Integrating Claim-Evidence-Reason Supports for the Writing of Scientific Explanations With Fourth Graders

• In Event: 45.027 - Supporting Elementary and Middle School Students to Write Scientific Explanations

Abstract

Purpose
Parallel with a call by AERA for a deeper look at evidence to combat the pernicious spread of baseless claims in the post-truth era, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) also call for students to “construct explanations” by supporting claims with evidence. However, debate exists as to the conceptualization of an explanation (Darden, 2007; McNeill & Krajcik, 2011; Osborne & Patterson, 2011) and questions persist about the most effective way to support the writing of scientific explanations, particularly among young learners (Zembal-Saul, McNeill, & Hershberger, 2013).

This poster focuses on three project-based science units enacted over the course of one year in a single fourth-grade classroom. Research was guided by the following questions:
1. What supports for writing scientific explanations were included in the curriculum and why?
2. What does empirical evidence indicate about outcomes for using various supports for writing scientific explanations?

Theoretical Framework
This study was influenced by McNeill and Krajcik’s (2011) modification of Toulmin’s approach to practical arguments (1958/2003), conceptualizing a scientific explanation as consisting of a claim, evidence, and reason. In this view, when students answer a scientific question, they are guided to support their answer with data, in the form of measurements and/or observations, as well as connecting their data to their answer by making connections to big ideas in science. This work also draws upon the concept of instructional scaffolds (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976) to support learners in completing tasks they would be unable to complete without assistance.

Methods and Data Sources
The development of supports for writing scientific explanations occurred within a larger design-based research project (Brown, 1992). Data were from the second iteration of the curriculum, with revisions informed by data from the previous year. Data sources included lesson plans, curriculum resources, video, fieldnotes, and student work. The authors also provided commentary about their decisions as designers. Student writing was scored using a rubric and cross-checked with lesson plans, video, and fieldnotes to observe the amount and types of supports provided.

Results
While use of the supports for scientific explanations was more frequent in the latter part of the year, opportunities for writing were still infrequent and often separated by long gaps in time. Both students and the teacher became more comfortable with the supports over time. This resulted in more consistent completion of a recurring claim-evidence-reasoning graphic organizer, especially the first two parts (see Appendix B). Consistent with the literature, articulating the reason connecting claim and the evidence was challenging.

Significance
The challenges faced in this single classroom highlight the necessity in ongoing work to support the writing of scientific explanations. Even with an NGSS-aligned curriculum and the support of researchers in the classroom, both the students and teacher frequently struggled with the writing. The improvements observed at the end of the year indicated the utility of frequent opportunities for practice. Design-based methodologies seem well-suited to this task, as the supports can be revised based on observations of their use in the messiness of a classroom context.

Authors

• Gabriel Philip DellaVecchia, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

• Kathleen Easley, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

• Meredith Baker Marcum, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

• Miranda Fitzgerald, University of North Carolina - Charlotte

• Annemarie S. Palincsar, University of Michigan