Learning to teach elementary school science as argument
Sci Ed 1-33, 2009
Carla Zembal-Saul
New views of proficiency in K-8 science that highlight the importance of engaging children in the discourses and practices of science have raised the stakes for elementary teachers and the teacher educators who prepare them. In this paper, a framework for teaching science as argument is presented. The framework is advanced as a means of addressing problems of practices faced by preservice teachers, creating coherence for the design of teacher education experiences, and serving as a tool for shaping a design-based research agenda. Findings of three research studies that examined preservice teachers' developing understandings and practices for teaching science as argument and the ways in which teacher education experiences mediated learning are synthesized. Across the studies, findings suggest that the framework serves as a powerful scaffold for preservice teachers' developing thinking and practice. More specifically, early attention to evidence and argument can leverage other important aspects of effective science teaching, such as attention to classroom discourse and the role of the teacher in monitoring and assessing children's thinking. In closing, a case is made for coherence among science learning opportunities, learning to teach science experiences, and field experiences.
Showing posts with label argumentation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label argumentation. Show all posts
2009-04-28
2009-02-23
Kapon Ganiel Eylon - IJSE 2009
Explaining the Unexplainable: Translated Scientific Explanations (TSE) in public physics lectures
International Journal of Science Education online
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690802566632
Shulamit Kapon; Uri Ganiel; Bat Sheva Eylon
This paper deals with the features and design of explanations in public physics lectures. It presents the findings from a comparative study of three exemplary public physics lectures, given by practicing physicists who are acknowledged as excellent public lecturers. The study uses three different perspectives: the lecture, the lecturer, and the audience (high school physics teachers and students). It concludes with a grounded theory explanatory framework for public physics lectures. The framework demonstrates that a “Translated Scientific Explanation” (TSE) draws upon four clusters of explanatory categories: analogical approach, story, knowledge organization, and content. The framework suggests how the lecturer fits the content of the presentation to the audience's knowledge throughout the lecture, taking into account the listeners' lack of necessary prior knowledge.
International Journal of Science Education online
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690802566632
Shulamit Kapon; Uri Ganiel; Bat Sheva Eylon
This paper deals with the features and design of explanations in public physics lectures. It presents the findings from a comparative study of three exemplary public physics lectures, given by practicing physicists who are acknowledged as excellent public lecturers. The study uses three different perspectives: the lecture, the lecturer, and the audience (high school physics teachers and students). It concludes with a grounded theory explanatory framework for public physics lectures. The framework demonstrates that a “Translated Scientific Explanation” (TSE) draws upon four clusters of explanatory categories: analogical approach, story, knowledge organization, and content. The framework suggests how the lecturer fits the content of the presentation to the audience's knowledge throughout the lecture, taking into account the listeners' lack of necessary prior knowledge.
2009-01-15
Inglis Mejia-Ramos - C&I 2009
The Effect of Authority on the Persuasiveness of Mathematical Arguments
Cognition and Instruction Volume 27, Number 1 (January 2009)
Matthew Inglis, Juan Pablo Mejia-Ramos
Three experiments are reported that investigate the extent to which an authority figure influences the level of persuasion undergraduate students and research-active mathematicians invest in mathematical arguments. We demonstrate that, in some situations, both students and researchers rate arguments as being more persuasive when they are associated with an expert mathematician than when the author is anonymous. We develop a model that accounts for these data by suggesting that, for both students and researchers, an authority figure only plays a role when there is already some uncertainty about the argument's mathematical status. Implications for pedagogy, and for future research, are discussed.
Cognition and Instruction Volume 27, Number 1 (January 2009)
Matthew Inglis, Juan Pablo Mejia-Ramos
Three experiments are reported that investigate the extent to which an authority figure influences the level of persuasion undergraduate students and research-active mathematicians invest in mathematical arguments. We demonstrate that, in some situations, both students and researchers rate arguments as being more persuasive when they are associated with an expert mathematician than when the author is anonymous. We develop a model that accounts for these data by suggesting that, for both students and researchers, an authority figure only plays a role when there is already some uncertainty about the argument's mathematical status. Implications for pedagogy, and for future research, are discussed.
2008-12-19
Kapon Ganiel Eylon - Physics Education 2009
Scientific argumentation in public physics lectures: bringing contemporary physics into high-school teaching
Phys. Educ. 44 33-38 doi: 10.1088/0031-9120/44/1/004
S Kapon, U Ganiel and B Eylon
This article presents an approach to integrating public e-lectures on contemporary physics into a traditional high-school syllabus. This approach was used in a long-distance professional development course for in-service physics teachers. Each lecture was related to a specific obligatory syllabus chapter, and was accompanied by learner-centred activities. We provide a detailed description of an activity that explicates the scientific arguments that were presented in the lectures. Teachers appreciated the approach and reported that the lectures and activities updated and broadened their knowledge of physics and contributed to their understanding of the nature of science (NOS).
Phys. Educ. 44 33-38 doi: 10.1088/0031-9120/44/1/004
S Kapon, U Ganiel and B Eylon
This article presents an approach to integrating public e-lectures on contemporary physics into a traditional high-school syllabus. This approach was used in a long-distance professional development course for in-service physics teachers. Each lecture was related to a specific obligatory syllabus chapter, and was accompanied by learner-centred activities. We provide a detailed description of an activity that explicates the scientific arguments that were presented in the lectures. Teachers appreciated the approach and reported that the lectures and activities updated and broadened their knowledge of physics and contributed to their understanding of the nature of science (NOS).
2008-11-24
Nussbaum Sinatra Poliquin - IJSE 2008
Role of Epistemic Beliefs and Scientific Argumentation in Science Learning
International Journal of Science Education, Volume 30, Issue 15 December 2008 , pages 1977 - 1999
E. Michael Nussbaum; Gale M. Sinatra; Anne Poliquin
We hypothesized that instruction in the criteria of scientific arguments, in combination with constructivist epistemic beliefs, would produce greater learning about physics concepts. The study was a randomized experiment, where college undergraduates (n = 88) discussed, in pairs over the Web, several physics problems related to gravity and air resistance. Prior to their discussions, one-half of the dyads received information on the nature of scientific arguments. All students were classified epistemologically as relativists, multiplists, or evaluativists. We found that students in the treatment group incorporated more scientific criteria into their discussion notes and accordingly developed better arguments on several dimensions. In addition, significantly more participants in the treatment group adopted the correct answer to one of the problems. Outcomes also differed in relation to students' epistemic beliefs. Specifically, multiplists were less critical of inconsistencies and misconceptions, and interacted with their partners less than other belief groups, whereas evaluativists interacted more critically, bringing up different ideas from their partners. Evaluativists also solved one of the physics problems more accurately and tended to demonstrate a reduction in misconceptions. We discuss the results in light of instruction in scientific argumentation, conceptual development and change, and epistemic beliefs.
International Journal of Science Education, Volume 30, Issue 15 December 2008 , pages 1977 - 1999
E. Michael Nussbaum; Gale M. Sinatra; Anne Poliquin
We hypothesized that instruction in the criteria of scientific arguments, in combination with constructivist epistemic beliefs, would produce greater learning about physics concepts. The study was a randomized experiment, where college undergraduates (n = 88) discussed, in pairs over the Web, several physics problems related to gravity and air resistance. Prior to their discussions, one-half of the dyads received information on the nature of scientific arguments. All students were classified epistemologically as relativists, multiplists, or evaluativists. We found that students in the treatment group incorporated more scientific criteria into their discussion notes and accordingly developed better arguments on several dimensions. In addition, significantly more participants in the treatment group adopted the correct answer to one of the problems. Outcomes also differed in relation to students' epistemic beliefs. Specifically, multiplists were less critical of inconsistencies and misconceptions, and interacted with their partners less than other belief groups, whereas evaluativists interacted more critically, bringing up different ideas from their partners. Evaluativists also solved one of the physics problems more accurately and tended to demonstrate a reduction in misconceptions. We discuss the results in light of instruction in scientific argumentation, conceptual development and change, and epistemic beliefs.
2008-11-07
Sampson Clark - Science Education 2008
The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation
Science Education 1-37, 2008
Victor Sampson, Douglas Clark
This study examines three questions about the impact of collaboration during scientific argumentation. First, do groups craft better arguments than individuals? Second, to what degree do individuals adopt and internalize the arguments crafted by their group? Third, do individuals who work in groups learn more from their experiences than individuals who work on their own? To examine these questions, 168 high school chemistry students were randomly assigned, using a matched pair design to collaborative or individual argumentation conditions. Students in both treatment conditions first completed a task that required them to produce an argument articulating and justifying an explanation for a discrepant event. The students then completed mastery and transfer problems on their own. The results of this study indicate that (a) groups of students did not produce better arguments than students who worked alone, (b) a substantial proportion of the students adopted at least some elements of their group's argument, and (c) students from the collaborative condition demonstrated superior performance on the mastery and transfer problems. These observations indicate that collaboration was beneficial for individual learning but not for initial performance on the task. The study concludes with a discussion of these observations and recommendations for future research.
Science Education 1-37, 2008
Victor Sampson, Douglas Clark
This study examines three questions about the impact of collaboration during scientific argumentation. First, do groups craft better arguments than individuals? Second, to what degree do individuals adopt and internalize the arguments crafted by their group? Third, do individuals who work in groups learn more from their experiences than individuals who work on their own? To examine these questions, 168 high school chemistry students were randomly assigned, using a matched pair design to collaborative or individual argumentation conditions. Students in both treatment conditions first completed a task that required them to produce an argument articulating and justifying an explanation for a discrepant event. The students then completed mastery and transfer problems on their own. The results of this study indicate that (a) groups of students did not produce better arguments than students who worked alone, (b) a substantial proportion of the students adopted at least some elements of their group's argument, and (c) students from the collaborative condition demonstrated superior performance on the mastery and transfer problems. These observations indicate that collaboration was beneficial for individual learning but not for initial performance on the task. The study concludes with a discussion of these observations and recommendations for future research.
2008-11-05
Cross - IJSME 2008
Creating Optimal Mathematics Learning Environments: Combining Argumentation And Writing To Enhance Achievement
Int.J. Science and Math Education
Dionne I. Cross
The issue of mathematics underachievement among students has been an increasing international concern over the last few decades. Research suggests that academic success can be achieved by focusing on both the individual and social aspects of learning. Within the area of mathematics education, the development of metacognitive skills and the incorporation of discourse in classroom instruction has resulted in students having deeper conceptual understandings of the content and increased mathematical achievement. However, studies in this field tend to focus on the effects of these practices separately, making research that seeks to harness the potential of both quite rare. This paper reports on a study that was aimed at addressing this gap in the literature by examining the effects of writing and argumentation on achievement. Two hundred and eleven students and five teachers participated in this multimethod study that investigated the effects of three treatment conditions on mathematical achievement. These conditions were writing alone, argumentation alone, and writing and argumentation combined. Analysis of covariance revealed significant differences between the groups, and tests of the contrasts showed that students who engaged in both argumentation and writing had greater knowledge gains than students who engaged in argumentation alone or neither activity.
Int.J. Science and Math Education
Dionne I. Cross
The issue of mathematics underachievement among students has been an increasing international concern over the last few decades. Research suggests that academic success can be achieved by focusing on both the individual and social aspects of learning. Within the area of mathematics education, the development of metacognitive skills and the incorporation of discourse in classroom instruction has resulted in students having deeper conceptual understandings of the content and increased mathematical achievement. However, studies in this field tend to focus on the effects of these practices separately, making research that seeks to harness the potential of both quite rare. This paper reports on a study that was aimed at addressing this gap in the literature by examining the effects of writing and argumentation on achievement. Two hundred and eleven students and five teachers participated in this multimethod study that investigated the effects of three treatment conditions on mathematical achievement. These conditions were writing alone, argumentation alone, and writing and argumentation combined. Analysis of covariance revealed significant differences between the groups, and tests of the contrasts showed that students who engaged in both argumentation and writing had greater knowledge gains than students who engaged in argumentation alone or neither activity.
2008-08-27
McNeill - Science Education 2008
Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena
Sci Ed 1-36, 2008
Katherine L. McNeill
The role of the teacher is essential for students' successful engagement in scientific inquiry practices. This study focuses on teachers' use of an 8-week chemistry curriculum that explicitly supports students in one particular inquiry practice, the construction of scientific arguments to explain phenomena in which students justify their claims using evidence and reasoning. Participants included 6 teachers and 568 students. Videotapes, teacher questionnaires, and student pre- and posttests were analyzed to develop case studies that characterized the support the teachers provided their students for scientific argumentation and subsequent student learning. Patterns from the case studies suggest that one particular instructional practice, the way teachers defined scientific argumentation, characterized teachers' support and influenced the other practices they used in their classrooms. In some cases, the teachers' definitions of scientific argumentation did not align with the intended learning goal in the curriculum materials. These teachers' greater simplification of this complex inquiry practice resulted in decreased learning gains in terms of students' ability to write scientific arguments to explain phenomena using appropriate evidence and reasoning. Educative curriculum materials can have a positive impact on teachers' classroom support for scientific argumentation, but how the teachers use these materials influences student learning.
Sci Ed 1-36, 2008
Katherine L. McNeill
The role of the teacher is essential for students' successful engagement in scientific inquiry practices. This study focuses on teachers' use of an 8-week chemistry curriculum that explicitly supports students in one particular inquiry practice, the construction of scientific arguments to explain phenomena in which students justify their claims using evidence and reasoning. Participants included 6 teachers and 568 students. Videotapes, teacher questionnaires, and student pre- and posttests were analyzed to develop case studies that characterized the support the teachers provided their students for scientific argumentation and subsequent student learning. Patterns from the case studies suggest that one particular instructional practice, the way teachers defined scientific argumentation, characterized teachers' support and influenced the other practices they used in their classrooms. In some cases, the teachers' definitions of scientific argumentation did not align with the intended learning goal in the curriculum materials. These teachers' greater simplification of this complex inquiry practice resulted in decreased learning gains in terms of students' ability to write scientific arguments to explain phenomena using appropriate evidence and reasoning. Educative curriculum materials can have a positive impact on teachers' classroom support for scientific argumentation, but how the teachers use these materials influences student learning.
2008-06-19
Fortus - Science Education 2008
The importance of learning to make assumptions
Sci Ed 1-23, 2008
David Fortus
Making assumptions is an important step in solving many real-world problems. This study investigated whether participants who could solve well-defined physics problems could also solve a real-world physics problem that involved the need to make assumptions. The participants, who all had at least a BA in physics, were videotaped thinking aloud while solving three well-defined and one real-world problem and then interviewed about the problem-solving process. All the problems dealt with the same scientific content. The recordings were analyzed to identify similarities and differences in the ways the problems were solved and to see which steps in the solution of the problems posed the greatest cognitive difficulty for each participant. Results indicate that (a) the process of making the constraining assumptions needed to convert the real-world problem into a well-defined one was the most difficult step for all, and (b) only the participants who had prior experience making constraining assumptions were able to make the needed assumptions and solve the real-world problem. These findings suggest a need to support physics students develop this important skill.
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20295
Sci Ed 1-23, 2008
David Fortus
Making assumptions is an important step in solving many real-world problems. This study investigated whether participants who could solve well-defined physics problems could also solve a real-world physics problem that involved the need to make assumptions. The participants, who all had at least a BA in physics, were videotaped thinking aloud while solving three well-defined and one real-world problem and then interviewed about the problem-solving process. All the problems dealt with the same scientific content. The recordings were analyzed to identify similarities and differences in the ways the problems were solved and to see which steps in the solution of the problems posed the greatest cognitive difficulty for each participant. Results indicate that (a) the process of making the constraining assumptions needed to convert the real-world problem into a well-defined one was the most difficult step for all, and (b) only the participants who had prior experience making constraining assumptions were able to make the needed assumptions and solve the real-world problem. These findings suggest a need to support physics students develop this important skill.
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20295
2008-03-18
Bricker Bell - Science Education 2008
Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education
Sci Ed 1-26, 2008
Leah A. Bricker, Philip Bell
Argumentation has become an increasingly recognized focus for science instruction---as a learning process, as an outcome associated with the appropriation of scientific discourse, and as a window onto the epistemic work of science. Only a small set of theoretical conceptualizations of argumentation have been deployed and investigated in science education, however, while a plethora of conceptualizations have been developed in the interdisciplinary fields associated with science studies and the learning sciences. This paper attempts to review a range of such theoretical conceptualizations of argumentation and discuss the possible implications for the orchestration of science education; the goal being that the science education research community might consider a broader range of argumentation forms and roles in conjunction with the learning of science.
Sci Ed 1-26, 2008
Leah A. Bricker, Philip Bell
Argumentation has become an increasingly recognized focus for science instruction---as a learning process, as an outcome associated with the appropriation of scientific discourse, and as a window onto the epistemic work of science. Only a small set of theoretical conceptualizations of argumentation have been deployed and investigated in science education, however, while a plethora of conceptualizations have been developed in the interdisciplinary fields associated with science studies and the learning sciences. This paper attempts to review a range of such theoretical conceptualizations of argumentation and discuss the possible implications for the orchestration of science education; the goal being that the science education research community might consider a broader range of argumentation forms and roles in conjunction with the learning of science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)