a framework for practical work, argumentation and scientific literacy to plan research ros roberts...
TRANSCRIPT
A Framework for Practical work, Argumentation and Scientific Literacy to plan
research
Ros Roberts
York, June 2011
Delimiting the ideas
Science education literature: practical work; argumentation; scientific literacy
Different theoretical approaches, traditions and cultures
Resultant lack of clarity
Development of a delimited, internally coherent, parsimonious framework that can be used to frame research
Scientific literacy
A range of definitions– Understand what science does – through to a more ‘empowered’ and active
role; engagement, challenge, decisions
• Understanding evidence is important for all these definitions
Procedural Understanding:Understanding Ideas about Evidence
Royal Society’s motto: Nullius in verba
‘Take nobody’s word for it!’
Science is based on evidence, not opinion
Evidence: a link between practical work, argumentation and scientific literacy
A framework for research
Theoretical framework
Problem solving in
science
Mental processing (Higher order
investigative skills)
Substantive understanding concepts laws and
theories
Basic skills
Facts
Procedural Understanding
concepts associated with the collection,
interpretation and validation of evidence
The Concepts of Evidence (Gott, Duggan and Roberts)
These are the ideas that are needed to develop a procedural understanding
They act as a Domain Specification: • the basis for the selection of curriculum content• the basis for our teaching and teaching materials• and the basis of assessment (understanding, application
and synthesis, evaluation)
http://www.dur.ac.uk/rosalyn.roberts/Evidence/cofev.htm
Bull’s-eye summary
Wider issues – bias,
economics etc.
Comparison with other
sources of data
Relationships between
variables – pattern in data
A single datum
A data set
Linking practical work, argument and scientific literacy
The structure for an argument
data claimqualifier
warrant
backings
Toulmin (1958) argumentation
rebuttal
secondary backings
A framework for research
Research questions (1)
1. Does teaching the ideas of evidence – looking forward - improve students’ understanding of evidence? (refs 1, 2)
2. Does teaching the ideas of evidence – looking forward - improve students’ open-ended investigations? (refs 3, 4)
3. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for success in open-ended investigations? (refs 5, 6)
4. How do students use the ideas of evidence in an investigation? (refs 3, 4)
5. Does teaching the ideas of evidence – looking forward - enable students to question others’ claims – looking back? (ref 7)
6. What sort of questions do they ask and which ideas of evidence do they draw on when questioning claims? (ref 7)
7. Does teaching the ideas of evidence ‘work’ with Turkish ITT students? (ref 8)
Research questions (2)
1. How do BAEd students evaluate claims? Does an understanding of Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern aid this?
2. How does school science prepare Science undergrads to understand evidence, evaluate claims and approach open-ended investigations?
3. How can we explicitly teach about arguing with evidence?
4. Etc
5. Etc
Publications
1. Roberts, R. and Gott, R. (2004) A written test for procedural understanding: a way forward for assessment in the UK science curriculum? Research in Science and Technological Education 22 (1) pp 5-21
2. Roberts, R. and Gott, R. (2006) Assessment of performance in practical science and pupil attributes. Assessment in Education 13 (1) pp 45-67
3. Roberts, R., Gott, R. and Glaesser, J. (accepted) Students’ approaches to open-ended science investigation: the importance of substantive and procedural understanding. Research Papers in Education
4. Roberts, R. (2009) Can teaching about evidence encourage a creative approach in open-ended investigations? School Science Review 90 (332) pp 31-38
5. Glaesser, J., Gott, R., Roberts, R. and Cooper B. (2009) Underlying success in open-ended investigations in science: using qualitative comparative analysis to identify necessary and sufficient conditions. Research in Science and Technology Education 27 (1) pp 5-30
6. Glaesser, J., Gott, R., Roberts, R. and Cooper, B. (2009) The roles of substantive and procedural understanding in open-ended science investigations: Using fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis to compare two different tasks. Research in Science Education 39 (4) pp 595-624
7. Roberts, R. and Gott, R. (2010) Questioning the Evidence for a claim in a socio-scientific issue: an aspect of scientific literacy. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28 (3) pp 203 – 226
8. Roberts, R. and Sahin-Pekmez, E. (accepted) Scientific Evidence as Content Knowledge: a replication study with English and Turkish pre-service primary teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education
