LEARN ABOUT TESSA

What is TESSA?

The Teaching Elementary School Science as Argument (TESSA) project is a National Science Foundation CAREER grant awarded to Carla Zembal-Saul for the period of 2003-2008. The project has two main purposes: (1) To develop electronic resources (e.g., video cases, electronic journals) to support preservice elementary teachers in learning to teach science as argument, and (2) To study the development of preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge and practices for teaching school science as argument.

Why place emphasis on argumentation?

The importance of inquiry in school science has an established history (Bybee & DeBoer, 1993; DeBoer, 1991; Trowbridge & Bybee, 1990) dating back to Dewey (1910) and Schwab (1962, 1978). Contemporary reform efforts in science education once again call for science teaching that supports all students’ meaningful learning (e.g., Mintzes, Wandersee & Novak, 1998) and scientific inquiry (AAAS, 1990; NRC, 1996, 2000). In the United States, the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) recognize the centrality of inquiry in science learning, emphasizing that students should “actively develop their understanding of science by combining scientific knowledge with reasoning and thinking skills” (p. 2). The renewed emphasis on scientific inquiry reflects a distinct shift from science as exploration and experiment to science as argument and explanation (NRC, 2000, p. 113). From this perspective, priority is given to evidence and the development and evaluation of scientific explanations; hence the reference to explanation-driven inquiry (Sandoval & Reiser, 2004). During all phases of the inquiry process, “Students and teachers ought to ask what counts?  What data do we keep? What data do we discard? What patterns exist in the data? Are these patterns appropriate for this inquiry? What explanations account for the patterns? Is one explanation better than another?” (NRC, 2000, p. 18).

Recently, various authors have called attention to the significance of argumentation to science education.  For example, Jimenez and colleagues (2000) explained, “Argumentation is particularly relevant in science education since a goal of scientific inquiry is the generation and justification of knowledge claims, beliefs and actions taken to understand nature” (p. 758). Other authors highlight the importance of argumentation for a variety of reasons. First, learners can experience scientists’ practices that situate knowledge in its original context (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989), as well as provide opportunities to learn about science, not merely science concepts (Driver, et al., 2000; Osborne, Erduran, Simon & Monk, 2001). Second, learners’ understandings and thinking can become more visible (Bell & Linn, 2000), representing a tool for assessment and self-assessment (Abell, Anderson & Chemez, 2000; Sandoval &  Reiser, 1997; Land & Zembal-Saul, 2003). Finally, argumentation can support learners in developing different ways of thinking (Kuhn, 1991, 1992, 1993) and facilitate science learning, taking into consideration the role of language, culture and social interaction in the process of knowledge construction (Pontecorvo, 1987).

How does the TESSA project define argumentation?

The conceptual framework that informs this project brings together the essential elements of scientific inquiry (NRC, 2000), in particular giving priority to evidence and explanation, with perspectives on argumentation put forth by Kuhn (1993a, 1993b) and Driver, Newton and Osborne (2000). The intention of the framework is to move beyond mere abilities to engage in science as inquiry (NRC, 1996) to an explicit focus on argumentation. Put another way, explanation-driven inquiry remains at the core of the framework (see Figure 1). Students still engage in investigating phenomena, collecting and making sense of data, and transforming data through analysis for use in the construction of evidence-based explanations. However, an argumentation focus provides for the following components to be brought to the foreground: authentic discourse, explanation structure, and scientific reasoning. 

A fundamental feature of argumentation portrayed in this framework is “authentic discourse.” As part of engaging in science as inquiry, learners articulate their explanations, share them publicly with their peers, justify them in light of the evidence, and defend them against scrutiny. Another

affordance of an argumentation perspective is the ability to highlight important epistemic features of explanations, for example, the relationship between evidence and explanation. More specifically,  one way to structure scientific explanations is around claims supported by evidence, the relationship between which is justified – an approach modified from, but consistent with, Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (Toulmin, 1958). In the analysis framework, this is referred to as “explanation structure.” This structure has been purported to assist students in making the connection between evidence and explanation/claims when engaged in long-term scientific investigations (Land & Zembal-Saul, 2003; Zembal-Saul, Munford, Crawford, Friedrichsen & Land, 2002). Finally, the framework includes an often bypassed aspect of inquiry in elementary school science – “scientific reasoning.” Reasoning takes place throughout the process of scientific investigation, both individually and within the social context, and involves the critical consideration of issues associated with what counts as evidence, the quality of evidence and how it was collected, whether alternative explanations for patterns observed in the data exist, etc. 

Figure1: Conceptual framework for argumentation as authentic discourse, explanation structure, and scientific reasoning

 

When considering the framework for argumentation, it also is important to note that this project assumes that the purpose of argumentation in school science is different than in everyday life. More specifically, argumentation in school science is not merely intended to persuade others to join one’s position, but to learn about the basic concepts associated with the phenomena under investigation. In addition, the process of constructing the argument is one of reasoning (Kuhn, 1991, 1993) in context. The process requires students to negotiate their developing understandings by constructing and re-constructing their arguments in light of new evidence and learning. Given that the fundamental outcome of engaging in argumentation is for students to learn science concepts and learn about scientific inquiry, the process itself is equally, if not more important, than the final product or argument.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF REC 0237922). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.