professional literature
Sampson, V., Enderle, P., & Grooms, J. (2013). Argumentation in science education: Helping students understand the nature of
scientific arguments so the can meet the new science standards. The Science Teacher, 80(5), 30-33.
This article is about a teaching strategy that will be helpful for my unit. This strategy is to have students participate in scientific argumentation. The purpose of the article is to convince science teachers, who are the intended audience, that in order to meet new science standards, science teachers need to teach what scientists do, and one thing scientists do is make scientific arguments. “The focus of the science curriculum needs to change so students can learn how to participate in the practices of science” (Samson, Enderle, & Grooms, 2013, p. 33).
The authors begin by saying that new science standards include that students need to be able to argue from evidence, and be able to obtain, evaluate, and communicate information, because this is what scientists do. “In scientific argumentation, individuals attempt to support, challenge, or refine a claim on the basis of evidence” (Samson, Enderle, & Grooms, 2013, p. 30). They give a framework of a scientific argument, which is to make a claim, give evidence, and give a justification of that evidence. The quality of an argument is evaluated by empirical criteria, or quality of data collection and analysis and how well the claim fits with the evidence, and theoretical criteria, or how consistent the claim is with scientific knowledge. The authors use Francis and Crick’s article on the structure of DNA as an example of a scientific argument. The authors finish by giving aspects that students struggle with, like distinguishing between data and evidence, seeking data to support preconceived ideas (confirmation bias), making hasty generalizations not based on much data, explaining assumptions made when justifying evidence, and evaluating classmates’ conclusions when asked to.
This article has shaped the planning of my writing assignment about good bacteria and bad bacteria. I will now be giving students the framework of a scientific argument, so they will be able to give a good argument based on evidence. The students will make a claim (are we too clean, not clean enough, or just right), and support that using evidence. I was going to have them make a claim first, but in order to teach good scientific argumentation practices, I realize they have to find evidence first. To evaluate the project, I can use the empirical criteria and theoretical criteria in the article to create a rubric. Also from the article, using the example of Francis and Crick’s article could be beneficial for giving students an idea of what I’m looking for. Also, knowing the common challenges will be beneficial when explaining the project, because I can give examples of data vs. evidence, and be sure to emphasize writing all assumptions and reasoning behind them down.
scientific arguments so the can meet the new science standards. The Science Teacher, 80(5), 30-33.
This article is about a teaching strategy that will be helpful for my unit. This strategy is to have students participate in scientific argumentation. The purpose of the article is to convince science teachers, who are the intended audience, that in order to meet new science standards, science teachers need to teach what scientists do, and one thing scientists do is make scientific arguments. “The focus of the science curriculum needs to change so students can learn how to participate in the practices of science” (Samson, Enderle, & Grooms, 2013, p. 33).
The authors begin by saying that new science standards include that students need to be able to argue from evidence, and be able to obtain, evaluate, and communicate information, because this is what scientists do. “In scientific argumentation, individuals attempt to support, challenge, or refine a claim on the basis of evidence” (Samson, Enderle, & Grooms, 2013, p. 30). They give a framework of a scientific argument, which is to make a claim, give evidence, and give a justification of that evidence. The quality of an argument is evaluated by empirical criteria, or quality of data collection and analysis and how well the claim fits with the evidence, and theoretical criteria, or how consistent the claim is with scientific knowledge. The authors use Francis and Crick’s article on the structure of DNA as an example of a scientific argument. The authors finish by giving aspects that students struggle with, like distinguishing between data and evidence, seeking data to support preconceived ideas (confirmation bias), making hasty generalizations not based on much data, explaining assumptions made when justifying evidence, and evaluating classmates’ conclusions when asked to.
This article has shaped the planning of my writing assignment about good bacteria and bad bacteria. I will now be giving students the framework of a scientific argument, so they will be able to give a good argument based on evidence. The students will make a claim (are we too clean, not clean enough, or just right), and support that using evidence. I was going to have them make a claim first, but in order to teach good scientific argumentation practices, I realize they have to find evidence first. To evaluate the project, I can use the empirical criteria and theoretical criteria in the article to create a rubric. Also from the article, using the example of Francis and Crick’s article could be beneficial for giving students an idea of what I’m looking for. Also, knowing the common challenges will be beneficial when explaining the project, because I can give examples of data vs. evidence, and be sure to emphasize writing all assumptions and reasoning behind them down.
Tomaszewski, J. (2013). The flu in context: Epidemics, vaccines, and prevention. Retrieved from
http://www.educationworld.com/a_lesson/flu-epidemics-vaccines-science.shtml
This article is a lesson plan about the flu in the context of epidemics, vaccines and prevention, which is relevant to the content of my unit because the unit is on bacteria and viruses, which cause epidemics, and we also discuss vaccines and prevention. In my overall theme of asking the question, “Are we too clean?” this article gives evidence to the we-should-be-more-clean side.
The article begins by giving definitions of bacteria and viruses, and of epidemic and pandemic. Then the lesson gives history of pandemics, including the Black Death, smallpox, avian flu, and AIDS. Then the article gives a couple things preventing disease: the human immune system and vaccines. Finally, the lesson puts the flu into the context of this information, giving facts about flu, as well as ways of fighting the flu.
In my unit, there is a short lab activity that looks at epidemiology. At first, I wanted to do the lab before looking at the concepts, because the learning cycle involves giving students a meaningful experience with the concept before developing it. However, I may revise my plan, because the nature of the lab makes it seem better as an application or confirmation of ideas rather than a starting point for them. This lesson gives me an example of placing content in context, which is important for helping students to make connections to the content. I can use the historical points and the information about bacteria, viruses, epidemics, and pandemics in this lesson as a portion of the background information I will give the students. Going straight into a simplistic practice of epidemiology would likely not be as effective when students come with varying amounts of knowledge about diseases and their history. This lesson helps me to plan my unit by giving historical and real-life context to the content of my unit, which is useful for answering the “so what?” question, which I want to be prevalent in all aspects of the unit, not jus in the “Are we too clean?” project.
http://www.educationworld.com/a_lesson/flu-epidemics-vaccines-science.shtml
This article is a lesson plan about the flu in the context of epidemics, vaccines and prevention, which is relevant to the content of my unit because the unit is on bacteria and viruses, which cause epidemics, and we also discuss vaccines and prevention. In my overall theme of asking the question, “Are we too clean?” this article gives evidence to the we-should-be-more-clean side.
The article begins by giving definitions of bacteria and viruses, and of epidemic and pandemic. Then the lesson gives history of pandemics, including the Black Death, smallpox, avian flu, and AIDS. Then the article gives a couple things preventing disease: the human immune system and vaccines. Finally, the lesson puts the flu into the context of this information, giving facts about flu, as well as ways of fighting the flu.
In my unit, there is a short lab activity that looks at epidemiology. At first, I wanted to do the lab before looking at the concepts, because the learning cycle involves giving students a meaningful experience with the concept before developing it. However, I may revise my plan, because the nature of the lab makes it seem better as an application or confirmation of ideas rather than a starting point for them. This lesson gives me an example of placing content in context, which is important for helping students to make connections to the content. I can use the historical points and the information about bacteria, viruses, epidemics, and pandemics in this lesson as a portion of the background information I will give the students. Going straight into a simplistic practice of epidemiology would likely not be as effective when students come with varying amounts of knowledge about diseases and their history. This lesson helps me to plan my unit by giving historical and real-life context to the content of my unit, which is useful for answering the “so what?” question, which I want to be prevalent in all aspects of the unit, not jus in the “Are we too clean?” project.