How best can a teacher use argument-driven inquiry (ADI) to get the most effort from their students to learn science and model what scientists do? The Science Scope article (Hunter-Thomson 2019) uses the claim-evidence-reasoning (CER) model as an effective strategy to develop ADI skills in students. The CER model begins with a science question (e.g., does mass change the rate of descent from a high point?), a claim (e.g., things fall at the same rate regardless of mass), evidence (data collected from test and measurement), and reasoning (data interpretation). ADI occurs during the reasoning stage of the CER model in most cases. Similarly, while science fairs may focus more on the scientific method design, students none the less practice ADI when a judge comes to their backboard. Do these opportunities for ADI help students understand how science works? Perhaps, though we have found that some students do not necessarily make the connection.

We have implemented a supporting element that provides structure and proof as to how science changes over time. When using historical events in science as a prequel or supplement we have found that students gain a better understanding and recognition of the importance of argument in science.

Background: History of science

While the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013) provides structure as to what students need to know about science by grade, the standards may be remiss on giving teachers a road map on how to get there. So, while we agree with the NGSS that students’ ability to articulate the meaning of “argument from evidence” is paramount in understanding how science works, we have found that using examples through historical events in science improves the student’s understanding of the concept even better. Thus, studying science historical events from the perspective of argument from evidence gives students a better understanding of both what and how science progression actually works.

There are multiple examples of where scientists argued their points with regard to the merits of a belief, an invention, or an idea. Some arguments came from evidence; however, some of their claimed evidence was considered questionable to the point of being debunked.

Rene Blondlot (Collins 2001) is a prime example of a scientist who argued from faulty evidence. Although he was a renowned French scientist who completed important work in the area of radio waves, his demise and “claim to fame” was the proclamation he made about rays/emissions he discovered in his laboratory. Interestingly, he claimed that the rays could only be seen using one’s peripheral vision. He named these unusual rays N-rays for the city of Nancy, France. Although many other scientists “verified” the existence of these rays, it took an American physicist, Robert Wood, to debunk Blondlot’s claim to the existence of N-rays.

Other interesting arguments can be found in science history such as Edison/Tesla regarding using alternating or direct currents for building electric grids for cities. Margaret Mead’s research and belief that nurture was more important than nature with regard to societal behavior “raised eyebrows” and criticism in her time. Arguments in support of Newton’s motion theory by prominent British scientists and their ignoring Einstein’s theory of relativity was an interesting story that was made into a movie. The evidence and mathematical support for Einstein’s theory of relativity as a more accurate measure of movement than Newton’s theory of motion came from British astronomer Arthur Eddington’s work studying solar eclipses.

One commonality among these stories is that it takes a great deal of scientific argument to glean the truth from the evidence. Furthermore, biases, nationalism, religion, and political reasons can impede understanding the science.

Figure 1 offers a few examples in history where scientists passionately argued for their belief regardless of whether their work would eventually be accepted or refuted. Rather than providing the “event” to the students, we give them a list of scientists as shown in Figure 2 to study and ask them to report on an argument from evidence in that scientist’s life. This allows them the freedom to choose a scientist of their own gender and race. Figure 2 also is an assignment we developed for students to use for studying and reporting on famous scientists of the past.

Setup and lesson

There are many ways to have students research and report on scientific ADI events in history. Acting as a scientist of the past in front of a class, doing an oral presentation about a scientist, and/or writing a paper are possible ways to convey the ADI events in a scientist’s life.

We have found another strategy that seems to work well for the middle-grade level student. We use an online software that effectively involves students in research and gives them the ability to create an animated character presentation about a scientist they choose to study. The use of animated characters in the classroom has been identified as an effective way to teach (Vargo 2017). There are many online software and apps that allow you to create animated characters. Some are free at the basic level, while others can be quite costly (see Supplemental Materials for a list of some of the free animated online software and app options at the basic level).

There are a few advantages to using software over other forms of investigating and reporting on a scientist’s ADI experiences. We have found that shy students seem to like this approach and are not as reluctant for their creations to be shown in class. Also, the short time frame for the animation seems to help students stay focused. Finally, we have found these creations to be an effective strategy/method within what is currently a necessary teaching-through-virtual-means environment.

The activity we developed requires research, reflection, and creativity. Voki, the online software we use, is free at the basic level. The Voki software does not have photographic images for all scientists, but it does have a large database at even the basic level that can be used to pick a character by gender, clothing, and age. As a lesson initiation, we share the story of Rene Blondlot by beginning with the question: “Are scientists always right?” See the screenshot of the Voki character Rene Blondlot.

While most middle grade students believe scientists are smart people that are in many cases right about something, most agree that they are not infallible. We use the Blondlot story followed by a teacher-created Voki showing that scientists are not always right and to model what students will be doing (to create a teacher presentation, see Online Resources for a link to create and share a Voki presentation). See the link to a teacher-created Voki in Online Resources.

After additional discussion about the infallibility of scientists, we give the students directions for creating their own animated scientist (see Figure 2) and show them the assessment rubric (see Supplemental Materials). We also provide specific directions for using the Voki software (see Figure 3).

While we continue to use only the basic free service, we do provide the students multiple examples of already-created Vokis. Usually, getting students started with the assignment has not been difficult. From time to time, we have had to pair students who lack computer and research skills with students that have these skills (see the link to a student-created Voki in Online Resources). While students may work together, all students are expected to present their personalized Voki at some point. We have them present to each other during their second assignment in small groups. The Voki considered to be the best by the group is presented to the whole class. The rubric for evaluating Voki creations (see Supplemental Materials) is used to grade individual Voki creations. Following are some peer responses to the Voki assignment:

• It gives us access to websites we would not have heard of without this assignment.
• It allowed us to research and learn about a famous scientist.
• I enjoyed the role-playing in the assignment.
• I think it is a great way to use technology.
• I had fun creating my Voki.
• It allowed for a fun way to perform and present research on a person.
• I learned about different scientists.
• It encouraged me to do research of influential people.
• It allowed me to conduct research and connect to a famous/well-known scientist.
• I think it’s a fun way to present assignments.
• It made research more meaningful, I learned how to use a new tech website.

Post-Voki assignment

The Voki creation is an individual project, which gives the student the individual freedom to research a scientist of their own choosing, which allows them to select a scientist by gender and race if desired. After the scientist Voki presentations have been created and shown to the class, we have groups consisting of four students (split into pairs) choose two scientists, a theory, or a topic to argue. Usually students choose scientist stories where a definite conflict of opinion occurs. Thus, Edison versus Tesla with regard to direct or alternating current is a favorite (photographs of students arguing Edison versus Tesla are shown in Figure 4). The post-Voki assignment directions with additional grouping details, requirements, and grading rubric are shown in Figure 5.

Initially we had three ADIs going on at the same time (i.e., six groups of students with two groups arguing a topic) with a follow-up whole-class summation. While this seemed to work, it made using the rubric (see Figure 5) for teacher evaluation difficult. Subsequently we have tried having groups argue a topic in front of a class and submit a short summation of their discussion. The rubric has been more useful with the whole-class format. We do not set a time limit, and the ADI topics have ranged between 20 and 60 minutes in length. With three sets (i.e., approximately two groups of four), a teacher should be able to complete the second assignment within at most two class periods.

Diversity

Regardless of methodology (e.g., research paper, acting, or animation creation) used, we believe a final advantage of involving students in researching the difficulties a scientist faces is the opportunity to incorporate diversity into your teaching. In Figure 2, the list of scientists includes successful African American and female scientists that can be researched and presented on for this assignment (it has been our experience that female students often like to study female scientists).

Conclusions

This article was not developed to promote the Voki software. Its purpose is to encourage teachers to provide students with opportunities and examples of actual ADI experiences that have occurred among scientists in the past.

We believe it is important for students to realize that ADI has led to career advancement, career loss, and even risk of life. But despite these challenges, we want students to realize that many scientists have worked hard to seek new knowledge and in most cases to find the truth.

Finally, we believe studying actual ADI experiences from the past provides a better foundation for what they (i.e., the students) do in the classroom. Thus, as a prequel to students’ own hands-on CER or science-fair-type experiences, this approach provides a better grounding for their understanding of how science works.

ONLINE RESOURCES

Create and share Voki presentations—https://bit.ly/3j47jWa

Teacher-created Voki—https://bit.ly/3A0HMDO

Student-created Voki—https://bit.ly/2TpvJda

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS

Online animated software and apps

Rubric for evaluating Voki creation

William Sumrall (sumrall@olemiss.edu) is a professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Mississippi in University, Mississippi. Kristen M. Sumrall (kelle.sumrall@gocommodores.org ) is a seventh-grade science teacher at Lafayette Middle School in Oxford, Mississippi.