In order to deepen students' understanding of natural phenomenon and how scientific knowledge is constructed, it is critical that science teachers learn how to engage students in productive scientific argumentation. Simulations for teachers are one possible solution to providing practice‐based spaces where novices can approximate the work of facilitating argumentation‐focused science discussions. This study's purpose is to examine how preservice elementary teachers (PSETs) engage in this ambitious teaching practice within an online simulated classroom composed of five upper elementary student avatars. In this study, which is part of a larger research project, we developed and used four performance tasks to provide opportunities for PSETs to practice facilitating argumentation‐focused science discussions within a simulated classroom. The student avatars were controlled on the backend by a human‐in‐the‐loop who was trained to respond to the teachers' prompts in real time using predesigned student thinking profiles and specific technology, such as voice modulation software. We used analysis of transcripts from the PSETs' video‐recorded discussions to examine how the PSETs engaged the student avatars in scientific argumentation, with particular attention to the teaching moves that supported argument construction and argument critique. We also used survey and interview data to examine how the PSETs viewed the usefulness of these simulation‐based tools to support their learning. Findings show that there was variability in the extent to which the PSETs engaged the student avatars in argument construction and argument critique and the teaching moves that the PSETs used to do so. Results also indicated that PSETs strongly perceive the value of using such tools within teacher education. Implications for the potential of simulations to provide insights into novices' ability to engage students in scientific argumentation and to support them in learning in and from their practice, including how to productively integrate these tools in teacher education, are discussed.
This content will become publicly available on June 27, 2025
- Award ID(s):
- 2037983
- PAR ID:
- 10530780
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- School Science and Mathematics
- ISSN:
- 0036-6803
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
In this presentation, the research team discussed teachers' facilitation of argumentation in teaching computer programming (or coding) and how it related to their epistemic beliefs about mathematics and science. The preliminary results showed that teachers engaged their students in both justificatory and inquiry arguments when teaching coding. This was not the case with respect to mathematics and science, in which teachers described engaging students either in justificatory or inquiry argumentation exclusively. The team proposes that these siloed uses of argumentation in mathematics and science relate to the teachers' epistemic beliefs about the disciplines, and their use of argumentation in coding builds on and goes beyond their experiences with argumentation in teaching mathematics and science.more » « less
-
The Next Generation Science Standards [1] recognized evidence-based argumentation as one of the essential skills for students to develop throughout their science and engineering education. Argumentation focuses students on the need for quality evidence, which helps to develop their deep understanding of content [2]. Argumentation has been studied extensively, both in mathematics and science education but also to some extent in engineering education (see for example [3], [4], [5], [6]). After a thorough search of the literature, we found few studies that have considered how teachers support collective argumentation during engineering learning activities. The purpose of this program of research was to support teachers in viewing argumentation as an important way to promote critical thinking and to provide teachers with tools to implement argumentation in their lessons integrating coding into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (which we refer to as integrative STEM). We applied a framework developed for secondary mathematics [7] to understand how teachers support collective argumentation in integrative STEM lessons. This framework used Toulmin’s [8] conceptualization of argumentation, which includes three core components of arguments: a claim (or hypothesis) that is based on data (or evidence) accompanied by a warrant (or reasoning) that relates the data to the claim [9], [8]. To adapt the framework, video data were coded using previously established methods for analyzing argumentation [7]. In this paper, we consider how the framework can be applied to an elementary school teacher’s classroom interactions and present examples of how the teacher implements various questioning strategies to facilitate more productive argumentation and deeper student engagement. We aim to understand the nature of the teacher’s support for argumentation—contributions and actions from the teacher that prompt or respond to parts of arguments. In particular, we look at examples of how the teacher supports students to move beyond unstructured tinkering (e.g., trial-and-error) to think logically about coding and develop reasoning for the choices that they make in programming. We also look at the components of arguments that students provide, with and without teacher support. Through the use of the framework, we are able to articulate important aspects of collective argumentation that would otherwise be in the background. The framework gives both eyes to see and language to describe how teachers support collective argumentation in integrative STEM classrooms.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract 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.
-
null (Ed.)One way to support teachers' learning to facilitate the recent reform vision (NRC, 2012) in their classrooms is through professional development (PD). We explored a biology teacher’s (Monica) sensemaking during the PD that focused on facilitating productive science classroom discourse to understand her responses to the PD in terms of teaching science by engaging students in productive talk in science classrooms. Using both video and interview data, we analyzed the process of her sensemaking about facilitating (productive) talk during the PD and the meaning she was making of productive talk. Our analysis indicated that Monica participated in sensemaking mostly about her students' participation in talk. Throughout the PD conversations, she rarely focused on what she could do (or could have done) to facilitate student talk without the PD facilitators' pressing. This is supported by our analysis of the interviews with Monica, which showed that the sense that she was making about productive talk mostly focuses on students' contributions to the talk and their accountability to reasoning, scientific knowledge, and sensemaking. These findings provide implications for facilitating teachers’ sensemaking around new instructional practices and reforms within PD contexts.more » « less
