Student Decision Making in a Scenario-based Investigation of an Ecosystem

Cathy Ellen Mehl; Hui Jin; Kenneth F. Llort

doi:10.29333/ejmste/112278

Full Text (PDF)

Cathy Ellen Mehl ¹ ^* , Hui Jin ², Kenneth F. Llort ²

More Detail

¹ Ohio State University, USA² Educational Testing Service, USA^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

Argumentation is an important component of scientific education (Osborne, 2010). However, how students create and evaluate competing arguments in scientific investigations is a complex construct, which presents significant challenges for assessment. We engaged 349 middle and high school students in a virtual scientific investigation based on an authentic problem involving the ecosystem of Yellowstone National Park. Students evaluated three possible causes for vegetation loss in Lamar Valley: tourism, global warming, and killing wolves. Students compared their responses to individual claims to formulate a final decision. The authors developed a coding system to assess student arguments and analysed how students changed their evaluations across the investigation. Four distinct levels of responses reveal the range of student decision making and patterns that have implications for instruction and assessment. Few student evaluations explained both merits and weaknesses of claims.

Keywords

argumentation
assessment
decision making
ecosystems
scientific investigation

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 16, Issue 1, January 2020, Article No: em1809

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/112278

Publication date: 27 Sep 2019

Article Views: 2324

Article Downloads: 1475

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Bennett, R. E. (2010). Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning (CBAL): A preliminary theory of action for summative and formative assessment. Measurement, 8, 70-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2010.508686.
Bennett, R. E. (2011). CBAL: Results from piloting innovative K-12 assessments. ETS Research Report, RR-11-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2011.tb02259.x.
Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473-498. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20278.
Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80, 336-371. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953.
Cavagnetto, A., & Hand, B. (2012). The importance of embedding argument within science classrooms. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research (39-53). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_3.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293-321. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216.
Davenport, K., Milks, J., & Van Tassell, R. (2015). Using evolutionary data in developing phylogenetic trees: A scaffold approach with authentic data. The American Biology Teacher, 77, 274- 283. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2015.77.4.7.
Deng, Y., & Wang, H. (2017). Research on evaluation of Chinese students’ competence in written scientific argumentation in the context of chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18, 127-150. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00076B.
Donnelly, D. F., Namdar, B., Vitale, J. M., Lai, K., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Enhancing student explanations of evolution: Comparing elaborating and competing theory prompts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 1341-1363. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21331.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3%3C287::AID-SCE1%3E3.0.CO;2-A.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., Shouse, A. W., National Research Council (U.S.)., National Research Council (U.S.)., & National Research Council (U.S.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.
Erduran, S., & Aleixandre, M. (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.-P., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210134857.
Jin, H., Mehl, C., & Lan, D. (2015). Developing an analytical framework for argumentation on energy consumption issues: Analytical framework for argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(8), 1132-1162. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21237.
Jin, H., Shin, H., Hokayem, H., Qureshi, F., & Jenkins, T. (2019). Secondary students’ understanding of ecosystems: A learning progression approach. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(2), 217-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9864-9.
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314-342. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024.
Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 974-1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.832004.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673-89. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199611)80:6%3C673::AID-SCE3%3E3.0.CO;2-G.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1998.9672057.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155-172. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.2.9r424r0113t670l1.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 153-191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1.
McCrudden, M., & Barnes, A. (2016). Differences in student reasoning about belief-relevant arguments: a mixed methods study. Metacognition & Learning, 11, 275-303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9148-0.
Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920410001689689.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas.
NGSS Consortium of Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington D.C.: Achieve, Inc.
Novak, A. M., & Treagust, D. F. (2018). Adjusting claims as new evidence emerges: Do students incorporate new evidence into their scientific explanations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55, 526-549. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21429.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463-466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035.
Osborne, J. F., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S.-Y. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 821-846. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21316.
Osborne, J., MacPherson, A., Patterson, A., & Szu, E. (2012). Introduction. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research (3-15). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_1.
Ripple, W. J. & Beschta, R. L. (2003). Wolf reintroduction, predation risk, and cottonwood recovery in Yellowstone National Park. Forest Ecology and Management, 184, 299-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00154-3.
Ripple, W. J., Estes, J. A., Schmitz, O. J., Constant, V., Kaylor, M. J., Lenz, A., Motley, J. L., ... Wolf, C. (2016). What is a trophic cascade? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31, 842-849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.08.010.
Ripple, W. J., Larsen, E.J., Renkin, R. A., &Smith, D. W. (2001). Trophic cascades among wolves, elk, and aspen on Yellowstone National Park’s northern range. Biological Conservation, 102, 227-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00107-0.
Sadler, T. (2011). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and value. (Book review). Science Education, 95, 186-187.
Sadler, T., Chambers, W., & Zeidler, D. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000119456.
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463-1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 3, 345-372. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130.
Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 952-977. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358.
Walsh, E. M., & McGowan, V. C. (2017). ‘Let your data tell a story:’ climate change experts and students navigating disciplinary argumentation in the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 39, 20-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1264033.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008.

How to cite this article

APA

Mehl, C. E., Jin, H., & Llort, K. F. (2020). Student Decision Making in a Scenario-based Investigation of an Ecosystem. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(1), em1809. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/112278

Vancouver

Mehl CE, Jin H, Llort KF. Student Decision Making in a Scenario-based Investigation of an Ecosystem. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2020;16(1):em1809. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/112278

AMA

Mehl CE, Jin H, Llort KF. Student Decision Making in a Scenario-based Investigation of an Ecosystem. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2020;16(1), em1809. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/112278

Chicago

Mehl, Cathy Ellen, Hui Jin, and Kenneth F. Llort. "Student Decision Making in a Scenario-based Investigation of an Ecosystem". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2020 16 no. 1 (2020): em1809. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/112278

Harvard

Mehl, C. E., Jin, H., and Llort, K. F. (2020). Student Decision Making in a Scenario-based Investigation of an Ecosystem. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(1), em1809. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/112278

MLA

Mehl, Cathy Ellen et al. "Student Decision Making in a Scenario-based Investigation of an Ecosystem". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 16, no. 1, 2020, em1809. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/112278