A Comparison of the Collaborative Scientific Argumentation Practices of Two High and Two Low Performing Groups
Tóm tắt
This qualitative study examines the interactions between individuals, ideas, and materials as two high and two low performing groups of students engaged in a process of collaborative scientific argumentation. To engage students in collaborative scientific argumentation the students were randomly assigned to small groups of three students each. Each triad was asked to critique six alternative explanations for a discrepant event and to produce a single written argument justifying the explanation they felt was most valid or acceptable. The two higher performing triads produced arguments that included a sufficient and accurate explanation that was well supported with appropriate evidence and reasoning while the two lower performing triads produced arguments that included an inaccurate explanation supported by inappropriate justification. A verbal analysis of the interactive processes that took place within these four triads identified five distinct differences in the ways these triads engaged in collaborative scientific argumentation that seemed to promote or constrain the development of high quality written arguments. These differences include (1) the number of unique ideas introduced into the conversation, (2) how individuals responded to these ideas, (3) how often individuals challenged ideas when discussing them, (4) the criteria individuals used to distinguish between ideas, and (5) how group members used the available corpus of data. The conclusions and implications of this study include recommendations for the design and revision of curriculum, the development of new instructional models and technology-enhanced learning environments, and areas for future research.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Abell, S. K., Anderson, G., & Chezem, J. (2000). Science as argument and explanation: Exploring concepts of sound in third grade. In J. Minstrell & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 100–119). Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Aikenhead, G. (2001). Student’s ease in crossing cultural borders into school. Science Education, 85, 180–188.
Anderson, C. (2007). Perspectives on science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 3–30). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003a). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational contexts of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Andriessen, J., Erkens, G., Van de Laak, C., Peters, N., & Coirier, P. (2003b). Argumentation as negotiation in electronic collaborative writing. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 79–115). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–818.
Boulter, C. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (1995). Argument and science education. In P. J. M. Costello & S. Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices: The theory and practices of argument. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Brown, B. A., & Ryoo, K. (2008). Teaching science as a language: a “content-first” approach to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 529–523.
Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). ‘An experiment is when you try it and see if it works’: a study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11(Special Issue), 514–529.
Carlsen, W. S. (2007). Language and science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Cartier, J. L., & Stewart, J. (2000). Teaching the nature of inquiry: further developments in a high school genetics curriculum. Science and Education, 9(3), 247–267.
Chi, M. T. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 60(3), 271–315.
Clark, D. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students’ understanding of thermal equilibrium: an examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition & Instruction, 24(4), 467–563.
Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2006a). Characteristics of students’ argumentation practices when supported by personally-seeded discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2006b). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.
deVries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63–103.
Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. (Eds). (2005). How students learn: Science in the classroom. Washington: National Academy Press.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–313.
Duschl, R. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159–175). Dordrecht: Springer.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.
Eichinger, D., Anderson, C. W., Palincsar, A. S., & David, Y. M. (1991). An illustration of the roles of content knowledge, scientific argument, and social norm in collaborative problem solving. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, 1991, Chicago, IL.
Eisenberg, A., & Garvey, C. (1981). Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving conflict. Discourse Processes, 4, 149–170.
Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2004a). The role of argument in developing scientific literacy. In K. Boersma, O. deJong, H. Eijkelhof, & M. Goedhart (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004b). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.
Gee, J. (1999). An introduction to language analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspective on socially shared cognition (pp. 331–348). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84, 51–70.
Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663–687.
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.
Hunt, E., & Minstrell, J. (1994). A cognitive approach to the teaching of physics. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 51–74). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, M., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science’: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: constructing science as a sociocultural practice through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883–915.
Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871.
Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674–689.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.
Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2005). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2006). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260.
Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387–1408.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex.
Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2006). Science Education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 511–544). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Lizotte, D. J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Teacher practices that support students’ construction of scientific explanations in middle school classrooms. In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 310–317). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: A classroom study. In L. Mason (Ed.), Instructional practices for conceptual change in science domains. Learning and Instruction, 11, 305–329.
McNeill, K., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
Minstrell, J. (2000). Student thinking and related assessment: Creating a facet-based learning environment. In N. Raju, J. Pellegrino, M. Bertenthal, K. Mitchell, & L. Jones (Eds.), Grading the nation’s report card: Research from the evaluation of NAEP. Washington: National Academy Press.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.
Ohlsson, S. (1992). The cognitive skill of theory articulation: a neglected aspect of science education? Science & Education, 1, 181–192.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 39(3), 185–204.
Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushy, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in the classroom: social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839–858.
Rochelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235–276.
Roth, K. J., Druker, S. L., Garnier, H., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., et al. (2006). Teaching science in five countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington: National Center for Education Statistics.
Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
Sadler, T., Barab, S., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The effect of collaboration on the outcomes of argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484.
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.
Schwarz, B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Scott, P. H., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Students conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 31–56). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17(2), 159–176.
Southerland, S., Kittleson, J., Settlage, J., & Lanier, K. (2005). Individual and group meaning-making in an urban third grade classroom: red fog, cold cans, and seeping vapor. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9), 1032–1061.
Stein, N. L., & Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In G. Rijlaarsdam, E. Esperet, J. Andriessen, & P. Coirier (Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol 5. Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
Stein, N. L., & Miller, C. (1991). I win... you lose: The development of argumentative thinking. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and instruction. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, C. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn science in the classroom. Washington: The National Academies Press.
Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (2001). Learning by constructing collaborative representations: An empirical comparison of three alternatives. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 577–592). Maastricht: University of Maastricht.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Veerman, A. (2003). Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 117–143). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Vellom, R. P., & Anderson, C. W. (1999). Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 36(2), 179–199.
Webb, N., & Palincsar, A. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillian.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.