The Analysis of Classroom Discourse: Elementary School Science Curricula Advancing Reasoning With Evidence (original) (raw)
Related papers
Science and Teaching Reasoning
Argumentation, 2001
These papers all had their origin in meetings of the Informal Logic and Critical Thinking held at American Philosophical Association conventions in 1995Association conventions in , 1996Association conventions in and 1997. I invited people who had, in my opinion, done some of the most interesting work in philosophy of science, history of science, and science studies to reflect on a simple question: What would our teaching of informal logic, critical thinking, or scientific reasoning look like if we took seriously some of the challenging work done in philosophy of science, history of science, and science studies in the last generation? The papers presented here are not part of any single movement, and my discussing them together should not mask significant areas of disagreement and divergence of approach. All share a concern for improving the teaching of reasoning by taking seriously recent philosophy of science, but what lessons they draw vary widely.
A Framework for Analyzing Evidence-Based Reasoning in Science Classroom Discourse
Educational Assessment, 2010
Although students' ability to participate in scientific argumentation is considered a major objective of science education, analyses of classroom discourse have revealed that unsupported conjectures are prevalent in elementary school and even in secondary school (e.g., . This paper combines and extends prior work on student-reasoning frameworks to develop a new analytic tool for reasoning in science classroom discourse. The instrument, Evidence-Based Reasoning in Science Classroom Discourse, is intended to provide a means for measuring the quality of student reasoning in whole-class discussions, capturing teachers' and students' co-constructed reasoning about scientific phenomena. This paper describes the features of the instrument, illustrates how it can be applied to an instance of classroom reasoning, discusses its strengths and weaknesses, and makes recommendations for future analyses. Its significance lies in presenting a new analytic approach to assessing students' ability to reason in classroom discourse.
An Examination of Children’s Scientific Argumentation
AIP Conference Proceedings, 2004
This paper describes preliminary results of the analysis of a subset of data in which third grade children argue about how current travels through a simple circuit in a whole-class discussion. A model of four distinct patterns of argumentation among these eight-year-old children is proposed and described in this discussion.
Individual Differences in Children’s Scientific Reasoning
Education Sciences
Scientific reasoning is an important skill that encompasses hypothesizing, experimenting, inferencing, evaluating data and drawing conclusions. Previous research found consistent inter- and intra-individual differences in children’s ability to perform these component skills, which are still largely unaccounted for. This study examined these differences and the role of three predictors: reading comprehension, numerical ability and problem-solving skills. A sample of 160 upper-primary schoolchildren completed a practical scientific reasoning task that gauged their command of the five component skills and did not require them to read. In addition, children took standardized tests of reading comprehension and numerical ability and completed the Tower of Hanoi task to measure their problem-solving skills. As expected, children differed substantially from one another. Generally, scores were highest for experimenting, lowest for evaluating data and drawing conclusions and intermediate for ...
Scientific Reasoning in School Contexts
1994
This study investigates the fate of claims made by middle school science students working in collaborative groups in a multicultural urban classroom and the concomitant effects on engagement and understanding. Given problems of a complex and open-ended nature in a learning community setting, students were challenged to establish group positions and to explain these positions to the classroom community. In the negotiation and collective validation processes that ensued, consensus as the basis of acceptability was held as the standard. Individual claims often became the claims of groups of students as the class worked together to separate data from "noise". The study shows how groups of students and individuals within groups came to understand a number of science concepts relating to the kinetic molecular theory and how their understanding related to the ongoing bargaining process surrounding roles within each group. The researchers noted that students who were active in a wide range of group negotiations tended to develop deeper and more meaningful understandings of concepts, while less active students displayed a more limited understanding characterized by their ritualized use of scientific language. Student working groups each established its own unique patterns of interaction which often served the social aims of some group members. In general, collaborative activities appeared to best serve students who were already academically successful. (Author)
Secondary Students' Development of Scientific Arguments: Shifts Happen
2019
While scientific argumentation in central to examining and evaluating how data transforms into explanations of phenomena, few students have the opportunities to do so. The claims-evidence-reasoning (CER) framework has been productive in helping students develop strong scientific arguments, but students who use this framework often do not provide adequate/sufficient evidence or reasoning to support the claims they make when explaining phenomena. In this mixed methods case study, we examine students' written responses to a series of CER-scaffolded activities to investigate how their constructed claims, evidence and reasoning statements change over time, and to identify features (or types of implementations) of the activities that may have contributed to those changes.
International Journal of Science Education, 2012
Just as scientific knowledge is constructed using distinct modes of inquiry (e.g., experimental or historical), arguments constructed during science instruction may vary depending on the mode of inquiry underlying the topic. The purpose of this study was to examine whether and how secondary science teachers construct scientific arguments during instruction differently for topics that rely on experimental or historical modes of inquiry. Four experienced high school science teachers were observed daily during instructional units for both experimental and historical science topics. The main data sources include classroom observations and teacher interviews. The arguments were analyzed using Toulmin's argumentation pattern revealing specific patterns of arguments in teaching topics relying on these two modes of scientific inquiry. The teachers presented arguments to their students that were rather simple in structure but relatively authentic to the two different modes. The teachers used far more evidence in teaching topics based on historical inquiry than topics based on experimental inquiry. However, the differences were implicit in their teaching. Furthermore, their arguments did not portray the dynamic nature of science. Very few rebuttals or qualifiers were provided as the teachers were presenting their claims as if the data led straightforward to the claim. Implications for classroom practice and research are discussed.
Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation: Advancing an Interdisciplinary Research Agenda in Education
Scientific reasoning and scientific argumentation are highly valued outcomes of K-12 and higher education. In this article, we first review main topics and key findings of three different strands of research, namely research on the development of scientific reasoning, research on scientific argumentation, and research on approaches to support scientific reasoning and argumentation. Building on these findings, we outline current research deficits and address five aspects that exemplify where and how research on scientific reasoning and argumentation needs to be expanded. In particular, we suggest to ground future research in a conceptual framework with three epistemic modes (advancing theory building about natural and social phenomena, artefact-centred scientific reasoning, and science-based reasoning in practice) and eight epistemic activities (problem identification, questioning, hypothesis generation, construction and redesign of artefacts, evidence 2. Key Findings of Previous Research 2.1 Development of Scientific Reasoning Research on scientific reasoning amongst laypeople has its roots in developmental psychology. Inhelder and Piaget (1958) assumed that scientific rationality was a model of the ideal human reasoning, that is, a person who reflects on theories, builds hypothetical models of reality, critically and exhaustively tests for all possible main and interaction effects between variables, and objectively and systematically evaluates evidence with respect to a claim. In a series of studies they showed that the scientific reasoning of preadolescent children was severely deficient, whereas significant improvement took place in adolescence. These findings led them to claim the stage of "formal operational thought" as the highest stage of cognitive development. This view has since been heavily criticised, as it neither adequately captures adult reasoning nor its development (Kuhn & Franklin, 2006). Neither the lay adult nor professional scientists conform to a model of domain-general, ideal scientific rationality. Rather, adult reasoning abilities are heavily dependent on domain-specific knowledge and context (e.g., Kruglanski & Gigerenzer, 2011). This is found for laypersons, but professional scientists