The Reiser,
Berland, and Kenyon article discusses the difference between explanation and
argumentation, and how both play a significant role in the development of
scientific knowledge in students. They concisely claim that explanation and
argumentation are interdependent, and that “In response to questions,
explanations are developed through analyses of data from investigations and
refined through argumentation” (Reiser 9). Essentially, explanation involves
accounting for the data that has been collected in a scientific experiment.
Argumentation is questioning, defending, and refuting explanations of
scientific models. The article explains that these processes are key to the
scientific process that is used by the scientific community.
The Sampson
and Gleim article unpacks the instructional method of Argument-Driven Inquiry. This
method of scientific inquiry involves identifying the topic, gathering
experimental data, forming an argument with explanation and evidence, defending
and editing the argument with peers, a written report on the argument, peer
review, revision, and reflective discussion. This method has several goals,
including the goal to integrate multiple subjects, such as reading and writing,
in with science, and to acclimate students to the scientific argument processes
that real sciences go through every day.
Both of
these articles explain that argumentation is an essential part of the process
of scientific inquiry, and that this process should be taught to students from
an early age. They stress that clear explanation, using examples and sound
reasoning, is key to defending an argument, and that peer critiquing can make a
final form argument even better. This promotes the underlying message to
students that being wrong isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but that being offered
opportunities for improvement is a good thing. This theme is repeated in both
of the articles, and I am of the opinion that it is one of the most underrated
and yet most important concept in science that is not currently being taught in
mainstream classrooms. In a current culture that views wrong answers as a
permanent, shameful failure, the reality of the scientific process a series of
edits, critiques, and more edits is hidden beneath the sparkling world of
final-form textbook experimental results. This is an unhealthy approach to
science education, not to mention an unrealistic one.
No comments:
Post a Comment