The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science

Jonathan F. Osborne, Joseph Henderson, Anna MacPherson, Evan Szu, Andrew Wild, Shi Ying Yao

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Given the centrality of argumentation in the Next Generation Science Standards, there is an urgent need for an empirically validated learning progression of this core practice and the development of high-quality assessment items. Here, we introduce a hypothesized three-tiered learning progression for scientific argumentation. The learning progression accounts for the intrinsic cognitive load associated with orchestrating arguments of increasingly complex structure. Our proposed learning progression for argumentation in science also makes an important distinction between construction and critique. We present validity evidence for this learning progression based on item response theory, and discuss the development of items used to test this learning progression. By analyzing data from cognitive think-aloud interviews of students, written responses on pilot test administrations, and large-scale test administrations using a Rasch analysis, we discuss the refinement both of our items and our learning progression to improve construct validity and scoring reliability. Limitations to this research as well as implications for future work on assessment of scientific argumentation are discussed. Â

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)821-846
Number of pages26
JournalJournal of Research in Science Teaching
Volume53
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2016

Fingerprint

argumentation
science
learning
construct validity
interview
evidence
student

Keywords

  • argumentation
  • assessment
  • learning progression

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. / Osborne, Jonathan F.; Henderson, Joseph; MacPherson, Anna; Szu, Evan; Wild, Andrew; Yao, Shi Ying.

In: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 53, No. 6, 01.08.2016, p. 821-846.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Osborne, Jonathan F. ; Henderson, Joseph ; MacPherson, Anna ; Szu, Evan ; Wild, Andrew ; Yao, Shi Ying. / The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. In: Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2016 ; Vol. 53, No. 6. pp. 821-846.
@article{9dcb2806b5d04cfeba78e4ed3cf11bdf,
title = "The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science",
abstract = "Given the centrality of argumentation in the Next Generation Science Standards, there is an urgent need for an empirically validated learning progression of this core practice and the development of high-quality assessment items. Here, we introduce a hypothesized three-tiered learning progression for scientific argumentation. The learning progression accounts for the intrinsic cognitive load associated with orchestrating arguments of increasingly complex structure. Our proposed learning progression for argumentation in science also makes an important distinction between construction and critique. We present validity evidence for this learning progression based on item response theory, and discuss the development of items used to test this learning progression. By analyzing data from cognitive think-aloud interviews of students, written responses on pilot test administrations, and large-scale test administrations using a Rasch analysis, we discuss the refinement both of our items and our learning progression to improve construct validity and scoring reliability. Limitations to this research as well as implications for future work on assessment of scientific argumentation are discussed. {\^A}",
keywords = "argumentation, assessment, learning progression",
author = "Osborne, {Jonathan F.} and Joseph Henderson and Anna MacPherson and Evan Szu and Andrew Wild and Yao, {Shi Ying}",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/tea.21316",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "53",
pages = "821--846",
journal = "Journal of Research in Science Teaching",
issn = "0022-4308",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science

AU - Osborne, Jonathan F.

AU - Henderson, Joseph

AU - MacPherson, Anna

AU - Szu, Evan

AU - Wild, Andrew

AU - Yao, Shi Ying

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

N2 - Given the centrality of argumentation in the Next Generation Science Standards, there is an urgent need for an empirically validated learning progression of this core practice and the development of high-quality assessment items. Here, we introduce a hypothesized three-tiered learning progression for scientific argumentation. The learning progression accounts for the intrinsic cognitive load associated with orchestrating arguments of increasingly complex structure. Our proposed learning progression for argumentation in science also makes an important distinction between construction and critique. We present validity evidence for this learning progression based on item response theory, and discuss the development of items used to test this learning progression. By analyzing data from cognitive think-aloud interviews of students, written responses on pilot test administrations, and large-scale test administrations using a Rasch analysis, we discuss the refinement both of our items and our learning progression to improve construct validity and scoring reliability. Limitations to this research as well as implications for future work on assessment of scientific argumentation are discussed. Â

AB - Given the centrality of argumentation in the Next Generation Science Standards, there is an urgent need for an empirically validated learning progression of this core practice and the development of high-quality assessment items. Here, we introduce a hypothesized three-tiered learning progression for scientific argumentation. The learning progression accounts for the intrinsic cognitive load associated with orchestrating arguments of increasingly complex structure. Our proposed learning progression for argumentation in science also makes an important distinction between construction and critique. We present validity evidence for this learning progression based on item response theory, and discuss the development of items used to test this learning progression. By analyzing data from cognitive think-aloud interviews of students, written responses on pilot test administrations, and large-scale test administrations using a Rasch analysis, we discuss the refinement both of our items and our learning progression to improve construct validity and scoring reliability. Limitations to this research as well as implications for future work on assessment of scientific argumentation are discussed. Â

KW - argumentation

KW - assessment

KW - learning progression

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84979468273&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84979468273&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/tea.21316

DO - 10.1002/tea.21316

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84979468273

VL - 53

SP - 821

EP - 846

JO - Journal of Research in Science Teaching

JF - Journal of Research in Science Teaching

SN - 0022-4308

IS - 6

ER -