LAUSR

This study focuses on how the quality of students’ arguments and their conceptions of data and evidence change as a result of experiencing two types of laboratory courses, one employing a scripted inquiry approach and the other employing argument-driven inquiry. The analysis explores the connections between students’ conceptions of data and evidence and how the development of those conceptions may be influenced by the nature of the instruction they received, and further explores the connections between students’ conceptions of data and evidence and how those ideas manifest in the changes in students’ arguments related to socioscientific issues (SSI). Results indicate that students experiencing argument-driven inquiry generated higher quality SSI arguments postintervention when compared to the scripted inquiry group. Additionally, the students’ conceptions of data shifted toward more empirical and scientific notions of data being generated through systemic investigation. Students’ conceptions of evidence were influenced by the instruction they received, with students in the argument-driven inquiry group developing more nuanced descriptions of evidence as being integral to supporting claims and arguments. Implications related to laboratory instruction and supporting students’ development of science literacy are discussed.