Questions, Claims and Evidence:
Teaching Argumentation in the
NGSS through the use of a Science
Writing Heuristic
Brian Hand
University of Iowa
Discussion format
Theoretical perspectives
Randomized field trail results
Classroom aspects
Next Generation Science Standards
Scientific and Engineering Practices
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
Science
The advancement of science is about a process of
construction and critique
Scientist negotiate with each other
Scientists do not advance science through information
transfer
the
– if this was the case who gave the first scientists
information to pass on?
- who gives the current generation of scientist the
“new” knowledge
Science Argument
Is a central component of science
Requires participants to negotiate meaning both publicly and
privately
Is bound by a structure linking questions, claims, evidence and
rebuttals
Constructed knowledge is tested against nature
Our working definition
Argument Based Inquiry is inquiry that is intended to
build students grasp of scientific practices while
motivating an understanding of disciplinary big ideas.
Construction and critique of knowledge are centrally
located through an emphasis on the epistemological
frame of argument by engaging them in posing
questions, gathering data, and generating claims
supported by evidence.
This perspective of argument builds on the work of Walton
who suggests that argument is a logical contribution to the
resolution of unsettled knowledge. This more general
perspective on argument is valuable as it recognizes the use
of argument as a learning tool; thus the immersion of
students in argument throughout their inquiry.
Douglas Walton
University of Toronto
Argument
Deals with unsettled knowledge
Trying to persuade others
Explanation
Deals with settled knowledge
To inform others
Argument
Made up of questions, claims and evidence
What is a claim?
What is evidence?
What is the relationship between these
elements?
Connections
Question
Claims
Claims
Evidence
Argument
Deals with questions, claims and evidence
There must be connections between questions, claims and
evidence
There has to be strong coherence between the various components
Arguments require reasoning – not something to be simply
learned
Critical Issues that need to be engaged with
We do not pay enough attention to ideas such
as data, evidence, explanation
Researchers use such ideas – as published in
articles
Data/evidence
Claims, evidence, reasoning
Evidence and explanations
Data and
evidence
Is this distinction important?
Students have trouble separating these two
“Data does not speak”
We have to do something with data to get to
evidence
Evidence and Reasoning
If we have to do something to data to get evidence –
what is it?
Critically we have to reason about the data – we have
to make critical decision about
What data points to use?
Are there patterns?
•
If we remove reasoning from evidence we have data
Relationship
Data
Reasoning
Evidence
Evidence and explanation
Simply question – if evidence is not an explanation –
what is it?
Is not evidence a reasoned explanation about particular
data points and how they fit together?
All evidence is explanatory, but not all explanations are
evidentiary
Two essential components of science
Language
- there is no science without language
- means that we have have to pay attention to all the
different discourses/representations associated with science
Argumentation
- is a critical process that is central to the way in which
science knowledge is constructed
The Science Writing Heuristic approach is based on
earlier Halliday work (70’s)
You learn about language while you learn through using
language
Means that students
learn about argument while they learn through using
argument
Importance?
These distinctions are not trivial
There is a distinctly different orientation to the
learning of argument based inquiry
Is it something “done to” students or something
students should “be immersed” in?
The Science Writing Heuristic Templates
Teacher’s template
Exploration of pre-instruction
understanding
Pre-laboratory activities
Laboratory activity
Negotiation I - individual writing
Negotiation II - group discussion
Negotiation III - textbook and other
resources
Negotiation IV- individual writing
Exploration of post-instruction
understanding
Student’s template
Beginning questions or ideas
What are my questions about this
experiment?
Tests and Procedures
What will I do to help answer my
questions?
Observations
What did I see when I completed my
tests and procedure?
Claims
What can I claim?
Evidence
What evidence do I have to support my
claim? How do I know? Why am I
making these claims?
Reading
How do my ideas compare with others?
Reflection
How have my ideas changed?
Randomized Field Trial
Involves 48 grade 3-5 buildings in Iowa
24 treatment, 24 control
Divided into 5 clusters within the state
8 days of inservice – 5 in summer, 3 during the year
Follow up monitoring within school
Collection of teacher video – one per semester/year
Collection of Iowa Test of Basic Skills/Iowa Assessment
data
Implementation of Cornell Critical Thinking test pre/post
at grade 5 level
Critical Thinking Improvement Scores Year
1
Critical Thinking Improvement Scores Year
2
Effect sizes for each cluster
Transfer – what do we mean
Domain
Specific
Knowledge
Domain
General
Knowledge
Transfer
Argumentbased Inquiry
Cornell
Critical
Thinking
Test
Data Used

The data used for the following analysis' are the paired 3rd - 5th
grade and paired 4th - 6th grade national standardized scores on
the ITBS and Iowa Assessments for school year pairs 2006-07
with 2008-09, 2007-08 with 2009-10, 2008-09 with 2010-2011,
and 2009-10 with 2011-12.

The data is paired by student

The associated demographics are also used
Equivalence of ITBS and Iowa
Assessments



ITBS and Iowa Assessments share three sections that were
taken by all schools in the study: Reading, Mathematics, and
Science.
The Math I and Math II Scores from the ITBS relate with the
Math Comprehension score from Iowa Assessments
For each combination of subject, grade, and year the National
Standardized Scores were standardized. For the ITBS Math
Scores they were added, then standardized
Mixed Models



For each of the four groups of students as described previously,
for each of the three test types (RC, M, and SC), mixed models
were fit
The predicted value was the change in test score (DRC, DM, or
DSC) Note: Scores standardized as previously mentioned
The base-level fixed effects were pretest score (RC, M, or SC),
ASN, BLK, HSP, FRL, ELL, GAT (All students only), SED
(similarly), and TRT
Mixed Models Continued



The interactions included in the models were TRT with all
the other fixed effects.
The two random effects included in the modes were UNIT
(the unit for which treatment or control was assigned, usually
a school building) and DIST (the block of units used to
control variability in the assignment of treatment and
control)
For each model non-significant variables were removed (tscore < 1.66 (relating p-value .1)) unless they were base fixed
effects who had a significant interaction term or the TRT
fixed effect.
All Students - Reading


DRC ~ RC + TRT + SEM + DSEM + ASN + BLK + SED +
GAT + FRL + ELL + (1|UNIT) + (1|DIST)
Notes


TRT - Weak Positive (t = 1.66)
No significant interactions
All Students - Mathematics


DM ~ M + TRT + DSEM + GEN + ASN + BLK + HSP +
SED + GAT + FRL + ELL + TRT:GEN + TRT:BLK +
TRT:SED + TRT:GAT + TRT:FRL + TRT:ELL + (1|UNIT) +
(1|DIST)
Notes


TRT – Very Very Strong Positive (t = 11.23)
TRT:GEN – Weak Negative (t = -2.03), TRT:BLK – Weak Positive
(t = 1.97), TRT:SED – Very Strong Positive (t = 3.44), TRT:GAT –
Very Very Strong Negative (t = -7.34), and TRT:ELL – Weak
Postive (t = 2.10)
All Students - Science


DSC ~ SC + TRT + DSEM + GEN + BLK + HSP + SED +
GAT + FRL + ELL + (1|UNIT) + (1|DIST)
Notes


Not significant TRT
No significant interactions
All Students - Comments



There is small evidence to support students do better with Reading Comprehension
in the Treatment group
There is very strong evidence to support that students do better with Mathematics in
the Treatment group

The female disadvantage is reduced with treatment

The African American disadvantage is reduced with treatment

The special education disadvantage is reduced with treatment

The gifted and talented advantage is reduced with treatment

The free and reduced lunch disadvantage is reduced with treatment

English language learners in treatment are as well off as non-English Language
Learners in the Control group
There is no evidence to support improvement is Science Comprehension associated
with Treatment
Special Education Conclusions



There is no evidence to support that treatment leads to a change in
Reading Comprehension

Males receive an advantage in Reading Comprehension with
treatment

Free and reduced lunch students receive a further disadvantage
with treatment
There is very strong evidence to support that treatment leads to an
improvement in Mathematics
There is no evidence to support that treatment leads to a change in
Science Comprehension

Free and reduced lunch students receive a further disadvantage
with treatment
Gifted and Talented Conclusions



There is no evidence of an effect of Treatment on Reading Comprehension
There is weak evidence to suggest a negative effect of Treatment on
Mathematics

The female disadvantage is reduce in the treatment group to the point
were a female in the treatment group is better off then in the control
group

The free and reduced lunch disadvantage is reduced in the treatment
group to the point where a FRL student in the treatment group is better
off then in the control group
There is no evidence of an overall effect of Treatment on Science
Comprehension

The Hispanic advantage almost disappears in the treatment group
Traditional Conclusions



No evidence of an overall effect of Treatment on Reading Comprehension

Treatment seems to decrease the Asian Advantage

Treatment seems to decrease the free and reduced lunch disadvantage
There is strong evidence of an improvement of Mathematics scores because of
Treatment

An African American in the treatment group has the same advantage as a
Caucasian in the control group

An English Language Learner in the treatment group is better off then a nonELL in the control group

A free and reduced lunch student in the treatment group is almost as well off as
a non-FRL in the control group
No evidence of an overall effect of Treatment on Science Comprehension

The Asian advantage decreases with the Treatment group
Classroom Conditions
How well do teachers implement? Is there a difference
between treatment and control?
Do they have more science teaching in school?
Is there a carry over to other subjects?
Can we see a shift in how the classroom environment
looks?
Does this impact language events?
Teacher Implementation Scores
Year 1
120
100
# of Videos
80
TRT
60
CTRL
40
20
0
0 - .25
0.5 - 0.75
1 - 1.25
1.5 - 1.75
2 - 2.25
2.5 - 2.75
3
Number of lessons per week
Minutes/science lesson
60
50
% teachers
40
TRT Percent
30
CTRL Percent
20
10
0
0-15
16-30
31-45
46-60
60+
Transfer of approach into other
disciplines
Classroom environment
Teacher-student talk
Writing
Does implementation matter?
Do we understand what is happening?
Sources of meaning
Personal (Intuitive)
Complexity of Reasoning
Developing Single Reasoning
Fuzzy Understanding
Diagrammatic
Representation
Contextualized/
Perception-based
Single Reasoning
Alternative Explanation
Developing Chain of Reasoning
Comparing Ideas
Chain of Reasoning
Consolidating Ideas
Developing Reasoning Network
Further Negotiation
Scientific (Reflective)
Coherence
Reasoning Network
Research funded by a grant from the US Department
of Education through the Institute of Education
Sciences, award number R305A090094-10.