Strengthening Student Reasoning with the Scientific Argumentation Routine

1. Strengthening Student Reasoning with the Scientific Argumentation Routine Janice Creneti Assistant Project Manager Florida’s SPDG SIM Project

2. Introductions • Who you are and what brings you here? • How familiar are you with SIM Content Enhancement Routines? • What brings me here…

3. Session Outcomes At the end of this session, you’ll be able to: • Describe how the scaffolds in a SIM Content Enhancement Routine (CER) provide a replicable approach to tackling a higher order thinking task • Justify the use of CERs for academic skill development including the use of the Scientific Argumentation Routine to build reasoning skills that support argumentation • Describe how the use of the Scientific Argumentation Routine can be scaffolded across grade levels and content areas

4. A tale of 2 Fiadones

5. Why is Argumentation so challenging? With some neighbors: • perform a task analysis/identify the skills necessary to effectively engage in argumentation • discuss the taxonomic level (Bloom’s, Webb’s, etc.) of argumentation and its associated skills • select some key thoughts to share with the larger group

6. Why is Argumentation so challenging? • Trace, construct, engage, evaluate, defend • All live in highest order of taxonomy and require critical thinking • The skills within the skill are higher order

7. “But, my kids can’t ____” • The purpose of Content Enhancement Routines • The anatomy of a Content Enhancement Routine (Parts of ALL CERs Frame)

8. CONCEPT DIAGRAM 1 CONVEY CONCEPT 3 2 1 Like Terms Parts of an Algebraic Expression Key Words 2 OFFER OVERALL CONCEPT same variable exponent X Y simplify 3 NOTE KEY WORDS 4 CLASSIFY have fractions have the same coefficient have no variables have negative signs CHARACTERISTICS Always Present Sometimes Present Never Present have all the same variables have like variables raised to the same power must be combined with each other to simplify the expression a variable that is in one term but not the other same variable with different exponents 5 EXPLORE EXAMPLES Examples: Nonexamples: 3x, 3x ¼y2, 8y2 -2xy, 6xy 3, 9 4x, 4y 5a2, 3a 2x, 3 8x3, 8y3 2x, x2 7a2b, 4ab -17xy, 10xy 6 PRACTICE WITH NEW EXAMPLE 7 TIE DOWN A Like Terms are parts of an algebraic expressions that have the same variables, have like variables raised to the same power and must be combined with each other to simplify the expression. DEFINITION

9. Comparison Table Overall Concept 6 3 2 3 8 5 8 7 2 4 2 Concept Concept Characteristics Characteristics Extensions Like Characteristics Like Categories Unlike Characteristics Unlike Categories Summary Scientific Explanations of the Natural World Scientific Theory Scientific Law • Description of WHAT an observed phenomenon is like • Widely accepted in the scientific community • Based on repeated experimental observations • Supported by a large body of scientific evidence • Unlikely to change • Does not start as a theory • Broad explanations for WHY or HOW a wide range of phenomena occurs • Widely accepted in the scientific community • Based on repeated experimental observations • Supported by a large body of scientific evidence • Can change with more evidence • Will, most likely, not become a law • Level of acceptance • Criteria they are based upon • Use of evidence Research a specific example of a scientific theory and a scientific law. Determine if they both contain the characteristics described in this device. • Widely accepted in the scientific community • Based on repeated experimental observations • Supported by scientific evidence • Broad WHY or HOW explanation of phenomena • Can change with more evidence • Will, most likely, not become a law • Type of question answered • Modifications • Origins • Description of WHAT an observed phenomenon is • Unlikely to change • Does not start as a theory Scientific theories and scientific laws are scientific ideas that are alike in the level of acceptance, criteria, and use of evidence. Scientific theories and laws are different in the question they answer, modification, and origin.

10. Key Topic The FRAME Routine is about… Main idea Main idea Main idea Essential details Essential details Essential details So What? (What’s important to understand about this?) Parts of ALL CERs the three different components that make up the “routine” of a Content Enhancement Routine Cue-Do-Review Instructional Sequence Linking Steps Device Actively engages students in the learning process Order in which you fill out device with students Piece of paper Teacher draft order may differ (ex. QER) Graphic Organizer with embedded thinking supports Cue: prepares students to participate successfully Can be used blank or partially completed Do: involves Co-Construction between teacher & students Captured in a mnemonic Review: shows students how to keep using the device as a learning tool Often represented by numbers Tool to be used REPEATEDLY Understanding the different parts of a Content Enhancement Routine (CER) helps me to implement CER’s with fidelity and get the most impact for my instructional time.

11. Inquiry dive • Explore the device and the guidebook. • What do you see? • What are you wondering?

12. The Scientific Argumentation Routine Purpose: to provide teachers with an evidence-based approach that enable students to: • identify a claim and think critically about it, • decide on the strength of the claim, • and explain the reasoning that supports the claim.

13. Research Findings • 282 students in 16 classrooms (8 control, 8 experimental) were assessed with pre/posttests • Students who used the routine were much more able to identify and evaluate a scientific claim that students who were taught with lecture and labs, effect size = 1.7 • Students using the routine indicated significant increases in confidence in explaining their thinking and in correctness of decision making

14. Scientific Argumentation Guide – a quick look

15. In the Guidebook… • Ch. 1 = research • Ch. 2 : the device (Scientific Argumentation Guide) • Ch. 3: the Linking Steps • Ch. 4: application & evaluation • Appendices: • Teacher supports • Student supports

16. may be a struggle if it is implied.. Scaffold? Claim with Qualifier Claim: statement that says something is true and is the focus of this lesson (SQ: What are they trying to prove?) Qualifiers: important words or short phrases that that narrow the scope of the claim (we underline these!)

17. students may struggle to distinguish… Scaffold? Evidence SQ: What is the author of the text using to prove the claim they have made? SQ: How do you know the claim is true? Information that is evaluated and presented to support or refute a claim

18. challenging vocabulary alert! Scaffold? Types of Evidence SQ: What kind of evidence is this? Data (D): quantitative or qualitative that can be measured? Opinion (O): Thought or feeling including personal bias Theory (T): well-substantiated explanation Fact (F): an observation of an object or event confirmed byothers, agreed on

19. Quality of the Evidence SQ: Is this good evidence? Reliable: come from a source that is supported or consistent Valid: Is the data related to the claim Objective: free from bias Methodology: (ok to hold until covered by your science standards) methods used to obtain the data were sound ** More important is the justification as to why is it logical? Ratings of good, average or poor may need clarification Scaffold?

20. Good, Average, Poor? • How do I know what good, average or poor is? • LAFS.RI.3.8 : Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is sound and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; recognize when irrelevant evidence is introduced.

21. Reasoning or (Warrant) SQ: How is the evidence connected to the claim? This can be a challenge because it may be implied...

22. You may need to work up to this and then Scaffold! • Types of Reasoning • SQ: How is the evidence connected to the claim? • Authority (A): A person or organization recognized by the majority as knowledgeable on the topic • Theory(T): Just like in science proved through evidence facts and or confirmed experiments. • Logic: reasoning using rules which will be one of the following • Correlation (C): relationship between two variables where change is similar • Cause and Effect (CE):One event is responsible for the other • Analogy(A): where parts of systems are the same making the whole similar • Generalization (G): Something is true for a larger group because it works for a smaller sample

23. Evaluate the Reasoning SQ: How logical is the reasoning? Strength of Authority: How much of an authority are they? Application of Theory: How does the author use the theory to connect the claim to the evidence? Strength of Logic: is the logic strong enough to support the claim? *Rated as good, average and poor (define these terms as a class) ** More important is the justification as to why is it logical?

24. Counter arguments, rebuttals, new questions SQ: What does this make me wonder or argue? Counter argument: Claim to the contrary Rebuttals: But statements to the evidence New Questions: Related to the claim or the evidence that may impact your thoughts or views about the claim

25. Judgment (conclusions and reasoning) SQ: What is my finial decision about this claim? Accept: Agree with the claim Reject: Believe the claim to be untrue or unsubstantiated Withhold Judgment; Just not sure you don’t agree or disagree The most important thingis to explain the reasoning behind the decision

26. Teaching the Routine pgs 8-10 pgs 3-6 pgs 29-31

27. Art of Co-Construction • Give students processing time • Partner brainstorming • White board responses • Others? • Ask probing questions

28. Scaffolding the skills of Argumentation • Across grade levels • Across content areas • With additional supports

29. When students need a lot of support… They can play Reason Racer to prepare vocabulary skills… http://reasonracer.com

30. Use of the Routine outside of Science Classes • Vocabulary differences • Usage • Science, Tech: accept, reject or withhold judgement about a claim • ELA, Social Studies: trace an argument • ELA: craft an argument

31. LiteracyStandards in Science, Social Studies & Technical Subjects 9-10: Assess the extent to which the reasoning and evidence in a text support the author’s claim (or a recommendation for solving a scientific or technical problem – science, technical subjects). 11-12: Evaluate the claim (hypotheses) by analyzing evidence (data, analysis, and conclusions verifying the data when possible) and corroborating or challenging conclusions with other sources of information.

32. Standards for Literacy inELA • RI.3.8:Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is sound and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; recognize when irrelevant evidence is introduced. • W.1.1: Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.

33. Scaffolding w/ Processes • Chunk the reading • Text Marking • Read multiple times • Re-read for _________ • Read, Write, Pair, Share • High, low heterogeneous pairing

34. Scaffolding w/ other CERs • Concept Mastery • Bias • Evidence (what is it) • Perspective • Controlled Experiment • Qualifier • Claim • Counterargument • Concept Comparison • Valid vs Reliable • Theory vs Law • Framing • Types of Evidence • Types of Logic • Claims/Evidence

35. Additional Resources Scientific Argumenation Routine LiveBinder: http://www.livebinder.com/play/play?id=2028256 (Access Key: CE SA) contains For teachers: Electronic device Device Checklist Sample articles Websites for finding good articles Literacy Connections For students: Cue Cards Section Rubrics

36. Q&A

37. Let us know your thoughts about this session!Complete a session evaluation: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2018CRL or scan the evaluation QR code (above or on your conference program).