Extending science instruction beyond the CER: Use of critical questions in the argumentation of middle school science students

Abstract

Critiquing arguments is important for K-12 science students to learn but not emphasized by the predominant claim-evidence-reasoning (CER) argumentation model. Drawing on the work of Yu and Zenker (2020), and Dove and Nussbaum (2018), we developed a tool for supplementing CER with critical questions (CQs) from philosophy that cover most, if not all, the logical dimensions of argument critique. Six middle school science teachers designed lessons involving argumentation, including the use of CQs. We assessed the effects on student self-efficacy for engaging in argument critique, teacher self-efficacy for using argument pedagogy, and teachers’ perceptions of the value of CQs. Qualitative data included teacher interviews, lesson transcripts, and student work samples. Quantitative data included surveys of student self-efficacy administered at the beginning and end of the school year. There was evidence suggesting an increase over time in students’ confidence for engaging in argument critique and teachers’ confidence with argument pedagogy. However, only four of the six teachers were confident and skilled enough to include CQs in their lessons. Those who did use CQs tended to perceive them as providing a helpful structure for critique, prompts for deeper thinking, and a tool for fostering critical classroom norms. Discussion of CQs may have benefitted students’ writing by promoting peer critique and encouragement to elaborate. Overall, CQs afford students with a framework for judging argument strength. Scientific argumentation involving CQs provides a more contemporary philosophical basis for scientific argumentation than CER or the Toulmin model as it emphasizes the critical and dialogic nature of science.