Matter and Energy Transformation: An Investigation into Secondary School Students’ Arguments

1. Matter and Energy Transformation: An Investigation into Secondary School Students’ Arguments 2010 NARST Presentation Written by: Kennedy Onyanchah (Michigan State University) Culturally relevant ecology, learning progressions and environmental literacy Long Term Ecological Research Math Science Partnership April 2010 Disclaimer: This research is supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation: Targeted Partnership: Culturally relevant ecology, learning progressions and environmental literacy (NSF-0832173). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

2. Matter and Energy Transformation: An Investigation into Secondary School Students’ ArgumentsKennedy M. Onyancha and Charles W. AndersonMichigan State University Introduction, theoretical perspectives, and Research Questions Argumentation as Inquiry Practices of Responsible Citizenship Purpose of the study & Research Question Methods Participants Data sources Data analysis Examples of analysis More sophisticated student Less sophisticated student Findings Contribution to teaching and learning of Science

3. Introduction • Reform-based science (e.g. National Science Education Standards, 1996) & School curricula (NRC, 2007) have focused on and advocated for helping students to achieve scientific literacy: Our study is aligned with these goals for science teaching • Problem: Our other work on learning progressions has focused on the nature of students’ accounts (Claims) about individual processes (e.g. Tree Growth) and how this relate to their Claims about e.g. global climate change ( see e.g. Covitt et al., 2009; Jin & Anderson, 2008; Mohan, Chen, & Anderson, 2008) • In this study, we sought to examine students’ reasoning in relation to argumentation as inquiry in their responses to questions about CTPs

4. Argumentation as Inquiry • Literature on science education (e.g. Driver, Newton, & Osborn, 2000; McNeill, 2009; NRC, 1996) present scientific argumentation, as it does explanations, as a practice of scientific inquiry • Researchers (e.g. Berland & Reiser, 2009; Clark & Sampson, 2007; Kilbourn, 2006) view argument and explanation as interrelated scientific practices of inquiry-they both emphasize building toward sense-making, articulation, and persuasion regarding phenomena • Other literature (e.g. NRC, 1996 & 2000; Duschl, et al., 2007; Zembal-Saul, 2009) show that students who engage in the practice of scientific inquiry/investigation demonstrate higher gains in science learning; are likely to be both motivated and engage in intellectual development (Vygosky, 1986) based on, say, analytical arguments (Toulmin, 1958)

5. Practices of Responsible Citizenship (Covitt et al., 2009)

6. Purpose & Research Question • Purpose: To examine the nature of arguments students construct, using Data and Warrants and/or Backing, to defend Claims they may make about matter and energy transformations in their oral arguments about CTPs • Research Question: What is the nature of secondary students’ arguments about carbon transforming processes (CTPs) such as photosynthesis, biosynthesis, digestion, cellular respiration, and combustion?

7. Methods • Participants • Study follows 16 secondary school students from 4 schools in rural southwest Michigan • Data sources • From 08-09 pre-post clinical interviews relating to three CTPs; Flame Burning, Tree Growing, & Car Running (primary)

8. Methods (Continued) • Data analyses • We used a modified version of Toulmin’s (1958) model of argument analysis (See table 1 below) • Interviews were designed to elicit students’ accounts or Claims (C) • Research Question and Toulmin’s analytical framework • We were interested in how students support their claims with Data (D), and usually Warrants (W). Additionally, we sought to understand how students use, if at all, Backing (B) to construct arguments relating to CTP

9. Table 1: Rubric for coding for elements of an argument

10. Examples of analysis-Based on Flame Burning. Highlights represent: Blue (Data); Yellow (Warrant); Green (Claim) Example 1: More sophisticated Example 2: Less sophisticated Illustrates a student’s work that uses Data and Warrants in a more analogical sense to support the Claims Made: I: What does a flame need in order to burn? … JMJ: … needs the gas that…burns…like wood on the match… I: … Why does the flame need … wood? …What happens to [it]? JMJ:It will disappear because …wood [is] kind of like flames’ food... without it,they’ll just die off I: … do you think the energy is created?… JMJ:I think it comes from –it’s created. So it’s kind of chemistry… By contrast, JMJ treats wood as a need for flame burning with the result that matter ceases to exist; Energy as a need for the flame “to stay alive” without which the flame will “die” & that energy is “created” Illustrates a student’s work that uses Data and Warrants to support the Claims made in ways consistent with scientific standards of argument: I: What does a flame need in order to keep burning? ANW:It needs oxygen, wood …in order to keep burning I: What is in wood that makes it burn? ANW: Wood has chemical energy…makes it burn… I: ..do you think the chemical energy still exists or somewhere or changing …? ANW: It changes into heat and light energy I:…how about wood? ANW: it gives off …carbon dioxide and water ANW treats wood as a source of chemical energy (CPE) & a raw material for Matter transformation; recognizes energy & matter transformations

11. Findings Our analysis of data from all the 16 students revealed similar patterns in Data, Warrants and/or Backing summarized in table 4 below. For example: • Students differ in whether they suggest that the inputs to the CTPs (Data) fulfill needs of actors (like JMJ above) or act as inputs to chemical processes (like ANW from example 1 above) • In addition, some students provide no warrants at all (or warrants that are Tautological in nature); others provide analogical warrants (like JMJ from both example 1 above) yet other students provide Warrants and Backing that appeal to scientific principles (like ANW from example 1 above)

12. Table 4: Descriptions of Element characteristics associated with levels of achievement

13. Implications For Science Teaching & Leaning (e.g. Beth et al., 2009) This study is likely to have two-fold implications: • Teaching & learning. Argumentation as a learning tool, in concert with other designed instructional tools, could be useful in supporting students move toward constructing arguments that: • treat inputs to the CTPs (data) as reactants to chemical processes and outputs as products of these processes • use warrants and backing as well as other elements of argument that appeal to scientific principles. This may also be useful in teacher Professional Development and assessment • Responsible citizenship.Potentially, this study could help support our larger project goal of promoting environmentally responsible citizenship. For example: • How (if at all) are their arguments in support of individual processes connected with their arguments in support of positions on environmental issues? • If they cite well-defined observational data and warrants in support of their accounts of tree growth, do they also favor arguments about environmental issues that are supported with well-defined observational data and warrants? ---These are questions for a possible future study

14. Disclaimer This research is supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation: Developing a Research-based Learning Progression for the Role of Carbon in Environmental Systems (REC 0529636), the Center for Curriculum Materials in Science (ESI-0227557), Learning Progression on Carbon-Transforming Processes in Socio-Ecological Systems (NSF 0815993), and Targeted Partnership: Culturally relevant ecology, learning progressions and environmental literacy (NSF-0832173). Additional support comes from the Greak Lakes Bioenergy Research Center. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the United States Department of Energy.