I» .

3.: 7!: it. .3 l

a: V ..Ie)...l.il
3.13.]:

b
t
1.....nl4 J?

In.

1:17 .5" .

1|
.8 .‘IL. ‘1.
.1 (:10?

‘0)
‘li It: I!
.‘oIGIx 3V1!

' II;

. '74 1‘; :4.).:Ino

(:Iv luv-‘4 .v».st lrr

1.- ‘1; '1‘.b..ll: all-.1
‘ , .

 

. , :1
..

.- ,A :...e........_..r..21, firm...

1

 

THESIS VEIRSTYLIB BERARI

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIIII

3 1293 007914

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

ANALYSES OF MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS' SCIENTIFIC
ARGUMENTS IN COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING CONTEXTS

presented by

DAVID CLAIR EICHINGER

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D degree in SCIENCE EDUCATDN

 

Mfl-W

Major professor

Date agar/7, 1992

MSU I: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity lnsrirurr‘on 0- 12771

 

PLACE 1N RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—_I

MSU is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity institution
chS-o:

 

 

 

 

._—

ANALYSES OF MIDDLE SCHOOL ST UDENTS’
SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS IN COLLABORATIVE
PRCBLEM SOLVING CONTEXTS

By

David Clair Eichinger

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1992

ABSTRACT
ANALYSES OF MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDB‘ITS'
SCIBITIFIC ARGUMENT 8 IN COLLABORATIVE
PRCBLEM SOLVNG OCNTEXTS
by

David Clair Eichinger

This study examined how individuals and groups of students constructed scientific
arguments as they engaged in a series of collaborative problem solving activities. The
study was based on research traditions in conceptual change, social semiotics, and
argumentation.

Two research questions were investigated: a) What is the nature of students'
scientific arguments and how do they approximate or fail to approximate scientists'
arguments for relatively complex scientific problems?; and b) Does the nature of
students' arguments and argumentation processes change over time, and if so, in what
ways?

Two target groups of four students each were videotaped during three months of
instruction in a sixth grade science classroom in a midwestem urban school district.
Data analyses focused primarily on an examination of students' small group discussions
of four collaborative activities that addressed aspects of the kinetic molecular theory.

in general, the results show much variability in the degree of scientific and
logical sophistication that students developed in their individual and group arguments
during their study of the curriculum unit. While a few students demonstrated
significant progress in their understanding and application of scientific forms of
argumentation, the majority of students continued to approach and solve these problems
in much less complex and sophisticated ways.

Copyright by
David Clair Eichinger
1992

I want to acknowledge the guidance. assistance. patience, and support of a number
of people who have helped me bring this project to completion. First, i want to thank
Andy Anderson and Annemarie Palincsar, co-directors of the Collaborative Problem
Solving project, for Including me as a member of the CPS research team and for
providing financial support for this study. Their leadership and direction provided
excellent working models of what genuine collaborative problem solving Is all about. As
my advisor, committee chairperson, and dissertation director, Andy has also provided
personal, professional, moral. and intellectual support throughout my doctoral program.

i have been very fortunate to have had a very diverse yet supportive doctoral
committee, with each committee member contributing his or her unique expertise. Andy
Anderson helped me develop a much deeper understanding of conceptual change research
In science. Annemarie Pailnccar opened my Intellectual eyes to social constructivist
theory and helped me see how conceptual change and social constructivist ideas can be
integrated. Through her teaching and our discussions. Lynn Paine introduced me to the
world of the sociology of education and its importance for educational research. Finally,
Glenn Berkheimer helped me better understand the importance of integrating the
theoretical aspects of educational research with the equally important practical aspects
of educational practice. From the very first days of my graduate studies. Glenn has also
provided constant personal and professional support and advice, for which i am very
grateful.

I also greatly appreciate the cooperation and patience of the science teacher and
the students who participated in this study. Their willingness to participate and to
openly share their thoughts and ideas made this work possible and enjoyable.

iv

They say you don't fully appreciate something until it's gone. While i was at
MSU, i knew that there was a very special support network that existed among the
graduate students there. Having left East Lansing. I now recognize how very important
and special those friendships were.

Finally, my deepest and most sincere thanks go to my family: Beth, Nathan, and
Jacob. Their love. patience, and support helped remind me that there really is more to

life than the dissertation.

TABLEOFCONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... i x
UST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................... 1
Research Traditions ....................................................................................... 2
Objectives and Research Questions ................................................................ 5
Overview of Research Design ......................................................................... 6
Methodological Limitations ............................................................................ 6
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................ 8
Part I: Conceptual Change ............................................................................... 8

Part Ii: Social Constructivism and Social Semiotics ..................................... 1 0

Part III: Scientific Arguments and Argumentation ........................................ 1 2

Implications for This Study ........................................................................... 1 7

CHAPTER THREE: BACKGROUND FOR THIS STUDY ..................................................... 1 9

The W Curriculum Unit .................................................. 1 9

CPS Curriculum Materials ............................................................................ 21
Curriculum development approach .................................................... 21

Content focus ...................................................................................... 2 3

Social norms ....................................................................................... 2 4

Nature of activities ............................................................................ 24

Explanation heuristics ....................................................................... 26

The Nature of the Classroom Instruction ....................................................... 26

CHAPTER FOUR: METHODS ......................................................................................... 3 0

Subjects and Setting ....................................................................................... 3 0

Curriculum and Instruction ........................................................................... 32

Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................ 3 3

1. Classroom observations ................................................................. 3 3

2. Pre- and post-instruction clinical interviews ............................ 3 6

3. Pre- and post-instruction tests .................................................... 37

Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................................... 3 7

Classroom Observation Videotapes ..................................................... 3 7

vi

Discussion Flow Graphs ..................................................................... 3 9

Argument Analysis Frameworks ........................................................ 41
Clinical Interviews ............................................................................ 50

Pre- and Post-Instruction Tests ....................................................... 51
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................. 5 2
Activity #1: Pure Substance vs. Mixture ..................................................... 52
Logical structure/scientific content .................................................. 53
Scientifically literate version ............................................... 53

Student version - Group 1 ..................................................... 55

Student version - Group 2 ..................................................... 5 8

Collective validation process ............................................................. 6 0
Student version - Group 1 ..................................................... 60

Student version - Group 2 ..................................................... 6 2

Summary ............................................................................................ 6 3
Student versions ..................................................................... 6 3

Activity #2: Weight and Volume Changes ...................................................... 6 6
Logical structure/scientific content .................................................. 66
Scientifically literate version ............................................... 68

Student version - Group 1 ..................................................... 69

Student version - Group 2 ..................................................... 71

Collective validation process ............................................................. 72
Student version - Group 1 ..................................................... 72

Student version - Group 2 ..................................................... 74

Summary ............................................................................................ 7 5
Activity #3: Water on the Spaceship ............................................................. 77
Logical structure/scientific content .................................................. 78
Scientifically literate version ............................................... 78

Student version - Group 1 ..................................................... 81

Student version - Group 2 ..................................................... 83

Collective validation process ............................................................. 85
Student version - Group 1 ..................................................... 85

Student version - Group 2 ..................................................... 8 7

Summary ............................................................................................ 8 8
Activity #4: Dissolving Races ....................................................................... 90
Logical structure/scientific content .................................................. 90
Scientifically literate version ............................................... 90

Student version - Group 1 ..................................................... 92

Student version - Group 2 ..................................................... 94

Collective validation process ............................................................. 96
Student version - Group 1 ..................................................... 96

Student version — Group 2 ..................................................... 9 7

Summary ............................................................................................ 9 8
Research Question #2 .................................................................................... 1 01
Common patterns in student problem solving ................................... 1 01

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ...................................................... 1 O 9

Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 1 0 9

Implications ................................................................................................... 111

LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 1 1 7

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 1 2 2

APPENDIX 4—A: OBSERVATION SUMMARY FORM ........................................... 1 2 2

APPENDIX 4-B: CLINICAL INTERVIEW RECORD ............................................ 1 2 3

APPENDIX 4-C: CLINICAL INTERVIEWS - ARGUMENT QUESTIONS ............... 1 3 4

APPENDIX 4-D: POST INSTRUCTION INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ....................... 1 3 6

APPENDIX 4-E: PRE- AND POST-iNSTRUCTION TEST .................................. 1 3 8
APPENDIX 4-F: PRECONCEPTION BY GOAL CONCEPTION CHART

FOR KINETIC MOLECULAR THEORY ...................................... 1 4 6

APPENDIX 5 .................................................................................................... 1 4 9

viii

LISTOFTABLES

Table 3-13 Comparison OI mm W.

and CPS Curriculum Materials ................................................................ 22
Table 5.1: Summary of Group 1 Worksheet Entries - Activity #1 .......................... 55
Table 5.2: Summary of Group 2 Worksheet Entries - Activity #1 .......................... 59
Table 5.3: Summary of Group 1 Worksheet Entries - Activity #3 .......................... 81
Table 5.4: Summary of Group 2 Worksheet Entries - Activity #3 .......................... 84
Table 5.5: Summary of Group 1 Worksheet Entries - Activity #4 .......................... 93
Table 5.6: Summary of Group 2 Worksheet Entries - Activity #4 .......................... 95
Table 5.7: Percentage student participation rates for small group activities .......... 108

USTOFFIGURES

Figure 4.1: Timeline of Data Collection Sequence ..................................................... 3 3
Figure 4.2: Sketch of classroom ............................................................................... .3 5
Figure 4.3: Descriptions of-Selected Collaborative Activities .................................. 38
Figure 4.4: Touimln's Argument Analysis Framework ............................................. 43
Figure 4.5: Miller's Argument Analysis Framework ................................................ 46
Figure 5.1: Model Argument - Water on Spaceship Problem ...... g ............................. 80

CHAPTEROE
NTRODLCTKN

Statement of the Problem

Understanding science means more than simply memorizing facts, formulas, and
vocabulary terms. Developing meaningful understandings of science involves at least
two key components: a) linking scientific concepts amongst themselves and with one's
own personal knowledge of how the world works; and b) using scientific knowledge to
describe, explain, predict, and control the world around us in a variety of contexts, both
in and out of school (Anderson a Roth, 1989; Smith, 1991). In order to develop this
kind of scientific literacy. students need to acquire an understanding of the principles
and theories of science, their relationships. and their applications (AAAS, 1989).
Equally important is the development of fluency in the use of the language and the
cognitive tools of the discipline of science (Heath, 1983; Lemke, 1990; Michaels &
O'Connor, 1990).

Clearly, however, many students do not develop meaningful understandings of
science. Results of recent national science achievement testing (NAEP 1990) show that
American students have made little progress in their science pericrrnance over the last
twenty years. in general, students' basic knowledge of science stagnates by eighth grade,
and relatively few students develop their science knowledge further (Education
Department, 1992). Comparisons of science achievement between American students
and those in 14 other countries show that US. students rank near the bottom in math and
science performance (IAEP, 1991).

While the results of these national and intemationai achievement tests are
compelling, even more disconcerting are the findings of research on students' scientific
understanding and problem solving which show that many students do not develop either

structural or functional literacy in science (Anderson a Roth, 1989; Driver, Guesne, &
1

2
Tiberghien,1985: Pines 81 West, 1986). That is, they are unable to make meaningful
links between their personal knowledge of the world and scientific knowledge. In
addition, they are unable louse this scientific knowledge to solve problems, provide
explanations, make predictions or design ways of testing their ideas.

Several research traditions have addressed various aspects of these problems by
examining what it means to ”understand“ science, how students learn science, and what
the important components of meaninng scientific understanding are. These research
traditions are described below.

Research Traditions

Much of the recent research In science education has focused on examining
students' existing knowledge of various scientific concepts and the ways in which they
develop progressively richer and more sophisticated understandings of a particular body
of scientific knowledge. One research tradition that has studied these issues is
conceptual change research. Researchers supporting this perspective claim that, in
order to achieve meaningful understanding, students need to undergo a process of
conceptual change. This involves integrating scientific concepts and strategies with
students' own “conceptual ecologies', or their personal concepts and Ieaming strategies
(Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982). Recent research in conceptual change
teaching and Ieaming has shown that teaching strategies and curriculum materials that
are designed to help students integrate elements of scientific knowledge with their own
personal knowledge are more successful In helping students develop meaningful
understandings of science (Anderson & Roth, 1989; Berkheimer, Anderson, & Blakeslee,
1990; Driver 81 Brook, 1987; Minstrel, 1984: Linn 8: Songer, 1988). in other
words, students using the conceptual change curriculum materials are able to develop
scientific knowbdge that is better integrated and more useful in helping them solve

3
problems than the knowledge that Is gained by students using more traditional science
curricula (Lee, Eichinger, Anderson, Berkheimer, & Blakeslee, in press).

One limitation of this tradition is that much of the conceptual change research has
focused primarily on whether and how Individual ieamers develop scientific content
knowledge. In part, this focus on the Individual Ieamer ls due to a reliance on data from
individually administered instruments such as written tests and clinical interviews. In
large part, however, the individual focus is due to traditional assumptions about the
nature of learning and cognitive development that have prevailed for several decades.
This focus on learning as an individual activity contrasts with current views of cognition
proposed by a second research tradition which characterizes Ieaming In general and the
development of scientific understanding in particular as a social, rather than an
Individual, process. According to the social constructivist perspective, knowledge
growth occurs as a result of personal interactions in social contexts and the eventual
intemallzation of this socially constructed knowledge (Brown, Collins, & Duguld, 1989;
Brown & Camplone, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985). Rather than being a
process of accumulating knowledge or accommodating new theories with one's personal
knowledge, learning Is viewed as a process of acculturation in which learners become
members of particular disciplinary communities (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989;
Rogoff, 1990). Thus, Ieaming science becomes a process of appropriating the concepts,
the cognitive tools, and the discourse of the scientific community while interacting with
more scientifically literate people (Edwards & Mercer, 1988; Heath, 1983, 1986;
Lemke, 1990; Michaels & O'Connor, 1990; Roseberry, Warren, & Conant, 1990;
Warren, Roseberry, & Conant, 1989).

In science, part of learning these ways of talking and thinking scientifically
involves being able to use the ideas of science to construct reasoned arguments about how
the world around us works. The ability to solve problems, give explanations, make

4

predictions and devise plans to control the world around us all depend on being able to
develop scientific arguments that explain and justify our problem solutions. The norms
for constructing arguments In the scientific community are not necessarily the same as
those found in other disciplinary communities. Scientific norms Include relating
explicitly stated theories and specific evidence to explain an event or phenomenon, and a
dependence on syllogistic reasoning and a distrust of narrative or anecdotal data or
emotion (Keller, 1985; Touimin, 1958).

Thus, a third research tradition related to this study concerns argumentation by
children and adults. Some researchers have proposed frameworks for describing and
analyzing the structure of scientific arguments (T oulmln, 1958). Others have
investigated the kinds of arguments used by children and the kinds of argumentation
processes they use while working together to solve a problem (Miller, 1987). Still
others have studied the kinds of explanations and arguments given by science students,
and their research has shown that students' explanations and arguments differ from
scientists' In terms of their scientific content, syntax, and explanatory ideals (Hesse &
Anderson, 1992; Solomon, 1985).

Thus, the ability to develop scientific arguments is considered to be a critical
component of scientific literacy, and studying the content and nature of students'
arguments and argumentation processes provides a means for examining the nature of
their scientific understanding. In light of current conceptions of the Ieaming process as
a social activity, It is Important to look at students working in collaborative groups as
they solve problems that Include messy, real-world problem situations. These kinds of
problems allow students to use their own personal Ideas about how the world works as
well as the scientific concepts they are taught in the classroom, and they thus provide a
means for Investigating the extent to which students are integrating their own ideas with
the scientific ideas. In addition, by looking at collaborative problem solving situations,

5
it is possible to study the relationship between the development of collective and
individual scientific understanding. By comparing the students' arguments and
argumentation with the Ideal arguments and argumentation processes that would likely
be developed by a group of scientifically literate members, it is possible to examine the
extent to which students internalize the concepts, the cognitive tools, and the discourse
of the scientific community. Finally, by examining students' arguments and their
collaborative interactions during a series of problem solving situations, it is possible to
study the extent to which their understanding of the scientific content, their
understanding of the nature of scientific arguments, and their argumentation processes

change over time.

Objectives and Research Questions

This study investigated the development of middle school students' scientific
arguments in collaborative problem solving situations. In particular, the study
examined how individuals and groups of students developed their understanding of a
particular body of science content (the kinetic molecular theory) and how they used this
content knowledge to construct arguments explaining and defending their solutions to a
series of relatively complex and ”messy“ science problems. The research questions
addressed by this study were as follows:

1. What is the nature (In terms of science content and logical structure) of the

scientific arguments and the argumentation processes developed by sixth grade

students? How do these arguments and processes approximate or fail to

approximate scientists' arguments and argumentation for relatively complex

science problems?

2. Do the content and logical structure of students' arguments and the

argumentation processes they use change over time? If so, in what ways?

Overview of Research Design

The study followed two target groups of four students each over a three month
period as they were taught a conceptual change unit on matter and molecules. The unit
was taught by the classroom teacher and Instruction took place in an urban,
multicultural school setting. . Data In the form of videotapes of whole class and small
group classroom observations, copies of students' written work, and individual pre- and
post-Instruction clinical Interviews and tests were analyzed to study whether and how
Individual students and small groups socially constructed and used the the knowledge,
cognitive tools, and discourse of the scientific community.

The study Included multiple occasions on which the students, Individually or in
small groups, solved two different types of problems. Explanation problems involved
describing and making sense of phenomena that the students encountered, either through
hands—on experimentation, demonstrations, or through other means. Design problems
Involved planning, and In some cases carrying out, strategies to achieve some practical
goal. Analysis frameworks based on the work of Miller (1987) and Toulmin (1958)
were developed to analyze how students decided on a set of collectively validated
statements as their solution. to a science problem and the criteria they used for judging

the validity, the relevance, and the completeness of possible solutions to the problem.

Methodological Limitations
This study was very limited In scope. It involved only eight students from a
single classroom taught by one teacher. In order to conduct indepth analyses of

students' arguments and interactions over time, It was necessary to limit the number of

7
students Involved in the study. Thus, the generalizabiilty of the findings to other
classrooms Is necessarily limited.

In addition, due to limited resources and time, all of the analyses were carried
out by the researcher himself. This raises potential questions concerning the reliability
of the findings. Further research in a variety of settings is needed to ensure the validity
and reliability of the research methods and findings.

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE UTERATURE

This chapter presents a review of the literature relevant to this study. The
chapter includes a discussion of previous research related to the three research
traditions described in Chapter 1: 1) conceptual change research, 2) social
constructivism and social semiotics, and 3) arguments and argumentation. The
literature review for each of the first two research traditions examines important Ideas
related to the nature of students' scientific understanding or scientific literacy. The
review of the literature for the third research tradition examines the nature of
scientific arguments and argumentation and collective validation processes, and previous
research on students' explanations and arguments Is discussed. The chapter also includes
a discussion of why the research questions presented in this study are important and
relevant for shedding new light on issues concerning the nature of students' scientific
understanding, and how the findings from previous research are Included In the design of
the present study.

Part I: Conceptual Change

One research perspective that has provided important insight on the nature of
students' scientific understanding Is the conceptual change research tradition.
Researchers In this tradition have developed explanations for what it means to
understand science and how the Ieaming of science occurs (Anderson, 1987; Anderson a
Smith, 1987; Brook, Drlver,& Johnston, 1988; Carey, 1986; Driver, 1989;
Nickerson, 1985; Nussbaum & Novick, 1982; Pines & West, 1986; Posner, Strike,
Hewson 81 Gertzog, 1982; Smith, 1991; Strike a Posner, 1985; Toulmin, 1972;
Vosniadou & Brewer, 1987, Wittrock, 1985). Researchers supporting this perspective

agree that, In order to achieve meaningful understanding of science, learners must
8

9
undergo a process of conceptual change Involving the integration of canonical scientific
concepts and strategies with their own personal concepts and Ieaming strategies, what
Posner et al. (1982) refer to as the learner's “conceptual ecology.“

Based on this assumption that Ieaming results from a process of conceptual
change, Anderson a Roth (1989) proposed a definition of scientific understanding that
includes two major components: a structural component and a functional component. The
structural component of meaningful scientific understanding Involves the development of
linkages between students' prior, everyday explanations of how the world works and
scientific explanations of natural phenomena. In addition, Ieamers must develop
knowledge that includes conceptual coherence among scientific concepts themselves. The
functional component of scientific understanding Includes the ability to use this
knowledge to perform the essential scientific activities of describing, explaining,
predicting, and controlling the world around us. As Anderson and Roth (1989) point
out, the structural and functional components of scientific understanding are
lnterdependent, since any one of the scientific activities may require the Integration of
several concepts, and any particular concept can be used for more than one function.
Thus, the process of conceptual change that results In meaningful scientific
understanding involves the development of conceptually coherent knowledge that is
Integrated with one's personal knowledge, and the ability to use this knowledge to
perform the basic scientific functions.

Research hasshownthattheconceptualchangeprocessislongandgradual, since
it requires students to modify or restructure their prior knowledge that conflicts with
scientific knowledge. Recent studies have shown that the difficulties that students
experience during this process are common across subject areas and across grade levels
(Anderson & E. Smith, 1983; Hesse & Anderson, 1992; Lee et al., In press; MInstreIl,
1984; Nussbaum & Novak, 1976; D. Smith, 1987). But as Posner et al. (1982) and

1 0
Toulmin (1972) point out, conceptual change learning requires more than simply
changing one's prior knowledge of a particular body of content. Other aspects of students'
conceptual ecologles must also be modified, such as the analogies and metaphors they use
to explain phenomena, and their epistemological beliefs, including their beliefs about the
nature of scientific knowledge and their criteria for what they consider to be a complete
and convincing sclentIflc explanation. Given the scope of the changes that are required
for knowledge restructuring to occur, it Is not surprising that students' misconceptions
and prior knowledge structures are so resistant to change (Anderson, Sheldon. & Dubay,
1990; Bishop & Anderson, 1990; Lee et al., In press; Roth, 1985). However, studies
have demonstrated that when students receive support in the form of conceptual change
curriculum materials and instructional techniques, they are more successful In
developing meaningful understandings of science than when they study science using
traditional curriculum materials and techniques (Anderson & Roth, 1989; Berkheimer,
Anderson, a Blakeslee, 1990; Driver 8. Brock, 1987; Lee et al., in press; Unn &
Songer, 1988; Minstrel, 1984).

Part II: Social Constructivism and Social Semiotics

Two Important limitations of the conceptual change research tradition become
apparent based on the review of the above mentioned literature. First, contrary to the
original characterization of scientific understanding as an individual as well as a
collective phenomenon by Posner et al. (1982) and Toulmin (1972), conceptual change
research has focused primarily on the development of scientific knowledge in Individual
Ieamers. This Individual focus Is due In large part to traditional American educational
research assumptions uncut the nature of cognitive development that have been strongly
Influenced by such Ideas as the Piagetian theories of individual development (Rogoff.

1990). More recent views of cognition, however, characterize learning as a social

1 1
process and portray Ieamers as active participants In social contexts who learn as a
result of their social Interactions. As Rogoff (1990) points out, Ieamers are viewed as:
apprentices In thinking, active in their efforts to learn from observing

and participating with peers and more skilled members of their society,

developing skills to handle culturally defined problems with available

tools, and building from these glvens to construct new solutions within

the context of sociocultural activity. (p. 7)

Leamlng, according to the social constructivist perspective, Is seen as a process of
acculturation which results In membership In particular disciplinary communities,
rather than as a process of accumulating new knowledge and accommodating new Ideas
with Individual prior knowledge (Brown, Collins, & Duguld, 1989; Brown a Campione,
1990; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985). Leamlng 'Is embedded In the context of social
relationships and sociocultural tools and practices“ (Rogoff, 1990, p. 8).

Given this social constructivist perspective, a second major limitation of the
conceptual change research tradition becomes apparent. Until very recently, much of
the conceptual change research has focused primarily on the study of the nature of
Individual students' scientific content knowledge, with much less attention paid to other
aspects of students' conceptual ecologles, to the tools needed to successfully participate In
the knowledge community, or to the social context In which Ieaming typically occurs
(Resnick, 1987). Research in social semiotics has examined these issues as they relate
to teaching and ieaming In general and. In particular, to the teaching and Ieaming of
science (Edwards a Mercer, 1988; Heath, 1983, 1986; Lemke, 1990; Michaels 8
Bruce, 1989; Michaels a O'Connor, 1990; Warren, Roseberry, & Conant, 1989). A
general definition of scientific understanding or literacy shared by researchers In this
tradition Is that literacy Involves the ability to understand and participate In the
discourse and activities of a variety of knowledge communities in a variety of social

1 2
contexts. The knowledge, skills, language. norms, and values of each community are
shared among Its members, and are lntemallzed by Individuals as they participate in and
contribute to these communities. Researchers sharing this perspective study the
teaching and learning of science by examining students' patterns of language and activity
and the extent to which they prepare students to participate in communities of
scientiflcally literate members.

With this primary focus on the social nature of Ieaming, It Is clear that the
social status of learners can Influence their ability and their opportunities to equally
participate In knowledge communities and, ultimately, to develop scientific
understanding or literacy. In her research, Ellzdieth Cohen (1986) found that among
the educational disadvantages of dominance and Inequality In collaborative Ieaming
contexts are the Impairment of Ieaming of low status students, the reinforcement of
stereotypes and prejudices, and a decrease In the overall Intellectual quality of group

performance.

Part III: Sclentlflc Arguments and Argumentation

Basedonthe literaturedscussedabove,itisclearthatonepossible meansof
studying students' scientific understanding would be to investigate their ability to apply
their scientific knowledge in collaborative problem solving contexts. These problem
solving tasks require students to develop solutions to a problem and to provide
explanations that support their particular solution. These tasks also require students to
work Individually and as a group to develop collective answers and reasons. These
answers and reasons could be studied to examine the extent to which students appear to
be Integrating scientific knowledge with their personal ideas about how the world works.
in addition, the collaborative problem solving activities would permit researchers to

I 3
study the nature of the social interactions between students and the ways in which these
Interactions Influence the development of individual as well as collective knowledge.

Thus, a third research tradition related to this study Involves the analysis of
scientific arguments and collaborative argumentation processes. Researchers have
proposed frameworks for examining the components and structure of scientiflc
arguments as well as for studying the nature of the argumentation processes that are
used by groups engaged in collective problem solving activities. In addition, recent
research has begun to Investigate the nature of students' explanations and Identify
components of scientists' and students' explanations that are both similar and different.

Stephen Toulmin (1958) proposed a framework for analyzing the logical
structure of scientific arguments which described complete scientific arguments as
including particular components related In prescribed ways. In constructing their
arguments, scientists are typically given a certain amount of data (0) with which they
are expected to make a claim or reach a conclusion (C). They are expected to defend
their conclusions with warrants (W), and these warrants generally have backing (B)
based on theoretical explanations. Warrants and backing can be In the form of canonical
scientific knowledge or some other form of communally held knowledge (e.g., for
students it might be referring to another activity In class) and they represent a search
for cognitive consistency and relations between other phenomena and problems and the
particular one being considered.

Dependingonthe natureoftheproblem andthedataprovlded, Itmaybe
necessary to specify additional qualiflers (Q) or assumptions, that Is, the particular
conditions under which the conclusion would be valid. Finally, a complete scientific
argument would also consider and take Into account any potential rebuttals (R) that

opponents to the argument-might raise. According to Toulmin (1958), an argument

1 4
would be treated as incomplete without all of these these components, even though all
components would not necessarily have to be explicitly stated at all times.

Given this analytical framework, It is possible to construct a model scientific
argument that identifies the components and their respective relationships for each
problem solving activity selected for analysis. This model argument can then serve as a
comparative template for analyzing the arguments proposed by students who are faced
with the same problems or questions. Thus, the Toulmin (1958) framework Is useful
for examining the products of students' arguments, but It is not very appropriate for
analyzing group problem solving sessions, especially In terms of capturing the dynamic
process of developing scientific arguments In collaborative groups. Thus. an additional
analysis framework is needed that, In concert with the Toulmin framework described
above, allows for the examination of both the processes and the products of students'
collaborative problem solving sessions.

The work of Max Miller (1987) provides a useful basis for thinking about how
to analyze arguments developed In collaborative contexts. Although his Ideas were
originally applied to the analysis of children's collaborative moral arguments, I believe
that the underlying framework Is equally applicable to the analysis of collaborative
scientific arguments. Miller characterizes collaborative argumentation as a collective
validation process In which “the primary goal Is to develop a joint argument which gives
an answer to a disputed question, the 'quaestio" (p. 231). In order to obtain this
answer, participants suggest possible solutions to the problem, react to or Ignore these
Ideas, and eventually reach consensus on a group answer and reasons. As Miller points
out:

The essential difficulty for the participants of a collective argumentation stems

from the fact that they must coordinate their contributions In such a way that

they can find and agree on a set of collectively valid smfements that need not be

questioned any more within the context of a given argumentation, and on the basis
of which one of the possible answers to a 'quaestlo" can be converted Into a

collectively valid statement, Le, a siafement accepted by all participants at least

for the time being. (p. 232)

Miller (1987) recognized that, In studying collective argumentation, it is
necessary to distinguish between amnmant (product) and argumentation (process). Not
only are the final products (arguments) of a collaborative problem solving session of
interest, Miller argued, but equally important Is the process (argumentation) by which
the participants reach consensus on their solution to the problem. In order to
understand this process, Miller asserted, It Is necessary to examine “these formal
conditions or rules on which the participants rely or to which they (implicitly) refer if
they try to evaluate the legitimacy (or rationality) of an answer to a 'quaestio' "

(p. 232). i

In summary. Miller's (1987) framework addresses a groups' attempts to reach
consensus on a solution to the problem. As various group members suggest Ideas, other
members could either ignore the ideas, agree with them, or challenge them. For the
statements that are not Immediately rejected or ignored, Miller suggests that the ideas
would be subjected to a collective validation process, and judgements would be made
concerning the completeness of the supporting arguments using a set of standards or
criteria. Toulmin's (1958) analysis framework provides one such set of standards for
judging the completeness of an argument that a group of scientifically literate members
would likely use. Miller (1987) also suggests that ideas or arguments that are
challenged by other group members would be judged on the basis of their tenablilty and
their relevance to the problem under consideration.

These two analysis frameworks (Toulmin and Miller) provide potentially
valuable tools for analyzing the arguments and the argumentation processes that are
developed by Individuals and groups. In fact, they form the basis of the analyses included
in this dissertation study, and both are discussed in more detail In the data analysis
section of Chapter 4. In addition to these frameworks, other research has examined the

1 6
nature of students' and adults' explanations and arguments, and the results of these
studies provide additional Information on the products and processes of argumentation.

In his own research, Miller (1987) analyzed the moral argumentation of groups
of children of various ages, and his results revealed a number of developmental patterns.
One of these patterns Involved differences in the nature of the kinds of statements used
by younger versus older children as they developed their moral arguments. Older
children seemed to understand that complete arguments must Include factual statements
as well as statements about moral principles, and that the dfferent kinds of statements
must be judged using different criteria. Thus, the older students implicitly recognized
the need for more complete and sophisticated moral arguments.

Solomon (1985) analyzed the scientific explanations of high school students and
found that students use a variety of modes of explanation, from simple redescription and
reiteration m the use of metaphors and similies to the use of theoretical scientific
explanations. Her findings help increase our understanding of scientific argumentation
by providing descriptions of various types of explanations and the difficulties involved
In helping students develop more scientifically sophisticated explanations.

Hesse and Anderson (1992) also examined the explanations given by high school
students to a variety of chemical phenomena. Their findings support those of Solomon
(1985) In many ways and they also reveal that, in addition to using a variety of
explanatory modes, students also differ in terms of their explanatory ideals. That Is,
different students use different sets of criteria for deciding what constitutes a complete
and adequate scientific explanation. While most students preferred to use everyday
analogies to explain chemical phenomena such as rusting and oxidation, only a few
demonstrated a preference for explanations based on chemical theories. Thus,
meaningful understanding of chemical change Involves three aspects of students'

conceptual ecologles:

1 7

(a) chemical knowledge, Including specific facts and theories associated

with the change being described, (b) an understandng of how

conservation of matter applies to chemical changes, and (c) an

understanding of chemists' explanatory ideals for chemical change.

(p. 278, original emphasis)

In addition to factors such as modes of explanation and explanatory Ideals that
influence the nature of scientific explanations given by students, researchers have also
Identified other elements that have an Impact of students' thinking as they engage In
problem solving activities. In particular, Schauble and Glaser (1990) point out that
among the variwles that affect both children's and adults' reasoning and problem solving
abilities (and thus their explanations and arguments) are their “familiarity or practice
with the activity, content knowledge about the domain, and the demands of the task“ (p.
21). in addition, they note that:

the kind of search or reasoning that people employ will vary with their

Interpretation of the goal state. The implication Is that In addition to

concentrating on the scientific reasoning strategies that Individuals do or

do not display, it Is important to attend to their Interpretation of the task,

and to ask how that develops as well. (p. 25)

Thus, these results confirm once again that studying scientific understanding requires
attention to and consideration of many aspects besides changes in students' scientific
content knowledge.

Implications for This Study
The literature reviewed above provides a background and rationale for this
dissertation study. The research questions addressed in this study are based on the
findings of previous studies and represent attempts at going beyond the limitations of

1 8
earlier research. First, the study deliberately focuses on the Individual as well as the
social nature of students' Ieaming of the kinetic molecular theory as they engage In
collaborative problem solving activities. This dual focus allows for the Investigation of
the development of personal as well as collaborative scientific understanding, and the
ways in which social interactions affect and contribute to science Ieaming. The study
also examines the nature of students' scientific arguments and argumentation processes
as they attempt m solve a variety of problem types over an extended period of time. This
allows for the investigation of the ways in which students' arguments and problem
solving techniques approximate or fail to approximate scientists' arguments and
techniques. Finally, this study provides opportunities to investigate a variety of
components of students' conceptual ecologles that Influence the development of personal
and collective scientific understanding.

CHAPTERTHREE
BACKGFDLND FORTHSSTLDY

This chapter presents a brief description of the research, curriculum
materials, and instruction that provided a basis for the current study. First, the
Matter and Molecules unit is presented as an example of recent efforts in conceptual
change research to Improve curriculum materials and instructional strategies In
order to promote scientific understanding for students. Then, special features of the
collaborative problem solving (CPS) curriculum materials are discussed and
compared with traditional curriculum materials and the Matter and Molecules unit.
Finally, information is provided on the nature of the classroom Instruction that was
observed during this study and how this instruction affected the students' group

problem-solving activities.

The Matter and Molecules Curriculum Unit

Several recent research efforts have focused on the development of
curriculum materials that promote conceptual change and scientific understanding
for students (Anderson 8 Smith, 1983; Berkheimer, Anderson, 8 Blakeslee, 1990;
Nussbaum 8 Novick, 1982; Roth, 1985). These materials have proven to be more
effective than traditional curriculum materials In helping students develop
meaningful understandings of a variety of science topics. All of these materials
differ from traditional materials In two important ways: they Incorporate extensive
knowledge about students' personal knowledge or “misconceptions,” and they
emphasize the application of the scientific concepts for explaining and understanding

a variety of real-world phenomena.

19

20

One such unit based on the conceptual change approach to curriculum
development is the Matter and Molecules unit developed by the Science Achievement
Project funded by the National Science Foundation (Berkheimer, Anderson, 8
Blakeslee, 1988: Berkheimer, Anderson, Lee, 8 Blakeslee, 1988). Matter and
Molecules, a revision of the commercially available unit entitled “Models of Matter'
in the Houghton Mifflin Science textbook (Berger, Berkheimer, Lewis, 8 Neuberger,
1979), was written for sixth-grade science classrooms. The unit teaches students
the basic principles of the kinetic molecular theory (in short, that all substances
are made of molecules which are constantly moving) and to use these Ideas to explain
the three states of matter and several physical changes of matter including expansion
and compression of gases, dissolving, thennai expansion and contraction, and changes
of states of matter such as melting and freezing, boiling, evaporation, and
condensation. An Important pan of the unit involves having students write on a
regular basis to give them practice In developing their own descriptions and
explanations of the natural phenomena being studied. In general, the activities in
Matter and Molecules were designed to be completed on an Individual basis, with
occasional opportunities for students to work together to compare and discuss their
answers.

Comparisons of student achievement for the two sets of curriculum materials
revealed that students using the Matter and Molecules materials mastered about 50%
of the scientific goal conceptions, while students using the Houghton Mifflin Science
materials demonstrated understanding of only 25% of the scientific goal conceptions
(Lee et al., in press). Thus, the research provided evidence that student achievement
could be substantially Improved by using curriculum materials that were developed

using the conceptual change approach.

21

CPS Curriculum Materials
The curriculum materials that were used during this study are revised
versions of the Matter and Molecules unit. The collaborative problem solving (CPS)
curriculum materials are very similar to Matter and Molecules in some Important
ways, but there are also some fundamental differences between these two units, as
well as between the two conceptual change units and the Houghton Mifflin Science
unit. Table 3.1 below summarizes the similarities and differences between the three

sets of curriculum materials.

Curriculum development approach

The Houghton Mifflin Science text uses a traditional curriculum development
approach that is common to many commercially available textbooks. The primary
knowledge base used to write the "Models of Matter' unit consists of canonical
scientific knowledge about the kinetic molecular theory (e.g., All matter Is made up
of particles; Particles of matter are very small; Particles of matter are in constant
motion; etc.). In contrast, both the Matter and Molecules and the CPS units are based
on a conceptual change approach to curriculum development. In this approach, the
knowledge base used for writing the unit consists of canonical scientific knowledge
about the kinetic molecular theory and knowledge of students' prior conceptions
about the nature of matter and of physical changes in matter. As noted earlier, the
conceptual change approach to Ieaming assumes that, rather than simply adding new
knowledge about a topic into existing knowledge schemes, Ieamers gradually change
their prior conceptions about a topic to be more congruent with scientific

conceptions. In essence, students need to be convinced that the scientific conceptions

22

 

.88.. 3 e8. Emcee... .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.3.8 5 5.8a .o .5... .5885 .
"e33... ceased 582.882“. .~
8.832. 53.. .86ch .
88333 58c Eeeefia . 8.8on Scan Susana .
£5.5an8 95 35.5530 . 9.9..an 05
"03.0... 3.3.8 5.5.5.3.. >2: :5... one 80.5.33 Soon 52.558 . 0.5.52.
bike... 8.55.. .e 8:... ob» ”Sade. 5.2296 2238 < cause... 82 cos-5.8m:
80.3.8 5.55.9“)..56E
8.38 582.382.. use cos-5.2m. .
a:
.2. 852. Boa 2.. 8.5.28 as. .838... .2.ch as. 9.3.22.8
p.505 I53 2.. 95.228 95 656.35 65:35.3 659.83 rad. 25.58.50 .3. Ease ecu 93:35 6535.56
.8329... .8382... .8... 89.888 access 3 53...... so «.885 as 83.2... .3888 a 2.388
0.5.5.3 .o 5.50.5.5 .5 33.5.5 :9... 38085 0.5.5.3 .5 335.5
03.0 .o 82 o. 5.55.98 93
.55 c.5305 0553.5 5. c.5533
.362: 5:05 scam 6:33.50 coo-o
5:05 :32 2 9.5395 95 9.5.55 5 to. c. 22.65 was one... .55 5.85
5.55 =25 3 330.5. 6.5.5.5.on 3.535 .3339... 6.5305 2 20325
55.5 0555... .3233. 03.9.. 95 8.5.52.5 833p 95 25:50 «3.0 5 Be. 2 20320
8.3.3 3.08 .86 ace 339-5058 .2 9 8:33» .2 3.3.5:ch 5.5.380 ace noon. .5... .535 3.535 .3329...
3:333
3.55.5.8 252 3.39.1. E582
£5 2: 59.91.25 83.2.3
335058 3.5.. 2:5: .o 5.833.“.
.5 8.8.6. 8.5.8 .58. 3..
g 52 2:5: E
25. 8 5300.9... ace 0. on: ace 3&8 3:00.02
25695.5 525.6 25:55.5 52:26 256825 >353.
.e 23.2293 as c8... 838.2. 32.1 .o 3395...... 2a :8... 5822. 985.8. so 89359.. as :8... 838.0... 9.8.». BESE
5.825... 95 25.50.33 5.835... 5 9558.33 623.50
6:30:50 c. 35. >9. 5... 25.58.50 5.83.5... v.5 50:50.33 63.3250 c. c. 0.2 o: 55 85.5.88 5.55
5.5 .2503» 95 6:55:95 665: 3.0.. >9. 55 25.58.50 5.5 .8533 .8535 3.8.35. 5.5.5.3 55.5.50 .5359
38s .8335. 0.55.8 3:88 Bu 88.3.2 0.55.8 3850 3 s328 83 38.35. SEE 22.33...
9.58....8 c8 e955 .caoeocow. 55cc _c=alieo.clom 33...! EndoEB
ma 0 «Sign: flmfl flfl mflumfl l. .

 

 

 

 

.35.: E2328 moo acct-sausage: dosages—5.5: 5 52.558 . 3 e3...

 

23

of the unit are more powerful and more accurate for predicting and explaining
natural phenomena than their prior conceptions developed during everyday
observations of and interactions with the world around them. Therefore, conceptual
change curriculum materials and instructional strategies need to first recognize
where students are in their understanding of a topic prior to instruction and to take
students' prior conceptions into account while helping them develop more scientific
understandings of the world.

An additional component of the curriculum development approach used for the
CPS unit is the emphasis on collaborative approaches to leaming-and the
incorporation of explicit instruction on social norms throughout the unit. (More
will be said about the social norms below.) This emphasis on collaborative problem
solving influences not only the content of the unit but also the instructional
techniques used by the teachers(discussed below in The Nature of the Classroom

instruction).

Content focus

While all three sets of curriculum materials share a common content focus,
there are some important differences between the three units. All of the units focus
on teaching about the kinetic molecular theory and having students use their
knowledge of the molecular nature of matter to explain a number of common natural
phenomena involving changes of states of matter and thermal contraction and
expansion. However. an important difference exists between the "Models of Matter'
unit and the two conceptual change units in terms of the nature of the conceptions
that are taught. In ”Models of Matter' the students learn only about the molecular

conceptions of the kinetic molecular theory, focusing on the existence of molecules

24

and their properties. In the Matter and Molecules and the CPS units, students learn
both molecular and macroscopic conceptions , which focus on the nature oi
substances and how they are affected by physical changes.
Social norms
Of the three units, only the CPS unit includes explicit instruction of social
norms. This instruction begins with a series of five “social activities" that are
taught prior to instruction of the science content. These activities, similar to
activities discussed in Cohen (1986), are designed to introduce and reinforce the
following four social norms which have been chosen by the researchers as important
for successful collaborative problem solving:
1. We contribute and help others to contribute to the group's work.
2. We support ideas by giving reasons.
3. We work to understand others' ideas.
4. We build on one another's ideas.
These norms are introduced In the social activities and are subsequently discussed
during the content-based activities throughout the unit.

Nature of activities

In general, the activities included in the Houghton Mifflin unit are designed to
reinforce the content presented in the text and to emphasize some general scientific
processes, such as observing and describing, investigating and manipulating.
organizing and quantifying, and generalizing and applying. While the activities may
be carried out by groups of students, the questions that accompany the activities are
meant to be answered by individual students.

25

The activities included in the Matter and Molecules unit are cooperative in
nature, In that they are meant to be completed by groups oi students and the questions
that accompany the activities provide opportunities for students to discuss the
questions and compare their answers to the problems. After completing the
activities, individual students report their answers to the rest of the class during
large group discussions. Unlike the Houghton Mifflin activities that emphasize
general science processes, the Matter and Molecules activities emphasize the
application of the scientific concepts presented in the text and provide opportunities
for students to describe, explain. predict, and control the world around them while
using these science concepts.

The activities in the CPS unit are collaborative in nature, designed to provide
opportunities ior students to use the science content to answer ”messy,“ real-world
questions. All of the content-based and most of the social activities are first
completed by individual students. Tasks typically require students to develop
written plans of action or to give answers and reasons on an individual basis before
meeting in small groups to reach consensus on group plans or explanations. Finally,
each group reports its plan or explanation to the rest of the class, with each
individual group member accountable for presenting the group's solution to the
whole class. Like the activities in Matter and Molecules, the CPS activities
emphasize the application of science content by presenting problems that require
students to describe, explain, predict. and control the world around them. However,
the activities are somewhat different in that they include a combination of questions
that ask students to either explain natural phenomena or to design experiments or
procedures that could be used to answers questions posed in the unit.

26

Explanation heuristics

Finally. only the Matter and Molecules and the CPS units include explicit
heuristics on the nature of 'Pgood" or complete scientific explanations. In Matter and
Molecules. students are taught that a complete explanation includes macroscopic and
molecular components: statements about which substances are changing and how. and
statements about how the motion and arrangement of the molecules of these
substances are changing. In the CPS unit, the explanation heuristics are more
developed and are different for each of the two types of activities. For the
explanation activities, students learn that complete scientific explanations include
observations and assumptions. statements about substances. and statements about
molecules. For the practical or design problems. complete arguments include a
proposed plan of action as well as the three components included in the explanation
activities. in both the CPS and the Matter and Molecules units. the explanation
heuristics are first modelled. in the text and by the teacher. and students are then
given repeated opportunities to apply these heuristics in activities that include
scaffolding in the form of questions and worksheets to be completed.

The Nature of the Classroom Instruction
Although the primary focus of this study is on the collaborative problem
solving activities of the target students, it is important to remember that these
activities took place within and were shaped by the larger context of the science
classroom. Therefore. before examining the students' scientific arguments and

argumentation processes in detail, it is necessary to provide some general

27

background information on the role of the instruction and how it affected what was
observed in the collaborative problem solving groups.

The classroom in which this dissertation study was conducted was one of
several sixth grade science classrooms involved in the larger CPS research project.
The teacher is a former elementary school teacher who moved to the middle school
level when the school district switched from a junior high school system. He had
worked as a collaborating teacher with the previous Matter and Molecules research
project and, as a result, was familiar with the science content on the kinetic
molecular theory and the conceptual change approach that was included in the CPS
unit. He also participated in the pilot testing of the CPS curriculum materials in the
spring of 1990 and, as a result, he was familiar with the project's research goals,
curriculum materials, and instructional approaches.

Several aspects of the teacher‘s instruction were important elements in
terms of their potential impact on the students' small group problem solving
activities. First, throughout his instruction of the unit, the teacher regularly
reminded the students to be thinking tout the social activities they had completed at
the beginning of the unit and about their relevance to the problem solving activities.
Students were reminded of the four social norms emphasized in the unit and of their
importance in facilitating effective group work. The teacher also discussed with
students the importance of developing explanations that included all of the
components of complete scientific arguments (observations, statements about the
substances. and statements about molecules). These comments were made during the
teacher's introduction of each of the collaborative problem solving activities as well
as during the whole class discussions that were conducted after each activity. These

comments and discussions served as regular reminders to the students that, in

28

addition to thinking about the science content of each activity. they also needed to be
thinking about their social interactions and the nature of their argumentation
processes and products.

Another important aspect of the teacher‘s instruction involved the nature of
his interaction with the students as they worked in their collaborative groups.
During the small group activities, the teacher would circulate among all of the
groups to ensure that the students were on-task, had the necessary materials for
completion of the activities, and were working in ways that resulted in effective and
equitable social interactions. His comments to the groups often included procedural
suggestions for ensuring equal participation of all group members and completion of
all parts of the activity. Most importantly, whenever students approached him with
questions concerning the science content or with requests to validate one student's
answer in lieu of another's, the teacher would not directly or immediately answer 7
their questions. Instead, he would refer the students to other sources of information
(e.g., their texts or the results of previous activities or demonstrations) and
encourage them to find the answers themselves. Thus, he generally avoided the role
of the outside authority to whom students could turn fer resolutions to their disputes
over content questions, preferring instead to encourage students to discuss their
ideas and reasons and reach consensus among themselves.

While it is not possible to determine the exact influence of the teacher's
instruction on each small group, it Is clear that various groups responded to and
made use of the teacher's instruction in very different ways, as shown in the data
analyses in Chapter 5 below. Some groups (and. in particular, some individuals
within groups) appeared to be more receptive to his comments and suggestions and
were able to demonstrate progress in their ability to understand the science content.

29

to work effectively as a group, and to develop more complete and sophisticated
scientific arguments. Other students and groups showed very little progress in these
areas. despite regular assistance from the teacher throughout the instruction of the
unit. These results help to demonstrate that the teacher's instruction is only one of

many important elements that affect the overall process of student learning.

CHAPTEF-im

This dissertation study was part of a larger research project (herein referred to
as the Collaborative Problem Solving, or CPS project) funded by the National Science
Foundation (NOR-8950308) and co-directed by Drs. Andy Anderson and Annemarie
Palincsar. The main goals of that on-golng research project are to: 1) study children's
collaborative problem solving in order to better understand substantive and social
aspects of the development of children's scientific reasoning, and 2) investigate the
potential of collaborative problem solving as an effective instructional tool (Anderson &
Palincsar. 1991). While the larger project examines a variety of both social and
substantive aspects of classroom life, this dissertation study focused specifically on the
scientific arguments developed by individual students and by peer groups as they engaged
in a series of collaborative problem solving activities included in a curriculum unit on
matter and molecules.

In order to analyze students' scientific arguments. it was necessary to collect data
on the nature and quality of the arguments and explanations they provided during the
collaborative problem solving sessions as well as on students' understanding of the main
concepts of the kinetic molecular theory presented in the curriculum materials. The
following section describes the subjects and curriculum materials involved in this study
as well as the data collection and analysis procedures that were used.

Subjects and Setting
All of the students involved in this study attended sixth grade in an urban middle
school in the Midwest. The student body of the school was heterogeneous in terms of its
ethnic and socioeconomic composition. The classroom selected for this study was one of

30

3 1
five classes participating in the larger research project. and was judged to be a typical
sixth grade science class in terms of the range of student ability and achievement levels.

During the instruction of the unit, students regularly worked in small groups of
four or, rarely, five members. These groups were formed by having the science
teachers first divide their classes into four categories (high, middle high, middle low,
and low) based on their perceptions of each student's overall ability. Small groups were
then formed by randomly selecting one student from each of the four ability levels while
at the same time trying to maintain ethnic and gender diversity and taking into account
individual personality factors. Two target groups were identified in the classroom
chosen for this study, with each target group composed of four students. Group 1 was
composed of two male and two female students. (Jason, Nate, Mary. and Jamie) with one
African American student, one Asian American student. and two white students. (Another
male student. Marvin, started the unit as a member of Group 1 and completed one of the
collaborative activities with this group. He left this classroom two weeks into the unit,
and was replaced by Nate.) Group 2 consisted of three females and one male, (Sheronda,
Anna, Jennifer, and Brett), with one African American student and three white students.
Thus, a total of eight target students were identified for this study. in order to minimize
the need for moving video equipment during filming and potentially disrupting classroom
instruction, the target groups were chosen based on their proximity to the two video
cameras used for recording the instruction of the unit. (See Figure 4.2 below.)

The classroom teacher involved in this dissertation study had worked as a
collaborating teacher with an earlier study of the nature and extent of students'
conceptual change while using the specially designed Wigs curriculum
materials (Berkheimer, Anderson, & Blakeslee, 1988; Berkheimer, Anderson, Lee, &
Blakeslee, 1988). Based on his past experience with the W195 project.
the teacher was familiar with the conceptual change approach to teaching and Ieaming

3 2
used in those curriculum materials as well as in the modified version of the unit used in
this study. He had used some group work in his teaching prior to becoming involved with
the CPS study. However, he pointed out that groupwork was used infrequently, and the
tasks and group structures were rarely designed for collaborative problem solving
activities. This teacher also took part in the pilot testing of the CPS curriculum
materials in the spring of 1990. so he was familiar with the project's research goals.

curriculum materials, and pedagogical approaches.

Curriculum and instruction

The curriculum unit used during this study was described in detail in Chapter 3
above. Briefly, the unit consisted of a series of five Lesson Clusters focusing on aspects
of the molecular nature of matter, the three states of matter, and changes of states of
matter. Each Lesson Cluster included a series of lessons providing instruction on the
’ basic concepts of the particulate nature of matter, and at least one collaborative problem
solving activity. Two types of problems were included in these activities, explanation
and design problems. each requiring students to perform different kinds of tasks and to
provide different components of scientific arguments. Explanation problems involved
describing and making sense of phenomena that the students encountered, either through
hands-on experimentation, demonstrations, or through other means. This sense-making
required students to provide reasons or, more specifically, warrants and backing to
supplement the data and claims provided by the problem itself. Design problems
involved planning and, in some cases, carrying out strategies to achieve some practical
goal. in order to develop complete scientific arguments for these activities, students
were required to furnish claims, warrants, backing, and occasionally qualifiers to
supplement the data provided in the problem. Four of these activities were selected as
the foci for this study. and they represented a mixture of explanation and design

3 3
activities. These activities are described briefly later in this chapter and in detail in
Chapter 5.
Data Collection Procedures
Data were collected for this study using the following data sources:

1. Classroom observations of whole class instruction and small group
problem solving, consisting of daily videotaping of each lesson in the unit,
written field notes, and copies of students' written work;

2. Pre- and post-instruction clinical interviews; and

3. Pre- and post- instruction tests.

The data collection procedures began in October, 1990, and ended in January, 1991.
The following timeline illustrates the sequence of data collection:

 

 

 

Pre-lnstruction Instruction of CPS Unit Post-instruction
10/5/90 10/09/90 01/22/91
to to to
10/26/90 01/17/91 01/30/91
Pro-test Daily Classroom Observations Post-test
Clinical interviews Videotaping lessons Clinical interviews
Written field notes
Copies of students' written work

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.1: Timeline of Data Collection Sequence

Data collection procedures for each of these data sources are discussed below.

1. Classroom observations

instruction of the entire unit, including both the whole class and the small group

portions, was videotaped using two 8 mm. video cameras in the classroom. One camera

3 4

was placed in a back corner of the room to film the teacher during whole class
instruction and discussions. A second camera was placed in a front corner of the room to
film as many of the target students as possible during whole class discussions. During
large group instruction, on-camera microphones were used to record the discussions of
the entire class. During small group activities. each camera filmed the nearest target
group (the front camera focused on Group 1 and the back camera on Group 2). using
table-top microphones to record the small group discussions. (See Figure 4.2 below for
a sketch of the classroom, small group locations. and camera placements.) Transcripts
of selected class sessions and small group discussions were made for subsequent analysis
of students' scientific explanations and arguments and their argumentation processes.

in addition to videotaping each lesson, the researcher also took written
observation notes on classroom observation forms. in general, these forms were used to
record a summary of events that occurred during each videotaped lesson including: the
starting and ending times for each activity. the nature and content of each activity
(whole class or small group discussions. teacher demonstrations, etc.), and notes of
what was filmed by the front and back video cameras. Additional notes were recorded for
the individual target students' activities during all phases of the lessons. (See Appendix
4-A).

The development of students' scientific arguments was also traced by
examining copies of their written work. Each activity in the unit. with the exception of
the supplemental questions on weight and volume changes, required students to write
their individual explanations and proposed plans as well as their group's plans and
explanations on worksheets, and these documents were collected and examined.

35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FRONT
’1;;::§D [Teacher's
Desk
Front camera &
target group #1
El
Back camera & %
target group #2
BACK

Figure 4.2: Sketch of classroom

 

3 6

2. Pre- and post-instruction clinical interviews

Clinical interviews were conducted with six of the eight target students prior to
instruction of the unit and again after the instruction had been completed. Due to the
limited amount of time available for interviewing purposes, the middle high and middle
low groups of students were combined and one student from each of the high, middle, and
low ability levels was selected for interviewing from each target group. The clinical
interviews used in this study provided supplemental information on students' conceptual
understanding of the kinetic molecular theory as well as their views on scientific
arguments. The standard interview protocol was composed of a series of five hands-on
tasks that required students to describe, predict, and explain various aspects of the
phenomena under study, and a series of probe questions for each task (See Appendix 4-
B). The five tasks included the following topics: pure substances versus mixtures; the
three states of matter; changes of states of matter (melting,freezing, boiling,
condensing, and evaporation); dissolving; and therrnai expansion of solids and gases.

in addition to the five content-based tasks mentioned above. the clinical
interviews also included quesflons designed to investigate students' ideas about and
understandings of the components of scientific explanations and arguments. (See
Appendices 4-C & 4-D) These questions were designed to probe students' ideas of what
distinguishes a "good' from a 'not-so-good" explanation in science and to try to get them
to identify and apply the necessary components, either as defined by the students
themselves or as they were defined and taught by the curriculum materials, of a 'good'
or complete scientific argument. (More specific information about these questions is
given in the data analysis section below.) The clinical interviews were videotaped and

normally took approximately fifty minutes to complete.

3 7

3) Pre- and post-instruction tests

The test was designed to assess students' understanding of a number of key
conceptions of the kinetic molecular theory and the application of these conceptions to
common physical phenomena. (See Appendix 41-6) The test included twenty-two
questions in multiple choice and short essay formats and was designed to test students'
understanding at both a macroscopic level (concerning the nature of substances and their
properties) and at a molecular level (concerning molecules and their properties). Some
of the questions on the test asked about “knowledge“ (e.g., "Have you ever heard of
molecules? if you answered yes, what do you think molecules are?) but the majority
of the questions asked for explanations of physical phenomena (e.g., “Explain, in your
own words, why heating a solid makes it melt. Explain in terms of molecules of the
solid, if you can“). The test was administered during a 45-50 minute class period.

Data Analysis Procedures
The discussion of the data analysis procedures, like the data collection discussion
above, is organized by data source and describes how each source provided information
concerning each of the research questions being addressed. The data sources are
discussed in the order of their importance for this study; the classroom observations and
students' written work served as the primary data sources, with the clinical interviews

and pre/post-tests providing additional support.

Classroom Observation Videotapes

As mentioned in the data collection procedures above, all instruction of the CPS
unit was videotaped, including both the whole class and small group portions. Since the
primary goal of this study was to examine students' development of scientific arguments
in collaborative problem solving contexts, the data analyses were focused on videotapes

3 8
of small group activities in which the students were engaged. Due to the large number of
these activities included in the curriculum unit, it was necessary to select a subsample
for indepth analysis. The selection of the four activities chosen for this study was
based on the following criteria: include a mixture of the two activity types, explanation
and design, in order to study the nature of students' scientific arguments for activities
requiring different argument components (claims and warrants for explanation
activities; claims, warrants, backing, and/or qualifiers for design problems): include
activities spanning the length of the unit in order to provide information on the
development of students' arguments over time; and include activities whose conceptual
content coincided with the scientific concepts examined in the tasks of the clinical
interviews. The following chart shows each of the four activities selected for the study,
whether it was an explanation or design activity, and the Lesson Cluster in which the
activity was presented.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activity Name Activity Type Lesson Cluster
#1: Pure substances vs. mixtures Explanation Lesson Cluster 1
#2: Weight and mass changes Explanation Lesson Cluster 3
#3: Water on the spaceship Design Lesson Cluster 3
#4: Dissolvinmces Mil Lesson Cluster 4

 

 

Figure 4.3: Descriptions of Selected Collaborative Activities

The videotapes for each of these collaborative problem solving activities were
transcribed to produce transcripts that were as close to verbatim as possible. The
transcripts were numerically labelled in terms of moves, with each person's

contrbution to the dscussion counted as a separate move.

3 9
Discussion Flow Graphs

The next step in the analysis procedure was the development of what i have
termed a discussion flow graph (DFG) for each of these transcripts. Working from
the numbered transcripts of the small group discussions, each move was classified into
one or more of the following categories: off-task, procedural, answers, or reasons. The
characteristics of each category are described below.

m: This category was used for statements judged to be irrelevant to the
procedural or cognitive completion of a particular activity.

Emanuel: These statements were judged to be related to one of three possible
interpretations of the procedural aspects of an activity. The first involved the
completion of the administrative or logistical aspects of an activity or worksheet, such
as whose turn it was to read, who should get the materials for the activity, what the
rules were for completing the activities or worksheets, which question the group was
on, and so forth. A second type of procedural statement involved students' attempts to
reach consensus on the purpose of a question or activity (Miller's collective validation of
the question. discussed below). These included statements which related to questions
such as, what does this question that we're working on really mean, and how are we
supposed to answer it? Finally, a third group of procedural statements involved
students' comments on the social aspects of group conduct, such as the need for all group
members to participate in the discussion, the need to combine aspects of individual
student answers to arrive at a group answer, and the need to be willing to change one's
ideas for the benefit of the entire group.

Am: These statements provided possible solutions to the problems or the
questions included in the activity. These statements would correspond to Toulmin's

claims in his argument analysis structure.

4 0

seasons: These statements provided justification for the answers given in the
category above. These reasons would correspond to Toulmin's warrants and backing.

Finally, in order to indicate the degree of uptake of particular statements and
concepts by various group members, symbols were used to indicate direct, immediate
uptake (solid line arrows, -t), indirect uptake (broken line arrows, -->), or lack of
uptake (inverted T-shape, .L) for each move. (For the purposes of this study, the term
"uptake“ has a common-sense meaning that refers to the degree of individual or group
follow-up or response to a particular statement or idea.) These symbols served as a
visual means for diagramming the collective validation process used by the small group
members. Discussion flow graphs of problem solving sessions that included extended and
well developed discussions of ideas were characterized by complex patterns of symbols
that linked successive moves and categories of statements. The ideal DFG for a group of
scientists would likely show patterns of connections between the groups' answers and
two or three kinds of reasons (Warrants, Backing, Data, and possibly Qualifiers).
Occasional side trips would be expected to the procedural column if the group was having
trouble getting organized or if they were experiencing difficulty in reaching agreement
or in getting their answer written down. if, on the other hand, the arguments made by
students were incomplete or limited in extent, the discussion flow graphs showed very
little linkage between moves and between categories.

These discussion flow graphs were deveIOped as an integral part of the analysis
framework used to answer the primary research questions of this study. Specifically,
the grqahs and these particular categories served several purposes. First, working
from a group discussion transcript, l was able to diagram the categories of statements
made by group members in order to compare the relative proportions of off-task,
procedural, answer, and reason statements for a variety of small group tasks for the two

target groups. These categories and relative proportions provided a first indication of

4 1
the overall distribution of the group's efforts to solve a given problem. Second, the
answers and reasons categories in the discussion flow graphs facilitated the analysis of
individual statements or chains of statements by allowing me to examine the arguments
in terms of a) their components and logical structure using Toulmin's categories and
analysis framework and b) the nature of the scientific concepts used by students and
whether they were canonical or non-canonical. Third, as mentioned above, these graphs
allowed me to examine the degree of uptake for individual ideas or topics between group
members, and to trace the “history“ of possible problem solutions as they were proposed
and as a particular solution was developed over the course of the group discussion. Using
the system of symbols. it was possible to demonstrate whether an answer or idea was
rejected, put in limbo, scrutinized, or accepted as is with little or no further discussion
by the group members. Thus, they served as a visual means for applying Miller's
analysis framework for the collective validation process.

Finally, the discussion flow graphs allowed me to examine the relative
proportions of participation by each group member in each small group discussion. By
calculating the number of moves attributed to a particular student out of the total
number of moves for an activity, the percentage student participation rates were
determined for each activity and compared over the entire period of instruction.

Argument Analysis Frameworks
The analyses of students' scientific arguments were based on analysis
frameworks proposed by Toulmin (1958) and Miller (1987) and were similar in some
respects to the analyses of students’ discourse presented in a recent AERA paper by
Eichinger et al. (1991). Each of these frameworks is discussed in detail below.
Stephen Toulmin (1958) proposed a framework for analyzing the logical
structure of scientific arguments which described complete scientific arguments as

4 2
including particular components related in prescribed ways (See Figure 4.4 below). In
constructing their arguments, scientists are typically given a certain amount of data (D)
with which they are expected to make a claim or reach a conclusion (C). They are
expected to defend their conclusions with warrants (W), and these warrants generally
have backing (B) based on theoretical explanations. Warrants and backing can be in the
form of canonical scientific knowledge or some other form of communally held knowledge
(e.g., for students it might be referring to another activity in class) and they represent
a search for cognitive consistency and relations between other phenomena and problems
and the particular one being considered.

Depending on the nature of the problem and the data provided, it may be
necessary to specify additional qualifiers (O) or assumptions, that is, the particular
conditions under which the conclusion would be valid. Finally, a complete scientific
argument would also consider and take into account any potential rebuttals (R) that
opponents to the argument might raise. According to Toulmin, an argument would be
treated as incomplete without all of these these components, even though all components
would not necessarily have to be explicitly stated at all times.

Given this analytical framework, it was possible to construct a model scientific
argument that identified the components and their respective relationships for each of
the four collaborative problem solving activities selected for analysis. These model
arguments then served as comparative templates for analyzing the arguments proposed
by students who were faced with the same problems or questions. Thus, this framework
was useful for examining the products of students' arguments, but it was not very
appropriate for analyzing the group problem solving sessions, especially in terms of
capturing the dynamic process of developing scientific arguments in collaborative
groups. Since much of what made this research project different and interesting was the
collaborative nature of the problem solving situations in which the students were

43

m woman:

0

.0

sow

xuozoamnm mammamcd ucmadmnm m.cflaasoe "o.v musmflm

m mo unsoooc co

3 oucflm

ucmnum 3
Hmuusnmm
coaumoflMflHmso
sumo

Eflmao

mcflxomm

 

\\
/,

urrn
inciocuasz

44
engaged, the analyses of these collaborative problem solving sessions need to describe
and examine the interactive, social nature of the progressive development of the
students' scientific arguments as well as their scientific content and logical structure.
Thus, an additional analysis framework was needed that, in concert with the Toulmin
framework described above, would allow me to examine both the processes and the
products of students' collaborative problem solving sessions.

The work of Max Miller (1987) provided a useful basis for thinking about how
to analyze arguments developed in collaborative contexts. Although his ideas were
originally applied to the analysis of children's collaborative moral arguments, i believe
that the underlying framework is equally applicable to the analysis of collaborative
scientific arguments. Miller characterized collaborative argumentation as a collective
validation process in which ”the primary goal is to develop a joint argument which gives
an answer to a disputed question, the 'quaestlo" (p. 231). In order to obtain this
answer, participants suggest possible solutions to the problem, react to or ignore these
ideas, and eventually reach consensus on a group answer and reasons. As Miller points
out:

The essential difficulty for the participants of a collective argumentation stems

from the fact that they must coordinate their contributions in such a way that

they can find and agree on a set of collective/y valid statements that need not be
questioned any more within the context of a given argumentation, and on the basis

of which one of the possible answers to a 'quaestio' can be converted into a

collectively valid statement, i.e., a statement accepted by all participants at least

for the time being. (p. 232)

Miller (1987) recognized that, in studying collective argumentation, it was
necessary to distinguish between argument (product) and argumentation (process). Not
only are the final products (arguments) of a collaborative problem solving session of
interest, Miller argued, but equally important is the process (argumentation) by which
the participants reach consensus on their solution to the problem. In order to

understand this process, Miller asserted, It is necessary to examine “those formal

4 5
conditions or rules on which the participants rely or to which they (implicitly) refer if
they try to evaluate the legitimacy (or rationality) of an answer to a 'quaestio' " (p.
232). i propose that Toulmin's analysis framework can serve as one possible set of
conditions or rules that a group of scientifically literate adults would use during their
collective argumentation. A primary goal of this study was to investigate the extent to
which groups of sixth grade students used these or alternative sets of rules and
conditions in their own collective argumentation activities.

Miller's analysis framework assumed that all of the participants agreed from the
outset on the question to be answered. in my interpretation of his framework, I did not
assume consensus on the question. in fact, i think some of the more interesting aspects
of the problem solving sessions that were videotaped are the questions of whether and
how the students reached consensus on the nature of the tasks they were asked to
complete. Thus, for the purposes of this study, I suggest that collective argumentation
includes the process of developing a collectively validated interpretation of the question
as well as a collectively validated solution to the problem.

The interpretation of the Miller analysis framework used in this study can be
summarized as follows. (See also Figure 4.5 below) Given a particular problem or
question, the groups of students were faced with a number of alternative courses of
action. The members could first attempt to reach consensus on the definition of the
question, or begin working directly on the problem solution. In the first case, potential
sources of information would be provided by the problem statement itself as well as by
individual student interpretations of the task. These statements could undergo a
collective validation process, resulting in a mutually validated question which the group
could then attempt to answer. One analysis question for this study was whether this
validation process occurred, and if so, how it took place. For a group of scientifically

literate members, this collective validation process would likely involve steps such as

46

 

    

mmocoEEEoo-
E2595. .2
2.3955.
”co ocean
2:28;;
3 mchm
.535:

 

 

 

{026.com m_w>_wc< #5835. 9.2:: ”me 239”.

    

.Sw
N EoEESw
_ EcEBSm
”cozaom
couuo=a>
>_o>:oo=oo

 
   
  

  

8:330
832.;
22:62.8

  
  

  

  
  

  

           

      

hemfimm

        

  

mmoooi
8.52.; .9

3305
c282; d.

   

Caz...

   

     

£5 moon

  

> 28.5

     

N .836 .m x .886
> Eooaw .N EoESEm
Eofioi

x =5qu . F

  

cozmoac
9.. a
882:8

 
 

wacoewudwm

  

   
 

 

 

 

4 7
identifying and prioritizing the relevant variables, clarifying unknown terms and
concepts, analyzing the information provided in the problem statement, and so forth.
Students' group discussions were analyzed to examine whether this process of
collectively validating the question was a part of their problem solving strategies and, if
so, whether they used these same scientific steps or alternative ones for reaching
consensus on the question.

The second part of Miller's (1987) framework addressed the groups' attempts to
reach consensus on a solution to the problem. As various group members suggested
ideas, other members could either ignore the ideas, agree with them, or challenge them.
For the statements that were not immediately rejected or ignored, Miller suggested that
the ideas would be subjected to a collective validation process, and judgements would be
made concerning the completeness of the supporting arguments using a set of standards
or criteria. . Toulmin's (1958) analysis framework provides one such set of standards
for judging the completeness of an argument that a group of scientifically literate
members would likely use. The CPS unit included an adapted version of the Toulmin
framework, which stated that a good or complete explanation includes three parts. First,
a good explanation includes ahaanratjans telling what you can see, hear, smell, feel, and
so forth. This information would correspond to Toulmin's data. Second, a good
explanation includes W, telling what substances are involved
‘and what their properties are or how they are changing. These statements functioned as
Toulmin's warrants for many of the problems included in the unit. Finally, a good
scientific explanation includes mm which explain properties of
substances or changes in substances by telling about the molecules that the substances
are made of. For the purposes of the CPS unit, these molecular statements functioned as
Toulmin's backing, providing theoretical support for the claims being made. Of
particular interest in this study was the extent m which students internalized and

4 8
applied the curricular version of these standards or used alternative criteria for judging
their own and others' arguments. The students' own validation procedures could have
nothing to do with the logical nature or the scientific content, being based instead on such
factors as a dominant group member , majority rule, or the unyielding persistence of an
individual student in support of his or her idea.

Miller (1987) also suggested that ideas or arguments that were challenged by
other group members would be judged on the basis of their tenablilty and their relevance
to the problem under consideration. In the analysis of students' problem solving
discussions in this study, particular attention was paid to students' answers and reasons
that were challenged or elaborated to try to identify what distinguished them from
answers and reasons that were automatically accepted.

Using these frameworks as guidelines, the next step in the analysis of the
discussion flow graphs was the segmentation of the discussion into “chunks“ or portions
of discourse that provided information on potential patterns that existed in students'
attempts to reach consensus on their answers and reasons. These patterns were then
used to characterize the group argumentation processes for each of the activities,
allowing comparisons to be made with the likely scientific argumentation, between the
groups, and over time.

Thus, the combination of the Toulmin and Miller analysis frameworks allowed me
to develop case studies of the target groups and their individual members as they worked
through each of the four selected activihes In the CPS unit. Using these frameworks and
the format of the discussion flow graphs, it was then possible to take the information
obtained from these analyses to begin to reach some conclusions about the overall nature

of students' scientific arguments, using the following questions as general guidelines:

4 9

1) To what extent did students demonstrate that the questions being asked or the
problems being posed were meaningful and/or relevant to them and therefore worth
paying attention to?

2) if students did answer the questions, did they correctly classify a particular
task or problem as an example of a more general phenomenon (e.g., thermal expansion
or a change of state) and did they identify and isolate relevant variables for the
particular task or problem?

3) Did students provide reasons for their answers , and were these reasons
provided with or without prompting by the teacher, a fellow student, or the worksheet?

4) if reasons were given, what was the nature of the reasons? Did students’
arguments include the three components of scientific explanation taught in the unit
(observations, statements about substances, statements about molecules) ? If so, what
was the nature of these components and how were they structured in the students'
arguments?

Once this information was obtained for each activity, it was possible to begin
answering Research Question #2 concemlng changes in students' scientific arguments
over time. By comparing the patterns of student interactions and the arguments
developed by the students with those that would likely be developed by scientists, it was
possible to evaluate the effectiveness of these curriculum materials in helping students
appropriate and apply the ideas, cognitive tools, and discourse of the scientific
community. in particular, the analyses of students' scientific arguments provided
information on the effectiveness of the unit in helping students from different ability

levels learn to develop scientific arguments in a variety of task environments.

5 0

Clinical interviews

As mentioned briefly in the data collection section above, the clinical interviews
consisted of two main parts. The first was a series of five handson tasks designed to
provide additional information on students' understanding of the science content
presented in the unit. (See Appendix 4-B) In general, students' responses to these
content questions were judged as representing one of four categories: a) scientific goal
conception; b) partial understanding of a scientific conception; c) naive conception; or
d) ambiguous response. These judgements were made by comparing students' responses
with a chart of scientific and naive conceptions developed for the W
project (See Appendix 4-F). The second portion of the interview consisted of two sets of
argument questions. The first set (See Appendix 4-C) was designed to look at the role of
technical terms (Question #1), intended audience (Question #2), and the necessary
components for a 'good" explanation (Question #3). These categories were selected
based on work by Hesse & Anderson (1992) on students' explanations of chemical change
which suggested that these were important components of students' ideas about scientific
arguments. These questions were administered during the pre- and the post-instruction
interviews, and were designed to provide information on changes In students' ideas about
scientific arguments over time. The second set of questions (See Appendix 4.D),
administered during the post-instruction interview only, asked students to provide their
own explanations for a series of questions involving real-world situations. Students
were asked to identify the three argument components (observations, statements about
substances, and statements about molecules) in either their own explanations or, in
cases where they had difficulty in providing their own explanations, by using notecards
with possible pieces of an explanation that were provided by the interviewer. This
second set of questions provided additional opportunities for students to develop

5 1
arguments and explanations for science topics that corresponded to those covered in the
CPS curriculum unit.

As mentioned above, the primary data source for this study was the students'
arguments that were developed during their collaborative problem solving discussions.
The information obtained from the clinical interviews on the students' conceptual
understanding as well as the nature and content of their explanations and arguments was

used to supplement the analyses of the discussion flow graphs.

Pre- and Post-Instruction Tests

Like the clinical interviews, the pre- and post-instruction tests provided
supplemental data for investigating students' understanding of the scientific concepts
covered in the CPS curriculum materials. Students‘ responses to the test questions were
coded using the same four general categories used for the clinical interviews: scientific
goal conception, partial understanding, naive conception, or ambiguous response, using
the same goal conception-naive conception chart (See Appendix 4-F). Students' answers
to the test questions were used to supplement the analyses of the discussion flow graphs
and to provide further evidence supporting the conclusions made concemlng the nature

of students' scientific arguments.

CHAPTER FIVE
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the findings for the research questions addressed by this
study. For research question #1 concerning the nature of students' scientific
arguments, results are presented for each of the four group tasks described in Chapter
4. Each task was analyzed in terms of a) the logical structure and scientific content of
scientific arguments and b) the collective validation process. Both of these components
were examined from an ideal, scientifically literate perspective and from the students'
perspective. For research question #2 concemlng changes in students' scientific
arguments over time, each of the group's arguments for the four tasks are discussed in
terms of changes in the group's argument structures and its collective validation
processes over the course of the unit. Research question #3, concerning factors that
affect students' scientific arguments, will be discussed in Chapter 6: Summary,
Conclusions, and Implications.

W

A goal of this task was to have students apply what they had Ieamed in previous
lessons about matter, non-matter, pure substances and mixtures to the classification of
eight unknown samples. In this activity, the students were given unlabeled vials
containing water, air, salt water, salt and sand, sand and iron filings, mud, sand and
sawdust, as well as a picture of a candle flame. They were asked to first decide on a name
for each of the substances, then to determine if each was matter or non-matter, a pure
substance or a mixture, and whether they were sure or unsure of their classifications.
For each substance, students were told that they must provide reasons to support their
conclusions. The teacher modeled the procedure for the entire class by thinking aloud

while going through the decision-making process for a sample substance. Students were
5 2

5 3
given time to work on this task on an individual basis first, and then they met in small
groups to reach consensus on their group answers and reasons. They were told by their
teacher and by the instructions on their worksheets that they could use the equipment
provided (beakers, magnifying glasses, test tubes, and other containers) to collect
evidence that might help them arrive at and defend their answers.

Earlier lessons stressed the following scientific concepts: mattar includes all
solids, liquids, and gases that make up the world; nan;rnattar are those things that are
not solids, liquids, or gases; W are substances that contain only one kind of
matter; and mixtures are substances containing two or more different substances mixed

together.

W

W

in order to Identify an unknown substance under the conditions set out in this
activity, most scientists would probably first make a decision based on a visual
examination of the substance. Additional testing using simple techniques discussed below
could be done to verify an initial identification or, in cases where the initial
identification was uncertain, to obtain further information concerning the unknown
substance. For example, with a substance that looked like water, scientists could
evaporate a small sample of the liquid and check for a precipitate, indicating that another
substance had been added to the water. Or, for a substance that contained a mixture of
small white grains or crystals, a magnifying glass could be used to try to visually
distinguish between the different grains, or the mixture could be mixed with water to
see if any of the grains dissolved. Thus, various tests (evaporating, smelling, examining
with a magnifying glass, dissolving, tasting, etc.) could be performed to determine the
identity of the unknown substance. This empirical evidence would play an important

5 4
role in the identification of the substance and, as will be discussed shortly, in
determining whether the unknown was a pure substance or a mixture.

The decision of whether a substance was matter or non-matter would be fairly
straightforward, based on: the canonical definitions given in the preceding lessons; an
understanding of the distinguishing characteristics of each of the three states of matter;
and observational data that matched or failed to match these distinguishing
characteristics. Substances that were found to be either a solid, liquid, or gas would be
examples of matter, while anything that was not an example of one of these three states
of matter would be classified as non-matter. .

If a substance was identified as an example of matter, it could then be classified
as either a pure substance or a mixture. As noted above, the basic tests and the kinds of
empirical evidence used to determine the identity of the substance (evaporating,
smelling, dissolving, etc.) could also be used to determine whether the sample consisted
of only one substance (a pure substance) or more than one substance (a mixture).

Finally, the decision of whether a group of scientists was sure or not sure about
their classifications would likely depend on the level of confidence they had in their
answers concemlng the identity of the substance and whether it was pure or mixture. in
other words, this decision would be based primarily onthe kinds of empirical evidence
the group was able to gather, and the nature of the qualifiers or the assumptions that
were deemed important for this activity.

it is clear that for a group of scientists completing the worksheet accompanying
this activity, the answers to each of the cells in a row (name of substance, matter or
non-matter, pure or mixture, sure or not sure) for a particular substance would be
closely linked. That is, the answer given for one cell would provide useful and necessary
information for determining the possible answers to the other cells for the same

substance. For example, if a sample was classified as non-matter, then it could be

5 5

neither pure nor mixture, based on the canonical definitions of matter and non-matter.
it is also clear that the arguments developed by a group of scientifically literate
members would be based on a mixture of empirical evidence (the data they gathered for
each of the unknown substances) and theoretical warrants and backing (in this case, the
canonical definitions for the scientific concepts).

With this description of the ideal, scientific approach to completing this task
serving as a sort of comparative template, it is possible to examine the nature of the

target students' answers and arguments.

W
Tails 5.1 below presents a summary of the answers and the reasons that the
Group 1 students developed on an individual basis prior to their group discussion, as

well as a summary of their final group answers and reasons. The portions of the table in

Table 5.1: Summary of Group 1 Worksheet Entries - Activity #1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Answers Reasons
Jason Air - matter, mixture Noreason given
Salt - matter, pure Tastes like salt
Jamie Air - matter, mixture Noreason given
Salt - nothing written on paper
Mary Air - (non)matter, pure Because there's nothing to mix in it
Salt - non-matter, pure Because there's chemicals only on
Marvin Air - matter, mixture Becauseithas gas
Ground salt - (non)matter, I didn't test it
mixture

 

 

 

Air - matter, mixture Because you can't small air

Salt - matter, pure Because we tasted it

 

 

5 6
parentheses indicate parts of students' answers that were erased during the course of the
group discussion. Appendix 5-A includes copies of students' worksheets and discussion
flow graphs for each small group discussion.

Group 1, consisting of Mary, Jason, Jamie, and Marvin, completed the
identification and classification of two substances during the group discussion period,
which lasted approximately twenty minutes. The first unknown substance the group
examined was a vial of air. Classification decisions concerning air had to be made based
primarily on canonical knowledge, since there was limited empirical evidence that could
be collected for this substance to aid in determining the group's answers and reasons. In
fact, Group 1 relied rather heavily on canonical definitions in deciding that air is an
example of matter and that it is a mixture. Mary began the group discussion with the
claim that air is non-matter because it was not an example of any of the three states of
matter, but Marvin and Jason pointed out that air is In fact a gas and, therefore, an

example of matter.

7 Mary: You guys ain't even paying attention. I said air, non-matter
8 Marvin: Air is pure.

9 Mary: because it's not a liquid, solid, or

1 0 Jason: Air is a gasl

1 1 Marvin: It's a gas. It's a matter.

1 2 Jason: Matter.

in a similar fashion, Jamie and Marvin used the canonical definition of a mixture
(two or more different substances mixed together) to claim that air is a mixture (23-
24), contrary to Mary's claim that air is pure “because nothing's mixed in with it.“ (3)

While trying to decide on a group reason for their claim of mixture, the students
in Group 1 proposed several alternatives, but very few of these elicited much extended
discussion. One exception was Mary's claim that 'we can small air.” (72) All of the
other group members objected strongly to her suggestion, arguing that you can't small

air. Several students used sarcastic remarks to strengthen their objections.

57

6 8 Mary: Because we can smell it.

6 9 Marvin: Because it's mixed with lots of gases.

70 Jason: No, i don't think so.

71 Marvin: (T 0 Jason) Yes, it is.

72 Mary: You can smell it.

73 Jason: (To Marvin) Fine.

74 Marvin: (To Mary) You can't small air.

75 Jamie: If you can smell air, then I'm Humpty Dumpty.
7 6 Jason: Because you can't small air.

77 Jamie: (Sarcastically) Smell that air! Smell that shitl
78 Jason: There's Humpty Dumpty. Because you can't small air.
7 9 Mary: Come on! We're only on the first one.

8 0 Jason: You can't smell air.

81 Boy X: I know you can't small air.

82 Marvin: (Writing) Because you can't small air.

That phrase, ”Because you can't small air,“ became the group's reason for deciding that
air is a mixture, even though it wasn't particularly clear how that reason supported
their claim for mixture.

The group's discussion of the second unknown substance, salt and sand, provided
additional examples of several of the limitations of students' arguments. The group spent
a long time reaching consensus on the identity of the substance. Three students argued it
was salt based on their prior knowledge of “ground salt, the kind you use to melt ice on
sidewalks.“ Jason argued it wasn‘t salt, based on empirical evidence obtained as a result
of tasting the unknown substance. (122-127) He claimed that he had tasted ”ground
salt' before and this substance didn't taste like it. Jason was finally convinced that the
substance was indeed salt after tasting the unknown a second time. (241-244)

During this argument, the group decided that the substance (whatever it was)
was matter based on the canonical definition provided in their lessons. (157-164)
However, while discussing whether the substance was pure or a mixture, several
students, and in particular Jamie, insisted that the other students had to present
convincing reasons for supporting their claims, and that canonical definitions alone were
not sufficient. For this group, the convincing element seemed to be personal knowledge

or experience.

58

1 65 Jamie: Mixturel

166 Mary: (To Jason) it's mixture? Because we tested it?

1 6 7 Jamie: No, that's not a good reason.

1 68 Jason: it's pure!

1 6 9 Jamie: How do you know?

1 70 Jason: 'Cause it's only made out of one substance.

1 71 Mary: Yedi.

1 72 Marvin: Nol

1 73 Jamie: (To Jason) How do you know?

174 Jason: its pure.

1 75 Jamie: Answer the question, Jasoni

1 76 Mary: Because

1 77 Jason: Because it's only made out of one matter.

1 78 Marvin: No

1 79 Jamie: How do you Have you made salt before?

180 Jason: i put it in my mouth and it tasted like the same thing.
1 81 Marvin: (T 0 Jason) That's the reason Have you made it before?

The group finally agreed that the substance was pure, and their reason was based
on shared empirical evidence: 'Because we tasted it.” (259-264) As was the case in
their discussion of air, the logical link between the group answer and the corresponding
warrant was not clear. The criteria for a good reason in both cases seemed to be the
group's common empirical evidence and the ability of the group to reach agreement on
any answer. However, the empirical evidence used by the group was very limited in
scope. The group failed to see that the substance was really a mixture of salt and sand.
They based their identification solely on tests without considering additional sources of
empirical evidence, such as whether all of the particles looked the same or were equally

soluble in water.

W

Table 5.2 below presents a summary of the students' initial individual answers
and reasons and the group's final answers and reasons for each of the substances they
Identified during the group discussion. (See Appendix 5-A for a copy of the discussion
flow graph for this activity.)

Three members of Group 2 (Jennifer, Anna, and Sheronda) discussed three
unknown substances during this activity. The fourth group member, Brett, was absent

5 9
the day this activity was completed. The group began discussing air, and quickly
disagreed on whether air was matter or non-matter. As pointed out above, a group of
scientifically literate members would quickly resolve this question by referring to the
canonical definition of matter as a solid, a liquid, or a gas. For Group 2, it became clear
that, even though they could cite the definition, this was insufficient without a common
understanding of the states of matter, and in this case an understanding of what
constitutes a gas. (23-31) Despite the lack of consensus, Jennifer yielded on this point,
although she did suggest that the group verify their answer by checking with the teacher.
(33) A few moves later, the group found that their lack of a common understanding of
the composition of air also led to dsagreement. Although she did not appear to be
convinced of the truth of the scientific information presented by Sheronda and Anna,
Jennifer eventually yielded once again to the majority thinking, and the group discussion
of this substance ended. (47-63)

Table 5.2: Summary of Group 2 Worksheet Entries - Activity #1

 

 

 

 

Student Answers Ransom
Sheronda Air - matter, pure Gas- because there's nothing else
in it
Sand/pepper - matter, mixture Different things in it
Salt water- matter, mixture Salt in it
Anna Air - (non)matter, pure It's gas and nothing mixed
Sand/dirt - (non)matter, mixture It's not a matter
Water - matter, pure It's liquid
Jennifer Air - non-matter, mixture Air has different mixtures
Sand/pepper - matter, mixture There are little black stuff in it
that is pepper
Salt water- matter, mixture Salt in it
Brett Absent Absent

 

 

 

 

 

Air - matter, mixture Pollution
Sand/pepper - matter, mixture Different things in it

Salt water- matter, mixture Salt in it

 

 

60

For the second unknown substance, the group decided fairly quickly and with
little discussion that the substance was sand and pepper (actually sand and iron filings).
(65-75) The group disagreed on whether sand was a solid or not, but this time a
canonical definition seemed to help the group reach consensus.

1 02 Jennifer: Mixture.

103 Sheronda: Reasonl Different things in it.

1 04 Jennifer: (To Sheronda) No.

105 Sheronda: Yes, girl.

106 Anna: (Simultaneously) Different things in it. Because it's a solid.
107 Sheronda: No, different things in it.

108 Jennifer: (T 0 Anna) That ain't a solid, is it?

109 Sheronda: No, it isn't.

I 10 Anna: it isn't? Then why is it matter? it's either solid
1 11 Jennifer: The little, the little crystals in there are solid.
1 12 Anna: That's what I said. its solid.

For substance #3 (salt water), the group used canonical definitions as reasons
for deciding that the substance was matter because it was a liquid (127), and that it was
a mixture because it had salt mixed with the water (181-183). Empirical evidence
(tasting) convinced the group that the substance was indeed salt water and not pure
water (152-156).

WW5:

W

Table 5.7 below of the students' participation rates shows that there were fairly
equal participation rates for all group members during this activity. All of the group
members had opportunities to put their ideas out on the table for consideration. No
student seemed to dominate the discussions nor did one student's reasons seem to hold
more value or be more persuasive than any other's.

The group proposed a wide-variety of reasons when trying to decide whether air
was pure or a mixture, but in most instances there was little direct discussion of each

other's ideas. On several occasions, however, Mary's ideas were rejected by all three of

6 1
the other students, and this consensus resulted in the group's final reason for one of the
substances. (16-34, 72-82) Thus, arriving at the final group response was not
always a matter of careful consideration of all possible answers and the elimination of
all but the most suitable. Instead, it seemed to be a matter of accepting the answer or
reason that the majority of students could agree on. Once agreement was reached, the
group considered their task to be completed.

In general, the group members all showed an interest in having reasons for their
answers, with each member requesting reasons at least once during the activity (Mary:
35, 44; Marvin: 19; Jamie: 83, 65, 169-175; and Jason:186-188, 201). Of course,
the question of the students' motivation in requesting these reasons arises. In other
words, it was unclear whether the students genuinely wanted to know how and why the
other group members arrived at their answers, or whether their requests were
prompted by the nature of the activity itself and specifically the worksheet that the
students had to fill out. in terms proposed by Edwards and Mercer (1987), it was not
clear whether students' participation in and understanding of the activity was ritualized
or principled.

The general impression that emerged from the data for this group is that the
students' engagement in this activity was predominantly ritualized in nature. As noted
above, students seemed to reach consensus based on majority rule rather than based on a
thorough consideration of all possible answers. Many different ideas were proposed, but
very few elicited significant discussion. Additional evidence for this claim of ritualized
participation was provided by the students' worksheets. A principled interpretation of
this activity would be based on the understanding that the worksheet needed to be
completed on a llne-by-iine basis rather than on a cell-by-cell basis. In other words,
the answers to one cell for a substance clearly affect the possible answers for the
subsequent cells. The students' individual answers on their worksheets showed little

6 2

recognition of this, with every student except Jason labelling at least one substance as
non-matter and then classifying that substance as either a pure substance or a mixture.
From the students' perspective, their task seemed to be to fill In as many individual cells
as possible and to get the worksheet filled out as completely and as quickly as possible.

This ritualized interpretation of the activity was clearly demonstrated by one of
the students in this group. Mary's participation in this activity was characterized by
her repeated statements about procedural matters and getting through the worksheet
(moves # 25, 38, 52, 79, 114, 155, 251, 256, 266). On several occasions she
reminded the rest of the group that their work would be graded, and she expressed
frustration with the group's slow pace in completing the worksheet. Her contributions
to the discussion revealed that she did not consider this to be a particularly meaningful

activity.

W

The discussion flow graph for this activity showed a predominance of procedural
statements and very little extended discussion of the answers suggested by the three
students. As was the case for the students in Group 1, the decision-making procedure for
this groin mpeared to be based on the principle of majority rules. Once two of the three
students agreed on a particular answer or reason, the discussion for that substance
ended, regardless of whether all possible answers had been given equal consideration.

Similar to the students in Group 1, these students completed the activity in a
ritualized manner, treating each cell of their worksheets as individual items to be
completed. The students also disagreed on their interpretations of the kinds of reasons
they were supposed to give for each substance. While discussing the second unknown
substmce, Anna claimed that the group needed to justify their classification of the
substance as matter, while Jennifer and Sheronda argued that the group's reason had to

6 3

explain why the substance was a mixture(108-123). Anne was eventually overruled
by Jennifer and Sheronda, a pattern that was repeated many times during the unit.

Although the participation rates for this group were fairly equal, it was evident
that Sheronda controlled much of the discussion. On several occasions she effectively
ended the discussion of altematlve answers by telling the other students what the group
answer would be. For example, when the group was discussing the classification of air,
Sheronda refused to discuss Jennifer's idea that air was not a gas, asserting that her
answer and her reason were the right ones (23-38). In the example mentioned above on
the discussion of the group's reasons for the sand and pepper, Sheronda repeatedly

insisted that her answer was correct (103-112).

Summary

Mummies:

In summary, the scientific arguments developed by both small groups during this
activity were based on a combination of personal knowledge and anecdotes, empirical
data, and scientific canon, primarily canonical definitions. Unlike the systematic data
collection that would likely be performed by a hypothetical group of scientifically
literate members completing this activity, the empirical evidence obtained by these
students was very limited in scope and unorganized. They did not appear to place much
value on accurate and organized empirical data collection, seemingly satisfied when the
group was able to reach agreement based on only a few observations. The students rarely
used the available equipment to further test the accuracy of their answers. The lack of
commonly accepted understandings of key scientific concepts and criteria for evaluating
reasons among group members resulted in arguments that were substantially different

from and less developed than those that would be articulated by scientists.

6 4

Since this was the first collaborative problem solving activity of the unit, it is
not terribly surprising that the students' scientific arguments during this activity were
very limited in terms of their logical structure and their scientific accuracy. Prior to
this activity, the students had not yet received any instruction on the components of good
or complete arguments. Their teacher and the worksheet for this activity reminded them
to provide reasons for their answers, but little if any discussion took place to talk about
what constitutes a 'good" reason. The students were encouraged to use simple equipment
and observational data to help in developing their reasons for their answers. Although
they had received some instruction on the definitions of the various terms such as
matter, non-matter, and pure substance immediately prior to this activity, the students
were also forced to rely to a large extent on their prior knowledge about the three states
of matter and their own definitions of pure substances and mixtures. Finally, since this
activity occurred at the beginning of the instructional unit, these students also had a
very limited common knowledge base in terms of a shared understanding of scientific
canon or shared in-class activities.

Generally speaking, the students' small group discussions reflected these
limitations. Lacking a well developed set of theoretical criteria for judging the validity
or the relevance of reasons, the groups resorted to the use of a few canonical definitions
as their warrants. Lacking a well developed, shared, canonical knowledge base, they
often resolved their disagreements on the basis of personal knowledge and anecdotes.
Lacking an understanding of the importance of accurate empirical evidence in scientific
decision making, they failed to take full advantage of the equipment and other resources
at their disposal for collecting data that would be useful in the decision-making process.

The discussion flow graphs for the two groups revealed a number of similarities
in the argumentation processes used by the students. In general, the discussions of both
groups were characterized by little extended discussion of the reasons given to support

6 5
individual answers, and by a ritualized procedure of fllling in each of the cells on the
worksheet with little consideration of how the answer to one cell would affect the answer
for another call. When reasons were given, they were often based on personal
experience or anecdotal information that was not subject to group verification.
Occasional reference was made to canonical definitions, and little use was made of
systematic data collection for verifying group answers. Rather than considering a range
of altematlve answers and reasons, both groups showed a preference for ending their
discussions as soon as a majority of students was able to reach agreement, resulting in

incomplete or unclear arguments.

Unlike the other three activities In this study vmich all included separate
occasions for students to develop individual as well as group answers and reasons, this
activity only consisted of a small group discussion during which students answered a
series of questions on a supplemental worksheet designed by their classroom teacher.
This group discussion was preceded by a series of lessons on: the three states of water
and the molecular arrangement of each state; changes of state of water such as freezing,
melting, and boiling; and teacher demonstrations of freezing and melting ice and the
resulting changes in volume but constancy of mass. Seeing that the students were having
trouble with these ideas, the teacher wrote up his own worksheet on mass and volume to
help students think about and better understand the differences between these two units
of measure. Having worked with the pilot version of the CPS unit the previous year, he
knew that an understanding of the content issues of constant mass and variable volume
for changes of states of water was crucial for the third activity, Water on the Spaceship,
involving the choice of which state of water to take into space.

The four questions on the worksheet concerning weight and volume that students
discussed in their small groups were:

1. Which weighs more. a quart of sand or a quart of cotton?

2. Which has the greatest volume, a liter of cotton or a liter of sand?

3. Which weighs more, 11 grams of sand or 11 grams of cotton?

4. Which has the greatest volume, 11 grams of sand or 11 grams of cotton?

WW
Students were given these questions to get them thinking about the differences
between the weight and volume of different substances. These supplementary questions

were designed to be used with the text section on weight and volume of a single substance
6 6

6 7

undergoing changes of state. The text demonstrations, involving the freezing and melting
of water, were intended to show that for water, the volume changes (volume increases
when frozen, decreases when melted) but the weight (mass) remains the same. This
demonstration was used to emphasize that the number of molecules of water (and
therefore, the mass) did not change with a change of state. What did change was the
arrangement of the molecules, with water molecules being farther apart in the solid
state than in the liquid state. This change in molecular arrangement results in the
volume of ice being slightly greater than the volume of the same mass of liquid water.

However, these questions were not simply about mass and weight. The teacher's
questions also introduced the notion of ganajty, or mass per unit volume, by comparing
two very different substances, sand and cotton. His series of questions asked about
differences in mass and volume, but correctly answering these questions required a
correct understanding of the concept of density as well. it also required paying careful
attention to the variable being requested by the question (volume or weight) and the unit
of measure given in the question. For example, Question #1 asks, "Which weighs more,
a quart of sand or a quart of cotton?‘ To correctly answer this question, a student would
need to recognize that the requemed variable is weight, while the given unit of measure
is volume (quarts). in addition, the student would also need to see that because sand has
a greater density than cotton (that is, a greater mass for a given volume), and since the
question asked about equal volumes of the two substances, then the sand would weigh
more.

in Question #2, "Which has the greatest volume, a liter of cotton or a liter of
sand?", the students would need to realize that liters are measures of volume, and that
the requeaed variable is also volume. In this question, the concepts of mass and density
are irrelevant, because only volume Is being considered, not weight or weight per unit

volume.

6 8

Question #3, “Which weighs more, 11 grams of sand or 11 grams of cotton?” is
similar to Question #2, only this time the requested variable and the given variable are
both weight. To answer this question correctly, students would need to recognize that
grams represent a unit measure of weight.

Question #4, “Which has the greatest volume, 11 grams of sand or 11 grams of
cotton?“ is similar to Question #1 because density is an important part of the answer to
both of these questions. This time students would need to realize that because sand has a
greater mass per unit volume than cotton (greater density), equal weights of the two
substances would occupy different volumes, with 11 grams of cotton taking up much

more space than 11 grams of sand.

ScientificallLlitstataJarsion

These questions represent a good example of the importance of the collective
validation of the question being considered. A group of scientifically literate members
would likely follow a series of steps similar to those described above to identify the
relevant variables for each question and to identify the information provided in the
problem statement that would be needed for correctly answering each question. Once this
had been done and the group had reached consensus on the exact nature of the questions
being considered, they could begin applying the concepts of mass, volume, and density to
the four questions.

The argument components needed for answering these questions would be provided
by the problem statement, the variables identified during the validation of the question,
and the canonical definition of density. For example, for Question #1 the model
argument could be written as follows: Given equal volumes of sand and cotton (D), a
quart of sand would weigh more than a quart of cotton (C) since sand is more dense than

cotton (W) because sand has a greater mass per unit volume than cotton (B). The same

6 9
argument structure would apply to Question #4, with the given unit of measure being
mass instead of volume, and the definition of density explaining that cotton has a smaller
mass per unit volume than sand. For Questions #2 and #3, the argument simply
involves recognizing that grams and liters are units of measure for mass (weight) and
volume, respectively. So, the argument for Question #3 could be written as follows:
Given equal weights of sand and cotton (D), 11 grams of sand would weigh the same as 11

grams of cotton (C) since grams are units of measure of weight (W).

W
This group began answering these questions in reverse order, considering
Question #4 first (although the videotape transcript begins with the group having
already discussed Question #4 and moved on to Question #3). Jason and Nate dominated
the discussion, with the two of them together accounting for more than 70 percent of the
total moves for this discussion. (See Table 5.7 below.) Nate argued correctly that 11
grams of sand and 11 grams of cotton would weigh the same and he understood that this
question was only asking about weight. Jason, on the other hand, failed to recognize that
grams is a unit of weight, and his misunderstanding of this question was made clear with
the example he gave the group to try to clarify his reasoning:
I 7 Jason (Picks up notebook) Lets say this is eleven grams and (picks up
another folder) this is eleven grams. (Hands both to Nate and Nate uses
his hands as balances.) Which weighs more to you?
1 8 Nate They're both the same.
1 9 Jason (Points to yellow folder) That is definitely moral
A few moves later he argued that, although sand and cotton both weigh 11 grams, ”maybe
one doesn't weigh as much as the other" (24). When the group went back to reconsider
Question #4, a critical source of confusion arose when different students used the terms

“lighter“ and ”heavier” to mean both weight and density, without making the distinction

between the two variables clear. For example, in response to Question #4, Nate said

7 O

that cotton would have the greatest volume “because sand is heavier than cotton and it

takes more cotton to make 11 grams, so therefore the cotton has a greater volume."(43)

Here Nate used the common term “heavier" in the sense of density, meaning that sand has

a greater mass per unit volume than cotton. Jason argued that Nate was being

inconsistent in his answers to Questions #3 8t 4 because, while Nate claimed that sand is

“heavier“ than cotton in Q#4 (40-43), he also stated that 11 grams of cotton and 11

grams of sand weigh the same. How could they weigh the same in one case and yet be

different in another case? Jason's consistent failure to distinguish between the
variables of weight and volume and his use of “heavier“ and ”lighter” to refer to weight,
and Nate's use of the terms ”weight,“ “lighter,“ and ”heavier" as synonyms for density

caused a great deal of confusion for the entire group (Cf. Moves 54-63, 65-75).

Throughout the discussion, Mary and Jason argued that Nate was being
inconsistent in his claims that one substance was lighter than the other and yet both
weighed the same. After several attempts at resolving this conflict, the group flnally
asked the teacher to intervene, and he tried to get them to clarify their use of the terms
lighter and heavier and to identify the relevant variables for each question. After his
attempts proved unsuccessful with Jason, the teacher left the group and asked Nate to
explain things to Jason (Moves 127-167). Mary finally admitted that she understood
the diferenca between Questions 3 8r 4, and Jason reluctantly conceded defeat when he
realized that he was outnumbered three to one.

1 77 Jason The sand would be heavier. That's the same as eleven grams in one hand
and eleven grams in the other. They would be the same.

178 Ne» Yeah, they would. There's more of cotton. We're not taking about volume
on this question, we're just talking about the weight. Do you get what I'm
saying?

179 Mary I get it.

180 Nate Seel (To Jamie) Do you get it?

181 Mary Year.

182 Nate See, Jason? (Slaps hands together and smiles)
1 83 Jason Fine. What are we going to put then?

71
1 84 Nab Thank you. The same, the same weight.

190 Jason I'm putting "same.“ if I get it wrong, it's your fault.
191 Nab We're not going to get it wrong, Jason.

When the group moved on to the next two questions, the same problems arose,
with Jason having difficulties distinguishing between weight, volume, and density, and in
clearly defining the relevant variables for each question. The problem solving session
ended with the group still undecided on their answers, and Nate tried one last time to
convince Jason that he was right, saying, “Trust me on this one, Jason. I think i know

what l'm talking about.“ (217)

W

This group spent very little time on this set of four questions. While answering
the first part of the worksheet which asked them to write a sentence for the term
“volume,“ it became clear that they really didn't understand what the term meant, and
had to ask the teacher to deflne it for them. Even after he did so, it wasn't at all clear
that the students understood this concept because their sentence using the word volume
was, "Molecules are made of lots of volume.“ (128)

This group's discussion of all of the weight and volume questions lasted only a few
minutes, compared to Group #1 which was only able to answer three of the four
questions in the twenty minutes of small group time. For the flrst question, Sheronda
and Jennifer claimed (correctly) that a quart of sand weighs more than a quart of cotton,
and the other group members accepted this answer with no discussion at all (129-130).
For Question #2, Jennifer claimed that a liter of cotton has a greater volume than a liter
of sand because ”cotton fills the whole thing.“ (132) Sheronda accepted this answer and
told Brett to move on to the next question, but Anna argued that “you can also fill it (the

container) with sand."(134) in response, Jennifer argued that sand has air going

7 2
through it and more space (implying that it doesn't fill the container all the way up) and
that cotton is all together (135-39). When Anna argued that cotton has air in it too,
Sheronda and Jennifer insisted that the correct answer was cotton(140) and that ended
the discussion. Although Anna realized that the group's answer was incorrect, she was
undale to convince Sheronda and Jennifer of this. The group's lack of understanding of
the term “volume” prevented them from understanding what the question was asking for.
The group also failed to correctly Identify the relevant variable for this question and to
identify the information provided in the problem statement.

For Question #3, Brett, Sheronda, and Jennifer all agreed that 11 grams of
cotton weigh more than 11 grams of sand (140-43) with no discussion whatsoever of
their reasons and no argument presented (no warrants or backing). The group claimed
to have finished the worksheet without discussing Question #4.

W

W

Unlike the previous activity in which students contributed fairly equally to the
group discussion, this activity was characterized by Nate and Jason's domination of the
discussion. (See Table 5.7 below) The two of them together contributed nearly 72% of
the total number of moves during the discussion. Mary and Jamie played relatively
minor roles in this discussion in terms of the number of statements they made and the
overall impact of their ideas on the group's final answers and reasons.

Much of the students' discussion revolved around their inability to agree on how
to interpret these questions and what was needed to answer them. The failure of this
group to collectively validate these questions led kt much of the confusion and frustration
that they experienced. Jason failed to realize that each of the questions provided
different kinds of information and required considering a different set of variables. He

73
believed that several of the questions were identical (e.g., Questions #3 8 #4) with just
a few word changes involved, when in fact answering the two questions involved much
more than simply substituting weight and grams in one question for volume and liters in
the other. As discussed above, correctly answering two of the questions (#1 8t #4)
required an understanding of the concept of density, and answering the other two
required considering either weight or volume alone. Nate attempted to point out the
appropriate variables for several of the questions (68, 178), but he was unable to make
this clear for Jason and Mary. As mentioned above, the group members' failure to
clarify their individual interpretations of the terms “weight,“ “lighter,“ “heavier,“ and
”amount“ also resulted in Nate and Jason consistently arguing at cross purposes.

Throughout this discussion, Jason and Nate were the only group members who
explicitly explained their personal reasoning for their answers. Mary and Jamie
participated very little In this discussion, with Mary primarily supporting Jason in his
criticisms of Nate's apparent logical inconsistency (55, 65, 86-88, 103) and Jamie
supporting Nate in his attempts to distinguish the relevant variables for Questions #3
&#4 (25, 105, 172).

Another pattern that characterized this group's discussion was the frequent
appeals to outside authority'to resolve disagreements. When one or more of the group
members became frustrated with their inability to reach consensus, help was sought
from the teacher, others within the classroom or, in one instance, from a television
show. The classroom teacher became involved in the group discussion several times,
providing suggestions on procedural aspects in one instance (29-39) and trying to help
the group clarify its use of the terms 'Iighter" and “heavier" in another instance (127-
167). Another time, Mary and Nate sought answers to the discussion questions from an
adjacent group of students (108-111). At another point, Jamie even suggested, “Let's

take this to People's Court,“ referring to the television show that features the presidings

7 4
of a small claims court. (12) However, at least one student realized that ultimately
the group had to flnd a way to resolve its own differences of opinion. Near the end of the
discussion, Jason tried to solicit the teacher's assistance again, but was told by Nate,
”We can't call on Mr. Donaldson every time we have a problem. You know that and I know
that." (208).

W

The group discussion for this activity showed limited group engagement in the
task of answering these questions. Overall, the group spent very Iitfle time discussing
any of their answers. The discussion flow graph for this activity was very linear, with
very few connections made between any of the columns. The vast majority of the moves
were classified as either procedural statements concerned with logistical problems such
as whose turn it was to read or what to write down, or as specific answers to the
questions. For the four discussion questions on weight and volume, there were no
segments of the discussion that represented collective validation of the questions. The
only chunk of the discussion that addressed reasons involved Anna's attempts to disagree
with Jennifer on her answer to Question #2 (132-139). As mentioned above, Jennifer
and Sheronda refused to consider her counterarguments, and the group discussion was
squelched by Jennifer and Sheronda's insistence that their answer was correct.

During this discussion, Group 2 needed the teacher's help on two separate
occasions. First, they needed his assistance in establishing a procedural system for
addressing each question and ensuring equal participation by each group member (1).
The group also needed the teacher's help in clarifying the definition of the term volume
(119-128). Even though the teacher gave the canonical definition twice, "Volume is

how much space something takes up,“ it was apparent that the group did not fully

75
understand the meaning of the term, as shown by their sentence, “Molecules are made of
lots of volume.“ (126-128)

It is clear from the discussion flow graph and from the table of student
participation rates (See Table 5.7 below) that Sheronda and Jennifer exercised the most
control in this group, with Sheronda being the most dominant member. She took on the
role of maestro for the group, repeatedly telling other members what to do (10, 39-46,
55, 58, 64-80, 128, 131, 140) and, on one occasion, dictating an answer to the group
(2-9). It is clear, however, that the other group members were not completely
comfortable with this arrangement. When Sheronda tried a second time to unilaterally
decide on a group answer, Jennifer objected and reminded Sheronda that the group
answer should incorporate pieces of each member's Individual response (24). However,
when Anna later tried to question Jennifer's answer to Question #2, her arguments were
ignored by Jennifer and Sheronda. it became clear that the working principle for this
group was that once Jennifer and Sheronda agreed on an answer, there was no need for

further discussion.

Summer!

The discussion flow graphs for these groups revealed a number of patterns. First,
two members of Group 1 (Jason and Nate) clearly dominated the discussion, while the
other two members (Mary and Jamie) effectively sat on the sidelines and observed the
action. The group as a whole demonstrated that cognitive consistency was important to
them. They were constantly comparing their answers to one problem with their answers
to another problem, Identifying and arguing about apparent similarities and differences.
When they were unable to reach consensus on an answer or reason, they frequently made

appeals to outside authorities for help in resolving their disagreements.

7 6

in general, the group failed to adequately identify the relevant variables for each
of the problems, resulting in a great deal of confusion and disagreement. The students
also failed to adequately define several ambiguous terms concerning weight and density,
leading to frequent misunderstandings of answers and reasons.

Group 2 demonstrated a general lack of engagement in this activity, spending only
a few minutes on their discussion of the four questions concemlng weight and volume.
There was very little discussion of any kind, as shown by the overall linearity and
disjointed nature of the discussion flow graph. The students demonstrated a general lack
of content understanding for volume and density, and they failed to recognize the
conceptual inconsistency in their answers to the discussion questions. Jennifer and
Sheronda dominated the group discussion, effectively eliminating opportunities for the
development of complete and consistent arguments.

W

In this activity, students were given the following problem to solve:

imagine that you are a scientist who has been assigned to a team
whose job it is to hep plan NASA's project to build a space colony on
the moon. Your group is given this task: the astronauts will need to
take water with them for the space flight. You must decide whether
the water should be taken in the form of a solid (ice), a liquid
(water), or a gas (water vapor). Use what you have just Ieamed

wout water in the last few lessons to help you solve the problem.

The previous lessons in this Lesson Cluster dealt with the three states of water,
explaining states of water in terms of molecules, and volume and mass changes with
changes of state (including Activity #2, Weight and Volume Changes, discussed above).
The major concepts covered in these lessons included the arrangement and motion of
molecules in each of the three states of water, demonstrations of water changing states
(melting, boiling, and condensing), and the idea that the volume of water increases
slightly when it is frozen, decreases when ice melts, and increases tremendously when
water evaporates. Students were also introduced to the following explanation
framework, a modified version of the Toulmin framework, used throughout the rest of

the unh:

A good explanation has three parts:
1. Observations: Telling what you can see, or hear, or smell, or feel.

2. Statements about substances: Telling what substances are in the system that
you are working with, and what their properties are or how they are changing.

77

3. Statements about molecules: Elglaining properties of substances or changes
in substances by telling about the molecules that the substances are made of.
The teacher provided several models of good explanations and their components for
students, and students were given practice in constructing their own explanations while
discussing the three states of water and completing a worksheet on changes of state of
water.

As noted above, immediately prior to the water on the spaceship activity,
students studied about the properties of weight and volume, and how these properties do
or do not change with changes of state (Activity #2). Thus, they had all of the
componentsnecessary for solving the water on the spaceship problem once they had
discussed some of their assumptions about space travel and conditions inside a spaceship.
The class assumed, for example, that the interior of the spaceship would be at room
temperature and that the astronauts would have to take about 1000 pounds of water,
regardless of the form (solid, liquid, or gas) it was taken In.

After the class had discussed these assumptions, the students began working on
the spaceship problem. The students were first asked to think independently about the
problem and write their own solutions, then to present their ideas to each other. The
group as a whole was to reach consensus on their recommendation and reasons. These
group conclusions were used as a basis for class discussion after all the groups had
completed the activity. Students met in small groups on the first day (12-04-90) to
present their ideas to each other without discussion, and then met again on the second day

(12-05-90) to discuss their answers and reasons and to reach consensus.

molcaLstructuLaLSciantificmntam

ScientificallLlitaLalaJatsinn

The argument that a group of scientists might use in constructing a solution to
this problem has been discussed in detail elsewhere (Eichinger et al, 1991). In

7 9

summary, the three principal variables that a group of scientifically literate members
would most likely consider would be issues of mass, volume, and practical considerations
involving the ease of storage and use. The most obvious variable, mass or weight, does
not provide a basis for choice among the three states of water because a given amount of
water has the same mass in all three states. Also, as noted above, the class decided to
assume that the weight of water to be taken was 1000 pounds. With regard to the second
variable, volume, liquid water takes up the least space, though only by a small margin
over ice. The third variable, practical considerations involving the ease of use and
storage, would be the most difficult to decide, with additional qualifying assumptions
necessary in order to reach a definite conclusion. Most reasonable design assumptions,
however, would probably lead to the conclusion that liquid was the preferable state.
Figure 5.1 below uses Toulmin's argument framework to depict the elements of a
scientific argument supporting the conclusion that liquid water is the preferable state.

In this case, it is clear that the scientists' argument would include a series of
warrants and backing addressing each of the main variables mentioned above. Also, the
complete scientiflc argument would take into account various practical considerations by
stating a number of assumptions or qualifiers related to this problem. For the most
part, the warrants would be represented by macroscopic statements (statements about
substances) and the backing would consist of statements addressing aspects of the kinetic
molecular theory (statements about molecules). Since this is a hypothetical question,
there is no direct empirical evidence that students could obtain to support their
arguments. However, the classroom teacher had performed several demonstrations on
volume changes in water as it underwent changes of state during the lessons immediately
preceding this activity.

80

eased 95.88 .3 as; . EcEaB< .28: 3.... can:

gag-3:32....
gggétéiio
8088.. 0533-0

accede-East)
{SgtgooeaoaiEaBto
gig-Boole

issuance; .NV .5
8828 8:828. Eggs :32.
oops—“gt Sung 05:03—81:38: gauge. .3 2‘92... 25» .0 895:0
assigcofis .flvoneoea $98380
Ann's—Soon _ —
_ . 36.8 8.53.353
8.33.868 332330.355 aghasgeofleh
seed-aegis: 25.9 sac-doe gagged?!)
:3. £52.33 a «one: gee-gates; §§§A£Wcae§=cfi
A285 .85»

 

8 1

W04

Table 5.3 below presents a summary of the answers and reasons that the Group 1
students developed on an individual basis prior to beginning their group discussion, as
well as a summary of their final group answer and reasons. (See Appendix 5-C for
copies of students' worksheets and the discussion flow graphs for this activity.) The
initial individual answers and reasons served as the starting points for the development
of the group's final solution to this problem. The answers included all three states of
water, and the reasons ranged from very general statements about practical

considerations to statements about molecular arrangements in particular states of water.

Table 5.3: Summary of Group 1 Worksheet Entries - Activity #3

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Answer Reasons
Nate Water vapor Easy to carry, doesn't have a lot of weight,
molecules won't get mixed up.
Jamie Ice Water will be cold when you melt it.
Jason ice You can fit more ice molecules in the spaceship.
Mary Water So they could survive.

 

 

 

Lighter than ice and takes up less space than

water vapor

 

 

On the first day (12-04-90) when the groups met to share their proposed
solutions and reasons, Nate originally said vapor was the best form of water to take
bewuse it is easier to carry and doesn't have a lot of weight. Jason countered this
argument by reminding Nate of the class assumption of needing 1000 lbs. of water,
pointing out that “it's all going to weigh the same amount.“ (4) Nate agreed, but insisted

8 2
that with vapor 'you take more of it,“ (5) with ”more“ in this case meaning a greater
volume of vapor.

Jason, on the other hand. claimed that ice was the best form ”because you can
carry more ice“ (50) and pointed to a poster in the classroom that showed molecular
arrangements for the three states of matter of a hypothetical substance. On the poster,
the molecules of a solid are close together and arranged in a pattern, while the molecules
of a gas are farther apart and moving freely. Using the poster as evidence, Jason argued
that you could take more water with ice than with vapor because the molecules of the
solid are closer together. In making this argument, it is clear that he failed to
distinguish between the mass or weight of the water and the volume that each state would
occupy. Eventually Jason convinced Nate that ice would be best because there would be
more molecules of ice than vapor in 1000 pounds (75) and Nate agreed (76, 78, 80).

Jamie claimed that ice would be best because it would be cold when it melted, and
would therefore be more suitable for human consumption (29-31). Jamie repeated this
reason based on practical considerations several times during the two days of discussion.
Mary's reason for choosing liquid water, “so they'll survive,“ was criticized by Jason
and Nate and even ridiculed as a ”stupid answer“ (101-110).

On the following day (12-05-90) when the students got back together to discuss
their ideas and reasons, Nate and Jason had switched their answers, with Nate now
arguing for ice because it takes up the least amount of space and also insisting that 1000
lbs. of any state would still be 1000 lbs. Jason argued for vapor because ice is heavier
than vapor and because the different states of water would have different weights. This
reasoning was reminiscent of his confusion during Activity #2 when he claimed that two
objects weighing 11 grams might not have the same weight.

Although Nate 8 Jason both considered molecular arrangements when discussing
the volume of each state, molecular backing was not at all part of their final group

8 3
answer or reasons. Warrants discussed by the group were a mix of volume and
weight/density and practical issues. The group's inability to distinguish between weight
and density and their use of the term ”weight" for both mass and density continued to
create confusion, especially for Jason. This ambiguous use of terms was also a problem
for the group in the second activity, Weight and Volume Changes. The group needed Al's
reminder about the class demonstrations on volume change with changes of state (water
expands when it freezes and contracts when it melts) In order to reach consensus;
otherwise they could have continued arguing weight/density vs. volume indefinitely.
Despite the fact that these two activities (mass 8 volume changes and water on
spaceship) took place within a week of each other, the students failed to remember the
weight and volume changes activity while working on their solutions to the water on the
spaceship activity or to see the relevance of the ideas discussed in Activity #2 for
Activity #3.

WW2

Table 5.4 below presents a summary of the initial individual and the final group
answers and reasons for the students in Group 2. These students only considered two
states of water, ice and water vapor, and all four students' reasons focused on practical
considerations to some extent. Three of the students' reasons were exclusively practical
with no mention of molecules, and the fourth student Included a practical reason and a
general molecular statement describing the motion of molecules in the gaseous state.

On the first day of this activity, two students (Jennifer and Brett) suggested ice
and two (Anna and Sheronda) suggested water vapor. There was no discussion of the
students' answers or reasons that day. As instructed by the teacher, each student simply
recited his or her individual solution and the other group members wrote these down on
their worksheets. On the second day of the activity, the students read their individual

84

Table 5.4: Summary of Group 2 Worksheet Entries - Activity #3

 

 

Student Answer Reasons
Jennifer Ice You could just warm it up and it would turn into
liquid.

 

Sheronda Water vapor The water vapor molecules move around freely
_ and because the water would float around in the
spaceship if you had on the gravity system.

 

Brett ice It would be cold when you drink it.

 

 

Anna Water vapor Easier to carry.

 

 

 

Water vapor Lighter and easier to carry around in space, also

it is easier to turn into a liquid.

 

 

solutions again. Without any discussion of the reasons for the two possible answers.
Sheronda told the group to choose between her reasons for vapor or Anna's reasons for
vapor (101). Brett and Jennifer, who had originally chosen ice as their answer, did not
question Sheronda's selection of water vapor, and the group reason was jointly
constructed by Jennifer, Anna, and Sheronda.

As mentioned above, the overwhelming emphasis of students' reasons was on
gragtjgal issues, with little consideration of the assumed weight of 1000 pounds (despite
my reminder, 78-80), the molecular nature of matter, the class demonstrations on
changes in volume when water changes states, or the relative volume occupied by each
state of water. in other words, these students showed very little evidence of seeing any
connection between this activity and what they had been studying in the book and in class
for the past several weeks. The only mention of molecules was by Sheronda, and it is not
at all clear what she meant by her statements/reason. She correctly described the

8 5
motion of molecules in the gaseous state, but it Is not clear how this statement supported
her choice of water vapor over the other two states of water. The group eventually
claimed that vapor is easier to turn into liquid, but there was no discussion or
presentation of backing for this at all. The group simply accepted it - Jennifer suggested
the idea (127) and Sheronda dictated the group reason (128) that all members wrote on

their worksheets.

WM

Gianni

Although the teacher told the class on the first day (12-04-90) of this activity
that the students were to simply write each others' ideas down and not discuss their
answers (38-40), Nate and Jason could not resist arguing over their answers and
reasons. When challenged, Nate and Jason both relied on scientific canon, such as the
poster in the classroom of the arrangement and motion of molecules for each of the three
states of matter, as their warrants and backing. Jason used these canonical resources to
eventually convince Nate of the validity of his reasons for taking ice (76-78). it was
clear from this discussion that, for the two boys in the group, the canonical ideas were
persuasive pieces of evidence.

However, it was also clear during the first day's discussion that Nate considered
the two girls' reasons, which were based mostly on practical considerations. as trivial
and irrelevant. Nate resorted to using mockery and scorn when rejecting both girls'
reasons, calling Mary's reason “stupid“ (110) and making sarcastic remarks about
Jamie's answer (124).

During the second day of the discussion (12-05-90), Nate and Jason resumed
their arguments using warrants and backing based on scientiflc canon and often Incorrect

notions of density. However, as it became clear that the canonical reasons alone were not

8 6
sufficiently convincing, the two boys began incorporating practical concerns as
warrants in their own arguments. For example, Nate argued that water vapor was a poor
choice because of the impracticality of trying to weigh a gas (32,157), and that ice was
the best form to take because It would take up the least amount of space and leave more
room on the spaceship for other necessary equipment (74). Jason also used practical
concerns to counter Nate's ideas, arguing that it would be too hard to keep ice cold (123)
and that the astronauts would have to take a huge freezer for storing the ice (144).

Not all practical concerns were treated equally, however. Throughout the
discussion on the second day, Jamie repeated her arguments for ice and against liquid
water based on practical considerations (231, 233, 236, 280). She assumed that,
since the water would be used for human consumption, it would be best If it were cold.
She wanted to take ice because it would provide cold water as it melted, and she argued
that liquid water would get warm In the spaceship and would be unsuitable for drinking.
Even after Jason and Nate decided that water would be the group answer because ”it is
lighter than ice and tates up less space than water vapor,“ Jamie remained unconvinced
that liquid was best because it would still get warm. For her, the canonical variables of
volume, weight, and density were secondary In importance to the practical
considerations.

Throughout the discussion the group demonstrated that they placed a high value on
providing reasons for one's arguments. As discussed above, there was disagreement
among the group members as to what counted as a “good“ reason, but it was clear that any
idea that was suggested for group consideration had to be based on reasons. On one
occasion Mary stated her choice of ice as the preferred state of water, and Jason and the
teacher made it clear that her answer would not be considered by the group unless she
had reasons for her choice (182-189).

8 7

Although Nate and Jason seemed to ignore the girls' ideas and reasons, they still
showed some concern for making sure that Mary and Jamie understood the reasons
behind their (the boys') answers. When Jason left the group to try to clarify a point
with the teacher, Nate asked the two girls if they understood his reasons for wanting to
take ice and repeated his ideas for them (45-51). On another occasion, after Nate and
Jason had decided that ice was the preferred form of water, Jason told Nate that it was
important for Mary and Jamie to understand their reasons. Nate's reply made It clear
that he didn't share this concern (257-263).

Another pattern that was apparent with this group was their appeal to outside
authority to try to resolve conflicts within the group. Early in the discussion on the
sewnd day, Nate tried to get the teacher to validate one of his reasons and Jason rejected
this as a valid problem solving strategy for resolving the group's conflicts (7-9). Yet
on two other occasions Nate and Jason both requested the teacher's help In clarifying
some points that were causing confusion in the group. (52-54, 195-197) In fact, the
teachers suggestion to think about the weight and volume demonstrations from previous
classes proved to be a turning point in helping the group (at least Nate and Jason) reach

consensus.

m2

The student participation rates for this activity show that Sheronda and Jennifer
continued to dominate the discussion in their group, accounting for nearly 65% of the
total number of moves on the second day of the activity (see Table 5.7 below). On the
first day of the activity the students presented their individual answers and reasons
without discussion, as instructed by the teacher. Even on the second day there was very
little consideration of alternative answers or reasons, despite the mparent disagreement

over water vapor and ice. Rather than discussing each other's ideas, each student simply

8 8
repeated his or her personal answer and reason, and then Sheronda told the group to
agree on a reason for taking water vapor (101). Sheronda's unilateral decision did not
elicit any questioning or disagreement whatsoever from the two students who had
previously supported ice.

The students in this group attempted to resolve a disagreement over the
properties of water vapor by requesting help from an outside authority (in this case, the
researcher). When they were told that they would have to resolve the conflict
themselves, the group abandoned their discussion of the issue altogether, focusing

instead on procedural matters (75-85).

Slimmer

As was the case In the previous activity, the two boys in Group 1 dominated this
discussion. They were also the ones who profited the most from having engaged in this
discussion, since their individual understandings of the scientific content improved as a
result of their collaboration. However, the two girls in the group were once again
effectively left out of the discussion completely. It is not at all clear whether they
understood the arguments for choosing liquid water as the preferred state. This was
especially true for Jamie, who continued to argue against liquid until the very end of the
discussion because of what she considered to be real problems with flquid due to
practical considerations. Jamie's questions were never really answered and her
objections were never regarded as important.

The arguments developed by Nate and Jason were much more complete than in
earlier activities, and they consistently provided reasons for their answers. Their
reasons included both canonical and practical warrants and backing and included both
macrost and molecularcomponents. However, their final group reasons for choosing

liquid included scientifically incorrect notions about the relative “weights“ of ice and

8 9
liquid water, and were stated in macroscopic terms only. Once again, the ambiguous use
of terms such as “weight,” 'lighter,"and ”heavier“ created a great deal of confusion for
the group as a whole. Finally, the group failed to recognize the relevance of the previous
activity on weight and volume changes for this discussion.

The discussion flow graph for Group 2 was once again very linear and column-
bound, with very few connections made between the various categories of statements.
The vast majority of the students' statements were procedural, with very little
consideration of the reasons supporting individual's ideas. Nearly all of the reasons that
were suggested focused on practical considerations, with no discussion of the molecular
nature of matter. Like the students in Group 1, the students in Group 2 failed to see any
connection between this activity and the previous one, and they showed little genuine
commitment to their own ideas. This was especially true for Jennifer and Brett, who
presented no arguments whatsoever when Sheronda ignored their suggestions for taking

ice instead of water vapor.

W

This activity was part of Lesson Cluster 4 dealing with the process of dissolving.
Prior to the dissolving races activity, students completed an activity entitled Sugar and
Tea Bags, in which they were to devise a plan and explanations for getting sugar out of a
closed tea bag without tearing or opening it. This was followed by a discussion of
dissolving which included both macroscopic and molecular explanations for this process.
Briefly, the text explained that when sugar Is put in water, the sugar crystals become
smaller until they are no longer visible In the water. The molecular explanation stated
that the water molecules, which are constantly moving, hit the grains of sugar and break
off sugar molecules from the crystal, causing it to get smaller. The sugar molecules then
mix with the water molecules, forming a sugar and water mixture that tastes sweet.

The next lesson was the Dissolving Races Activity, in which students developed
plans for dissolving a sugar cube in a cup of water under three different sets of
conditions: as slowly as possible, as fast as possible, and as fast as possible without
touching or disturbing the cup, the water, or the sugar cube after It was dropped In the
water. As was the case with Activities #1 and #3 described above, students were first
given time to develop individual plans for each of the races, and then they met in groups
to reach consensus on their plans and their reasons. The races were then carried out on
the following day, and students recorded the amount of time required to complete each
race. The entire class got back together to discuss their results and their

interpretations of these results.

| . I I I I I I'll l l
S . III] II II | i
The process of dissolving sugar can be explained as the result of the interaction

between water molecules and sugar molecules, and the rate of dissolving depends on the

90

9 1
rate of interaction of these molecules. In an activity such as the Dissolving Races which
requires consideration of situations that would alter the rate of dissolving, a group of
scientifically literate members would likely consider factors that would increase or
decrease the rate of interaction between the water and sugar molecules. There are
basically two ways to control the rate of dissolving: by controlling the speed at which the
water molecules are moving, thereby controlling how quickly and how forcefully they
strike the sugar molecules; or by controlling the number of sugar molecules that are
exposed to the water. The first variable could be controlled by changing the temperature
of the water, since water molecules move faster in hot water and slower in cold water.
(The students had previously discussed this change in the rate of molecular motion
during changes of state in Lesson Cluster 3). The second variable could be controlled by
either altering the surface area of sugar that is exposed to water molecules or by moving
the dissolved sugar molecules away from the surface of the sugar crystal as fast as
possible. To increase the surface area, the sugar cube could be crushed, exposing more
sugar molecules to the water molecules. To move dissolved sugar molecules away from
the sugar cube quickly, the water could be stirred, removing the dissolved molecules and
exposing undissolved molecules to the water.

With these variables and explanations in mind, a group of scientifically literate
members would likely choose very cold water for the slow race and very hot water for
both of the fast races. In addition, for the fast race which allows touching the sugar, the
group would likely crush the sugar cube and stir the water to increase the rate of
dissolving. Stirring the water before the sugar cube is dropped in would also increase
the rate of dissolving for the no-touch last race.

Thus, the complete scientific argument would consider all of the above variables
in light of the constraints imposed by the conditions for each race. Of particular

importance for all of the races would be the water temperature and the movement of the

9 2
dissolved sugar molecules. The complete argument would include statements about the
substances involved (Toulmin's warrants) and statements about the molecules

(T oulmin's backing) and their role In the process of dissolving.

WW
Table 5.5 below presents a summary of the answers and the reasons that the
Group 1 students developed for each of the races as well as their final group answers and
reasons. (See Appendix 50 for copies of students' worksheets and the discussion flow
graphs for this activity.) For the slow race, there was unanimous agreement on the use
of cold water, but students gave a variety of reasons for why this was preferable. Nate
(9) and Mary (26) both gave macroscopic warrants that were essentially tautologies
stating that the sugar would not dissolve as fast or as much in cold water. Jason
recognized the inadequacy of these reasons and insisted that “we need to put a molecule
answer.“ (27) He stated that the sugar would dissolve slower because it would take
longer for the molecules to hit the sugar cube because the molecules go slower in cold
water. (57-58, 119) The reasons discussed by this group were based strictly on
canonical information - the group members did not use personal experiences to justify
their answers. They also did not talk at all wont melting as a way of explaining
dissolving, in contrast with the students in Group 2 (see discussion below).
For the fast race, the group quickly agreed that boiling hot water was necessary.
and their reasons included more molecular warrants and backing: "It won't take as long
for the water molecules to hit the sugar“ (149) because ”the molecules move faster in

hot water“ (141). Again, their reasons were based only on canonical information, with

93

Table 5.5: Summary of Group 1 Worksheet Entries - Activity #4

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Answer Reasons
Nab Slow: put sugar cube Ice won't let sugar cube dissolve
in water ahead of
time and freeze
water
Fast: put hot water Sugar will dissolve faster
instead of cold
water
No-touch: same as Same as fast race
fast race
Jamie Slow: freeze cube Cold things take a long time to dissolve or melt
and put it in cold
water
Fast: hit the sugar Sugar would be spinning around and then will get
cube and then more water
put It in hot
water
No-touch: put a No reason given
piece of foil over
it and let the
moisture
Jason Slow: ice cold water Molecules go slower and it will take longer for
water molecules to hit the sugar cube slower
Fast: boiling water Water molecules go faster when hotter so they
in the cup will hit the sugar cube faster
No-touch: boiling Same as fast race
water in the cup
before the cube
Mary Slow: put cold air in Water would be too cold for it to dissolve
the cup
Fast: put the cup Water would get real hot and start to boil and the
above some fire cube would dissolve faster
No-touch: it could The sun is hot and it would melt the sugar cube
be by the and it will dissolve
window and the
sun comes out
Group Slow: put sugar cube It will take longer for molecules to hit the cube

 

in Ice cold water

Fast: put sugar cube
in boiling water

No-touch: put it in
hot wJaLer

 

because water molecules move slower in cold
water

It won't take long for the water molecules to hit
the sugar cube

Same as fast race

 

 

94
no personal experience or observational data to support or confirm them. This canonical
information appeared to be sufficiently convincing for all of the group members.
The students ran out of time before they got a chance to discuss their plans for the
no-touch race, much to Jason's dismay. (160) However, all of the students wrote “put
it in hot water“ and ”same as fast race” on their worksheets for their group answer and

[98800.

W

Table 5.6 below presents a summary of the initial individual and the final group
answers and reason for the students In Group 2. (Anna was absent the day the students
wrote their individual answers and reasons on their worksheets, but she participated in
the group discussion the following day.) The reasons column shows that there was no
discussion of molecules whatsoever by this group. All of their reasons were macroscopic
and described dissolving In terms of melting (Sheronda) or as a result of the physical
action of moving water on the sugar cube (Jennifer).

For the slow race, the group agreed that cold water was best and the reason was
because 'we all tried it before at home.” (115) Their reasons were based strictly on
previous personal experiences with dissolving sugar. There was no use of canonical
Information from the preceding lessons, and no mention whatsoever of molecular motion.
However, the students did discuss the relevance of the temperature of the water in
determining the efficiency or completeness of dissolving sugar in KooI-Aid (71-77) and
as a relevant variable for this activity, and they suggested that stirring was necessary to

make the sugar dissolve In cold water. (77-80)

95

Table 5.6: Summary of Group 2 Worksheet Entries - Activity #4

 

Student

Answer

Remons

 

Jennher

Slow: keep pulling it
up to the top of
the water very
fast so it won't
set in and
dissolve

Fast: shake the cup
up and down so
the sugar cube
will be stirred
UP

No-touch: boil the
water so the
bubbles will pop
and separate the
sugar cube

If you keep it slow or still it will soak in better

Water will be pushed and pulled together to make
the cube dissolve

Popping bubbles will separate the cube

 

Sheronda

Slow: put the cube
in cold water and
watch It

Fast: put the cube in
hot water so the
cube will melt
fast

No-touch: put the
cube in hot
water

In hot water the cube would melt after two
minutes

it would dissolve faster and you wouldn't have to
wait as long

We wouldn't have to wait as much as you would for
the fast and slow race together

 

Brett

Slow: stick it in ice
cold water

Fast: stick salt on
the sugar cube

No-touch: let it sit
there

i don't know why
I tried it
I don‘t know why

 

 

Group

 

Absent for
individual work

Slow: keep it in cool
water

Fast: put cube in
warm water

No-touch: put cube
in boiling water

 

Absent for individual work

We all tried it before at home
The sugar melts right away
Bubbles will dissolve sugar

 

 

96

For the last race, the group's discussion focused on the similarities between
dissolving and melting. Jennifer used the analogy of melting wax with heat and compared
this with the conditions of the fast race. This interpretation of dissolving as analogous to
melting was a common idea in the discussions for this entire activity, with students
talking about sugar melting in both the slow (77) and the fast races (124-128). Once
again the group reason was based on prior personal experience, with no mention of water
temperature, molecular motion, or any of the other canonical knowledge presented in
class that the scientifically literate group would consider important.

Time ran out before the group was able to discuss their answers and reasons for
the no-touch fast race. However, the students' worksheets showed that the group decided
that the bubbles of boiling water would dissolve the sugar faster, similar to Jennifer's
initial individual answer. It is clear from their answer and reasons that they thought It
was the physical action of the bubbles that would make the sugar dissolve, and that they

were not thinking of dissolving in terms of the interaction of water and sugar molecules.

W

W

As was the case with the previous activities, Jason and Nate dominated this
discussion, accounting for nearly 62% of the total moves (See Table 5.7). Of particular
interest was the very limited participation by Jamie in this discussion, who only spoke
four times during the entire session. She did not contribute any ideas to the group's
discussion of their reasons for each of the plans. For whatever reasons, she was clearly
not engaged in this discussion. Even Mary's contributions were mostly procedural,
repeating portions of the group's answers and reasons as they were written down, or
urging the group to move on to the next part of the worksheet (120, 128). As was the

9 7
case in the previous activities, most of the content-oriented discussion took place
between Nate and Jason.

On their worksheets, students were told to write their plans and to give their
explanations of why they would work. No explicit reminders were given to provide
reasons in terms of molecules. Knowing this, it is interesting to note that Jason was the
only one who included any molecular reasons for his individual answers - all three other
students had only macroscopic reasons. During the discussion, Jason insisted that the
group needed to have molecule answers, and rejected macroscopic reasons alone as being
insufficient. (27) Jason was also careful about reviewing the group's first reasons for
the slow race. He realized that what they had written down really didn't make sense
(91) and drew Nate's attention to this fact. The students then went on to revise and
clarify their reasons (103-119). Jason's written work and his contributions to the
group discussion indicate that he had lntemallzed the explanation framework suggested
In the text, and that, for him, a complete argument had to include molecular components
in addition to macroscopic statements about the substances involved in the activity. It is
also clear that he look this activity seriously, and that he would not be satisfied with just
any answer thatthegroup was ableto agree on.

W

In terms of overall participation rates, this activity had the most equitable
distrbution of moves for each student, with no student dominating in terms of the
number of statements made (See Table 5.7). However, analysis of the discussion flow
graph showed that the same pattern of decision-making was still in effect. Once Jennifer
and Sheronda reached consensus on an answer or a reason, that became the group's
answer. This pattern was evident in this activity when Jennifer and Sheronda
disregarded Anna's objections about describing dissolving as melting. (125-133)

9 8

The discussion flow graph also revealed a continual struggle for power in this
group, with constant bickering over who was supposed to go first and who went next.
This procedural haggling reguired a great deal of time and discussion and occasional
intervention from the classroom teacher, as was evident in the analyses of the previous
activities. This in-fighting was a sign that this wasn't a particularly healthy group.
Each time these students got together they struggled for leadership and had to
redeterwne the procedural aspects of group functioning (4, 8, 34-39). Another
unproductive procedure that surfaced during this activity was the group's decision to
present all of the individual answers for all three races before discussing the group
answers and reasons for each race (30-68). This eventually required each student to
restate his or her individual answer before the group could begin reaching consensus.
All of this procedural activity left less time for discussion of the scientific content and
resulted in less developed arguments.

Despite these procedural problems and the off-task talk during the discussion,
Jennifer tried repeatedly to keep the group focused and on-task (28, 83, 85, 102,
137). She tried to get the group to finish their worksheets at the very end of class even
though one of the group members was missing (141). All of this added to the impression
that the students approached these activities in a ritualized way, more concerned about
getting the activity done than with the content or the quality of their answers.

Summer!

As discussed above, a complete scientific argument for any of the dissolving races
would likely include consideration of the two main variables that affect the rate of
dissolving, the temperature of the water and the number of sugar molecules exposed to
the water. During their discussion, the students in Group 1 only considered the
temperature variable. and at Jason's insistence, they developed arguments that included

9 9
molecular explanations for their plans. There was no discussion of surface area or
stirring by the group, even though Jamie's individual plan on her worksheet included a
suggestion to move the sugar cube during the last race so that more water would get to it.
Since the group only considered temperature, they failed to differentiate between the
plans required for the fast race and the no-touch fast race. Group 1 based its arguments
solely on scientific canon, with no reference to personal experiences nor any explicit
references to the previous Sugar and teabag activity.

The discussion by Group 2 was characterized by a complete lack of canonical
reasons and molecular explanations, and the students' reasons were based on their
previous personal experiences with dissolving Kool-Aid and a scientifically incorrect
belief that dissolving is similar to melting.

Once again, the usual patterns of student domination were repeated in both
groups. Jason and Nate dominated the discussion in Group 1, and Mary and Jamie
continued to play minor roles in terms of their overall participation in the discussion
and in terms of the extent to which their ideas were Incorporated into the final group
answers and reasons. In Group 2, Jennifer and Sheronda continued to decide what the
group's answers and reasons would be, ignoring Anna's objections and counterarguments.

in general, this domination was also evident In the content understanding
demonstrated on students' post-instruction clinical interviews and tests. During the
clinical interviews students were asked to explain how sugar could get out of a closed
teabag when it was dipped in water. Of the three students in Group 1 who were
interviewed, only Jason spontaneously provided molecular arguments to correctly and
completely explain the process of dissolving. Nate was able to talk about molecules after
prompting by the interviewer, and Jamie was not able to explain how the sugar got out of
the teabag. On the post-test, only Jason explained dissolving in terms of molecules. The

1 00
others described the process in macroscopic terms only, and Mary said that the sugar
dissolved In the air.

Among the Group 2 students who were interviewed, Jennifer said that the holes in
the teabag got bigger when dipped in water, allowing the sugar to escape. Brett said that
the sugar leaked through the teabag, and that the sugar disappeared once it got in the
water. On the post-test, only Anna explained dissolving In molecular terms. Brett and
Jennifer talked in general terms about sugar mixing with water, and Brett said that the
sugar disappeared and went into the air. No interview or test data were available for
Sheronda.

Thus, in Group 1, the students who dominated the group discussion demonstrated
a consistently better scientific understanding of the process of dissolving than the less
active students. Interestingly, in Group 2 the one dominant student (Jennifer) for whom
complete post-instruction data were available appeared to have a less complete scientific

understanding of dissolving than one of the lower status students (Anna).

W

The results of the analyses for each of the four collaborative activities have been
presented above. The following section discusses these results in light of the second

research question concemlng changes in students' scientific arguments over time.

WWW

As it was originally formulated, the second research question was designed to
investigate whether individual students and their collaborative groups demonstrated
changes in the nature and content of their scientific arguments as they progressed
through the curriculum unit on matter and molecules. This research question was based
on the following hypothesis: given direct instruction in the necessary components of
complete scientific arguments and multiple opportunities to practice developing
arguments while completing a series of collaborative problem solving activities,
students would provide evidence that their individual and group solutions to these
problems would become progressively more sophisticated and complete versions of
scientific arguments. In other words, their problem solving discussions and their
problem solutions would more closely approximate the kinds of discussions and
arguments that would be developed by a group of scientifically literate members.

However, having examined the nature of the discussions and arguments that were
actually developed by the two groups of students for each of the activities, it seems that,
in many respects, most of the target students did not significantly change the way they
approached these problems or the kinds of answers they developed. Rather, they seemed
to develop fairly regular and consistent methods for working with each other and for
arriving at group solutions to the problems they were given. Thus, rather than asking
about the kinds of changes that took place over time in the nature of students'

argumentation processes and problem solutions, a more appropriate question to ask
101

1 02
would be concerning the patterns that emerged as these students worked individually and
in groups to develop and defend their solutions to relatively complex and messy science
problems.

One pattern that became apparent involved the nature of the interaction between
the students as they discussed their answers and their supporting reasons for each of the
activities. Analyses of the discussion flow graphs showed that the discussions In both
groups were consistently dominated by a few individuals, and in both groups these were
students who were originally designated by their teacher as either high or medium high
ability students. Their domination became apparent in two different respects. First,
these students were the ones doing the most taking during their group discussions and
they accounted for the largest percentages of moves for each of the activities (Cf. Table
5.7 wove). More importantly, these students dominated their group discussions by
deciding whose ideas were discussed and whose answers and reasons were ultimately
accepted as part of the group's problem solution. In most cases, the final group answers
and reasons represented the dominant students' ideas and excluded the contributions made
by the lower status students. In general, these latter students had fewer opportunities
for substantive involvement in the group discussions, and their contributions were often
limited to procedural concerns and off-task behavior.

While the pattern of domination was apparent in both groups, the discussion flow
graphs revealed that the means by which the dominant students exerted their authority
and maintained their dominance over the other students in each of the groups were
different. In Group 1, the two dominant students, Jason and Nate, maintained their
superiority and strongly influenced the outcomes of their group discussions based on
their recognized academic wiilty. On several occasions, the students in this group
discussedthegradesthey had received lnthecourseandtheirscoresonquizzesandtests
as a way of establishing or maintaining the hierarchy of students within the group (Cf.

1 03
Activity #1 , moves 38-43: Activity #2, moves 82-85; Activity #3, Day 2, moves
162-168, move 310). Based on these discussions, it was clear to all of the group
members that Nate and Jason were higher achieving students, and this academic
achievement accorded them and their ideas higher status. In addition, both Nate and
Jason were much more fluent in “talking science,“ that is, in using the terminology of
science in presenting and defending their answers and reasons.

In contrast, dominance In Group 2 appeared to be based more on Individual
personality traits, such as persistence in defending one's own ideas, overbearingness,
and taikativeness. Sheronda often used sarcasm and personal put-downs to intimidate
other group members or to belittle or dismiss other students' answers and reasons (Cf.
Activity #1, move 59: Activity #2, moves 39-46; Activity #4, moves 37-39, 52).
She also showed little receptivity to other students' ideas during their discussions of
altematlve answers or reasons, and she would repeatedly insist that her answer was the
correct answer (Cf. Activity #1, moves 103-123; Activity #2, moves 12-24; Activity
#3, Day 2, moves 135-146).

The second major pattern that developed concerned the general nature of the
argumentation processes used by the students. Two basic types of processes were
apparent. First, if the dominant students agreed from the start on what the group
answers should be, the argumentation that occurred was primarily ritualized in nature.
There was very little discussion of ideas, and little if any consideration of possible
altematlve answers. Reasons were provided because the worksheet or the teacher
required them, not because the students necessarily felt the need to defend or justify
their own ideas. Once consensus was reached between the dominant students, the
argument was considered to be complete. As mentioned above, lower status students
played only minor roles in these kinds of discussions. This pattern was especially
common for Group 2, with Sheronda and Jennifer often agreeing fairly quickly on an

1 04
answer or reason, and with Brett and Anna having few opportunities to contribute or to
contradict the dominant students' responses.

If, on the other hand, the dominant students disagreed on their answers, then
genuine arguments developed. That is, the students spontaneously provided warrants and
backing in order to defend their own ideas, not just because the worksheet said they had
to. During these arguments, the lower status students actually had opportunities to play
fairly significant roles. Once they sided with one of the dominant students. the opposing
dominant student was outnumbered three to one and was often forced to admit defeat (Cf.
Activity #2, Group 1, moves 177-191).

When disagreements between dominant students did arise, there were a number
ofdifferentkindsofreasons usedtoresolvethem. Thefirsttwowerebasedontheideaof
using the authority of knowledge to persuade the other group members of their validity.
These reasons were based on a) warrants and backing derived from the scientific canon
or b) previous observations or data collected during the classroom activities. In both
cases, the interpretations of the canon and the observations and data were contestable.
That Is, different students interpreted the canon and the data in different ways, depending
on the nature of their conceptual understanding. So, for example, during the discussion
of the water on the spaceship problem. Nate argued that all three states of water had to
weigh the same amount. Jason agreed, but also insisted that one state of water could
weigh more than the others, based on his interpretation of the arrangement of molecules
in the three states of matter.

The other ways of resolving disagreements used by the students were more
arbitrary in nature and were generally considered to be non-contestable. These reasons
were based on a) personal Ideas or experiences, b) Invoking procedural constraints such
as the need to finish the worksheet, and c) the assertion of personal status or power. For
the students, these kinds of reasons often proved to be equally or more convincing and

105
effective for moving the group to consensus than the scientific canon and empirical
evidence.

in most cases, the principle of "majority rule" determined when the argument
was considered complete. For most of the activities, once consensus was reached,
especially between the dominant students, the argumentation ended. This was in contrast
with the likely scientific process of reaching consensus, which would involve the careful
consideration of many possible answers and the elimination of all but the most suitable.

The analyses of students' argumentation processes also revealed a few other
patterns. First, the students spent very little time doing what I have referred to as
collectively validating the question to be answered. in general, there was very little
discussion of what the problem was asking for, what the relevant variables were, and
what information was provided in the problem statement itself. This resulted in
additional confusion and frustration for the students as they tried to reach agreement on
their answers and their reasons. In addition, the students spent little time discussing
the problem constraints or qualifiers that were applicable to the problems, leaving them
uncertain about the precision and completeness of their answers.

Another pattern that was evident during the students' discussions was the
frequent appeal to outside authority when the students found themselves unable to reach
consensus, especially when the dominant students disagreed among themselves. When
this occurred, the students would often look to the teacher or to classmates for help in
resolving the disagreement. These appeals rarely led to resolution, and one group of
students recognized that ultimately they had to try to clarify issues among themselves.
However, even after admitting this, they continued to seek outside help.

Finally, it was clear that the students In both groups needed a consistent format
for handling procedural matters In order to provide opportunities for equal
participation by all group members. Unless the students could decide whose turn it was

1 06
to read, who was supposed to give their plan, and so forth, they were not able to spend
much time on substantive discussion of the content. For the students in Group 1, this did
not prove to be much of a problem, but the students In Group 2 needed the teacher's help
on several occasions in Initiating and maintaining the procedural aspects of their group
argumentation processes.

While many of these patterns were apparent in varying degrees in the discussion
flow graphs for both of the groups, there were some fairly significant differences
between the two groups in terms of their overall development of scientific arguments
and argumentation processes and between Individuals within the groups. In general,
Group 1 showed more progress than Group 2 in developing arguments and argumentation
processes that were more like those that would be developed by a group of scientifically
literate members. With the exception of the first activity, the analyses of the discussion
flow graphs for Group 1 showed a fairly consistent pattern of well-developed discussions
of answers and reasons. Most of the group's reasons were based on warrants and backing
derived from the scientific canon or previous observations or data collected during
earlier classroom activities, rather than on personal experiences, procedural
constraints, or personal status or power. As the unit progressed, the group's arguments
became more and more complete, including most or all of the three parts of a good
scientific explanation (observations, statements about the substances, and statements
about molecules) that were presented and emphasized in the student text.

Much of this progress, however, was due to the presence of the two boys in this
group, especially Jason. Both Nate and Jason were intellectually aggressive students
who had strong opinions about things and who were not afraid to express or defend their
opinions. Jason, however, was clearly the one who lntemallzed the explanation
heuristic the most and who used the heuristic as a tool for helping him construct his

answers and his reasons. On several occasions during the water on the spaceship and the

1 O 7
dissolving races activities, he insisted that the group answer had to include statements
about molecules in order to be complete. Although he tenaciously defended his own ideas,
he also demonstrated a willingness to consider possible altematlves when the group
discussion became deadlocked . A very good example of this occurred during the water on
the spaceship activity. Jason and Nate had argued strongly for their respective answers
of ice and water vapor and appeared to be getting nowhere in terms of reaching
consensus. Finally, Jason suggested they consider liquid water as a possible altematlve,
and this ultimately allowed the group to decide on liquid water as their answer.

Unfortunately, Jason and Nate's progress in developing their scientific
understandng may have occurred at the expense of the other two group members. The
two boys completely dominated their group's discussions and, as a result, Mary and
Jamie had very few opportunities to present or defend their personal ideas. While the
group as a whole demonstrated real progress, the individual gains were not equally
distributed.

In general, Group 2 showed little progress in their understanding of the science
content or in their development of more sophisticated and complete scientific arguments.
Few of their answers or reasons were based on scientific canon, relying instead on
personal experiences or scientifically incorrect or incomplete prior knowledge. The
discussion flow graphs for this group showed little development of more complete or
saphisticated arguments. The students relied heavily on macroscopic answers, with
little if any discussion of molecular explanations for the phenomena being studied. Much
of the group's attention was focused on procedural difficulties and conflicts, leaving little
time or energy for serious consideration of the conceptual issues. The students in the
group showed little interest or engagement in the scientific content that formed the basis

of the activities, preferring to complete them in a ritualized manner.

108

82.58 sec _.e 3. 52 .5 oceans 8; 2. - case as see .2 . cseo e. 3.32:3 sense a...» .. ..
J89 o. a: com 8: SE «.32 5:28 .35 ”33.0.... 8: 2a «38.3.3 85o one .232 on. so.
8.2 39598 .2.sz 2: Lo. 33:. .o .363: .52 B So Eooam good so. 83:. .o .383: 8 38593 i .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

use. of he. 3. - =ch
new new a: «.3 com 2.:
93 new can «.8 can 3:53..
men can can con see Seesaw
«dam
t i t t 0.0—. ee=_>.-Q:
«.3 me to ms... 92.. 2.5..
«.3 9.3 h! to. and ans.
«:8 men men «.8 ecu. 58..
4.3 can can ES - sez
Sada
woos. g 235E
3m! 2.28% 2.5.3 9:889 so can; 25.2 as £925 .2, 8:388 sec .535
3.3.2. 3.3.? 3-3-: 3-28-3
852.8 $8.828 .c 8.3

 

.8258 965 =95 .2 «29 5:38.93 Econ.» 385ro ”mm can»

 

CHAPTERSIX
CO‘KILUSKNSANDIMPUCATIONS

This chapter begins with a set of conclusions based on the findings presented in
Chapter 5. Then, Implications of the study for future research are addressed.

Conclusions

As described above in the discussion of the results of the study, there was a great
deal of variability in the degree of scientific and logical sophistication that students
developed in their individual and group arguments during their 'study of the curriculum
unit. With the exception of two students in Group 1, most of the target students
consistently discussed and solved the collaborative problems in fairly simple and
scientifically unsophisticated ways. A few students dominated the discussions and the
decision-making processes in each of the target groups, resulting in group answers and
reasons that consistently included the personal ideas of the higher status students and
excluded the ideas of the less aggressive members of the groups. For the students in
Group 2, much of the discussion that took place showed that the students were not very
meaningfully engaged in the problem solving process. Their argumentation processes
were primarily ritualized or procedural in nature, with students providing reasons that
were based on personal ideas and experiences rather than scientific canon or empirical
evidence.

Although many of the students showed limited progress in the nature of the
argumentation processes they used and the kinds of arguments they developed, there are
some very important ways In which the group problem solving activities provided
classroom experiences that were significantly different from the kinds of problem

solving that typically occur in classrooms using more traditional curriculum materials

109

1 1 O
and teaching methods. First, on many occasions, the collaborative groupwork helped
students clarify their understanding of the canon in ways which would not likely occur in
more traditional science classrooms. By first working individually and then together on
the activities, students were confronted with conflicts between their personal Ideas and
the scientific canon. Group discussions provided opportunities for the students
themselves to resolve some of these differences and to develop answers and reasons more
consistent with scientific interpretations of the phenomena they were studying.

Second, both the teacher and the problem solving activities in this unit
consistently emphasized the importance of giving reasons for one's answers. The
curriculum materials provided a framework for developing complete scientific
arguments, and the collaborative context allowed and encouraged students to reinforce
the need for giving reasons for their peers. In addition to the text and the teacher asking
'Why?," students were asking each other to develop arguments supporting their
answers.

Third, the collaborative problem solving activities provided opportunities for at)
students to participate in the discussions and to share their ideas with their peers. Even
though the discussions were usually dominated by a few individuals and student
participation was fairly ritualized, the lower status students were at least given regular
opportunities to present their ideas to the group and to get Involved in the decision
making processes.

Finally, the collaborative groupwork allowed the classroom teacher to get a
better idea of what most of the students were thinking, how well they understood the
content, and the nature of the arguments they were developing. Student worksheets
provided the teacher with information concemlng both individual and group answers and
reasons, and the teacher gained additional insight into students' understanding by

1 1 1
monitoring the small group discussions and by conducting the class discussions that
followed each of the problem solving activities.

Implications

This study has demOnstrated that, although the collaborative problem solving
instructional technique has great potential for helping students develop a more
meaningful understanding of science, there are also many difficulties that must be
addressed before this potential can be fully realized. First, this study and previous
research have shown that collaborative groupwork often results in unequal participation
by and unequal benefits for different group members, especially for those students who
are judged by themselves or by others to be low status students (Cohen, 1986; David 8
Palincsar. 1991; Eichinger et al., 1991; Palincsar. David, 8 Anderson, 1992).
Typically, the less aggressive and lower status students have fewer opportunities to
develop either their content understanding or their argumentation processes, resulting
In a lack of meaningful participation by these students and little if any improvement in
their understanding of the scientific content.

This ritualized participation represents a second area of concern. In part, it may
be a result of the social and intellectual domination of the problem solving activities by a
few high status students. It may also be due to the use of problem situations that are too
highly structured and too constrained. One benefit of using highly structured problems
and specific procedures for solving them Is that students are given specific guidelines
that help support them in their attempts to solve the problems and develop complete
arguments. However, an obvious disadvantage of these kinds of problems Is that they are
so highly structured that they do not allow for Input of students' own Interests and
Interpretations of the phenomena being studied (Anderson 8 Palincsar. 1991). Thus,

students fail to see the relevance of these "real world' problems for themselves, and

1 1 2
they approach them as just another set of school tasks to be completed. This lack of
meaningful engagement in the problem solving process was also evident in the standards
used by students for determining when an argument was complete. Rather than relying
on a set of internalized criteria for checking whether their arguments were complete or
cognitively consistent, most students showed that they considered an argument to be
complete once they were able to reach consensus on any answer. Completing the task
seemed more Important to them than making sense of the content.

Another related area of concern involved students' failure to see the relevance of
the scientific canon they were studying for solving the problems Included in the
collaborative activities. As noted above, many of the students' arguments were based on
personal ideas and experiences rather than on the scientific concepts that were presented
in their lessons. in addition, most students failed to recognize the usefulness of the
information gained from earlier activities for solving the problems included in the later
activities. In spite of the careful design and sequencing of the weight and volume
demonstrations and the water on the spaceship problem, or the sugar and teabag activity
and the dissolving races activity, students treated these as completely separate and
unrelated tasks that had few, if any, interconnections.

Many of these areas of concern are currently being addressed by the larger CPS
research project. In the third year of the project, several changes were made to resolve
some of the problems that became apparent during Year 2, represented by this study.
These changes and their results are discussed in detail elsewhere (Anderson 8 Palincsar,
1991; David 8 Palincsar, 1991). Briefly, they included such changes as: creating less
constrained problem spaces and allowing the students to have more choice in determining
which problems they wanted to investigate; embedding the group problem solving
process in the larger process of reaching consensus among all of the students in the
class, a process much more like the consensus-building process used in scientific

1 13
communities: paying more careful attention to particular social norms by anticipating
and responding to likely social difficulties; and more directly addressing the issue of
scientists' activities and the roles of evidence and theory in these activities (Anderson 8
Palincsar, 1991).

While the CPS project continues to address these issues and areas of research,
there are still many additional questions that merit further investigation. Based on the
findings of this study, it Is clear that further investigation is needed on the nature of the
social interactions between students in their collaborative groups, especially as it
relates to the domination of some students by others and the effects of this domination on
the eventual outcomes of collaborative problem solving activities and the students'
learning experiences. Among the questions that deserve further attention are the
following:

Is this domination an artifact of this particular study, or does it represent a
typical pattern of student Interaction in collaborative problem solving contexts? What
factors determine which students are dominant and which are low-status? Are there
particular aspects of the classroom context that contribute to this domination? What can
be done o minimize this domination and to ensure more equitable participation by all
students? Would assigning specific roles for group participation to each student effect A
the extent of domination experienced by group members?

The results of this study also point to significant differences in the nature of the
arguments presented by the two target groups, with Group 1 generally providing more
principled arguments and Group 2 providing primarily ritualized arguments. In
particular, the two groups differed in the types of reasons they used to support their
individual and group answers. The students in Group 1 relied more on macroscopic and
molecular canonical explanations, while the students in Group 2 consistently used
personal ideas and experiences and completely ignored the molecular aspects of the

1 14
phenomena they were studying, despite regular reminders by the teacher and the text to
provide molecular explanations. These results suggest that further research is needed to
investigate the following questions:

What is the relative importance of these different kinds of explanations for
students? Are the argumentation patterns reported in this study general, or are they
unique to these two groups of students? If the argumentation heuristic used in this study
was not very effective in helping the majority of students develop complete scientific
arguments, how else could the nature of scientific arguments be presented so that
students could be aided in bridging the gap between their everyday explanations and
more complete and sophisticated scientific explanations? Given the extent of the
procedural difficulties experienced by many students in their collaborative groups,
would a more structured procedural format allow students to devote more of their time
and energy to substantive discussions of the content? How would this affect the nature of
their individual and collaborative answers and reasons?

In addition to the questions presented above, there are also many research
questions that grow out of the specific limitations of this study. For example, this study
represents a first attempt at developing an analysis tool for examining the scientific
problem solving of both incividual students and collaborative groups and the scientific
arguments and argumentation processes that they developed. This study has also focused
primarily on the nature of the arguments that were developed by students as they worked
in collaborative groups to seek solutions to a series of relatively complex sclence
problems. As yet unanswered is the question of how different task environments (such
as individual versus collaborative work, in-class versus clinical interview settings, and
explanation versus design problems), and differences in students' knowledge influence
the kinds of arguments they develop.

1 15

This study Is clearly limited in scope, focusing on only eight students in one
classroom at one grade level while they studied one particular curriculum topic.
Additional research is needed to investigate the applicability and usefulness of this
analysis approach in a variety of classroom contexts and for a variety of science topics.
It would also be useful to investigate the arguments and argumentation processes of high
school and university students, both science majors and non-majors, to compare and
contrast the collaborative problem solving activities of students of varying ages and
different content backgrounds.

The focus of this study and of the larger CPS research project has been on
students and their use of curriculum materials that are designed to help them develop
conceptual understanding of scientific ideas, establish norms for scientific
argumentation, and establish social norms for peer collaboration (Eichinger et al.,
1991). An Important and Interesting element of the whole education process that has not
yet been investigated is the role of the teacher in the planning, implementation, and
evaluation of these curriculum materials. The CPS project has involved a variety of
teachers, including both classroom teachers and university researchers, In the teaching
of a common set of curriculum materials. It would be interesting to investigate the roles
of the different teachers, the nature of their training prior to their participation in the
research project, and the nature of their instruction on the students' development of
conceptual understanding and competence in Ieaming scientific forms of argument.

Another important variable that deserves additional research attention is the
amount of time allowed for‘the investigation of students' collaborative problem solving
activities. While this study examined the instruction of the curriculum materials for
ten weeks, it could be argued that this was insufficient time for allowing the students to
become accustomed to working In collaborative groups. Additional research involving

studies spanning an entire semester or academic year could investigate the Impact of

1 1 6
varying amounts of training and practice on students' collaborative problem solving
abilities.

Finally, additional research Is needed to investigate the questions of whether and
how meaningful participation by all students can be achieved, especially in the
increasingly heterogeneous classrooms that characterize our schools. If scientific
literacy for all students Is truly a goal of American science education (AAAS, 1989; US.
Dept. of Education, 1991), then we must continue to Investigate ways in which we can
minimize or, ideally, eliminate the disenfranchisement of ethnically, culturally, and

socially diverse students.

LISTOFFIEFEFIQICES

LISTOFREFEREMJES

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). WI]
Amarjgana. Washington: AAAS.

Anderson, C. W. (1987).

Commrssroned paper for the Biological Sciences
Curriculum Study. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Anderson, C. W. 8 Palincsar. A. S. (1991). W.
Unpublished manuscript.

 

Anderson, C. W. 8 Roth, K. J. (1989). Teaching for meaningful and self-regulated

learnino in science In J Brophv (Ed) WW (Volume
1, pp. 265-309). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Anderson, C. W., Sheldon, T. H., 8 Dubay, J. (1990). The effects of instruction on
college nonmajors conceptions of respiration and photosynthesis. .Igurngt

Bessemhimficlanmleacmilc. 21(8). 761-776.

Anderson C W-. &Smitn E L (1983) WWW
Wags. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Anderson, CW 8 Smith, EL. (1987). Teaching science. in V. Koehler (Ed.), Ina
.. z . .z: .: :. New York: Longman.

 

Berger, C. F., Berkheimer, G. D., Lewis, L. E., 8 Neuberger, H. T. (1979). ugugntan
thfljnjgjangafiragaj. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Berkheimer, G. D., Anderson, C. W., 8 Blakeslee, T. D. (1990). Using_a_naw_mgdaLgt
- - - . - - ' (Research

Series No.196). East Lansizng Michigan State University, Institute for Research on
Teaching.

Berkheimer, G. D., Anderson, C. W., 8 Spees, S. T. (1990). W
W (Research Series N0- 195)- East Lansing:
Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.

 

Berkheimer, G. D., Anderson, C. W., Lee, 0., 8 Blakeslee, T. D. (1988). Mattarang

WWW (Occasional Paper No. 121). East Lansing:
Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.

Berkheimer, G. D. Anderson, C. W., 8 Blakeslee, T. D. (1988). MattaLaanrnglagulas
(Occasional Paper No. 122). East Lansing: Michigan
State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.

Bishop, B. A., 8 Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and
its role In evolution. Wins. 21(5). 415-428.

117

118
Brook, A., Driver, R., 8 Johnston, K. (1986). Leamlng processes in science: A
classroom persoeotlve In J J Wellington (Ed). WW
educatianAsriticaLanalysis Methuen

Brown, A. L. 8 Campione, J. C. (1990). Interactive learning environments and the
teaching of science and mathematics. In M. Gardner, J. G. Greeno, F. Roll, A. l-l.

SchoenteId A dISessa 8: E Staoe (Eds) Wanna
artugatjam (pp. 111- -.139) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum 8 Associates.

Brown, A. L. 8 Palincsar, A. S. (in press). Guided, cooperative Ieaming and individual
knowIedoe acquisition In L B Resnick (ed) Wad

agangas. Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brown, J. 8., Collins, A., 8 Duguld, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learnina- EducationaLBasaamlm.18 (1) 32-42

Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. W
11(10), 1123-1130.

Cohen, E. G. (1986). :: .
New York. Teachers College Press.

 

Collins, A, Brown, J. S. 8 Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching
the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L B. Resnick (Ed.,) Kngurjng.

WWW. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

David Y. M., 8 Palincsar, A. S. (1991, December).

ExamininoJclenWacuuha
WW. Paper presented at the National Beadino
Conference, Palm Springs, CA.

Driver, R. (1989). The construction of scientific knowledge in school classrooms. In
R. Millar(Ed.,) I- no ..: ..: - .. . .: .o .:NewYork The
Falmer Press.

 

Driver. 8.. 8 Brock. A. (1987). WWW
mattar. Children's Leamlng In Science Project, Centre for Studies in Science and
Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.

Driver, R., Guesne, E., 8 Tiberghien, A. (1985). mm. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.

Education Department. (1992, March).

W
W. Washington D 0: NetIoneI
Center for Education Statistics.

Edwards 0 &Meroor N (1987) WWW
mderstandinanchIasamm. London: Methuen.

Egan, K. (1987). Literacy and the oral foundations of education. flagrargjgugatjgnaj
3.81181. 51(4). 445-472.

119
Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Palincsar, A. S., 8 David, Y. M. (1991, April). An

:.e|e I3 e: e eejzj to. 3.”: 0121 It -ln II I 'l' -°.3 l'lll
jn_ggflabgratjya_grgn|arn_sgnnng. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Heath, S. B. (1983). 2 - .
W. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Heath, S. B. (1984). Unguistics and education. AnnuaLfiameotAntnrggglggy, 13,
251 -274.

 

Heath, S. B. (1986).

minorithtlldents. Los Angeles: California State University, Evaluation,
Dissemination, and Assessment Center.

 

Hesse, J. J. 8 Anderson, C. W. (1992). Students' conceptions of chemical change.
WW 28(3). 277-299.

Keller, E. F. (1985). : .. .
University Press.

Kuhn. T- (1970). W (2nd od-l- Chloaoot
University of Chicago Press.

-. New Haven, CT: Yale

 

Lee. 0., Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Berkheimer, G. D., 8 Blakeslee, T. D. (In
press). Changing middle school students' conceptions of matter and molecules.

Lemke. J. L. (1983). Westerne- Finel report to the US-
National Science Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
222346) .

Lemke, J. L. (1989). Wm. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Lemke,J. L. (1990). 2' ,
Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Linn. M 0. &Sonoer N B (1988 Apr") W

W Paper Presented at the annueI
meeting of the American Educational research Associafion, New Orleans.

Longino, H. (1990). MW. Princeton: Princeton University

PfOSS.

:c. Norwood, NJ:

 

Michaels, S 8 Bruce, B. C. (1989). Discourses on the seasons. Technical Report,
Reading Research and Education Center. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.

120
Michaels 8 8- O'Connor. M .C (1990) WWW
- ~ -. : - - . Paper presented at The
Council of Chief State School Officers 1990 Summer Institute.

 

Miller, M. (1987). Argumentation and cognition. in M. Hickmann (Ed.), SggjaLang
._ .. .. . z. . . . New York: Academic Press.

 

Minstrel, J (1984). Teaching for the development of understanding of ideas. Forces on

moving obioots In C W Anderson (Ed) Wm
W, 1984 Yearbook of the Association for the
Education of Teachers in Science, Columbus, OH. ERIC/SMEAC.

Nickerson, R. S. (1985). Understanding understanding. AntauganJaurnaLgt
Eduaatjgu, 201 -239.

Nussbaum, J., 8 Novak, J. D. (1976). An assessment of children's concepts of the earth
using structured interviews. SgtanaLEguaatjgu, 651(4), 535-550.

Nussbaum, J., 8 Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict, and

accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. tnstntgtjgualfigjanaa, 11,
1 83-200.

Pines, A. L., 8 West, L. H. T. (1986). Conceptual understanding and science Ieaming: An
Interpretation of research within a source-of-knowiedge framework. fiaianaa

59888112812. 583-604

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A, Hewson, P. W. 8 Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of

a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Wu, 86
(2), 211- 228.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Leamlng In school and out. W 1.6. (9),
13- 20.

Rogoff, B. (1990). - .
New York. Oxford University Press.

Roseberry, A. 5., Warren, B, 8 Conant, F. R. (1990). Apnrggriatlnmiautiflc
- . , . .Cambridge, MA: Bolt,

 

 

Roth, K. J. (1985). . . . - ,:
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.

 

Schauble, L. 8 Glaser, R. (1990). Scientific thinking in children and adults. in D.
Kuhn (Ed.), Developmental perspectives on teaching and Ieaming thinking skills.
WW 2].. 9-27.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). WWW. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

121
Slavin, R. E. (1985). An introduction to cooperative Ieaming research. In R. E.
Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, 8 R. Schmuck (Eds.,)

 

Slavin, R. E. (1990). -.
Cliffs, NJ. Prentice Hall

 

Smith, D. C. (1987). - . ... . .
Paper presented at the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and
Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

 

Smith, E. L. (1991). Aconceptual change model of learning science. In S. Glynn, R.
Yeany. 8 B. Britton (Eds), Esucnglggjrguaarmnusgjanaa. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Solomon, J. (1985, April). W. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Strike, K. A., 8 Posner, G. J. (1985). A conceptual change view of Ieaming and

understanding. In L. H. T. West 8 A. L. Pines (Eds), W
W. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Toulmin, S. (1958). Magnum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Toulmin, S. (1972). Human_ungarstangjng. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.

U- S- Department of Education (1991). WWW-
Washingbn, 0.0.: Author.

von Giasersfeld, E. (1987). Leamlng as a constructive activity. In C. Janvier (Ed.,)

 

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ‘

Vosniadou. S., 8 Brewer, W. F. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in
devobprnent. WW. 51(1). 51-67.

Vygotsky, LS. (1978). . : .
grggasgaa. (M. Cole, V. John- Steiner, S. Scribner, 8 E. Sauberman, Eds).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Warren, B. Roseberry, A. 8 Conant, F. (1989).

W
W BBN TechnIoaI Report No 7305 Cambridge. MA:
Bolt, Beranek, 8 Newman, Inc.

Wertsch. J. (1985)- WWW. Cambridge. MA

Harvard University Press.

Wittrock, M. C. (1985). Leamingsciencebygeneratingnewconceptionsflomoldideas inL. I-I.
T..West8AL.Pines(Eds.,) . . . .Orlando,FL:
AcademicPress.

 

APPENDICES

122
APPENDIX li-A: OBSERVATION SUMMARY FORM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.....38 so: :98
. .88 2o. noon .2 so. so: a :2...
. so... .23 so use: 5.9.... ass... .3 cases. ass ms.
..o.o. :03 co 2: :2? 8.: 2: «So: E o... co 25:2: 2: :o» F
. as.
8.239% cocoons: as... .. :E:.8 .22. co 2:8 .2o. :65. 2 .:oz. .:QE .9; ..u
..o....._o :. .o .Eo... 20:8 .2. EoEoo oz 953 .. .2. oo.o 9.2%.... .o o:o. o... .o 2.2.3
o... .22.: ooo.8o. on 2:2... .Eoo.ooo.o .o 2.3:: 6.5.8... 3.8% :o o.:oEEoo some
2.. :. 2:26 .o...o .2 8:2: .oEo. ......3320: .o..oE .2 oE..
2.. Scan 86: .oo...>..oo 8:2: 9:30 .o 338:: 28.9.8 .9288 o... .o no.2o .o 8.38% 9525
..o: .o .. 29:8 28 3... 2.5.6: 8.3.2.. 6238? o... .o 820 22.3 o:o
o... 352.3 .83 .o coon. 2.3328 2:3: 2.. .o boEEg .25 o 26.. .:QE :9 .o 5.3.3 o... .o 9:58
2.52:8 o... Eo... .o o:o .. 2.98.5: a... 68.6 22.3 o... 2 82.2 o. .382 .538 o:o 22:: o... o... 2.2.
.ec.._s_.oc 88.22; 2.5: access 2.. :22. .558 coco 2.. 58.... c3 8 8.8.88: a... a 2:9.»
892 Sons 8.2. 26... 9:2... :E:.8 or o... .2.) :o 8.2. 26: 3:05 5:28 o..F o:omrgcm :E:_8 ocF :E:.8 o3...
e.mEoD :3.“ ESE-D ..oam 5.3.“: 2::
cozoono ":88. I gonad—.88.. c288. .28

E5“. EoEfiam co..o>..oonO

 

123
APPENDIX 4-B: CLINICAL INTERVIEW RECORD

WWW

1B. MHsmmm-mwdmmmmmeMIW
uhmmmmmmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Known um
_ m _ m
_ sold _ sold
... hid _ mo
... 08 __ all
__ mum _ mm
__ um. __ Mn
._ mom _ mm
_ molooub _ momma
_ W _ portion
_ pollution _ pollution
1c mmamummmmm m
mummnumamndmmmmwun:
"l’olmom .' mu .' mammm .' WMyoudoflno 7'
matter
solid
liquid
can
put.
«butane.
nlxnm

 

 

 

“IONIC

 

124

panics.

 

‘-
43,

pollution

 

v“.

125

10. Imnmnmmmmummmw.nyoudom.tum
mnemmmmlummw. (Immmmwmalzowhflo
'mm,m') W,Wam.mywnWMummmmwm
ago or. ., .

|||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||1||

3mm 3%; me; E?! “m as 995
g E g1 E E 3E E i 1; g ; Eg

15.

126

Probing undoutmdnga ot toladomhlpo mm ammo.
61. Show tho studont tho custor: mattor. oolld. llquld. and goo.
How would thoso tour tomihbo togothor?

 

 

 

mmmm,mmmwmmw

 

 

 

62. Show tho studont tho tonna: pun whotanoo. mtxturo. and pottutlon.
How would thoso throo tom go togathofl

 

 

 

Howoanyouhavoapwopoloon?

 

 

 

Howomoon'otungbovorydoonwlthoutbolnom?

 

 

 

£3. Lot’a look now a pamcto. atom, and molaouto.

Howwouldthooothrootonnagotogomofl

 

 

 

HowdoaspodtotMamolowlomndanotomootmoroholzo?

 

 

127

Taak 2: 30".". OM IMWII' Matahcoo
Mummmmuu‘o‘wyommmm:

took
”My
puro watar
all not

handy
buotpuuodt
acaudthdm'lmmhom'

2A. mmmnWmminammmWwb.maoflmukmmo
roaoomtormowayinwuohhoorohohaaomauzodthom. (Woahouldnotusothowotd
'WuMhMaW).

rod: Roaaom:

3

23
3
3| l

”5 E
2%
§"| I I
gl
3'
3,

8

3
13

pm. Into!

a
3

EE
3%
”I l
gl

§

3,

8

£333
|
g135' '!I
§
§,

128

28. mummumuwhmommmmammwmramamm
thoootomoouldbouoodtodoocnbothoitomthotthoyhavopstqowod. 'Youhovogroupod
ooohotthoootwoooto Lot'otokoolooknowothowwonightput thotwoootatogothor. How
wouldyouoorrhlnomoootwogroupalnowoymotmdtoosomo?’

WMWWMWVWMWMMNM(M
thotolovnngpogo).

ummmmmomwmmry.mmmmz 'ForoxarrploJ

omldpumopomywmdxwflhmobnhoolddmothuommmthumintho
mmf

mmnmmmmm‘m. Atthhpolrtwowll rotyupontho
matholuorvlow. sz-Cuptohokaahouldbomoddoonninomy
dopondnguponrooporoootoz-Aomw-B

Tunas-1: sac-arm

sawmuorwmugorommumm

mm
0: GamblmhowmmwngaaodgmmogomnoroM?

P1: Doyouknowwhotmothrooototoootmororo? (ldnohrdorIdooontkrw) Havo
youmhouddmm. ondgoooo?

P2: mmumuw

P3: mmumbm

P4: moo-«moon

P5: Howdoyoudoddowhomoroormtflnglaoooldoralqid?
PO: mammmmbomam‘r

rum mmum
mm
0: CommotmwoymotmooodvooWoroW
P1: Havoyouovorhoordotmolowloo?
P2: mutiny?
P3: magmthoy? I-towdooothotrdzooonporotomoolzootospodtotwst?
P4: Canyoutlirtotoornodingthot'ammadootmolowloa?

129

ram macaw)
mm _
a. moon 3 -

Pt: (linolrdorloayothoroiammlngihmodr) Wovoyourorrnlnthodr. Doyoutool
W toorWIgotrldngyourorm? Whalol?

:éé'amaoyouarouotoaoolrflhmm WhollodrmadootHWhotio

Pa: Drouaplourootwhayouwowooo.

P4: (Immmmmm) Whammooodototwovoooto)? Arothoy
olthooorno? Whalobotwoonthorh? Arothoynm? Inmdnyakmmm?

P5: (Inflammation lotorrhtuo? “mailman? Iodrmodoot
dhororarnotoarloo?

Tim-4: momma
w
0: Wmmmmmwm Whatawotormadoor?
P1: OrowaWadthyouwouflaao.
P2: rummmmm.m) mmmm.mw Nothoyal
thoauno? Whalobotwoohthom? Nothoyrnovlng? loo.orothoyoMoyomovlng?
Taitzc-5:Nulootaold
mm

0: WWMmMaMbmodootmworymorympmaorm
MmMyolgglnghodtondtom. Whadoyoudnottha?

Pt: (loardorlmooohdbrrnorlonamlomloo) Arothomlomloaotrockm?

P2: appoooyouoonaoorodthMoyoglao-oo. Druaplohrrootwhotyou
worldooo.

P3: ummm WWW Arothoydthooarno? Iothoromy
opooohotwoonthorn?

130

haze-o: WGMMO‘M
mm a

O: Nouyouhovotontngootdrmuormndrodt. Whahmodtloronooornongmooo
mmmm?

P1: (hMerlonodthdthoroiaapooobotwoon...mmodowingo) Iathospooo
mooornoholotlaa?(lmoalrdanoqom)wrid1h8tholagootapmo? Whlchhao
thoornalootspooo?

P2: (rummmmmm Iothomovorhonmosamoinol

otlao? (lthowdoruuyono) Miohhoomomomnovom‘r wriohhatholooot
movorhorl?

71‘3: BMWWOIMMW

roots-1: Molhgloo

mummhmmwp

W
O: Mantothoboabao?
P1: Wmarnottorioioo? mmdmum
P2: MMRMWW

P3: «Whammloaum Canyouoxpldnwharohopporingtomo
molowloa?

P4: Doooloohovotobohododtomol? Why?
P5: Inwhiohotaodomolowloomomorohooly?
Pd: hmwommoytothorm?

Talia-2: m
Bolwdarhlhahadomhlhopllo.
W
O: Whl'ohmrihgtothowotofl Ooocdbowhdyouooo.
P1: NwobmwdflmmhmmbthOMdmlhtMW
P2: mommamw
P3: Wimbthomw

131

P4: (ldtooordarlmowona'olfl Doyoummodrlnmobwbloolothosomaotho
airlntfloroorn? or (Immamlorl'otoom') Whldoyoummby'otoorh'?
muodMorlostoornf

P5: manuaaifioommogm ommmnmmor
WU?

Pd: Whaontoroopaoobotwoonmotowloanldorgao?

a“

P7: hwhldwtotodomolowloomovotonhormort?

Tuna-3: Madcap“
Pwaharddooaplatommwotor.
mm
0: WRWMMM?
P1: Whorowoathowotoroornotrorh?
P2: (Immm'dfl Howdoaadrchomabwlofl «(mom
moriona'aoom') Mdooostoomdiongotromgaatomd? Canyouoxpldnlntom
otrnolowlao:
P3: mmhummmonmwagoaormd?
P4: mmmmmmmrw
P5: hmmdonmuumrmm

Toots-4: SW
mannadlaboholonthaoldo.
mm
0: thdoyouaoohmponlnghoro?
P1: Wharoddthoalcoholgo?
P2: WIW IaoJallmhatorovofl Dooolatluht?
P3: mummmponm
P4: Iodwholnndaotmolocuoo? mum?
P5: What'shmpoflmbthoalcoholmhwlu?
PB: Wouldonytflnghoppondflorontlyitwohootodmoglmondoloohol?

Tum-5: Smal
Titotopottotporturrlooorldnor.

132

mm
0: mmmmmr
Pt: woman-ma? .
P2: l-lowddlhoomololpomgotlrornthoglooatoyournooo?
N: Cmywoxpldnlntormoimoiaculao?
P4: Worm Whoroddlhoycomallom?
P5: lwopuotoponthopormlomrouldywsdlbomioioomoll? Whyorwhynot?

Took 4: Explain puro auhotomo vo. mixturo and prooooa and rato or dloaolvlng
m:m.loobop.apa.ooldm
WWW anuabmlnm.

Talt4-t: Wang!
W
O: Whaiohquoungbmgafl
P1: («comm-awn mmmmby'm'?
P2: MMIgotoudlhotoabog? Canyouoxpldnhtmolm?
P3: lwoloavomondwotorsltllngloronodoymhotmhqpon? Wilmboalovor
gm? Wougaroiuttothobodom? Myorwhynot? Canyouoxplalnintom

P4: lwoplatoabnotmhoapotholwotorondoapoiooldwatormfldmouid
dooolvoloolon Why? Canyouoxpldnintomolmolowlao?

P5: lothowgtmdwotoromoropuroubatonoo?
Pd: Cmyouoxpldwhy?

Toots: Explointhonnaloxponoionotgaoondooild
Motorlob: Boloon.hotllo.bol.rlrtg.hotpiuo
sum: Plathoboloononthorkndmoooldbodbmldthonwonnnvdmhmdomonus
oldo). Hovomomnnnmoboflmmughlmnmhoamobotwhawmostudomwtopul
thobolbockthrwdlthonng.
Tots-tzThomuioxpunionolgoo
mm
0: Whamhmponlothoboloonoltorwoputourhandoonthobottlo?

133

m: Mormonism? Why?
P2: mmmmouw

P3: (iithoohadoflW‘i-iotdrhoa.’ thonunthobottlolpoldodown.) Canyou
oxpldnwhylhooaloonotayathooorno? Cmyouoxplolnlntormoolmolowloo?

P4: Dooothomolowlomodonoralzooiwlgowhonthobotllolowormad? llao.inwhat

P5:Dooothom1boroimolowloodlangooolhobodloiowormod?

P3: iamorIodIongoindioopooobotwoonmolowioooamobodloiawamad?

P7: mwmaammmmmmmbmmmm
P3: Donuioouloarnovolootormhonlhobotlioioooldorhodod?

P9: “WWW“.mflnmbcoidorw

Toots-2: Thormaloxponaionoioold
mm
0: Thobdgooomrouulthorlngmuumoalod). Whamhmponlwohodthobol?

P1: Humanamuwmmmw Conyouoxphinintorrnaol
MUS?

P2: mummunommmmoubnm

P3: Dooothoruntorolmolowioochongooothobollahootod?

P4: lotorooohmgohthoopaoobotwoonmiaaloooothobollohootod?
P5: Worothomoiowiooollhobolmovinghoiorowodortodtohodl?
P6: DOMMlaatorwhahlhabollahoaladormfl?

P7: Damnammwmmownmorcom

134

Appendix 4-C

Clinical interviews - Argument Questions

1) Reporters from a television science show were interviewing people at a
science museum to ask them to explain how the space shuttle blasts off. They
talked to two different people and here are their answers:

39159111: They start the engines of the shuttle, and there's lots of fire and
smoke, and a really loud noise from the fuel burning. Then, when the
push of the motors is strong enough, the rocket starts to move up slowly
and then it goes faster and faster and higher and higher until you can't
see it anymore.

Eamon}: The fuel, which is composed of liquid oxygen and liquid
hydrogen, is ignited and combustion of the fuel takes place. This
combustion produces large quantities of flames, particulate matter, and
reverberation. When the engines produce enough thrust to overcome
the force of gravity, the rocket begins ascending and accelerates into
the atmosphere until it is beyond visual contact.

Is one of these explanations better than the other?
if so, why? In what ways is it better?
Would one of these explanations be better than the other for a scientist?
n so, why? In what ways would it be better?
2) Imagine you are trying to explain [how a bicycle works] to one of your friends
from Pattengill and to a scientist from Michigan State University. Would your

explanation to your friend be different from your explanation to the scientist?

If so, how would the two explanations be different?
Why would they be different?

What kinds of things would you need to include in your explanation to
your friend or to the scientist to make it a good or a complete
explanation?

Is there anything else you would need to add to make your explanation
complete or good?

135

3) Imagine you and Martha are having a discussion in science class about how
rust forms on a nail. Here’s what Martha says:

Manna: It just rusts. It has to. I mean, that's what happens to nails. They
just sit around long enough and then they get rusty.

What do you think about Martha's explanation? Is it a good or a
complete explanation?

Is anything missing from her answer?

What kinds of things would you need to include in order to have a good
or a complete explanation?

136

APPENDIX 44)

Post Instruction Interview Questions

Given pieces of explanations on 3 x 5 cards, ask students to:
1) choose the necessary pieces for a complete explanation
2) construct a complete explanation with these pieces
3) identify observation. substance. and molecular components
4) explain why they chose these particular pieces.

1. Anna bought a helium balloon at the mall on a very cold day. Outside the mall on her
way to the car, she met Alan and started talking about all the news at school. When she
finally got back to the car, she noticed that the balloon looked different. Assuming that
none of the gas in the balloon leaked out, what do you think happemed to the balloon?
How could you explain what happened?

a. The helium molecules got cold. slowed down, and sank to the bottom
of the balloon.

b. The rubber of the balloon contracted.

c. The balloon got smaller.

d. The molecules of the helium gas slowed down and moved closer
together.

e. The helium gas contracted.

i. The balloon expanded.

Probes for all three questions

1. What parts of an explanation are needed to make a complete explanation?

2. Which part of your explanation (observation, substances, molecules) is each of the
cards you have chosen?

3. Why did you choose these cards instead of the others?

2. Ed noticed that, when he wanted to make Kool-Aid, it was easier to make it using
warm water than cold water. Can you explain this?

a. Kcol-Aid dissolves faster in warm water than in cold water.

b. Kool-Ald powder (solid) dissolves in the water and forms a solution.
c. The molecules of warm water hit the Kool-Aid crystals faster and
harder and pull the Kool-Aid molecules away faster than

molecules of cold water.

d. The KooI-Aid melts faster in warm water than in cold water.

e. Warm water molecules melt the Kool-Ald molecules and cause them to
start bumping and sliding past each other

137

3. Explain what happens to a pan of water that is put on the stove and the heat is turned
on high.

a. The water boils.

b. The water condenses.

c. The air in the water heats up and lorrns bubbles that rise to the top.

d. Liquid water forms water vapor at the bottom of the pan and rises to the
tOp in bubbles.

e. The liquid water molecules get hot and change into water vapor

molecules.

f. The water molecules move faster and far enough apart to form water

vapor.

g. The water molecules split into hydrogen molecules and oxygen

molecules.

h. Bubbles form at the bottom of the pan and rise to the top.

138
APPENDIX 4-E: PRE- AND POST-INSTRUCTION TEST

0

Period - Name

 

Date ' -‘ ' Teacher

 

This test asks questions about topics that scientists deal with. We would like to know
mg ideas about these topics. Please answer each question as carefully and as thoroughly
as you can. Do not worry about trying to finish the test just do what you can in the time

allowed. W good explanations are more important to us than
'correet' scientific words.

1. Try to decide whether each of the things below is:

‘ a m substance
‘ a mm of different substances
‘ something else that is neither a pure substance nor a mixture of substances

air pure mixture something else
light pure mixture something else
helium pure mixture something else
heat pure mixture . something else
steel pure mixture something else
water pure mixture something else
the smell of popcorn pure mixture something else
mud pure mixture something else
salt water pure mixture something else

2. What is the difference between things that are pure and things that are not?

 

 

 

139

What do you think is bigger. a molecule or a speck of dust?

a. They are the same size.

b. The molecule. How many times bigger?
c. The speck of dust. How many times bigger?
d. i don't know.

 

 

John stirred some sugar into a glass of water. After a while the sugar had all
dissolved-«the water was clear and John could not see any sugar.

What happens to sugar when it dissolves in water?

 

 

 

Choose one of the following:

a. Sugar dissolves faster in hot water

b. Sugar dissolves faster in cold water

c. Sugar dissolves about the same in hot and cold water
d. i don’t know

Explain your answer.

 

 

 

A solid iron ball exactly 3 inches across was heated on the stove. If it did not melt,
would you expect it to

a. De larger

b. Be smaller

c Stay the same size
d I don't know

140

3".
as .

Choose solid. liquid, gas. or other for each thing below:

air ,, v' solid liquid gas other
light solid liquid gas other
helium solid liquid gas other
heat solid liquid gas other
steel solid liquid gas other
water solid liquid gas other
the smell of popcorn solid liquid gas other
mud solid liquid gas other
salt water solid liquid gas other

Have you ever heard of mm“?
molecules are?

 

If you answered yes, what do you think

 

 

 

Which of the following do you think is made of molecules (Circle yes. no, or I don't
know.) .

air yes no I don’t know
light yes no I don’t know
helium yes no I don't know
heat yes no I don’t know
steel yes no I don't know
water yes no I don’t know
the smell of popcorn yes no I don't know
mud yes no I don’t know

salt water yes no I don’t know

13.

I4.

141

Explain your answer.

A

 

 

You cut up an onion into small pieces. You notice the smell in a few seconds.
Explain what you think the smell is made of.

 

 

 

Explain how it reached you. Talk about molecules, if you can.

 

 

 

Do you think the molecules are moving in M?

a. Yes. they are moving
b. No, they are not moving
c. I don’t know

Do you think the molecules are moving in M?
a. Yes. they are moving

b. No, they are not moving

c. I don’t know

Do you think the molecules are moving in a mt?
a. Yes. they are moving

b. No, they are not moving
c. I don’t know

10.

12.

142

.0
O

I .9 _

Explain your answer.

'0 U.

 

 

When a piece of metal is heated:

The number of molecules increases

Molecules expand or get larger

Molecules stay the same size but move farther apart
Molecules contract or get smaller

e. I don't know

999?

How do you think the molecules of hot water are.different from the molecules of cold
water? Circle all answers that you think are correct.

The molecules are larger in hot water

The molecules are larger in cold water

The molecules move faster n hot water

The molecules are warmer in hot water

The molecules are the same. but there is more heat in the hot water
I don't know

9999??

These two bottles were put into the refrigerator until they were cold. Balloons were
placed over the rims of the bottles. A student took one bottle out of the refrigerator
and warmed it with her hands. Which bottle did she warm? Circle your choice.

1“

I9.

20.

143

When water boils. bubbles rise to the surface of the water. What do you think is
inside the bubbles?

 

 

 

fl

Explain in your own words why heating makes the water boil. Explain in terms of
molecules. if you can. -

 

 

 

You leave a glass full of water on the counter where nobody touches it. A few days
later, the water level is lower than before. Where do you think the water has gone?

 

Explain how this happens, in terms of molecules if you can.

 

 

 

You and a friend are sitting in a car on a cold winter day. You talk for a while, then
you notice that the windows have fogged up.

What do you think the fog is?

 

15.

16.

17.

144

.
~
0

a},

If you said the molecules were moving in any of the examples above, do you think

 

they will ever stop moving?

Explain.

 

 

 

A piece of ice is melted to liquid water. flow would the weight of the water compare
to the weight of ice?

a. The water would weigh 131 than the ice

b. The water would weigh mm as the ice
c. The water would weigh mm than the ice.

Explain your answer.

 

 

 

Explain, in your own words. why heating a solid makes it melt. Explain in terms of
molecules of the solid. if you can.

 

 

 

What happens to the molecules of water when the water freezes?

Molecules of water become cold and hard

Water molecules change into ice molecules

Molecules of water slow down and fit together in a pattern
Molecules of water get smaller

I don't know

9999’?

21.

22.

145

o},

Why did the fog form on the windows instead of. say. on your face?

 

‘ul

 

 

Explain how the fog formed.

 

 

 

You take a can of soft drink out of the refrigerator and let it stand for 15 minutes.
The outside of the can becomes wet.

Where has the water on the outside of the can come from?

The water in the soft drink seeps through the can

The coldness causes oxygen and hydrogen in the air to form water on the can
Water in the air forms drops on the cold can

The coldness comes through the can and turns into drops of water

I don't know

99999

When we say the air is humid, what do we mean? Explain in terms of molecules. if
you can.

 

 

 

146

.uuuawl sduwuu
no: .uwuoEogqu vouovmeeoo w——olm

.am-

uo aeolu>ol no clung em poems—a
two wows» no comes-5x0 menace:
cos: :5: doamugw: as! nausea-mam

=.uwuaswamw: uou elaeoeu-

we can: aclmuoio- souwuoawao:

we. cos—ououv: oxm— wane: .ew.-m
mews—osem womew:o cm a—uwmuusao
eosuuweoo saws—w no: uuuuw:

.auoou no one can so» memgu
felon em noun-I ..m.ov nouuuunoua
ensue co moans eomuwumumaowdu

.vemumeneuo a_uowuuooem
:cuuc segueeiccc new nee-o

.a

.ous .ew—:cs—cl no weal

.uouuwl uncuUuosu .ew-an one aduulm

.wouao: cogs venous wooesuamsm

.weuceso uwomauga
-w em cease-coo nu nouns:

.uoe snow
noun-lice: .eewn- a: cox-u nouns:

.uoe one Anew“—
.uwo; ..m.ev wmeusu aeguo .uuuuel
one wow-m mew .w9m39u— ..vu—om

 

weoaoeega sew once-acne. o—awauuaao uaoaa weomusuoeou

«unso— ounce-chow:

 

eomuaoueou uauwz —wums»h

 

noo;h uedaooao: caused: uca

eouuatoeoo ueou

 

unasu comuawoeou aeoc ma couumoocoooue

.mlv XHQZWQQN

a—uul. no ensue: .e
ecu-ewnxo unleash .n
noun-I no
coma-auooeoo .N
.a
weasel
.w uo couumemuom .—
o:o-u

147

.Aaucouuao eouuuus
rcou ..m.uv wooceunaaw no eueulo>oe

.ueulo>ol o—ae>uowao no a_ueoa

eomuol usuaoeuol

 

 

o—awauenao em one:- a-nlua coupon—o: reumuvem auacmucoo eomuoa nausea—oz no haw—«Auam> .N—
.uvm_oa em a._emooaao
.—_mua on uoamuuloa as! nausea—o: .m=m>ol a—ueauoecu use weuaoudcs -< eouuol neon-coo ._—
.ouu .wxooau ease .u-ou on .oaoououoml e :uma
on“. em o—nwuealoo on he! ou—poodoz eu>o .oou cu u—nlo ocu one wo—3ou—o: ou—aoo—ol me .am» .a—
.nouewuuaaa mm.oue ao—aou—ol
Acne—:uwuol gees: ..m.ov wouaouuol we noun-l uo
sundae-us noun-niece mundane—cl we .uoe am noun-Izeoe eouuaumueeoo
seamen-ow uoc nausea-35. ~emuouax .ew—:ou—ol no one! am noun-l -< unused—o: .m
ensue: omega new coupon—cl unop- oeomumuoeou ”unse— houses—o:
.vuou see use:
eooauoa comuowcu w x: meluou am MN .uuoowao waoo
u::uwoua: no snow: am ouwacopeou co .oaeeecoo am- e« none: nous: coma-aeeucou .m
. ...-33... 43:51:: .5.
.uou ....ov o—amoma om nus em uca-3 uca-a noun: sand-mac“ ecu-ucoo um< ca homes uca-3 .n
.woeeaawo no mow-uuaaou cos: wow-m
nogucew cu common oeo loan use! wee-o .ew-aeualoo on can wow-u no com-weualou .o
.eomaaeualou no cow-eemxe .aaaouo ao:u nouns. enema cu awe-m
sou.- eo>oea am eon-u no eomU:Amuuama osu swoops» a—eeae saunas cause no eomuaauuuaua .n

148

.uwumnwwumw no :oueuo=w>o: uuuouoao:

.uuo .:0uwuonw>o: .:uaols
nuance—cl use! meuaooo see memo-u:

.A.ouo .waouw em on-
ueunuouol auscu— .vue: one undone—cl
wm~ow ..m.ov eu—aouuol deavmsmeem cu

wou:Amuuuw ensue o:o no wuuuuuaoua

no nomuuomoum u~ao>uewao no clue»
em Aueo mommuoaew nouuwl no uca-um

.ew:» cassava
uneasy nesuo no sumo: o>eg nuance—o:

.vewaxe ao>~oolosu oeuaouuo:

radon
no no: on can au>~walosu census—o:

.:ua—oa-mw: nos—unlesu nauseoucl
no neeeau-aao euaa>uoaao co o:oou

.emaema
eouu ease-u -e_:oo~oa asu>oaruasm

.ueao—o no nod-am
e>ol season—oi nausea a: eunu-
uo eeaeago eon-u mew—coo we: memo-e:

cum-mu oe .eomuol love-u .auawui
cussed
euauua comaol loves» «wemavmut
Asun- vummu em ouwu3u> «usage-i
. ”ac—:ovuol
no acomuol pew oncoloucwuuw use
lacunae on was one uuuuea uo cousum

.leza eooauea

woo-ma sumac was: wanna no ee—oouuo:

.uuwaw hogan-u
aodaowdol wo>ol :omuol manoeuoeu

.uouowu
o>ol wuucsuuaae no: no coupon—o:

.ucoauo- uo wu—coudol gum: am!
we. so). sauna cacao. no causewao:

eouuauoseae
no coma-ewuswe
nausea—ex

ensue no
come-go uo nouns
tenuous nausea—o:

wean-l no
sou-u. no comes
recs—axe sauces—o:

census—cl
eoeauea wee-am

ecu-casu-
uelueau uo coma-
ies—aae pounce—ox

eouuol
uedaoeuol no
use; no suoeuum

. unmade-
r-mv we come-
iewuawe nausea—o:

.m—

.m~

.s-

.am

.a—

.0g

.nq

149

APPENDIX 5

Copies of the Appendices for Chapter Five are available from the author at the following
address:

David Clair Eichinger
401 Catherwood Drive
West Lafayette, IN 47906

"I7111111111111111115