A Comparison of Argument Quality and Students’ Conceptions of Data and Evidence for Undergraduates Experiencing Two Types of Laboratory Instruction
A Comparison of Argument Quality and Students’ Conceptions of Data and Evidence for Undergraduates Experiencing Two Types of Laboratory Instruction
复制标题
经历两种类型实验室教学的本科生的论证质量和学生对数据和证据的概念的比较
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Jonathon Grooms
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jonathon Grooms
本研究的重点是如何质量的学生的论点和他们的数据和证据的概念的变化，由于经历了两种类型的实验室课程，一种采用脚本式的调查方法，另一种采用参数驱动的调查。分析探讨学生的数据和证据的概念之间的联系，以及这些概念的发展可能会受到他们收到的指令的性质的影响，并进一步探讨学生的数据和证据的概念之间的联系，以及这些想法是如何体现在学生的论点有关的社会科学问题（SSI）的变化。结果表明，学生经历的参数驱动的调查产生更高质量的SSI参数干预后相比，脚本调查组。此外，学生的数据概念转向更经验和科学的数据概念是通过系统的调查。学生的证据概念的影响，他们收到的指示，与学生在论据驱动的调查组发展更细致入微的描述证据作为支持索赔和论点的组成部分。最后讨论了实验室教学和支持学生科学素养发展的意义。
This study focuses on how the quality of students’ arguments and their conceptions of data and evidence change as a result of experiencing two types of laboratory courses, one employing a scripted inquiry approach and the other employing argument-driven inquiry. The analysis explores the connections between students’ conceptions of data and evidence and how the development of those conceptions may be influenced by the nature of the instruction they received, and further explores the connections between students’ conceptions of data and evidence and how those ideas manifest in the changes in students’ arguments related to socioscientific issues (SSI). Results indicate that students experiencing argument-driven inquiry generated higher quality SSI arguments postintervention when compared to the scripted inquiry group. Additionally, the students’ conceptions of data shifted toward more empirical and scientific notions of data being generated through systemic investigation. Students’ conceptions of evidence were influenced by the instruction they received, with students in the argument-driven inquiry group developing more nuanced descriptions of evidence as being integral to supporting claims and arguments. Implications related to laboratory instruction and supporting students’ development of science literacy are discussed.