ARTICLE pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Argument-Driven Inquiry: An Introduction to a New Instructional Model for Use in Undergraduate Chemistry Labs Joi Phelps Walker,*,† Victor Sampson,‡ and Carol O. Zimmerman† † ‡
Science and Math Division, Tallahassee Community College, Tallahassee, Florida 32304, United States School of Teacher Education, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32314, United States
bS Supporting Information ABSTRACT: This article presents a new instructional model called Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) that can be used in undergraduate college chemistry laboratory courses. ADI is designed to provide students with an opportunity to develop their own method to generate data, to carry out investigations, use data to answer research questions, write, and be more reflective as they work. In addition, the ADI instructional model integrates opportunities for students to engage in scientific argumentation and peer review. This article describes the ADI instructional model, provides the empirical and theoretical foundation for it, and presents a detailed semester pacing schedule for general chemistry I laboratories, peer-review guides, and instructor scoring rubrics. KEYWORDS: Upper-Division Undergraduate, Curriculum, Laboratory Instruction, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Communication/Writing, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Student-Centered Learning
I
adjuncts can use to help students learn important content, practices, and habits of mind during a laboratory course.12 15 In this article, we will first provide an overview of the ADI instructional model and share the theoretical and empirical basis for it. We will then describe how we have used this instructional model to redesign the first course in the general chemistry laboratory sequence offered at Tallahassee Community College. We will then conclude this article with a discussion that focuses on the implications of our work for the teaching and learning of chemistry at the undergraduate level in general.
n 1983, the U.S. Department of Education’s National Commission on Excellence in Education published the report, A Nation At Risk, which expressed alarm on the “rising tide of mediocrity [in education] that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people”.1 Over two decades later, the situation has not improved and by some measures has become worse. While K 12 educators are being held accountable for this trend, these teachers are products of a postsecondary system that acts as a filter to produce a few highly qualified graduates, but loses the majority of science students in the introductory courses, many of whom could become excellent science teachers. Many undergraduate students find introductory courses dull and unwelcoming so they drop out or change majors.2 Between presentationbased instruction in the lecture section of a course and the verification-style activates in the lab, students that do persevere in a science major enter the workforce without understanding what it means to “do” science and are thus ill prepared to solve real science problems,2 to make informed decisions about science related issues, or to teach science in meaningful way.3 5 There is a need for programs that enrich understanding and appreciation of scientific knowledge and methods5 so that colleges and universities can accomplish the goals of preparing students for a future career in science, developing scientific literacy for nonmajors, and preparing the next generation of science teachers. To address this need both the American Association for the Advancement of Science6,7 and the National Research Council5,8 11 have called for instructors to use more inquiry-oriented activities. An obvious venue for bringing inquiry into college chemistry is the laboratory. We therefore developed a new instructional model called Argument-Driven Inquiry or ADI that faculty and Copyright r 2011 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
’ THE ARGUMENT-DRIVEN INQUIRY INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL Rationale
The ADI instructional model is based on social constructivist theories of learning.16 18 This perspective indicates that learning is influenced by several factors. First, what students attend to and what information they retain depends on existing knowledge and beliefs.18 Teachers therefore need to give students an opportunity to make sense of new information in light of their existing ideas. Second, knowing and doing are not separate; knowledge is not an abstraction that can be transferred readily from how it is learned in the classroom to how it needs to be used outside of school.18 How students are asked to demonstrate their knowledge or understanding also affects what they learn.16 Classroom activities and assessments, therefore, need to be designed so they Published: June 21, 2011 1048
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100622h | J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1048–1056
Journal of Chemical Education
ARTICLE
Figure 1. The seven steps of the ADI instructional model.
mirror real-world situations and afford students opportunities to share, support, and revise their ideas. Third, context and culture affect learning.18 What students learn is influenced by social interactions; students often learn best by talking and collaborating with others in addition to more experienced adults. Through these types of interactions, learners can encounter and explore ideas in a subject, learn new uses for these ideas, and understand the ways that ideas are validated; that is, students learn what constitutes legitimate and warranted knowledge in a field.17 This type of information is important for students to learn because the disciplines that underlie undergraduate level courses, such as biology or chemistry, have established bodies of knowledge, a unique language, and rules for gathering evidence and evaluating results.17 As students engage in conversations with others, they can draw on their own expertise; explain, extend, and reflect on their own ideas; and gain exposure to the ways of thought that are valued by disciplinary experts.17,18 This perspective on learning has important implications for the nature of instruction that should take place within an undergraduate level laboratory course. These ideas suggest that changes need to be made to the roles student must assume, the nature of the content presented, the tasks students complete, the assessments used to measure achievement, and the social organization of a classroom. Such changes, however, entail numerous potential barriers. One such barrier is a shortage of instructional models or approaches that faculty can use to help guide instructional decisions. It should therefore not be surprising that a number of new instructional methods, such as the Science Writing Heuristic,19 23 Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL),24 and various Guided-Inquiry Learning techniques,25 29 have been developed to help alleviate this potential barrier to reform. These approaches, in general, are designed to provide students in undergraduate chemistry with more opportunities to develop conclusions that describe or explain natural phenomena and to make them public by sharing them in small groups or in whole-class discussions. These instructional models are also designed to create a classroom community that will help students understand complex content, learn how to generate scientific evidence, and reflect on the nature of scientific knowledge. The ADI instructional model is similar to these approaches because it is designed to provide students with an opportunity to develop their own methods to generate data, to carry out investigations, use data to answer research questions, write, and be more reflective as they work. ADI, however, also integrates opportunities for students to engage in scientific argumentation and peer review. It is through the combination of all these activities, we argue, that students can begin to develop the reasoning
skills or habits of mind and an understanding of scientific content and practices needed to be successful in advanced science courses or to make informed decisions about science issues that influence their lives. Steps of the ADI Model
The ADI instructional model consists of seven components or steps (Figure 1). The nature of this instructional model is best described as a “guided inquiry” because the students must decide how to gather, analyze, and make sense of data in order to develop an argument that provides and justifies an answer to a research question proposed by the instructor.30 We define the boundaries of the seven steps of the model by scope and purpose. Each step of the model, however, is equally as important as the next in successfully achieving the intended goals and outcomes of the process. All seven stages are therefore designed to be interrelated and to work in concert with the others. We describe below each of these steps and the reasons these steps are included in this instructional model. The first step of the ADI instructional model is the identification of the task by the instructor. In this step of the model, the goal of the teacher is to introduce the major topic to be studied and to initiate the investigation. Similar to other instructional models, such as the Science Writing Heuristic19 or the 5E Learning Cycle,31 this step is designed to capture students’ attention and interest. Teachers also need to make connections between past and present learning experiences (i.e., what students already know and what they need to find out) and to make the goal of the upcoming activities explicit. To facilitate this goal, we provide students with a handout that includes a brief introduction to a problem to solve or task to complete and a researchable question to answer. The handout also includes a list of materials that can be used during the investigation and some hints or suggestions to help the students get started on the inquiry. (See the online Supporting Information, Part A, for an example of a handout from an ADI lab activity.) The second step of the ADI instructional model focuses on the generation and analysis of data. In this step of the model, students work in a collaborative group (3 or 4 students) in order to develop and implement their own method (e.g., an experiment, a systematic observation, etc.) to answer the research question provided by the instructor during step 1. The intent of this step is to provide students with an opportunity to learn how to design and carry out informative investigations, analyze data, and learn how to deal with the ambiguities of empirical work. The third step in the ADI instructional model is called the production of a tentative argument. This component of the 1049
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100622h |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1048–1056
Journal of Chemical Education
ARTICLE
Figure 2. A framework that can be used to illustrate the components of a scientific argument and some criteria that can and should be used to evaluate the merits of a scientific argument.
instructional model calls for students to construct an argument that consists of a claim, evidence, and a rationale on a medium (such as a large whiteboard) that can be shared with others. In our research, we define claims as a conclusion, conjecture, explanation, descriptive statement, or an answer to the research question. The evidence component of an argument refers to measurements or observations gathered by the students that are used to support the validity or the acceptability of their claim. This evidence can take a number of forms ranging from traditional numerical data (e.g., pH, mass, temperature) to observations (e.g., color, descriptions of an event or product). However, in order for this information to be considered evidence, it needs to either be used to show: (i) a trend over time; (ii) a difference between groups or objects; or (iii) a relationship between variables. The rationale component of an argument consists of one or more statements that explain why the evidence supports the claim and why the evidence provided should count as evidence. Figure 2 provides a diagram that illustrates how we conceptualize the various components of a scientific argument. This step of the model is designed to emphasize the importance of argument (i.e., an attempt to establish or validate a claim on the basis of reasons) in science. In other words, students need to understand that scientists must be able to support an explanation, conclusion, or an answer to a research question with appropriate evidence and an adequate rationale because scientific knowledge is not dogmatic. It is also included to help students develop a basic understanding of what counts as a highquality argument in science and how to determine whether available evidence is valid, relevant, sufficient, and convincing enough to support a claim. More importantly, this step is designed to make students’ reasoning, claims, and evidence visible to each other, which, in turn, enables students to evaluate
Figure 3. An example of whiteboard with notes used in an argumentation session.
competing ideas and eliminate conjectures or conclusions that are inaccurate or do not fit with the available data in the next stage of the instructional model. The fourth step in the instructional is an argumentation session. This step of the model provides a venue for the groups to share their arguments with each other (Figure 3). It also gives students a chance to evaluate alternative claims in order to determine which is the most valid or acceptable or to refine an argument. In other words, argumentation sessions are designed to give students an opportunity to learn how to share and critique the products (i.e., conclusions, explanations, or arguments), 1050
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100622h |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1048–1056
Journal of Chemical Education processes (i.e., methods), and context (i.e., theoretical or empirical foundations) of an inquiry. This step is included in the model because research indicates that students learn more when they are exposed to the ideas of others, respond to the questions and challenges of their classmates, articulate more substantial warrants for their views, and evaluate the merits of competing ideas.32,33 It also provides teachers with an opportunity to assess student progress or thinking and to encourage students to think about issues that may have been overlooked or ignored. The argumentation sessions are intended to promote and support learning by taking advantage of the variation in student ideas that are found within a classroom. It also gives students a chance to negotiate meaning34 and to adopt new standards for evaluating scientific knowledge claims. This is important because current research indicates that students often have a wide range of alternative conceptions about a given phenomenon and most students do not use criteria valued in science to evaluate the merits of these various ideas.35 Research conducted by Sampson and Clark36 and Kuhn and Reiser,37 for example, suggests that students often rely on criteria such as plausibility, fit with prior experiences, or the teacher’s authority when they attempt to evaluate the merits of an idea. We include the argumentation sessions in this model as a way to help students learn to privilege criteria valued in science, such as fit with data or consistency with scientific concepts, to distinguish between alternative claims. It also gives students an opportunity to refine and improve on their initial ideas or methods because students are given an opportunity to revise their claims and, if needed, recollect data based on what they learned from their peers at the conclusion of this stage of the model. The fifth stage of ADI is the creation of a written investigation report by individual students. This instructional model requires students to write because writing is an important aspect of scientific inquiry. Scientists, for example, share the results of their research by publishing articles in journals.38 Scientists must also be able to read and understand the writing of others as well as evaluate its worth. For students to be able to do this, they need to learn how to write in a manner that reflects the standards and norms of the scientific community.39 In addition to learning how to write in science, which is an important aspect of science literacy, requiring students to write can also help students make sense of the content under investigation because the writing process encourages metacognition.40 As a result, an opportunity to write can actually help students learn and retain content.41 To encourage students to learn how to write in science and to write to learn about science, we use a nontraditional laboratory report format that is designed to highlight the nonnarrative (i.e., organized by headings) and multimodal (i.e., equations, tables, and figures that are found in articles and chapters) nature of scientific texts.42 This format is also intended to encourage students to think about what they know, how they know it, and why they believe it over alternatives. To do this, we require students to produce a report that answers three basic questions: What were you trying to do and why? What did you do and why? What is your argument? The responses to these questions are written as a two-page “investigation report” that includes the data the students gathered and analyzed during the second step of the model as support. Students are encouraged to organize this information into tables or graphs that they can embed into the text. These three questions target the same information that is included in more traditional laboratory reports but the questions are intended to elicit student awareness of the audience and to
ARTICLE
help them understand the importance of argument in scientific texts. The sixth stage of ADI is a double-blind peer-review of these reports to ensure quality. Once students complete their investigation reports, they submit four typed copies identified only by a code number assigned by the classroom teacher. The teacher then randomly distributes three or four sets of reports (i.e., the reports written by three or four different students) to each lab group along with a peer-review handout for each set of reports. The peer-review handout (see the online Supporting Information, Part C) includes specific criteria to be used to evaluate the quality of an investigation report and space to provide feedback to the author. The review criteria include questions such as: • Did the author make the research question and/or goals of the investigation explicit? • Did the author describe how they went about his or her work? • Did the author use genuine evidence to support their explanation? • Is the author’s reasoning sufficient and appropriate? The lab groups review each report as a team and then decide whether it can be accepted as is or if it needs to be revised based on the criteria included on the peer-review sheet. Groups are also required to provide explicit feedback to the author about what needs to be done in order to improve the quality of the report and the writing as part of the review. This step of the instructional model is designed to provide students with educative feedback, encourage students to develop and use appropriate standards for “what counts” as quality. In analysis and evaluation, students must consider “what they know” and “how they know it”. It is also designed to create a community of learners that values evidence and critical thinking inside the classroom. This is accomplished by creating a learning environment in which students are expected to hold each other accountable for the quality of the investigations and reports. Students, as a result, expect to discuss the validity or the acceptability of the claims as part of each investigation and begin to adopt more and more rigorous criteria for evaluating or critiquing them. This type of focus also gives students a chance to see both strong and weak examples of reports written about the same topic and based on the same requirements. Overall, the intent of this step of the model is to help students improve their ability to write in science and their understanding of what counts as valid or acceptable. The seventh, and final, stage of the ADI instructional model is the revision of the report based on the results of the peer review. The reports that are accepted by the reviewers may be turned in to the instructor immediately; however, students typically prefer to revise their reports in light of what they read and the comments they received from their peers before submitting a final report. Authors whose papers were not accepted by their peers are required to rewrite their reports based on the reviewers’ feedback. Once completed, the revised reports (along with the original version of the report and the peer-review sheet) are then resubmitted to the instructor for grading. The reports are graded using a four-category, 36-point grading rubric (see the online Supporting Information, Part D). This approach is intended to provide a mechanism for students to improve their writing, reasoning, and their understanding of the science content. It also provides students with an opportunity to engage in the writing process (i.e., the construction, evaluation, revision, and eventual publication of a manuscript) in the context of science. 1051
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100622h |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1048–1056
Journal of Chemical Education The ADI instructional model, in summary, is designed to function as a short integrated instructional unit11 and to encourage students to engage in a sequence of activities (which include argumentation, writing, and peer review) that are intended to help students understand important concepts and practices in science. For example, engaging in argumentation requires individuals to make sense of data, generate and articulate explanations for natural phenomena, justify explanations with appropriate evidence and reasoning, and critique the validity of alternative viewpoints.43 47 Writing requires students to be able to articulate their thinking in a clear and concise manner, encourages metacognition, and makes students’ thinking and reasoning visible to others.40 Peer review provides students with educative feedback,48 encourages students to develop and use appropriate standards for “what counts” as quality,49 and can help students be more metacognitive as they work.33,50 Numerous studies indicate that such activities can help students learn content,17,51,52 develop complex reasoning and critical thinking skills,45,46,53,54 and improve communication skills.19,55
ARTICLE
investigation that is conducted by the entire class with each group investigating different sets of salts. There is no laboratory report for this investigation; instead students submit calculations and an argument for the selected commercial product. Only the first four steps of the ADI instructional model are used in this investigation. The final laboratory uses a molecular model kit for investigating shapes of molecules in a fairly structured format relative to the ADI investigations. The final ADI investigation is treated like a final examination. This investigation requires students to consider many of the topics studied over the semester, such as molecular formulas, limiting reagents, and solutions. Notice that there is no peer review for the final laboratory experience; this is to demonstrate the ability of the students to write a laboratory report entirely on their own. However, students often requested peer-review sheets and planned peer-review sessions outside of the laboratory. We do not discourage this practice because it indicates that students have incorporated the peer-review process into their academic routine. The Role of the Instructor
’ WHAT DOES ADI LOOK LIKE IN A COLLEGE LABORATORY? The general chemistry I labs at the college where we chose to implement ADI are 2-h sessions, which rarely allowed time with the traditional labs for discussion of the experience or of the results. The ADI model allows us to maintain a theme over several weeks, first as prelaboratory exercises, then the actual investigation, then in peer review and finally in production of a final investigation report. The prelaboratory exercises take two forms: (i) online problems completed individually that target important concepts that students will need to use during the laboratory; and (ii) short, in-class exercises that introduce techniques and provide “practice” with the techniques prior to the actual inquiry experience. The value of this is twofold. First, the chemistry laboratory is a new experience for the majority of students so some orientation is necessary to equipment, glassware, and techniques to facilitate successful design of the upcoming investigation. Second, the laboratory experience is introduced so that the following week the laboratory time can be fully devoted to the data generation and argumentation sessions. The prelaboratory training sessions are designed for use in the second hour of the laboratory following the peer-review sessions and take 45 min to an hour. This system results in fewer investigations; however, deeply engaging in each topic through argumentation, peer review, and revision of lab reports is considered a reasonable exchange for quantity of investigations. The same techniques and concepts are covered in the lab investigations completed in the ADI course. Table 1 includes the topic, guiding question, and an overview of each laboratory session. The sequence of ADI investigations progresses from simple manipulation of glassware and objects (density) to more advanced chemistry investigations (chemical reactions). The specific order of the ADI investigations is synchronized with the order of concept presentation in the lecture course. The first lab investigation, Best Practices for Laboratory Measurement, is not a true ADI lab, but is used as an orientation to the laboratory and to the ADI instructional model. The next five investigations—Physical Properties; Hydrate; Dye Solutions; Limiting Reactant; and Chemical Reactions—are ADI laboratories that use all seven steps of the instructional model. The Heats of Solution laboratory is an abbreviated ADI
Instruction in the ADI laboratory is different from traditional instruction. The instructor is more of a facilitator and actually should refrain from giving explicit directions. For example, laboratory does not begin with a pre-lab lecture on “how to do the experiment”. Instead the instructor leads a brief discussion of the topic being investigated and then poses the guiding question to the class. For example, in the hydrate lab (see Table 1 and the online Supporting Information, Part A) the instructor may write a general equation for dehydration of a hydrate on the board then answer questions regarding the nature of hydrates. The level of inquiry does vary with the investigation. For example, for the hydrate lab, we found students needed more guidance in order to complete the lab in the time allotted. The students understand that they must heat the hydrate to remove water, weighing the sample before and after heating in order to determine the percentage of water in the sample and thus identify the sample. This process was established in the hydrate laboratory design prelaboratory (see the online Supporting Information, Part B). What is not provided is the amount of sample to use, the time required to heat, how many times to heat the sample, or what to do when the water condenses in the top of the test tube. All of these items are decided through discussion within the group. Despite the guidance provided, we have found that the students conduct their experiments quite differently such that groups with the same unknown hydrate will often engage in significant argument regarding their claim differences. Table 2 includes an overview of teacher practices at each stage of ADI that are consistent and inconsistent with this instructional approach. Perhaps the most difficult task an instructor has is to not answer questions directly, but to allow the social construction of knowledge and understanding to take place and to encourage students to think about issues they might not have considered or overlooked. This is a challenge for instructors who were taught chemistry under a teacher-centered model and have assumed the role of provider of knowledge for themselves. For example, when students ask how much hydrate to use, the instructor should respond with, “What are you considering?” rather than a specific value. If the group suggests a large number, this would lead to a different question, as would a small number. One unforeseen advantage of this method is that students come to understand that what is important is to know what amount “they” decide to 1052
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100622h |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1048–1056
Journal of Chemical Education
ARTICLE
Table 1. Topic, Guiding Question, and Activities Associated with Each Lab Session Week
Topic
Guiding Question
Activities • Lab Introduction and Lab Safety;
1
• Prelab: Best Practices for Laboratory Measurement 2
• ADI Investigation #1 (Density): Identification
Physical
Are the samples
Properties
provided made of the
of task, generation of data, production of tentative
same material?
argument, and argumentation session (steps 1 4) • ADI Investigation #1 (Density): Peer Review (step 5)
3
• Prelab: Hydrates and using Bunsen burners 4
Molecular
What is the identity of
Formulas
this hydrate?
• Students turn in report #1; • ADI Investigation #2 (Hydrates): Identification of task, generation of data, production of tentative argument, and argumentation session (steps 1 4) • ADI Investigation #2 (Hydrate): Peer Review (step 5);
5
• Prelab: UV vis Spectrometer and Serial Dilutions • Students turn in report #2;
6
• Prelab: Beer’s Law and Paper Chromatography 7
Solutions
How could you prepare
• ADI Investigation #3 (Unknown Dye): Identification of task,
more of this dye?
generation of data, production of tentative argument, and argumentation session (steps 1 4) • ADI Investigation #3 (Unknown Dye): Peer Review (step 5);
8
• Prelab: Measuring and capturing gas, limiting reagents 9
Limiting Reagents
• Students turn in report #3;
What is the optimum mole ratio in a reaction?
• ADI Investigation #4 (Limiting Reagents): Identification of task, generation of data, production of tentative argument, and argumentation session (steps 1 4) • ADI Investigation #4 (Limiting Reagent):
10
• Peer Review (step 5); Prelab: Types of chemical reactions 11
Chemical
Which process is better
• ADI Investigation #6 (Chemical Reactions): Identification of
Reactions
for copper recovery?
task, generation of data, production of tentative argument, and argumentation session (steps 1 4) • Students turn in report #5;
12
• Prelab: Endothermic and Exothermic Salts 13
Thermo-
How do cations and
• ADI Investigation #5 (Heats of Solution): Identification of
chemistry
anions affect heats of
task, generation of data, production of tentative argument,
solution? 14
and argumentation session (steps 1 4) • Students turn in report #6;
Molecular
• VSEPR
Shapes
use and understand why they decided to use that amount rather than fretting over having a mass a little different than prescribed (as is often the case when following a predetermined procedure). Early in the process, the instructor must work the room, encouraging and providing guidance as needed. Once students get started, they tend to move at a good pace and require little
input until they begin actually looking at their data. At this stage, the instructor may need to provide some guidance when groups are making simple mistakes in calculations, ignoring data, or basing their claims on inaccurate measurements. Students tend to conduct an experiment once or twice and accept their results, often ignoring significant discrepancies. At this point, instructors 1053
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100622h |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1048–1056
Journal of Chemical Education
ARTICLE
Table 2. Instructor Practices Consistent and Inconsistent with ADI What the Instructor Does That Is: Model Step Identification of the task
Consistent with the ADI Model • Introduce the guiding question for the experiment. • Answer questions related to the goals of the
Inconsistent with the ADI Model • Lecture presentation on how to conduct the experiment.
investigation. • Spark students’ curiosity. Generation and analysis of data
• Helps students develop better investigations through reflective questioning.
• Provide specific process information, such as how much material to use.
• Ask students questions about what they are doing and
• Correct students when they do something wrong.
why they are doing it. • Keep students on task and safe. Production of the tentative argument
• Suggest that data may be incomplete, inconsistent, or unreliable.
• Critique student data and make recommendations for improvement.
• Offer suggestions about how students can analyze their data.
• Tell students the right answer. • Critique the students’ arguments.
• Encourage students to include a claim, evidence, and a rationale in their arguments. • Encourage all students to contribute to the development of the argument. • Keep students on task (set a time frame). Argumentation session
• Provide ample time for student discussions and
• Lead or take over the discussion. • Tell the students the right answer.
encourage all students to get involved in the discussions. • Listen to group discussions, but participate minimally.
• Allow the students to make disrespectful comments to each other or make personal attacks.
• Encourage students to critique the arguments developed by each group. • Give students a chance to revise their own arguments and recollect data. Creation of the investigation report
• Emphasize that while this is a draft written for peer review, in order
• Grade the student’s first attempt at presenting their evidence and rationale.
to fully benefit from the peer review, students should take the draft seriously. • Provide hints and suggestions for getting started
• Allow students to bring only one copy of a report to class or allow them to skip the peer-review process.
(or remind students about common mistakes they made on the last report). Double-blind peer-review
• Distribute the reports to groups for review to make sure the reports are reviewed as a team.
• Allow a student to review a report on his or her own (rather than as a team).
• Monitor the time and redistribute reports as needed. • Encourage students to use the peer-review guides and to provide each other with genuine feedback.
• Allow students to critique people rather than the product. • Collect the reports without giving the students a chance to revise.
Revision of the report
• Encourage all students to revise their reports in light of what they read and the feedback they received from their peers.
• Grade the report without the rubric. • Do not give the students feedback.
• Use the rubric to score student lab reports. • Give the students genuine feedback.
might suggest repeating the experiment; groups often resist this idea, however, so the instructor should just step back and let the argumentation session resolve the issue. As the students begin to
put together their notes (usually on a whiteboard) for the argumentation session, an instructor will often see misinformation or mistakes. Again, it is important not to intervene; the 1054
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100622h |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1048–1056
Journal of Chemical Education group discussion will reveal these issues and provide an opportunity for students to discover what they did wrong and learn from each other. The comparison of results and claims between groups results in a rich discussion with opportunities for an instructor to casually suggest alternative interpretations or possible sources of error. Students should also be given an opportunity to collect data for a second time if they uncover flaws in their original method. The peer review of the laboratory reports requires little direct instructor involvement other than to move the groups along and watch the time. Students can spend a great deal of time on each laboratory report they review, particularly in the beginning of the semester. This, however, is desirable; it means students are discussing “what counts” as quality and making judgments based on the criteria included on the peer-review guides. For example, when students evaluate a report in terms of criteria such as sufficiency or adequacy of the evidence included in the report, they must develop shared standards about how much evidence and what kind of evidence is needed to support a claim; these discussion are rich and can lead to a better understanding of the methods of science. Yet, it is important for the instructor to monitor each group’s progress and sometimes redistribute laboratory reports to groups that have completed their reviews. The peer-reviewed laboratory reports are returned for revision and the following week the instructor receives the final report. Many college instructors are not familiar with using a rubric for scoring laboratory reports, so some instruction and calibration is required early in the semester. In addition to the positive impact for students, the instructors who were involved in teaching the new ADI laboratory activities at Tallahassee Community College have been enthusiastic supporters of the program and helped develop the final course schedule presented in Table 1. In addition, this system resulted in a significant decrease in the grading associated with the course. Previously, instructors received a written prelab assignment and a written postlab assignment, which in a 24-student lab resulted in 48 items that required grading each week. The instructors were particularly pleased with this aspect of the model.
’ IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TEACHING AND LEARNING OF CHEMISTRY AT THE UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL As we seek to increase the number of people that are scientifically literate in the United States, we should consider the various changes that must be made to the nature of science education at the undergraduate level in order to reach this goal. One change that is needed is to improve the nature of laboratory courses. These courses need to be rigorous and more authentic so they can be used to prepare the next generation of scientists; they also need to be educative so the next generation of science teachers along with nonmajors develop an adequate understanding of science content and methods. This focus is important because science educators in the K 12 classroom affect a greater proportion of individuals than the university system, but these educators are themselves affected by the postsecondary system that establishes their values and beliefs about science education. To increase the amount of inquiry that takes place in K 12 classrooms, more people (including future teachers and nonscience majors) need to have more experience with this type of science instruction as learners. At the same time, students who intend to pursue a career in science need experiences that prepare
ARTICLE
them to actually “do” science. As postsecondary education moves toward more student-centered instruction, it is important that educators have a variety of teaching methodologies available to adapt and incorporate into their institutional curricula. Argument-driven inquiry, we argue, can help address this need. Research demonstrating the efficacy of the ADI instructional model has been conducted in a variety of areas, including student conceptual understanding, attitude toward chemistry, and ability to craft an argument. Results from these studies are currently under review or in preparation.56
’ ASSOCIATED CONTENT
bS
Supporting Information An example of an ADI lab activity handout; investigation design worksheet; peer-review guide; rubric used to score investigation reports. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
’ AUTHOR INFORMATION Corresponding Author
*E-mail: walkerj@tcc.fl.edu.
’ REFERENCES (1) National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk; Congressional Research Services: Washington, DC, 1983. (2) National Science Foundation (NSF), In National Working Conference, NSF: Washington, D.C., 1996. (3) Druger, M. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1997, 26, 424–427. (4) Wilson, S. M.; Floden, R. E.; Ferrini-Mundy, J. Teacher Preparation Research: Current Knowledge, Gaps, and Recommendations, Research report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education by the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy in collaboration with Michigan State University, 2001. (5) National Research Council. Transforming undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology; National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 1999. (6) American Association for the Advancement of Science Project 2061. Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, And Technology; American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington D.C., 1989. (7) American Association for the Advancement of Science. Benchmarks for Science Literacy; Oxford University Press: New York, 1993. (8) National Research Council; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996. (9) National Research Council. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School; National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 1999. (10) National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, D. C., 2000. (11) National Research Council. America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science; National Academy Press: Washington D.C., 2006. (12) Sampson, V.; Grooms, J. In Annual International Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST); National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST): Baltimore, MD, 2008. (13) Sampson, V.; Grooms, J.; Walker, J. Sci. Educ. 2011, 95 (2), 217–257. (14) Sampson, V.; Gleim, L. Am. Biol. Teach. 2009, 71, 465–472. (15) Sampson, V.; Walker, J.; Grooms, J. Sci. Teach. 2011, 96 (8), 42–47. (16) Anderson, C. In Handbook of Research in Science Education; Abell, S. K., Lederman, N., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, N.J., 2007; pp 3 30. 1055
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100622h |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1048–1056
Journal of Chemical Education (17) Driver, R.; Asoko, H.; Leach, J.; Mortimer, E.; Scott, P. Educational Researcher 1994, 23, 5–12. (18) Scott, P. H.; Asoko, H.; Leach, J. In Handbook of Research in Science Education; Abell, S. K., Lederman, N., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, N.J., 2007; pp 31 56. (19) Wallace, C.; Hand, B.; Yang, E.-M. In Crossing Borders in Literacy and Science Instruction; Saul, W., Ed.; NSTA Press: Arlington, VA, 2005. (20) Burke, K.; Hand, B.; Poock, J.; Greenbowe, T. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2005, 31–46. (21) Burke, K.; Greenbowe, T.; Hand, B. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1032. (22) Poock, J.; Burke, K.; Greenbowe, T.; Hand, B. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 1371–1378. (23) Rudd, J.; Greenbowe, T.; Hand, B.; Legg, M. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 2007–2011. (24) Grosser, D.; Roth, K. J. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 185–187. (25) Farrell, J.; Moog, R.; Spencer, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 570–574. (26) Lewis, S.; Lewis, J. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 135. (27) Lewis, S.; Lewis, J. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2008, 45, 794–811. (28) Cooper, M.; Kerns, T. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1356–1361. (29) Cooper, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 307–311. (30) Bell, R. L.; Smetana, L.; Binns, I. Sci. Teach. 2005, 72, 30–33. (31) Bybee, R. W.; Taylor, J.; Gardner, A.; Scotter, P.; Powell, J.; Westbrook, A.; Landes, N.; The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and application. National Institutes of Health, Office of Science Education: Colorado Springs, CO, 2006. (32) Linn, M. C.; Eylon, B.-S. In Handbook of Educational Psychology; Alexander, P., Winne, P. H., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, 2006; pp 511 544. (33) National Research Council. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K 8; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2007. (34) Hand, B.; Norton-Meier, L.; Staker, J.; Bintz, J. Negotiating Science: The Critical Role of Argument in Student Inquiry; Heinemann: Portsmouth, NH, 2009. (35) Linn, M. C.; Eylon, B.; Davis, E. A. In Internet Environments for Science Education; Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., Bell, P., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.: Mahwah, NJ, 2004; pp 29 46. (36) Sampson, V.; Clark, D. Res. Sci. Educ. 2011, 41 (1), 63–97. (37) Kuhn, L.; Reiser, B. In Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Dallas, TX, 2005. (38) Crossing Borders in Literacy and Science Instruction: Perspectives on Theory and Practice; Saul, E. W., Ed.; NSTA Press: Arlington, VA, 2004. (39) Shanahan, C. In Crossing Borders in Literacy and Science Instruction: Perspectives on Theory and Practice; Saul, W., Ed.; NSTA Press: Arlington, VA, 2004. (40) Writing and Learning in the Science Classroom; Wallace, C.; Hand, B.; Prain, V., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, 2004. (41) Learning to Write and Writing to Learn: Theory and Research in Practice; Indrisano, R.; Paratore, J., Eds.; International Reading Association: Newark, DE, 2005. (42) Yore, L.; Bisanz, G.; Hand, B. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2003, 25, 689–725. (43) Duschl, R. In Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research; Erduran, S., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Eds.; Springer Academic Publishers: Dordreht, 2007, p 159 175. (44) Osborne, J.; Erduran, S.; Simon, S. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41, 994–1020. (45) Kuhn, D. Sci. Educ. 1993, 77, 319–337. (46) Driver, R.; Newton, P.; Osborne, J. Sci. Educ. 2000, 84, 287–313. (47) Sampson, V.; Clark, D. Sci. Educ. 2009, 93, 448–484. (48) Wiggens, G.; Educative Assessment: Designing Assessment to Inform and Improve Student Performance; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 1998. (49) Sandoval, W. A.; Reiser, B. J. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88, 345–372. (50) How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom; Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J., Eds.; National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 2005.
ARTICLE
(51) Zohar, A.; Nemet, F. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2002, 39, 35–62. (52) Bell, P.; Linn, M. C. Inter. J. Sci. Educ. 2000, 22, 797–818. (53) Kuhn, D. Harvard Educ. Rev. 1992, 62, 155–178. (54) Lawson, A. Inter. J. Sci. Educ. 2003, 25, 1387–1408. (55) Kuhn, D.; Udell, W. Child Dev. 2003, 74, 1245–1260. (56) Walker, J.; Sampson, V.; Grooms, J.; Zimmerman, C.; Anderson, B. J. Chem. Educ., in revision.
1056
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100622h |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1048–1056
