Managing uncertainty in scientific argumentation

Chen, Ying-Chih; Benus, Matthew J.; Hernandez, Jaclyn

doi:10.1002/sce.21527

Cited by 84 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 177 publications

(233 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As Andriessen and Baker (2014) note, “All teachers and parents have seen children engaged in this type of argumentation, and most would probably agree that it has little to contribute to education” (p. 439). However, the work of many researchers (e.g., Chen, Benus, & Hernandez, 2019; Chin & Osborne, 2010a; Evagorou & Osborne, 2013; González‐Howard & McNeill, 2019; Sampson & Clark, 2009) has focused on a different type of disciplinary argumentation that involves students “arguing to learn” (von Aufschnaiter, Erduran, Osborne, & Simon, 2008). Disciplinary argumentation is promoted across content areas, such as mathematics (R. Brown, 2017), English language arts (Lee, 2017) and history (Litman et al, 2017), and has been found to be particularly effective when situated in a collaborative activity that is driven by learning goals focused on students co‐constructing knowledge (Andriessen & Baker, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acting with epistemic agency: Characterizing student critique during argumentation discussions

González‐Howard

McNeill

2020

Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The various types of interactions that students carry out when engaged in scientific argumentation function together to move forward developing ideas and support sensemaking. As such, incorporating argumentation in classroom instruction holds promise for supporting students in developing and acting with an epistemic agency, being positioned, and taking up, opportunities to inform their classroom community's knowledge construction work. To foster science classrooms in which students take on active roles, argue to learn, and engage in authentic meaning-making, the field needs better understandings of how students are supported in developing, and acting with, epistemic agency. We contend that focusing on critique-specifically, examining circumstances where students partake in this type of exchange with peers when engaged in argumentation-is a productive starting point. In this study, we characterized manifestations of epistemic agency as captured through instances of student critique during argumentation discussions in three middle school classrooms. Specifically, we used social network analysis to illuminate interactional patterns related to critique, and discourse analysis to highlight language moves individuals carried out when student critique was observed. Our findings point to there being multiple, sometimes conflating, approaches to addressing tensions inherent to helping students develop and act with epistemic agency. Our findings also suggest we can learn from critiquing practices that all students bring and employ in the classroom. This latter point is especially important when desiring to create and foster equitable learning environments, where all students' ways of knowing and doing science are appreciated, recognized, and used to support sensemaking.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acting with epistemic agency: Characterizing student critique during argumentation discussions

González‐Howard

McNeill

2020

Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Problematizing , for example, is identified as a central theme for driving students’ disciplinary intellectual engagement (e.g., Hiebert et al, 1996; Phillips, Watkins, & Hammer, 2017). Consistently, having students experience productive uncertainty is considered critical for students’ productive struggle and sensemaking throughout a lesson (e.g., Chen et al, 2019; Manz, 2018). Cognitively demanding tasks coupled with productive talk moves is another area that is growing in science and mathematics education to facilitate maintenance of cognitive demand on students’ thinking.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They are often ambiguous without a clear pathway to follow and may involve some level of anxiety for students because of the unpredictable nature of the process (Tekkumru-Kisa, Schunn, & Stein, in press; Tekkumru-Kisa et al, 2015). Thus, they provide robust opportunities for students to engage with uncertainty as experienced in nonobvious and contingent aspects of scientists’ work (e.g., Chen, Benus, & Hernandez, 2019; Engle, 2012; Manz & Suárez, 2018). Engaging students in scientific practices can help develop their understanding of “how that practice contributes to how we know what we know, and how that practice helps to build reliable knowledge” (Osborne, 2014, p. 189).…”

Section: Research On Tasks In Science Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theory and Research on Tasks Revisited: Task as a Context for Students’ Thinking in the Era of Ambitious Reforms in Mathematics and Science

Tekkumru‐Kisa

Stein

Doyle

2020

Educational Researcher

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Informed by decades of research and standards-based policies, there has been a growing demand for high-quality teaching and learning in mathematics and science classrooms. Achieving these ambitious goals will not be easy; students’ opportunities for learning as shaped by the tasks they are assigned will matter the most. The purpose of this article is to revisit theory and research on tasks, a construct introduced by Walter Doyle nearly 40 years ago. The authors discuss how this construct has been used and expanded in research since then, argue for its applicability to contemporary challenges facing schools and classrooms today, and provide suggestions for future research.

show abstract

“…Third, students should learn about both the power and limitations of science to engage with the epistemic aspect of knowledge production in science. Even though the programme of study for 14–16-year-old students in England contains an acknowledgement that students are taught about the “power and limitations” of science (Department of Education 2014 , p. 5), it is argued in the literature that school science does not explicitly and efficiently teach that argumentation is associated with uncertainty—being unsure and lacking knowledge or evidence (Chen et al 2019 ). Researchers showed that an individual’s political attitudes, beliefs, and worldviews are strongly related to the level of tolerance of uncertainty (Jost et al 2003 ; Pennycook et al 2012 ).…”

Section: Potential Impact On Students’ Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Science Denial Meets Epistemic Understanding

Fackler

2021

Sci & Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science denial has a long history of causing harm in contemporary society when ignored. Recent discussions of science denial suggest that correcting people's false beliefs rarely has an impact on eliminating the adherence to false beliefs and assumptions, which is called the backfire effect. This paper brings the backfire effect within the context of science denial to the attention of science education researchers and practitioners and discusses the potential role(s) of epistemic understanding of knowledge production in science in dealing with the rejection of scientific evidence and claims in science classrooms. The use of epistemic understanding of knowledge production in science with a focus on avoiding the backfire effect may increase the potential for science education research to produce fruitful strategies which advance students' attitudes toward science and deepen students' understanding of how science works through divergent perspectives. There are some areas that need to be focused on and investigated for their potential to combat science denial and the backfire effect while foregrounding the role(s) epistemic understanding of knowledge production for science instruction. These areas include expanding ways of knowing and marking the boundary between the scientific way of knowing and other ways of knowing at the same time, comparing claims and arguments that derive from different frameworks, teaching about the power and limitations of science, and bringing different and similar ways science is done to students' attention.

show abstract

Managing uncertainty in scientific argumentation

Cited by 84 publications

References 177 publications

Acting with epistemic agency: Characterizing student critique during argumentation discussions

Acting with epistemic agency: Characterizing student critique during argumentation discussions

Theory and Research on Tasks Revisited: Task as a Context for Students’ Thinking in the Era of Ambitious Reforms in Mathematics and Science

When Science Denial Meets Epistemic Understanding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About