This chapter discusses an analysis of discourse practices found in eight different elementary science classrooms that have implemented the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach to argument-based inquiry. The analysis for this study involved examining a segment of whole-class talk that began after a small group presented its claim and evidence and ended when the discussion moved on to a new topic, or when a different group presented. The framework for the analysis of this whole-class dialogue developed through an iterative process that was first informed by previous analysis, review and modification of other instruments, and notable anomalies of difference from this data set. Each classroom was then rated using the Reform Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP), which provided a score for the extent to which the teacher was engaged with reform-based science teaching practices. Our analysis shows that elements of whole-class dialogue in argument-based inquiry classrooms were different across varying levels of RTOP implementation. Overall, low level RTOP implementation (little evidence of reformed-based practice) had a question and answer format during whole class talk that rarely included discourse around scientific reasoning and justification. Higher levels of RTOP implementation were more likely to be focused on student use of scientific evidence to anchor and develop a scientific understanding of “big ideas” in science. These findings are discussed in relation to teacher professional development in argument-based inquiry, science literacy, and the teacher's and students' grasp of science practice.

Scientists use models to represent their imagination and conceptualization of a particular phenomenon. They then use models to develop an argument to debate, defend, and debunk ideas in their peer community. Modeling is an essential practice of authentic science. To foster the pedagogical practice of incorporating models in argumentative contexts, we introduce an approach called “Science Negotiation Pedagogy.” We show how models can support argumentation practices in science classrooms in six phases of action: (1) create a driving question; (2) construct a tentative model in groups; (3) construct a tentative argument in groups; (4) negotiate models and arguments in a whole-class discussion, then revise models and arguments through negotiation; (5) consult the experts; and (6) reflect through writing. A unit on the human respiratory system is used as an example to demonstrate how Science Negotiation Pedagogy can be implemented in biology classrooms.

Augustine Volcano (located in the Cook Inlet of South Central Alaska at 59.4 o N and 153.4 o W) erupted in January 2006 and released, among other things, water vapor, radiation heat, and aerosols into the atmosphere. To determine the potential impact of volcanic emissions and ashfall on local weather, 16 simulations assuming artificial emission and ashfall scenarios were performed with the Weather Research and Forecasting model for 24 consecutive days starting the day before the first eruption. These simulations include (1) the control simulation without consideration of any volcanic perturbation, (2) four simulations with simplified scenarios for each individual volcanic factor [radiative heat from the caldera, water vapor, cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) and/or ice nuclei (IN) aerosols, and albedo change due to ashfall], and (3) 11 simulations containing all possible combinations of these factors. These 11 simulations serve to examine interactions among impacts of the different perturbations under the assumed scenarios. The impact of volcanic factors on local weather depends on the synoptic situation, emission strength, (combination of) volcanic factors, and interaction among impacts of factors if they occur concurrently. ANalysis Of VAriance shows that the greatest (statistically significant at the 95% or higher confidence level) volcanic impact occurs on relatively humid days and immediately downwind of the volcano (<50 km). Depending on relative humidity and temperature conditions, volcanic heat release can increase condensation and/or cloud top levels or reduce cloudiness. Due to non-linear cloud microphysical processes, meteorological responses to volcanic factors can diminish or enhance the impacts of the individual factors when factors occur concurrently. As an example, depending on the ambient conditions, concurrently occurring volcanic factors can lead to a decrease in precipitation at one time and an increase at another time. These findings indicate that in the immediate vicinity of erupting volcanoes, predicted cloud conditions and precipitation may be inaccurate due to the unknown volcanic forcing.

This chapter discusses an analysis of discourse practices found in eight different elementary science classrooms that have implemented the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach to argument-based inquiry. The analysis for this study involved examining a segment of whole-class talk that began after a small group presented its claim and evidence and ended when the discussion moved on to a new topic, or when a different group presented. The framework for the analysis of this whole-class dialogue developed through an iterative process that was first informed by previous analysis, review and modification of other instruments, and notable anomalies of difference from this data set. Each classroom was then rated using the Reform Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP), which provided a score for the extent to which the teacher was engaged with reform-based science teaching practices. Our analysis shows that elements of whole-class dialogue in argument-based inquiry classrooms were different across varying levels of RTOP implementation. Overall, low level RTOP implementation (little evidence of reformedbased practice) had a question and answer format during whole class talk that rarely included discourse around scientific reasoning and justification. Higher levels of RTOP implementation were more likely to be focused on student use of scientific evidence to anchor and develop a scientific understanding of "big ideas" in science. These findings are discussed in relation to teacher professional development in argument-based inquiry, science literacy, and the teacher's and students' grasp of science practice.

No abstract