Argumentation in the urban high school
physics classroom: Intersection of the
Common Core State Standards and the Next
Generation Science Standards
Annabel D’Souza and Wesley Pitts
adsouza@gc.cuny.edu
wesley.pitts@lehman.cuny.edu
March 15, 2013
Workshop Overview

An overview of argumentation: implementation and assessment problems

Session 1
 Argumentation in the context in a 11 and 12 grade physics activity with student work





samples
Basic coding for argumentation (Simple Toulmin Framework)
We connect the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS) framework
Q&A
Break
Session 2
 Argumentation in the context of an undergraduate Biochemistry course
 Coding for argumentation (Extended Toulmin Framework)
 Course structure and learning outcomes that support argumentation
 Connecting the work on argumentation in Secondary classrooms to Undergraduate courses
 Q&A
Background: Research on
Argumentation
Why focus on argumentation? (besides meeting National standards)
 critical scientific and socio-scientific skill
 linked to increases in critical thinking and problem solving skills (Ennis,
1985; Halpern, 1998; Facion, 1990; Paul 1992; Case, 2005; Willingham, 2007)
 democracy and citizenship (Fulkerson, 1996)
 critical decision making in life that go beyond school and employment
(Kuhn, 1992)
 critical tenet in the practice of science
 Through argumentation students challenge evidence or support
evidence with claims (Evagorou and Osborne, 2012)
 Come to understand the plausible criteria (warrants) used to evaluate
evidence thereby becoming increasingly literate in how to do science
Toulmin’s (basic) Argumentation Model
3-stage Argumentation pattern
Secondary Reforms
 Systemic contexts: Reform movements
 Local contexts: Site of participation (schools)—New
Visions Network
Recent National K-12 Science Education
Reform Movements

Common Core State Standards




Assess the extent to which the reasoning and evidence in a text support the author’s claim or a
recommendation for solving a scientific or technical problem” (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.9-10.8)
Determine the meaning of symbols, key terms, and other domain-specific words and phrases as they
are used in a specific scientific or technical context relevant to grades 11–12 texts and topics.
Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of science and technical texts, attending to the
precise details of explanations or descriptions” (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.9-10.1)
Next Generation Science Standards

8 cross-cutting science and engineering skills that need to be embedded into instruction








1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering)
2. Developing and using models
3. Planning and carrying out investigations
4. Analyzing and interpreting data
5. Using mathematics and computational thinking
6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering)
7. Engaging in argument from evidence
8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
Session 1: Argumentation in
an urban Physics classroom
 Local Contexts: MSPinNYC2: peer led team learning
(Horwitz and Rodgers, 2009)
and urban high school physics course
 Requires opportunities for high levels of student-student
dialogue exists during teaching activities
(Kuhn, Shaw, & Felton, 1997; Zohar & Nemet, 2002).
FOCUS OF THE ACTIVITY
CCSS
Assess the extent
to which the
reasoning and
evidence in a text
support the
author’s claim
NGSS
Cite specific
textual
evidence to
support
analysis
Engaging in
argument
from
evidence
Obtaining,
evaluating, and
communicating
information
Analyzing and
interpreting
data
The Activity: Phase 1
 Professional Development team reviewed and shared the
literature on argumentation. Some of articles reviewed were
Osborne, Erduran and Simon, 2004; Kuhn, 1992; Evagorou
and Osborne, 2012; Weber, Maher, Powell and Lee, 2008;
and Sampson and Blanchard, 2012
 Introduce the elements of argumentation to the students,
including definitions of claim, evidence and reasoning from
Toulmin’s Argumentation Model (1969)
 These elements also had to be scaffolded and modeled (Kuhn,
1992)
 We adapted a reasoning activity on friction from an online
resource—physicsclassroom.com (sample given to you)
The Activity: Phase 2
 Phase 2 emerged because we needed to work on
some skills we noticed from the analysis of phase 1
samples
 Definition of claim was given to the students in addition
to definitions of evidence and reasoning
 We adapted a reasoning activity on Newton’s 2nd Law
from an online resource—physicsclassroom.com
(sample given to you)
Analysis of student work & Implications for
gateway content courses
 1st phase: Students were struggling with the reasoning
section. Reasoning was superficial. Not supported with
data. Students did not connect to the points in the data
table.
 2nd phase: Students improved their reasoning with
evidence section. NGSS skill of Analyzing and
Interpreting data also improved as students now
referred to the data table and included physics
concepts.
 New Challenge: oral argumentation
Questions?
 After the BREAK we will continue with Session 2:
Argumentation in an undergraduate Biochemistry
course with sample work examples
Session 2—Argumentation in an
undergraduate Biochemistry course
Context
 Students were engaged in discussing a mechanism
related to the TCA cycle in Biochemistry: CHE 472
 Several students (at least 4) were involved in the
discussion
 We analyzed the vignette and coded it using codes from
Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern [TAP] (Toulmin, 1969)
 We analyzed the reflection logs from student portfolios
and coded it using codes from TAP
Toulmin’s Argumentation Model
 6 criteria:
 Claim: A statement that you are asking the other person to accept
 Grounds/Data: It is the ‘truth’ on which the claim is based. The grounds should
not be challenged otherwise it becomes a claim.
 Warrant/Reasoning: Links data to a claim or “why does that data mean your
claim is true?”
 Backing/Support: Gives additional support to the warrant
 Qualifier/Modal qualifier: Indicates the strength of the leap from the data to the
warrant and may limit how universally the claim applies. Includes words like
most, usually, always or sometimes.
 Rebuttal: Counter-argument[s] either through a continued dialogue or by preempting the rebuttal in the initial presentation section.
What structures were fostering this skill?
We examined student portfolios and coded student work using TAP as our coding
framework for the TCA cycle (sample given to you)
Biochemistry II
CHE 472
Structure of the
Biochemistry
course
Research Questions
Research is in its initial stages:
 How does the course structure and the learning objectives
support argumentation?
 Learning outcomes from the syllabus related to TCA cycle (the
event we derived our vignette from) ask students to compare
reaction mechanisms or the roles of specific cofactors and
coenzymes, do the reactions support the hypothesis, describe
the development of reaction mechanisms etc.
 How is argumentation assessed in the context of the
course?
 How does the implementation of argumentation support
student outcomes in the course?
Need for Coding/Implications

By recognizing these codes in student talk faculty can assess if students are able to:
1) Engage in argumentation
2) Use evidence to form their reasoning
3) Have highly developed warrants (empirically/conceptually based)
4) Can analyze and interpret data or text

Faculty can:
1) Scaffold and build on the basic argumentation framework from Secondary
classrooms (Claim, Evidence and Warrants)
2) Utilize the framework from secondary classrooms if students do not have these skills
3) Move students towards higher levels of engaging in argumentation (such as using rebuttals
and qualifiers)
Questions?
References:

Case, R. (2005). Moving critical thinking to the main stage. Education Canada, 45(2), 45–49.

Ennis, R.H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44–48.

Facion, P.A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction.
Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.

Fulkerson, R. (1996). Teaching the Argument in Writing. Urbana: NCTE.

Halpern, D.F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and
metacognitive monitoring American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455.

Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as Argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178.

Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15,
287–315.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004) Enhancing the Quality of Argumentation in School Science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.

Paul, R.W. (1992). Critical thinking: What, why, and how? New Directions for Community Colleges, 77, 3–24.

Toulmin, S. (1969). The uses of Argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press

Willingham, D.T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 8–19.

Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.