skip to main content

Title: Mediating Students’ Scientific Argumentation to Support Model Revision
Scientific argumentation and modeling are both core practices in learning and doing science. However, they are challenging for students. Although there is considerable literature about scientific argumentation or modeling practice in K-12 science, there are limited studies on how engaging students in modeling and scientific argumentation might be mutually supportive. This study aims to explore how 5th graders can be supported by our designed mediators as they engage in argumentation and modeling, in particular, model revision. We implemented a virtual afterschool science club to examine how our modeling tool – MEME (Model and Evidence Mapping Environment), provided evidence, peer comments, and other mediators influenced students in learning about aquatic ecosystems through developing a model. While both groups that we examined constructed strong arguments and developed good models, we show how the mediators played different roles in helping them be successful.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
A. Weinberger; W. Chen; D.Hernández-Leo; D., B. Chen
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Computersupported collaborative learning
Page Range / eLocation ID:
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. null (Ed.)
    It is a pleasure to present the second special issue of The Earth Scientist sponsored by the MEL Project team (! The Model-Evidence Link (MEL) and MEL2 projects have been sponsored by the National Science Foundation (Grant Nos. 1316057, 1721041, and 2027376) to Temple University and the University of Maryland, in partnership with the University of North Georgia, TERC, and the Planetary Science Institute. In 2016 we shared with you the four MEL diagram activities, covering the topics of climate change, the formation of the Moon, fracking and earthquakes, and wetlands use, as well as a rubric for assessment. This issue brings to you our four new build-a-MEL activities on the origins of the Universe, fossils and Earth’s past, freshwater resources, and extreme weather. Additionally, there are articles about a new NGSS-aligned rubric and transfer task to help students apply their new skills in other situations and about teaching with MEL and build-a-MEL activities. Our goals with all of these activities are to help students learn Earth science content by engaging in scientific practices, notably the evaluation of alternative explanatory models (by looking at the connections between lines of evidence and the competing models) and argumentation. The team has tested these activities in multiple middle and high school classrooms. Our research has shown the activities to be effective in learning both content and skills, and our partner teachers report that students enjoy the activities. These activities are freely available for teachers to use. We hope that you and your students will also find them to be effective and enjoyable approaches to learning about complex and sometimes controversial socioscientific issues within Earth Science. 
    more » « less
  2. Abstract

    Argumentation is fundamental to science education, both as a prominent feature of scientific reasoning and as an effective mode of learning—a perspective reflected in contemporary frameworks and standards. The successful implementation of argumentation in school science, however, requires a paradigm shift in science assessment from the measurement of knowledge and understanding to the measurement of performance and knowledge in use. Performance tasks requiring argumentation must capture the many ways students can construct and evaluate arguments in science, yet such tasks are both expensive and resource‐intensive to score. In this study we explore how machine learning text classification techniques can be applied to develop efficient, valid, and accurate constructed‐response measures of students' competency with written scientific argumentation that are aligned with a validated argumentation learning progression. Data come from 933 middle school students in the San Francisco Bay Area and are based on three sets of argumentation items in three different science contexts. The findings demonstrate that we have been able to develop computer scoring models that can achieve substantial to almost perfect agreement between human‐assigned and computer‐predicted scores. Model performance was slightly weaker for harder items targeting higher levels of the learning progression, largely due to the linguistic complexity of these responses and the sparsity of higher‐level responses in the training data set. Comparing the efficacy of different scoring approaches revealed that breaking down students' arguments into multiple components (e.g., the presence of an accurate claim or providing sufficient evidence), developing computer models for each component, and combining scores from these analytic components into a holistic score produced better results than holistic scoring approaches. However, this analytical approach was found to be differentially biased when scoring responses from English learners (EL) students as compared to responses from non‐EL students on some items. Differences in the severity between human and computer scores for EL between these approaches are explored, and potential sources of bias in automated scoring are discussed.

    more » « less
  3. Abstract

    Flourishing in today's global society requires citizens that are both intelligent consumers and producers of scientific understanding. Indeed, the modern world is facing ever‐more complex problems that require innovative ways of thinking about, around, and with science. As numerous educational stakeholders have suggested, such skills and abilities are not innate and must, therefore, be taught (e.g., McNeill & Krajcik,Journal of Research in Science Teaching,45(1), 53–78. 2008). However, such instruction requires a fundamental shift in science pedagogy so as to foster knowledge and practices like deep, conceptual understanding, model‐based reasoning, and oral and written argumentation where scientific evidence is evaluated (National Research Council,Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013). The purpose of our quasi‐experimental study was to examine the effectiveness of Quality Talk Science, a professional development model and intervention, in fostering changes in teachers’ and students’ discourse practices as well as their conceptual understanding and scientific argumentation. Findings revealed treatment teachers’ and students’ discourse practices better reflected critical‐analytic thinking and argumentation at posttest relative to comparison classrooms. Similarly, at posttest treatment students produced stronger written scientific arguments than comparison students. Students’ growth in conceptual understanding was nonsignificant. These findings suggest discourse interventions such as Quality Talk Science can improve high‐school students’ ability to engage in scientific argumentation.

    more » « less
  4. Abstract

    We find ourselves at a time when the need for transformation in science education is aligning with opportunity. Significant science education resources, namely the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and the Ambitious Science Teaching (AST) framework, need an intentional aim of centering social justice for minoritized communities and youth as well as practices to enact it. While NGSS and AST provide concrete guidelines to support deep learning, revisions are needed to explicitly promote social justice. In this study, we sought to understand how a commitment to social justice, operationalized through culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris, Culturally sustaining pedagogies and our futures.The Educational Forum, 2021; 85, pp. 364–376), might shape the AST framework to promote more critical versions of teaching science for equity. Through a qualitative multi‐case study, we observed three preservice teacher teams engaged in planning, teaching, and debriefing a 6‐day summer camp in a rural community. Findings showed that teachers shaped the AST sets of practices in ways that sustained local culture and addressed equity aims: anchoring scientific study in phenomena important to community stakeholders; using legitimizing students' stories by both using them to plan the following lessons and as data for scientific argumentation; introducing local community members as scientific experts, ultimately supporting a new sense of pride and advocacy for their community; and supporting students in publicly communicating their developing scientific expertise to community stakeholders. In shaping the AST framework through culturally sustaining pedagogy, teachers made notable investments: developing local networks; learning about local geography, history, and culture; building relationships with students; adapting lessons to incorporate students' ideas; connecting with community stakeholders to build scientific collaborations; and preparing to share their work publicly with the community. Using these findings, we offer a justice‐centered ambitious science teaching (JuST) framework that can deliver the benefits of a framework of practices while also engaging in the necessarily more critical elements of equity work.

    more » « less
  5. null (Ed.)
    Argumentation enables students to engage in real world scientific practices by rationalizing claims grounded in supporting evidence. Student engagement in scientific argumentation activates the negotiation process by which students develop and defend evidence-based claims. Little is known, however, on the intricate process and potential patterns of negotiation between students during scientific argumentation. The present study seeks to fill this gap by exploring how a group of university science education students negotiated when evaluating the relationship between lines of evidence and alternative explanatory models of a phenomena (i.e., climate change). This research, theoretically grounded in social constructionism, used Halliday's model of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) within a discourse analysis framework. The authors analyzed transcripts of student conversations during a model-evidence link activity to gain insights into patterns of negotiation. An interpersonal analysis centering on mood and moves revealed students' ability to engage in the negotiation component of scientific argumentation to make assertions about relations between evidence and models. Effective collaboration resulting in group consensus of the relationship (categorized as supports, strongly supports, or contradicts) was facilitated by the use of interrogatives, modulation, and a balanced contribution between group members. Conversely, negotiation which did not reach consensus featured less contribution between group members. Conversely, negotiation which did not reach consensus featured less balanced discussion among group members, contained more interruptions, more conflict moves, and double polarity clauses. 
    more » « less