Lisa Kenyon

Bio: Lisa Kenyon is an academic researcher from Wright State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Science education & Scientific modelling. The author has an hindex of 10, co-authored 15 publications receiving 1354 citations.

Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners

Abstract: Modeling is a core practice in science and a central part of scientific literacy. We present theoretical and empirical motivation for a learning progression for scientific modeling that aims to make the practice accessible and meaningful for learners. We define scientific modeling as including the elements of the practice (constructing, using, evaluating, and revising scientific models) and the metaknowledge that guides and motivates the practice (e.g., understanding the nature and purpose of models). Our learning progression for scientific modeling includes two dimensions that combine metaknowledge and elements of practice—scientific models as tools for predicting and explaining, and models change as understanding improves. We describe levels of progress along these two dimensions of our progression and illustrate them with classroom examples from 5th and 6th graders engaged in modeling. Our illustrations indicate that both groups of learners productively engaged in constructing and revising increasingly accurate models that included powerful explanatory mechanisms, and applied these models to make predictions for closely related phenomena. Furthermore, we show how students engaged in modeling practices move along levels of this progression. In particular, students moved from illustrative to explanatory models, and developed increasingly sophisticated views of the explanatory nature of models, shifting from models as correct or incorrect to models as encompassing explanations for multiple aspects of a target phenomenon. They also developed more nuanced reasons to revise models. Finally, we present challenges for learners in modeling practices—such as understanding how constructing a model can aid their own sensemaking, and seeing model building as a way to generate new knowledge rather than represent what they have already learned. 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 46: 632-654, 2009

Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students

Abstract: 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

Engaging Students in the Scientific Practices of Explanation and Argumentation: Understanding a Framework for K-12 Science Education

Abstract: A Framework for K-12 Science Education identifies eight science and engineering practices for K-12 classrooms. These practices, along with core ideas and crosscutting concepts, define our nation's learning goals for science. An important advance from earlier standards (AAAS 1993, NRC 1996), these practices are clearly identified not as separate learning goals that define what students should know about the process of science. Instead, the scientific practices identify the reasoning behind, discourse about, and application of the core ideas in science. The practices outlined in the framework are: * Asking questions and defining problems * Developing and using models * Planning and carrying out investigations r Analyzing and interpreting data * Using mathematics and computational thinking * Constructing explanations and designing solutions r Engaging in argument from evidence * Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information In this article, we examine the sixth and seventh practices concerning explanation and argumentation, respectively. The two practices depend on each other: For students to practice explanation construction, they must also engage in argumentation. The Framework elaborates on how inquiry was expressed in prior standards to add an emphasis on the sensemaking aspects of science (Bybee 2011). The notion of practices moves from viewing science as a set of processes to emphasizing, also, the social interaction and discourse that accompany the building of scientific knowledge in classrooms. This move toward scientific practice requires that we consider the role of argumentation in building knowledge in science because thoughtful and reflective efforts to design investigations, develop models, and construct explanations require critically comparing alternatives, evaluating them, and reaching consensus. In this article, we first define argumentation and explanation individually and then explore their relationship in classroom examples. Constructing explanations The question "Can you explain that?" is answered in various ways in classrooms. Classroom communities may "explain" by clarifying one's meaning (providing definition), identifying a causal mechanism (explaining why something occurred), or justifying an idea (explaining why one believes the idea) (Braaten and Windschitl 2011). The Framework defines explanations as "accounts that link scientific theory with scientific observations or phenomena" (Chapter 3), emphasizing that a central form of explanation in science (classroom or professional) is a causal explanation that identifies the underlying chain of cause and effect. This sort of explanation can be evaluated based on whether it can coherently account for--or explain--all of the data students have gathered (Chapter 3). The scientific practice of explanation goes beyond defining or describing a named process and links a chain of reasoning to the phenomenon to be explained. So rather than asking students simply to explain cellular respiration, we might ask them to explain why a person's exhaled air contains less oxygen than the inhaled air. The explanation should not only describe respiration but also produce a causal chain that fits the evidence that leads to a claim about why oxygen is needed. Such a chain might specify where glucose goes within the body and what materials can enter and exit cells and conclude that a chemical reaction requiring both glucose and oxygen must take place in cells to convert energy to a usable form (Chapter 9). In articulating goals for explanation, the Framework highlights the process of evaluating ideas to reach the best explanation, including that students should be able to: * Use primary or secondary scientific evidence and models to support or refute an explanatory account of a phenomenon. * Identify gaps or weaknesses in explanatory accounts (their own or those of others). …

Design Approaches to Support Preservice Teachers in Scientific Modeling

Abstract: Engaging children in scientific practices is hard for beginning teachers. One such scientific practice with which beginning teachers may have limited experience is scientific modeling. We have iteratively designed preservice teacher learning experiences and materials intended to help teachers achieve learning goals associated with scientific modeling. Our work has taken place across multiple years at three university sites, with preservice teachers focused on early childhood, elementary, and middle school teaching. Based on results from our empirical studies supporting these design decisions, we discuss design features of our modeling instruction in each iteration. Our results suggest some successes in supporting preservice teachers in engaging students in modeling practice. We propose design principles that can guide science teacher educators in incorporating modeling in teacher education.

Empirical refinements of a molecular genetics learning progression: The molecular constructs

Abstract: This article describes revisions to four of the eight constructs of the Duncan molecular genetics learning progression [Duncan, Rogat, & Yarden, (2009)]. As learning progressions remain hypothetical models until validated by multiple rounds of empirical studies, these revisions are an important step toward validating the progression. Our revisions are based on empirical data obtained from tenth grade students in three classroom contexts (n = 121); although our study was done with students at the upper bounds of the progression, students held naive ideas prior to instruction which allowed us to track their ideas through all the levels of each construct during the course of one academic year. We revised the four constructs that center around the molecular model of genetics using students’ pre/post assessments and interviews. We found that tenth grade students do hold ideas consistent with the hypothesized levels in the progression as well as several intermediate ideas not included. Our revisions include adding student ideas that are important conceptual stepping stones in each construct as well as other modifications such as splitting and combining levels, moving ideas to other constructs, changing the conceptual progression of a construct and splitting a construct. Along with the revisions, we identified challenges in each construct. Even after instruction, students had difficulties understanding that genes code for proteins, that proteins connect genes and traits, and how differential gene expression leads to different repertoires of proteins inside of specialized cells. Our findings indicate that classroom instruction should focus more on proteins: how they are created, what their functions are, and how cells express different proteins.

A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas

Abstract: 1 On behalf of NASA’s Mars Exploration Program, this lesson was prepared by Arizona State University’s Mars Education Program, under contract to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology. These materials may be distributed freely for non-commercial purposes. Copyright 2014; 2012; 2010; 2000. Last edited: April 24, 2014 Marsbound! Mission to the Red Planet

Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in

Abstract: Engineering education research (EER) has been on the fast track since 2004 with an exponential rise in the number of Ph.D.s awarded and the establishment of new programs, even entire EER departments. The National Research Council’s Discipline-Based Education Research (DBER) report (National Research Council, 2012) captures the state-of-the-art advances in our understanding of engineering and science student learning and highlights commonalities with other science-based education research programs. The DBER report is the consensus analysis of experts in undergraduate education research in physics, chemistry, biology, geosciences, astronomy, and engineering. The study committee, chaired by Susan Singer, also included higher education researchers, learning scientists, and cognitive psychologists. A central aspect of the DBER report is the focus on and application of research in the education, learning, and social-behavioral sciences to science and engineering curricula design and teaching methods. Froyd, Wankat, and Smith (2012) identified five major shifts in engineering education in the past 100 years: 1. A shift from hands-on and practical emphasis to engineering science and analytical emphasis 2. A shift to outcomes-based education and accreditation 3. A shift to emphasizing engineering design 4. A shift to applying education, learning, and social-behavioral sciences research 5. A shift to integrating information, computational, and communications technology in education

Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering.

Abstract: Engineering education research (EER) has been on the fast track since 2004 with an exponential rise in the number of Ph.D.s awarded and the establishment of new programs, even entire EER departments. The National Research Council’s Discipline-Based Education Research (DBER) report (National Research Council, 2012) captures the state-of-the-art advances in our understanding of engineering and science student learning and highlights commonalities with other science-based education research programs. The DBER report is the consensus analysis of experts in undergraduate education research in physics, chemistry, biology, geosciences, astronomy, and engineering. The study committee, chaired by Susan Singer, also included higher education researchers, learning scientists, and cognitive psychologists. A central aspect of the DBER report is the focus on and application of research in the education, learning, and social-behavioral sciences to science and engineering curricula design and teaching methods. Froyd, Wankat, and Smith (2012) identified five major shifts in engineering education in the past 100 years: 1. A shift from hands-on and practical emphasis to engineering science and analytical emphasis 2. A shift to outcomes-based education and accreditation 3. A shift to emphasizing engineering design 4. A shift to applying education, learning, and social-behavioral sciences research 5. A shift to integrating information, computational, and communications technology in education

A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts

Abstract: Argumentation is a central goal of science education because it engages students in a complex scientific practice in which they construct and justify knowledge claims. Although there is a growing body of research around argumentation, there has been little focus on developing a learning progression for this practice. We describe a learning progression to understand both students' work in scientific argumentation and the ways in which the instructional environment can support students in that practice. This learning progression describes three dimensions: (1) instructional context, (2) argumentative product, and (3) argumentative process. In this paper, we compare four examples from elementary, middle, and high school science classrooms to explore the ways in which students' arguments vary in complexity across grade level and instructional contexts. Our comparisons suggest that simplifying the instructional context may facilitate students in engaging in other aspects of argumentation in more complex ways. The instructional context may also be used as a tool to support students in argumentation in new content areas and to increase the complexity of their written arguments, which may be weaker than their oral arguments. Furthermore, classroom norms play an important role in supporting students of all ages, including elementary students, in argumentation. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed94:765–793, 2010

Benchmarks for Science Literacy: a review symposium∗

Abstract: ∗The book reviewed is Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford (1993), pp. 448, $21‐95 (pbk), ISBN 0‐19‐508986‐3.