A way to promote learning during laboratory activities

Victor Sampson, Jonathon Grooms, and Joi Walker

n America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Sci- Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) is an instructional
ence (2005), the National Research Council (NRC) model that enables science teachers to transform a traditional
makes several suggestions for how laboratory activities laboratory activity into a short integrated instructional unit.
can be changed to improve students’ skills and under- The model helps teachers meet the goals outlined by the
standing of science: First, laboratory activities need to be NRC by providing opportunities for students to design their
more inquiry-based so students can develop practical skills own investigations, gather and analyze data, communicate
and an understanding of the ambiguity and complexity as- their ideas with others during structured and interactive
sociated with empirical work in science. Second, students argumentation sessions, write investigation reports to share
need opportunities to read, write, and engage in critical dis- and document their work, and engage in peer review during
cussions as they work. Finally, it is important to encourage a laboratory investigation. Current research indicates that this
students to construct or critique arguments (i.e., an expla- type of instruction is a more effective way to enhance students’
nation supported by one or more reasons) and to embed di- understanding of content and the development of scientific
agnostic, formative, or educative assessment into the in- knowledge than traditional lab activities (NRC 2007).
struction sequence. The NRC describes laboratory-based Integrated instructional units also appear to be an effective
instruction that fulfills these requirements as an integrated way to cultivate students’ interest in science and help them
instructional unit. develop reading, writing, and verbal communication skills.

42 The Science Teacher

The ADI instructional model Figure 1 includes the introduction and the problem we gave
The ADI instructional model consists of the following steps: students at the beginning of the example lesson.

u The identification of a task that creates a need for students G e n e rat i o n a n d a n a l ys i s o f d at a

to make sense of a phenomenon or solve a problem; During this second step, students work in collaborative
u the generation and analysis of data by small groups of stu- groups to develop and implement a method to address the
dents using a method of their own design; problem. The intention is to provide students with an op-
u the production of a tentative argument by each group that portunity to “interact directly with the material world using
articulates and justifies an explanation in a medium that the tools, data-collection techniques, models, and theories of
can be shared with others; science” (NRC 2005, p. 3). This type of practical work can
u an argumentation session in which each group shares its ar- be challenging for students, so it helps if teachers provide
gument and then critiques and refines its explanations; them with a list of materials that can be used during the
u an investigation report written by individual students that investigation and some hints to help get them started. We
explains the goal of the work and the method used, and usually include this information in the handout that we sup-
provides a well-reasoned argument; ply to students at the beginning of the investigation under
u a double-blind peer review of these reports to ensure qual- the headings “Materials Available” and “Getting Started.”
ity and generate high-quality feedback for the individual In our chemistry lab, for example, we told students they
authors; could use materials such as well plates, pH paper, test tubes, a
u the subsequent revision of the report based on the results list of solubility rules, and a polyatomic ion chart during their
of the peer review; and investigation. We also suggested that students first gather data
u an explicit and reflective discussion about the inquiry. about what happens when the reactants are mixed and then use
the solubility rules and list of polyatomic ions to determine the
To illustrate how the ADI instructional model works, products of the four reactions. We cautioned students about
we describe an ADI lesson developed for a 10th-grade safety concerns, especially when handling acids.
chemistry class. This example lesson was designed to Teachers can also require students to write out an
help students understand the nature of chemical reactions investigation proposal that describes the method they
(NRC 1996; Content Standard C, grades 9–12) and develop intend to use, especially if the investigation is complex or
the abilities needed to do scientific inquiry (NRC 1996;
Content Standard A, grades 9–12). The lesson also gives
Figure 1
students an opportunity to improve their writing and
verbal communication skills, their understanding of the Information provided at the beginning
writing process, and their ability to interpret evidence and of the example lesson.
reason in a scientific manner. In the following sections,
we describe the purpose of each ADI step, the nature of Introduction: You have already seen many chemical
classroom activity during each step, and how to support reactions. You have also learned how to recognize
students as they work. the evidence of a chemical reaction. These include a
color change, the formation of a solid, production of
I d e n t i f i c at i o n o f t h e t a s k bubbles, or a change in pH or temperature. Chemists
describe these reactions using chemical formulas. You
For this first ADI step, teachers initiate the learning se- have learned how to read chemical formulas and how
quence and introduce the major topic to be studied. The to balance them. But if we mix two or more products
primary purpose of this step is to capture students’ atten- together, how can we figure out what products are
tion, establish connections between past and present learn- formed? In this investigation, you will need to figure
ing experiences, and highlight upcoming activities. At the out how to identify the products that are formed dur-
end of this stage, students should be mentally engaged in ing a chemical reaction.
the topic and should begin to think about how it relates to
their previous class experiences. The problem: Determine the balanced chemical for-
We recommend using a handout that includes a brief mula for the following reactions:
introduction and a researchable question to answer, a HCl (aq) + Zn (s) 
problem to solve, or a task to complete. This handout can also HCl (aq) + NaHCO3 (s) 
include other important information that students can use Al (s) + H2SO4 (aq) 
during the second step of the instructional model (e.g., a list CuCl2 (aq) + AgNO3 (aq) 
of materials that can be used in the lab or safety guidelines).

November 2009 43
requires the use of potentially hazardous chemicals. Figure 2
A teacher can then quickly check group proposals
to ensure that the student-designed investigations Sample whiteboard for tentative
will be fruitful and safe. These types of strategies arguments.
steer students in a productive direction and
support them as they develop and implement their This type of medium helps students make their thinking and
investigations. reasoning visible.
It is important that the classroom teacher circulate
from group to group to serve as a resource person for The goal of your investigation Group
students as they work through this step of the model. What were you trying to do? member
Teachers need to ensure that students think about what names
they are doing and why they are doing it as they gather
data. Teachers can ask probing questions such as, “How
Your explanation Your evidence and
do you know that your data is reliable?” “What else do
How do you explain reasoning
you need to figure out?” or “Do you have enough data
the phenomenon under How can you justify
to support your ideas?”
investigation? your explanation?
P ro d u c t i o n o f a t e n t at i ve
a rg u m e n t
The next stage of ADI calls for students to create an
argument that consists of an explanation, evidence,
and reasoning in a medium that can be shared with
others (e.g., a large whiteboard) (Figure 2). need to understand that scientists must be able to support
The explanation component of the argument is an their explanations with evidence and reasoning. This step
answer to the research question that guides the investigation. also helps students learn how to determine if available data
Depending on the question, this explanation can offer a are relevant, sufficient, and convincing enough to support
solution to a problem (e.g., the unknown powder is sodium their claims. More important, this step provides teachers
chloride), articulate a descriptive relationship (e.g., as the and other students with a window into students’ thinking
temperature of a gas increases, so does its volume), or provide by making their ideas, evidence, and reasoning visible. This
a causal mechanism (e.g., pressure is the result of the force in turn enables students to evaluate competing ideas and
exerted by gas molecules hitting the walls of a container). weed out explanations that are inaccurate or do not fit with
The evidence component of the argument includes the available data. This process helps students make sense
measurements or observations to support the validity of of what they are doing and seeing.
the explanation. This evidence can take on a number of
forms ranging from traditional numerical data (e.g., mass, T h e a rg u m e n t at i o n s e s s i o n
time, pH, or temperature) to qualitative observations We use the term argumentation session to describe the fourth
(e.g., the color changed, or a gas evolved). However, for ADI step. In this step, students are given an opportunity to
this information to be considered evidence, it should evaluate or revise the products, processes, and contexts of
show a trend over time, a difference between groups, or a their investigations in a whole-class or small-group format.
relationship among variables. We include this step in the model because research indicates
The reasoning component of the argument includes a that students learn more when they are exposed to the ideas
rationalization that indicates why the evidence supports the of others, respond to peers’ questions and challenges, articu-
claim and why the evidence provided should be counted late more substantial warrants for their views, and evaluate
as evidence. In our chemistry lesson, students produced an the merits of competing ideas (NRC 2007). The step also
argument that included a balanced chemical equation for provides an opportunity for teachers to assess student prog-
each reaction (their explanation), the evidence they were ress and thinking.
using to support their ideas (a precipitate formed or a gas The argumentation sessions are designed to promote
evolved), and their reasoning (precipitates form as a result learning by taking advantage of the variation in student ideas
of a double-replacement reaction where at least one product and helping groups negotiate criteria for valid inferences.
is insoluble). For example, Linn and Eylon suggest that students often
This step of the model is designed to focus students’ have a repertoire of ideas about a given phenomenon that
attention on the importance of argument in science. Students includes “ideas that are sound, contradictory, confused,

44 The Science Teacher

 Argument-Driven Inquiry

idiosyncratic, arbitrary, and based on flimsy

evidence” and that “most students lack criteria
for distinguishing between these ideas” (2006, p.
8). Similarly, Kuhn and Reiser (2005) suggest that
students tend to rely on criteria such as plausibility
or the teacher’s authority to determine which ideas
to accept or reject during discussions and debates.
Engaging students in argumentation sessions during
a laboratory activity allows students to learn how to

Photos courtesy of the authors

distinguish between ideas using rigorous scientific
criteria and develop scientific habits of mind.
Supporting and promoting this type of interaction
inside the classroom is often difficult because this type
of activity is foreign to most students. This is one
reason why students are required to generate their
arguments in a medium that can be seen by others
(e.g., a whiteboard), which provides a way for students
to focus their attention on evaluating evidence and A student creates a whiteboard.
reasoning rather than attacking the source of the
ideas. We also recommend that teachers use a round-robin The three questions target the same information
format rather than a whole-class presentation format. In this included in traditional lab reports, but do so in a way
format, one person stays at the group’s work station to share that requires students to think about the content and the
its ideas, while the rest of the group members visit the other audience as they write.
groups’ work stations one at a time to listen to and critique Students are directed to write a two-page report that
the explanations developed by their classmates. This type of dedicates one section to each of these questions. Students
format ensures that all ideas are heard and more students are also instructed to include the data they gathered in
are actively involved. tables or graphs (when possible) as evidence to support their
explanation in the third section of the report (“What is your
T h e i n ve s t i g at i o n re p o r t argument?”).
ADI, as noted earlier, is designed to promote and support
writing across the curriculum in a manner that enhances D o u b l e - b l i n d p e e r rev i ew
students’ written communication skills and their under- The next stage of this instructional model is a double-
standing of science. We integrated opportunities to write blind peer review. Once students complete their investi-
into this instructional model because writing is an impor- gation reports, they should print out three copies (using
tant part of doing science. Scientists must be able to read only a number to identify the paper). The teacher then
and understand the writing of others, evaluate its worth, collects these reports and randomly distributes three or
and share the results of their own research through writing. four reports to each lab group along with a peer-review
Writing requires students to articulate their thinking in a sheet (Figure 3, p. 46), which includes a list of criteria
clear and concise manner (i.e., learning to write), encour- that are used to evaluate the quality of an investigation
ages metacognition, and improves student understanding report and space to provide the author with feedback.
of the content (i.e., writing to learn). The review criteria include questions such as: “Did the
To encourage students to learn how to write in science and author use appropriate terms (e.g., experiment, observa-
write to learn about science, we recommend a nontraditional tion, or interpretation) to describe the nature of the inves-
lab report that is more persuasive than expository in nature. tigation?” and “Did the author use reliable evidence to
This format is designed to encourage students to think about support his or her explanation?”
what they know, how they know it, and why they believe The lab groups review each report as a team and then
it. Students produce an “investigation report” that answers decide if it can be accepted, or if it needs to be revised based
three basic questions: on the criteria included on the peer-review sheet. Groups are
also required to provide explicit feedback to the author about
1. “What were you trying to do and why?” what needs to be done to improve the quality of the report.
2. “What did you do and why?” and This step provides students with educative feedback,
3. “What is your argument?” encourages them to develop and use appropriate standards

November 2009 45
Figure 3

Peer-review sheet used by students during the double-blind peer review.

This is an abbreviated version of the peer-review sheet. The full worksheet is available online (see “On the web”).

Criteria No Needs Good Excellent

improvement
Goals
Did the author introduce the phenomenon under investigation
and the problem to be solved?
Did the author make the research question or goals of the
investigation clear and explicit?
Did the author explain why the work was done and why this work
is useful or needed?
Explain why your group gave any “Needs improvement” or “No” marks in the space below:

Investigation
Did the author describe how he or she went about the work?
Did the author explain why the work was done in this way?
Did the author use appropriate terms to describe the nature of the
investigation (e.g., experiment, systematic observation, interpretation
of an existing data set)?
Explain why your group gave any “Needs improvement” or “No” marks in the space below:

Argument
Did the author include a well-articulated explanation that provides a
sufficient answer to the research question (i.e., does it explain every-
thing that it should)?
Is the author’s explanation coherent and free from contradictions?
Did the author use genuine evidence (trends over time, differences
between groups, or relationships between variables) to support the
explanation?
Explain why your group gave any “Needs improvement” or “No” marks in the space below:

Writing
Content: Did the author express his or her ideas clearly and provide
the reader with valuable insight?
Organization: Does the writing have a sense of purpose and struc-
ture?
Voice: Does the reader get a sense that someone real is there on
the page?
Explain why your group gave any “Needs improvement” or “No” marks in the space below:

Final decision: Accept Revise and resubmit

46 The Science Teacher

 Argument-Driven Inquiry

for “what counts” as quality, and helps them be more The teacher can also encourage students to talk about ways
metacognitive as they work. In addition, groups of students to improve the design of an investigation by asking them to
can discuss the validity of scientific claims and explain why evaluate what went well and what did not. The teacher and
a report is good or needs improvement. Students, as a result, class can then work together to develop suggestions for future
begin to adopt more rigorous criteria to evaluate scientific investigations. Our research (Sampson and Grooms 2008)
claims and learn the value of peer review in science and suggests that it is important for teachers to highlight these
in learning. types of issues, in an explicit manner, and then encourage
This type of focus provides a mechanism that can help students to reflect on what they have done and how they can
students improve their ability to write in science. In addition, improve investigations to promote student learning.
the review process is more effective because each group of
students must reach a consensus about the score on each Benefits of ADI
of the review criteria, which increases the likelihood that
ADI helps foster scientific literacy and allows students to devel-
students will take the review seriously and improves the
op scientific habits of mind, provide evidence for explanations,
overall quality of feedback.
and think critically about suggested alternatives. This structure
also enables teachers to promote reading and writing across the
R ev i s i o n o f t h e re p o r t curriculum in a way that supports the learning of science and
The reports accepted by the reviewers are given credit the learning of other school subjects. Overall, we believe this
(complete) by the teacher and then returned to the author, type of approach has great potential and will, over time, enable
whereas reports that need to be revised are returned to the more students to develop a sophisticated understanding of both
author without credit (incomplete). The reviewers accept the science concepts under study and the process through which
very few reports, if any, at this stage. Therefore, most stu- scientific concepts are developed, evaluated, and refined. n
dents, if not all, are required to revise their report based on
the reviewers’ feedback. Victor Sampson (victor.sampson@gmail.com) is an assistant
Revision is an important part of the learning process. Once professor of science education and Jonathon Grooms (grooms@
the reports have been revised, they are then resubmitted to physics.fsu.edu) is a graduate student, both in the School of
the classroom teacher for a second evaluation, along with the Teacher Education at the Florida State University in Tallahassee.
original version of the report and the peer-review sheet. If Joi Walker (waltkerj@tcc.fl.edu) is a professor in the Science and
the revised report has reached an acceptable level of quality, Mathematics Department at Tallahassee Community College
the author is given full credit (complete). However, if it is in Florida.
still unacceptable, it is returned to the author for a second
On the web
round of revisions. The goal is to encourage students to
improve their writing based on educative feedback without Full peer-review sheet: www.nsta.org/highschool/connections.aspx
imposing a grade-related penalty. Students also become References
engaged in a writing process that involves construction of
Kuhn, L., and B. Reiser. 2005. Students constructing and defend-
a draft, evaluation of the draft, and revision to produce a
ing evidence-based scientific explanations. Paper presented at
final product.
the annual meeting of the National Association for Research
in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
E x p l i c i t a n d re f l e c t i ve d i s c u s s i o n Linn, M.C., and B.S. Eylon. 2006. Science education: Integrating
Teachers should lead an explicit and reflective discussion views of learning and instruction. In Handbook of educational
about the investigation, which provides an avenue for stu- psychology, eds. P. Alexander and P.H. Winne, 511–544. Mah-
dents to talk about what they have learned regarding the wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
investigation topic, after the peer review is complete. For National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National science educa-
the example chemistry lesson, students can be asked to ex- tion standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
plain what they learned about chemical reactions—and if NRC. 2005. America’s lab report: Investigations in high school sci-
a teacher finds that misconceptions persist, he or she can ence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
help students make sense of what they have observed. The NRC. 2007. Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science
teacher can also ask questions about the various tenets of in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
the nature of science, such as how students’ work reflects Sampson, V., and J. Grooms. 2008. Science as argument-driven
the durable but tentative nature of scientific knowledge or inquiry: The impact on students’ conceptions of the nature
the theory-laden nature of science. These types of conversa- of scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the Annual Interna-
tions help students develop a better understanding of how tional Conference of the National Association of Research in
professional science works. Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.

November 2009 47