An Argument For Learning

IDEAS

An argument for learning

Science teachers and students build literacy through text-based investigations

Vol. 38 No. 2

Scientists learn about the work of others largely through reading. They read publications in their field looking for what’s new, often expecting that their understanding may change as a result of compelling new evidence. They read with a critical stance, evaluating the reliability of new findings and explanations and comparing them to existing accounts. Most scientists also write regularly to keep track of their inquiries and share their work with others, using varied and complex forms of texts — including technical language, mathematical expressions, graphs, diagrams, models, and verbal exposition to represent their ideas. Using the inquiry process, scientists follow and engage in arguments with other scientists’ work and build models and explanations of the phenomena they study. Through these recursive practices of reading, reasoning,

Read the remaining content with membership access. Join or log in below to continue.

Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem.

Cynthia Greenleaf ([email protected]) is co-director and director of research and Willard R. Brown ([email protected]) is a senior associate at the Strategic Literacy Initiative, WestEd.

References

Anderson, R.D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.

Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.

Cavagnetto, A.R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371.

Goldman, S.R., Brown, W., Ko, M.-L., Britt, M.A., Greenleaf, C.L., Lawless, K., … Yukhymenko, M. (2016). Explanatory modeling in science through text-based inquiry: Testing the efficacy of the READI intervention approach. Presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) 2016 Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.

Heller, R. & Greenleaf, C. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

Pearson, P.D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459-463.

Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., & Murphy, L. (2012). Reading for understanding: How Reading Apprenticeship improves disciplinary learning in secondary and college classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Wiley Press.

Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf C., & Murphy, L. (2016). Leading for literacy: A Reading Apprenticeship approach. San Francisco, CA: Wiley Press.

Yeager, D.S. & Walton, G.M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 267-301.