Students' abilities to critique scientific evidence when reading and writing scientific arguments

• Main Author: Knight, Amanda M
• Format: Dissertation
• Language: English
• Published: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses 01-01-2015
• Subjects: Science education
• ISBN: 1321688733; 9781321688733

Scientific arguments are used to persuade others for explanations that make sense of the natural world. Over time, through the accumulation of evidence, one explanation for a scientific phenomenon tends to take precedence. In science education, arguments make students’ thinking and reasoning visible while also supporting the development of their conceptual, procedural, and epistemic knowledge. As such, argumentation has become a goal within recent policy documents, including the Next Generation Science Standards, which, in turn, presents a need for comprehensive, effective, and scalable assessments. This dissertation used assessments that measure students’ abilities to critique scientific evidence, which is measured in terms of the form of justification and the support of empirical evidence, when reading and writing scientific arguments. Cognitive interviews were then conducted with a subset of the students to explore the criteria they used to critique scientific evidence. Specifically, the research investigated what characteristics of scientific evidence the students preferred, how they critiqued both forms of justification and empirical evidence, and whether the four constructs represented four separate abilities. Findings suggest that students’ prioritized the type of empirical evidence to the form of justification, and most often selected relevant-supporting justifications. When writing scientific arguments, most students constructed a justified claim, but struggled to justify their claims with empirical evidence. In comparison, when reading scientific arguments, students had trouble locating a justification when it was not empirical data. Additionally, it was more difficult for students to critique than identify or locate empirical evidence, and it was more difficult for students to identify than locate empirical evidence. Findings from the cognitive interviews suggest that students with more specific criteria tended to have more knowledge of the construct. Lastly, dimensional analyses suggest that these may not be four distinct constructs, which has important implications for curriculum development and instructional practice. Namely, teachers should attend to the critique of scientific evidence separately when reading and writing scientific arguments.