A Case for Scientific Explanations

Argumentation and Writing in the Science Classroom: A Review of Selected Literature

Writing in science classrooms has three main positive purposes: 1) integrating curriculum between language arts and science, 2) motivating students to explore science through creative writing and 3) building arguments through scientific explanations. Writing adds value to assessment as well as student motivation. A teacher can gauge a student’s learning as well as track his/her progress throughout the lesson, unit or school year. Writing helps the student articulate concepts and big ideas in his/her own voice as well as demonstrate reasoning. These are all positive outcomes for teachers and students.

Modern progressive education theory, the values of the new Common Core curriculum and student motivational studies all point to writing in subject areas – other than a strict language arts classroom – as necessary towards the intellectual development of not only early adolescents but of all students. While inquiry-based lessons focusing on hands-on activities and student-centered discussion are positive attributes of a science classroom, scientific argumentation and explanation quantitatively and qualitatively enhance learning and achievement (Nam, et al., 2011).

In the study, “Implementation of the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) Approach in 8^th Grade Science Classrooms”, the authors studied three Korean middle school classrooms testing the use of discussion and writing focused on building arguments against a controlled setting. Each teacher taught the SWH method and a control class which did not implement argumentation. SWH follows a strict protocol of brainstorming ideas, identifying variables to test, testing the variables, making a claim upon what is learned, identifying evidence supporting the claim, arguing for the claim through reasoning, comparing ideas with others’ and reflecting on the big idea tested by the class.

What the study found is the classrooms using the SWH protocol achieved higher in a summary writing assessment than the control. The tool for testing the summary focused on the students articulating: the big idea, specific science concepts taught during the lesson, the components of the argument and evidence, and how well the summary was written.

“These results indicated that students….who successfully experienced public negotiation opportunities in class were able to self negotiate in their summary writing activity in the way which enables them to elaborate their thinking and understanding from the negotiation in class. Our data analyses suggest that students who were actively engaged in an argument-based inquiry approach were able to develop arguments in their summary writing.” (Nam, et al. 2011).

Thus, by combining hands-on activities, classroom or group discussion and writing to build a scientific argument or explanation utilizing claims, evidence and reasoning, students demonstrated higher levels of achievement than the control group. What was also interesting was the results were true for all but one of the teachers. The study concluded teacher preparation and quality affect student performance. The classroom teacher with students not demonstrating a difference between the achievement also scored low in the teacher assessment categories. That teacher scored lowest in building the “big idea”, “science concepts” and “argumentation.” Engaging students in those areas would help develop a better post-lesson summary. In conclusion, the study found it to be equally important to use argumentation in discussion and writing as well as it is for the educator to effectively implement such a system.

In the book, “Supporting Grade 5-8 Students in Constructing Explanations in Science” (McNeill & Krajcik, 2012), the framework for discussion and writing via argumentation is presented. The book defines scientific explanations in three parts.

The Claim: a conclusion to a question or problem.

Evidence: scientific data that supports the claim.

Reasoning: a justification that links the evidence to the claim (use scientific principles to make that claim.)

McNeill & Krajcik contend the use of scientific explanations produce help students understand science concepts, develop 21^st century skills, use evidence to support claims, reason logically, consider and critique alternative explanations and understand the nature of science (7). The claim is the easiest item for students to include in their writing. It is a broad contention stating what occurred during the experiment. The claim is “a statement that expresses the answer or conclusion to a question or problem” (22). Next, the evidence is the data supporting the claim. Finally, the reasoning, the most difficult for students to comprehend, justifies the links between the evidence and the claim.

“The reasoning explains why the evidence supports the claim, providing a logical connection between the evidence and the claim.” (24).

Implementing science explanations are increasingly recommended by literature and curriculum standards. Successful implementation is equally as important (Nam, et al. 2010). McNeill & Krajcik present a framework for such a process. They outline the difficulties educators should expect along the way, specifically what challenges students will encounter when developing higher-order thinking skills. The book also provides case studies and video evidence demonstrating teachers both presenting the initial discussion as to the foundations of scientific explanations and further advancement of the concept. It provides student examples showing advancement throughout the year.

First, the teacher should discuss the framework of claim, evidence and reasoning using everyday examples. One teacher featured claimed she could be an NFL quarterback. Her evidence was she had watched several games, thrown a football and understands the rules. She reasoned her evidence by saying prominent quarterbacks had also done the same thing. Next, the class should critique the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence and provide feedback through confirmation or rebuttal. Finally, after a class debate, the each student should contribute to a consensus final big idea explaining the phenomena and answering the overarching scientific question.

This book can act as professional development with actual, in-class teaching examples implementing scientific explanations and arguments in the classroom. At the least it encourages teachers and teachers-in-training to use these methods. But most effectively, it synthesizes research, in relation with the above journal article, promoting the process of argumentation (claim, evidence and reasoning) in science classrooms for the cognitive benefit of mid-level students.

Works Cited

Nam, J., Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2011) Implementation of the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach in 8^th grade science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1111-1133.

McNeil, K. L., Krajcik, J. S. (2012). Supporting Grade 5-8 Students in Constructing Explanations in Science. Boston: Pearson.

Critique of Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform

The knowledge base articulated by Shulman is not science specific and can be applied to any subject taught. An educator must have a synthetic understanding of course content and wisdom how to facilitate that knowledge. Shulman argues for tiers of synthetic understanding which fall under measurable subtypes: 1) course content to be learned; 2)the use of tools and pedagogical techniques used; 3) the building of a psychological research base and professional development to improve age-appropriate learning. The fourth is the most important to teaching and, as pointed out by Shulman, the most difficult to study empirically: the wisdom of practice.

A teacher may have an encyclopedic depth of content knowledge, but is unable to organize that knowledge through the use of materials and pedagogical techniques. Conversely, a teacher may have both the content knowledge and in-class instruction skill set, but illiterate of the unique developmental needs and hesitant to adapt to a growing literature base. I would argue, content knowledge is the most basic of these skills and the least amount of weight should be placed in this area compared to the other two tiers when assessing teacher performance. That is not to say content knowledge should be ignored altogether.

A technologically savvy or inquiring educator can find the facts or content knowledge needed to fill in the gaps in his/her learning. In fact, the ability to learn from outside sources is an effective teaching tool to give students. I find pedagogical techniques, differentiated instruction, use of the multiple intelligences, student-centered instruction and use of technology in the classroom is a more effective and dynamic teaching trait and should be given more weight than the scholarly knowledge of the course material.

On a relatively equal playing field with teaching practices is the immersion of understanding a growing literature base of schooling, teaching and student’s developmental learning. No teacher is perfect nor is his style and, as Shulman said, teaching is a learned profession. A teacher must be willing to improve on the base content knowledge and in-class presentation of the materials. The teacher should also be mindful of the studies into brain research and youth development. It could be argued this is the most important staple in Shulman’s three pillars of a teacher’s knowledge base because it deals with the future improvement of education – while content knowledge deals with what is already known (past learning) and the present utilization of materials and practices.

Finally, Shulman introduces the abstract principle of “wisdom of practice,” the most difficult to gather from objective empirical data. Shulman is correct in his analysis that some working combination of the first three pillars (content knowledge, use of materials and practices, future research) are needed for effective decision making and the need for articulation of best practices is paramount. His fear of a strict code of such practices is real. Such a strict code can prove counterproductive because each teacher, young, experienced, gifted or inept, has overlapping, unique styles. One teacher’s effective approach may be ineffective for another. What are we measuring effectiveness against? Standardized test scores? Formative and summative assessments? Individual improvement? Are we picking winners and losers? Do these best practices produce positive results for all students regardless of race, age, socio-economic status, intellectual capacity, disability?

Shulman does attempt to classify wisdom-of-practice into six categories which reflect a similar model of how information is learned, stored and conserved. On the most concrete level is comprehension. Comprehension of subject matter must then be transformed into institutional understanding – the preparation of material, the representation of that material, the selection of what is taught and the adaptation to individual student needs. Next, a teacher must be able to teach the material using effective classroom management strategies, pedagogical theories, student-centered instruction, small-group work, etc. The teacher must then evaluate student understanding and knowledge construction while also reflecting on the practices used during preparation and instruction. Finally, the teacher must use those self-assessments and assessments of students for teacher improvement.

Let me be clear. A teacher’s working knowledge base is not determined solely by content knowledge. It is the working preparation, instruction, assessment and reflection based on a progressive research base which, according to Shulman’s model, makes an effective and improved teacher. How you evaluate such a complex daily system is difficult to place in a systematic code of what is acceptable and unacceptable. The art of teaching cannot be squeezed into a strict table of yes and no answers, but is best as an annotated anthology of best practices which allow malleable and open-minded educators, with a strong concrete skill set and the student’s interests and developmental needs and interests in mind, to flourish.

Shulman, L. (1987) . Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Education Review. 57 (1).