ABSTRACT:Argumentation has become an increasingly recognized focus for science instruction-as a learning process, as an outcome associated with the appropriation of scientific discourse, and as a window onto the epistemic work of science. Only a small set of theoretical conceptualizations of argumentation have been deployed and investigated in science education, however, while a plethora of conceptualizations have been developed in the interdisciplinary fields associated with science studies and the learning sciences. This paper attempts to review a range of such theoretical conceptualizations of argumentation and discuss the possible implications for the orchestration of science education; the goal being that the science education research community might consider a broader range of argumentation forms and roles in conjunction with the learning of science.C 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 92: 473 -498, 2008
ABSTRACT:In this paper, we examine the interactional ways that families make meaning from biological exhibits during a visit to an interactive science center. To understand the museum visits from the perspectives of the families, we use ethnographic and discourse analytic methods, including pre-and postvisit interviews, videotaped observations of the museum visits, and coding and analysis of utterances from naturally occurring conversations. We employ an Everyday Expertise framework to understand how families use ideas and materials to make meaning from the scientific content presented in exhibits. We argue that individual and cognitive aspects of learning are fundamentally connected to the social and cultural aspects of learning; therefore, we analyze the intertwining role of individual cognitive resources, situated activities, and cultural toolkit resources that support learning interactions and processes. Findings indicate how families use a variety of knowledge types (epistemic resources) to make sense of exhibit content, how they make sense of biological content by transferring cultural epistemic resources from prior experiences, and how families use two types of scientific epistemic resources-biological facts and perceptual descriptions-as the primary means to make sense of biological exhibits.
BackgroundTraining in patient and public involvement (PPI) is recommended, yet little is known about what training is needed. We explored researchers’ and PPI contributors’ accounts of PPI activity and training to inform the design of PPI training for both parties.MethodsWe used semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers (chief investigators and trial managers) and PPI contributors, accessed through a cohort of clinical trials, which had been funded between 2006 and 2010. An analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews drew on the constant comparative method.ResultsWe interviewed 31 researchers and 17 PPI contributors from 28 trials. Most researchers could see some value in PPI training for researchers, although just under half had received such training themselves, and some had concerns about the purpose and evidence base for PPI training. PPI contributors were evenly split in their perceptions of whether researchers needed training in PPI. Few PPI contributors had themselves received training for their roles. Many informants across all groups felt that training PPI contributors was unnecessary because they already possessed the skills needed. Informants were also concerned that training would professionalise PPI contributors, limiting their ability to provide an authentic patient perspective. However, informants welcomed informal induction ‘conversations’ to help contributors understand their roles and support them in voicing their opinions. Informants believed that PPI contributors should be confident, motivated, intelligent, focussed on helping others and have relevant experience. Researchers looked for these qualities when selecting contributors, and spoke of how finding ‘the right’ contributor was more important than accessing ‘the right’ training.ConclusionsWhile informants were broadly receptive to PPI training for researchers, they expressed considerable reluctance to training PPI contributors. Providers of training will need to address these reservations. Our findings point to the importance of reconsidering how training is conceptualised, designed and promoted and of providing flexible, learning opportunities in ways that flow from researchers’ and contributors’ needs and preferences. We also identify some areas of training content and the need for further consideration to be given to the selection of PPI contributors and models for implementing PPI to ensure clinical trials benefit from a diversity of patient perspectives.
This paper describes how an argument representation tool called SenseMaker has been used to promote science learning with middle school science students during a debate activity. The argumentation tool is one component of the Knowledge Integration Environment (KIE) Internet-based learning suite for science education. The argument representations make student thinking visible during individual and collaborative activities in the classroom. The paper elaborates on how the cognitive mechanisms and learning goals shaped the design of the SenseMaker software and presents results from several formative classroom trials of the tool. Student arguments vary based on their epistemological beliefs about the nature of science. Students report using the SenseMaker tool to support both individual and collaborative learning during their classroom projects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.