Science Writing for Learning

1. Science Writing for Learning Greg Kelly Pennsylvania State University EarthEd Workshop Aug 8-10, 2006.

2. Overview Inquiry and Science Learning Writing Arguments in Science Group task: A Review of Student Work Group Discussion of Issues and Questions

3. Learning Outcomes of Inquiry-based Science Teaching Conceptual understandings of science Abilities to perform scientific inquiry Understandings about scientific inquiry From Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards, (The National Academies Press) p. 75. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064767/html/

4. Opportunities Provided through Writing Scientific Arguments Supports learning through semantic representation of concepts. Explicit tie of concepts to data through application. Publicly available for both personal reflection and scrutiny by others. Allow for multiple revisions. For a review of research on writing, see: Writing and Learning in the Science Classroom, by Wallace, Hand, & Prain (2004). Kluwer.

5. Challenges of Writing Arguments Requires specialized knowledge (science, writing, rhetoric). Involves persuasion of others, but audience is absent. Entails learning and applying norms of community of practice (standards for evidence, uses of data, citing previous work, and so forth).

6. Educational Setting University oceanography, general education (10 weeks), writing intensive course; generally populated by non-science majors. A central goal is the development of scientific literacy -- meaning the ability to use and critique scientific evidence regarding social issues related to science (e.g., global warming).

7. Nature of the Writing Tasks Plate tectonics paper: Develop a scientific argument to explain how convergent and divergent plate boundaries differ using earth data. Monsoons paper: Develop a scientific argument that explains the physical causes of the Indian monsoons using climatic data. Oceans and Climate Paper: Develop a scientific argument that helps explain the causes of climate change and the range of possible consequences of climate change. Fisheries paper: Develop an argument that evaluates the health and sustainability of global fisheries through examination of a policy report and rebuttal.

8. Nature of the Calibrated Peer Review Tasks For each writing assignment students: 1. Write their own paper supported by EarthEd software. Review three calibration papers with rubric. Review three peer papers. Review own paper. The student grade is computed from: Peer reviews, self review, and quality of reviews given to peers’ papers.

9. Qualifier, Warrant Unless, Rebuttal Backing Toulmin’s Layout of Arguments Data Claim

10. Extending Toulmin’s Layout of Arguments Higher order theoretical claim Claim Warrant Data Data Data

11. thesis Theoretical claim Theoretical claim Low inference claim Low inference claim Low inference claim Claim supported by other claims Claim supported by other claims Claim supported by other claims Data inscription Data inscription Data inscription Data inscription Data inscription Data inscription Data inscription Argumentation Structure

12. Progressive construction of evidence { Coherence within & across lines of reasoning Key Features of Argument Solvable research issue Lines of reasoning*: Convergent Valid Sufficient Support for thesis * For discussion of lines of reasoning in geology see: Ault, C.R. (1998). Criteria of excellence for geological inquiry: The necessity of ambiguity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 189-212.

13. Summary of Analysis Well-evidenced arguments tended to: • be focused in scope; • include the use of multiple and converging lines of evidence that are well identified and annotated; • maintain reference to data throughout theoretical explanations; • illustrate the relevance of the data to their overall argument.

14. Summary of Analysis Poorly evidenced arguments can be of three sorts: 1. The argument suffers from vague reference to supporting data. This may include high-inference claims. 2. The argument suffers from a mismatch between the thesis statement and the proposed evidence supporting it. 3. The argument makes reference to literature to review general facts or knowledge about the topic.

15. Task Examine each of the following for one or more of the writing assignments: The description of the assignment given to the students. Grading rubric. The calibration papers. Two samples of student written papers (x3). Scores from CPR.

16. Questions Specific to Task What is your assessment of the student writing? of the calibration papers? What criteria did you bring to bear when making this assessment? What does the grading rubric help assess? What needs to be added? What overriding issues/problems do you see in the student writing? What curriculum, instruction, or assessment (CIA) modifications would you suggest? What changes can be incorporated into the technology?

17. Discussion Questions To what extent does writing support the goals of conceptual understanding, ability to perform scientific inquiry, and learning about scientific inquiry? What other CIA (curriculum, instruction, or assessment) orientations can achieve these goals? What different or other goals for science learning would you suggest?

18. References: Science Writing Hand B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1021-1035. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115-130. Wallace, C.S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and Learning in the Science Classroom. Dordrecht: Kluwer. van Eemeren, F. H.,& Grootendorst, R. (2003). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Special Issue on Science Literacy and Writing. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 2-3 109-141.

19. References: Geosciences Education Ault, C.R. (1998). Criteria of excellence for geological inquiry: The necessity of ambiguity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 189-212. Dodick, J. & Orion, N. (2003). Measuring student understanding of geological time. Science Education, 87, 708-731. Gobert, J.D. (2000). A typology of causal models for plate tectonics: Inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 937-977. Gobert, J.D. & Clement, J.J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics.”Journal of Research n Science Teaching, 36, 39-53. Novak, G. (1999). Virtual coursework for geoscience education: Virtual earthquake and virtual dating. Computers and Geosciences, 25, 475-488. Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D. & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 261-292. Trend, R. (2000). Conceptions of geological time among primary teacher trainees, with reference to their engagement with geoscience, history and science. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 539-555.

20. References from EarthEd and Related Studies Kelly, G. J., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. A. (in press). Assessing Lines of Evidence with Argumentation Analysis. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions. Manuscript submitted for publication. Kelly, G. J. & Prothero, W. (2006, April). Computer-Based Tools for Developing Scientific Argumentation in University Student Writing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Prothero, W., & Kelly, G. J. (in review, 2006). Earth data, science writing, and peer review in a large general education oceanography class. Journal of Geoscience Education. Manuscript submitted for publication. Schweizer, D. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). An investigation of student engagement in a global warming debate. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53 (1), 75-84. Takao, A. Y., & Kelly, G. J. (2003). Assessment of evidence in university students' scientific writing. Science & Education, 12, 341-363. Kelly, G. J., & Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: A rhetorical-semantic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 28-55. Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314-342. Takao, A. Y., Prothero, W., & Kelly, G. J. (2002). Applying argumentation analysis to assess the quality of university oceanography students’ scientific writing. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50(1), 40-48. Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 691-718.