ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF STUDENTS' WRITTEN SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION

The purpose of this study was to examine ways that students build arguments derived from large-scale earth data sets. An important aspect of learning geology is to create valid arguments based on convergent lines of evidence. The setting for this study was a writing-intensive introductory oceanography course intended for non-science majors. The students were expected to write evidence-based arguments regarding plate boundaries. An innovative educational CD-ROM technology, “Our Dynamic Planet,” (Prothero & Kelly, in review) provided students with topographic, volcanic, seismic, and seafloor age data to build their cases. A sample of students' written arguments (n=15) was analyzed to assess their construction of evidence. Through this analysis of students' uses of data representations and claims, the strength of their respective arguments was evaluated. Epistemological criteria such as convergence of lines of evidence, overall coherence of the arguments, and validity of conclusions were taken into consideration to diagnose difficulties faced by the student writers. The results of this argumentation analysis indicate that students were only partially able to write in the scientific genre where uses of evidence are held at a premium. Students used evidence to build arguments, but were unable to construct coherent models based on geological boundaries for the regions in question. Unlike professional geologists, the students were not capable of drawing from rich geological knowledge to interpret the data from which their arguments were constructed. This suggests that while writing to learn science provided students with opportunities to engage in scientific inquiry, attention needs to be placed on ways that conceptual and epistemological dimensions of reasoning are mutually dependent and supportive. An important educational implication is the development of scaffolds to provide students with ways of understanding the process of scientific reasoning.