High School Students’ Epistemic Cognition and Argumentation Practices during Small-Group Quality Talk Discussions in Science

Abstract

For high school students to develop scientific understanding and reasoning, it is essential that they engage in epistemic cognition and scientific argumentation. In the current study, we used the AIR model (i.e., Aims and values, epistemic Ideals, and Reliable processes) to examine high school students’ epistemic cognition and argumentation as evidenced in collaborative discourse in a science classroom. Specifically, we employed a qualitative case study approach to focus on four small-group discussions about scientific phenomena during the Quality Talk Science intervention (QTS), where students regularly received explicit instruction on asking authentic questions and engaging in argumentation. In total, five categories of epistemic ideals and five categories of reliable processes were identified. Students demonstrated more instances of normative epistemic ideals and argumentative responses in the discussions after they received a revised scientific model for discussion and explicit instruction on argumentation. Concomitantly, there were fewer instances of students making decisions based on process of elimination to determine a correct scientific claim. With respect to the relationship of epistemic cognition to authentic questioning and argumentation, the use of epistemic ideals seemed to be associated with the initiation of authentic questions and students’ argumentation appeared to involve the use of epistemic ideals.

Embracing a culture of talk: STEM teachers’ engagement in small-group discussions about photovoltaics

“…Specifically, the nature of this uncoded talk could be interpreted through a variety of lenses relevant to integrated STEM learning contexts, for example, Allen and Penuel's (2015) (Lo, 2021;Luft et al, 2020;Mohamad Hassim et al, 2022) as well as their ability to implement integrative STEM instruction (Brand, 2020;Jong et al, 2021). Taken together, this initial implementation of QT in the context of the PV RET with in-service teachers appeared to elicit the kind of talk consistent with the QT framework (Lobczowski et al, 2020;Murphy et al, 2016;Wei et al, 2021) and other similar implementations of QT (e.g., Lloyd & Murphy, 2023;Starrett et al, 2022). Moreover, teachers' PV knowledge increased and teachers reported greater perceived discussion facilitation capability (RQ2).…”

Interdisciplinary dialogic argumentation among out‐of‐field and in‐field physics teachers

“…This finding invites a following question: can participation in one or a series of interdisciplinary dialogic argumentation activities contribute to an individual's epistemic development? This is a new research direction (Wei et al, 2021) that we are currently pursuing.…”

Uso de tipos de justificaciones en función del contexto cotidiano, científico y pseudocientífico

“…Y todos ellos concluyen que para poder tener una opinión fundamentada sobre temas científicos no solo es necesario tener conocimientos de los hechos, conceptos y teorías explicativas de la ciencia sino también sobre cómo se producen, se justifican y se usan estas ideas (Zetterqvist y Bach, 2023;Kind y Osborne, 2017). Además, ser conscientes de la necesidad de cuestionarse el cómo conocemos, de que no nos creemos todo lo que nos enseñan y que en este proceso somos sensibles a distintos factores (Wei et al, 2021).…”