Students' sense-making with visual data in small-group argumentation
Pages 237 - 245
Abstract
Argumentation is a key component of scientific practice. It involves a dialectical balance of opposition and agreement, requiring negotiation and affording conceptual change through the co-construction of understandings. In classroom science inquiry with complex visual data representations, argumentation is an essential discourse structure through which students make sense of data and domain concepts. This study analyzed the argumentation practices of middle school students conducting an earth science inquiry project using data visualization tools. Analysis of spoken and gestural interactions during small-group work of one group of students in each of three classrooms revealed three common modes in which students employed visual data in argumentation: (1) using data-referenced talk and gesture to challenge authoritative positioning; (2) using gesture to participate in argumentation with incomplete conceptual vocabulary; and (3) using argumentation about data as a means of co-constructing the goals of academic tasks.
References
[1]
Andriessen, J. (2005). Collaboration in computer conferencing. In A. O'Donnel, C. Hmelo, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaboration, reasoning and technology (pp. 277-321). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[2]
Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In K. Sawyer (ed.) Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 79-96). New York NY: Cambridge University Press.
[3]
Audet, R., and G. S. Ludwig. (2000). GIS in Schools. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.
[4]
Bell, P. (2002). Science is argument: Developing sociocognitive supports for disciplinary argumentation. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 449-455). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[5]
Clark, H. H. (2005). Coordinating with each other in a material world. Discourse Studies, 7 (4 -5), 507-525.
[6]
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2): 159-199.
[7]
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84 (3), 287-312.
[8]
Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternbert & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365-395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[9]
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
[10]
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grade k-8. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.
[11]
Goldman, S., Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K., Williams, S. & Tzou, C. (2003). Science inquiry in a digital age: Possibilities for Making Thinking Visible. In H. van Oostendorp (Ed.) Cognition in a Digital Age. pp. 253-283. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers.
[12]
Goldman, S., Radinsky, J., & C. Rodriguez (2007). Teacher interactions with small groups during investigations: Scaffolding the sense-making process and pushing students to construct arguments with data. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Chicago, IL, April 2007.
[13]
Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In K. Sawyer (ed.) Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 79-96). New York NY: Cambridge University Press.
[14]
Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431-473.
[15]
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
[16]
Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition & Instruction, 18(4), 495-523.
[17]
Kuhn, Shaw & Felton, 1997.
[18]
Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In Lynch, M. and Woolgar, S. (Eds.) Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19-68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[19]
Leitao, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332-360.
[20]
Linn, M. & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. London: Routledge.
[21]
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[22]
Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition & Instruction, 14(2), 139-178.
[23]
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
[24]
Radinsky, J. (2000). Making sense of complex data: A framework for studying students' development of reflective inquiry dispositions. Learning Sciences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston IL: 349.
[25]
Radinsky, J. (in press). Students' roles in group-work with visual data: A site of science learning. To appear in Cognition and Instruction.
[26]
Radinsky, J., Alamar, K., Leimberer, J., Rodriguez, C., & Trigueros, J. (2005). Science investigations with GIS: Helping students develop the need to know more. Spectrum: Journal of the Illinois Science Teachers' Association, 31(2), 34-42.
[27]
Radinsky, J., Leimberer, J. M., & L. M. Gomez. (2000). Reflective inquiry with complex data: A case study of dispositional learning. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Researchers Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA.
[28]
Roth, W.M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71, 365-392.
[29]
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition & Instruction, 23, 23-55.
[30]
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation - driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
[31]
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Analyzing collaborative discourse. In K. Sawyer (ed.) Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 79-96). New York NY: Cambridge University Press.
[32]
Schauble, L., R. Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 131-166.
[33]
Singer, M., Radinsky, J. & S. Goldman (in press). The role of gesture in meaning construction. To appear in Discourse Processes.
[34]
Stein, N. L., & Albro, E. R. (2001). The origins and nature of arguments: Studies in conflict understanding, emotion, and negotiation. Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), 113-133.
[35]
Stewart, J., Cartier, J. & Passmore, C. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In M.S. Donovan & J. Bransford, Eds., How students learn: Science in the Classroom. (pp. 515-565). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
[36]
Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A Complement to Emerging Patterns of Distributed Scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (3): 305-355.
[37]
vanJoolingen, W.R., deJong, T., & Dimitrakopoulou, A. (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23 (2), 111-119.
[38]
Walton, D. N. & Krabb, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany, NY: Suny Press.
[39]
Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[40]
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
[41]
White, B., & Frederickson, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition & Instruction, 16, 3-118.
[42]
Yin, R. K. (2002). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Index Terms
- Students' sense-making with visual data in small-group argumentation
Recommendations
Making sense of the past
This paper reports the findings of a study of the information practices of archaeologists, students and volunteers undertaking an excavation in the field. Conceptually, the study was guided by a social constructionist and practice-theoretical ...
Using Interactive Visual Reasoning to Support Sense-Making: Implications for Design
This research aims to develop design guidelines for systems that support investigators and analysts in the exploration and assembly of evidence and inferences. We focus here on the problem of identifying candidate 'influencers' within a community of ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
June 2008
523 pages
Publisher
International Society of the Learning Sciences
Publication History
Published: 24 June 2008
Qualifiers
- Article
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 307 of 307 submissions, 100%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 95Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 26 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in