ABSTRACT

Agreement has become widespread that students’ peer-to-peer argumentation should play a central role in science classrooms. Coordinating evidence with claims lies at the heart of a skilled argument. Yet evidence takes numerous forms that pose different interpretational challenges. Might cognitive limitations on the part of the individual student in this regard constrain the potential effectiveness of classroom discourse? This possibility has received limited recent attention relative to the contemporary sociocultural focus on examining and optimising patterns of classroom discourse. We examine seven forms of evidence in the context of two scenarios and document the challenges eighth-grade students exhibit in relating them to a claim. Our analysis led us to propose an overarching challenge across the different forms: establishing the relation that two assertions (claim and evidence) bear to one another, rather than address only one of the two and from the perspective of one’s own beliefs. In Study 1, we present this analysis and report on the limited levels of mastery students exhibit across the different evidence types and in Study 2 on an effort to foster such mastery in early adolescent students.

摘要

学生的点对点辩论应该在科学课堂中发挥核心作用，这一点已成为普遍共识。将证据与声明相协调是熟练论证的核心。然而，证据采取多种形式，带来不同的解释挑战。个别学生在这方面的认知限制是否会限制课堂话语的潜在有效性？相对于当代社会文化对检查和优化课堂话语模式的关注，这种可能性最近受到的关注有限。我们在两种情景的背景下检查了七种形式的证据，并记录了八年级学生在将他们与索赔联系起来时所表现出的挑战。我们的分析使我们提出了一个跨越不同形式的总体挑战：建立两个断言（主张和证据）相互之间的关系，而不是仅从一个人自己的信念的角度处理这两者中的一个。在研究 1 中，我们提出了关于学生在不同证据类型中表现出的掌握程度有限的分析和报告，在研究 2 中，我们致力于在早期青少年学生中培养这种掌握能力。