Abstract
Argumentative practices have been shown to deepen understanding and improve academic performance. After 10 years of work with science curricula designed to develop reasoning, we present a framework grounded in data from our projects for identifying different forms of metacognitive engagement in science inquiry classes. We focus on four categories of discourse from our data: object of thought or discourse; expressions of what someone is thinking; degree of specificity; and discourse applying and tailoring understanding of epistemic cognition to particular topics. We present multiple examples in each of these categories. Our goal is to provide analytic tools along with examples to better identify and code argumentative discourse that advances students' apt epistemic performance.
Highlights
Argumentative practices have been shown to deepen understanding and improve academic performance
The Apt-AIR framework developed by Barzilai and Chinn (2018) extends the AIR model by showing that apt epistemic performance involves competent engagement with the three components of the AIR model across five aspects of performance: (a) cognitively engaging in epistemic performance; (b) metacognitively understanding and regulating epistemic performance; (c) participating in epistemic performance with others in varied social configurations and settings; (d) caring about and enjoying epistemic performance; and (e) adapting epistemic performance across diverse situations
Our research question was: What are different forms that metacognitive engagement can take during argumentation in inquiry-based science? Because our research focused on inquiry-based science classes, we will focus on categories of metacognitive engagement that emerge in our data from elementary- and middle-school science classrooms
Summary
Our examples of argumentation representing different types of metacognitive discourse come from elementary- and middle-school students participating in the PRACCIS: Promoting Reasoning and Conceptual Change in Science project (Chinn, Duncan, & Rinehart, 2018). Throughout the PRACCIS curricula, students engaged in inquiry in which they used evidence to develop and evaluate scientific models on life-science topics such as genetics, the function of mitochondria, and how natural selection occurs in particular contexts. The other two categories, degree of specificity and applying and tailoring epistemic components (aims, ideals, and processes) to particular topics, introduce other forms of metacognitive discourse that may advance apt epistemic performance. Our discussions of these categories highlight distinctions that define different forms of epistemic cognitive and epistemic metacognitive discourse
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
