Scaffolding School Students’ Scientific Argumentation in Inquiry-Based Learning with Evidence Maps
This chapter reports a research work investigating the potential of Evidence-based Dialogue Mapping to scaffold young teenagers’ scientific argumentation. Our research objective is to better understand students’ usage of dialogue maps created in Compendium to write scientific explanations in inquiry based learning projects. The participants were 20 students, 12–13 years old, in a summer science course for “gifted and talented” children in the UK. Through qualitative analysis of three case studies, we investigate the value of dialogue mapping as a mediating tool in the scientific reasoning process during a set of inquiry-based learning activities. These activities were published in an online learning environment to foster collaborative learning. Students mapped their discussions in pairs, shared maps via the online forum and in plenary discussions, and wrote essays based on their dialogue maps. This study draws on these multiple data sources: students’ maps in Compendium, writings in science and reflective comments about the uses of mapping for writing. Our analysis highlights the diversity of ways, both successful and unsuccessful, in which dialogue mapping was used by these young teenagers. It also presents future work on knowledge maps for social personal and open environments by including examples from the OpenLearn, weSPOT and ENGAGE projects.
KeywordsScience Teacher Science Concept Gulf Stream Scientific Reasoning Scientific Argument
I am grateful to Pat O’Brien from the P&S Consultancy, whose work has been used by the National Academy for Gifted and Talented students in science and the National Learning Science Centre, for his very helpful feedback. I am grateful to Tony Sherborne from the Sheffield Hallam University, the author and coordinator of the Totally Wild Science Summer Course, for the opportunity to start this research. I am grateful to colleagues at the Open University: Karen Littleton from the Centre for Research in Education and Educational Technology for her significant comments, Simon Buckingham Shum and Michelle Bachler (both from the Knowledge Media Institute) for technical support.
weSPOT project is funded by European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement N° 31849.
ENGAGE project is funded by European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement N° 612269.
- Carr, C. (2003).Using Computer Supported Argument Visualization to Teach Legal Argumentation In. Kirschner, P. Buckingham Shum, S. and Carr, C. (Eds.) Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making. Springer-Verlag: LondonGoogle Scholar
- Cognitive Dimensions (2007) http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~afb21/CognitiveDimensions
- Conklin, J. (2006) Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. John Wiley, UK.Google Scholar
- Conklin, J.; Begeman, M. L. (1988). gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Exploratory Policy Discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6(4), p. 303–331.Google Scholar
- Green, T. (1989). Cognitive Dimensions of Notations. In People and Computers V: Proc. HCI’91 Conference. (Eds.) A. Sutcliffe and L. Macaulay, pp. 443–460. Cambridge University Press: CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Heim, M. (1987). Electric Language: A Philosophical Study of Word Processing. Yale University Press: New Haven & LondonGoogle Scholar
- Jaubert, M. and Rebiere M. (2005). Learning sciences by writing. In Camps A. and Milian M. (coord.), L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature, Amsterdam, Kluwer Ed.Google Scholar
- National Research Council (2000) Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- NRC (2012). A framework for K12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts and Core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- O’Brien, P(2003) Using Science to Develop Thinking Skills at Key Stage 3. NACE/Fulton PublicationGoogle Scholar
- Okada, A. (2009) Eliciting thinking skills with inquiry maps in CLE, in eds. Patricia Lupion Torres,Rita de Cássia Veiga Marriott, Handbook of Research on Collaborative Learning Using Concept Mapping, pp. 52–80, IGI GlobalGoogle Scholar
- Okada, A. (2013) Scientific Literacy in the digital age: tools, environments and resources for co-inquiry, European Scientific Journal, 4, ISSN: 1857–7881, United Nations, url: http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/2479
- Okada, A. and Buckingham Shum, S. (2008) Evidence-Based Dialogue Maps as a research tool to evaluate the quality of school pupils’ scientific argumentation, International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31, 3, pp. 291–315, Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Okada, A., Pinto, S. and Ferreira, S. (2014) Scientific Literacy through co-Inquiry based on non-formal and informal learning, PCST2014 – 13th International Public Communication of Science and Technology Conference, Salvador-BrazilGoogle Scholar
- Ong, W.J. (2002). Orality and Literacy, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2).Google Scholar
- Schwarz, B and Glassner, A. (2003) The Blind and the paralytic: supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues In: Andriessen, Baker and Suthers(Eds.) Arguing to Learn Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments.Google Scholar
- Simon, S. Erduran S. and Osborne J. (2002) Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, April 7–10, New Orleans, USA.Google Scholar
- Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Veerman, A. (2003). Constructive discussions through electronic dialog. In: Andriessen, Baker and Suthers(Eds.) Arguing to Learn Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments.Google Scholar