990). What is reasoning? What is an argument? The Journal of Philosophy, 87(8),
399–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735
*Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students’ discussions in practical scientific
inquiries. International Journal of Science Education 26(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0950069032000072764
Winn, K. M., Choi, K. M., & Hand, B. (2016). Cognitive language and content standards: Language
inventory of the common core state standards in mathematics and the next generation science
standards. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology 4(4),
319–339. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.26330
Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process 1 Educational Psychologist 11(2), 87–95.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461527409529129
*Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37(8), 807–838. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736
(200010)37:8<807::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-7
*Yun, S., & Kim, H.-B. (2015). Changes in students’ participation and small group norms in scientific
argumentation. Research in Science Education 45(3), 465–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-
014-9432-z

2021 - Weiss, McDermott, Hand 2021 Cha

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 - Weiss, McDermott, Hand 2021 Cha

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies in Science Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsse20

Characterising immersive argument-based inquiry

Kathleen A. Weiss, Mark A. McDermott & Brian Hand

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.1897931

Published online: 13 Mar 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 191

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Characterising immersive argument-based inquiry learning

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Kathleen A. Weiss kathleen.weiss@dmu.edu.

Table 1. Summary of classroom argumentation perspectives in school-based science classroom

Argumentation practices in science classrooms

argumentation is critical in the development of science understanding in general, it would

Student ownership of learning and knowledge generation

Systematic literature review analysis

Phase 1: Article-level analysis

Table 2. Articles included in systematic literature review.

Figure 1. Overview of coding and analysis.

Table 3. Sample 1st-level, 2nd-level, and priority codes.

Phase 2: Approach-level analysis

Phase 3: Cross-approach analysis

Table 4. Approach-level findings.

Cross-approach findings and common elements of immersive ABI learning

Common elements group 1: Student actions

Figure 2. Common elements of immersive ABI learning environments.

Engage in argumentation (16 approaches)

Table 5. Common student actions.

Work as small group (16 approaches)

Discuss (16 approaches)

Within the approaches considered in this study, discussions focused on challenging

Investigate (16 approaches)

Justify with evidence (15 approaches)

Focus on science concepts (14 approaches)

Common elements group 2: Teacher actions

Encourage argumentation (11 approaches)

Table 6. Common teacher actions.

Provide resources (10 approaches)

Ask questions (9 approaches)

Share authority (8 approaches)

attempts to ‘share authority’ (epiSTEMe). Without intentional intervention by the teacher

Communicate norms (8 approaches)

Model dialogue or language use (7 approaches)

Emphasise important ideas (7 approaches)

Common elements group 3: Generative opportunities

Student authorship of initial activity (6 approaches)

Student-designed investigation procedure (9 approaches)

Classification of approaches: Continuum of knowledge generation

Figure 3. Classification of approaches on continuum of knowledge generation.

Example: ‘Less generative’

Next, the Model of Modelling Diagram (MMD)-based approach (Mendonça,& Justi,

continuum of knowledge generation. Other approaches classified in this group could

Professional development leaders

Principals and teachers

English language learners. Studies in Science Education, 51(2), 201–249 https://doi.org/10.1080/

You might also like