1 Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE 2004/1/12 吳秋儀 Bell, P. & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8),

2 Designing for knowledge integration Promoting knowledge integration can improve science understanding and help students become lifelong learners (Linn & Muilenburg, 1996). In the research, we explore  design elements in the KIE  characteristics of student arguments  students’ views of the nature of science Test the power of principles from the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration framework and examine students’ knowledge integration.

3 The ‘ how far does light go ’ project Debate project called ‘how far does light go?’  ‘Light goes forever until it is absorbed’  ‘light dies out as you move further from a light source’ The implementation process 1) Student state their personal position. 2) Explore and develop an understanding of the evidence. 3) Refine an argument for one theory or the other. 4) Present their arguments and then respond to questions from the other students and the teacher. 5) Reflect upon issues that came up during the project and once again state their opinion.

4 The design elements used in the project ‘How far does light go’: making science accessible  Allow students to connect their observations to theoretical perspectives.  Distinguish among compelling alternatives.  Encourage knowledge integration to build a more cohesive & robust set of ideas.

5 The design elements used in the project SenseMaker: making thinking visible  Is related to the cognitive apprenticeship principle.  SenseMaker helps individual reflect and promotes the collaborative exchange of ideas.

6 The design elements used in the project Mildred guidance: supporting autonomy & reflection  Students produce explanations for the evidence and describe how it contributes to their argument.  Giving explanations is scaffolded in two ways: prompts or hints.

7 The design elements used in the project Classroom debate: a social context for knowledge integration  Students work in pairs on their projects, each collaborating on the construction of explanations and arguments.  The debate is an important social context for science learning as long as an equitable forum is created (Burbules & Linn, 1991). Students consider the points others might raise. Students are required to prepare questions for each presentation, and also respond to questions from the others.

8 Argument as knowledge integration activity Researchers in science education have focused on the artifacts students create because they help designers improve instructional effectiveness (Wisnudel et al.,1997). In our work, we study the arguments students create in order to determine whether our environment fosters knowledge integration.

9 Methods 172 middle school students  86 pairs Before debate  6 weeks → experiments & investigation of evidence  6 days → reviewing evidence & constructing arguments

10 Methods － student arguments

11 Methods － student activities As students worked in KIE, their actions were logged and time-stamped. We studied the frequency with which students requested hints and the type of hint requested.

12 Methods － beliefs about nature of science Students completed a survey which probed their beliefs about the nature of science.

13 Results & discussion Did students change their conceptual understanding as the result of this project? What specific activities did students undertake? What sorts of arguments did students construct? How do student beliefs about science relate to their activities and arguments?

14 Did students make conceptual changes? Almost half of the students move into the category of using the normative model at the end of the project.

15 What activities did students undertake? (1/2) The number and length of explanations were significantly positively correlated.

16 What activities did students undertake? (2/2) Students added an average of 1.2 frames.

17 What sorts of arguments did students product? (1/5) More warrants than descriptions.  This difference is a positive indicator of a productive scientific inquiry.  Students are attempting to tether the evidence to the debate through scientific conjectures.

18 What sorts of arguments did students product? (2/5) More unique warrants than instructed.  Students integrated ideas from beyond the context of the immediate curriculum project into their arguments.

19 What sorts of arguments did students product? (3/5) Backings rarely included spontaneously.  Only 9 of 86 groups spontaneously included backings in their arguments.  Maybe because they assume their audience already knows about them. Frame creation connected to evidence explanation.  The creation of new frames is significantly positively correlated with the total number of explanations found in the argument.  Students using KIE were encouraged to create new frames.

20 What sorts of arguments did students product? (4/5) Unique evidence used to bring in previous experience and knowledge.  The addition of evidence was correlated with the creation of unique warrants within that argument. Explicit perspective-taking was relatively rare.

21 What sorts of arguments did students product? (5/5) Hint usage related to more scientific arguments.  Students who requested more hints also included more warrants in their arguments.  Students who make use of the hints available from the guidance component in KIE build arguments which are more scientifically normative. Gender differences.  Female students composed explanations which were slightly longer.  Female students also used significantly more multiple warrants in their arguments.  Male students also composed twice as many unclear explanations than female.

22 Nature of beliefs and argument construction Students who see science as dynamic create more complex arguments and are less likely to use backings in their arguments. Conjectures not coming directly from the instructional materials. Students who explore the interpretation of evidence from different conceptual frames have a more dynamic view of science.

23 Pragmatic pedagogical principles Connect to personally-relevant problems. Scaffold students to explain their ideas. Encourage knowledge integration around the nature of science. Make individual and group thinking visible and equitable during debate projects.

24 Conclusions Koslowski (1996) has argued that scientific inquiry cannot rely solely on a covariation of events but requires a ‘bootstrapping’ off of personal, theoretical ideas. Males and females made equivalent progress in understanding light from the ‘how far...?’ project. To take advantage of the disparate knowledge and experiences held by students, activities need to help students learn from each other and sustain the process of knowledge integration.