Using Evidence to Evaluate Causal Explanations about Human Performances

Author(s):

Puig Blanca(presenting / submitting)Jiménez-Aleixandre María Pilar

Conference:

ECER 2012

Network:

27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching

Format:

Paper

Session Information

27 SES 03 B, Parallel Paper Session

Parallel Paper Session

Time:

2012-09-18

17:15-18:45

Room:

ESI 3 - Aula 7

Chair:

Alison Hudson

Contribution

This paper examines the use of evidence by students in the context of causal explanations about human performances and the influence of environment in gene expression. Argumentation is an integral part of science (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2008). Science learning involves mastering concepts and models, but also the appropriation by students of epistemic practices, which according to Kelly (2008) include knowledge production, evaluation and communication. Explanations and models of scientific phenomena are constructed through social discourse (Berland & Reiser, 2009).

Argumentation can be characterized in different ways, for the purposes of this study, it is considered as the evaluation of knowledge claims in the light of available evidence (Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2008). It needs to be noted that argumentation and the use of evidence are framed in scientific competence, a notion central to PISA (OCDE, 2006) international evaluation, as well as one of the eight key competences recommended in 2006 by the European Union as a central core of lifelong learning (EU, 2006). Engagement in argumentation requires the appropriation of criteria and of evidence for the evaluation of arguments (Kunh, 1993). Conditions for supporting argumentation are dependent on the use of evidence in the process of building explanations (Duschl & Osborne, 2002).

An emerging literature in science education dedicated to the application of argumentation to educational processes has identified the importance of student's learning how to use, evaluate and critique evidence (Kelly, Regev & Prothero, 2008). In a previous study (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, 2011) we analyzed the arguments of students, with a focus on the challenges that they encountered in building justifications and integrating evidence in their arguments. In order to increase our knowledge about students' difficulties in using evidence and in integrating them in their arguments, this paper seeks to examine another dimension of this scientific practice: the metaknowledge about the use of evidence. In other words, the knowledge about the role of evidence, about the epistemic criteria for evaluating knowlege, for distinguishing evidenced claims for opinions.

There is also a socio-scientific (SSI) dimension, which deals with social representations impliying determinism views about human races. We view argumentation about socio-scientific issues (SSI) as contributing to scientific literacy (Kølsto, 2006;) and also to the development of an independent opinion in order to critically examine scientific opinions and arguments (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, 2010).

This paper aims to explore the criteria (implicit or explicit) expressed by students in their arguments about the causes of the outstanding achievements of black people sprinters. The research objectives:

1) to examine how students interpretate each piece of information in terms of gene-environment interaction

2) to explore the criteria expressed in the arguments by students about what constitutes appropriate evidence.

Method

The methodological approach is qualitative and draws from discourse analysis (Gee, 2005). The study makes part of multi-case study on the use of evidence about the model of gene expression. The participants are two classes of 10th and 11th graders (N=52). The task addresses several dimensions of the use of evidence. It requires students to establish relationships between eight pieces of information and three explanations (a: it is due to genes; b: it is due to the influence of factors such as nourishment, training, etc.; c: it is due to a combination of a and b) about the causes of the outstanding achievements of black sprinters. The pieces of information were drawn from press news. They represent a range of information, both by its epistemological status or support in evidence, and by the type of factors contributing to black sprinters' performances. Two instances of information are: 1) a table about Olympic gold medalists’ since 1984 (all blacks) showing the countries where they were born, raised and trained; and 2) an article about the 'sports gene' related to fast-twitch muscles. Student’s arguments were analyzed in terms of the identification of evidence and the criteria used in their explanations about human performances.

Expected Outcomes

The analysis of written and oral responses shows some differences in the interpretation of the data by students. The data more easily interpreted were 'sports gene', 'yam' and 'high-tech clothing'. It has to be noted that some groups used yam, as an example of the influence of food, even acknowledging that it was an opinion (some students called it a lie) and not supported by a study. Other pieces resulted more difficult for students. A particular case was the interpretation of the medallist's table, seen by two groups, C and I as supporting explanation a (genes), and one group, A, as supporting explanation b (environment). Group I reasoned that it showed that the environment had no influence, because the medallists came from different countries. Some criteria expressed in their arguments about what constitutes appropriate evidence include coherence, scientific criteria, coming from authority and being published in a scientific journal. In order to improve our understanding about students' difficulties in the use of evidence, we need to pay attention to how students understand the information. We consider an educational implication providing students with opportunities to make explicit criteria about the use of evidence.

References

Berland, L. K. & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26–55. Duschl, A. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education, Studies in Science Education, 38, 1, 39-72. Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routlegde. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education. Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Puig, B. (2011). The role of justifications in integrating evidence in arguments: making sense of gene expression. Paper presented at the ESERA conference, Lyon, France. Kelly, G. J., Regev, J. & Prothero, W. (2008). Analysis of the lines of reasoning in written argumentation. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education. Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer. Kølsto, S. D. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90, 632–655. Kunh, D. (1993). Science as an Argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77 (3), 319-337. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Paris: OECD. Puig, B. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2011). Different music to the same score: teaching about genes, environment and human performances. In: T. D. Sadler (Ed), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: teaching, learning and research (pp 201–238). Dordrecht: Springer.

Author Information

Puig Blanca (presenting / submitting)

University of Santiago de Compostela

Santiago de Compostela

Jiménez-Aleixandre María Pilar

University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.