The relationship between teachers’ pedagogical content ... · Pedagogical content knowledge is of special interest because it identifies the distinctive bodies of knowledge for

The relationship between teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and beliefs of scientific

argumentation on classroom practice

Amanda M. Knight

Boston College

Katherine L. McNeill

Boston College

Contact info:

Lynch School of Education, Boston College

140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467

Phone: 617-552-4229

Fax: 617-552-1840

[email protected]

Reference as: Knight, A. M. & McNeill, K. L. (2011, April). The relationship between teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and beliefs of scientific argumentation on classroom practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Orlando, FL.

ABSTRACT

Central to the culture of science, argumentation emerged in the scientific discourse research literature with researchers advocating that its incorporation into science education is important because “it engage[s] the learners in the coordination of conceptual and epistemic goals” (Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004, p. 688). Students assimilate the content knowledge, support their claims with scientific evidence, and create original arguments to validate their claims. It makes “student scientific thinking and reasoning visible to enable formative assessment by teachers” (Osborne, et al., 2004, p. 995). Research, however, has shown minimal opportunities for students to participate in scientific argumentation (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Rodriguez, 2000), which could be attributed, in part, to teachers lack of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) required to design, facilitate, and assess lessons that cultivate argumentation (Simon, Erduran, & Osborne, 2006). While PCK of argumentation has been linked to teachers’ practice, the relationship between teacher belief and practice has remained largely undocumented in the argumentation literature (Zohar & Nemet, 2002). However, Richardson (1996)—in the broader educational literature—determined that beliefs impact the teachers’ purposes as supported by changes in lesson planning, assessment, and evaluation. In essence, a teachers’ classroom practice in impacted by both their PCK and belief. Consequently, in our research we examine how teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation and belief in the value of such lessons impact a teachers’ practice. Results indicate that while professional development had a positive impact on teachers’ PCK, the impact on their beliefs and practice varied. The teachers with the greatest change in PCK & Belief had the strongest practice. However, this relationship may not be unidirectional.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION Scientific argumentation has emerged in the inquiry limelight and is currently touted as

both the language of science (Duschl & Osborne, 2002) and a metaphor for science (Kuhn, 1993) because “it assumes a fundamental position in the collective process of making meaning and affecting learning” (Sadler, 2006, p. 325). It affords the opportunity to make student scientific thinking and reasoning visible (Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004) as students assimilate content knowledge, support their claims with scientific evidence, and create original arguments to validate their claims. Competing viewpoints are encouraged with multi-student interactions and theories are rebutted and revised as new ideas emerge. In some situations consensus is achieved; in others, just as in science, multiple viewpoints are maintained.

A pedagogical technique that provides a means for teachers to incorporate original inquiry into the discourse of the classroom, scientific argumentation does so as it traverses both writing and classroom talk. This is noteworthy because science discourse is a key mediator to access knowledge in science learning (Kelly & Greene, 1998), which reflects the epistemological view that science is more than a mere set of concepts; rather science is a culture that includes ways of thinking, behaving, and reasoning that are learned through social interactions (Osborne et al., 2004). While scientific argumentation can be used to coordinate conceptual and epistemic goals (Osborne et al., 2004), it is also necessary to provide students with an authentic reason to fully engage with this complex practice. In their study of three 6th grade classes who partook in an 8-week IQWST biology unit, Berland and Reiser (2009) determined that authenticity is accomplished when the norm to use evidence to persuade an audience is made explicit. This link between highlighting the importance of evidence in the scientific community and emphasizing the norm of persuasion also serves to link students’ informal thinking to that of scientists’ formal thinking (Kuhn, 1993). As research has show the value of scientific argumentation, the question now becomes how to make it best accessible to teachers and students. PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (PCK)

While argumentation has become a noteworthy goal for science education, incorporating it into science classrooms is challenging and can be a long-term process for both teachers and students (Osborne et al., 2004). In their exploratory study of instances of students “doing school” versus “doing science” within one high school genetics unit, Jimenez-Aleixandre & Rodriguez (2000) determined that minimal opportunities exist for students to participate in scientific argumentation. Simon, Erduran, & Osborne (2006) attributed the aforementioned limited student participation in scientific argumentation to a deficiency in teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) required to design, facilitate and assess lessons that cultivate argumentation when they examined six middle school science teachers learning to teach scientific argumentation. This suggests that science educators require a unique set of skills—PCK of argumentation—in order to effectively implement argumentation in their classrooms. Shulman (1983), who origianlly termed the construct of PCK, described it as follows:

Pedagogical content knowledge is of special interest because it identifies the distinctive bodies of knowledge for teaching. It represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learner, and presented for instruction. (p. 8)

Having more than a strong control over the content, effective teachers have knowledge in how best to present said content in a form that helps learners make sense of it. This hybrid knowledge is referred to as PCK. Zembal-Saul (2009) expounded upon the PCK of argumentation construct, explaining that it includes both substantive and syntactic knowledge. While the former refers to the “central concepts and principles within a discipline and how they are organized”, the latter refers to “the nature of science and cultural practices of the scientific community” (Zembal-Saul, 2009, p. 688). In other words, teachers need knowledge of both how to teach the content and the discurssive nature of science in order to effectively empoly scientific argumentation into their classrooms. Proffessional developments centered on scientific argumentation have the potential to attend to both, while helping teachers strengthen their PCK. BELIEF

Teacher beliefs are defined as psychologically held understandings, premises, or propositions about the world (Richardson, 1996) that are presumed to drive his/her actions (Bryan & Atwater, 2002). Richardson (1996) determined that beliefs impacted teachers’ purposes as supported by changes in lesson planning, assessment, and evaluation. This suggests that more than PCK alone impacts teachers classroom practice. Yet, the relationship between teacher belief and practice has remained largely undocumented in the argumentation literature (Zohar & Nemet, 2002). An exception to this is Zemal-Saul’s (2009) study of pre-service teachers beliefs in argumentation in which she saw the prioritization of scientific argumentation resulted in most pre-service teachers’ beliefs to shift along an argumentation continuum from activity based to investigation based. However, shifts further along the continuum—including evidence based and argument based—were more challenging (Zembal-Saul, 2009). RESEARCH QUESTIONS

While the scientific argumentation literature has established that minimal opportunities for students to participate in scientific argumentation (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Rodriguez, 2000), the reason is not as clear. It could be attributed to teachers lack of PCK required to design, facilitate, and assess such lessons (Simon, Erduran, & Osborne, 2006) and/or teachers’ beliefs, as beliefs impact teachers’ purposes as supported by changes in lesson planning, assessment, and evaluation (Richardson, 1996). However, the latter has remained largely undocumented in the argumentation literature (Zohar & Nemet, 2002). Consequently, in our research we examine the following questions:

1. What is the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and PCK regarding scientific argumentation and their classroom practice?

a. What pedagogical content knowledge do teachers have about argumentation? b. What are teachers’ beliefs about the value of argumentation? c. How do teachers’ incorporate argumentation into their classroom practice?

METHODS

CER INSTRUCTIONAL FRAMEWORK

Adapted from Toulmin’s (1958) argument pattern, used extensively within the argumentation research literature (Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004; Jimenez-Aleixandre & Rodriguez, 2000), the claims, evidence, and reasoning (CER) instructional framework employed in this research was previously developed and

implemented in other research (Berland & Reiser, 2009; McNeill & Krajcik, 2009; McNeill & Pimentel, 2010). Figure 1 presents the relationship of the claim, evidence, reasoning, and rebuttal components in the construction of an argument. Figure 1. CERR Framework; an instructional framework used to teach argumentation, which dissects an argument into four identifiable components (McNeill & Krajcik, 2011).

Specifically, we examined whether the teachers included the following four components

of the CERR framework: 1) Claim—a polarized assertion that answers the posed question or problem, 2) Evidence—either student collected or secondary source data selected based on its appropriateness and sufficiency in supporting the claim, 3) Reasoning—an articulation of how or why each piece of purposefully selected evidence supports the claim using appropriate scientific principles, and 4) Rebuttal—provides reasoning as to why an alternate claim is unacceptable using counter evidence and reasoning (McNeill & Krajcik, 2011). CURRICULAR CONTEXT OF THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

This study took place in the context of a series of professional development (PD) workshops, Supporting Students in Science Thinking and Writing: Justifying Claims with Evidence and Reasoning, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and held within a large urban school district in New England. The teachers voluntarily enrolled in the series of three workshops held over four months, which commenced with an 8 hour Saturday session and was followed by two evening sessions that lasted 3½ hours each. The professional development centered on the NSF sponsored book, Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing (McNeill & Krajcik, 2011).

The professional development workshops provided instructional strategies on how to integrate the CERR framework into classroom practice and rubrics for assessing student performance. The strategies were illustrated through the use of sample teacher video clips and student writing. Participants designed and implemented scientific explanation learning tasks for their current science curriculum, and small group opportunities were provided for teachers to share artifacts from their trial and discuss the successes and challenges of the lesson.

The five case study participants were selected from the 24 middle school teachers enrolled in the PD. The teachers were solicited at the initial workshop to determine interest. The selection was based on teacher compliance, grade level, similar education backgrounds, and a minimum educational experience. A focus on two grade levels was determined to allow for both a comparison within and between grade levels. Based on participant interest, the fifth and seventh grades were selected. It was further decided that the case study teachers should have a

minimum education level consisting of a bachelors in both a science subject area and education, and at least five years teaching experience.

The composition of the final subset of five teachers consisted of two males and three females from different schools within the same district. The three 5th grade and two 7th grade teachers each have a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in both a science and education. Their years of teacher experience range from 5 to 16 years. Table 1 provides a summary of the pertinent demographic information. The results from 2 teachers—Mrs. Liner and Mr. Keiffer—will be discussed in this paper. They were selected as their results represent the two extremes.

DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS

Multiple sources of data were collected from the case study teachers to assess PCK, belief, and practice. More specifically, pre-/post-survey questions were used to assess PCK. Videotaped lessons were used to assess classroom practice, and teacher interviews following each lesson were used to evaluate the teachers’ belief. Coding schemes were developed from the theoretical framework and an iterative analysis of the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Survey

Each of the five case-study teachers completed the same pre-/post-survey as part of the PD workshops, which was designed to measure PCK. The pre-survey was given at the beginning of the first PD workshop, and the post-survey was given at the end of the third workshop. The teachers were asked to respond to the strengths and weaknesses of both sample student writing and classroom discussions. None of the sample student responses or classrooms discussions were ideal; each had a unique combination of strengths and weaknesses.

To evaluate the teachers’ ability to assess student writing, questions were written that required both the sample student and the teacher to analyze the data to answer. The goal was to create questions so as the content would not permit teachers from being able to answer the question. While the first question was on density and used quantitative data, the second question was on plate tectonics and used qualitative data (see Appendix A). The original question, data, and two sample student responses were provided for each scenario and the teacher was asked to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the sample student responses.

For the classroom discussion, two sample classroom transcripts were provided in which both classrooms were answering the same question around the same investigation—exploring biodiversity in their schoolyard (see Appendix B). The teachers were asked to assess the strengths and weaknesses of both discussions. The topic—biodiversity in urban ecology—was used so as to prevent the content from limiting the teachers’ ability to evaluate the conversations.

The teachers’ assessments of the student writing and classroom discussions were compared to an ideal teacher response in regards to the claim, evidence, and reasoning components of the CER framework (see Appendixes C and D). The teachers’ assessments were

Table 1. Summary of case study teachers.

Teacher Teaching Position Grade Years Teaching Science

Highest Degree Education Science

Mrs. Enomato Elementary Science Specialist 5th 5 Masters Bachelors Mrs. Atwood Elementary Science Specialist 5th 7 Bachelors Bachelors Mrs. Linder Elementary Science Specialist 5th 16 Masters Bachelors Mr. Rao Middle School Science 7th 8 Masters Masters Mr. Kieffer Middle School Math and Science 7th 5 Masters Bachelors

coded on a 0 to 3 rubric for each of the aforementioned CER components. A score of 0 indicated that the teacher incorrectly assessed the component. For instance, the teacher said the student’s claim was correct, when it was incorrect. If the teacher did not assess a component, he/she received a score of 1 on that component. When the teachers’ assessment was vague or incomplete, he/she received a score of 2. In most cases this meant that the teacher noted the presence of the component without assessing the correctness. In comparison, when a teacher correctly discussed the quality of the component in the student’s answer, a score of 3 was awarded. A maximum score of 9 points were possible for each question. Two researchers coded the interview transcripts independently and differences were resolved through discussion. Overall percentages were calculated by question, by teacher, and by CER component. Lessons and Interviews

Data collection around the teachers’ practice included the videotaping of three lessons—one following each of the PD workshops—for each of the case study teachers. The lessons lasted one class period and were approximately 60 minutes in length on average. For each videotaped lesson, the teachers submitted their students’ writing and handouts that were provided to students served to contextualize the lesson. An interview was conducted following each of the 3-videotaped lessons that lasted approximately 15 minutes on average. Questions were designed to elicit reflection on the lesson (see appendix E). All of the classroom lessons and corresponding interviews were transcribed for analysis. The Continuum for Teaching Science as Argument (Figure 2) was adapted from Zembal-Saul (2009) to analyze the teachers’ belief in the underlying purposes of scientific argumentation and also their classroom practice.

Figure 2. Continuum for teaching science as argument (adapted from Zembal-Saul, 2009).

The Continuum for Teaching Science as Argument consists of six levels. While the goal

is to have teachers’ beliefs and practice move towards the right through participation in the PD workshops, this does not mean that each level is a necessary stage through which they must travel. Nor does it mean that a level subsumes all previous levels. Instead as teachers’ belief and practice move to the right across the continuum, their practice and beliefs of argumentation are reflecting a more advanced view of the epistemologies of science.

In their failure to view scientific inquiry as essential to the development of scientific knowledge both Activity and Lecture Based teachers endorse a more traditional view of science instruction in which two seemingly opposing goals—to engage students in science or to disseminate science content—are congruent in that they both overlook the significance of scientific inquiry. In comparison, Investigation Based teachers begin to portray said scientific

inquiry perspective as they ask testable questions, design fair tests, and emphasize collecting data (Zembal-Saul, 2009). When a shift occurs from students learning from solely performing a scientific investigation to the view that students’ learning occurs while reflecting on the investigation, the underlying instructional purpose is on Making Sense of an Investigation. These teachers provide a general support of student thinking. Yet, when the teachers are focused on the consideration that the quality, appropriateness, and sufficiency of selected data items as evidence to provide support of the claim, they are considering the Role of Evidence. Moreover, when a teacher emphasizes how or why evidence supports a claim and/or applies and constructs science principles to the evidence, they are characterizing the Role of Evidence and Reasoning level. It is not until the highest level, Role of Alternate Explanations, that teachers value the consideration of multiple plausible claims and/or rebuttals. These teachers understand science is not objective—all scientific theories and laws are debatable in light of new evidence that disproves our current understanding. This sophisticated discursive view of science is employed to provide additional support to the claim by dispelling opposing claims.

A holistic approach was used to apply the Continuum for Teaching Science as Argument to the transcribed interviews. The transcripts were coded line by line for instances of when the teachers were enacting a level within the framework. A final level was assigned that represented where the teachers’ beliefs stood most often. Two researchers coded the interview transcripts independently and differences were resolved through discussion.

Each of the 3 lesson transcripts for the 5 teachers were divided into an activity structure. A holistic approach was again employed to assign a level within the Continuum for Teaching Science as Argument to each activity identified in said activity structure based on the teacher instructional strategies and the classroom talk. When the activity involved individual or group work, the student work was used to evaluate the level as it contextualized what the teacher was asking the students to complete. A final code was then assigned to each lesson, which represented the level within the continuum where the teacher’s practice predominated. If more than one code was assigned to the activity structure, the amount of time on the activity was used to determine which predominated in the lesson. Two researchers coded the lesson transcripts independently and differences were resolved through discussion.

RESULTS The results for two teachers—Mrs. Liner and Mr. Keiffer—will be presented. These teachers reflect the extremes of the five case study teachers. An overview of Mrs. Liner’s PCK, belief, and practice will be presented first, followed by Mr. Keiffer. Their results for each construct are summarized in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Results summary for both Mrs. Liner and Mr. Keiffer.

MRS. LINER Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

Using the ideal teacher evaluation coding scheme, Mrs. Liner’s assessments of 4 students’ written responses and 2 classroom discussions were coded and percentages calculated for both the pre- and post-survey. From Table 2, which presents her PCK results, it can be observed that Mrs. Liner’s PCK of argumentation increased from 43% on the pre- survey to 52% on the post-survey. Moreover, her PCK for evaluating argumentation in writing increased more than her PCK for evaluating argumentation in talk. More specifically, while on the post-survey her PCK-writing score was 3% higher than her PCK-talk score, her PCK-writing score increased 11% from pre- to post-survey as compared to only 6% on her PCK-talk score. The results of Mrs. Liner’s PCK-writing will be presented first, followed by her PCK of evaluating argumentation in classroom talk.

Table 2. Mrs. Liner’s PCK of argumentation results.

PCK Pre-Survey Post-Survey % Change

Discourse Writing 42% 53% 11% Talk 44% 50% 6%

Overall 43% 52% 9% Writing. Mrs. Liner’s results on evaluating student writing organized by question are

summarized in Table 3. Overall, her evaluation of student writing increased from 42% on the pre-survey to 53% on the post-survey. It should be noted that Mrs. Liner did not evaluate any of the CER components on 75% of the pre-survey questions, as her evaluation of the sample students’ responses was very vague. For example, when evaluating Student B on the density question (see Appendix A) she says, “Insufficient inclusion of an explanation of why these conclusions were reached”. Or again when evaluating Student A on the plate tectonics question (see appendix A) she says, “Incomplete as no explanation”. A response such as these would be

of no benefit to a student. Why is the student’s explanation incomplete? Specifically, what components are missing and how could the components that are present be improved? Even with her best evaluation on the pre-survey—Student B on the plate tectonics question (see Appendix A)—she only assessed the presence or absence of the components, never their quality. For instance, she says: “Provides detailed explanation. (Provides the evidence the claim is based on). However, assuming plate tectonics was just covered in class—the student did not connect the assignment to recent work.” In essence, Mrs. Liner says that the student provided a claim and evidence, but neglected the content in the reasoning. It is not clear whether the claim and evidence are of good quality or in need of improvement.

Table 3. Mrs. Liner’s PCK results for evaluating student writing by question.

While Mrs. Liner’s evaluation of argumentation in student writing did improve by 11% on the post-survey, additional improvement was still possible. This was especially true in regards to the claim component, as she tended to not assess it. More specifically, she failed to assess any claim on the post-test, and only once vaguely on the pre-test. Moreover, when analyzing her evaluation results arranged according to CER component (Table 4) it is possible to see that her assessment of claims decreased from 42% on the pre- to 33% on the post-survey. In comparison, her evaluation of evidence and reasoning increased, with evidence to a higher extent. While her PCK score for evaluating both the evidence and reasoning in writing was 42% on the pre-survey, it was 75% on the post-survey for evidence as compared to 50% for reasoning. This is illustrated in the following quote as she evaluates Student B on the plate tectonics question (see Appendix A): “hmmm—if were taught about plate tectonics they are ignoring the principle or not explaining why it does not apply. They detail the evidence well. They provide some reasoning.” In this case, she evaluated the quality of the evidence and discussed the presence of reasoning, but does not detail how the reasoning could be improved. As with all her post-survey evaluations, she did not evaluate whether the claim was right or wrong. In summary, in evaluating the student writing Mrs. Liner tended not to assess claims, when she assessed reasoning it was vague, and she was clearly best at assessing the students’ evidence.

Question Student Framework Component

Writing Pre Post %

Change Code % Code %

1 (Density)

A Claim 1

33% 1

56% 23% Evidence 1 2 Reasoning 1 2

B Claim 1

33% 1

22% -11% Evidence 1 1 Reasoning 1 0

2 (Plate

Tectonics)

A Claim 1

33% 1


B Claim 2

67% 1


TOTAL 15 42% 19 53% 11%

Table 4. Mrs. Liner’s PCK results for evaluating student writing by component.

Framework Component

Writing Pre Post %

Change Total % Total % Claim 5 42% 4 33% -11%

Evidence 5 42% 9 75% 33% Reasoning 5 42% 6 50% 8%

Classroom Talk. On the pre-survey, Mrs. Liner’s language was again vague when

assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the sample classroom discussions. From Tables 5 and 6, which present Mr. Liner’s results for evaluating classroom discussions organized by question and by CER component respectively, it is possible to observe that similar to her evaluation of student writing, she does not assess claims. Curiously, she also tends to not address evidence. However, we see that while her evaluation of Classroom Discussion 2 did not improve (44% on both pre-and post-survey), she was better able to assess the evidence in the post-survey of Classroom Discussion 1. More specifically, her score for PCK-talk for Classroom Discussion 1 increased from 44% on the pre-survey to 55% on the post-survey. This change is best illustrated by quotes from both surveys. On the pre-survey she says: “… Does not address what is meant by ‘high or low biodiversity’. Does not explore the finding of the groups…”. Once again, her language is vague. It is not clear whether “findings” would be the claim or evidence; therefore neither component is explicitly addressed. Moreover, she makes a critique about the absence of content in the reasoning, but does not discuss the importance of using said content to link the evidence to the claim or to provide justification. It is not merely that students are not defining high and low biodiversity; rather it is that the students are not discussing why the number of species and frequency within species means their schoolyard has high or low biodiversity. In comparison, on the post-survey for the same question, she says: “Included bits of specific evidences. No identification of what biodiversity is or its value/significances…”. While she previously did not address the claim or evidence, this time she is assessed that the evidence is at least present. While her evaluation of reasoning remains vague, she is strongest at assessing the reasoning component in the classroom discussions. More specifically, from Table 5 we see that her score for assessing the reasoning component on the post-survey was 67% as compared to 50% for assessing evidence. However, her ability to assess reasoning in classroom talk did not increase, whereas her ability to assess evidence increased by 17%. In summary, in evaluating the classroom discussions, Mrs. Liner did not assess any claims, tended not to assess evidence—despite her assessment of this component showing the most growth over time—and always assessed science concept within the reasoning without discussing how or why that supports a link between the evidence and claim. Perhaps the latter is true because she did not evaluate the claim or evidence.

Table 5. Mrs. Liner’s PCK results for evaluating classroom discussions by question.

Table 6. Mrs. Liner’s PCK results for evaluating classroom discussions by component.

Framework Component

Talk Pre Post %

Change Total % Total % Claim 2 33% 2 33% 0%


Belief The Continuum for Teaching Science as Argument was used to identify Mrs. Liner’s beliefs about scientific argumentation for each of the 3 interviews. Mrs. Liner’s belief in that Making Sense of an Investigation was the primary purpose of argumentation lessons persisted through all three-lesson reflections. Quotes from each interview will be presented to illustrate how this was determined.

Interview 1: In the first interview Mrs. Liner’s focus was on teaching students to think about the shadows investigation they performed during class. For example, she says:

But this [class] was about getting kids to understand shadows—how that is proof that Earth rotates. ... Last time we started taking notes with just some very basic shadows and today I wanted to move into combining both changes in direction and length, and also starting to move into the model of earth and the sun.

She sees the investigation as a vehicle for the students to make sense of the concept. While the previous quote indicates the value she placed on thinking, in the following quote she discusses that workshops are helping her to accomplish this:

For years I have been teaching and they are used to the fact all of our work starts with a question and when we do our notes the question comes first, the drawing or other data comes next, and then our answer … has to use the data to answer the question. That has been practiced with them over the years. … The part that was missing—the analysis—has been missing from my instruction … it’s really exciting to find a way that’s very explicit … to support me and moving my 5th graders in this direction.

The framework she describes is similar, yet markedly different from CER. As emphasized above


Talk % Change Pre Post

Code % Code %

1 (Biodiversity)

Claim 1 44%

1 56% 12% A Evidence 1 2

Reasoning 2 2 Claim 1

44%% 1

44% 0% B Evidence 1 1 Reasoning 2 2

TOTAL 8 44% 9 50% 6%

she routinely discussed the importance of answering a question in an investigation, and that that is accomplished using data. While she values data, she does not consider the appropriateness or sufficiency of said data to form evidence. Furthermore, she uses the word analysis in replace of evidence. For instance she says: “I think they’re going to need a lot more time to really get good at building up the evidence portion—the analysis piece”. Again, later in the interview she clarifies: “I find I am calling what is called the evidence here, I’m calling the analysis. While Mrs. Liner says she is using analysis as a synonym of evidence, she also distinguishes between the two words when she says, “I think the evidence, analysis, and claim are common enough words that they were able to make the connection”. Interestingly, she never explained what either evidence or analysis would entail. While her use of the word analysis indicates that she does not believe in the framework enough to integrate it without changes into her practice, she did value it as a means to teach students to think deeply. Furthermore, the students’ thinking was contextualized within the investigation they performed during the lesson. Therefore, her first interview is representative of the Making Sense of an Investigation level of the continuum.

Interview 2. Mrs. Liner again focused on analysis in the second interview. In discussing

how she would have taught the lesson if she had not attended the workshops, she says: We would have just gone on to the claim, would be the answer and I’d be happy that they’d be able to identify the deltas it was purely on the…landforms stuff. The analysis and the writing piece on it, it’s just been missing completely.

She continues to emphasize the thinking and writing and challenging to implement: It’s the whole connecting to thinking and the writing piece … writing has always been a part of the notebooks. On a fifth grade piece it was almost getting too easy … so having to teach the thinking and the writing piece—it’s a whole new thing—and … that’s what’s really a struggle.

As the notebooks were used to record investigations, this shows her view that writing was used as a means for students to think about and makes sense of investigations they have conducted. As this perspective persists throughout the second interview, Mrs. Liner’s beliefs of argumentation were again placed within the Making Sense of the Investigation level.

Interview 3. In the third interview Mrs. Liner again focuses on the thinking and writing,

however she acknowledges that she is seeing student improvement: Like Bobby when he did that work the first time—he’s one of the kids who kind of did a general statement and then as he worked with it there was a difference with how he felt about it and he knew that it sounded more complete and a better answer. Kids seem to have this built in evaluation process for what a smart answer really sounds like. And when they really come up with the smart answer by themselves they can kind of feel the difference and it’s a good feeling for them.

The writing product that she is discussing is based on an investigation the students’ previously completed. While it is once again clear that she is using writing as a vehicle to promote student thinking, it is interesting that she does not articulate what Bobby did to make his answer more complete. We also learn that her principal has been emphasizing critical thinking throughout the year and that she sees the CER framework as a means to attain this in science.

Yes, yes. It’s changed what I value and it’s changed what I’m teaching … Our new principal[‘s] … interest is focusing in teaching critical thinking and getting kids to think deeply about all of their work and … this is the same piece that he is working in. I also

think it’s helping the school be more interested in teaching science broadly. Perhaps this external school pressure influenced her view on the purpose of the CER framework; it is possible that she mapped CER onto the changes requested by her principal. Regardless, Mrs. Liner’s focus on thinking places her within the Making Sense of an Investigation level of the Continuum. Practice

The Continuum for Teaching Science as Argument (adapted from Zembal-Saul, 2009) was used to designate a code for each activity within each lesson based on the teacher instructional strategies, classroom talk, individual work, and time spent on each activity. Mrs. Liner moved from an Investigation Based level within the first lesson, to the Making Sense of an Investigation level during lessons 2 and 3. Evidence from each lesson will be presented to illustrate why the assigned levels are appropriate. Lesson 1. The activity structure for Mrs. Liner’s first lesson is presented in Table 1. In the third activity, which took 70% of the class period, Mrs. Liner had the students perform an investigation to determine shadow length and direction using plastic figurines (little people) and a lamp. While she had the students write the investigation questions in their notebooks, qualitatively draw their observations, and label them, there was not a focus on claims and evidence. Furthermore, in the last 5 minutes of class Mrs. Liner had the students write an analysis; however it is again not clear what she means by analysis. For example, she says:

I want you to write an analysis…No, an analysis not the answer. I want you to use the data that’s on the sheet. You have to explain it. In the early morning the shadow is pointing away from the sun.

While the analysis is not the answer, it is still not clear what it is. The student writing, an example of which is presented in Figure 4, contextualizes what she was asking of the students. It appears that the students used their drawings to answer the investigation questions. As this activity was focused on performing the investigation and the investigation took 70% of the class period, this lesson was on the Investigation Based level of the continuum Table 7. Activity structure and corresponding codes for Mrs. Liner’s lesson 1.

Time Activity Structure Code

11:19 Mrs. Liner discusses the importance of note-booking and defines claim, evidence, and analysis. She introduces the assignment in which they finish the analysis of sentences taken from previous writing on a shadow experiment.

Making Sense of an Investigation

5:09 The students are working in their table groups to do the assignment. Making Sense of an Investigation

~48 Class discussion on the upcoming investigation using little people and a light for a sun source to determine shadow length and direction.

Investigation Based

5 Mrs. Liner discusses the analysis piece. Investigation Based

OVERALL Investigation Based

Figure 4. Sample of student work from Mrs. Liner’s lesson 1.

Lessons 2. The second lesson was divided into two major activities, both of which were geared towards Making Sense of an Investigation. The first of the two major activities was geared toward the students evaluating a sample student response, which answered the question: How well suited is the body of the polar bear to hunting in the Arctic? The students critiqued the sample student response to see if it answers the question (it doesn’t), and determined the pieces of evidence from the article that could be used. The students recited that the data gives them their evidence and they are going to analyze it, but again it is not clear what Mrs. Liner is saying is evidence or analysis. At one point she says “Evidence is in your reading” and she also talks about the entire student response as the “Analysis”. After the class agrees the student writing is good, they discussed an “ideal” response as she writes it on a big sticky. As the sample student response used secondary data and they students were trying to make sense as to whether what the student wrote was appropriate, this activity was placed on the Making Sense of an Investigation level of the Continuum. As she never clarified what evidence would include and this was not her primary focus, the lesson was not Evidence Based. The second of the two major activities in this lesson was a writing assignment based on a lab they have previously performed. The students answered the question: How does the change in elevation change the delta? Mrs. Liner stressed that their writing will be their “analysis”. While she uses the word evidence, it is still not clear what this entails. Using the student work to contextualize what she was asking from the students, we see that most of the students were just describing their investigation as opposed to making a clear claim that they supported with evidence. She does, however, push them to use some numbers and data into their writing, which is an improvement from lesson 1. This is observable in Figure 5, which is one such student product. As all the writing is connected to Making Sense of an Investigation, this activity, as well as the entire 2nd lesson were placed on this level.


Lessons 3. Mrs. Liner’s final lesson was also placed on the Making Sense of an

Investigation level on the Continuum. In this lesson, the students wrote about a previous investigation on how the height of the ramp impacted the distance the car traveled. Mrs. Liner told them they are going to write about it saying:

You do write the question. Then you write your answer. And you can start out writing about the data if it helps you, I notice because then you can talk about your data. I’m not positive this is a good way to start writing your evidence sentences, but it may help you come up with a good way of doing it.

While Mrs. Liner is moving towards an emphasis on evidence, she did not focus on how you need to use evidence to determine or justify a claim. Rather, Mrs. Liner was trying to get the students to use the data to think about the question, and the thinking occurs through writing. We also learn that Mrs. Liner equates analysis with reasoning when she says: The next step is I want you to do the analysis piece, the reasoning piece, to connect all of this together”. However, we see that reasoning is not present in the student work. From Figure 6, which presents an example of student work from this lesson, we again see the students answered a question and drew their observation. The students, however, have made progress in including evidence. Although the language of claim and evidence comes up some, the focus is still on Making Sense of an Investigation as opposed to the idea that science is fundamentally about using evidence to make sense of the world around us.


MR. KEIFFER Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

Mr. Keiffer’s assessments of 4 students’ written responses and 2 classroom discussions were coded using the ideal teacher evaluation coding scheme, and percentages calculated for both the pre- and post-survey. From Table 8, which presents his PCK results, it can be observed that Mrs. Keiffer’s overall PCK of argumentation score increased from 50% on the pre- survey to 77% on the post-survey. However, while his PCK of evaluating argumentation in writing nearly doubled, his PCK of evaluating argumentation in talk decreased. More specifically, his PCK-writing score increased 41% from pre- to post-survey as compared to a 5% decrease on his PCK-talk score. Each of the aforementioned results will next be presented in more detail. Table 8. Mr. Keiffer’s overall PCK of argumentation results.

PCK Pre-Survey Post-Survey % Change

Discourse Writing 42% 83% 41% Talk 61% 56% -5%

Overall 50% 77% 27% Writing. On the pre-survey Mr. Keiffer’s PCK score for evaluating argumentation in sample student writing was 48%. From Table 9, which presents Mr. Keiffer’s evaluation of student writing organized according to question, it is possible to discern that on the pre-survey he did not evaluate the components of claim or evidence. Moreover, while his evaluation of reasoning was the strongest, it tended to be vague. For example, in evaluating Student A on the density question (see Appendix A), he says: “Clear understanding of density. Student ignores

density rule and uses prior knowledge (albeit in a non-scientific way)”. While neither the claim nor the evidence is addressed, he does, however, discuss that the student understands the concept of density. While providing the scientific principle is one part of reasoning, Mr. Keiffer still needs to request the student to use said scientific principle to show how or why the density evidence supports the claim that the golf ball will sink and the bowling ball will float. It is in making sense of the density evidence that Student A struggled. Table 9. Mr. Keiffer’s results for evaluating student writing by question.

We do, however, see that Mr. Keiffer nearly doubles his PCK score for assessing student-writing score from the 42% on the pre-survey to 83% on the post-survey. This substantial change if reflective of the way Mr. Keiffer was better able to integrate the language of the CER framework into his evaluation of the sample student responses on the post-survey. For example, in evaluating student B on the density question (see Appendix A), he says, “Good claim & evidence, but no reasoning”. He goes beyond recognizing the presence of the components, and evaluates their quality. While he did assess the quality of the claim in the aforementioned example, Mr. Keiffer had the most difficulty with assessing the students’ claims on the post-survey. It is possible to see this trend in Table 10, which presents Mr. Keiffer’s PCK results for evaluating student writing organized by component. Whereas his PCK score for evaluating claims was 67%, his scores for evaluating evidence and reasoning are 92% each. Contextualizing this with information from Table 9, it is possible to ascertain that when he does remember to explicitly address the claim, he does so at a high level. In addition, he was equally good at assessing both evidence and reasoning; both were generally in depth. While his PCK score was 92% each for evaluating evidence and reasoning, his learning gains for evaluating evidence were 25% more than reasoning. In summary, Mr. Keiffer PCK of evaluating each of the CER components increased over time. While he had the most difficulty with remembering to assess claims, when he did he did so at a high level, and despite having larger learning gains in evaluating evidence, he was equally good at assessing both evidence and reasoning.


Writing Pre Post %


1 (Density)

A Claim 1

44% 1


B Claim 1

56% 3


2 (Plate

Tectonics)

A Claim 1

44% 3


B Claim 1

22% 1


TOTAL 15 42% 30 83% 41%

Table 10. Mr. Keiffer’s PCK results for evaluating student writing by component.

Framework Component

Writing Pre Post %



Talk. On the pre-survey Mr. Keiffer’s PCK score for evaluating argumentation in

classroom discussions was 61%. Mr. Keiffer had the most difficulty in assessing the students’ claims. From Table 11, which presents his results for evaluating talk organized according to question, we see that he does not assess the claim in either pre-survey question. We do see, however, when he assessed evidence, he did so in-depth. For example, in evaluating the second classroom discussion (see Appendix B), he says: “…Students give reasoning and feel comfortable disagreeing with each other. Teacher didn’t focus in on the content: What have kids observed from biodiversity? Reasons don’t relate to biodiversity. Lack of evidence from prior investigation.” Mr. Keiffer addresses the issue that the students are not providing evidence from biodiversity observations collected during their investigation. He also says that while the students are providing reasoning, it is off-topic. In this case he evaluated both the evidence and reasoning components at an in depth level. It should, however, be noted that Mr. Keiffer only evaluated evidence half of the time. While his evaluation of evidence was either not done at all or in-depth, his evaluation of reasoning was either vague or in-depth. For this reason, in Table 12, which presents Mr. Keiffer’s results for evaluating talk organized by CER component, we see that his evaluation of reasoning is stronger than that of evidence.

Table 11. Mr. Keiffer’s results for evaluating classroom discussions by question.

Table 12. Mr. Keiffer’s results for evaluating classroom discussions by component.

Framework Component

Talk Pre Post %


Evidence 4 67% 4 67% 0% Reasoning 5 83% 3 50% -33%


Talk Pre Post %


1 (Biodiversity)

Claim 1 44%

2 56% 12% A Evidence 1 2

Reasoning 2 1 Claim 1

78% 1

56% -22% B Evidence 3 2 Reasoning 3 2

TOTAL 11 61% 10 56% -5%

Surprisingly, we see that Mr. Keiffer’s PCK score for evaluating classroom discussions decreased by 5% over time—from 61% on the pre-survey to 56% on the post-survey. More specifically, we see his score for evaluating the reasoning component dropped by 33%. In examining the evidence and reasoning components in Table 11 we see that both components moved from sometimes being in-depth on pre-survey to being vague on post-survey. For example, on the same question that was previously described as being in-depth for evidence and reasoning on the pre-survey, on the post-survey he writes: “…No focus on evidence or reasoning!”. While he states they are not present, he does not provide feedback on what needs to be done. His language is clearly not as explicit. It is also possible to detect from Table 12 that he again had difficulty in assessing the students’ claims; however the largest learning gain (17%) was in regards to this component. Conversely, despite the vagueness of Mr. Keiffer’s evaluations of evidence, he was strongest at evaluating this component. In summary, Mr. Keiffer’s PCK of evaluating argumentation in classroom discussions decreased over time, which was mainly a result of his evaluations in regards to evidence and reasoning becoming less explicit. Despite said vagueness in evaluating evidence, overall he was strongest at evaluating this component, and while the largest learning gain was in regards to evaluating claims, it was this component that was most difficult for him. Belief The Continuum for Teaching Science as Argument was used to identify Mr. Keiffer’s beliefs about scientific argumentation for each of the 3 interviews. While Mr. Keiffer originally believed that the primary purpose of argumentation lessons was Making Sense of an Investigation, his belief shifted one level after each subsequent professional development he attended and lesson he taught. Quotes from each interview will be presented to illustrate how this was determined.

Interview 1. In the first interview, Mr. Keiffer emphasized the students thinking. In the following quote he discuss their need to think about an upcoming field investigation:

We’re going to go visit a pond on Monday…and so I wanted to give them sort of a preview of those concepts before we went to the pond. Turbidity, DO, temperature, and, um, pH are the four properties that we are going to be measuring. Um, so I felt like this would be a good opportunity to get them to think about it before they went to the pond. So by the time they got to the pond they would say, “Oh, this is a good pH for things to live in” or “Oh, that’s a good temperature”.

It is interesting that Mr. Keiffer used the writing as a means to prepare students to make sense of an investigation that will be conducted in the future. While Mr. Keiffer mentions both evidence and reasoning, he does not talk about either with much detail. In addition, he is confused about the difference between the two as is evident in the following quote:

The only thing that I got a little stuck on when I was … looking at some student work—and since you’re asking for some feedback—was what’s the boundary between the evidence and the reasoning? A couple of kids that were, you know, does that count as reasoning or is that still part of the evidence?

Clearly, Mr. Keiffer believes there is a difference between evidence and reasoning, however he is still working on how he believes them to be different from one another. Moreover, he never clearly defined what either evidence or reasoning would include. As Mr. Keiffer emphasized thinking about investigations as the purpose of the lesson, his belief was placed within the

Making Sense of an Investigation level on the continuum.

Interview 2. In the second interview, Mr. Keiffer shifted his emphasis to evidence. In the following quote, he described his method in getting the students to consider whether they were presenting sufficient evidence:

In terms of the amount of evidence, so in terms of the sufficient evidence. So one of the questions on the sheet was: How confident are you that this person really took Miss Brown’s lunch? And then the next question is: How confident would you feel with only one or two pieces of evidence? And so I tried to stress that a little bit in talking, but also a lot when I’m going around with the students in terms of … you’d feel really confident if you’ve got a lot of evidence backing it up, but if you’ve just got one piece, it doesn’t necessarily explain it.

At a different point in the interview, Mr. Keiffer described the importance of basing an argument on appropriate evidence:

That’s important to understand that … you’ve got five pieces of data over here and only this one piece of data over here, and striking the balance rather than just saying, “But I like this data over here and so I’ll make my decision based on that”.

Interestingly, he referred to having enough or sufficient evidence multiple times throughout the interview, but only described appropriate evidence without using the terminology. Similarly, he disused reasoning with multiple components without attributing it to being reasoning:

I did make sure that every piece of evidence had a different justification for why it supports the claim.

This quote shows his emphasis on evidence. Even though he is discussed reasoning, Mr. Keiffer discussed it in terms of evidence. While Mr. Keiffer is moving towards internalizing the Role of Evidence and Reasoning, he is not specific as to what he believes it would entail. As evidence was a major emphasis of the interview and he clearly articulated his understanding of its purpose, his belief was placed within The Role of Evidence level within the continuum.

Interview 3. In the third interview, Mr. Keiffer—for the first time—articulated what he

meant by reasoning. In the following quote it is possible to detect the emphasis he placed on the Role of Evidence & Reasoning that was prevalent throughout the interview:

So, I think it’s changed the way I want the way kids to think. I never wanted them to just memorize anything, but it’s gotten me to think more…about how kids are constructing in their heads and can they explain this in depth the way a scientist needs to be able to. It certainly, changed my priorities in how I’m teaching … not just saying … “Yes it worked; that’s correct”. But being able to explain why and to use the evidence that way—but really the reasoning. Constructing these explanations is something that as a scientist in any job, any high school class, college class, they’re going to need to be able to do for an in-depth knowledge and you can get a minimal knowledge without that, but if they can do this they’ve got an in-depth knowledge of the material.

It is clear that he has thought deeply about the Role of Evidence & Reasoning as he acknowledges that reasoning is required for an in-depth knowledge of the content and that this is the process scientists follow without addressing the way in which opposing claims are debated within the scientific community. This thoughtfulness in regards to the Role of Evidence & Reasoning is again witnessed when he clearly articulates why the inclusion of multiple components of the reasoning is not always appropriate. Specifically, he says

I made a new organizer … having evidence number one and what’s the reasoning behind the piece of evidence number one. And then number two. And then number three. And then I thought it really wouldn’t work for this one. You’re not going to say the density of liquid A was 1.07 g/ml and the reasoning is, you know, this is what the density is and so it should float.

In this case it was not appropriate to provide reasoning for each individual piece of evidence because the reasoning components would not differ. This demonstrates that Mr. Keiffer has thought deeply about the Role in Evidence & Reasoning in various scenarios; he was therefore placed within this level of the Continuum. Practice

The Continuum for Teaching Science as Argument (adapted from Zembal-Saul, 2009) was used to designate a code for each activity within the 3 lessons based on the teacher instructional strategies, classroom talk, individual work, and time spent on each activity. Mr. Keiffer implemented the CER framework at the Role of Evidence and Reasoning level for all three lessons. Evidence from each lesson will be presented to illustrate why the assigned levels are appropriate. Lesson 1. In the first part of the lesson, Mr. Keiffer provided an introduction to the CER framework and explained that a scientific explanation is a different way of writing or talking. He discussed the definitions of each component and provided an example response to each component from the following question: What season is it turning to When introducing claim he says, “We’re always going to be backing up what we’re saying…” It is clear that he focused on supporting or justifying. After discussing the importance of evidence and using multiple pieces of evidence, he continued by defining reasoning. Mr. Keiffer goes beyond just using the language of the CER framework to discuss why each is important—the role of the components. In the second part of the lesson, Mr. Keiffer reviewed water quality data the class previously used for another purpose. He tells the students that need to make sense of the data in terms of the Ladybug Pond and Tadpole pond and then write out the CER response answering the question—Which pond is a healthier environment for small-mouth bass? From Figure 5, which is a sample student product, we see that Mr. Keiffer scaffolded the assignment by separating the three components and provided reminders as to what each should include. Furthermore, we see that the student does provide data in the evidence, and while the reasoning is weak, the student is attempting to link the evidence to the claim. Throughout the lesson Mr. Keiffer focused on the Role of Evidence & Reasoning.

Figure 5. Sample of student work from Mr. Keiffer’s first lesson.

Lesson 2. In the first part of the lesson Mr. Keiffer used a real world example to

demonstrate why the evidence and reasoning support the claim. More specifically, the class was trying to determine who stole Miss Brown’s spaghetti lunch. Mr. Keiffer provided evidence and the students accuse him of this crime. The class then evaluated the quality of the claim, evidence, and reasoning in three sample CER responses to determine which best accused him.

In the second part of the lesson the students individually wrote a CER response to answer the question, should Legal Seafood serve wild Atlantic Salmon on its menu? The students utilize the available data and a response sheet that was scaffolded in the same manner as the previous lesson (see Figure 5). To close the class, Mr. Keiffer takes a vote in terms of their claim, which was split about half and half. Despite having an opportunity to move the discussion towards debating alternate explanation, only one student from each of the opposing viewpoints shared their responses. He summarizes their arguments by highlighting their evidence and reasoning. Throughout the lesson Mr. Keiffer placed a focus on justifying claims with evidence and reasoning, he was therefore placed within the Role of Evidence level on the Continuum.

Lesson 3. In Mr. Keiffer’s final lesson he had students use a rubric to assess the quality

of four-sample student responses in which the students were asked to determine the order of layers for four liquids based on their densities. As a class they graded one student’s response together. The focus in the discussion was on what would count as high quality for each component. After assessing the remaining three students in small groups, the class discussed how they graded each student. While the students show some confusion as they mix up evidence and reasoning, Mr. Keiffer understood the difference and was helping them refine this understanding. The students were then required to revise their own writing for homework. In

looking at their writing products, we see that while some students continued to confuse evidence and reasoning, a majority of students tried to justify their claims with evidence and reasoning. However, for many students their evidence and reasoning are not sufficient. This being said, Mr. Keiffer designed the lesson so that the students would provide evidence and reasoning, was helping the students to understand how to do so, and focused the lesson on using the framework to justify a claim with evidence. He was, therefore, placed within the Role of Evidence & Reasoning level of the Continuum.

DISCUSSION

The professional development had a positive impact on both teachers’ PCK as evidenced

by the increase in their overall PCK scores on the surveys; the degree of increase was, however, individualistic. More specifically, Mr. Keiffer’s overall score was 25 percentage points higher when compared to Mrs. Liner. Furthermore, both teachers were better able to apply the CER framework to analyze student writing in comparison to classroom discussions.

While both teachers’ writing started at the same score and increased, Mr. Keiffer increased to a much higher extent. Both teachers’ showed the highest learning gains in evaluating the student’s evidence. While this was Mrs. Liner’s strength, Mr. Keiffer was equally strong at assessing both evidence and reasoning. When Mrs. Liner assessed reasoning, it was vague. Both teachers had the most difficulty in assessing the students’ claims.

The teachers’ overall scores for evaluating talk were lower than for writing. Despite Mr. Keiffer’s decrease in ability to evaluate classroom discussions, his final score was still stronger than that of Mrs. Liner. While Mrs. Liner was stronger at evaluating reasoning as compared to evidence, the reverse was true of Mr. Keiffer. Mrs. Liner tended not to evaluate evidence in talk, however this was Mr. Keiffer’s strength, albeit he did so at a vague level. Both teachers’ were vague in the assessment of reasoning, and again had the most difficulty in assessing the students’ claims.

The discussion results in particular will inform the design of future professional development workshops as it indicates that the use of the CER framework to evaluate oral discourse must be made more explicit. While this was done with student writing samples in the workshops, due to time restraints the discussion around the discourse was limited to evaluating classroom discourse transcripts in regards to teacher-student interaction patterns that support the CER framework. For example, the PD included a focus on the limitations of the application of the IRE pattern (teacher initiation, student response, teacher evaluation), which exists in most science classrooms (Cazden, 1988; Lemke, 1990; Mehan, 1979), and the value of students building on and responding to one another’s responses. This aspect is especially important to develop students’ abilities to provide alternate explanations. While this discussion is absolutely necessary, in the future we will provide opportunities for the teachers to practice applying the CER framework to sample classroom discussion transcripts within the PD workshops.

Using the interviews to place the teachers on the Continuum for Teaching Science as Argument (adapted from Zembal-Saul, 2009) revealed that there were not only differences in the teachers’ beliefs, but also in their progression of said beliefs over time. More specifically, both Mr. Keiffer and Mrs. Liner began within in the Making Sense of an Investigation level, however while Mrs. Liner persisted within this level through all three interviews, Mr. Keiffer’s belief increased one level after each subsequent professional development workshop attended and lesson taught. This suggests that the ways in which teachers internalize the underlying purposes

for teaching science as argument depend on the individual and his/her prior experiences. Again using the Continuum for Teaching Science as Argument (adapted from Zembal-

Saul, 2009) to this time analyze the teachers’ practice, we observed that the teachers’ practice changed over time; however their characterizations—both initial and final—were different. While Mrs. Liner never fully integrated the CER into her practice, Mrs. Keiffer did so for all three lessons. This suggests that while influencing teachers’ PCK and beliefs on scientific argumentation through PD can be successful in changing their practice, each teacher’s level of successful enactment is dependant on his/her initial PCK and belief. Moreover, the teachers with the greatest change in PCK and belief had the strongest practice. Figure 6 shows our hypothesized and outcome relationships between PCK, belief, and practice.

Figure 6. Hypothesized relationship between PCK, Belief, & Practice.

While we hypothesized that PCK and belief would be unidirectionaly related to practice,

the results suggest that perhaps practice is also impacting PCK and belief. The latter relationship is presented in Figure 7. For instance, despite Mr. Keiffer not fully believing in the value of argumentation, he applied it in his classroom. With each subsequent professional development workshop he attended and argumentation lesson he implemented into his classroom, his reflections exhibited more buy-in. In the end, his PCK was markedly higher when compared to Mrs. Liner. On the other hand, Mrs. Liner never fully integrated the CER framework into her practice, her beliefs in argumentation did not change, and her PCK was markedly less. This suggests that practice is an integral part of changing teachers’ PCK and beliefs. As a result, professional developments may be more effective when closely coupled with classroom practice.

Figure 7. Relationship between PCK, Belief, & Practice.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was conducted as part of the Supporting Grade 5-8 Students in Writing Scientific

Explanations project, supported in part by the National Science Foundation grant DRL-0836099.

Any opinions expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent

either those of the funding agency or Boston College. We would like to thank Adam

Weatherwax for his help in conducting this research.

REFERENCES

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.

Bryon, L. A. & Atwater, M. M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for science teacher preparation programs. Science Teacher Education, 86(6), 821-39.

Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. [Article]. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Rodriguez, A. B. (2000). 'Doing the lesson' or 'doing science': Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-92.

Kelly, G. J. & Greene, J. (1998). The social nature of knowing: Toward a sociocultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In B. Guzzetti & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world (pp. 145-181). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77 (3), 319-337.

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93, 2, 223-268.

McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy Between Teacher Practices and Curricular Scaffolds to Support Students in Using Domain-Specific and Domain-General Knowledge in Writing Arguments to Explain Phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416 - 460.

McNeill, K.L & Krajcik, J. (2011). Claim, evidence and reasoning: Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing scientific explanations. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94 (2), 203-229.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102–119). New York: MacMillan.

Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323-346.

Shulman, L. S. (1983). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 51, 1-22.

Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2/3), 235-60.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102–119). New York: MacMillan.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. London: Cambridge University Press. Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science

Education, 93, 687-719. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through

dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.

Appendix A: Survey writing questions Question 1: Sam conducted an investigation to determine whether different balls would sink

or float in water. Below is a table with some data he collected about the water, the ping pong ball, the golf ball and the bowling ball. Which of the balls do you think will sink? Explain why you think the ball or balls will sink.

Data: Student A Response: The golf ball and the bowling ball will sink. Density determines

whether or not an object will float or sink. Something with a high density has a lot of mass in a particular volume – it is very packed. So if an object has a density higher than water (1.00 g/cm3), then it will sink. The golf ball has a density of 1.13 g/cm3 so it will sink. In the table, the bowling ball density is low, but that must be wrong because bowling balls are really heavy. The mass of the bowling ball is 4989.52 g. I have also dropped a bowling ball before and it made a loud sound. So I know that the bowling ball will sink in water too.

Student B Response: The golf ball will sink. The density of the water is 1.00 g/cm3 and

the density of the golf ball is 1.13 g/cm3. The ping-pong ball and bowling ball will float, because their densities are 0.08 g/cm3 and 0.92 g/cm3

Mass (g)

Volume (cm3)

Density (g/cm3)

Water 20,000.00 20,000.00 1.00

Ping-Pong Ball 2.70 33.51 0.08

Golf Ball 45.93 40.49 1.13

Bowling Ball 498.52 5454.52 0.92

Question 2: The diagram below shows two landmasses separated by an ocean. Do you think tthese two landmasses have always been in the same location or do you think they were once in a different location? Explain why you came to this conclusion.

Data:

Student C Response: The two landmasses have not always been in the same location.

They were once connected to each other without an ocean in between them. The landmasses moved because of plate tectonics, which is the idea that the earth’s crust is made of many large plates that slowly move over time on top of the hotter more liquid mantle.

Student D Response: The two landmasses have always been in the same place. The

diagram shows that the two landmasses are made of similar stone. They are both made of sandstone and limestone. The two landmasses also have similar plant fossils. That is why I think they were once connected and the ocean did not use to be there. Some type of earth process caused the water in the ocean to cover the land between the two landmasses. There was probably a glacier or flood that brought the water for the ocean. If the water was removed from the ocean, the land underneath would also be made of sandstone and limestone as well as have similar plant fossils. The two landmasses have not moved, but they were clearly once connected.

Appendix B: Survey classroom discussion questions Classroom 1: Below is a transcript from a classroom that just completed an investigation exploring biodiversity in their schoolyard. The transcript shows the teacher, Mr. Lewis, beginning a discussion about the students’ conclusions for the investigation. Mr. Lewis: I want you to share your ideas about the question we have been investigating –

Is the biodiversity in our schoolyard high or low? And I don’t just want you to say yes or no. Rather I want you to tell me why you think the biodiversity is high or low. Chris – what do you think?

Chris: I think that our schoolyard has a high biodiversity, because my partner and I collected data that there are 20 different species in our schoolyard.

Mr. Lewis: Ok. That is great. So you found data that there are 20 different species. Kayla, what did you find?

Kayla: We found that there were a lot of some species, like squirrels, but for most species there were only one or two animals, like there was only one song sparrow.

Mr. Lewis: Interesting. So what do you think that means in terms of our research question? Does that suggest that the biodiversity is high or low?

Kayla: We think the biodiversity is in the middle. It would be higher if there were lots of all of the different species.

Mr. Lewis: Great. What did other groups find?

Classroom 2: Below is a transcript from a classroom that just completed an investigation exploring biodiversity in their schoolyard. The transcript shows the teacher, Ms. Jackson, beginning a discussion about the students’ conclusions for the investigation. Ms. Jackson: We have been investigating the question - Is the biodiversity in our schoolyard

high or low? Based on all of your investigations, we now need to answer this question as a class. What are some of your ideas?

Shelly: I think the biodiversity is low, because we live in a city and it is really dirty.

Will: I agree with what Shelly said. I think the biodiversity is low. There is always trash in our schoolyard even though I try to pick it up and I tell other people to pick up their trash.

Dan: I disagree. Just because we are in a city doesn’t mean there are not any animals. And it really is not that dirty. It is much cleaner out there now then it was at the beginning of the school year.

Maria: But we should make it even cleaner. Maybe we can get the whole school to clean it up. And we could even turn part of the schoolyard into a garden or something.

Ms. Jackson: I am hearing lots of interesting ideas. Do the rest of you agree or disagree with these ideas?

Anna: I agree with Shelly and Will. I think the biodiversity is low, but like Maria said we could make it better.

Appendix C: Coding Scheme for Written Question 1, Student B

Ideal Teacher Response 0 Wrong

1 Not

There

2 Vague/ Incom-plete

3 In

Depth

Claim The student provides CORRECT claims. The golf ball will sink. The ping pong ball and bowling ball will float

Evidence The student provides APPROPRIATE and SUFFICIENT evidence. Density of, golf, ping-pong, & bowling balls, and water.

Reasoning The student DOES NOT provide reasoning that links the evidence to the claim. Doesn’t explain how/why the evidence supports the claim.

Appendix D: Coding Scheme for Clrassroom 1 Discussion Question

Ideal Response 0

Wrong

1

Not There

2 Vague/ Incom-plete

3

In Depth

Claim

Chris PROVIDES a claim • I think that our schoolyard has a high

biodiversity

Kayla PROVIDES a claim • We think the biodiversity is in the middle. It is NOT POSSIBLE to asses whether the claims are correct or incorrect because high/middle/low biodiversity are not defined. We will be looking for the presence/absence of Chris and Kayla’s claims, rather than whether they are correct or incorrect.

Evidence

Chris PROVIDES evidence on the numbers of species, but not the types of species. • My partner and I collected data that there are

20 different species in our schoolyard

Kayla PROVIDES evidence, but would be better to include the frequency of more animals than just the sparrow. • We found that there were a lot of some species,

like squirrels, but for most species there were only one or two animals, like there was only one song sparrow.

Reasoning

Chris DOES NOT provide reasoning Kayla provides reasoning, but there is no definition of what constitutes high, middle, or low biodiversity. It would be higher if there were lots of all of the different species.

Appendix E: Interview Protocol

Introduction: My name is __________. I’m from ___________ College. We are doing a study about how to support students in science thinking and writing. I would like to interview you to find out how you feel that the lesson went today (yesterday, etc) and whether or not the workshop influenced your design of the lesson. Do you have any questions for me? (pause and wait for response). Is it ok if I tape record our conversation? (pause and wait for response). Great. Then I am going to turn on the tape recorder, ask you your name, and then ask you again if it is ok if I tape record our conversation.

1. How do you think your lesson went today? a. What went well during the lesson? b. What challenges occurred?

2. How do you think the students responded to the lesson? a. Do you feel like they were engaged? b. Do you feel like they were frustrated?

3. How did you design the lesson for today? a. Interview 1:

i. How similar or different is it from what you did with your group at the Saturday workshop?

ii. What other resources did you use? b. Interviews 2 & 3:

i. Did you incorporate any teaching strategies discussed in the second workshop? If yes, which ones?

ii. Why did you choose this teaching strategy? iii. Did you use any other resources? If yes, what resources?

4. What variation of the framework did you introduce to your students? (Show table from

handout) a. What part of the framework do you think was most difficult for your students?

Why?

5. Was this the first time the students have seen the framework? If not, when and how was it introduced to them? (Interview 1 only)

6. How would you have taught this lesson if you had not attended the workshop? Would it

have been different? If yes, how? a. Was it difficult to apply what you learned from the workshop? If yes, what pieces

were the most difficult to apply from the workshop? Why? b. What aspects of the workshop were most useful for your design of the lesson?

Why?

7. If you were going to teach this lesson again, what would you do differently?

8. Thinking back across the past 5 months, has attending the workshops changed your

beliefs about how to teach science? (Interview 3 only) a. If yes – How? b. If no – Why?

9. Thinking back across the past 5 months, has attending the workshops changed how you

teach science? (Interview 3 only) a. If yes – How? b. If no – Why?

Clarifying Prompts

• Can you tell me more about that? • What do you mean by that? • You mentioned ___________. What does that mean?

The relationship between teachers’ pedagogical content ... · Pedagogical content knowledge is of special interest because it identifies the distinctive bodies of knowledge for

Documents