首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
  相似文献   

2.
Argumentation is fundamental to science education, both as a prominent feature of scientific reasoning and as an effective mode of learning—a perspective reflected in contemporary frameworks and standards. The successful implementation of argumentation in school science, however, requires a paradigm shift in science assessment from the measurement of knowledge and understanding to the measurement of performance and knowledge in use. Performance tasks requiring argumentation must capture the many ways students can construct and evaluate arguments in science, yet such tasks are both expensive and resource-intensive to score. In this study we explore how machine learning text classification techniques can be applied to develop efficient, valid, and accurate constructed-response measures of students' competency with written scientific argumentation that are aligned with a validated argumentation learning progression. Data come from 933 middle school students in the San Francisco Bay Area and are based on three sets of argumentation items in three different science contexts. The findings demonstrate that we have been able to develop computer scoring models that can achieve substantial to almost perfect agreement between human-assigned and computer-predicted scores. Model performance was slightly weaker for harder items targeting higher levels of the learning progression, largely due to the linguistic complexity of these responses and the sparsity of higher-level responses in the training data set. Comparing the efficacy of different scoring approaches revealed that breaking down students' arguments into multiple components (e.g., the presence of an accurate claim or providing sufficient evidence), developing computer models for each component, and combining scores from these analytic components into a holistic score produced better results than holistic scoring approaches. However, this analytical approach was found to be differentially biased when scoring responses from English learners (EL) students as compared to responses from non-EL students on some items. Differences in the severity between human and computer scores for EL between these approaches are explored, and potential sources of bias in automated scoring are discussed.  相似文献   

3.
This study examines how student practice of scientific argumentation using socioscientific bioethics issues affects both teacher expectations of students’ general performance and student confidence in their own work. When teachers use bioethical issues in the classroom students can gain not only biology content knowledge but also important decision-making skills. Learning bioethics through scientific argumentation gives students opportunities to express their ideas, formulate educated opinions and value others’ viewpoints. Research has shown that science teachers’ expectations of student success and knowledge directly influence student achievement and confidence levels. Our study analyzes pre-course and post-course surveys completed by students enrolled in a university level bioethics course (n = 111) and by faculty in the College of Biology and Agriculture faculty (n = 34) based on their perceptions of student confidence. Additionally, student data were collected from classroom observations and interviews. Data analysis showed a disconnect between faculty and students perceptions of confidence for both knowledge and the use of science argumentation. Student reports of their confidence levels regarding various bioethical issues were higher than faculty reports. A further disconnect showed up between students’ preferred learning styles and the general faculty’s common teaching methods; students learned more by practicing scientific argumentation than listening to traditional lectures. Students who completed a bioethics course that included practice in scientific argumentation, significantly increased their confidence levels. This study suggests that professors’ expectations and teaching styles influence student confidence levels in both knowledge and scientific argumentation.  相似文献   

4.
This study investigated the effects of students’ prior science knowledge and online learning approaches (social and individual) on their learning with regard to three topics: science concepts, inquiry, and argumentation. Two science teachers and 118 students from 4 eighth-grade science classes were invited to participate in this research. Students in each class were divided into three groups according to their level of prior science knowledge; they then took either our social- or individual-based online science learning program. The results show that students in the social online argumentation group performed better in argumentation and online argumentation learning. Qualitative analysis indicated that the students’ social interactions benefited the co-construction of sound arguments and the accurate understanding of science concepts. In constructing arguments, students in the individual online argumentation group were limited to knowledge recall and self-reflection. High prior-knowledge students significantly outperformed low prior-knowledge students in all three aspects of science learning. However, the difference in inquiry and argumentation performance between low and high prior-knowledge students decreased with the progression of online learning topics.  相似文献   

5.
Scientific argumentation is one of the core practices for teachers to implement in science classrooms. We developed a computer-based formative assessment to support students’ construction and revision of scientific arguments. The assessment is built upon automated scoring of students’ arguments and provides feedback to students and teachers. Preliminary validity evidence was collected in this study to support the use of automated scoring in this formative assessment. The results showed satisfactory psychometric properties related to this formative assessment. The automated scores showed satisfactory agreement with human scores, but small discrepancies still existed. Automated scores and feedback encouraged students to revise their answers. Students’ scientific argumentation skills improved during the revision process. These findings provided preliminary evident to support the use of automated scoring in the formative assessment to diagnose and enhance students’ argumentation skills in the context of climate change in secondary school science classrooms.  相似文献   

6.
ABSTRACT

Science education trends promote student engagement in authentic knowledge in practice to tackle personally consequential problems. This study explored how partnering scientists and students on a social media platform supported students’ development of disciplinary practice knowledge through practice-based learning with experts during two pilot enactments of a project-based curriculum focusing on the ecological impacts of climate change. Through the online platform, scientists provided feedback on students' infographics, visual argumentation artifacts that use data to communicate about climate change science. We conceptualize the infographics and professional data sets as boundary objects that supported authentic argumentation practices across classroom and professional contexts, but found that student generated data was not robust enough to cross these boundaries. Analysis of the structure and content of the scientists’ feedback revealed that when critiquing argumentation, scientists initiated engagement in multiple scientific practices, supporting a holistic rather than discrete model of practice-based learning. While traditional classroom inquiry has emphasized student experimentation, we found that engagement with existing professional data sets provided students with a platform for developing expertise in systemic scientific practices during argument construction. We further found that many students increased the complexity and improved the visual presentation of their arguments after feedback.  相似文献   

7.
ABSTRACT

This study investigated two science teachers’ meta-strategic knowledge (MSK) of argumentation teaching by applying the repertory grid technique (RGT). One teacher was a novice, while the other was experienced in teaching argumentation. Using the RGT, we elicited the objectives and strategies of the two teachers regarding their argumentation teaching involving two social scientific issue (SSI) scenarios. The results showed that the experienced teacher had more varied and organised MSK for teaching argumentation than the novice teacher. Meanwhile, the novice teacher indicated a belief that the learning of argumentation should occur in a more student-centred manner, rather than relying on a traditional lecture-based environment. Consequently, she spent a considerable amount of time engaging students with their peers’ ideas through discussion and collaboration. On the other hand, the experienced teacher noticed that most of students had the ability to generate arguments, but that few knew how to argue based on evidence. Therefore, she helped students to collect data from various resources and suggested that they construct their own knowledge framework in order to improve students’ ability to incorporate their understanding of scientific knowledge into scientific argumentation.  相似文献   

8.

Constructing scientific arguments is an important practice for students because it helps them to make sense of data using scientific knowledge and within the conceptual and experimental boundaries of an investigation. In this study, we used a text mining method called Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) to identify underlying patterns in students written scientific arguments about a complex scientific phenomenon called Albedo Effect. We further examined how identified patterns compare to existing frameworks related to explaining evidence to support claims and attributing sources of uncertainty. LDA was applied to electronically stored arguments written by 2472 students and concerning how decreases in sea ice affect global temperatures. The results indicated that each content topic identified in the explanations by the LDA— “data only,” “reasoning only,” “data and reasoning combined,” “wrong reasoning types,” and “restatement of the claim”—could be interpreted using the claim–evidence–reasoning framework. Similarly, each topic identified in the students’ uncertainty attributions— “self-evaluations,” “personal sources related to knowledge and experience,” and “scientific sources related to reasoning and data”—could be interpreted using the taxonomy of uncertainty attribution. These results indicate that LDA can serve as a tool for content analysis that can discover semantic patterns in students’ scientific argumentation in particular science domains and facilitate teachers’ providing help to students.

  相似文献   

9.
Science includes more than just concepts and facts, but also encompasses scientific ways of thinking and reasoning. Students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds influence the knowledge they bring to the classroom, which impacts their degree of comfort with scientific practices. Consequently, the goal of this study was to investigate 5th grade students' views of explanation, argument, and evidence across three contexts—what scientists do, what happens in science classrooms, and what happens in everyday life. The study also focused on how students' abilities to engage in one practice, argumentation, changed over the school year. Multiple data sources were analyzed: pre‐ and post‐student interviews, videotapes of classroom instruction, and student writing. The results from the beginning of the school year suggest that students' views of explanation, argument, and evidence, varied across the three contexts with students most likely to respond “I don't know” when talking about their science classroom. Students had resources to draw from both in their everyday knowledge and knowledge of scientists, but were unclear how to use those resources in their science classroom. Students' understandings of explanation, argument, and evidence for scientists and for science class changed over the course of the school year, while their everyday meanings remained more constant. This suggests that instruction can support students in developing stronger understanding of these scientific practices, while still maintaining distinct understandings for their everyday lives. Finally, the students wrote stronger scientific arguments by the end of the school year in terms of the structure of an argument, though the accuracy, appropriateness, and sufficiency of the arguments varied depending on the specific learning or assessment task. This indicates that elementary students are able to write scientific arguments, yet they need support to apply this practice to new and more complex contexts and content areas. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 48: 793–823, 2011  相似文献   

10.
The purpose of this study is to explore how Lakatos’ scientific research programmes might serve as a theoretical framework for representing and evaluating informal argumentation about socio‐scientific issues. Seventy undergraduate science and non‐science majors were asked to make written arguments about four socio‐scientific issues. Our analysis showed that the science majors’ informal arguments were significantly better than the non‐science majors’ arguments. In terms of the resources for supporting reasons, we find that personal experience and scientific belief are the two categories that are generated most often in both groups of the participants. Besides, science majors made significantly greater use of analogies, while non‐science majors made significantly greater use of authority. In addition, both science majors and non‐science majors had a harder time changing their arguments after participating in a group discussion. In the study of argumentation in science, scholars have often used Toulmin’s framework of data, warrant, backing, qualifiers, claims, and rebuttal. Our work demonstrates that Lakatos’ work is also a viable perspective, especially when warrant and backing are difficult to discern, and when students’ arguments are resistant to change. Our use of Lakatos’ framework highlights how the ‘hard core’ of students’ arguments about socio‐scientific issues does, indeed, seem to be protected by a ‘protective belt’ and, thus, is difficult to alter. From these insights, we make specific implications for further research and teaching.  相似文献   

11.
Science education in China is Subject Matter Knowledge (SMK) oriented in that SMK understanding is the major benchmark to assess students’ achievement in science learning. Such an orientation causes students to overemphasize the memorization of SMK and neglect other indispensable components of science, such as scientific attitudes and research skills. The central government in China launched an educational innovation known as New Curriculum Reform in 2003. Considerable progress has been made in the past 11 years in regard to theoretical understandings and administrative priorities, but little progress has been made in terms of classroom instruction and scientific literacy cultivation at the secondary level. Under the pressure of nationwide standardized exams, any educational innovations are unlikely to be accepted unless there is robust evidence suggesting their efficacy in promoting students’ achievements on exams, or even attempted unless teachers are assured such attempts will not negatively impact such achievement. Argumentation-integrated curriculum is one such innovation. Scientific argumentation is an essential scientific activity that leads to the development of an explanation based on empirical evidence. An initial foundation of SMK, in terms of the necessary background knowledge, is considered by many to be a vital component of argumentation and an enhanced SMK is one of the intended products of argumentation. The purpose of this sequential explanatory mixed methods study was to investigate the relationship between Chinese students’ SMK levels and argumentation pedagogy and to provide insights into a possible research agenda focused on implementing argumentation in a heavily SMK-oriented context.  相似文献   

12.
ABSTRACT

Most of the research on argumentation in science education has documented the myriad flaws in students’ argumentation, and the difficulties teachers have organising productive arguments in the classroom. We apply a sociocultural framework to argue that productive argumentation emerges from a classroom culture in which its practice meaningfully serves classroom goals. We present a case study using interaction analysis to contrast two elementary teachers’ efforts to organise productive scientific argumentation in their classrooms. One teacher used discourse moves to orient students to each other’s contributions in ways the other did not, reflecting differences in underlying aims for collective versus individual sense-making. This analysis shows that connecting discourse practices specifically to a goal of collective sense-making promotes productive argumentation.  相似文献   

13.
Primary scientific literature is one of the most important means of communication in science, written for peers in the scientific community. Primary literature provides an authentic context for showing students how scientists support their claims. Several teaching strategies have been proposed using (adapted) scientific publications, some for secondary education, but none of these strategies focused specifically on scientific argumentation. The purpose of this study is to evaluate a strategy for teaching pre-university students to read unadapted primary scientific literature, translated into students’ native language, based on a new argumentation analysis framework. This framework encompasses seven types of argumentative elements: motive, objective, main conclusion, implication, support, counterargument and refutation. During the intervention, students studied two research articles. We monitored students’ reading comprehension and their opinion on the articles and activities. After the intervention, we measured students’ ability to identify the argumentative elements in a third unadapted and translated research article. The presented framework enabled students to analyse the article by identifying the motive, objective, main conclusion and implication and part of the supports. Students stated that they found these activities useful. Most students understood the text on paragraph level and were able to read the article with some help for its vocabulary. We suggest that primary scientific literature has the potential to show students important aspects of the scientific process and to learn scientific vocabulary in an authentic context.  相似文献   

14.
Researchers have emphasized the importance of promoting argumentation in science classrooms for various reasons. However, the study of argumentation is still a young field and more research needs to be carried out on the tools and pedagogical strategies that can assist teachers and students in both the construction and evaluation of scientific arguments. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of argumentation on students’ conceptual learning in dynamics. True-experimental design using quantitative research methods was carried out for the study. The participants of the study were tenth graders studying in two classes in an urban all-girls school. There were 26 female students in each class. Five argumentations promoted in the different contexts were embedded through the dynamics unit over a 10-week duration. The study concludes that engaging in the argumentative process that involves making claims, using data to support these claims, warranting the claims with scientific evidence, and using backings, rebuttals, and qualifiers to further support the reasoning, reinforces students’ understanding of science, and promotes conceptual change. The results suggest that argumentation should be employed during instruction as a way to enable conceptual learning.  相似文献   

15.
Recently, the significance of learners’ informal reasoning on socio‐scientific issues has received increasing attention among science educators. To gain deeper insights into this important issue, an integrated analytic framework was developed in this study. With this framework, 71 Grade 10 students’ informal reasoning about nuclear energy usage was explored qualitatively and quantitatively. It was found that the students in this study tended to process reasoning from multiple perspectives, and most of them were prone to make evidence‐based decisions. However, less than 40% of the participants were able to construct rebuttals against counter‐arguments. It was also revealed that students’ abundant usage of supportive arguments did not guarantee for their counter‐argument construction as well as rebuttal construction, but their usage of counter‐arguments might act as precursors to their construction of rebuttals. In addition, learners’ usage of multiple reasoning modes might help them propose more arguments and, in particular, generate more counter‐arguments, which may act as precursors to their rebuttal construction. This study also showed evidence that students’ scientific knowledge that might be mainly acquired from school science instruction could be viewed as important foundation for better informal reasoning and decision‐making on socio‐scientific issues.  相似文献   

16.
Many researchers have highlighted the important role of teachers in creating and managing argumentative, as well as the need for teachers, during their training, to have opportunities to develop knowledge about arguments, enabling them to work from the perspective of argumentation. This study investigates to what extent a context of explicit teaching of argumentation contributed to developing this knowledge. The data sources include video records of explicit teaching of argumentation, collection of materials produced and used by pre-service teachers, and field notes. Analysis of the data indicates that the explicit teaching of argumentation influenced the conceptual learning of pre-service teachers concerning the elements interwoven into argumentative practice, especially evidence and justifications, and the development of pedagogical aspects in the context of argument. Although the pre-service teachers had expressed some teaching knowledge of argumentation in classroom discussion situations, the use of this approach in teaching situations still appears to be challenging for these teachers. The findings of this study highlight contributions to the area of teacher education in argumentation in terms of knowledge that is essential to plan and conduct argumentation-based teaching, and also to the structure of the initial teacher training programmes directed at teaching in argumentation.  相似文献   

17.
This study analyzed student talk in working groups during four laboratory investigations. Its purpose was to understand the process by which students solve scientific problems, the difficulties students encounter in developing the requisite pieces of scientific arguments while negotiating their social roles, and the ways these roles shape task engagement and the development and articulation of the arguments themselves. The discourse of 6 groups of four students each was audiotaped and 2 groups were videotaped during the planning, execution, and interpretation of student-designed experiments in a 10th-grade interdisciplinary science class. Goals of student engagement, knowledge building within an intellectual framework, and construction of scientific arguments were used to examine conceptual difficulties and social interactions. Within-group comparisons across labs and across-group comparisons within labs were made. It was determined that: (a) students became much better at using the scientific method to construct convincing arguments, and (b) specific social roles and leadership styles developed within groups that greatly influenced the ease with which students developed scientific understanding. The results demonstrate not only that knowledge building involves the construction of scientifically appropriate arguments, but that the extent to which this knowledge building takes place depends on students learning to use tools of the scientific community: their expectations about the intellectual nature of the tasks and their role in carrying these tasks out: and the access they have to the appropriate social context in which to practice developing skills. © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.  相似文献   

18.
This study examined the outcomes of a unit that integrates explicit teaching of general reasoning patterns into the teaching of a specific science content. Specifically, this article examined the teaching of argumentation skills in the context of dilemmas in human genetics. Before instruction only a minority (16.2%) of the students referred to correct, specific biological knowledge in constructing arguments in the context of dilemmas in genetics. Approximately 90% of the students were successful in formulating simple arguments. An assessment that took place following instruction supported the conclusion that integrating explicit teaching of argumentation into the teaching of dilemmas in human genetics enhances performance in both biological knowledge and argumentation. An increase was found in the frequency of students who referred to correct, specific biological knowledge in constructing arguments. Students in the experimental group scored significantly higher than students in the comparison group in a test of genetics knowledge. An increase was also found in the quality of students' argumentation. Students were able to transfer the reasoning abilities taught in the context of genetics to the context of dilemmas taken from everyday life. The effects of metacognitive thinking and of changing students' thinking dispositions by modifying what is considered valuable in the class culture are discussed. © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 35–62, 2002  相似文献   

19.
This study explores how collaborative inquiry learning can be supported with multiple scaffolding agents in a real-life field trip context. In practice, a mobile peer-to-peer messaging tool provided meta-cognitive and procedural support, while tutors and a nature guide provided more dynamic scaffolding in order to support argumentative discussions between groups of students during the co-creation of knowledge claims. The aim of the analysis was to identify and compare top- and low-performing dyads/triads in order to reveal the differences regarding their co-construction of arguments while creating knowledge claims. Although the results revealed several shortcomings in the types of argumentation, it could be established that differences between the top performers and low performers were statistically significant in terms of social modes of argumentation, the use of warrants in the mobile tool and in overall participation. In general, the use of the mobile tool likely promoted important interaction during inquiry learning, but led to superficial epistemological quality in the knowledge claim messages.  相似文献   

20.
Structured argumentation support environments have been built and used in scientific discourse in the literature. However, to the best our knowledge, there is no research work in the literature examining whether student’s knowledge has grown during learning activities with asynchronous argumentation. In this work, an intelligent computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning platform that detects whether the learners address the expected discussion issues is proposed. After each learner presents an argument, a term weighting method is adopted to derive input parameters of a one-class support vector machines classifier which determines if the learners’ arguments are related to the discussion topics. Notably, a peer review mechanism is established to improve the quality of the classifier. Besides, a feedback module is used to issue feedback messages to the learners if the learners have gone off on a tangent. The experimental results revealed that the students were benefited by the proposed learning-assistance platform.  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号