Using Cognitive Apprenticeships to Promote Productive Disciplinary Engagement in Middle School Science Classrooms

• In Event: Promoting Productive Disciplinary Engagement Through Textual Practices

Abstract

Objectives
The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are grounded in the view that science is both a body of knowledge and a way of knowing (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Disciplinary core conceptual ideas and scientific practices interact and emerge in tandem with learning how to construct knowledge through scientific argumentation and discourse. The science education research community has taken up the challenge of developing curricula and instructional approaches to support middle school students’ engagement in scientific practices (e.g., Schwartz et al., 2017) yet few have focused on the role of writing, particularly argumentative writing, in supporting students’ understanding of content and facilitating knowledge of and facility with practices (e.g., Sampson et al., 2013). Therefore, in our study, we focus on two forms of PDE (oral and written) in support of students’ argumentation.

Theoretical Framework
We focus on student writing produced during a single lesson (on kinetic energy), which was part of a larger study in which one middle school teacher helped their students learn to craft an evidence-based argument in science. The biggest challenge for most students is justifying how evidence supports a claim, that is, the mechanistic reasoning that integrates scientific principles in the match between the evidence and the claim (McNeill & Krajcik, 2012). We developed a series of lessons that were part of a cognitive apprenticeship. Originally conceptualized by Brown et al. (1989) a cognitive apprenticeship is one form of PDE that works to make visible heuristics and strategies used by experts to make complex and high-order thinking more accessible to students.

Method and Data Sources
Participants were 98 middle school students. They explored four scientific topics each in three-day lessons. Between the third and fourth topics students learned to evaluate their written arguments. Data shared here are drawn from the fourth lesson on kinetic energy, which asked, “How do mass and velocity influence kinetic energy?” Students wrote an initial hypothesis, designed procedures for testing independent variables, recorded data, and wrote arguments on Day 1. On Day 2, students met in small groups to share “Claims-Evidence-Reasoning” essays and participated in a whole-class discussion to compare and contrast arguments scaffolded by the teacher using a series of “critical questions” (see Figure 1). On Day 3, students scored each element of their first argument and revised their claims, evidence, and reasoning. Student writing data was analyzed before and after their class discussions using an established rubric by McNeill et al. (2012).

Results and Scholarly Significance
Students showed significant changes in reasoning (p=0.001), which is validating, given the focus on reasoning in group discussions. There was no change for claim and evidence from pre- to post-discussion. See Table 3 for complete results. This study makes an important contribution to the field. Though the lack of control group makes quantitative outcomes tentative, this study provides growing support for the use of a cognitive apprenticeship in helping students develop scientific thinking and literacy.

Authors

• Susan De La Paz, University of Maryland

• Cameron Butler, University of Maryland - College Park

• Daniel M. Levin, University of Maryland - College Park

• Mark K. Felton, San José State University