More Like this

1. Using an Observation Protocol To Evaluate Student Argumentation Skills in Introductory Biology Laboratories

   https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00209-22  

   Clevenger, Lindsey ; Teshera-Levye, Jennifer ; Walker, Joi P. ; Vance-Chalcraft, Heather D. ( August 2023 , Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education)

   Shaffer, Justin (Ed.)

   ABSTRACT Argumentation is vital in the development of scientific knowledge, and students who can argue from evidence and support their claims develop a deeper understanding of science. In this study, the Argument-Driven Inquiry instruction model was implemented in a two-semester sequence of introductory biology laboratories. Student’s scientific argumentation sessions were video recorded and analyzed using the Assessment of Scientific Argumentation in the Classroom observation protocol. This protocol separates argumentation into three subcategories: cognitive (how the group develops understanding), epistemic (how consistent the group’s process is with the culture of science), and social (how the group members interact with each other). We asked whether students are equally skilled in all subcategories of argumentation and how students’ argumentation skills differ based on lab exercise and course. Students scored significantly higher on the social than the cognitive and epistemic subcategories of argumentation. Total argumentation scores were significantly different between the two focal investigations in Biology Laboratory I but not between the two focal investigations in Biology Laboratory II. Therefore, student argumentation skills were not consistent across content; the design of the lab exercises and their implementation impacted the level of argumentation that occurred. These results will ultimately aid in the development and expansion of Argument-Driven Inquiry instructional models, with the goal of further enhancing students’ scientific argumentation skills and understanding of science. 

   more » « less
2. Teachers' framing of argumentation goals: Working together to develop individual versus communal understanding

   https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21530  

   González‐Howard, María ; McNeill, Katherine L. ( January 2019 , Journal of Research in Science Teaching)

   For students to meaningfully engage in science practices, substantive changes need to occur to deeply entrenched instructional approaches, particularly those related to classroom discourse. Because teachers are critical in establishing how students are permitted to interact in the classroom, it is imperative to examine their role in fostering learning environments in which students carry out science practices. This study explores how teachers describe, or frame, expectations for classroom discussions pertaining to the science practice of argumentation. Specifically, we use the theoretical lens of a participation framework to examine how teachers emphasize particular actions and goals for their students' argumentation. Multiple‐case study methodology was used to explore the relationship between two middle school teachers' framing for argumentation, and their students' engagement in an argumentation discussion. Findings revealed that, through talk moves and physical actions, both teachers emphasized the importance of students driving the argumentation and interacting with peers, resulting in students engaging in various types of dialogic interactions. However, variation in the two teachers' language highlighted different purposes for students to do so. One teacher explained that through these interactions, students could learn from peers, which could result in each individual student revising their original argument. The other teacher articulated that by working with peers and sharing ideas, classroom members would develop a communal understanding. These distinct goals aligned with different patterns in students' argumentation discussion, particularly in relation to students building on each other's ideas, which occurred more frequently in the classroom focused on communal understanding. The findings suggest the need to continue supporting teachers in developing and using rich instructional strategies to help students with dialogic interactions related to argumentation. This work also sheds light on the importance of how teachers frame the goals for student engagement in this science practice.

    

   more » « less
3. Learning in a community of practice: Factors impacting english‐learning students' engagement in scientific argumentation

   https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21310  

   González‐Howard, María ; McNeill, Katherine L. ( January 2016 , Journal of Research in Science Teaching)

   Recent education reform efforts have included an increasing push for school science to better mirror authentic scientific endeavor, including a focus on science practices. However, despite expectations that all students engage in these language‐rich practices, little prior research has focused on how such opportunities will be created for English‐learning students. This case study uses the conceptual framework of communities of practice to investigate the relationship between English‐learning students' argumentation and their middle school sheltered English immersion (SEI) science classroom community. Considering various aspects of this conceptual framework—including the role of legitimate peripheral participation, as well as the degree to which community members' goals and expectations around the practice of interest align—allowed us to identify classroom characteristics that both hindered and facilitated students' opportunities to engage in argumentation. First, the classroom community, and consequently the presence and quality of argumentative discourse, was influenced by student movement in and out of this classroom, as their English proficiencies improved. The constantly changing class roster made it difficult for newer members to watch, learn, and engage in argumentation with more knowledgeable peers. Furthermore, certain elements of the SEI approach, namely its deductive nature, conflicted with the type of instruction necessary to encourage language use for sensemaking. However, this instructional context also offered English‐learning students with affordances they may not find in other educational settings. Specifically, we found that when students worked in smaller group structures, such as pairs, and they utilized both their native and second language as a linguistic resource for engaging in science discourse, their engagement in argumentation was promoted. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 53: 527–553, 2016

    

   more » « less
4. Understanding “Dark” Design Roles in Computing Education

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3446871.3469754  

   Gray, Colin M. ; Chivukula, Shruthi Sai ; Melkey, Kassandra ; Manocha, Rhea ( August 2021 , ICER 2021: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research)

   null (Ed.)

   In conjunction with the increasing ubiquity of technology, computing educators have identified the need for pedagogical engagement with ethical awareness and moral reasoning. Typical approaches to incorporating ethics in computing curricula have focused primarily on abstract methods, principles, or paradigms of ethical reasoning, with relatively little focus on examining and developing students’ pragmatic awareness of ethics as grounded in their everyday work practices. In this paper, we identify and describe computing students’ negotiation of values as they engage in authentic design problems through a lab protocol study. We collected data from four groups of three students each, with each group including participants from either undergraduate User Experience Design students, Industrial Engineering students, or a mix of both. We used a thematic analysis approach to identify the roles that students took on to address the design prompt. Through our analysis, we found that the students took on a variety of “dark” roles that resulted in manipulation of the user and prioritization of stakeholder needs over user needs, with a focus either on building solutions or building rationale for design decisions. We found these roles to actively propagate through design discourses, impacting other designers in ways that frequently reinforced unethical decision making. Even when students were aware of ethical concerns based on their educational training, this awareness did not consistently result in ethically-sound decisions. These findings indicate the need for additional ethical supports to inform everyday computing practice, including means of actively identifying and balancing negative societal impacts of design decisions. The roles we have identified may productively support the development of pragmatically-focused ethical training in computing education, while adding more precision to future analysis of computing student discourses and outputs. 

   more » « less
5. Acting with epistemic agency: Characterizing student critique during argumentation discussions

   https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21592  

   González‐Howard, María ; McNeill, Katherine L. ( July 2020 , Science Education)

   The various types of interactions that students carry out when engaged in scientific argumentation function together to move forward developing ideas and support sensemaking. As such, incorporating argumentation in classroom instruction holds promise for supporting students in developing and acting with an epistemic agency, being positioned, and taking up, opportunities to inform their classroom community's knowledge construction work. To foster science classrooms in which students take on active roles, argue to learn, and engage in authentic meaning‐making, the field needs better understandings of how students are supported in developing, and acting with, epistemic agency. We contend that focusing on critique—specifically, examining circumstances where students partake in this type of exchange with peers when engaged in argumentation—is a productive starting point. In this study, we characterized manifestations of epistemic agency as captured through instances of student critique during argumentation discussions in three middle school classrooms. Specifically, we used social network analysis to illuminate interactional patterns related to critique, and discourse analysis to highlight language moves individuals carried out when student critique was observed. Our findings point to there being multiple, sometimes conflating, approaches to addressing tensions inherent to helping students develop and act with epistemic agency. Our findings also suggest we can learn from critiquing practices that all students bring and employ in the classroom. This latter point is especially important when desiring to create and foster equitable learning environments, where all students' ways of knowing and doing science are appreciated, recognized, and used to support sensemaking.

    

   more » « less