A Comparison of the Collaborative Scientific Argumentation Practices of Two High and Two Low Performing Groups |
| |
| Authors: | Victor Sampson and Douglas B Clark |
| |
| Institution: | (1) School of Teacher Education, The Florida State University, 205 Stone Building, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4459, USA;(2) Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | This qualitative study examines the interactions between individuals, ideas, and materials as two high and two low performing
groups of students engaged in a process of collaborative scientific argumentation. To engage students in collaborative scientific
argumentation the students were randomly assigned to small groups of three students each. Each triad was asked to critique
six alternative explanations for a discrepant event and to produce a single written argument justifying the explanation they
felt was most valid or acceptable. The two higher performing triads produced arguments that included a sufficient and accurate
explanation that was well supported with appropriate evidence and reasoning while the two lower performing triads produced
arguments that included an inaccurate explanation supported by inappropriate justification. A verbal analysis of the interactive
processes that took place within these four triads identified five distinct differences in the ways these triads engaged in
collaborative scientific argumentation that seemed to promote or constrain the development of high quality written arguments.
These differences include (1) the number of unique ideas introduced into the conversation, (2) how individuals responded to
these ideas, (3) how often individuals challenged ideas when discussing them, (4) the criteria individuals used to distinguish
between ideas, and (5) how group members used the available corpus of data. The conclusions and implications of this study
include recommendations for the design and revision of curriculum, the development of new instructional models and technology-enhanced
learning environments, and areas for future research. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
