Characterizing Teachers' Verbal Scaffolds to Guide Elementary Students' Creation of Scientific Explanations (original) (raw)
Related papers
2004
We investigated the influence of scaffolding on students' scientific explanations over an eightweek middle school chemistry unit. Students received a focal lesson on an explanation framework and then completed investigation sheets containing explanation component scaffolds over the unit. Students received one of two treatments: Continuous, involving detailed scaffolds, or Faded, involving less supportive scaffolds over time. We analyzed their investigation sheets and pretests and posttests. During the unit, students in the Continuous treatment provided stronger explanations than those in the Faded treatment. Yet on the posttest for the items without scaffolds, the Faded group gave stronger explanations than the Continuous group for certain content areas. Scaffolding Scientific Explanations 3 Supporting Students' Construction of Scientific Explanations Using Scaffolded Curriculum Materials and Assessments Recent science reform efforts and standards documents advocate that students develop scientific inquiry practices (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1996). "Learning science involves young people entering into a different way of thinking about and explaining the natural world; becoming socialized to a greater or lesser extent into the practices of the scientific community with its particular purposes, ways of seeing, and ways of supporting its knowledge claims" (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994, p 8). One prominent inquiry practice in both the standards documents and research literature is the construction, analysis, and communication of scientific explanations. Although researchers cite explanations as important for classroom science, they are frequently omitted from classroom practice (Kuhn, 1993; Newton, Driver & Osborne 1999) and few research studies have examined the effectiveness of instructional practices in helping students construct explanations (Reznitskaya & Anderson, 2002). Our work focuses on an eight-week standards-based chemistry curriculum designed to support seventh grade students in their construction of scientific explanations. We investigated the effects of instructional and assessment scaffolds aimed at helping students construct scientific explanations. The Importance of Scientific Explanations Explanation construction is essential for science classroom practice for a variety of reasons. Research into scientists' practices portrays a picture where scientists construct arguments or explanations including weighing evidence, interpreting text, and evaluating claims (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000). Previous research in science education demonstrates that students who engage in explanation change or refine their image of science as well as enhance their understanding of the nature of science (Bell & Linn, 2000). Scientific explanations frame the goal of inquiry as understanding natural phenomenon, and articulating and convincing others of that understanding (Sandoval and Reiser, 1997). Lastly, constructing explanations can enhance students' understandings of the science content (Driver, Newton & Osborne, 2000). A deep understanding of science content is characterized by the ability to explain phenomena (Barron et. al. 1998). The science standards documents also reflect the importance of incorporating explanation in students' learning of science (
Journal of The Learning Sciences, 2006
The purpose of this study is to determine whether providing students with continuous written instructional support or fading written instructional support (scaffolds) better prepares students to construct scientific explanations when they are no longer provided with support. We investigated the influence of scaffolding on 331 7th grade students' writing of scientific explanations during an 8-week project-based chemistry unit in which the construction of scientific explanations is a key learning goal. The unit makes an instructional model for explanation explicit to students through a focal lesson and reinforces that model through subsequent written support for each investigation. Students received one of two treatments in terms of the type of written support: Continuous, involving detailed support for every investigation, or Faded, involving less support over time. Our analyses showed significant learning gains for students for all components of scientific explanation (i.e. claim, evidence, and reasoning). Yet on posttest items lacking scaffolds, the Faded group gave stronger explanations in terms of their reasoning compared to the Continuous group. Fading written scaffolds better equipped students to write explanations when they were not provided with support.
This paper reports on the design and enactment of an instructional strategy aimed to support students in constructing scientific explanations. Informed by the philosophy of science and linguistic studies of science, a new instructional framework called premise–reasoning–outcome (PRO) was conceptualized, developed, and tested over two years in four upper secondary (9th–10th grade) physics and chemistry classrooms. This strategy was conceptualized based on the understanding of the structure of a scientific explanation, which comprises three primary components: (a) premise – accepted knowledge that provides the basis of the explanation, (b) reasoning – logical sequences that follow from the premise, and (c) outcome – the phenomenon to be explained. A study was carried out to examine how the PRO strategy influenced students’ written explanations using multiple data sources (e.g. students’ writing, lesson observations, focus group discussions). Analysis of students’ writing indicates that explanations with a PRO structure were graded better by the teachers. In addition, students reported that the PRO strategy provided a useful organizational structure for writing scientific explanations, although they had some difficulties in identifying and using the structure. With the PRO as a new instructional tool, comparison with other explanation frameworks as well as implications for educational research and practice are discussed.
Verbal explanations given by science teachers: Their nature and implications
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1992
The purpose of this study was to explore the nature of explanations used by science teachers in junior high school classrooms. Studies on explanation in education, philosophy of science, and everyday discourse were consulted. Twenty public school teachers participated in the study. The analysis was based on observations of 40 class periods during which the classroom discourse was audiotaped and later transcribed. Using the constant comparative method in analyzing the transcripts, 10 types of explanations were generated. These explanations were labeled analogical, anthropomorphic, functional, genetic, mechanical, metaphysical, practical, rational, tautological, and teleological. These 10 types were conceptually related to one another by subsuming them under more encompassing literature-based categories.
While research has shown that elementary (K-5) students are capable of engaging in the scientific practice of explanation construction, commonly-used elementary science curriculum materials may not always afford them opportunities to do so. As a result, elementary teachers must often adapt their science curriculum materials to better support students' explanation construction and foster student sense making. However, little research has been conducted to explore if and, if so, how and why, elementary teachers modify science curriculum materials to engage students in explanation construction. We use an embedded mixed methods research design to explore elementary teachers' (n ¼ 45) curricular adaptations and pedagogical reasoning. We collected and quantitatively analyzed a matched set of 121 elementary science lesson plans and video recorded lesson enactments to investigate the extent to which inservice elementary teachers engage in instruction to more productively support students' explanation construction. Our findings suggest that the curriculum materials heavily emphasized hands-on engagement and data collection over explanation construction and that the teachers' adaptations did not fundamentally alter scientific sense-making opportunities afforded students in the lesson plans. Interviews and other artifacts were also collected and analyzed to construct a multiple-case study of four of these elementary teachers. Findings from the case study suggest that the teachers' conceptions of explanation construction and concerns about the abilities of their students to engage in scientific explanations impacted their curricular adaptations.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2008
Teacher practices are essential for supporting students in scientific inquiry practices, such as the construction of scientific explanations. In this study, we examine what instructional practices teachers engage in when they introduce scientific explanation and whether these practices influence students' ability to construct scientific explanations during a middle school chemistry unit. Thirteen teachers enacted a project-based chemistry unit, How can I make new stuff from old stuff?, with 1197 seventh grade students. We videotaped each teacher's enactment of the focal lesson on scientific explanation and then coded the videotape for four different instructional practices: modeling scientific explanation, making the rationale of scientific explanation explicit, defining scientific explanation, and connecting scientific explanation to everyday explanation. Our results suggest that when teachers introduce scientific explanation, they vary in the practices they engage in as well as the quality of their use of these practices. We also found that teachers' use of instructional practices can influence student learning of scientific explanation and that the effect of these instructional practices depends on the context in terms of what other instructional practices the teacher uses. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 45: 53–78, 2008
Constructing Scientific Explanations: a System of Analysis for Students’ Explanations
Research in Science Education, 2017
This article describes a system of analysis aimed at characterizing students' scientific explanations. Science education literature and reform documents have been highlighting the importance of scientific explanations for students' conceptual understanding and for their understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, and despite general agreement regarding the potential of having students construct their own explanations, a consensual notion of scientific explanation has still not been reached. As a result, within science education literature, there are several frameworks defining scientific explanations, with different foci as well as different notions of what accounts as a good explanation. Considering this, and based on a more ample project, we developed a system of analysis to characterize students' explanations. It was conceptualized and developed based on theories and models of scientific explanations, science education literature, and from examples of students' explanations collected by an open-ended questionnaire. With this paper, it is our goal to present the system of analysis, illustrating it with specific examples of students' collected explanations. In addition, we expect to point out its adequacy and utility for analyzing and characterizing students' scientific explanations as well as for tracing their progression.