Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations

Thinking with Data

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 233-265

  McNeill, Katherine L ^a   Krajcik, Joseph ^b  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920400421     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203810057     Document Type: Chapter

References (42)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.
3. Black, P. (2003). The importance of everyday assessment. In J. M. Atkin & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 1–11). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
4. Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Patrick, H. Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1997). Teaching for understanding. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 819–878). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
5. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
6. Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188–228). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 323–393.
8. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.
9. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
10. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
11. Harris, C. J., McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. L., Marx, R. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Usable assessments for teaching science content and inquiry standards. In M. McMahon, P. Simmons, R. Sommers, D., DeBaets, & F. Crowley (Eds.), Assessment in science: Practical experiences and education research (pp. 67–88). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
12. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663–687.
13. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
14. Kanari, Z., & Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(7), 748–769.
15. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2000). Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J. Minstrell & E. v. Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 283–315). Washington DC: AAAS.
17. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–338.
18. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19. Lee, H.-S., & Songer, N. B. (2004, April). Longitudinal knowledge development: Scaffolds for Inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
20. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (Eds.). (2002). Investigating real data in the classroom: Expanding children’s understanding of math and science. New York: Teachers College Press.
21. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
22. Lizotte, D. J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Teacher practices that support students’ construction of scientific explanations in middle school classrooms. In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 310–317). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. McGinn, M. K., & Roth, W-M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 14–24.
24. McNeill, K. L., Harris, C. J., Heitzman, M., Lizotte, D. J., Sutherland, L. M., & Krajcik, J. (2004). How can I make new stuff from old stuff? In J. Krajcik & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology (pp. 1–208). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
25. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J, Harris, C. J., Scott, L. A., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2003, March). Using backward design to create standards-based middle-school inquiry-oriented chemistry curriculum and assessment materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
26. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J, Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
27. Metz, K. E. (2000). Young children’s inquiry in biology: Building the knowledge bases to empower independent inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 371–404). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
28. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29. Reiser, B. J., Krajcik, J., Moje, E. B., & Marx, R. W. (2003, March). Design strategies for developing science instructional materials. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
30. Reiser, B., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W., Smith, B., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263–305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth-grade project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 669–692.
32. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
33. Sandoval, W. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.
34. Sandoval, W. A. & Reiser, B. (1997, March). Evolving explanations in high school biology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
35. Singer, J., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., & Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–178.
36. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(2), 2–9.
37. Stern, L., & Ahlgren, A. (2002). Analysis of students’ assessments in middle school curriculum materials: Aiming precisely at benchmarks and standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 889–910.
38. Tabak, I., & Reiser, B. J. (1997). Complementary roles of software-based scaffolding and teacher–student interactions in inquiry learning. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning ‘97 (pp. 289–298). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
41. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
42. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P. & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437–465.