National Science Education Standards

http://repository.hyogo-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10132/3239/1/AN100700980160017.pdf

“Science for All Americans”が語る科学とは何か

Science and Engineering Practices that connect to garden-based education (all 8): • Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering) • Developing and using models • Planning and carrying out investigations • Analyzing and interpreting data • Using mathematics and computational thinking • Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering) • Engaging in argument from evidence • Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

Next Generation Science Standards

Recent research and policy documents call for engaging students and teachers in scientific practices such that the goal of science education shifts from students knowing scientific and epistemic ideas, to students developing and using these understandings as tools to make sense of the world. This perspective pushes students to move beyond the rote performance of scientific actions or processes and engage instead in purposeful knowledge construction work. This raises parallel questions about how to go beyond characterizing student performance of scientific process to understand their engagement in scientific practices as a goal-directed activity. To that end, this article offers a framework—the Epistemologies in Practice (EIP) framework—for characterizing how students can engage meaningfully in scientific practices. This framework emphasizes two aspects of student engagement in scientific practices: (1) the students' epistemic goals for their knowledge construction work and (2) their epistemic understandings of how to engage in that work. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 53:1082–1112, 2016

Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students

In recent years, research on students' scientific argumentation has progressed to a recognition of nascent resources: Students can and do argue when they experience the need and possibility of persuading others who may hold competing views. Our purpose in this article is to contribute to this progress by applying the perspective of framing to the question of when and how a class forms and maintains a sense of their activity as argumentative. In particular, we examine three snippets from a sixth-grade class with respect to how the students—and the teacher—experience, or frame, what is taking place. We argue that they show dynamics of framing for individuals and for the class as a whole that affect and are affected by students' engagement in argumentation. We close the article with implications of this perspective for research, teaching, and instructional design. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 68–94, 2012

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/tea.20446

Framing for scientific argumentation

This exploratory study examines how a series of laboratory activities designed using a new instructional model, called Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI), influences the ways students participate in scientific argumentation and the quality of the scientific arguments they craft as part of this process. The two outcomes of interest were assessed with a performance task that required small groups of students to explain a discrepant event and then generate a scientific argument. Student performance on this task was compared before and after an 18-week intervention that included 15 ADI laboratory activities. The results of this study suggest that the students had better disciplinary engagement and produced better arguments after the intervention although some learning issues arose that seemed to hinder the students' overall improvement. The conclusions and implications of this research include several recommendations for improving the nature of laboratory-based instruction to help cultivate the knowledge and skills students need to participate in scientific argumentation and to craft written arguments. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed95: 217–257, 2011

Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study

This study examined how students’ science-specific argumentative writing skills and understanding of core ideas changed over the course of a school year as they participated in a series of science laboratories designed using the Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) instructional model. The ADI model is a student-centered and writing-intensive approach to laboratory instruction. The study was conducted in two middle school and two high school courses offered at a university-affiliated laboratory school located in the southeast USA. The intervention took place over two semesters and consisted of at least eight laboratory activities in each course. Student learning gains were measured using a science content assessment and a science-specific argumentative writing assessment that were administered at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year. Changes in student performance on the two assessments over time indicate that the students’ science-specific argumentative writing skills and their understanding of core scientific ideas improved over the course of intervention. Furthermore, students who participated in a greater number of ADI activities demonstrated greater and more consistent improvement in their writing. The implications of the study describe ways to enhance students’ science proficiencies during school science laboratories and include recommendations for future research. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 97:643–670, 2013

Writing to Learn by Learning to Write during the School Science Laboratory: Helping Middle and High School Students Develop Argumentative Writing Skills as They Learn Core Ideas.

How concept familiarity and experience with scientific argumentation are related to the way groups participate in an episode of argumentation

Argument-Driven Inquiry in Undergraduate Chemistry Labs: The Impact on Students' Conceptual Understanding, Argument Skills, and Attitudes toward Science.

This quasi-experimental study uses a pre-/post-intervention approach to investigate the quality of undergraduate students’ arguments in the context of socioscientific issues (SSI) based on experiencing a semester of traditional ‘cookbook' instruction (N = 79) or a semester of argument-based instruction (N = 73) in the context of an undergraduate science laboratory course. Findings from this study indicate that the students experiencing the argument-based instruction generated significantly better arguments than students in the traditional course after the intervention. Specifically, the students in the treatment group were better able to include rationales in their arguments supporting their stance on the SSI task. Implications for instruction in undergraduate science laboratory courses, including the use of scientific argumentation as a means of enhancing science proficiency and science literacy, are discussed.

Comparing the Effectiveness of Verification and Inquiry Laboratories in Supporting Undergraduate Science Students in Constructing Arguments Around Socioscientific Issues

Jonathon Grooms

Papers

Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study

Writing to Learn by Learning to Write during the School Science Laboratory: Helping Middle and High School Students Develop Argumentative Writing Skills as They Learn Core Ideas.

How concept familiarity and experience with scientific argumentation are related to the way groups participate in an episode of argumentation

Argument-Driven Inquiry in Undergraduate Chemistry Labs: The Impact on Students' Conceptual Understanding, Argument Skills, and Attitudes toward Science.

Comparing the Effectiveness of Verification and Inquiry Laboratories in Supporting Undergraduate Science Students in Constructing Arguments Around Socioscientific Issues