2015 GSA Annual Meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, USA (1-4 November 2015)

Paper No. 216-3
Presentation Time: 9:00 AM-6:30 PM

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MODEL-EVIDENCE LINK (MEL) DIAGRAM IN HIGH SCHOOL EARTH SCIENCE CLASSROOMS: AN EDUCATIONAL STRATEGY THAT PROMOTES CRITICAL EVALUATION AND EVIDENCE-BASED REASONING


BURRELL, Shondricka1, LOMBARDI, Doug2, BAILEY, Janelle2 and BICKEL, Elliot2, (1)Science Education, Temple University, 1301 Cecil B Moore Ave, Ritter Hall, 373, Philadelphia, PA 19122, (2)Science Education, Temple University, 1301 Cecil B Moore Ave, Philadelphia, PA 19122, shondricka.burrell@temple.edu

The Model-Evidence Link (MEL) diagram, originally developed by researchers at Rutgers University (Chinn & Buckland, 2012), is an instructional scaffold that promotes critical evaluation, argumentation and evidence-based reasoning, and increases student ability to understand complex scientific concepts. The MEL diagram promotes the development of skills and habits of mind needed for a science literate society and identified by the National Research Council (2012) as essential to science learning. MEL diagrams were developed and implemented in two Earth science classrooms in New Jersey and Nevada during two consecutive academic years (Year 1, 2013-2014, and Year 2, 2014-2015) to investigate the relations between critical evaluation, plausibility, and knowledge in high school Earth science students using a MEL diagram and to determine the cognitive processes involved in students adapting scientifically accurate explanations and evidenced-based conclusions. Analysis using repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance pre and post intervention show statistically significant results that use of MEL diagrams in Earth science classrooms led to increased critical evaluation and subsequent knowledge gains in students.

Note: The material in this presentation is based upon work supported by the NSF under Grant No. DRL-131605. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the NSF’s views