No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ DIFFICULTIES IN WRITING ARGUMENTS: IDENTIFYING CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SCIENCE TEACHING
Abstract
In science education, the improvement in students’ ability to construct arguments at the primary school level has been reported. Although these studies have identified difficulties in arguments written by primary school students, they do not indicate areas that require improvement in teaching methods. This study aims to explore the possibility of improvement in early primary school students’ ability to construct arguments and identify the types of difficulties encountered. Sixty-seven Japanese third-grade students (9–10 years old) were taught to write arguments as specified by Zembal-Saul et al. (2012). The students were given two writing tasks before and after the lesson. To examine the students’ written arguments, each component of claim, evidence, and reasoning was scored based on a rubric. On comparing the scores of the pre-test and post-test writing tasks, it was found that 27 out of 67 students still had difficulty writing arguments during the post-test. An analysis of the students’ writing revealed four types of difficulties: ‘Incompleteness of components’, ‘Inappropriateness of components’, ‘Confusion between evidence and reasoning’, and ‘Confusion between claim and evidence’. This study offers insights pertaining to teaching implications and research recommendations. Keywords: difficulties in writing arguments, elementary/primary school, explanation construction, small-sample quantitative study
... evidence with their claims (Lieber & Graulich, 2022;Zaroh et al., 2022). Students must learn diligently to be able to change the claims that have been built to align them with new evidence found (Walker et al., 2019) and provide logical written explanations accompanied by relevant and scientific evidence (Yamamoto et al., 2022). Several factors can cause students to have difficulties in scientific argumentation. ...
... The reasoning provided by students is shown by less detailed explanations and restating scientific evidence as part of the reasoning provided by students. The results of this study are in line with previous research that some students had difficulty in providing reasoning that included incompleteness, imprecision, and confusion between claims and scientific evidence (Yamamoto et al., 2022). Students have difficulty providing scientific arguments based on the claims given (Lieber & Graulich, 2022;Zaroh et al., 2022). ...
... This task, as shown in Fig. 3, centered around problem-solving, including constructing and critiquing others' ideas and strategies and providing one's own arguments and evidence, which are known to be cognitively demanding mathematical activities for students (Stein et al., 1996). Prior scholars have also illustrated students' difficulties in writing arguments from evidence (e.g., Choi & Hand, 2020;Yamamoto et al., 2022), and Ms. Severn's task required her sample students not only to reason with evidence, but to consider and to build on the ideas of their classmates. Furthermore, despite the asynchronous nature of her implementation, through her technology choice of Padlet (n.d.), she provided multiple avenues for her sample students to engage in cognitively demanding work by giving students opportunities to write responses, to read the responses of their classmates, and even to audio record new responses that built on previous ideas. ...
This study considered a preservice teacher’s (PST’s) attention to multilingual learner core practices within her approximations of practice of mathematics language routines during a secondary mathematics methods course. We used a framework of approximations of practice to understand how a PST enacted and developed an understanding of multilingual learner core practices. To provide a vision for what multilingual learner core practices can look like in nontraditional instructional contexts, we qualitatively analyzed four approximations of practice of mathematics language routines from a single PST during a single semester of a methods course. We share how she navigated the remote teaching context and engaged sample students in all of the multilingual learner core practices despite the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, providing an example of what these practices may look like in remote instruction. We also discuss how these multilingual learner core practices interact and complement one another. We consider possible implications, limitations, and future research directions.
Can argumentation practice simultaneously promote knowledge acquisition while advancing skill in the practice itself? We examine the effectiveness of a dialog-based argument curriculum in fostering middle-school students' knowledge acquisition as well as dialogic and written argumentation skill with respect to a content-rich, socially significant topic. Results of two studies, one involving a physical science topic and the other a social topic, showed a single intervention could meet both objectives, Study 1 following a previously used model of extended intervention (nine sessions over five weeks) and Study 2 experimenting with a dense model of six intervention hours completed over two days. Both were found effective. A novel question-and-answer method was found superior to a traditional one in promoting acquisition of factual knowledge sufficient to support argumentation. With respect to skill gains, a prompt to consider incongruent evidence showed the greatest effect in furthering mastery of a critical argument skill – to acknowledge and address, rather than ignore, evidence that counters one's favored position.
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.
In most assessments of students’ argumentive writing and in most research on the topic, students write on topics for which they have no specific prior preparation. We examined development in the argumentive writing urban middle school students did as part of a two-year dialogic-based intervention in which students engaged deeply with a series of topics and participated in various kinds of electronic and verbal dialogic activities related to the topic. Students’ achievements exceeded those typical of the extemporaneous expository writing of middle school students. The gradual developments observed over time included ones in (a) addressing and seeking to weaken the opposing position, (b) identifying weaknesses in a favored position and strengths in an opposing one, (c) connecting and integrating opposing arguments, and (d) using evidence to weaken as well as support claims. In addition to identifying a trajectory of what develops in the development of argumentive writing, these analyses support the claim of dialogic argumentation as a productive bridge to individual argumentive writing and highlight the contribution of deep engagement with the topic in enhancing writing.
The aim of this study was to examine how students used evidence in argumentation while they engaged in argumentive and reflective activities in the context of a designed learning environment. A Web-based learning environment, SOCRATES, was developed, which included a rich data base on the topic of climate change. Sixteen 11th graders, working with a partner, engaged in electronic argumentive dialogs with classmates who held an opposing view on the topic and in some evidence-focused reflective activities, based on transcriptions of their dialogs. Another sixteen 11th graders, who studied the data base in the learning environment for the same amount of time as experimental-condition students but did not engage in an argumentive discourse activity, served as a comparison condition. Students who engaged in an evidence-focused dialogic intervention increased the use of evidence in their dialogs, used more evidence that functioned to weaken opponents’ claims and used more accurate evidence. Significant gains in evidence use and in metalevel communication about evidence were observed after students engaged in reflective activities. We frame our discussion of these findings in terms of their implications for promoting use of evidence in argumentation and in relation to the development of epistemological understanding in science.
This study investigated the effects of a science and society intervention on elementary school students’ argumentation skills and their attitudes toward science. One hundred and eleven fifth grade students volunteered as an experimental group to join a 12-week intervention; another 107 sixth grade students volunteered to be the comparison group. All participants completed the Student Questionnaire at the beginning and end of this study. Observation and interview results were used to triangulate and consolidate the quantitative findings. The data showed that after the intervention, the quality of the experimental group students’ arguments and their attitudes toward science were significantly higher than their comparison group counterparts. In addition, the experimental group boys made significantly greater progress in the quality of their argumentation from the pretest to posttest than the girls; and low achievers made the most significant progress in their attitudes toward science and quality of argumentation. Interviews and observations indicated that their understandings of explanation and argumentation changed over the intervention. This indicated that a science and society intervention can enhance both the ability of students to develop strong arguments and their attitudes toward science.
Research shows that scientific knowledge develops through a process of decision‐making as well as discovery, and that argumentation is a genre of discourse crucial to the practice of science. Students should therefore be supported in understanding the scientific practices of dialectical and rhetorical argumentation as part of learning about scientific inquiry. This study focuses on supporting scientific argumentation in the classroom through a customized online discourse system. “Personally‐seeded discussions” support learning and collaboration through an activity structure that elicits, shares, and contrasts students’ own ideas to engage them in the discourse of science argumentation and inquiry. Students use an online interface to build principles to describe data they have collected. These principles become the seed comments for the online discussions. The software sorts students into discussion groups with students who have built different principles so that each discussion group can consider and critique multiple perspectives. This study explores the efficacy of this personally‐seeded approach based on a coding scheme developed by Erduran, Osborne, and Simon that analyzes argument structure from a Toulmin perspective. As part of this exploration, the study outlines a method for parsing personally‐seeded discussions into oppositional episodes for analysis, and discusses future directions for supporting argumentation in asynchronous online discussions.
The concept of science as argument, and the view that engaging in scientific argumentation should play a key role in science education, has become widely endorsed. The case is made here that this objective will be enhanced by broad understanding of the nature of argument skills and their directions and patterns of development. A line of research directed to this goal is described. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed94:810–824, 2010
Science education reforms consistently maintain the goal that students develop an understanding of the nature of science, including both the nature of scientific knowledge and methods for making it. This paper articulates a framework for scaffolding epistemic aspects of inquiry that can help students understand inquiry processes in relation to the kinds of knowledge such processes can produce. This framework underlies the design of a technology-supported inquiry curriculum for evolution and natural selection that focuses students on constructing and evaluating scientific explanations for natural phenomena. The design has been refined through cycles of implementation, analysis, and revision that have documented the epistemic practices students engage in during inquiry, indicate ways in which designed tools support students' work, and suggest necessary additional social scaffolds. These findings suggest that epistemic tools can play a unique role in supporting students' inquiry, and a fruitful means for studying students' scientific epistemologies. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed88:345–372, 2004; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/.sce10130
The research reported in this study focuses on the design and evaluation of learning environments that support the teaching and learning of argumentation in a scientific context. The research took place over 2 years, between 1999 and 2001, in junior high schools in the greater London area. The research was conducted in two phases. In phase 1, working with a group of 12 science teachers, the main emphasis was to develop sets of materials and strategies to support argumentation in the classroom, and to support and assess teachers' development with teaching argumentation. Data were collected by video- and audio-recording the teachers' attempts to implement these lessons at the beginning and end of the year. During this phase, analytical tools for evaluating the quality of argumentation were developed based on Toulmin's argument pattern. Analysis of the data shows that there was significant development in the majority of teachers use of argumentation across the year. Results indicate that the pattern of use of argumentation is teacher-specific, as is the nature of the change. In phase 2 of the project, the focus of this paper, teachers taught the experimental groups a minimum of nine lessons which involved socioscientific or scientific argumentation. In addition, these teachers taught similar lessons to a comparison group at the beginning and end of the year. The purpose of this research was to assess the progression in student capabilities with argumentation. For this purpose, data were collected from 33 lessons by video-taping two groups of four students in each class engaging in argumentation. Using a framework for evaluating the nature of the discourse and its quality developed from Toulmin's argument pattern, the findings show that there was improvement in the quality of students' argumentation. This research presents new methodological developments for work in this field. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 41: 994–1020, 2004
Argumentive reasoning skills are featured in the new K-12 Common Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010), yet with little said about their nature or how to instill them. Distinguishing reasoning skills from writing skills, we report on a multiyear intervention that used electronically conducted dialogues on social issues as the medium to develop argumentive reasoning skills in two cohorts of young adolescents. Intervention groups demonstrated transfer of the dialogic activity to two individual essays on new topics; argument quality for these groups exceeded that of comparison groups who participated in an intervention involving the more face-valid activity of extensive essay writing practice, along with whole-class discussion. The intervention group also demonstrated greater awareness of the relevance of evidence to argument. The dialogic method thus appears to be a viable one for developing cognitive skills that the comparison-group data show do not routinely develop during this age period.
Science educational standards are increasingly emphasising on argumentation skills. However, students’ argumentation skills are often not developed well as their experience of science knowledge in schools is often in the form of uncontested facts. This research asserts that argumentation skills should be developed through explicit teaching of argumentation while engaged in practical work that draws on students’ science process skills. In turn, developing argumentation skills also improves their science process skills. Thus, this research sought to examine the effect of the Modified Argument-Driven Inquiry approach (MADI), Inquiry without Argument approach (IWA), and the conventional practical work approach (CON) on the development of argumentation and science process skills of Grade 10 students in practical biology. This research employed the quasi-experimental methodology involving Pre-test Post-test Non-equivalent Control Group design. The data were collected through tests on argumentation skills, science process skills and diffusion and osmosis concepts’ understanding. The MANOVA results showed that there was a significant improvement in the argumentation skills, science process skills and biology understanding among the students who experienced the MADI approach in practical biology. In contrast, students who experienced the IWA approach in practical biology showed significant improvement only in biology understanding. Keywords: argumentation skills, practical work, modified argument driven inquiry, science process skills
This book brings together the work of leading experts in argumentation in science education. It presents research combining theoretical and empirical perspectives relevant for secondary science classrooms. Since the 1990s, argumentation studies have increased at a rapid pace, from stray papers to a wealth of research exploring ever more sophisticated issues.
This volume constitutes a unique collection and covers fundamental issues in argumentation such as cognitive, methodological and epistemological aspects; classroom-based research in teaching and learning of argumentation in science classrooms; and argumentation in context such as in socio-scientific and moral contexts. The book’s underlying premise is that argumentation is a significant aspect of scientific inquiry and plays an important role in teaching and learning of science. Argumentation also contributes to the agenda of informed citizenship where students are encouraged and supported in evidence-based reasoning in their everyday lives.
"Arumentation appeared as a major theme in science education research during the mid-1990s. Since that time, researchers working on themes such as the nature of science in science education, science education for citizenship, and language in the science classroom have all addressed argumentation in their work. This book brings together key lines of work and key scholars, presenting a state-of-the-art review of argumentation in science education."
Professor John Leach
The University of Leeds, UK
Situating arguments as a central element in the design of inquiry learning environments is important for engaging learners in the coordination of conceptual and epistemological goals. The purpose of this study was to find out the effects of inquiry based laboratory activities which are supported by argument maps on the prospective science teachers' science process skills and epistemological views. A quasi experimental research was conducted with sixty 3rd grade prospective science teachers of a faculty of education in Turkey for over 3 months. The results displayed that although the inquiry supported by argument maps had significantly affected the science process skills of prospective science teachers', it did not affect their epistemological views. It is thought that it may take some time and special efforts to see the effects of inquiry supported by argument maps on the epistemological views of prospective science teachers.
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of a learning environment created to teach scientific argumentation on the development of critical thinking and argument skills among prospective teacher. The study included 88 2nd grade university students attending Aydin Province Adnan Menderes University, Department of Elementary School Education. An experimental and control group design was used and activity sheets were prepared to develop argument skills in accordance with the topic of "Mechanics". The results of the present study showed that the critical thinking skills among prospective teachers included in the learning environment were higher in comparison to those in the control group, and that critical thinking post-test scores did not show a significant difference by gender in either group. It was also concluded that the learning environment used in the study had a positive effect on the quality of written scientific arguments of prospective teachers.
This article examines kindergarten children's (5–6 years old) engagement in scientific practices, with a focus on generating and using evidence to support claims, during a 5-month project about snails. The research questions are as follows: (1) what meanings do kindergarteners construct for what constitutes evidence? How are those meanings reflected in the development of data into evidence? (2) Which ways of gathering empirical evidence are jointly constructed by children and teacher during the project? (3) How do children use evidence to revise their understandings? The participants are one class of Early Childhood Education children (N = 25) and their teacher. They were engaged in a project about snails, involving pursuing their own questions, carrying out experiments and purposeful observations, collecting data and drawing conclusions, under the guidance of the teacher. The results show that children developed meanings of a certain level of sophistication about evidence, that they distinguished between empirical evidence from planned experiments and from prolonged observation, which we call purposeful, and that they combined different types of evidence in the revision of their ideas about snails. We identified two levels in the development of data into evidence—closer to descriptive statements and evaluative judgments. We suggest that purposeful observation, which has a clear focus, is guided by the teacher and explicitly discussed, has affordances in early childhood science. For instance, 30 out of 57 evidence statements relate to purposeful observation. Promoting purposeful observation as a source of evidence at this age may allow studying processes both for children (biology processes) and for researchers (learning processes). The results would support Metz's (2011) contention about the relevance of instructional opportunities over developmental constraints. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach
Constructing scientific explanations and participating in argumentative discourse are seen as essential practices of scientific inquiry (e.g., R. Driver, P. Newton, & J. Osborne, 2000). In this paper, we identify three goals of engaging in these related scientific practices: (1) sensemaking, (2) articulating, and (3) persuading. We propose using these goals to understand student engagement with these practices, and to design instructional interventions to support students. Thus, we use this framework as a lens to investigate the question: What successes and challenges do students face as they engage in the scientific practices of explanation and argumentation? We study this in the context of a curriculum that provides students and teachers with an instructional framework for constructing and defending scientific explanations. Through this analysis, we find that students consistently use evidence to make sense of phenomenon and articulate those understandings but they do not consistently attend to the third goal of persuading others of their understandings. Examining the third goal more closely reveals that persuading others of an understanding requires social interactions that are often inhibited by traditional classroom interactions. Thus, we conclude by proposing design strategies for addressing the social challenges inherent in the related scientific practices of explanation and argumentation. (C) 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 93:26-55, 2009
This study examines the impact of argumentation practices on pre-service teachers' understanding of chemical equilibrium. The sample consisted of 100 pre-service teachers in two classes of a public university. One of these classes was assigned as experimental and the other as control group, randomly. In the experimental group, the subject of chemical equilibrium was taught by using argumentative practices and the participants were encouraged to participate in the lessons actively. However, the instructor taught the same subject by using the lecturing method without engaging argumentative activities in the control group. The Chemical Equilibrium Concept Test and Written Argumentation Survey were administered to all participants to assess their conceptual understanding and the quality of their arguments, respectively. The analysis of covariance results indicate that argumentation practices significantly improved conceptual understanding of the experimental group when compared to the control group. Furthermore, the results show that the pre-service teachers exposed to argumentative practices constructed more quality arguments than those in the control group after the instruction. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the instruction based on argumentative practices is effective in concept teaching in science education. Therefore, argumentation should be explicitly taught in teacher education besides elementary and secondary education.
Instant-messaging software was used as a method to promote development of argumentation skills in middle schoolers. Transfer of skills across content domains was the major question investigated. Forty sixth graders engaged in electronic dialogues with peers on a controversial topic—for half a science topic (dinosaur extinction) and for half a social topic (home schooling). During 13 sessions, participants worked with a partner in arguing with a succession of pairs of classmates who held an opposing view on the topic; in addition, they engaged in some reflective activities based on transcriptions of the dialogues. Another 18 sixth graders served in a control (nonintervention) condition. Although transfer occurred in both directions, science condition participants exhibited transfer of skills to the social topic to a greater extent than did social condition participants to the science topic. Results show the transfer, and hence generality, of developing argument skills but also suggest the importance as well as feasibility of fostering argument skills within science and social domains.
This study explores how student-generated questions can support argumentation in science. Students were asked to discuss which of two graphs showing the change in temperature with time when ice is heated to steam was correct. Four classes of students, aged 12–14 years, from two countries, first wrote questions about the phenomenon. Then, working in groups with members who differed in their views, they discussed possible answers. To help them structure their arguments, students were given a sheet with prompts to guide their thinking and another sheet on which to represent their argument diagrammatically. One group of students from each class was audiotaped. Data from both students' written work and the taped oral discourse were then analyzed for types of questions asked, the content and function of their talk, and the quality of arguments elicited. To illustrate the dynamic interaction between students' questions and the evolution of their arguments, the discourse of one group is presented as a case study and comparative analyses made with the discourse from the other three groups. Emerging from our analysis is a tentative explanatory model of how different forms of interaction and, in particular, questioning are needed for productive argumentation to occur.
Science includes more than just concepts and facts, but also encompasses scientific ways of thinking and reasoning. Students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds influence the knowledge they bring to the classroom, which impacts their degree of comfort with scientific practices. Consequently, the goal of this study was to investigate 5th grade students' views of explanation, argument, and evidence across three contexts—what scientists do, what happens in science classrooms, and what happens in everyday life. The study also focused on how students' abilities to engage in one practice, argumentation, changed over the school year. Multiple data sources were analyzed: pre- and post-student interviews, videotapes of classroom instruction, and student writing. The results from the beginning of the school year suggest that students' views of explanation, argument, and evidence, varied across the three contexts with students most likely to respond “I don't know” when talking about their science classroom. Students had resources to draw from both in their everyday knowledge and knowledge of scientists, but were unclear how to use those resources in their science classroom. Students' understandings of explanation, argument, and evidence for scientists and for science class changed over the course of the school year, while their everyday meanings remained more constant. This suggests that instruction can support students in developing stronger understanding of these scientific practices, while still maintaining distinct understandings for their everyday lives. Finally, the students wrote stronger scientific arguments by the end of the school year in terms of the structure of an argument, though the accuracy, appropriateness, and sufficiency of the arguments varied depending on the specific learning or assessment task. This indicates that elementary students are able to write scientific arguments, yet they need support to apply this practice to new and more complex contexts and content areas. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 48: 793–823, 2011
The role of the teacher is essential for students' successful engagement in scientific inquiry practices. This study focuses on teachers' use of an 8-week chemistry curriculum that explicitly supports students in one particular inquiry practice, the construction of scientific arguments to explain phenomena in which students justify their claims using evidence and reasoning. Participants included 6 teachers and 568 students. Videotapes, teacher questionnaires, and student pre- and posttests were analyzed to develop case studies that characterized the support the teachers provided their students for scientific argumentation and subsequent student learning. Patterns from the case studies suggest that one particular instructional practice, the way teachers defined scientific argumentation, characterized teachers' support and influenced the other practices they used in their classrooms. In some cases, the teachers' definitions of scientific argumentation did not align with the intended learning goal in the curriculum materials. These teachers' greater simplification of this complex inquiry practice resulted in decreased learning gains in terms of students' ability to write scientific arguments to explain phenomena using appropriate evidence and reasoning. Educative curriculum materials can have a positive impact on teachers' classroom support for scientific argumentation, but how the teachers use these materials influences student learning. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed93: 233–268, 2009
Instructional strategies for teaching primary students to construct arguments with rebuttals
- S Kamiyama
- T Yamamoto
- E Yamaguchi
- S Sakamoto
- K Muratsu
- S Inagaki
Kamiyama, S., Yamamoto, T., Yamaguchi, E., Sakamoto, S., Muratsu, K., & Inagaki, S. (2015). Instructional strategies for teaching
primary students to construct arguments with rebuttals. In J. Lavonen, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, A. Uitto & K. Hahl (Eds.),
Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2015 Conference. Science education research: Engaging learners for a sustainable future,
Part 7 (co-ed. Maria Andrée & Maria Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre), (pp. 997-1003).
Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science
- K L Mcneill
- J Krajcik
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science. Pearson.
Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics
- C Pontecorvo
- H Girardet
Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3-4),
365-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1993.9649030
Teaching strategies of argument to elementary school children: Through practice in the unit of 'pendulum movement
- T Yamamoto
- M Sakamoto
- E Yamamguchi
- J Nishigaki
- K Muratsu
- S Inagaki
- S Kamiyama
Yamamoto, T., Sakamoto, M., Yamamguchi, E., Nishigaki, J., Muratsu, K., Inagaki, S., & Kamiyama, S. (2013). Teaching strategies of
argument to elementary school children: Through practice in the unit of 'pendulum movement' (in Japanese). Journal of
Research in Science Education, 53(3), 471-284. https://doi.org/10.11639/sjst.KJ00008877262
What's your evidence?: Engaging K-5 children in constructing explanations in science
- C L Zembal-Saul
- K L Mcneill
- K Hershberger
Zembal-Saul, C. L., McNeill, K. L., & Hershberger, K. (2012). What's your evidence?: Engaging K-5 children in constructing explanations
in science. Pearson.
Received: March 16, 2022
Revised: April 18, 2022
Accepted: May 06, 2022