1 / 16

A Framework for Practical work, Argumentation and Scientific Literacy to plan research

A Framework for Practical work, Argumentation and Scientific Literacy to plan research. Ros Roberts York, June 2011. Delimiting the ideas. Science education literature: practical work; argumentation; scientific literacy Different theoretical approaches, traditions and cultures

nitesh
Download Presentation

A Framework for Practical work, Argumentation and Scientific Literacy to plan research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Framework for Practical work, Argumentation and Scientific Literacy to plan research Ros Roberts York, June 2011

  2. Delimiting the ideas • Science education literature: practical work; argumentation; scientific literacy • Different theoretical approaches, traditions and cultures • Resultant lack of clarity • Development of a delimited, internally coherent, parsimonious framework that can be used to frame research

  3. Scientific literacy • A range of definitions • Understand what science does • through to a more ‘empowered’ and active role; engagement, challenge, decisions • Understanding evidence is important for all these definitions

  4. Procedural Understanding:Understanding Ideas about Evidence • Royal Society’s motto: Nullius in verba • ‘Take nobody’s word for it!’ • Science is based on evidence, not opinion • Evidence: a link between practical work, argumentation and scientific literacy

  5. A framework for research

  6. Theoretical framework

  7. The Concepts of Evidence (Gott, Duggan and Roberts) • These are the ideas that are needed to develop a procedural understanding • They act as a Domain Specification: • the basis for the selection of curriculum content • the basis for our teaching and teaching materials • and the basis of assessment (understanding, application and synthesis, evaluation) • http://www.dur.ac.uk/rosalyn.roberts/Evidence/cofev.htm

  8. Bull’s-eye summary

  9. Linking practical work, argument and scientific literacy

  10. The structure for an argument Toulmin (1958) argumentation data qualifier claim warrant rebuttal backings secondary backings

  11. A framework for research

  12. Research questions (1) • Does teaching the ideas of evidence – looking forward - improve students’ understanding of evidence? (refs 1, 2) • Does teaching the ideas of evidence – looking forward - improve students’ open-ended investigations? (refs 3, 4) • What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for success in open-ended investigations? (refs 5, 6) • How do students use the ideas of evidence in an investigation? (refs 3, 4) • Does teaching the ideas of evidence – looking forward - enable students to question others’ claims – looking back? (ref 7) • What sort of questions do they ask and which ideas of evidence do they draw on when questioning claims? (ref 7) • Does teaching the ideas of evidence ‘work’ with Turkish ITT students? (ref 8)

  13. Research questions (2) • How do BAEd students evaluate claims? Does an understanding of Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern aid this? • How does school science prepare Science undergrads to understand evidence, evaluate claims and approach open-ended investigations? • How can we explicitly teach about arguing with evidence? • Etc • Etc

  14. Publications • Roberts, R. and Gott, R. (2004) A written test for procedural understanding: a way forward for assessment in the UK science curriculum? Research in Science and Technological Education 22 (1) pp 5-21 • Roberts, R. and Gott, R. (2006) Assessment of performance in practical science and pupil attributes. Assessment in Education13 (1) pp 45-67 • Roberts, R., Gott, R. and Glaesser, J. (accepted) Students’ approaches to open-ended science investigation: the importance of substantive and procedural understanding. Research Papers in Education • Roberts, R. (2009) Can teaching about evidence encourage a creative approach in open-ended investigations? School Science Review90 (332) pp 31-38 • Glaesser, J., Gott, R., Roberts, R. and Cooper B. (2009) Underlying success in open-ended investigations in science: using qualitative comparative analysis to identify necessary and sufficient conditions. Research in Science and Technology Education 27 (1) pp 5-30 • Glaesser, J., Gott, R., Roberts, R. and Cooper, B. (2009) The roles of substantive and procedural understanding in open-ended science investigations: Using fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis to compare two different tasks. Research in Science Education 39 (4) pp 595-624 • Roberts, R. and Gott, R. (2010) Questioning the Evidence for a claim in a socio-scientific issue: an aspect of scientific literacy. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28 (3) pp 203 – 226 • Roberts, R. and Sahin-Pekmez, E. (accepted) Scientific Evidence as Content Knowledge: a replication study with English and Turkish pre-service primary teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education

  15. For further information please contact • Ros Roberts • Rosalyn.Roberts@dur.ac.uk

More Related