Hunting Down articles for scientific argumentation

Students (plus way too many of the rest of us) easily believe something that is supposed to be scientific.  Just using the label helps create an air of credibility around what you're saying.  One only has to look at infomericals to see the entire industry that has sprung up from this method of arguing.

I had an opportunity to take a class at KU about Scientific Evidence and Argumentation.  Professors there (Janis Bulgren and J D Ellis) are trying to define a method for teaching students to look at scientific claims that are made and critically review them.  A tall order for middle school kids, don't you think.

But actually there is a method to their madness.  Not an easy method by any means, but certainly "do-able". 

My first obstacle is finding material that is of interest to my 11 and 12 year olds.  Then I have to find something that will interest them that applies to my curriculum and is within their reading level.  Climate concerns...especially those that deal with global warming...are interesting to them and I found this article.  "Seasonal Factor Seen in Melting and Ice Shifts in Greenland" from the NYT.

I think it's claim is easy enough to find, so is the evidence that is presented to support the claim

• Recent studies have shown that this water, which flows deep into the ice through natural drainpipes called moulins, allows the ice to slide faster over bedrock toward the ocean. And the faster the ice flows, the faster sea levels rise. But a Dutch study using 17 years of satellite measurements in western Greenland suggests that the movement associated with the meltwater is not as rapid as had been feared.
• The acceleration appears to be a transient summer phenomenon, the researchers said, with the yearly movement actually dropping slightly in some places.

I think another article I found about the new LZR swimsuits would be fantastic.

Since its debut at the Missouri Grand Prix in February, the new Speedo LZR swimsuit has made nearly as many waves out of the pool as it has in it. With 18 of 19 record-setting, long-course swims – the same pool format of the Olympics – and 17 of 18 record-setting short course swims for the LZR dating back to its inception, Speedo has had to withstand charges of “technological doping” from those in the swimming community and beyond.

FINA, the international governing body for swimming, met with the world’s top swimsuit manufacturers in an emergency meeting Saturday to determine whether the suit and others like it were giving certain athletes an unfair competitive advantage. Though FINA endorsed the suit for a second time and decided to allow other suit makers to copy the design, some in the swimming community have begun to take the matter into their own hands.

The NCAA men’s National Championships, the Italian Olympic Trials and the Canadian Olympic Trials are among meets that have banned the LZR – as well as TYR’s new swimsuit, dubbed the Tracer – from competition.

Both of these articles are simple enough to read, they make some scientific claim and need a reader base that can critically analyze the points they put forth.  This is a huge skill for our students to learn even if it isn't on any of the No Child Left Behind tests...it will be something that they can practically use forever.

I'm just beginning my journey and we'll see how it goes.  Things could be very exciting.

Comments

[Ken Allan]

Kia ora Marsha!

I think there is a real danger of confusing science and pseudoscience - you correctly identified the need to be discerning when something is claimed to be 'scientific'. But Science itself is built on argument, and a large proportion of that is scientific even if theories appear to oppose each other. This is a feature of Science, however, that many non-scientists do not understand.

Most of the time good science asks questions rather than gives answers. It is in the attempts to provide answers that there is often confusion, for the non-science-oriented person may not understand that 'scientific' answers can be flawed and for a raft of different reasons, not all of which take it into the realm of quackery. The same person can also be confused when several, apparently opposing answers are provided from the same scientific source. Understanding that good Science often attempts to explain why, rather than how, goes a long way to understanding what Science is about.

Good luck with your research.

Ka kite
from Middle-earth

[Marsha Ratzel]

Thanks for your reminder about the nature of science because I completely agree. In fact, I might offer that I think it is the very process of evaluating someone's conclusion (or claim)that forces students into questioning.

It's my hope that questioning and evaluating is part and parcel of everything that they'll do in the process. They'll read the article or look at the lab results...questioning what is it that they are really trying to say. Then they'll move onto looking for the evidence to support that claim...questioning what kind of evidence it gives and how much they can "trust" that evidence. Again I think that speaks to the issue that you were addressing in your comment.

Then finally you have to identify and then evaluting the process of thinking that went on in formulating the conclusion. Do you evaluate their thinking process as sound?

All of this to decide whether or not you accept, reject or withhold this claim. Again I think it the process, not so much the decision that you make at the end, that is the scientists process. Always looking at ideas and running them through your discrimination filter to see if they make sense given what you know.

Anyway that's the hope. Thanks for posting