BackHome
Refresh: OffView Personal Schedule
Paper Summary

Designing Text-Based Investigations in Science to Address Core Knowledge Constructs

Sat, April 14, 2:15 to 3:45pm, Sheraton Wall Centre, Floor: Third Level, North Junior Ballroom D

Abstract

Purposes: This paper describes the development of core knowledge constructs that students require to engage in reading for understanding in science. We describe how we instantiated these constructs as learning outcomes and design principles for science interventions to support students in learning how to reason with science texts.

Perspectives/Theoretical Framework: The inquiry practices of science extend beyond experimental investigation to the communicative practices of the discipline through which knowledge is vetted, adjudicated, contested, and ultimately established (Osborne, 2002; 2010; Yore, 2004). Yet students have few opportunities to learn to navigate the multiple representational systems of science or to use science texts for inquiry (Pearson, Moje, & Greenleaf, 2010). Instead, science textbooks position science as an authoritative body of uncontested information, masking science argumentation practices (NRC, 1996).

When scientists read science information, they subject these texts to critique (Ford, 2011), knowing they approximate scientific truth, and are contestable. Scientists examine sources of information, check corroboration and coherence with established scientific principles, evaluate the logic of the inquiry, evidence, and conclusions presented against alternative explanations (Lee & Spratley, 2010). Teaching students to read for understanding in science will necessitate opportunities to learn these disciplinary literacy practices.

Methods: A research team including instructional designers; literacy and cognitive researchers; former scientists; and high school and middle school science teachers consulted standards documents (Common Core, College Readiness, California Science and NCES Standards) to inform initial conceptualization of the core constructs for evidence-based argumentation from multiple sources (AAAS, 1993; CCSSO, 2010; NRC, 1996, 2010). We referenced literacy, science education, and learning progressions research for guidance on various dimensions of the core constructs (Berland & McNeill, 2009; Cavagnetto, 2010; Corcoran, Mosher & Rogat, 2009; Gotwalls, Songer & Bullard, 2009; Radinsky, Oliva & Alamar, 2010). We limited the scope of these constructs to text-based investigations rather than experimentation. Thus, the core constructs of interest in Project READI are those important to second-hand inquiry (Palincsar & Magnusson, 2001).

The team engaged in an iterative process of developing functional definitions and illustrations of the core constructs, consulting research on learning of science principles, rhetorical features of science texts (Goldman & Bisanz, 2002; Kerlin, McDonald & Kelly, 2010; Lemke, 1998; Waldrip, Prain & Carolan, 2006; Yore, Bisanz & Hand, 2003), public understandings of science, and the role of diagrams, models, and simulations in science learning (e.g., Schwarz, et al., 2009; Stieff , 2005; Stieff, Hegarty & Deslongchamps, 2011; Sanchez & Wiley, 2006).

Results: Constructs unique to science emerged from this iterative process. These were used to develop target performance outcomes that would enable students to construct scientific explanations using evidence from multiple science sources, e.g., “Students can identify and recognize the conventions and affordances of different text structures, representations, and genres in science.” Evidence from initial basic process studies (Presentation 5) further refined key outcomes for instruction.

Significance: The nature of science is a neglected element in science education. This project extends approaches to teaching the nature of science and the role literacy practices play in science learning.

Authors