q uestions, claims and evidence: teaching argumentation in the ngss through the use of a science...

Questions, Claims and Evidence: Teaching Argumentation in the NGSS through the use of a Science Writing Heuristic

Brian HandUniversity of Iowa

Discussion formatTheoretical perspectives

Randomized field trail results

Classroom aspects

Next Generation Science Standards

Scientific and Engineering Practices1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering)2. Developing and using models3. Planning and carrying out investigations4. Analyzing and interpreting data5. Using mathematics and computational thinking6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering)7. Engaging in argument from evidence8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

ScienceThe advancement of science is about a process of construction and critique Scientist negotiate with each otherScientists do not advance science through information transfer

– if this was the case who gave the first scientists the information to pass on?

- who gives the current generation of scientist the “new” knowledge

Science Argument

Is a central component of science

Requires participants to negotiate meaning both publicly and privately

Is bound by a structure linking questions, claims, evidence and rebuttals

Constructed knowledge is tested against nature

Our working definition

Argument Based Inquiry is inquiry that is intended to build students grasp of scientific practices while motivating an understanding of disciplinary big ideas. Construction and critique of knowledge are centrally located through an emphasis on the epistemological frame of argument by engaging them in posing questions, gathering data, and generating claims supported by evidence.

This perspective of argument builds on the work of Walton who suggests that argument is a logical contribution to the resolution of unsettled knowledge. This more general perspective on argument is valuable as it recognizes the use of argument as a learning tool; thus the immersion of students in argument throughout their inquiry.

Douglas WaltonUniversity of Toronto

Argument Deals with unsettled knowledgeTrying to persuade others

Explanation Deals with settled knowledgeTo inform others

Argument

Made up of questions, claims and evidenceWhat is a claim?What is evidence?What is the relationship between these elements?

Connections

Question

Claims

Claims Eviden

ce

ArgumentDeals with questions, claims and evidence

There must be connections between questions, claims and evidence

There has to be strong coherence between the various components

Arguments require reasoning – not something to be simply learned

Critical Issues that need to be engaged with

We do not pay enough attention to ideas such as data, evidence, explanation

Researchers use such ideas – as published in articles

Data/evidenceClaims, evidence, reasoningEvidence and explanations

Data and evidenceIs this distinction important?

Students have trouble separating these two

“Data does not speak”

We have to do something with data to get to evidence

Evidence and ReasoningIf we have to do something to data to get evidence – what is it?

Critically we have to reason about the data – we have to make critical decision about

What data points to use?Are there patterns?

• If we remove reasoning from evidence we have data

Relationship

Data Reasoning

Evidence

Evidence and explanationSimply question – if evidence is not an explanation – what is it?

Is not evidence a reasoned explanation about particular data points and how they fit together?

All evidence is explanatory, but not all explanations are evidentiary

Two essential components of science

Language - there is no science without language- means that we have have to pay attention to all the different discourses/representations associated with science

Argumentation - is a critical process that is central to the way in which science knowledge is constructed

The Science Writing Heuristic approach is based on earlier Halliday work (70’s)

You learn about language while you learn through using language

Means that studentslearn about argument while they learn

through using argument

Importance?These distinctions are not trivial

There is a distinctly different orientation to the learning of argument based inquiry

Is it something “done to” students or something students should “be immersed” in?

The Science Writing Heuristic Templates

Teacher’s template

Exploration of pre-instruction understanding Pre-laboratory activitiesLaboratory activityNegotiation I - individual writingNegotiation II - group discussion Negotiation III - textbook and other resourcesNegotiation IV- individual writingExploration of post-instruction understanding

Student’s templateBeginning questions or ideas What are my questions about this experiment?Tests and ProceduresWhat will I do to help answer my questions?Observations What did I see when I completed my tests and procedure?ClaimsWhat can I claim?EvidenceWhat evidence do I have to support my claim? How do I know? Why am I making these claims?Reading How do my ideas compare with others?ReflectionHow have my ideas changed?

Randomized Field TrialInvolves 48 grade 3-5 buildings in Iowa

24 treatment, 24 controlDivided into 5 clusters within the state

8 days of inservice – 5 in summer, 3 during the yearFollow up monitoring within school

Collection of teacher video – one per semester/yearCollection of Iowa Test of Basic Skills/Iowa Assessment dataImplementation of Cornell Critical Thinking test pre/post at grade 5 level

Critical Thinking Improvement Scores Year 1

Critical Thinking Improvement Scores Year 2

Effect sizes for each cluster

Transfer – what do we mean

Domain Specific Knowledge

DomainGeneralKnowledge

TransferArgument-based Inquiry

Cornell Critical Thinking Test

Data Used The data used for the following analysis' are the

paired 3rd - 5th grade and paired 4th - 6th grade national standardized scores on the ITBS and Iowa Assessments for school year pairs 2006-07 with 2008-09, 2007-08 with 2009-10, 2008-09 with 2010-2011, and 2009-10 with 2011-12.

The data is paired by student The associated demographics are also used

Equivalence of ITBS and Iowa Assessments

ITBS and Iowa Assessments share three sections that were taken by all schools in the study: Reading, Mathematics, and Science.

The Math I and Math II Scores from the ITBS relate with the Math Comprehension score from Iowa Assessments

For each combination of subject, grade, and year the National Standardized Scores were standardized. For the ITBS Math Scores they were added, then standardized

Mixed Models For each of the four groups of students as

described previously, for each of the three test types (RC, M, and SC), mixed models were fit

The predicted value was the change in test score (DRC, DM, or DSC) Note: Scores standardized as previously mentioned

The base-level fixed effects were pretest score (RC, M, or SC), ASN, BLK, HSP, FRL, ELL, GAT (All students only), SED (similarly), and TRT

Mixed Models Continued The interactions included in the models were TRT

with all the other fixed effects. The two random effects included in the modes

were UNIT (the unit for which treatment or control was assigned, usually a school building) and DIST (the block of units used to control variability in the assignment of treatment and control)

For each model non-significant variables were removed (t-score < 1.66 (relating p-value .1)) unless they were base fixed effects who had a significant interaction term or the TRT fixed effect.

All Students - Reading DRC ~ RC + TRT + SEM + DSEM + ASN + BLK +

SED + GAT + FRL + ELL + (1|UNIT) + (1|DIST) Notes

TRT - Weak Positive (t = 1.66) No significant interactions

All Students - Mathematics DM ~ M + TRT + DSEM + GEN + ASN + BLK +

HSP + SED + GAT + FRL + ELL + TRT:GEN + TRT:BLK + TRT:SED + TRT:GAT + TRT:FRL + TRT:ELL + (1|UNIT) + (1|DIST)

Notes TRT – Very Very Strong Positive (t = 11.23) TRT:GEN – Weak Negative (t = -2.03), TRT:BLK –

Weak Positive (t = 1.97), TRT:SED – Very Strong Positive (t = 3.44), TRT:GAT – Very Very Strong Negative (t = -7.34), and TRT:ELL – Weak Postive (t = 2.10)

All Students - Science DSC ~ SC + TRT + DSEM + GEN + BLK + HSP +

SED + GAT + FRL + ELL + (1|UNIT) + (1|DIST) Notes

Not significant TRT No significant interactions

All Students - Comments There is small evidence to support students do better with Reading

Comprehension in the Treatment group There is very strong evidence to support that students do better with

Mathematics in the Treatment group The female disadvantage is reduced with treatment The African American disadvantage is reduced with treatment The special education disadvantage is reduced with treatment The gifted and talented advantage is reduced with treatment The free and reduced lunch disadvantage is reduced with treatment English language learners in treatment are as well off as non-English

Language Learners in the Control group There is no evidence to support improvement is Science

Comprehension associated with Treatment

Special Education Conclusions

There is no evidence to support that treatment leads to a change in Reading Comprehension

Males receive an advantage in Reading Comprehension with treatment

Free and reduced lunch students receive a further disadvantage with treatment

There is very strong evidence to support that treatment leads to an improvement in Mathematics

There is no evidence to support that treatment leads to a change in Science Comprehension

Free and reduced lunch students receive a further disadvantage with treatment

Gifted and Talented Conclusions

There is no evidence of an effect of Treatment on Reading Comprehension

There is weak evidence to suggest a negative effect of Treatment on Mathematics

The female disadvantage is reduce in the treatment group to the point were a female in the treatment group is better off then in the control group

The free and reduced lunch disadvantage is reduced in the treatment group to the point where a FRL student in the treatment group is better off then in the control group

There is no evidence of an overall effect of Treatment on Science Comprehension

The Hispanic advantage almost disappears in the treatment group

Traditional Conclusions No evidence of an overall effect of Treatment on Reading Comprehension

Treatment seems to decrease the Asian Advantage Treatment seems to decrease the free and reduced lunch

disadvantage There is strong evidence of an improvement of Mathematics scores

because of Treatment An African American in the treatment group has the same advantage

as a Caucasian in the control group An English Language Learner in the treatment group is better off then

a non-ELL in the control group A free and reduced lunch student in the treatment group is almost as

well off as a non-FRL in the control group No evidence of an overall effect of Treatment on Science Comprehension

The Asian advantage decreases with the Treatment group

Classroom ConditionsHow well do teachers implement? Is there a difference between treatment and control?Do they have more science teaching in school?Is there a carry over to other subjects?Can we see a shift in how the classroom environment looks?Does this impact language events?

Teacher Implementation ScoresYear 1

0 - .25 0.5 - 0.75 1 - 1.25 1.5 - 1.75 2 - 2.25 2.5 - 2.75 30

20

40

60

80

100

120

TRTCTRL

# o

f Vi

deos

Number of lessons per week 

Minutes/science lesson

0-15 16-30 31-45 46-60 60+0

10

20

30

40

50

60

TRT PercentCTRL Percent

% t

each

ers

Transfer of approach into other disciplines

Classroom environment

Teacher-student talk

WritingDoes implementation matter?

Do we understand what is happening?

Sources of meaning Complexity of Reasoning

Personal (Intuitive) Developing Single Reasoning

Single Reasoning

Developing Chain of Reasoning

Chain of Reasoning

Developing Reasoning Network

Reasoning Network

Fuzzy Understanding

Alternative Explanation

Comparing Ideas

Consolidating Ideas

Further Negotiation

Diagrammatic Representation

Contextualized/ Perception-based

CoherenceScientific (Reflective)

Research funded by a grant from the US Department of Education through the Institute of Education Sciences, award number R305A090094-10.