© Journal of Agricultural Education Volume 53, Number 2, pp 58–69 DOI: 10.5032/jae.2012.02058 Effects of Inquiry–based Agriscience Instruction and Subject Matter–based Instruction on Student Argumentation Skills Andrew C. Thoron, Assistant Professor Brian E. Myers, Associate Professor University of Florida The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of inquiry–based agriscience instruction on student argumentation skills. Argumentation is defined as the student’s ability to establish a claim, provide a rationale for steps taken, provide and justify data, recognize alternate conclusions, and provide evidence why the conclusion is correct or the best solution. Developing argumentation skills can aid in developing the next generation of scientists, and help individuals who are not scientists, distinguish evidence from bias. This quasi–experimental study investigated the effect of two teaching methods on student argumentation skills. Inquiry–based instruction was compared to the subject matter approach in 15 agriscience education classes in seven secondary schools across the United States. Univariate analysis of covariance, detected a statistically significant difference between groups on argumentation skills. Those students taught through inquiry–based instruction had higher argumentation skill than students taught through the subject matter approach. Keywords: agriscience students; inquiry; inquiry–based; argumentation; argumentation skills; quasi– experimental Introduction study of the natural world and explanations that are based on evidence. Furthermore, Anderson Research has indicated that the amount of (2002) argued that scientific inquiry is the ability student learning that occurs in a classroom is to understand and support investigations with directly proportional to the quality and quantity evidence. In addition, Keil, Haney, and Zoffel of student involvement in the educational (2009) stated inquiry–based instruction contains program (Cooper & Prescott, 1989). Chiasson multiple dimensions of teaching and learning and Burnett (2001) reported that agricultural and leads learners to develop deeper education helped connect student involvement in understandings while connecting content content, citing a greater gain in science scores. knowledge to solving a situation. However, high school teachers dominate Explanations of results and conclusions classroom conversation, consuming nearly 70% based on evidence, when students are taught of classroom time (Cooper & Prescott). Inquiry– through inquiry–based instruction, leads to a based instructional approaches reverse this need to investigate tools that take into account trend, placing students first in the learning (measure) students’ abilities to produce process and teachers in the role of learning evidence–based claims, form conclusions, and facilitator. The facilitating teacher manages supply recommendations based on their interactions and keeps teams focused on understanding of the investigation. Investigation progress, encouraging students to work toward of argumentation skills is the study of logic, and answering the overall learning outcomes set producing correct inferences based on a given forth through their plan of action (Cooper & context (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000). At Prescott). The National Research Council [NRC] first glance, the term argumentation may lead (1996, 2000) defined scientific inquiry as the one to believe individuals will verbally argue 58 Thoron & Myers Effects of Inquiry–based… their point–of–view in a heated exchange. While and fiber industry may present a serious threat to an argument between individuals can exist, production practices. argumentation skills are the development of Jimenez–Aleixandre, Bullgallo–Rodriguez, logical explanations and categorization of and Duschl (1997), in a study of high school opposing assertions, weights of evidence, and discussion groups that used genetics problems as determination of merit for each assertion with the context, found that students had difficulty regard to evidence (Kuhn, 1992). Argumentation incorporating claims and scientific evidence. skills can be expressed through writing or Jimenez–Aleixandre et al. determined that the discussion (Driver et al., 2000). traditional science classroom does not regularly Rogers (1948) wrote that student contact provide context for the construction of students’ alone with science does not develop the ability ability to develop argumentation skills. Zohar to think critically. In pointing out the need for and Nemet (2002) conducted an experimental argumentation skills, Schwab (1962) argued that study on the topic of human genetics with ninth science education is merely a presentation of grade students, one group using traditional conclusions that are taught as empirical and methods (control) and the other, an interactive absolute truth – a simple unproblematic curriculum. They found that the treatment group collection of facts (Geddis, 1991). Claxton was able to transfer reasoning abilities through (1991) described that the way teachers are taught the context of genetics to everyday life to present science does not reward rebuttals applications. Additionally, the treatment group based on one’s scientific reasoning. While facts referred to correct, biological evidence through are important to know, and some unquestioned argumentation at an increased frequency when scientific concepts exist, scientists assess compared to the control group. alternatives, consider evidence, interpret text, Development of argumentation skills of evaluate the appropriateness of design, and students has been examined in an educational discriminate conclusions when formulating their context. Previous studies focused on the final analysis and arguments (Latour & development of argumentation skills; however, Woolgar, 1986). Baron (1991) and Cerbin few studies examined a teaching method’s effect (1988) wrote that pure traditional teaching on student argumentation skills. Kuhn (1993) creates learners that lack the ability to develop provided evidence that an agriscience student arguments with adequate evidence. who has greater argumentation skills will create Furthermore, Norris and Phillips (1994) more thoughtful science–based arguments. In indicated that students are not encouraged to summary, it can be posited that the development argue their strengths and weaknesses, and they of argumentation skills for agriscience students called for the science education community to will lead to more thoughtful, evidence–based focus on argumentation skills. answers for citizens unaware of how the food Kuhn (1992) conducted a study on and fiber industry operates. Additionally, argumentation of 160 individuals ranging from agriscience students who subsequently do not ninth grade students through adult. Kuhn seek careers in agriculture will be able to make determined that individuals of all ages use false educated decisions based on the scientific claims and weak arguments to present their arguments of the agricultural industry. beliefs. The development of argumentative practice is foundational to scientists and is Theoretical/Conceptual Framework “essential to enhance the public understanding of science...” (Driver et al., 2000, p. 287). Kuhn Constructivism is the guiding philosophical determined that individuals with low perspective used in this study. The constructivist argumentation skills simply dismiss factors as approach to teaching and learning has been irrelevant if findings do not support their point highlighted in research and in practice in of view. Several studies indicate that students numerous educational contexts (Bransford, have difficulty distinguishing between evidence Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Hamlin, 1992; and bias (Baron, 1991; Perkins, Farady, & Lampert, 1992; Myers & Dyer, 2006; Newcomb, Bushey, 1991; Toplak & Stanovich, 2003). A McCracken, & Warmbrod, 1993; NRC, 2000; United States population less aware of the food Phipps, Osborne, Dyer, & Ball, 2008; Schunk, 2004). Schunk stated, “…the rise of Journal of Agricultural Education 59 Volume 53, Number 2, 2012 Thoron & Myers Effects of Inquiry–based… constructivism has been theory and research in Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (1978) human development, especially the theories of combined to form the theoretical basis for the Piaget and Vygotsky” (p. 285). As an study from a constructivist philosophical epistemology, constructivism is concerned with perspective. the role of the learner and teacher as a facilitator. The model for this study (Figure 1) depicts Constructivism incorporates cognitive theories interactions that occur in an inquiry–based which place emphasis on learners’ information classroom. Because this study is part of a larger processing as a central cause of learning, yet study, there was more than one outcome constructivism digs deeper to capture the investigated. Static attributes were variables that complexity of human learning (Schunk, 2004). were collected during the investigation, and the Constructivism shifts the focus from “how teaching and learning process describe the knowledge is acquired” to “how it [knowledge] inquiry–based process. is constructed” (Schunk, 2004, p. 285). Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development (1972) and Figure 1. Conceptual model for the effects of inquiry–based instruction. Purpose/Objectives/Hypotheses 2. Ascertain the effects of inquiry–based instruction on argumentation skills of high The purpose of this study was to determine school agriscience students. the effects of teaching method on high school 3. Examine the relationship between agriscience students’ argumentation skills. The argumentation skills, ethnicity, gender, year specific objectives guiding the study were to: in school, and socio–economic status of high school agriscience students. 1. Describe the population of the study. Journal of Agricultural Education 60 Volume 53, Number 2, 2012 Thoron & Myers Effects of Inquiry–based… The null hypothesis, H : no significant To ensure that teachers involved in this o difference in student argumentation skills based study were exhibiting the correct teaching upon the teaching method (inquiry–based methodology (fidelity of the treatment), teachers teaching or subject matter approach), guided the were asked to audiotape each class period during analysis of the second objective. the study. The Science Teaching Inquiry Rubric (STIR) (Bodzin & Cates, 2002) was used to Methods analyze the level of inquiry–based instruction. The STIR has been reported to have an overall The population of this quasi–experimental correlation of r =.58 with a perfect correlation design comprised students at ten high schools between two raters of r =1.00, establishing the offering agriscience education in the United STIR as an effective analysis tool (Bodzin & States (N = 437). The accessible population was Beerer, 2003). The researcher determined a students of the ten National Agriscience Teacher priori, based on a study conducted by Thoron Ambassador Academy (NATAA) participants. A and Myers (2010), that students missing more purposive sample was selected according to the than 25% of the instructional time during the ability of the teacher to utilize the integrated study would be removed. Additionally, students agriscience curriculum and inquiry–based who did not receive the treatment, due to instruction and subject matter approach to inappropriate delivery of the treatment, would be teaching. removed from the sample. The content and context of the lessons for All students were administered a pretest to both the subject–matter and inquiry–based establish a base line before each of the seven lessons were deemed appropriate by a panel of replications to measure content knowledge experts. Seven units of instruction that addressed levels in the subject matter to be taught (soil and the soil and plant science portion of the National plant science). All sections were taught the same Agriscience Content Standards for an content by the same teacher and according to agriscience course in the United States (CAERT, their randomly assigned group were taught with 2008) were selected by the researcher from the the same teaching method the entire twelve Animal, Plant, and Soil Science curriculum weeks (inquiry or subject–matter). Pretest developed by the Center for Agricultural and instruments were developed by the researcher Environmental Research and Training, Inc. using content knowledge questions in the form (CAERT, 2008). The instructional plans were of multiple choice items. The instruments evaluated for content validity by a panel of contained a specific number of questions based experts from the Agricultural Education and on the determined percentage of time to be spent Communication Department and the School of teaching each objective of the unit. The testing Teaching and Learning at the University of instruments were validated by a panel of Florida. The panel determined that the inquiry– agriscience education and inquiry education based and subject matter lessons were suitable experts. Prior to the study a coefficient alpha for for the grade levels and deemed the lessons the dichotomous data of the content knowledge appropriate. achievement exams were calculated through a The independent variable in this study was pilot test to assess reliability of the instruments the teaching method used in the agriscience (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Reliability classes. Intact treatment groups were randomly coefficients for the content knowledge selected to receive either inquiry–based achievement instruments were calculated using instruction or the subject matter approach to Kuder–Richardson 20 (KR20) for dichotomous learning. The dependent variable in this study data (Gall et al., 1996). The seven instruments was student argumentation skill. The greatest were determined to have a coefficient alpha of: threat in this design type is that the differences .94, .93, .91, .86, .87, .89, and .91 respectively. found in the posttest are due to preexisting group A scoring rubric developed by Schen (2007) differences, rather than due to the treatment was utilized in the assessment of student (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). The use of multiple argumentation skills. The researcher scored each classroom settings in this study reduced the risk student response, assigning a score based on the of interaction of subjects, and the use of pretests quality of the response in the categories of claim of content knowledge addressed these concerns. made, grounds used, warrants given, Journal of Agricultural Education 61 Volume 53, Number 2, 2012 Thoron & Myers Effects of Inquiry–based… counterargument generated, and rebuttal offered. (1971) described mortality rates may be as high A panel of experts consisting of faculty from the as 50%. Agricultural Education and Communication Participant ethnicity was categorized into Department and the Educational Psychology groups of White (non–Hispanic) (n = 249, Department at the University of Florida 81.6%), Black (n = 13, 4.3%), Hispanic (n = 31, evaluated the researcher–developed rubric for 10.2%), and Other (n = 12, 3.9%). The ethnicity face and content validity and determined that the of each of the treatments was similar to the rubric was valid. After completion of the ethnicity of the entire sample. A majority researcher–scored response, an expert selected a (58.0%) of the participants in this study were random sample (subject–matter and inquiry– male. The treatment groups were similar to each based teaching) for a double blind review to other as inquiry–based instruction contained obtain inter–rater reliability. The inter–rater 57.6% male and subject matter (SM) contained reliability for the argumentation skills scores 58.5% male participants. Inquiry–based yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .81. instruction yielded 170 participants and subject matter contained 135 students. Findings Of the 305 participants who reported grade level data, 48.5% (n = 148) were in the ninth This study is part of a larger study grade. The remainder of the participants were conducted by the researcher. The results address either in tenth grade (n = 134, 44.0%), or the objectives and hypothesis of the study in eleventh grade (n = 23, 7.5%). There were no determining the influence of teaching method, twelfth–grade students in the study. Grade level gender, ethnicity, social economic status, and distribution by treatment groups varied little year in school on student argumentation skills. from that of the overall sample. Slightly more Objective one sought to describe the population than 50% of the students in the inquiry–based of the study. The total group consisted of 437 group were in the ninth grade as compared to students, ten teachers, totaling twenty–one intact approximately 45% in the subject matter group. classes, from ten schools across the United Thus, treatment groups were similar in terms of States. Three teachers opted out of the study grade level. noting health related issues or teaching Socio–economic status (SES) was reassignment. As a result of teachers being determined by eligibility to participate in the unable to deliver instruction, three schools national free and reduced school lunch program totaling 109 students were removed from the (Stone & Lane, 2003). Therefore, SES was study. Twenty–three students were removed categorized in groups of ineligible to participate, from the study due to missing 25% or more of eligible to receive reduced lunch, and eligible to instruction. receive free lunch. A majority of the students Audio recordings of the administered units participating in this study (n = 221, 72.5%) were were scored using the STIR rubric (Bodzin & ineligible to participate in the national school Cates, 2002) to determine the level of inquiry lunch program with 16.7% (n = 51) eligible to investigation by students in the inquiry–based receive a reduced price in the school lunch treatment group and that inquiry was not being program and the remainder (n = 33), 10.8% delivered in the traditional treatment group. It eligible to receive free lunch. The two treatment was determined that all seven teachers groups were similar in terms of SES. effectively delivered inquiry–based and subject Objective two sought to ascertain the effects matter instruction. After removal of participants of inquiry–based instruction on argumentation unable to complete the study and students skills of high school agriscience students. Each missing more than 25% of the instructional time, student’s content knowledge achievement was the data sample was 305 students. This equates determined using the researcher–developed to a 30.21% mortality rate for this study. content knowledge achievement instruments. Previous experimental studies in agricultural The maximum possible score on these education using intact classes reported similar or instruments was 100. Pretest data were collected higher mortality rates (Boone, 1988; Dyer, 1995; from 305 participants (100%). Inquiry–based Flowers, 1986; Myers, 2004) and Jurs and Glass instruction treatment group achieved similar mean content knowledge scores and similar Journal of Agricultural Education 62 Volume 53, Number 2, 2012 Thoron & Myers Effects of Inquiry–based… standard deviations as the subject matter treatment group (see Table 1). Table 1 Participant Mean Content Knowledge Pretest Scores (n = 305) Treatment Group IBI SM Total Instrument M SD M SD M SD 1 35.57 11.68 36.64 12.80 36.04 12.18 2 35.72 12.78 36.09 14.20 35.88 13.41 3 31.20 11.06 31.79 12.40 31.46 11.66 4 36.19 13.88 35.17 12.96 35.74 13.47 5 35.82 11.89 35.97 12.77 35.89 12.27 6 33.72 13.78 35.02 13.83 34.30 13.79 7 29.27 11.74 30.07 12.75 29.63 12.18 Note. IBI = Inquiry–based instruction; SM = Subject Matter The student argumentation skills instrument response rate for the argumentation instrument was used to determine the argumentation skills was 86.2%. The overall mean score of the of students following the treatments (subject argumentation skill instrument was 5.97 (SD = matter and inquiry–based instruction). The 1.79) of a possible 10 (see Table 2). The mean student argumentation skill ability of argumentation score was higher for the inquiry– participants was measured post–treatment using based instruction (M = 6.44, SD = 1.74) than for a rubric developed by Schen (2007). The subject matter instruction (M = 5.39, SD = 1.68). Table 2 Participant Mean Student Argumentation Skill Scores Treatment Group IBI (n = 147) SM (n = 116) Total (n = 263) Instrument M SD M SD M SD Argumentation Skills 6.44 1.74 5.39 1.68 5.97 1.79 Note. IBI = Inquiry–based instruction; SM = Subject Matter Objective three sought to examine the correlations were used to determine the relationship between argumentation skills, relationships between the variables (see Table ethnicity, gender, year in school, and socio– 3). Negligible correlations between all variables economic status of high school agriscience were found with the exception of the correlation students. Prior to any inferential analysis of the between treatment and argumentation skill data, all variables were examined for score. The relationship between the correlations. Terminology proposed by Davis argumentation skill score and treatment r = .30 (1971) was used to indicate the magnitude of the was found to be moderate. correlations. Pearson Product Moment Journal of Agricultural Education 63 Volume 53, Number 2, 2012 Thoron & Myers Effects of Inquiry–based… Table 3 Correlations Between Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Argumentation Skills Score –– .03 .16 .05 .14 .30 2. Grade –– .03 .04 .06 .04 3. Gender –– .03 .11 .01 4. Ethnicity –– .05 .01 5. SES –– .05 6. Treatment –– Note. Treatment = Teaching method utilized The null hypotheses states there is no covariance [F(127) = 30.23, p ≤ .001, r2 = .29] significant difference in student argumentation revealed significant differences in argumentation skills based on teaching method. Students’ skills at the alpha level of .05 between students argumentation skill score was calculated by the taught by the two teaching methods (see Table use of Schen’s (2007) rubric. Students taught 4). Based on these findings, the null hypothesis using inquiry–based instruction achieved a of no significant difference in student higher mean argumentation skill score (M = argumentation skills between the two groups 6.44) than students taught using the subject was rejected. matter approach. The univariate analysis of Table 4 Univariate Analysis of Treatment Effects for Argumentation Skills Source df F p r2 AS 2 30.23 ≤.001 .29 Note. AS = Argumentation Skills Conclusions 2. Relationships of variables: Student demographic variables yeilded low to Based on the results of this study there are negligible relationships with argumentation three conclusions. skill and treatment. However, treatment and argumentation skills had a moderate 1. Demographics: A majority (81.6%) of the relationship. students involved in this study were White, 3. Argumentation skills: Student scores were non–Hispanic. A majority (58%) of the calculated using Schen’s (2007) rubric. students in the study were male. Nearly half Students taught using inquiry–based (48.5%) of the students were in the ninth instruction achieved a mean score of 6.44 grade. The second largest grade level while students taught through the subject represented was the tenth grade (44%) matter approach achieved a mean score of followed by the remainder of the sample in 5.97. Therefore, students in the inquiry– the eleventh grade (7.5%). A majority of the based instruction scored higher than students students participating in the study did not in the subject matter group. A univariate qualify for free or reduced lunch programs analysis of covariance revealed significant (72.5%), while just over one–quarter of the differences in argumentation skills at the students were in lower socioeconomic alpha level of .05 between students taught groups. There were negligible variations by the two teaching methods thus the null across all the demographics for inquiry– hypothesis was rejected. It was concluded based and subject matter treatment groups. that inquiry–based instruction was more Thus equivalency of treatment groups was effective than subject matter instruction in established; the random assignment of developing argumentation skills. subjects to treatment group was effective. Journal of Agricultural Education 64 Volume 53, Number 2, 2012 Thoron & Myers Effects of Inquiry–based… Discussion/Implications Driver et al. (2000) wrote that argumentation ability is central to foundational The findings of this study support the work practices of science. Inquiry–based instruction of Keil, Haney, and Zoffel (2009) they found may lead to better qualified scientists and an that inquiry–based instruction contains multiple enhanced public understanding of science. dimensions of teaching and learning and leads Development of students with better learners to think critically without being critical argumentation skills will help supply or concerned with arriving only at a correct agriculturists to formulate better arguments that answer. It can be concluded that inquiry–based are supported by fact and yet enable instruction continues to focus on the ability to agriculturists to understand and assess counter explain the process examined in the claims to differing solutions to a problem. development of learner answers (Keil et al., 2009). Furthermore, inquiry–based instruction Recommendations seeks to capitalize on current student experiences and transfer those experiences to This study provides evidence of the new learning situations (NRC, 2000). effectiveness of inquiry–based instruction for Some research has reported that learners school–based agriscience education across the have difficulty distinguishing evidence from United States. Teacher educators will find the bias/fairness (Baron, 1991; Perkins, Farady, & study useful in the selection of teaching Bushey, 1991; Toplak & Stanovich, 2003). methods. The results of this study could assist Using inquiry–based instruction can increase agricultural educators by identifying key argumentation skills, which are a direct link to components to adapting curricula to inquiry– reasoning patterns and the ability to support their based instruction and the role that quality conclusions based on scientific data. Baron professional development has on student (1991) and Cerbin (1988) found that a pure argumentation in agriscience. Based on the traditional lecture–based teaching strategy findings of this study, the following creates learners who lack the ability to develop recommendations were made for teacher arguments with adequate evidence. While educators and curriculum developers in conclusions from this study cannot refute or secondary school education: support Boron’s and Cerbin’s claims, this study provided evidence that inquiry–based instruction 1. Because inquiry–based instruction is an is more effective than the subject matter effective method that promotes approach in the development of argumentation argumentation skills when delivered to skills. The findings of this study indicated that secondary school agriscience students, inquiry–based instruction increases the students’ teacher educators should model inquiry– ability to link evidence with claims. Inquiry– based instruction and incorporate based instruction may lead to learners being able argumentation skills. to be prepared for post–secondary education or 2. Teacher educators should provide in–service workplace careers (Kuhn, 1992) through the education opportunities for current teachers formation of stronger argumentation skills. on inquiry–based instruction and student This study supports that inquiry–based argumentation development. instruction is more supportive of the students’ 3. Inquiry–based curricula and lesson plans ability to satisfy the needs of individuals that use this form of instruction should be entering careers in agriculture, attending major developed to further the use of this teaching universities, or pursuing other postsecondary method. education endeavors. The NRC (1996) reported 4. Teacher educators should provide direct that employees in a highly competitive market instruction for the development of higher must have the ability to reason and provide scientific reasoning and argumentation skills developed arguments for or against the in their preservice program and provide conclusions they reached as they are solving professional development for in–service problems; inquiry–based instruction can help teachers. strengthen those arguments. Journal of Agricultural Education 65 Volume 53, Number 2, 2012 Thoron & Myers Effects of Inquiry–based… Based on the findings of this study, the different group of teachers and different following recommendations were made for content focus will add to the body of practitioners in secondary school agriscience knowledge for the profession. education: 2. A model for inquiry–based instruction integration is worthy of development due to 1. Strong consideration should be given to the identified effectiveness of this teaching attend the NATAA professional method. development workshops and learn inquiry– 3. Replication of this study comparing inquiry– based instruction. based instruction with other teaching 2. Agriscience courses should include direct methods may provide insight into how to instruction on argumentation skills. This best teach agriscience. instruction should include a focus on the 4. This study examined the effect of the development of the argumentation teaching methods on argumentation skills instrument in combination of agricultural following instruction. This study should be contextual problems that students support replicated to investigate the effects of these with research data they collect or review treatments on long–term retention of content from basic agriculture and science journals. knowledge achievement, argumentation skills, and scientific reasoning. While this study provides conclusions 5. This study did not assess student attitude regarding its objectives and hypothesis, the toward the methods of instruction or the study also developed recommendations for change in attitude toward science when further research, including: learning under inquiry–based instruction. Further research should be conducted to 1. More experimental studies are needed in determine how these teaching methods agricultural education investigating the best affect student attitude, motivation, and self– methods to teach agriscience education. efficacy. Replication of this study involving a References Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1023/A:1015171124982 Baron, J. (1991). Beliefs about thinking. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 169–186). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bodzin, A., & Beerer, K. (2003). Promoting inquiry–based science instruction: The validation of the Science Teacher Inquiry Rubric (STIR). Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(2), 39–49. doi: 10.1007/BF03173842 Bodzin, A., & Cates, W. (2002). Inquiry dot com. Web–based activities promote scientific inquiry learning. The Science Teacher, 69(9), 48–52. Boone, H. N., Jr. (1988). Effects of approach to teaching on student achievement, retention, and attitude (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. (2nd Ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi–experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Journal of Agricultural Education 66 Volume 53, Number 2, 2012 Thoron & Myers Effects of Inquiry–based… Center for Agricultural and Environmental Research and Training (CAERT). (2008). Ag Literacy Lesson Plan Library. Retrieved from http://www.caert.net/estore1/sample.asp Cerbin, B. (1988). The nature and development of informal reasoning skills in college students. Paper presented at the National Institute on Issues in Teaching and Learning, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED298805) Chiasson, T. C., & Burnett M. F. (2001). The influence of enrollment in agriscience courses on the science achievement of high school students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(1), 61–71. doi: 10.5032/jae.2001.01061 Claxton, G. (1991). Educating the enquiring mind: The challenge for school science. Harverster, UK: Wheatsheaf. Cooper, J., & Prescott, S. (1989, March). Cooperative learning: Kids helping kids, teachers helping teachers. Materials packet for higher education component of AACTE symposium. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED310 067) Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Englewood, NJ: Prentice–Hall. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098–237X(200005) Dyer, J. E. (1995). Effects of teaching approach on achievement, retention, and problem solving ability of Illinois agricultural education students with varying learning styles(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, IL. Flowers, J. L. (1986). Effects of problem solving approach on achievement, retention, and attitudes of vocational agriculture students in Illinois (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, IL. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman. Geddis, A. (1991). Improving the quality of classroom discourse on controversial issues. Science Education, 75, 169–183. doi: 10.1002/sec.3730750203 Hamlin, C. (1992). Reflexivity in technology studies: Toward a technology of technology (And Science)? Social Studies of Science, 22(3), 511–544. doi: 10.1177/0306312792022003004 Jimenez–Aleixandre, M. P., Bullgallo–Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (1997, March). Argument in high school genetics. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL. Jurs, S. G., & Glass, G. V. (1971). Experimental mortality. Journal of Experimental Education, 40, 62– 66. Keil, C., Haney, J., & Zoffel, J. (2009). Improvements in student achievement and science process skills using environmental health science problem–based learning curricula. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 13(1), 1–18. Retrieved from http://ejse.southwestern.edu Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155–178. Journal of Agricultural Education 67 Volume 53, Number 2, 2012