reasoning

summary

In order for an argument to be persuasive and convincing, there must be a connection between the claim being made and the justification used to support that claim (Sampson & Clark, 2008). In practice, the reasoning in an argument “articulates the logic… [of] why the evidence supports the claim” (Berland & McNeill, 2010, p.772).  We want students to explicitly provide reasoning for their arguments and award higher scores for arguments that are explicit in connecting their justifications to their claims.  Specifically, in these assessment items we focus on students writing arguments for an explanation of a scientific phenomenon.  Consequently, at the highest level students' reasoning needs to include an underlying theoretical cause or mechanism for a natural event (Braaten & Windschitl, 2011).  Because reasoning connects the evidence to the claim, both a claim and evidence are necessary components for students to be able to provide reasoning. This implies that reasoning may be difficult for students who are still struggling to provide both claims and evidence.

definitions

  • Reasoning: uses science ideas to explain how or why the evidence supports the claim
  • Science ideas: scientific concepts, principles or theories
  • Justification: something that is used to support a claim
  • Link:  an expression of the relationship between the claim and evidence
  • Mechanism: a natural or established process by which something takes place or is brought about
  • Causal: the relationship between two events, where the second event is a consequence of the first

Construct map

A construct is a characteristic of an argument.  Construct maps use research on student learning as well as expert knowledge to separate the construct into distinct levels that characterize students' progression towards greater expertise (Wilson, 2005).  The writing reasoning construct map (see below) has 5 levels: 1) restates claim 2) implies link, 3) explicit link, 4) weak causal or mechanistic explanation, and 5) strong causal or mechanistic explanation.

assessments

We developed four different writing items.  While the topic of two of the items focuses on earthquakes, the other two items focus on volcanoes.  The students’ response to a writing item is used to place their ability at one of the levels on the construct map.  For instance, if a student only uses a personal story to justify their argument, then he would be placed at the either level 2 or 3 depending on how explicit the connection is to the claim.  However, the reasoning construct is only 1 of 5 different ways the students’ written response will be assessed.  In addition to reasoning, we encourage you to consider forms of justification, relevant-supporting evidence, sufficiency of evidence, and multiple views (maps and rubrics are provided for each).  While the students’ of highest ability will score high on all of the constructs, students of lower ability levels may have different strengths and weaknesses.

rubrics

Each of the four items are constructed response.  Therefore, we developed a rubric to grade/score each of the constructed response items.  Each rubric includes sample student responses for each level.

teaching strategies

It is our hope that, over time, students’ abilities will move towards the “strong causal or mechanistic explanation” level of the construct map.  To assist teachers with this goal, we have developed teaching strategies.

Tech reports

The tech report provides the psychometric analyses from pilot studies with middle school students.

references

Berland, L. K. & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793.

Braaten, M. & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working towards a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95, 639-669.

Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.