View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Wetland
s Pre‐Co
nstructed MEL
An example of a stud
ent‐completed
MEL diagram
(left) and
explana
tion task (right)
Facilitating Stud
ents' C
ritique
, Evaluation, and
Argum
ent a
bout
Freshw
ater Resou
rces
Dou
g Lomba
rdi
Temple University
Abstract
Critiqu
e an
d evalua
tion are central to the scientific en
terprise. A Framew
ork for K
‐12 Science Ed
ucationiden
tifies c
ritiquing
, arguing
, and
ana
lyzin
g as evaluative processes tha
t are fo
unda
tiona
l to science an
d science learning
. How
ever, it can
be
challeng
ing for stude
nts to think critically and
scientifically abo
ut m
any socio‐science topics, such as availability of freshw
ater re
sources. M
y research te
am and
I ha
ve develop
ed instructiona
l scaffo
lds‐‐one
specifically covering the topic of freshw
ater
availability—
with
the go
al of h
elping
stud
ents to
purpo
sefully evaluate conn
ectio
ns betwee
n lin
es of e
vide
nce an
d alternative explan
ations of socio‐scien
tific phe
nomen
a. Our upcom
ing classroo
m‐based
research will examine ho
w stud
ents con
struct
deep
und
erstan
ding
of this freshwater to
pic, as w
ell as o
ther so
cioscien
tific issues, such as clim
ate chan
ge.
The material in the po
ster is based
upo
n work supp
orted by th
e NSF und
er Grant No. DRL‐131
6057
and
Grant No. DRL‐172
1041
. Any opinion
s, find
ings, con
clusions, o
r recom
men
datio
ns expressed
are th
ose of th
e au
thors a
nd do no
t necessarily refle
ct th
e NSF’sview
s.
Mod
el‐Evide
nce Link
(MEL) D
iagram
s
MELs a
re sc
affolds to facilitate stud
ents’ evaluations abo
ut
conn
ectio
ns betwee
n lin
es of e
vide
nce an
d alternative
explan
ations abo
ut a phe
nomen
on (C
hinn
& Bucklan
d, 201
2)
Pre‐constructed MELs s
hifted
stud
ents’ p
lausibility ju
dgmen
t toward a more scientific stan
ce and
dee
pene
d their k
nowledg
e (Lom
bardi et a
l., 201
8)
However, stude
nts’ sc
ientific evalua
tions do no
t transfer b
eyon
d the task con
text
Build
‐a‐M
ELs m
ay promote tran
sfer via stud
ents’ con
ceptua
l agen
cy (N
ussbau
m & Asterha
n, 201
6)
Plea
se dire
ct any
inqu
iries to
Dou
g Lomba
rdi
doug
.lomba
rdi@
temple.ed
u
Project W
ebsite
https://serc.carleton.ed
u/mel
The web
site contains all the MELs a
nd associated materials for free do
wnloa
d.
These are exam
ples of figures associated with
the eviden
ce te
xts, which are elabo
rativ
e sources ab
out e
ach lin
e of evide
nce
Backgrou
nd
Scientific explan
ations m
ust b
e “justified an
d critiqu
ed on the
basis
of e
vide
nce an
d…valid
ated
by the larger sc
ientific
commun
ity” (NRC
, 201
2, p. 2
51)
One
judg
men
t tha
t both layp
ersons (e
.g., stud
ents, the
pub
lic)
and scientists a
pply to
explana
tions is plausibility.
Plau
sibility Gap
: Whe
re in
dividu
als find compe
ting—
but n
on‐
scientific—
idea
s more plau
sible th
an explana
tions offe
red by
scientists (Lomba
rdi et a
l., 201
3).
The three sphe
res of activity
for scien
tists and
eng
inee
rs (N
RC, 2
012, p. 4
5),
with
critique
and
evaluation at th
e ne
xus
Freshw
ater Build‐a‐M
EL
To build a
MEL, p
ick tw
o of th
ese three
mod
els
To build a M
EL, p
ick four
of th
ese nine
line
s of
eviden
ce
Research Results
In a qua
si‐expe
rimen
tal, classroo
m‐based
stud
y, we foun
d sig
nifican
t relatio
ns betwee
n the MEL activities, evaluation, plausibility, and
kn
owledg
e
These results su
ggests th
at M
ELs c
an help stud
ents th
ink more critically,
facilitate their scien
tific ju
dgmen
ts, and
dee
pen stud
ents’ kno
wledg
e (Lom
bardi et a
l., in
review
)
Evalua
tion
Plau
sibility
Post
Know
ledg
e Po
st
β= .45, p< .01
β= .31, p= .03
Know
ledg
e Pre
β= .21, p= .03
SES
Teache
r
Treatm
ent
Plau
sibility
Pre
β= .30, p< .01
β= ‐.1
0, p= .18
β= .14, p= .10
β= .24, p= .01
β= .40, p< .01
β= .14, p= .10
Recommended