Given the centrality of argumentation in the Next Generation Science Standards, there is an urgent need for an empirically validated learning progression of this core practice and the development of high-quality assessment items. Here, we introduce a hypothesized three-tiered learning progression for scientific argumentation. The learning progression accounts for the intrinsic cognitive load associated with orchestrating arguments of increasingly complex structure. Our proposed learning progression for argumentation in science also makes an important distinction between construction and critique. We present validity evidence for this learning progression based on item response theory, and discuss the development of items used to test this learning progression. By analyzing data from cognitive think-aloud interviews of students, written responses on pilot test administrations, and large-scale test administrations using a Rasch analysis, we discuss the refinement both of our items and our learning progression to improve construct validity and scoring reliability. Limitations to this research as well as implications for future work on assessment of scientific argumentation are discussed. #

At the 2015 NARST: A Worldwide Organization for Improving Science Teaching and Learning Through Research Annual International Conference, a group of scholars held an extended pre-conference workshop to discuss key challenges and future directions faced by argumentation researchers around the world. This wide-ranging group of facilitators and participants represented varying perspectives and experiences with argumentation research. Learning artifacts from the workshop were collected and analyzed utilizing multiple qualitative coding techniques. Analysis of these artifacts revealed five major themes that emerged from the NARST workshop describing this group of scholars' views on current issues and potential directions for the field of argumentation research. These themes center on: (i) establishing a classroom culture that values argumentation; (ii) how differing theoretical frameworks challenge how researchers communicate findings; (iii) the challenge of assessing various aspects of scientific argumentation in a valid and reliable fashion; (iv) pedagogical challenges in supporting student discourse and social collaboration; and (v) challenges concerning the professional development of teachers. Each of these themes is described using direct quotes from the workshop artifacts, and implications for future research in argumentation are discussed. #

We conducted a mixed-methods study of matriculation issues for African-Americans in the STEM pipeline. The project compares the experiences of students currently majoring in science (N ¼ 304) with the experiences of those who have succeeded in earning science degrees (N ¼ 307). Participants were surveyed about their pipeline experiences based on theories that are commonly used to explain matriculation issues. The results of the study revealed that although both groups recognized the major role of race in their experiences, the primary factor distinguishing between students and professionals was their sense of Alignment with their respective community and their different experiences with subtle forms of racism (Microaggressions). African-American scientists were far more likely to report a weak sense of belonging to their community and were far more likely to report subtle encounters with racism. By contrast, African-American science students were more likely to feel comfortable with the science community and less likely to report subtle racist encounters. The findings of this study are indicative of the pervasive impact of racial bias and conflict as a gatekeeper in providing access to science careers. # 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

No abstract

Peer Instruction, a pedagogy utilizing handheld classroom response technology to promote student discussion, is one of the most popular research-based instructional practices in STEM education. Yet, few studies have shed theoretical light on how and why Peer Instruction is effective. In this article, J. Bryan Henderson explores the Peer Instruction technique through a controlled methodology where theory—in this case the Interactive-Constructive-Active-Passive (ICAP) framework for differentiating various modes of cognitive engagement—drives pedagogical adaptations that serve as the differing experimental conditions. He finds that among the four high school physics classes he studied which employed Peer Instruction, the students achieved learning gains that, when normalizing for pretest performance, on average were more than 10 percent greater than those of college students not exposed to the ICAP-driven methodology when learning introductory physics. This article serves as an example to the educational research community of how the ICAP framework can help illuminate theoretical mechanisms behind instructional techniques in ways the more general use of the term active learning cannot.