Disagreement Resolution Strategies During Student Inquiry: Applying the AIR Model of Epistemic Cognition

• In Event: Following the Thread From Planning to High-Quality Discourse About Science

Abstract

When provided opportunities through high-quality learning environments, students can engage in sophisticated epistemic discourse in science inquiry. In this research we evaluate an important component of such discourse -- discourse focused on disagreements that arise during inquiry. We examine how middle-school students identify and resolve disagreements during model-based inquiry as the students use evidence to develop, revise, and evaluate models.

We focus on disagreement because disagreement is one way in which productive argumentation and model-building can be generated (Authors, 2013), because disagreement and its resolution are central to the social practices of science (Donovan, Laudan, & Laudan, 1998), and because disagreement can promote more advanced epistemic understanding (Bendixen & Rule, 2004). Our theoretical analytic framework draws on the AIR model of epistemic cognition (Authors, 2014; in press). One part of this model addresses epistemic cognition about disagreement by analyzing (1) the processes that students use for identifying disagreement and diagnosing the causes of disagreement and (2) the strategies that they use to resolve disagreements. We develop a new coding system for analyzing causes of disagreement and potential resolution strategies as our contribution to the structured poster session’s work to explore a broad range of methods for analyzing high-level epistemic discourse.

Our research questions include: (1) What types of disagreements do students and teachers notice? (2) How do they perceive and interpret these disagreements? (3) What strategies do they use to resolve the disagreements? (4) Under what conditions (and for which types of disagreements are different strategies used? (5) What is the taxonomy of disagreement recognition processes and resolution strategies?

Our data come from two half-year implementations of the PRACCIS (Promoting Reasoning and Conceptual Change In Science) project (10 teachers, over 900 students). We examined 50 class discussions and 50 group discussions to identify situations where either groups of students or teachers and students disagreed about scientific matters. From these conversations, we identified and defined the types of disagreements noticed. For example, in one form of disagreement students disagreed about the validity of a model because they disagreed about the reliability of the methods used to generate the supporting evidence. To resolve such disagreements, students argued about the plausibility of the alternative views about the reliability of these methods. As another example, students sought out the credentials of the person in the evidence to ascertain their expertise and therefore the reliability of the observations made. Resolution was found in a detailed analysis of how a person becomes an expert. Teachers were best at fostering conversations with a moderate degree of intervention (neither too directive nor too laissez faire). Building bottom-up from such examples, we present a taxonomy of forms of disagreement and preferred resolution strategies in the 100 analyzed discussions.

The findings can be used by teachers to develop a deeper appreciate for the forms of disagreement to be expected in the classroom as well as strengths and weaknesses in their thinking about disagreement. We discuss instructional strategies that teachers and designers can use to improve the epistemic discourse around disagreement.

Authors

• Randi M Zimmerman, Rutgers University

• Clark A. Chinn, Rutgers University

• Ravit Golan Duncan, Rutgers University