1. The Scientific Argumentation Routine
Janis A. Bulgren
James D. Ellis
University of Kansas
Center for Research on Learning
© January, 2016
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

2. Considering Standards: Argumentation and Evaluation
Key Ideas and Details:
Determine information, infer, cite evidence, draw conclusions
Determine central ideas or themes , their development and summarize
Analyze development of people, events and ideas.
Craft and Structure
Interpret words and phrases
Analyze structure of text to get the big picture
Assess point of view or purpose
Integrate knowledge and Ideas
Integrate and evaluate content in different formats
Identify and evaluate arguments, claims, reasoning and evidence
Compare approaches to different themes or topics
Range
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

3. Argumentation & Evaluation Guide
Identify claim,
evidence, reasoning
Determine information
Argumentation & Evaluation Guide 1
Assess purpose &
point of view
Topic/Title A Little Lead is Too Much
Source Environmental Health
Name: Teacher
Date: _____________________________________ 1
What is the Claim, including any Qualifiers)? (underline qualifiers) If the CDC cut the current acceptable lead level in the blood in half for children up to age 6 and enforced it, they would perform better on intelligence testing. 2
What Evidence is presented? Identify each as data, fact, theory or opinion.
A published study followed 200 children from 6 months to 6 years testing a total of 8 times and found that children with lead concentrations from 5 to 9.9 micrograms per deciliter preformed an average of 4.9 points lower on their IQ tests. (data)
In 2001, the head of the CDC said the acceptable level would probably be changed from 10 to 5 micrometers per deciliter of blood, but a change in committee changed that decision. (opinion)
Lower rates were requested by the Independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. (fact)
Eliminating lead in gasoline resulted in a sizeable increase in IQ levels in children throughout the country. (fact) 4
What type of reasoning proves the evidence supports the claim? (Identify as authority ,analogy, correlation, cause and effect, theory, principles or generalization)
The published study was well designed and cited. (authority)
The assumption was made that what was true for the sample group of 200 children is true for all children. (generalization)
Higher lead levels in the blood reduce IQ performance. (cause and effect)
Evaluate the evidence as poor, average or excellent and explain
(Use reliability, validity, objectivity, well designed experiment).
The published study was valid and well designed. (Excellent)
The other evidence is not well supported by facts, but I have heard of the CASAC (average) 3 5
Evaluate the source’s reasoning as poor, average or excellent and explain.
(Use logic, accepted ways of thinking, false assumptions)
I think the sources reasoning is excellent. It was based a good source and was logical. 6
What are concerns about (sources of error, counterarguments, questions)? Note if concerns are from source or reader.
Some members of the CDC Advisory Committee are from the lead industry. EPA does not want to enforce lower standards. 7
Conclusion: Accept/reject/withhold judgment. Present and summarize your reasoning. I accept the claim that lead level standards in children should be lowered
based on the arguments in the article. The research cited is an excellent source and earlier changes as a result of removing lead from gasoline seem to support the
Claim.
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren
C Bulgren revised 2/15/2008

4. Scientific Argumentation Guide
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

5. Chapter 1: Introduction
Purpose
Supporting Research
Overview of Manual
For Further Information
References
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

6. Purpose
The Scientific Argumentation Routine is a package of instructional methods that teachers can use to help students engage in higher order reasoning and critical thinking. It helps students analyze a claim that has been made, and evaluate whether the evidence and reasoning would make you believe the claim.
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

7. Argumentation is
the activity of making a claim, presenting evidence, and backing it up by producing reasons why the evidence allows the claim to be made (Toulmin, 2004).
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

8. With the Scientific Argumentation Routine, students are able to:
Reasoning Process
With the Scientific Argumentation Routine, students are able to:
Identify a claim and any qualifiers.
Identify and evaluate evidence.
Paraphrase and evaluate reasoning.
Propose counterarguments and rebuttals.
Judge the claim and explain their thinking.
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

9. How does the Scientific Argumentation Routine respond to Standards?
Many standards emphasize that argument literacy is fundamental and important for college and career readiness. To do this, students are expected to evaluate arguments and specific claims, including the validity of reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence.
Furthermore, reading standards for literacy in science and technical subjects 6–12 specify that students distinguish among facts and reasoned judgment based on research findings versus speculation, and assess the extent to which reasoning and evidence in a text support the author’s claim.
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

10. Engaging in Argument from Evidence
How does the Scientific Argumentation Routine respond to Next Generation Science Standards?
Engaging in Argument from Evidence
is one of the practices emphasized in the NGSS. Students must engage in argument from evidence,
use appropriate and sufficient evidence and scientific reasoning, defend and critique claims and explanations,
critique competing arguments,
construct counterarguments, and
make and defend their own claims.
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

11.   Supporting Research Research on the Scientific Argumentation Routine included studies involving almost 200 students enrolled in middle school and high school science classes. Participating students represented those identified as having learning disabilities, were identified as gifted, and by gender as well as whole group Findings from studies indicate significant differences and large effect sizes students in the experimental group over students in the control group on an open ended assessment in terms of … overall ability to analyze and critique a claim, evidence & reasoning … ability to identify and evaluate evidence, and … ability to identify and evaluate reasoning.
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

12. Overview of the Scientific Argumentation Guide
Chapter 2 presents a way to develop the Scientific Argumentation Guide.
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

13. Chapter 2: The Scientific Argumentation Guide
Chapter 2 presents the parts of the Scientific Argumentation Guide
Special emphasis is placed on
exploration of the evidence and reasoning presented to support the claim, and on
students’ ability to individually judge the claim and explain his or her reasoning
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

14. Refer to Chapter 2 for Sections of the Guide 1
Refer to Chapter 2 for Sections of the Guide A description of each section of the guide 2. An overview of a blank guide 3. A review of critical definitions for each section Things to do Before Using the Guide
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

15. Chapter 3: Using the Routine with Students
Cue Do Review
Instructional Guidelines
Group Structures
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

16. Important Contributions
Promotes group interaction and scientific discourse
Encourages individual judgments and explanations
Focuses on generalization
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

17. Chapter 4: Extend Student Learning With Assessment and Evaluation
Writing Supports for Argumentation Essays
Strategies (embedded, general, generalization)
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

18. What are the Strategic Steps embedded in the Scientific Argumentation Guide?
Steps of the Scientific Argumentation Strategy
Consider a claim and its qualifiers
List evidence
Identify type of evidence
Evaluate quality of evidence
Identify chain of reasoning (warrant)
Identify type of reasoning
Evaluate quality of chain of reasoning
Make counterarguments, rebuttals and questions known
Summarize conclusions and present reasoning
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

19. Chapter 4: Evaluating and Extending the Routine
Evaluating Understanding
Extending Written Responses
Supporting Strategies
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

20. Support for Writing
See Chapter 4 for Using the Scientific Argumentation Guide to Write an Essay       Introductory paragraph Body of essay  Concluding paragraph
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

21. Assessing, Evaluating and Extending (test, checklist, essay guide)
Appendices
Blank Guide
B. Examples of Scientific Argumentation Guides and accompanying materials (completed Guides and articles)
Instructional materials (definition list, qualifier list, strategy steps, cue-do-review and sample script)
Assessing, Evaluating and Extending (test, checklist, essay guide)
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

22. Sample Guides for analyzing different claims in different science areas
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

23. Sample Guide Illustrating effects of colas on bone loss
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

24. Scientific Argumentation Guide
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

25. Sample Guide
vaccines
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

26. Scientific Argumentation Guide for Use with Article 3
© Bulgren & Ellis, 2014
Name: _John A.___________________________________
Class: _Science______________________________
Date: ________________________________
Topic: Vaccines and Autism________________________________________________
Title: The Autism Controversy ______________________________________________
Source: Research report from a funded project_________________________________ _______________________________________________________ 7
Accept, reject, or withhold judgment about the claim. Explain your judgment. 1
What is the Claim, including any Qualifiers? Are there qualifiers? Yes/No. (If yes, underline them.) 2
What Evidence is presented? In column 3, identify the type of evidence with the letter: Data (D), Fact (F), Opinion (O), Theory (T).
Evaluate the quality of the evidence as poor, average or good. Explain your evaluation. 4
What are your concerns about the believability of the claim? (your counterarguments, rebuttals or new questions)? 3 6 5
Evaluate the quality of the chain of reasoning as poor, average or good. Explain your evaluation.
What chain of reasoning (warrant) connects the evidence to the claim? In column 6, identify type of reasoning with the letter(s): for AUTHORITY (A), THEORY (T), or type of LOGIC: Analogy (AN), Correlation (C), Cause-Effect (CE), Generalization (G) 8 9
Reliable
Valid
Controlled Experiment -
Strength of Authority
Application of Theory
Type of Logic
Objective (no bias)
Studies in the UK and by the Institute of Medicine found no causal relationship between vaccines and autism.
The US Court of Federal Claims ruled there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism.
A controlled CDC study of 1,000 children with and without autism by Dr. DeStefano in Journal of Pediatrics found vaccines not related to risk of autism.
Vaccines probably do not cause autism. D
I agree with the claim because it is supported by authorities, research and court findings of NO causal relationship between vaccines and autism.
Good – CDC study had 1,000 subjects
Good –subjects with & without autism
Good – Several independent researchers
Good – CDC had matched subjects
Since studies from respected researchers in different countries and the US Court of Federal Claims found no likely cause-and-effect relationship that vaccines cause autism, then the claim is supported based on both Authority and Cause-and Effect logic. .
Good – Courts and researchers
Not present in article
Good–cause & effect logic
Why do so many people still think there is a connection? A CE O
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

27. Sample Guide Life science
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

28. SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION GUIDE
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

29. Sample Guide Lab Experiment
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

30. Scientific Argumentation Guide for Use with Laboratory Experiment
Topic: Relationship of change in temperature and water mass ____________________
Title: Heat and Temperature ______________________________________________
Source: Lab experiments ________________________________________________
Name: _John A.___________________________________
Class: _Science______________________________
Date: ________________________________
When heat is added to water, water temperature will always increase at a rate related to both the amount of water and heat. 1
What is the Claim, including any Qualifiers? Are there qualifiers? Yes/No. (If yes, underline them.)
What chain of reasoning (warrant) connects the evidence to the claim? In column 6, identify type of reasoning with the letter(s): for AUTHORITY (A), THEORY (T), or type of LOGIC: Analogy (AN), Correlation (C), Cause-Effect (CE), Generalization (G) 2
What Evidence is presented? In column 3, identify the type of evidence with the letter: Data (D), Fact (F), Opinion (O), Theory (T). 3 5 6
In experiment 1, when the amount of heat added to 75g of water was doubled, change in temperature doubled.
In experiment 2, when the same amount of heat was added to 75g and 150g of water, change in temperature decreased by 50%.
Specific heat of a substance is the amount of heat per unit mass required to raise the temp. by one degree Celsius.
The specific heat of water is S = 1 calorie/gram °C. D DF F
As explained in the text, temperature measures average kinetic energy of particles & when kinetic energy increases, temperature increases, and since this is supported by the Kinetic Theory of Matter, then results of classroom experiments support the
relationship between heat and temperature. . A T CE
Evaluate the quality of the evidence as poor, average or good. Explain your evaluation. 7
Evaluate the quality of the chain of reasoning as poor, average or good. Explain your evaluation. 4
Reliable
Good: Groups in class got same results.
Good – used immersion coils, results are quantifiable. Good. All agreed on results of experiments. Good. Multiple trials & controlled variables.
Strength of Authority
Application of Theory
Type of Logic
Good – text provided explanations
Good – Kinetic Theory of Matter
Good – Experiments established cause & effect
Valid
Objective (no bias)
Controlled Experiment - 8
What are your concerns about the believability of the claim? (your counterarguments, rebuttals or new questions)?
Would the results be the same for a solid? 9
Accept, reject, or withhold judgment about the claim. Explain your judgment.
I accept the claim because our experiments showed a cause and effect relationship and the Kinetic Theory of Matter also supports the claim.
© Bulgren & Ellis, 2014
(c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren

31. (c) 2016, KUCRL; J. Bulgren