Engaging Students in Discourse About Criteria for Judging Scientific Models (Collaborative Research: Danish)

The goal of this project is to study how secondary students come to understand better an underlying logic of natural sciences—the relation between construction of new ideas and critique of them. Science education has traditionally focused mostly on how students construct models of natural phenomena. However, critique is crucial for iterative refinement of models because in professional science, peer critique of explanatory models motivates and guides progress toward better understanding. This project engages students in this process and helps them understand the relation of critique to better explanations, by focusing students on the criteria by which critique and understanding develop together through classroom discussions. The team is developing a suite of teaching tools expanding upon the previously developed open source software, Modeling and Evidence Mapping Environment, which structures how students connect evidence directly to models they construct. The products of this project, which include enhanced software, curriculum, and assessments, are intended to increase capacity to engage young learners in ambitious science educational experiences that are consistent with the Next Generation Science Standards.

The project focuses on three interlinked practices critical for successful reasoning with evidence about scientific models in science: engaging in peer critique of models, describing and justifying key epistemic considerations to guide model critique, and iteratively revising models towards greater accuracy by attending to peer critique. This project advances the existing Model and Evidence Mapping Environment software by adding a scaffolding suite to support student engagement in, and valuing of, this epistemic meta-level of community critique for improving the veracity and utility of models. A set of design experiments provide insights regarding teachers' effective scaffolding of activities and software features, and inform iterative design of instructional materials. The entire ensemble is tested in small and larger scale heterogeneous classroom settings in Indiana and New Jersey. Measured outcomes include student learning, based on interviews and written student artifacts, as well as examinations of classroom collaborative discourse. The project is yielding critical theoretical insights about learners' growth along these dimensions of understanding science, and practical materials and professional development to support it.