Language and argument are epistemic tools that learners can use to help them generate and validate knowledge for themselves, as emphasized in NGSS and previous NRC reports. Not all learning environments elicit or support the use of these epistemic tools equally, thus affecting how students grow in competence in relation to their use. The present study examined growth in students' competencies in language and argument during one semester, with a comparison of two learning environments—replicative versus generative—using students' lab reports. It also examined interdependence between these growth patterns. The participants (n = 30) were simultaneously enrolled in two required introductory-level science lab courses—Chemistry-I Lab (generative) and Physics-I Lab (replicative)—taken during the first fall semester at the university. The students' written reports for each weekly lab (n = 490) were collected at the end of the semester and scored to quantify students' quality of argument (as holistic argument) and language use (as multimodal representation). This growth was modeled using linear mixed-effects regression for each competence and each environment. Quadratic modeling was also used to show whether the trend of the growth demonstrated constant increase or a leveling off. Findings provide evidence that students showed higher growth in language and argument competencies in their lab reports for the generative learning environment than in their lab reports for the replicative learning environment. The findings also suggest that there is marked interdependence between the growth patterns of the argument and language competencies. Implications are discussed for learning environments to promote language and argument development. The interdependence of argument and language growth highlights that encouraging language use in a generative manner can be a promising direction for improving argumentation and, by extension, science learning in science classrooms.

中文翻译：

---

检查学生在复制和生成学习环境中语言和论证能力发展的相互依存关系

正如 NGSS 和以前的 NRC 报告所强调的那样，语言和论证是学习者可以用来帮助他们自己生成和验证知识的认知工具。并非所有的学习环境都同等地引发或支持使用这些认知工具，从而影响学生如何在与其使用相关的能力上成长。本研究调查了学生在一个学期内语言和辩论能力的增长，并使用学生的实验室报告比较了两种学习环境——复制与生成。它还研究了这些增长模式之间的相互依存关系。参与者 ( n = 30) 同时注册了两门必修的入门级科学实验室课程——化学 I 实验室（生成）和物理 I 实验室（复制）——在大学的第一个秋季学期学习。学生每周实验的书面报告 ( n = 490) 在学期末收集并评分以量化学生的论证质量（作为整体论证）和语言使用（作为多模态表示）。这种增长是针对每种能力和每种环境使用线性混合效应回归建模的。二次建模也用于显示增长趋势是持续增加还是趋于平稳。研究结果提供证据表明，学生在生成式学习环境的实验室报告中的语言和辩论能力增长高于复制式学习环境的实验室报告。研究结果还表明，论点的增长模式和语言能力之间存在显着的相互依存关系。讨论了对促进语言和论证发展的学习环境的影响。论证和语言发展的相互依存突出表明，鼓励以生成方式使用语言可能是改善论证的一个有希望的方向，并由此扩展科学课堂中的科学学习。