Going Beyond the Controversy: Promoting Critique, Evaluation, and Argument in Earth Science Doug Lombardi doug.lombardi@temple.edu Donna Governor Donna.governor@ung.edu

Issues in Earth/Environmental Education Socio-scientific, controversial topics: Climate change Fracking Extreme Weather Freshwater Resources Paleoclimates Because of complexity, abstractness, and controversy, teaching about some topics can be a challenge for Earth science teachers. Teaching the science alone isn’t enough…. We have to do more. Introduce controversial issues. Why isn’t teaching the science alone enough? There is too much misinformation out there. They have to think critically about what counts as evidence.

The “Information Deficit” model of misunderstanding is essentially incorrect “Educators need to understand how people process information, how they modify their existing knowledge and how worldviews affect their ability to think rationally”

Scientific literacy involves knowing both (1) what scientists know & (2) how scientists know Evaluation as argument, critique, and analysis is central to scientific thinking and knowledge construction (NRC, 2012)

3D Framework Applications Science & Engineering Practices: Engaging in Argument from Evidence Argumentation is seen as essential to scientific discourse because it provides a framework for students to make claims supported by evidence and reasoning related to scientific theory Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X Purpose of this slide is to connect to 3D/NGSS as per the Frameworks.

3D Framework Applications Cross Cutting Concepts: Cause & Effect Cause and effect relationships may be used to predict phenomena in natural or designed systems. Changes in systems may have various causes that may not have equal effects. Purpose of this slide is to connect to 3D/NGSS as per the Frameworks.

But, students may find scientific explanations to be implausible Judgments about scientific explanations (e.g., plausibility) are often formed through automatic cognitive evaluations with little purposeful thinking

Plausibility is specifically a judgment associated with explanations Other types of judgments are associated with data and evidence (e.g., credibility, trustworthiness, and reliability; Lombardi et al., 2016a)

What are some scientific explanations that your students have found implausible? Poll 1

Familiar Instructional Strategies Claim-Evidence-Reasoning Claims: A proposed answer to a question Evidence: The information used in an argument to support the claim Reasoning: Justification that links the claim and evidence. Purpose is to connect to a strategy that teachers may be familiar with Poll 2 In the chat window, list some strategies that you use in your classroom to promote students’ engagement in scientific argumentation Scientists construct MODELS to explain evidence

Claims vs. Models CLAIMS MODELS An answer to a question An assertion based on results of an investigation Requires justification to support the claim An explanation of a phenomenon A hypothesis that leads to new questions Predicts or describes how and why a phenomenon occurs Purpose is to transition from C-E-R to thinking in terms of models EVIDENCE is the foundation for both claims and models! Systems & System Models – NGSS/3D Cross Cutting Concept

Example of student completed Model-Evidence Link (MEL) diagram Classroom instructional scaffolds can help make students’ evaluations explicit, thoughtful, & scientific Chinn & colleagues (2012, 2014) Poll 3 Example of student completed Model-Evidence Link (MEL) diagram Scientific evaluations may also promote students’ reappraisal of their initial plausibility judgments & knowledge reconstruction (Lombardi et al., 2016a)

Our projects investigate students’ evaluations, plausibility, & knowledge about Earth science topics Schematic of the “MEL1” research project (2013-2017) Research question: How does instruction promoting evaluation result in plausibility reappraisal and knowledge changes about Earth and space science topics?

This first project involved three school districts from very different parts of the US Two in small suburban districts; high SES One in a large urban district; low SES 8 master teachers & hundreds of their secondary (grades 9-12) Earth science students participated in this project

The first four MELs we developed cover the areas of geology, hydrology, climate, and astronomy Causes of current climate change Hydraulic fracturing & earthquakes Formation of the Earth’s Moon Value of wetlands

When teaching the MEL, we have an activity introducing the two alternative and competing models

Students then the rate the plausibility of the two alternative explanatory models Some students reason based on probability Many students think both models are plausible Occasionally, students think both models are implausible

After the introduction, students are ready to complete their MEL diagrams

Prior to drawing their arrows, student read the texts providing more details for each line of evidence, 1 p. each

Prior to drawing their arrows, student read the texts providing more details for each line of evidence, 1 p. each

This is an example of a student-completed diagram

After drawing, students complete a written explanation that reveals their thinking

We recommend assessing students’ performance on the MEL using this explanation task only

The sequence of activities with the MEL takes 60-90 minutes of instruction time 1. Present competing models & rate their plausibility 2. Read & discuss the evidence texts & complete the diagram 3. Complete the explanation task

You can learn more about using the MEL in your classroom in an open-access issue of The Earth Scientist This issue has five articles (one discussing our first four pre-constructed MELs and one providing assessment guidance for teachers) Many of the project team (master teachers, undergraduate RAs, graduate RAs, and faculty researchers) authored these articles

Our research shows that students make scientific evaluations and learn about these topics more deeply But we are unsatisfied, because some students are not transferring their evaluative thinking outside of the classroom context

Our new project is developing the build-a-MEL (baMEL) to increase students’ “conceptual agency” Students who exercise conceptual agency are authors of their own contributions, accountable to the classroom learning community, and have the authority to think about and solve problems (Nussbaum & Asterhan, 2016)

Similar to the pre-constructed MELs, the baMELs cover the areas of geology, hydrology, climate, & astronomy Extreme weather & climate change Fossils & Earth’s past surface Availability of freshwater resources Origin of the universe

The sequence of baMEL activities takes about twice as long as the pre-constructed MEL (90-120 minutes) 1. Present 3 competing models & rate their plausibility 2. Read & discuss the 9 evidence texts & build the MEL 3. Complete the explanation task

Please visit the MEL project website for free access to all our instructional materials and resources https://serc.carleton.edu/mel/

What final questions and comments do you have? Thanks so much for attending. Please contact me with any questions at doug.lombardi@temple.edu