Argumentation in Students’ Accounts of Carbon-transforming Processes 2011 NARST Presentation

Written by: Kennedy Onyanhcha and Charles W. Anderson (Michigan State University)Culturally relevant ecology, learning progressions and environmental literacy

Long Term Ecological Research Math Science PartnershipApril 2011

Disclaimer: This research is supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation: Targeted Partnership: Culturally relevant ecology, learning progressions and environmental literacy (NSF-

0832173). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science

Foundation.

Argumentation in Students’ Accounts of

Carbon-transforming Processes

Kennedy Onyancha, Michigan State University

Charles W. Anderson, Michigan State University

Matter and Energy Transformation: An Investigation into Secondary School Students’ Arguments

Kennedy M. Onyancha and Charles W. AndersonMichigan State University

• Purpose of the study and Research Questions• Theoretical Framework

• Inquiry Model

• Argumentation as Inquiry &

• Research Methods• Participants• Data Collection: sources • Data analysis

• Rubric for coding for Elements of Arguments (Toulmin, 1958)• Analyzing individual arguments: examples of analysis

• More sophisticated student response• Less sophisticated student response

• General Patterns---association between Claims and Elements of Argument

Outline (Continued)

• Findings: General patterns•Research Question

• Types of elements of argument used• General patterns of association between Claims and Elements of argument

• Conclusion: Limitations and Implications •Limitations of the study•Implications for research, science teaching, and learning

Purpose & Research Question

• Purpose: – To examine the nature of elements of argument

students use to defend Claims they may make about matter and energy transformations in their oral arguments about CTPs

• Research Question: – What is the nature of the student’s response to Counter-

Claims about Carbon Transforming Processes such as photosynthesis and cellular respiration?

Model: Inquiry and Application Activity Sequences

Argumentation as Inquiry

• Literature on science education (e.g. Driver, Newton, & Osborn, 2000; McNeill, 2009; NRC, 1996) present scientific argumentation, as it does explanations, as a practice of scientific inquiry

• Researchers (e.g. Berland & Reiser, 2009; Clark & Sampson, 2007; Kilbourn, 2006) view argument and explanation as interrelated scientific practices of inquiry-they both emphasize building toward sense-making, articulation, and persuasion regarding phenomena

• Other literature (e.g. NRC, 1996 & 2000; Duschl, et al., 2007; Zembal-Saul, 2009) show that students who engage in the practice of scientific inquiry/investigation demonstrate higher gains in science learning; are likely to be both motivated and engage in intellectual development (Vygosky, 1986) based on, say, analytical arguments (Toulmin, 1958)

Research Methods

•Participants – Study follows 32 secondary school students from 8

schools in rural southwest Michigan

•Data sources– From 09-10 clinical interviews relating to two CTPs; Tree

Growing (TG), & Girl Running (GR)•Data analysis

– For data analysis, we used Inquiry and Application Activity Sequences to link to Toulim’s (1958) argument analysis framework (see Table 1 below)

Table 1: Rubric for coding for Elements Argument

Elements of argument

Description

Data (Observations)

Response contains descriptions of scenarios for collecting data including; a) Observations such as effects of a specific variable or of manipulating it (e.g., CO2 on a process e.g., tree growing/weight gain)b) Stating collected Data (to be collected)c) Citing experiments

Warrants (Patterns)

Responses relate specific inputs/outputs to effects (e.g., CO2 to tree growing/weight gain) including:a) Relationships in data/statisticb) Patterns in experimental data

Backing (Models)

Responses attempt to relate patterns to theoretical frameworks including:a) Models e.g., matter cycling & Energy flow through systems (often implicit)b) Theories e.g., Atomic molecular theory (matter is composed of atoms, often implicit)c) Laws e.g., conservation of matter and/or energy

Appeals to Authority

Responses Cite some authority as a source of evidence including:

a) Teacher told me so, ask a teacher, read my notes from class, read book/journal) without stating specific supporting evidence sought

b) Read book/journal and stating specific supporting evidence sought

Other Responses have little focus on Counter-Claims including either of the following:

a) Tautological---Identify inputs and/or outputs as being enough justification for a process to occur

b) States e.g., "I don't know"

c) Focus on other processes

Examples of analysis. Highlights represent: Green (Claim), Red (Rebuttal/Counter-Claim), Blue (either Data, Warrant, or Backing)

Example 1: More sophisticated response (Note: Interviewer’s focus is on sweat)

AWL uses Data, Warrants, and Backing to support the Claims made in ways that are consistent with scientific standards of argument (even though the claim is only partially correct):

I: Let's think about this. I think we didn't talk about this (when the girl runs, she loses weight). Where do you think the lost weight go?

AWL: The lost weight goes …to sweat, because…you sweat and you always hear about people that are doing wrestling and stuff… So I would say it probably comes off of sweat, which causes you to lose weight.

I: So your friend is arguing that, no, the lost weight doesn't become sweat; it just was burned off. So how would you say to your friend? AWL: …I would say if it was burned off it would have to go somewhere, become something, and the sweat … is something that you lose, and the more you work out, the more you lose and the more you sweat. I: So could you suggest an experiment or investigation that would show that your idea is correct?AWL: If you had one person who didn't run at all, one person who ran a little bit every now and again, and one person who ran a lot, and the people measure how much they sweat and how much weight they lose. You can compare that.I: Okay, then your prediction would be…AWL: The person who ran a lot and who ran most will sweat most and lose the most weight. I: So what would you measure in this case?AWL: Sweat and weight lost.

a) Element type used: Data (e.g., experiment); Warrants (e.g., pattern connecting sweat and weight loss); Backing (e.g., matter conservation)---see italics

b) Element type not used: Appeals to Authority, Other

Examples of analysis (Continued)

Example 2: Less sophisticated response

FLB repeats and elaborates on his claim without providing additional support from evidence or authority.

I: So you talked that when the tree grows it needs carbon dioxide, water and the sunlight, right?

FLB: Yeah.I: And you talk about the weight the tree gained over time comes from these things (carbon dioxide, water and the sunlight), right? FLB: Yeah. I: …So how about, you know a student that is saying that I don't agree with you, I think the increased weight, …that all comes from things outside of the tree…, your friend is saying this. Do you agree with him? FLB: No not really because the air also gives it weight because it blows some of the nutrients into the tree so it helps the tree, so it helps the inside of the tree also gain weight…I: So if a student is saying that the weight, the increased weight of the tree mostly come from air, what do you think? FLB: Well, mostly it doesn't come from air, mostly the sunlight and the water helps it because the sunlight and the water has to help… you have to plant it in the soil to help the tree actually grow to be bigger, the air can't do it on its own.

a) Element type used---Other (e.g., Tautological)---see italicsb) Element types not used---Data (e.g., experiment); Warrants (e.g., matter conservation);

Backing (e.g., hypothesis)

Findings: Table 2---Types of Elements used by level of sophistication

Types of Elements

Number ofresponses

Level of sophistication

Least Moderate Most

Data (Observations)

22 10 8 4

Warrants (Patterns)

14 4 6 4

Backing (Models)

10 0 6 6

Appeals to Authority

6 4 2 0

Other 11 8 3 0

Findings(continued): General Patterns

Research Question-Nature of the student’s response:

• Almost all students suggested data, but not always data relevant to refuting the counter-claim

• The more sophisticated arguments included warrants and backing

• The less sophisticated arguments depended on appeals to authority or other arguments.

Conclusion: Limitations and Implications

Limitations include:- Clinical interviews-only Data source thus lacks triangulation

Implications for research, science teaching and learning:

Data analysis shows students in three groups:

• A few students’ responses (e.g. see AWL, from example 1 above) tend to use the kinds of Data, Warrants, and Backing that align with scientific ways of thinking (most sophistication) after a period of introducing them to the concept of matter and energy transformation in Carbon Transforming Processes

• Most students’ responses (e.g., FLB, from example 2 above) tend to use the kinds of Elements that have least alignment with the scientific ways of thinking (least sophistication) even after a period of introducing them to the concepts of matter and energy transformation in Carbon Transforming Process

• Some students’ responses tend to use the kinds of Elements associated with moderate sophistication

- This suggests more inquiry, PD, and student science learning supports are warranted (future directions and other details will be included in the main paper)