ANALOGICAL-MAPPING-BASED COMPARISON TASKS AS A SCAFFOLD FOR ARGUMENTATION

  • : Ms Word, Ms Word Format
  • : 70 Pages
  • : ₦3000
  • : 1-5 Chapters
  •  
  • Click to DOWNLOAD Materials

ANALOGICAL-MAPPING-BASED COMPARISON TASKS AS A SCAFFOLD FOR ARGUMENTATION

ABSTRACT

 

Given the centrality of the argumentation process to science and consequent importance to science education, inviting science students to engage in argumentation and scaffolding that argumentation in order that it lead to learning and not frustration is important.  The present research invites small groups  of science content learners (54 preservice elementary teachers at a large research university) to use analogical-mapping-based comparison tasks in service of argumentation to determine which of two possible analogues, in this case simple machines, is most closely related to a third.  These activities and associated instruction scaffolded student small-groups’ argumentation in four ways:  1. supporting new analogical correspondences on the heels of prior correspondences; 2. discerning definitions and descriptions for simple machine elements; 3. identifying and dealing with ambiguity in potential correspondences; and

  1. making reflections on prior analogical correspondences in service of their final arguments. Analogical-mapping-based comparison activities scaffolded student small groups both in their argumentation and in content learning about simple machines. Implications, limitations, and directions for future related research are also discussed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

List of Tables………………………………………………………………….………..… vi

List of Figures…………………………………………………………….……………… vii

Acknowledgements …………………………………………………….………………. ix

 

 

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………….……………… 1

Works Cited……………………………………………….…………………… 8

 

 

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………..……………………… 10  Introduction to Literature Review……………………………………………… 11

The Need for Argumentation in Science Education………………………… 11

Scaffolding Argumentation………………………………………………….… 16

How Can Analogy Inform a Scaffold for Argumentation?………………………. 28

Works Cited……………………………….……………………………………… 68

 

 

 

Chapter 3: DESIGN RATIONALE AND METHODOLOGY………………………… 73  Design Rationale……………………………………………………………….. 74

Context and Sample…………………………………………………………… 80          Design Process…………………………………………………………..……… 82

Methods………………………………………………………..………………… 83

Timeline for Data Gathering………………………………….………………… 86

Data Collection…………………………………………….……….…………… 88  Units of Analysis…………………………………….……………………….… 88

What Counts as Evidence?……………………………………………………………….. 95

Initial Codes……………………………………………………………………… 95

Developing More Encompassing Final Codes……………………………… 99

Applying the Codes…………………………………………………………….. 106

Works Cited………………………………………………………………….……109

 

 

 

Chapter 4: RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION……………………………… 110

Introduction to Results: The Findings……………………………………..….. 111  Examples of Each Category of Finding………………………………..……… 113

Introduction to Analysis……………………………………………………….… 120

Transcripts Analysis…………………………………………………………..… 121

Finding 1 Analysis: Earlier Correspondences Scaffold Later Ones………. 121

Finding 2 Analysis: Scaffolding toward Discernment………………………. 134

Finding 3 Analysis: Scaffolding to Deal with Ambiguous Correspondence.. 156  Finding 4 Analysis: Scaffolded in Reflecting……………………….………… 176

General Discussion……………………………………………………………… 184

Works Cited……………………………………………………………….…….. 187

 

 

Chapter 5:

CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH…………………………………………………………….. 188

Answering the Research Questions…………………………………………… 189

Building on Argumentation and Related Scaffolding Research…………….. 192

Building on Analogy Research……………………………………………..…. 200

Contribution to Teaching and Curriculum Design………………………….… 203

Policy Implications: The Space between the Content Standards………….. 205

Study Limitations………………………………………………………………… 206

Directions for Future Research………………………………………………… 208

Works Cited…………………………………………………………….…………211

Chapter 1

Introduction

 

Introduction

In order to understand science and the process of science that gives rise to new scientific understandings, science learners must understand argumentation (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; National Research Council (US), 1996).  Argumentation can be defined as the process that gives rise to an argument.  Differing from the word “argument” in everyday use, a scientific “argument” is a proposed explanation for a scientific phenomenon.  A given argument is generated not only to explain but also to persuade other scientists of the appropriateness of the argument (Duschl & Osborne, 2002).

The National Science Education Standards (1996) state that students must be able to:

  • Recognize and analyze alternative explanations and models
  • Formulate and revise scientific explanations and models using logic and evidence
  • Communicate and defend a scientific argument (pp. 175-176)

These show the importance placed on the argumentation practice and necessary related skills such as “[r] ecogniz[ing] and analyz[ing] alternative explanations and models” (and “[f] ormulat[ing[ and revising scientific explanations and models…” (p. 175).  However, promoting argumentation that leads to learning continues to be far from straightforward in science classrooms (Berland & Reiser, 2011; Sampson & Clark, 2008; Sampson, Grooms, & Walker, 2011; von Aufschnaiter, Erduran, Osborne, & Simon, 2008; Walker & Zeidler, 2007).

Promoting scientific argumentation that leads to learning in classrooms can be challenging, since students have difficulty talking and arguing about what they do not understand (i.e., new science concepts).  Von Aufschnaiter et al (2008) sum up this issue: “[I] t is inappropriate to ask students to engage in argumentation around scientific concepts and theories when they lack any background knowledge” (von Aufschnaiter et al., 2008, p. 117).  Something of a paradox emerges in which argumentation can lead to learning, but in order to argue about a science concept, it must first be understood somewhat.  Clearly, supporting students in argumentation is necessary, especially in instances where they do not have a clear understanding of the science content.  The present research provides such support to students’ argumentation by incorporating and building on past research in the areas of scaffolding and analogy.

Much research has focused on the notion of scaffolding as a way to provide necessary support for argumentation in science classrooms, (Cho & Jonassen, 2002; Clark, Stegmann, Weinberger, Menekse, & Erkens, 2008; Emig & McDonald, 2010; Quintana et al., 2004; Zembal-Saul, Munford, Crawford, Friedrichsen, & Land, 2003).  Scaffolding can be a helpful metaphor for understanding how to assist and support students’ argumentation.   It is informed by the idea of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, which refers to the conceptual space between what a person can do without assistance compared to what he or she can do assisted (Vygotsky, 1978).  This assistance, coming from an abler peer, is referred to as scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1978; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976).

Scaffolding students has evolved beyond providing direct assistance from a more able peer to include expertise that is embedded in the task itself (Reiser, 2004; Wood et al., 1976).  Scaffolding for the purposes of this research will mean “problematizing” and “structuring” science content and argumentation (Reiser, 2004) with an eye toward “channeling” and “focusing” student attention (Pea, 2004).  Reiser (2004) suggests that “problematizing” content means to turn content into a problem to be understood and solved.  “Structuring” means to impart order to this process to make it doable for students.  He suggests that “problematizing” and “structuring” are in tension, since to “problematize” too much can be to “structure” too little and vice-versa (Reiser, 2004).

The present research puts forth and evaluates a scaffold in the form of “analogicalmapping-based comparison activities” with an eye toward scaffolding student small groups.  Specifically, this scaffold was designed to use analogies to problematize and structure simple machine content and the argumentation process in order to channel and focus student attention in a way that makes learning more likely and frustration less likely.

Why analogy? Analogy is found to be an effective communication and thinking device that is spontaneously used by both experts and everyday people (Clement, 1981; Dunbar, 2001).  Dunbar (2001) found that when everyday people understand a concept, they can easily convey a great deal of information about it communicating an analogy without much problem.  Other research has found that everyday people can increase their understanding of a new concept when invited explicitly to compare using analogy (Gick & Holyoak, 1980).

Why comparison? Comparison has the power to make important features salient.  Bransford et al (1989) provide an example in which a single house is viewed (see figure 1.1).  When viewing the single house much will likely go unnoticed.  For example, the fact that the house has two windows, one door, a chimney, etc. are commonly noticed features.  But, the facts that the chimney is of a certain size or that the windows are of a certain size, however, are not likely to be noticed when viewing Table 1.1: Single House the single house.  But, when multiple houses (figure 1.1b), which Bransford calls a “contrast set,” are viewed together, those features become salient.  The Northern House, for example, has a larger chimney, whereas the Cheerful Living Room house has a larger living

room window.  These

features become salient only when compared with other houses.

Bransford suggests that gaining expertise in one’s field depends upon gathering mental models of various scenarios, models, concepts, circumstances, or situations over time.  Only when one has accumulated a large body of such things can one finely discern, apply relevant terms, and correctly anticipate future developments based on past analogues.  The ability to discern between cases also depends on a high degree of alignment between them (Markman & McMullen, 2003; Mussweiler & Epstude, 2009).  Comparing a picture of a high rise building, for example, would not likely have made chimney size or window size salient on the single house in figure 1.1.  The contrast set would have little alignment.

Analogy implies alignment.  One important existing body of work in science education that relies on content with a high degree of alignment is that of analogy and analogical models.  Analogy, as defined by Gentner (1983) “is a comparison in which relational predicates, but few or no object attributes, can be mapped” (p. 156).  This means that relationships between

elements may be the same but the elements themselves are different.  Mapping analogies is the process of identifying elements of one concept or

scenario         and         making          a

correspondence        between        that

element and an element on another scenario.  Consider the example in figure 1.2.  When relationships are considered, the person on top best corresponds to the tree on bottom,

since both are restraining the dog.  The functions of each become salient, reducing the possibility that superficial features such as appearance are considered.  Thus, undertaking the process of analogical mapping makes it less likely that someone would say the person on top best corresponds to the person on bottom; they have different functions.

The present research makes use of analogical mapping and comparison tasks by offering students the invitation and opportunity to use analogical mapping to compare two possible analogues (see figure 1.3) to determine the best one, or the one with the most alignment. This type of activity is offered and evaluated seven times over seven weeks in the present research as a method of “problematizing” and “structuring” student content learning through argumentation.

The guiding questions for the present research examine the process of analogical mapping to scaffold scientific argumentation, specifically:

  • What does it look like to scaffold student small-group argumentation in science classes by inviting them to argue in favor of one potential explanatory analogy over another?
  • How does this type of comparative intervention affect students’ interactions with one another?

These questions were developed with an eye toward generating a rich qualitative description of students’ science discourse that can inform instruction and curriculum development.

The bulk of the data used to answer these questions comes from transcripts of smallgroup (about 4 students) argumentation and discourse analysis thereof.  In these, fifty-four preservice elementary teachers in a science content course engaged in analogical-mappingbased comparison activities during a unit that deals with simple machines.

This dissertation’s following chapters will be on each of the following: a review of relevant literature; methods and design rationale; results and analysis including examples from transcript excerpts and related analysis; and a conclusion chapter describing the implications, contribution, limitations of this work and directions for future related research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom Communities’ Adaptations of the Practice of Scientific Argumentation. Science Education, 95, 191 – 216.

Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: because wisdom can’t be told In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (pp. 470-491). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The Effects of Argumentation Scaffolds on Argumentation and Problem Solving Educational Technology, Research and Development, 50(3), 5.

Clark, D. B., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Menekse, M., & Erkens, G. (2008). TechnologyEnhanced Learning Environments to Support Students’ Argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (Vol. 35, pp. 217243): Springer

Clement, J. (1981). Analogy Generation in Scientific Problem Solving. 1-12.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms Science Education, 84, 287-312.

Dunbar, K. (2001). The Analogical Paradox: Why Analogy Is So Easy In Naturalistic Settings, Yet So Difficult In The Psychological Laboratory. In D. Gentner, H. K.J. & B. Kokinov (Eds.), Analogy: Perspectives from Cognitive Science (pp. 313-334). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting & Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Sci Ed. Studies in Sci Ed, 38 39-72

Emig, B., & McDonald, S. (2010). How does the use of analogical mapping as a scaffold for science learners’ argumentation support their learning and talking about science? Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2010), Chicago, IL.

Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy. COGNITIVE SCIENCE, 1983 (7), 155-170.

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical Problem Solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306-355.

Markman, K. D., & McMullen, M. N. (2003). A Reflection and Evaluation Model of Comparative Thinking Personality and Social Psychology Review 7(3), 244–267

Mussweiler, T., & Epstude, K. (2009). Relatively Fast! Efficiency Advantages of Comparative Thinking Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(1), 1-21.

National_Research_Council_(US). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Pea, R. D. (2004). The Social and Technological Dimensions of Scaffolding and Related Theoretical Concepts for Learning, Education, and Human Activity The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451.

Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.

Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding Complex Learning: The Mechanisms of Structuring and Problematizing Student Work The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.

Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the Ways Students Generate Arguments in Science Education: Current Perspectives and Recommendations for Future Directions. Science Education.

Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-Driven Inquiry as a Way to Help Students Learn How to Participate in Scientific Argumentation and Craft Written Arguments: An Exploratory Study. Science Education, 95, 217 – 257.

von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to Learn and Learning to Argue: Case Studies of How Students’ Argumentation Relates to Their Scientific Knowledge Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society (L. S. Vygotsky, M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, Trans.): Harvard University Press.

Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting Discourse about Socioscientific Issues through Scaffolded Inquiry International Journal of Science Education 29(11), 1387-1410

Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2003). Scaffolding Preservice Science Teachers’ Evidence-Based Arguments During an Investigation of Natural Selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437-463.

ANALOGICAL-MAPPING-BASED COMPARISON TASKS AS A SCAFFOLD FOR ARGUMENTATION

 

Sharing is caring!

Leave a Reply