A Framework for Practical
work, Argumentation and
Scientific Literacy to plan
research
Ros Roberts
York, June 2011
Delimiting the ideas
Science education literature: practical work;
argumentation; scientific literacy
Different theoretical approaches, traditions
and cultures
Resultant lack of clarity
Development of a delimited, internally
coherent, parsimonious framework that
can be used to frame research
Scientific literacy
A range of definitions
– Understand what science does
– through to a more ‘empowered’ and active
role; engagement, challenge, decisions
• Understanding evidence is important for all
these definitions
Procedural Understanding:
Understanding Ideas about Evidence
Royal Society’s motto: Nullius in verba
‘Take nobody’s word for it!’
Science is based on evidence, not opinion
Evidence: a link between practical work,
argumentation and scientific literacy
A framework for research
Theoretical
framework
Problem
solving in
science
Mental
processing
(Higher order
investigative skills)
Substantive
understanding
Procedural
Understanding
concepts laws and
theories
concepts associated with
the collection,
interpretation and
validation of evidence
Facts
Basic
skills
The Concepts of Evidence (Gott, Duggan and Roberts)
These are the ideas that are needed to develop a
procedural understanding
They act as a Domain Specification:
• the basis for the selection of curriculum content
• the basis for our teaching and teaching materials
• and the basis of assessment (understanding, application
and synthesis, evaluation)
http://www.dur.ac.uk/rosalyn.roberts/Evidence/cofev.htm
Bull’s-eye summary
A single
datum
A data
set
Relationships
between
variables –
pattern in data
Comparison
with other
sources of data
Wider issues –
bias,
economics etc.
Linking practical work,
argument and scientific literacy
The structure for an argument
Toulmin (1958)
argumentation
data
qualifier
warrant
backings
secondary backings
claim
rebuttal
A framework for research
Research questions (1)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Does teaching the ideas of evidence – looking forward
- improve students’ understanding of evidence? (refs 1, 2)
Does teaching the ideas of evidence – looking forward
- improve students’ open-ended investigations? (refs 3, 4)
What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for
success in open-ended investigations? (refs 5, 6)
How do students use the ideas of evidence in an
investigation? (refs 3, 4)
Does teaching the ideas of evidence – looking forward
- enable students to question others’ claims – looking
back? (ref 7)
What sort of questions do they ask and which ideas of
evidence do they draw on when questioning claims? (ref
7)
7.
Does teaching the ideas of evidence ‘work’ with
Turkish ITT students? (ref 8)
Research questions (2)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
How do BAEd students evaluate claims? Does an
understanding of Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern aid
this?
How does school science prepare Science undergrads
to understand evidence, evaluate claims and approach
open-ended investigations?
How can we explicitly teach about arguing with
evidence?
Etc
Etc
Publications
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Roberts, R. and Gott, R. (2004) A written test for procedural understanding: a way forward for
assessment in the UK science curriculum? Research in Science and Technological Education
22 (1) pp 5-21
Roberts, R. and Gott, R. (2006) Assessment of performance in practical science and pupil
attributes. Assessment in Education 13 (1) pp 45-67
Roberts, R., Gott, R. and Glaesser, J. (accepted) Students’ approaches to open-ended
science investigation: the importance of substantive and procedural understanding. Research
Papers in Education
Roberts, R. (2009) Can teaching about evidence encourage a creative approach in openended investigations? School Science Review 90 (332) pp 31-38
Glaesser, J., Gott, R., Roberts, R. and Cooper B. (2009) Underlying success in open-ended
investigations in science: using qualitative comparative analysis to identify necessary and
sufficient conditions. Research in Science and Technology Education 27 (1) pp 5-30
Glaesser, J., Gott, R., Roberts, R. and Cooper, B. (2009) The roles of substantive and
procedural understanding in open-ended science investigations: Using fuzzy set Qualitative
Comparative Analysis to compare two different tasks. Research in Science Education 39 (4)
pp 595-624
Roberts, R. and Gott, R. (2010) Questioning the Evidence for a claim in a socio-scientific
issue: an aspect of scientific literacy. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28 (3)
pp 203 – 226
Roberts, R. and Sahin-Pekmez, E. (accepted) Scientific Evidence as Content Knowledge: a
replication study with English and Turkish pre-service primary teachers. European Journal of
Teacher Education
For further information please contact
Ros Roberts
Rosalyn.Roberts@dur.ac.uk