Students’ evaluations about climate change

Lombardi, Doug; Brandt, Carol B.; Bickel, Elliot S.; Burg, Colin

doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1193912

Cited by 42 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our scoring of the MEL activity focused on evaluations participants wrote in the explanation task. We used a system for scoring explanations that Lombardi, Brandt, Bickel, and Burg () developed using a qualitative content analysis from a previous study, which involved middle‐grade students’ written responses about the climate change MEL used in this study. Lombardi, Brandt et al.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lombardi, Brandt et al. () developed four categories of explanations that drew from the frameworks of both Driver, Leach, Millar, and Scott () and Dole and Sinatra (). The categories established well‐defined levels of evaluation to represent the accuracy and elaboration present in participants’ responses.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The following highlights these four different types of evaluations that primarily reflect epistemic quality (e.g., analysis about the strength of the connections between lines of evidence and explanations), but also include related conceptual understandings; readers should consult Lombardi, Brandt et al. () for more details. The first category of participants’ evaluations, called erroneous evaluations , described written responses that represented an incorrect determination about a link.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used a system for scoring explanations that Lombardi, Brandt, Bickel, and Burg (2016) developed using a qualitative content analysis from a previous study, which involved middle-grade students' written responses about the climate change MEL used in this study. Lombardi, Brandt et al (2016) developed four categories of explanations that drew from the frameworks of both Driver, Leach, Millar, and Scott (1996) and Dole and Sinatra (1998). The categories established well-defined levels of evaluation to represent the accuracy and elaboration present in participants' responses.…”

Section: Mel Activity Partmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These four categories served as distinct levels of evaluation for numerically scoring each explanation (1 = erroneous, 2 = descriptive, 3 = relational, 4 = critical), allowing us to consider participants' written explanations quantitatively. Initially, the second and fourth authors independently scored each participant's explanations using these four categories and Lombardi, Brandt et al's (2016) rubric as a guide. Initial rater scores were at an acceptable level of agreement (interclass coefficient, ICC = .612).…”

Section: Mel Activity Partmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

High school students’ evaluations, plausibility (re) appraisals, and knowledge about topics in Earth science

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation is an important aspect of science and is receiving increasing attention in science education. The present study investigated of the postinstructional knowledge scores were related to participants' evaluations, above and beyond background knowledge, which accounted for 26% of the variance. The activities used in this study may help students develop their critical thinking skills by facilitating evaluation of the validity of explanations based on evidence, a scientific practice that is key to understanding both scientific content and science as a process. However, results from the study were modest and suggest that additional research, from both theoretical and empirical perspectives, may be warranted.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mel Activity Partmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mel Activity Partmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

High school students’ evaluations, plausibility (re) appraisals, and knowledge about topics in Earth science

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Changing misconceptions of abilities: The impact of a brief mindset refutation text intervention

Torsney

Korstange

Symonds

2021

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study investigated whether a brief refutation text intervention could change college students’ misconceptions about the malleability of their intelligence and abilities. Students from a 2‐year college and a 4‐year university in a large urban city in the Northeastern United States participated in experimental and control conditions. A repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance demonstrated a significant overall model with a medium effect size (ηp2 = 0.11) for increased growth mindset and decreased fixed mindset for students in the experimental condition. A follow‐up χ2 analysis for a dichotomous variable of fixed/growth mindset demonstrated a 3% increase from pre‐ to posttest (from 229 students to 236) of students believing in growth mindset. The results demonstrate that a refutation text intervention is effective in promoting growth mindset in undergraduate college students during a brief mindset intervention. This study extends research from a European secondary school context to a US college context.

show abstract

Negotiations in scientific argumentation: An interpersonal analysis

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argumentation enables students to engage in real world scientific practices by rationalizing claims grounded in supporting evidence. Student engagement in scientific argumentation activates the negotiation process by which students develop and defend evidence‐based claims. Little is known, however, on the intricate process and potential patterns of negotiation between students during scientific argumentation. The present study seeks to fill this gap by exploring how a group of university science education students negotiated when evaluating the relationship between lines of evidence and alternative explanatory models of a phenomena (i.e., climate change). This research, theoretically grounded in social constructionism, used Halliday's model of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) within a discourse analysis framework. The authors analyzed transcripts of student conversations during a model‐evidence link activity to gain insights into patterns of negotiation. An interpersonal analysis centering on mood and moves revealed students' ability to engage in the negotiation component of scientific argumentation to make assertions about relations between evidence and models. Effective collaboration resulting in group consensus of the relationship (categorized as supports, strongly supports, or contradicts) was facilitated by the use of interrogatives, modulation, and a balanced contribution between group members. Conversely, negotiation which did not reach consensus featured less balanced discussion among group members, contained more interruptions, more conflict moves, and double polarity clauses.

show abstract

Students’ evaluations about climate change

Cited by 42 publications

References 49 publications

High school students’ evaluations, plausibility (re) appraisals, and knowledge about topics in Earth science

High school students’ evaluations, plausibility (re) appraisals, and knowledge about topics in Earth science

Changing misconceptions of abilities: The impact of a brief mindset refutation text intervention

Negotiations in scientific argumentation: An interpersonal analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About