Conceptual Background, Development, and Design Research for the READI Science Intervention

• In Event: Explanatory Modeling in Science Through Text-Based Inquiry: Testing the Efficacy of the READI Intervention Approach

Abstract

Purpose: This presentation provides the theoretical and conceptual background that underlies the efficacy study, including READI’s theory of action and the four work strands that informed the intervention that was tested in 9th grade biology classes.

Perspective: Project READI took on the challenge of adolescents “reading to understand” defined as engaging evidence-based argumentation from multiple sources three content areas: literary reading, history, and science. We built on conceptions of reading comprehension as involving the construction of mental representations of text that capture the surface input, the presented information, and inferences that integrate information within and across texts and with prior knowledge (e.g., Goldman, 2004; Kintsch, 1994; Rand, 2002; Rouet & Britt, 2011). We joined this perspective with disciplinary argumentation, integrating disciplinary reasoning practices with supporting literacy practices (Goldman, 2012; Lee & Spratley, 2010; Moje, 2008). Argumentation claims are asserted and supported by evidence that has principled connections to the claim, each of which is governed by the epistemic and discourse norms of the disciplinary content area (Goldman & Bisanz, 2002).
Specifically, in science, inquiry practices extend beyond experimental investigation to communicative disciplinary practices through which knowledge is vetted, adjudicated, contested, and ultimately established (Osborne, 2010; Windschitl, Johnson, & Braaten, 2008). When scientists read science information, they subject these texts to critique (Ford, 2012, knowing they approximate scientific truth, and are contestable. Scientists examine sources of information, check against 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 necessitates opportunities to learn these science literacies. Yet students have few opportunities to do so (Pearson, Moje, & Greenleaf, 2010) especially because textbooks position science as an authoritative body of uncontested information, masking science argumentation practices (NRC, 1996). The READI intervention draws on multiple forms of texts and repositions them as resources for inquiry to achieve learning objectives shown in Table 1.
Research and Development Methods. We pursued a set of overarching questions about forms and types of tasks, texts, instructional strategies and tools that would enable students to engage evidence-based argumentation from multiple texts through iterative design – based research (Cobb, et al., 2004; Reinking & Bradley, 2008) and shorter-term quasi-experiments, with synergies created through cross-talk. Design teams for each disciplinary area consisting of researchers, teacher educators, professional development and subject matter specialists, and classroom teachers collaboratively developed, implemented, and revised instructional designs for evidence-based argument instructional modules (EBAIMs). Quasi – experimental studies tested features of tasks, texts, and supports. A third work strand focused on developing assessments that would provide evidence of student learning relative to the learning objectives.
READI’s theory of action is that teachers mediate students’ opportunities to learn. The fourth workstrand, Teacher Inquiry Networks, informed the design of professional development that provided opportunities for teachers to explore the curricular materials and instructional processes for explanatory modeling through text-based inquiry (cf. Davis & Krajcik, 2005). Thus, the intervention operated at both teacher and student levels as elaborated in Presentation 3.

Authors

• Susan R. Goldman, University of Illinois at Chicago

• Cynthia L. Greenleaf, WestEd

• Kimberly A. Lawless, University of Illinois at Chicago

• James W. Pellegrino, University of Illinois at Chicago

• MariAnne George, University of Illinois at Chicago