What happens when students use argument as a way of learning and doing science?
ARGUMENTATION: The missing piece to inquiry.
In approaching my thesis research, I knew I wanted to investigate scientific practices. Moreover, in today’s age of omni-present information flow, I wanted to teach students how to critically evaluate and make sense of the world around them. I wanted to go beyond the textbook, and to see how I could train students to truly think and act like scientists. This is not accomplished through simply reading about science, or even following laboratory procedures as scientists would. Rather, to me, this means engaging in the “behaviors that scientists engage in as they investigate and build models and theories about the natural world” (NRC p. 42). In other words, if our goal was to learn science by doing science, then these were the skills on which to focus.
The National Research Council (NRC) identifies eight key practices in the disciplines of science and engineering:
The National Research Council (NRC) identifies eight key practices in the disciplines of science and engineering:
- Asking questions and defining problems;
- developing and using models;
- planning and carrying out investigations;
- analyzing and interpreting data;
- using mathematics and computational thinking;
- constructing explanations and designing solutions;
- obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information;
- and engaging in argument from evidence.
The nature of science is built upon argument and critique.
For so many students, science class is but a "march across the scientific landscape, with no time to stop and stare" (Osborne 2007). Studying science, for them, does not actually mean actively engaging in or understanding the nature of science. It means memorizing and bowing to an authoritative monolith of facts -- where exploring their ideas, implications, and importance is largely absent (Osborne 2010).
This is not unique to traditional models of science education, as student-centered activities can still be structured as a loose array of units to learn, rather than to make do with. As long as our emphasis as educators is on teaching what we know, that knowledge may come at the cost of learning how we know. This not only weakens the 21st Century soft skills and reasoning abilities we hope for students to gain, but also leads to "naive ideas and misconceptions on the nature of science itself" (Osborne 2010) -- further separating the layperson from the scientific community.
If we hope for students to leave school with a basic scientific literacy, then they must understand the nature of science and the role that argumentation plays within it. In SLA's project-based learning model, this can be tricky. Students can be easily tasked with a project (say, creating a stop-motion animation to learn about cellular division) -- and produce a wonderful and engaging piece of work! -- but then fail to see the bigger picture of how we know about mitosis or why this knowledge is important. In this manner, students often love these projects -- because, hey, they are fun and they allow students to take charge of their own learning -- but the goal of achieving scientific literacy is diminished. Careful thought, then, must be applied towards how to prioritize engaging activities against rigorous depth of learning experiences.
For so many students, science class is but a "march across the scientific landscape, with no time to stop and stare" (Osborne 2007). Studying science, for them, does not actually mean actively engaging in or understanding the nature of science. It means memorizing and bowing to an authoritative monolith of facts -- where exploring their ideas, implications, and importance is largely absent (Osborne 2010).
This is not unique to traditional models of science education, as student-centered activities can still be structured as a loose array of units to learn, rather than to make do with. As long as our emphasis as educators is on teaching what we know, that knowledge may come at the cost of learning how we know. This not only weakens the 21st Century soft skills and reasoning abilities we hope for students to gain, but also leads to "naive ideas and misconceptions on the nature of science itself" (Osborne 2010) -- further separating the layperson from the scientific community.
If we hope for students to leave school with a basic scientific literacy, then they must understand the nature of science and the role that argumentation plays within it. In SLA's project-based learning model, this can be tricky. Students can be easily tasked with a project (say, creating a stop-motion animation to learn about cellular division) -- and produce a wonderful and engaging piece of work! -- but then fail to see the bigger picture of how we know about mitosis or why this knowledge is important. In this manner, students often love these projects -- because, hey, they are fun and they allow students to take charge of their own learning -- but the goal of achieving scientific literacy is diminished. Careful thought, then, must be applied towards how to prioritize engaging activities against rigorous depth of learning experiences.