Constructing Scientific Arguments Using Evidence from Dynamic Computational Climate Models

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 24, Issue 2-3, 2015, Pages 378-395

  Pallant, Amy ^a   Lee, Hee Sun ^b  

^a The Concord Consortium ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Computational modeling, Earth systems, climate change; Instructional technology; Online learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84939872112     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-014-9499-3     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Ainsworth S (2008) The educational value of multiple-representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In: Gilbert JK, Reiner M, Nakhleh M (eds) Visualization: theory and practice in science education. Springer, Dordeccht, pp 191–208
2. Ainsworth S, Van Labeke N (2004) Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learn Instr 14:241–255
3. Allchin D (2012) Teaching the nature of science through scientific errors. Sci Educ 96(5):904–926
4. Andersson B, Wallin A (2000) Students’ understanding of the greenhouse effect, the societal consequences of reducing CO2 emissions and the problem of ozone layer depletion. J Res Sci Teach 37(10):1096–1111
5. Berland LK, Mcneill KL (2010) A learning progression for scientific argumentation: understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Sci Educ 94(5):765–793
6. Boyes E, Stanisstreet M (1993) The ‘Greenhouse Effect’: children’s perceptions of causes, consequences and cures. Int J Sci Educ 15(5):531–552
7. Boyes E, Stanisstreet M (1997) Children’s models of understanding of two major global environmental issues (ozone layer and greenhouse effect). Res Sci Technol Educ 15(1):19–28
8. Buck Z, Lee H -S, Flores J (in press) I’m sure there may be a planet: student articulation of uncertainty in argumentation tasks. Int J Sci Educ
9. Cavagnetto AR (2010) Argument to foster scientific literacy: a review of argument interventions in K = 12 science contexts. Rev Educ Res 80(3):336–371
10. COIN & PIRC (2010) Communicating uncertainty in climate science. Retrieved from http://talkingclimate.org/guides/a-guide-to-communicating-uncertainty-in-climate-science/
11. Deboer GE (2000) Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. J Res Sci Teach 37(6):582–601
12. Driver R, Newton P, Osborne J et al (2000) Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Sci Educ 84(3):287–312. Retrieved from http://cshare.psu.edu/researchlibrary/PDFfiles/Driver2000.pdf
13. Duschl RA, Osborne J (2002) Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Stud Sci Educ 38:39–72
14. Duschl Richard A, Schweingruber Heidi A, Shouse AW (eds) (2007) Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press, Washington
15. Feurtzeig W, Roberts N (1999) Modeling and simulations in science and mathematics education. Springer, New York
16. Fisher B (1998) The study of the atmosphere in the science curriculum. Int J Sci Educ 20(1):1–13
17. Gerjets P, Imhof B, Kühl T, Pfeiffer V, Scheiter K, Gemballa S (2010) Using static and dynamic visualizations to support the comprehension of complex dynamic phenomena in the natural sciences. In: Verschaffel L, de Corte E, de Jong T, Elen J (eds) Use of external representations in reasoning and problem solving: analysis and improvement. Routledge, London, pp 153–168
18. Goldberg F (2000) Some roles of computer technology in helping students learn physics: computer simulations. In: International conference on computer and information technology in physics education. Manila, Philippines, pp 1–14. Retrieved from http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/CRMSE/old_site/FG/pub1.pdf
19. Hegarty M (2005) Multimedia learning about physical systems. In: Mayer RE (ed) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 447–465
20. Holyoak KJ, Morrison RG (2005) Thinking and reasoning: a reader’s guide. In: Holyoak KJ, Morrison RG (eds) The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge University Press, New York
21. Horwitz P, White BY (1988) Computer microworlds and conceptual change: A new approach to science education. In: Ramsden P (ed) Improving learning: new perspectives. Kogan Page, London
22. Kelly RM, Jones LL (2007) Exploring how different features of animations of sodium chloride dissolving affect students’ explanations. J Sci Educ Technol 16:413–429
23. Kerr RA (2005) How hot will the greenhouse world be? Science 309(5731):100
24. Koulaidis V, Christidou V (1999) Models of students’ thinking concerning the greenhouse effect and teaching implications. Sci Educ 83(5):559–576
25. Kuhn D (2010) Teaching and learning science as argument. Sci Educ 94(5):810–824
26. Lee HS, Liu OL, Pallant A, Crotts K, Pryputniewicz S, Buck Z (2014) Assessment of uncertainty-infused scientific argumentation. J Res Sci Teach 51(5):581–605
27. Levy D (2013) How dynamic visualization technology can support molecular reasoning. J Sci Educ Technol 22(5):702–712
28. Linn Marcia C, Eylon B (2011) Science learning and instruction: taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. Routledge, New York
29. Linn MC, Chang H-Y, Chiu J, Zhang H, McElhaney K (2010) Can desirable difficulties overcome deceptive clarity in scientific visualizations? In A Benjamin (ed) Successful remembering and successful forgetting: A Festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork. Routledge, New York, pp 223–256
30. McNeill KL, Krajcik J (2007) Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In: Lovett M, Shah P (eds) Thinking with data. Taylor & Francis Group LLC, New York, pp 233–265
31. McNeill KL, Lizotte DJ, Krajcik J, Marx RW (2006) Reference as: McNeill KL, Lizotte DJ, Krajcik J, Marx RW (in press). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. J Learn Sci 15(2):153–191
32. Mohan L, Chen J, Anderson CW (2009) Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. J Res Sci Teach 46(6):675–698
33. Moreno R, Mayer RE (2007) Interactive multimodal learning environments–Special issue on interactive learning environments: contemporary issues and trends. Educ Psychol Rev 53:35–45
34. Moreno R, Valdez A (2005) Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: the role of student interactivity and feedback. Educ Tech Res Dev 53:35–45
35. NGSS Lead States (2013) The next generation science standards. The National Academies Press, Washington
36. National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. The National Academies Press, Washington
37. National Research Council (2012a) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press, Washington
38. National Research Council (2012b) Climate change: evidence, impacts and choices. The National Academies Press, Washington
39. Osborne J (2010) Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science 328(5977):463–466
40. Pallant A, Tinker R (2004) Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamics models. J Sci Educ Technol 13:51–66
41. Pallant A, Lee H-S, Pryputniewicz S (2012) Systems thinking and modeling climate change. The Science Teacher 79(7):38–42
42. Reinfried S, Tempelmann S (2013) The impact of secondary school students’ preconceptions on the evolution of their mental models of the greenhouse effect and global warming. Int J Sci Educ 1–30. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.773598
43. Schwartz CV, Reiser BJ, Davis EA, Kenyon L, Acher A, Fortus D et al (2009) Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. J Res Sci Teach 46(6):632–654
44. Sterman JD (2002) All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist. Syst Dynam Rev 18(4):501–531
45. Tasker R, Dalton R (2008) Visualising the molecular world: the design, evaluation, and use of animations. In: Gilbert JK, Reiner M, Nakhleh M (eds) Visualisation: theory and practice in science education. Series: models and modelling in science education. Springer, Dordeccht, pp 103–132
46. Toulmin S (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, New York
47. Tversky B, Morrison JB, Betrancourt M (2002) Animation: Can it facilitate? Int J Hum Comput Stud 57:247–262. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1017
48. World Meteorological Organization (2013) Climate models. Retrieved from http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_models.php
49. Xie Q, Tinker R (2006) Molecular dynamics simulations of chemical reactions for use in education. J Chem Educ 83:77–83. Retrieved from http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed083p77
50. Yeh SS (2001) Tests worth teaching to: constructing state-mandated tests that emphasize critical thinking. Educ Res 30(9):12–17. doi:10.3102/0013189X030009012
51. Zehr SC (2000) Public understanding of science: public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/2/301