Students Talking, Writing, and Arguing to Learn through Modeling in a High School

Biology Classroom

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Katherine Michelle St. Clair Misar

Graduate Program in Education: Teaching and Learning

The Ohio State University

2022

Dissertation Committee

Dr. George Newell, Advisor

Dr. Mollie Blackburn

Dr. Lin Ding

1
 Copyrighted by

Katherine Michelle St. Clair Misar

2022

2
 Abstract

Written scientific argumentation is a common practice among scientists, yet it is

relatively absent from science K-12 classrooms (Applebee & Langer, 2013). However,

recent research shows that opportunities to engage in collaborative discourse and

argumentation provide students enhanced conceptual understanding and reasoning. Since

one of the hallmarks of doing science is learning critical and rational skepticism,

opportunities to develop the ability to argue scientifically appear to be an essential feature

of a successful classroom (Osborne, 2010). What does this approach look like in a high

school science classroom? How do students respond to and take up such practices in their

talk and writing? This dissertation examines how high school students learn to construct

and evaluate evidence as well as “do” science during an ecology unit in an accelerated

biology class taught by a highly regarded teacher. The teacher’s approach was grounded

in the assumption that students learn through modeling to understand scientific content

knowledge and practices while engaging in inquiry. Specifically, this study explored how

the teacher supported her students using talk, writing, and arguing to learn for reflective

analysis during an ecology unit. This specific unit required the construction of

mathematical charts and graphs to better understand a multi-day lab demonstration

project on interspecific and intraspecific competition among two species of Paramecia.

Teaching and learning of scientific argumentation are framed as a construction of

iii
academic literacies (Lea & Street, 1998), that are an emphasis on describing the literacy

practices within disciplinary fields (biology) and how those literacy practices might be

acquired. So conceptualized, researching the acquisition and development of academic

literacies focus on describing how students are socialized into the community’s practices

including its literacy practices. Research methodology was grounded in

microethnographic discourse analysis of intercontextuality, intertextuality, epistemic

levels of evidence construction, conversation functions in classroom discourse, and

argumentative move analysis. Data included classroom discourse and students’ informal

descriptive and comparative writing, as well as formal argumentative writing. Students’

writing was examined for connections to classroom events (intercontextuality), to graphs

and previous written work (intertextuality), for epistemic levels of evidence construction,

and argumentative moves. This work builds on previous studies of teaching and learning

scientific argumentation that considered the epistemic practices in scientific

argumentation (Kelly & Takao, 2002; Manz, 2012; Manz, 2015). Using epistemic levels

of evidence construction, I examined how the teacher facilitated conversations about

making scientific arguments and constructing evidence in increased levels of abstraction

from noticings and public attributes to making experimental claims and facts (Manz &

Renga, 2017). Students developed their argumentative writing through practicing claims,

incorporating more epistemic levels of evidence construction over time, and toward the

end of the project warranting their evidence. Theoretically, this dissertation supports and

extends the uses of an academic literacies and social construction lenses to understand the

complexities of teaching epistemic practices of evidence construction in classroom

iv
discussions and students’ using the same practices in their writing. An academic literacies

framework has the possibility of making science classrooms more equitable learning

environments through dialogic learning processes.

Key Words: modeling, academic literacies, argumentative writing, science

education, classroom discourse

v
 Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to the millions of hardworking veteran public-school

teachers in schools serving under-resourced and marginalized communities. It is an honor

to work alongside the teachers previously as a colleague and now as a researcher. I value

the teachers’ expertise and honor their resilience during the pandemic. It is amazing how

teachers value and incorporate the experiences, cultures, languages, identities, and agency

of their students in their classrooms and curricula. It is an honor to examine the teaching

they give their community and I hope to pass along the wisdom they have shared with me

to the next generation of teachers.

vi
 Acknowledgments

This dissertation could not have been possible without the support and dedication

of many people. First and foremost, I thank Dr. George Newell who believed in me and

supported my academic growth as a scholar. I have been very blessed to have his

guidance during this process and I am forever grateful for the opportunities he has

provided me. This dream could not have been achieved without him.

I thank Dr. Mollie Blackburn for her support throughout my program and sharing

her expertise in methodology. I thank Dr. Lin Ding who provided a science education

perspective as I have navigated this interdisciplinary project. I thank the participating

teacher, student teacher, and students for allowing me to capture their learning

experience. I thank Ms. Fitzgerald (pseudonym) and her students for inviting me into the

classroom to capture the teaching and learning studied in this dissertation.

I thank Dr. Karen Irving for supporting my research during my candidacy and Dr.

Ted Clark for connecting me with the local American Modeling Teachers Association

conference. I thank Dr. Sarah Gallo, Dr. David Bloome, Dr. Michiko Hikida, Dr.

Caroline Clark, and Dr. Mindi Rhoades for their encouragement as I developed my

understanding of methodology and literacies. I thank Dr. Caroline Clark, Dr. Shayne

Piasta, Dr. Patricia Scherer, Dr. Debbie Morbitt, Dr. Ian Wilkinson, and Ms. Conlee

vii
Ricketts for their support and guidance as I taught and supervised preservice classroom

teachers. I thank Joanna Miller for her support during the program.

I thank Blessy Samjose for her humor and perspective as we both went through

this process together. I thank Suzanne Lewis for showing me what academic moms can

do! I thank Lindsey Rowe, Grace Kim, Julie Johnson, Bailey Braaten, Alyssa Lowery,

Patricia Vocal, Mehmet Kart, Hochieh Lin, Jingyi Zhu, Matt Seymour, and Rebecca

Tang for connecting in and outside of class.

I thank Dr. Jessica Marie Fuller and Patrick Banom. They are family and I’m

lucky to have such amazing friends! I especially thank Jess for inspiring me to dream big!

I thank Mom and Dad, AKA Chris and Tom St. Clair. This dissertation could not

have been possible without their sacrifice of 5 weeks to provide us childcare during a

pandemic. I appreciate their steadfast support through all the ups and downs over the

years. I thank Jenny St. Clair for supporting me with humorous memes and videos to

break apart the tension and stress and being an amazing aunt! I thank Athena St. Clair

Misar for the wonderful walks, belly rubs, and furry cuddles that only a dog can provide!

I thank Samuel Eugene St. Clair Misar! It has been such a blessing to have his smiles,

laughter, and to rock him to sleep at night during this process.

Most of all, I thank Daniel Robert St. Clair Misar. For ten years he has followed

me to Nashville then Columbus. I appreciate his support of my dreams of being a teacher,

a reading specialist, and obtaining my doctorate. For the last thirteen years he has been

my partner as well as my biggest supporter and believer in what I can do. I could not

have done this without his encouragement and sacrifice.

viii
 Vita

2012………………..B.S. Secondary Education & History, Seton Hall University

2012………………..Metro Nashville Public Schools, Nashville, TN: Middle School

Social Studies Teacher

2013-2015………….Holy Rosary Academy, Nashville, TN: Middle School Science

Teacher

2017………………..M.Ed. Reading Education, Vanderbilt University

Fields of Study

Major Field: Education, Teaching, Learning, & Literacy

ix
 Table of Contents

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii

Dedication .......................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................. vii
Vita..................................................................................................................................... ix
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xiv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xv
List of Examples .............................................................................................................. xvi
List of Transcripts ........................................................................................................... xvii
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
From Narrow Disciplinary Concerns to Dialogic Opportunities .................................... 5
Argumentation and Science Education ........................................................................... 7
Argumentation as an Epistemic Practice for Creating and Communicating Knowledge 8
Modeling and Argumentation ....................................................................................... 10
Research Questions Explored in this Dissertation ........................................................ 11
Glossary of Key Terms ................................................................................................. 12
Organization of Dissertation ......................................................................................... 16
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework .............................................. 17
Social Construction Lens and Its Limitations ............................................................... 18
Theoretical Assumptions in Social Construction lens .................................................. 19
Assumptions about Argumentation as Writing to Learn .............................................. 21
Research on Modeling and Argumentation .................................................................. 21
Empirical Research on Supportive Dialogue in the Classroom .................................... 23
Characteristics of classroom culture that support argumentation ............................. 23
Features of classroom talk that support argument .................................................... 24
Shifting from Disciplinary Literacy to Academic Literacies in Secondary Education 27
Academic Literacies.................................................................................................. 29
Theoretical and Empirical Research on Writing to Learn ............................................ 31

x
 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 32
Chapter 3: Research Methods ........................................................................................... 33
Research Questions Explored in this Dissertation ........................................................ 33
Researcher Role ............................................................................................................ 34
Context of the Study ..................................................................................................... 35
Gaining Entrance to the Research Site.......................................................................... 36
Instructional Context for the Study of Interspecific and Intraspecific Competition
among Paramecia ......................................................................................................... 37
Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 39
Observations of Interactions in Advanced Biology .................................................. 42
Collection of Texts and Artifacts .............................................................................. 45
Interviews with Teacher and Focal Students ............................................................ 48
Methods of Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 48
Phase One: Data Organization .................................................................................. 49
Phase Two: Identifying Possible Key Literacy Events ............................................. 50
Phase Three: Analyzing Student Writing ................................................................. 55
Phase Four: Selected, Transcribed, and Analyzed Events Intercontextually
Connected CER Essays ............................................................................................. 57
Empirical and Theoretical Validity ............................................................................... 60
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 60
Chapter 4: Ethnographic Perspective on the Project......................................................... 61
Context of the Study ..................................................................................................... 62
Participants .................................................................................................................... 64
Observations of the Multi-Day Lab Demonstration Project ......................................... 66
“What I See” and “What it Means”: October 16 ...................................................... 68
October 17: Multiple Possible Limiting Factors ....................................................... 74
Lessons Not Observed and Weekend: October 18-22 .............................................. 75
Logistic Growth of P. caudatum: October 23 ........................................................... 76
Paramecium Species in Interspecific Competition: October 24 ............................... 79
Comparing Across Conditions: October 25 .............................................................. 81
Discussing the CER Prompt and Setting Expectations for Writing it: October 28 .. 85
Characteristics of Classroom Culture that Support Argumentation ............................. 87
Using modeling instruction ....................................................................................... 87
xi
 Explicit and implicit instruction................................................................................ 88
Making sense with graphs ......................................................................................... 89
Careful Construction & Facilitation of Project and Consensus Building on its
Completion................................................................................................................ 89
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 92
Chapter 5: Opportunities to Learn Epistemic Practices: Key Events during Instructional
Conversations .................................................................................................................... 94
First Key Event: “What I See” and “What It Means” ................................................... 95
Second Key Event: Using Inequalities and Slope to Depict Changes in Population.... 99
Third Key Event: Discussing Possible Limiting Factor ............................................. 104
Fourth Key Event: Explicit Instructions of CER Essay .............................................. 112
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 114
Chapter 6: Students’ Uses of Epistemic Practices in Argumentative Writing................ 119
Elizabeth’s Informal and Formal Writing ................................................................... 123
Elizabeth’s Story of the Graph of P. aurelia ........................................................... 124
Elizabeth’s Comparison P. aurelia versus P. caudatum .......................................... 129
Elizabeth’s Comparison of P. aurelia alone versus P. aurelia with P. caudatum .... 134
Elizabeth’s Timed Claims, Evidence, and Reasoning Essay .................................. 138
Kelsey’s Informal and Formal Writing ....................................................................... 142
Kelsey’s Story of the Graph of P. aurelia ............................................................... 142
Kelsey’s Comparison of P. aurelia versus P. caudatum.......................................... 147
Kelsey’s Comparison of P. aurelia alone versus P. aurelia with P. caudatum ........ 152
Kelsey’s Timed Claims, Evidence, and Reasoning Essay ...................................... 155
Discussion: Examining Elizabeth’s and Kelsey’s Informal and Formal Writing ....... 160
Arguing to Learn: Informal Descriptive and Comparative Writing ....................... 160
Learning to Argue: Formal Argumentative Writing- The Timed CER Essay ........ 162
Chapter 7: Conclusions and Implications ....................................................................... 164
First Research Question .............................................................................................. 164
Second Research Question .......................................................................................... 166
Theoretical Implications ............................................................................................. 168
Pedagogical Implications ............................................................................................ 171
Implications for further research ................................................................................. 174
References ....................................................................................................................... 176
xii
Appendix A: Text-based Interview Protocol .................................................................. 186
Appendix B: Epistemic Levels of Evidence Construction with Examples..................... 188
Appendix C: Argumentation Moves Examples .............................................................. 190
Appendix D: Cam-UNAM SEDA Condensed version ©2016: Cluster and Code
Summary with Examples ................................................................................................ 191
Appendix E: Elizabeth Timed CER Essay Analysis....................................................... 194
Appendix F: Kelsey Intertextuality Across Project ........................................................ 196
Appendix G: October 23rd Transcript of Inequalities, Slope, & Story .......................... 197
Appendix H: Elizabeth Intertextuality Across the Project .............................................. 198
Appendix I: Limiting Factors Discussion on October 17th ............................................ 199
Appendix J: Using Inequalities and Slope to Depict Changes in Population with Cam-
UNAM SEDA Condensed Version© Coding................................................................. 201
Appendix K: Discussing Possible Limiting Factors with Cam-UNAM SEDA Condensed
Version© Coding ............................................................................................................ 204
Appendix L: Discussing Limiting Factors with Epistemic Levels ................................. 207
Appendix M: Inequalities, Slopes, and "The Story of the Graph" with Epistemic Levels
......................................................................................................................................... 211
Appendix N: First What I See (WIS) and What It Means (WIM) .................................. 215
Appendix O: Map of Epistemic Levels of Evidence Construction Elizabeth’s Written
Work ............................................................................................................................... 216
Appendix P: Map of Epistemic Levels of Evidence Construction Kelsey’s Written Work
......................................................................................................................................... 217

xiii
 List of Tables

Table 3.1 Episodic Map of Lab Demonstration Project on Intraspecific and Interspecific
Competition....................................................................................................................... 40
Table 3.2 Field Notes from Friday, October 25th, 2019 ................................................... 43
Table 3.3 Video Log of Friday October 25th ................................................................... 44
Table 3.4 Data Log of the Multi-day Lab Demonstration Project .................................... 45
Table 3.5 Writing Collected from Students (n=23) during Instructional Unit ................. 46
Table 6.1 Collected Writing from Instructional Unit...................................................... 120
Table 6.2 Elizabeth’s Story of the Graph of P. aurelia .................................................. 127
Table 6.3 Elizabeth’s Comparison of P. aurelia versus P. caudatum ............................ 132
Table 6.4 Elizabeth Comparison of P. aurelia alone versus P. aurelia with P. caudatum
......................................................................................................................................... 136
Table 6.5 Elizabeth’s Timed Claims, Evidence, and Reasoning (CER) Essay .............. 141
Table 6.6 Kelsey’s Story of the Graph of P. aurelia ...................................................... 146
Table 6.7 Kelsey’s Comparison of P. aurelia versus P. caudatum ................................ 150
Table 6.8 Kelsey’s Comparison of P. aurelia alone versus P. aurelia with P. caudatum
......................................................................................................................................... 154
Table 6.9 Kelsey’s Timed Claims, Evidence, and Reasoning (CER) Essay .................. 158

xiv
 List of Figures

Figure 3.1 Map of Ms. Fitzgerald’s Writing Assignments across the Instructional Unit . 47
Figure 3.2 Instructional chain: Slopes & inequalities ....................................................... 53
Figure 3.3 Instructional chain: Types of growth- linear, exponential, & logistic ............. 53
Figure 3.4 Instructional chain: Limiting factors & competition ....................................... 54
Figure 3.5 Instructional chain: Writing about data in science .......................................... 54
Figure 5.1 Ms. Fitzgerald's Participation First Pattern Using Modeling Instruction (seen
in events: first, beginning of third, and fourth) ............................................................... 117
Figure 5.2 Ms. Fitzgerald's Second Pattern Using Modeling Instruction (seen in events:
second and second half of third) ..................................................................................... 117
Figure 6.1 Map of Ms. Fitzgerald’s Writing Assignments across the Instructional Unit 121

xv
 List of Examples

Example 4.1 Student Small Group Whiteboard of P. aurelia alone (Group 2) ................ 71
Example 4.2 Student Small Group Whiteboard of P. aurelia alone (Group 5) ................ 72
Example 4.3 Elizabeth’s Graph of P. caudatum ............................................................... 77
Example 4.4 Kelsey’s graph of P. caudatum .................................................................... 78
Example 4.5 Data Table and Picture of Petri Dish Day 1 with P. aurelia and P. caudatum
........................................................................................................................................... 80
Example 4.6 Data Table and Picture of Petri Dish Day 14 with P. aurelia and P.
caudatum ........................................................................................................................... 81
Example 4.7 Kelsey’s Graph of P. aurelia and P. caudatum ........................................... 83
Example 4.8 Elizabeth’s Graph of P. aurelia and P. caudatum ....................................... 84
Example 4.9 Picture of timed CER writing prompt .......................................................... 86

xvi
 List of Transcripts

Transcript 4.1 Reviewing the full project before CER essay............................................ 91

Transcript 5.1 “What I See” and “What it Means” with Participation Framework Coding
........................................................................................................................................... 97
Transcript 5.2 “What I See” and “What it Means” with Epistemic Levels of Evidence
Construction ...................................................................................................................... 98
Transcript 5.3 Using Inequalities and Slope to Depict Changes in Population Coded with
Participation Framework ................................................................................................. 101
Transcript 5.4 Continued Inequalities and Slope Conversation with Break in Pattern
Coded with Participation Framework ............................................................................. 103
Transcript 5.5 Discussing Possible Limiting Factors Coded with Participation Framework
......................................................................................................................................... 105
Transcript 5.6 Divergence from the Pattern in Limiting Factors Discussion ................. 107
Transcript 5.7 Discussing Limiting Factors with Epistemic Levels ............................... 109
Transcript 5.8 Cannibalism as a Limiting Factor with Epistemic Levels ....................... 111
Transcript 5.9 Explicit Instructions of CER Essay Coded with Participation Framework
......................................................................................................................................... 114
Transcript 6.1 Teacher Expectations for Claims, Evidence, and Reasoning .................. 138

xvii
 Chapter 1: Introduction

This chapter begins with a discussion about the current science education context

of this dissertation, a description of two theoretical frameworks examining literacy in

disciplinary fields, and an exploration of current research on argumentation. The chapter

concludes with the research questions, the organization of the dissertation, and a glossary

of terminology used in this dissertation.

Since March 2020 the United States has been in the throes of a pandemic leading

to discussions about the impact of the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19).

The ramifications have been felt in our schools, family gatherings, and workplaces

through health restrictions, masking and vaccination policies, and supply chain

disruptions. With the country’s highly polarized political environment, education

professionals and scholars were concerned with proliferated misinformation about the

severity of the virus, how it was spread, and the use of masks and social distancing within

classrooms. There has been inequitable distribution of resources within the country as a

result of significantly different public health policy approaches by politicians and an

election outcome heavily influenced by pandemic restrictions. These policies impacted

schools, teachers, and students as they navigated in person and virtual learning.

Perhaps most troubling was a growing anti-science sentiment that fostered

mistrust of authority which threatened the country’s ability to respond to a pandemic

(Hotez, 2021; Prasad, 2021; Rao et al., 2021; Sanchez & Dunning, 2021). This situation
1
raises questions for the teaching and learning of science in US schools: How are future

decision makers--current students--being taught to think through scientific evidence and

make conclusions about what it means? How are they learning to develop scientific ideas

through discussion of scientific data? How are they learning to listen to one another to

develop their ideas and communicate those ideas in writing? This dissertation project was

not only about science teaching and learning in a school context but also one effort to

demonstrate how interactions--spoken and written--between a teacher and their students

during modeling instruction (Hestenes, 1997) contributed to meaning making and

opportunities to learn.

These questions have been considered by science education professionals. For

example, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences

published the Next Generation Science Standards in 2013 (NGSS Lead States, 2013).

Prior to the standards’ publication, the NRC published The Framework for K-12 Science

Education which “highlights the power of integrating understanding the ideas of science

with engagement in the practices of science and is designed to build students proficiency

and appreciation for science over multiple years of school” (National Research Council,

2012, p. X). They specifically elaborated on the significance of students doing science as

engaging in scientific practices:

As in all inquiry-based approaches to science teaching, our expectation is that

students will themselves engage in the practices and not merely learn about them

secondhand. Students cannot comprehend scientific practices, nor fully appreciate

2
 the nature of scientific knowledge itself, without directly experiencing those

practices for themselves (p. 30).

In a renewed focus on practices the NRC recommended science education focus on the

skills, knowledge, and practices students need to do science and engineering. As an

alternative to approaches in which science teaching is essentially transmissive, The

Framework and the NGSS standards focused on how science is done and why. This

dissertation was particularly interested in the science standards’ turn toward emphasizing

practices such as talking and writing in the science classroom.

Just as significant was science education’s more recent emphasis on language and

literacy and the need to create greater opportunities to engage in argument from evidence

using scientific modeling instruction (Guy-Gaytan et al., 2019; Lehrer & Schauble, 2015;

Manz, 2012; Osborne, 2010). In this study argument is heuristically defined as a situated

epistemic practice in which two or more parties try to persuade the other to accept a claim

using relevant and acceptable evidence, warrant/justification, reasoning, and rebuttal

(Driver et al., 2000; Kelly, 2014; Newell et al., 2015; Toulmin, 1984).

Recent research indicated that student engagement in scientific argumentation can

foster a better understanding of the concepts and the processes of science (Ford, 2012;

Lehrer & Schauble, 2015; Manz, 2015; Osborne et al., 2012). Yet opportunities for

students to participate in authentic argumentation inside the science classroom have

remained rare (Manz, 2015; Scott et al., 2006). Also, there was little known about science

teachers' understandings of argumentation and their ability to facilitate this complex

practice (Manz & Suarez, 2018; McNeill & Knight, 2013; Simon et al., 2006).

3
 In turn, as reforms shifted their focus to an examination of what the students are

being asked to do and how they are participating within science and engineering

education, it has become clear that students’ role remains largely passive. Previous

research by Scott et al. (2005) explains that they noticed

Within the context of high school science classrooms, where dialogic discourse is

universally rare, there is a tendency for it to fade out altogether as the students

appropriate the school science point of view (see e.g., Amaral & Mortimer, 2004).

Thus, the paradoxical (yet traditional) situation exists where the most fluent

exponent of scientific ideas (the teacher) does all of the talking whilst the novices

(the students) have little to no opportunity to speak the scientific language for

themselves and to make it their own. (p. 622)

This tension between the need to present settled scientific knowledge and the push for

students to be more involved in inquiry through argumentation was also particularly

obvious in writing assignments in science classrooms. As part of a national study of

writing in secondary schools, Nachowitz (2013) reported that “science teachers in our

national survey indicated that the most important purpose for writing was for students to

summarize what had been learned (92%)” (p. 97). Nachowitz (2013) also described what

he calls the “cookie cutter approach” (p.97) involving minimal analysis and reflective

writing of laboratory reports with more of a focus of filling in the short answer segments

of the laboratory report. However, science teachers also recognized the essential tasks of

“formulating hypotheses and making deductions from them, explaining subject-area

4
concepts, recording observations, and writing laboratory reports” (Nachowitz, 2013, p.

96).

From Narrow Disciplinary Concerns to Dialogic Opportunities

Several studies utilizing a disciplinary literacies framework have examined the

literacies practices in science classroom through an expert-novice paradigm (Goldman et

al., 2016; Greenleaf et al., 2011; Moje, 2008), which provides students the skills,

practices, and socialization in order to engage in science. However, there are fewer

studies that examined how teachers engage with students dialogically and how students

learn to participate and enact science (cf. Kelly, 2014; Manz & Renga, 2017). The

concept of dialogism is based on Bakhtin’s (1981) argument that an all language carries

its history and future, it is made up of utterances which reflect the speaker and whom

they are speaking with. An utterance is constructed socially (Voloshinov, 1973, p. 85) in

response to a cultural, historical, and social context and chain of previous utterances and

voices (Bahktin, 1986) which “may be temporally, spatially, and socially distant”

(Wertsch, 1991, p. 53).

This study used an academic literacies theoretical framework (Lea & Street, 2000;

Lea & Street, 2006; Lillis & Scott, 2008) which shifted the focus towards understanding

the complexities of the relationships and identities of the people interacting, while at the

same time valuing the contributions the students are making to the literacy event and

environment. Put another way, while academic literacies assume “becoming socialized.”

it goes beyond a description of academic social practices to a consideration of how

5
students adapt to new situations and experience the natural tensions that develop when

learning new and complex ideas.

This study used a microethnographic perspective and discourse analysis (Bloome,

et al., 2005) grounded in academic literacies to examine how a science teacher provides

space in their classroom for students to have small group discussions about what counts

as evidence and warranting through modeling instruction as they get ready to write

argumentatively using data from an experiment.

Ethnographic data for this study was collected from September 2019 to January

2020, including 20 lessons recorded using three video cameras and three audio recorders

in addition to field notes and pictures of students’ work. From that larger project, this

dissertation focuses on a subset of the data from 6 lessons recorded in mid-October of

2019 which focused on the effects of interspecific and intraspecific competition on

Paramecium that were studied as part of a larger ecology unit. In the classroom observed,

argumentation occurred during classroom discussions and students’ writing as they

created and analyzed the meaning of the graphical representations of their multi-day lab

demonstration project of Paramecium growth. Note that all names for participants and

the participating school used in this study are pseudonyms to protect their identity.

Participants were provided the opportunity to state, if they chose to, their ethnicity and

the ethnic heritage of their name (if known). Pseudonyms were chosen to reflect these

facets of identity. The collaborating teacher, whom I will refer to as Ms. Fitzgerald, was a

national trainer for the American Modeling Teachers Association (AMTA) at the time of

the study and she and her colleagues at the school carefully designed this project using

6
modeling instruction (Hestenes, 2010). Students worked together as a group to create

visual representations of data on a white board, individually copied the key vocabulary

terminology, and took notes on what they discussed in class, and finally they write

informal paragraphs utilizing the data from their representations. At the end of the

project, students completed a timed claims, evidence, and reasoning (CER) essay. It

should also be noted that the study participants used the words “CER essay” to describe

the formal argumentative writing assignment at the end of the project and this dissertation

does the same. The teacher shared that this was the result of a school-wide writing

initiative to develop argumentative writing across the disciplines; she frequently included

CER essays into her curriculum to support her students’ writing.

Closely examining the social interactional processes during these sessions

revealed how students socially constructed (Gergen, 2015) ways of understanding science

as grounded in arguments through their talk and writing. This work builds on previous

studies of teaching and learning scientific argumentation that considered the epistemic

practices in scientific argumentation (Kelly & Takao, 2002; Manz, 2012; Manz, 2015).

An academic literacies framework, elaborated on in Chapter 2, has the possibility of

making science classrooms more equitable learning environments through dialogic

learning processes.

Argumentation and Science Education

Scientific argumentation enables students to participate in constructing their

scientific knowledge and use of scientific practices surrounding making sense of data and

communicating it (Kelly, 2014; Osborne, 2010). Additionally, it “addresses the

7
coordination of evidence and theory to advance an explanation, a model, a prediction or

an evaluation” (Duschl & Osborne, 2002, pp. 55-56). Argumentation is part of the

nature of science itself (McComas et al., 2002; McComas, 2002). McComas and

colleagues (2002) discussed a consensus view of the nature of science prior to tracing the

nature of science through history. This consensus view was based on eight international

science education standards documents. Included among these views were “scientific

knowledge relies heavily, but not entirely on observation, experimental evidence, rational

arguments, and skepticism,” “new knowledge must be reported clearly and openly,”

“science is part of social and cultural traditions,” and “scientific ideas are affected by

their social and historical milieu” (McComas et al., 2002, pp. 6-7). When examining this

list holistically two key points are (1) science involves argumentation in creating and

communicating knowledge and (2) science is socially, culturally, historically, and

institutionally situated and constructed.

Argumentation as an Epistemic Practice for Creating and Communicating

Knowledge

Argument is more than a structure; it is a way in which ideas are accepted,

rejected, discussed, and built upon through debate or less formal interaction based on an

accepted set of norms in the context. This is not limited to content areas but also

individual classrooms (Berland & Reiser, 2010; Newell et al., 2015). Arguments are

socially constructed by people in response to other people, texts, and ideas; arguments are

not in isolation or only created by the individual (Gergen, 2015; Newell et al., 2015).

Previous work in English Language Arts created the concept of “dialogic literary

8
argumentation” (Newell et al., 2015), defined concisely in subsequent work as “a

cooperative one [activity] in which student engage in good-faith deliberation and respond

to one another’s arguments to develop and evolve their individual and collective

understandings of how we might interpret literature and act upon the world, ethically and

humanely” (Seymour et al., 2020, p. 21-22). I have adapted this view of argumentation in

English language arts to embrace scientific understandings and practices surrounding

argumentation.

Following Applebee (1996) and Kelly (2018, Kelly & Bazerman, 2003), an

argument is made for understanding writing as an epistemic practice in teaching and

learning science. Epistemic practices are the socially organized and interactionally

accomplished ways that members of a group propose, communicate, evaluate, and

legitimize knowledge claims (Kelly & Takao, 2002; Manz, 2015; Newell et al., 2015).

Through application of epistemic practices, communities have justified knowledge

claims. Writing, in the case of this study, was not a narrow conception of writing as a

skill to be taught or a way to assess expected answers. Instead, writing in the context of a

biology classroom was motivated by broad and complex questions. These questions

include how, when, and why different kinds of writing—including argumentative

writing--within curricular conversations in particular social contexts shaped student

learning of key concepts and practices such as ecology and using evidence. This

conceptualization of writing was aligned with a social construction framework using the

philosophical perspective on the nature of science developed by Toulmin (1972) and

articulated for classroom-based research by Kelly and Green (1998) and Gergen’s (2015)

9
view that “ideas emerge from a process of dialogue” (p. 3). This practice perspective

also aligned with the role of language and literacy offered by the Next Generation

Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) that included a compelling framework for

the inclusion of literacy practices that literacy researchers have described as significant

challenges requiring significant instructional change in the teaching and learning of

science (Wright & Domke, 2019). The next section describes how scientific modeling

was not only a key epistemic practice but a way of talking, writing, and arguing to learn.

Modeling and Argumentation

Modeling instruction was derived from the schema and visualization theories in

science education according to Hestenes (2010). It was first used in physics education to

assist students with understanding scientific concepts using analogies, experiments, and

visual representations which mimic current science phenomena (Hestenes, 2010). The

process, developed over the last 80 years, involves students answering a larger question

in either a laboratory experience, simulation, or observation and discussing their answers

first in small groups, then as a class discussing the variety of answers presented (Jackson

et al., 2008). After the students form their initial consensus understanding, teachers then

extend it through additional questions, laboratory experiences, and simulations (Jackson

et al., 2008). Research on the uses of modeling instruction in biology classrooms includes

several cognitive studies examining the progression of models and the cognitive

processing in which the students individually develop their knowledge on the topic or

phenomena at hand (Bielik et al., 2018; Clement, 2008; Gilbert & Justi, 2016; Gobert, et

10
al., 2011; Megowan-Romanowicz, 2011; Nunez-Oviedo et al., 2008; Passmore &

Stewart, 2002; Rea-Ramirez, 2008; Schwarz, et al., 2009; Treagust & Tsui, 2016).

Argumentation is inherent in modeling instruction (Chen et al., 2016; Gilbert &

Justi, 2016; Manz, 2015). Argumentation occurs when students first encounter a question

and begin to make sense of the relevant ideas within their small groups. The next

instructional move occurs when the teacher restates information the students have

discovered by revoicing students’ responses. Another move may require the teacher to

suggest a more productive path or ask for a response that needs to be more fully

developed or clarified. The teacher may also provide guidance through phrasing

questions toward answers that are more aligned with the way present day scientists

understand the phenomena. Argumentation occurs when students and the teacher build a

consensus model based on what they understood during the simulation, laboratory

experience, or observation and it occurs in their writing. Accordingly, one of the issues

that emerges with such an approach is how the teacher negotiate a tension between

students’ emergent understandings of a concept with settled scientific knowledge.

Research Questions Explored in this Dissertation

1) How does the teacher engage her students in epistemic practices such as

talking and writing argumentatively about what counts as scientific evidence

in small groups and whole class discussions using scientific modeling during

a unit on ecology?

2) How do students take up these epistemic practices in their argumentative

writing as these practices are made visible through argumentative moves?

11
Glossary of Key Terms

Epistemic Practices: Manz (2015) argued that; “practices shape not only how

people act, but also what objects are considered important, what they are important for,

which other practices are sensible, and how social relations are conceived” (p.556). Such

practices include how, when and what knowledge was constructed and viewed as

authoritative within the classroom (Ford & Forman, 2006; Manz, 2015). In the science

classroom epistemic practices include argumentation, modeling (the process of discussing

collectively based on observations or representations), creating representations (i.e.

graphs, physical models, etc.), and writing lab reports.

Intercontextual evidence: Bloome and colleagues (2005) stated that,

“intercontextuality refers to the social construction of relationships among contexts, past,

and future. It can also refer to the social construction of relationships among social events

(cf. Heras, 1993; Lin, 1993).” (p.144). Intercontextual evidence shows how multiple

social events are linked to one another or being applied. In this dissertation, the teacher

often referred to discussions she had with small groups and individuals before sharing

them with the rest of the class during whole class discussions. Additionally, sometimes

small groups referred to their earlier discussion of a previous graph and how they

interpreted what it meant in order to apply it to the graph they are discussing at that

moment.

Instructional chains: a series of linked episodes of classroom instruction

(VanDerHeide and Newell, 2013). Based on Hillock’s (1995) view “that teaching should

take place in episodes that are coherently linked together” (VanDerHeide & Newell,

12
2013, p. 305) and VanLeeuwen’s (2008) recontextualization chain. VanDerHeide and

Newell (2013) created these after mapping the instructional unit and selecting episodes of

teaching linked together to support argumentative writing.

Intertextual evidence: Bloome and colleagues (2005) refer intertextuality “as

the juxtaposition of texts. A word, phrase, stylistic device, or other textual feature in one

text refers to another text; two or more texts share a common referent or are related

because they are of the same genre or belong to the same setting, or one texts leads to

another (as occurs when the writing of one letter leads to the writing of another, or when

the buying of a theater ticket provides admission to the play)” (p. 40).

Intertextual evidence shows how multiple texts are being connected with one another by

the participants in the literacy event. In the case of this dissertation, when preparing to

write the CER students often made references to the graphs from earlier as well as the

paragraphs they wrote about what those graphs showed about the population of the

Paramecium.

Modeling Instruction: According to Jackson and colleagues (2008) “modeling

instruction expresses an emphasis on the construction and application of conceptual

models of physical phenomena as a central aspect of learning and doing science

(Hestenes, 1987; Hestenes, 1997; Wells, 1995).” Modeling instruction was described

specifically as a way to organize course content around scientific models as coherent

units of structured knowledge; to engage students collaboratively in making and using

models to describe, explain, predict, design, and control physical phenomena; to involve

students in using computers as scientific tools for collecting, organizing, analyzing,

13
visualizing, and modeling real data; to assess student understanding in more meaningful

ways and experiment with more authentic means of assessment; to continuously improve

and update instruction with new software, curriculum materials, and insights from

educational research; and to work collaboratively in action research teams to mutually

improve their teaching practice (Jackson et al., 2016, p.11). This student-centered

pedagogy is broken up into two parts, model development and model deployment.

Students develop the conceptual model in small groups and whole class discussions with

the teacher using Socratic questioning (p.11-12). While this instructional pedagogy was

first applied to physics it moved to different science education areas and later other

disciplines entirely.

Scientific Argumentation: a situated epistemic practice in which two or more

parties try to persuade the other to their claim using relevant and acceptable evidence,

warrant/justification, reasoning, and rebuttal (Driver et al., 2000; Kelly, 2014; Newell et

al., 2015; Toulmin, 1984). This dissertation builds upon the concept of dialogic literary

argumentation (Newell et al., 2015), defined in subsequent work as “a cooperative one

[activity] in which student engage in good-faith deliberation and respond to one another’s

arguments to develop and evolve their individual and collective understandings of how

we might interpret literature and act upon the world, ethically and humanely” (Seymour

et al., 2020, p. 21-22).This view of argumentation in English language arts could be

adapted to embrace scientific understandings and practices surrounding argumentation.

Scientific Modeling: An epistemic practice in which scientists create models (or

tools) which represent scientific concepts or phenomena. These representations include

14
but are not limited to diagrams, graphs, physical replicas, analogies, simulations, and

formulas (Jackson et al., 2008; Manz, 2012; Passmore & Stewart, 2002). Argumentation

is a natural part of modeling done among scientists as they seek to understand scientific

phenomena and present their conceptual ideas to their peers.

Scientific Reasoning: Kind & Osborne’s (2016) described styles of scientific

reasoning and the different content knowledge, procedural knowledge, and epistemic. In

their article, Kind & Osborne built on Crombie’s (1994) six styles of scientific reasoning:

mathematical deduction, experimental evaluation, hypothetical modeling, categorization

and classification, probabilistic reasoning, and historical-based evolutionary reasoning

(Kind & Osborne, 2016, p. 11-12). Kind & Osborne (2016) then described the different

ontic, procedural, and epistemic entities and constructs of each in a chart (p. 14-15). They

also explain that among those six styles of scientific reasoning, the hypothetical modeling

“may depend on a hypothetico-deductive argument from premises to conclusion, but it

could also be an abductive argument that it is the best explanation, or an inductive

argument about the patterns that exist in nature” (p. 16). This dissertation examines the

modeling style of scientific reasoning which is utilized in Ms. Fitzgerald’s classroom

during a multi-day lab demonstration ecology project about interspecific and intraspecific

competition. Specifically, the modelling used in the multi-day lab demonstration project

uses inductive reasoning.

Writing Moves: The concept of a writing move (Harris, 2006) affords the

opportunity to simultaneously capture learning to write as a change in texts, cognitive

processes, and social action. Borrowing from Harris (2006), VanDerHeide (2017) defined

15
a writing move as a meaningful action a writer makes in written text or spoken discourse

within a literacy event; this action is part of a particular genre of social actions, or part of

a particular social practice, of a particular writing community. Thinking about writing in

this way, writing is not a static, fixed, written text, but writing is something that writers

do to “get things done” (p. 3) and as “fluid and social activity” (p. 4) as even when

writers write in isolation, they are always writing in response to the ideas of others and

with the expectation of future interactions (Bakhtin, 1981).

Organization of Dissertation

In the following chapter, Chapter 2, I discussed the theoretical framework,

assumptions, and related empirical research. In Chapter 3, I explain my research methods

in detail. Chapters 4 and 5 address the first research question. Chapter 4 provides an

ethnographic context for the instructional unit that I studied. Chapter 5 provides closely

examined key events described in general terms in the ethnographic description. Chapter

6 addresses the second research question by exploring the informal and formal writing of

two - students as telling cases of engagement in epistemic practices and processes as they

wrote with the content throughout the instructional unit. Finally, the dissertation closes

with an examination of what was learned from the study and implications for future

research.

16
 Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

This chapter begins with a description of the study within current and ongoing reform

conversations that call for new approaches in teaching and learning K-12 science classrooms and

how an academic literacies framework might contribute to a deeper understanding of these

reforms. In addition, the chapter includes the theoretical framework for this dissertation and its

affordances and limitations. Next it explores empirical research on modeling, argumentation, and

classroom dialogue. Finally, it discusses the affordances of academic literacies in comparison to

disciplinary literacies and closes with an examination of theoretical and empirical research on

writing-to-learn.

The Next Generation Science Standards prominently featured three-dimensional

learning—the integration of disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and scientific and

engineering practices (NGSS Lead States, 2013). This tripartite emphasis raised methodological

challenges for researchers and educators seeking to examine, and thus uncover, the ways in

which science content, processes, and practices are ongoing social constructions in educational

settings. The methodological challenges included understanding the cognitive, social, and

interpersonal factors supporting or constraining the learning of these disciplinary ideas, concepts,

and practices. This literature review explores how these challenges emerged in this study as well

as how theoretical frameworks and approaches were employed to the study of the social and

interactional opportunities to learn in a 9th and 10th grade biology classroom. Also, the empirical

research on argumentation in science and modeling is discussed.

17
 This dissertation is intended to contribute to an understanding of how talking and writing

argumentatively about modeling was situated in a biology classroom that afforded and

constrained what it meant to learn in that context, how students engaged in opportunities to learn

over time, and how social interactions with the teacher and students related to individual

learning. Specifically, the study focused on the informal descriptive and comparative writing

and formal argumentative writing of four participating students across a multi-day lab

demonstration project in an advanced 9th and10th grade biology course. In Chapter 6, the findings

from this analysis are shared, focusing on two representative students. I situated myself as a

researcher within social construction theory, an orienting framework that explains knowledge as

being gained through dialogue (Gergen, 2015). Many elements within this orienting framework

were used throughout the study (context, practices, participation, and learning).

Social Construction Lens and Its Limitations

Researchers have used the social construction lens to examine the minute and detailed

ways in which students engage interactionally with the teacher, peers, the materials, and texts.

Ethnographic perspectives provide researchers a framework to look at the norms and practices

within a particular space, how they develop over time, and how students appropriate particular

practices and discourse. In a social construction lens, students are not just participants, but they

are agentive in their relationships with their peers, the teacher, and the researcher (Gergen,

2015). This lens also aligns with ethnographic and discourse analysis methodologies which have

enabled researchers to examine current practices within a classroom rather than designing a

particular research module and determining its effectiveness based on an outside measurement.

In this study, science and argumentation were each considered as social constructs in and of

themselves; they were socially constructed within communities that determined what the

18
practices are and how knowledge is developed and determined to be acceptable. The students,

Ms. Fitzgerald, and her student teacher, Ms. Matthews, determined how to do science within the

space and what counted as an acceptable argument based on evidence. The participants within

the space were not only using their background knowledge about the material but they were

additionally pulling from their funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992), their lived experiences,

families, and cultures. Cook-Gumperz (1986) stated “literacy learning takes place in a social

environment through interactional exchanges in which what is to be learnt is to some extent a

joint construction of teacher and student” (p.8). Finally, a social construction lens has enabled

researchers to examine the context of the study- socially, culturally, historically, institutionally,

etc. Chapter 4 uses an ethnographic perspective to examine how the context of this study was

shaped by these factors.

Social construction has similar limitations to the sociocultural lens regarding

generalizability, as Kelly and Chen (1999) stated, “we do not believe any small set of

prescriptions for teaching should be drawn from empirical research, given the diversity of

situations and socially constructed contexts for learning” (p. 910). Rather than providing a list of

what teachers should do, researchers provide points to consider and added to what was known

about certain practices in a set time and space. This lens did not provide judgements on “good”

versus “bad” teaching, but rather it examined the social context in which teaching takes place.

They use interviews, observations, written and oral discourse analysis to identify how processes

and practices were occurring in a specific context. For example, rather than create a list of “best

practices” they demonstrated how teachers’ epistemological beliefs influence the teaching

practices they used with their students (Weyand, et al., 2018).

Theoretical Assumptions in Social Construction lens

19
 While there are cognitive and sociocognitive practices which occur at the individual and

class level (Bloome et al., 2009), a social construction lens was used for the purpose of this

dissertation. It was assumed that the students were active and agentive individuals in classroom

activities and conversations with the teachers, peers, and texts (Gergen, 2015). Students played a

key role in co-constructing knowledge accepted within the classroom. Similar to the

sociocultural lens, the social construction lens also assumes that there are many factors which

shape the context of a community- socially, culturally, historically, institutionally, etc.

Additionally, the collected data was impacted via the observer effect (Heath & Street, 2008). As

a researcher, I was a participant within the space embracing both the emic and etic perspectives

used in ethnographic research (Blommaert & Jie, 2010).

Kelly and Chen (1999) demonstrated that, “their appropriation of scientific discourse was

related to the framing activities of the teachers and the social practices established over time in

the classroom” (p. 883). It was through the interactions or dialogue, within the space, with

semiotic material, and between the participants within the community that learning occurred

(Gergen, 2015; Lave & Wenger, 1998; Volosinov, 1973). Volosinov (1973) suggests that the

meaning of signs, or semiotic material, is determined in the interaction between individual

consciousness, and individual consciousness “is filled with signs” (p.11). He continues

“consciousness becomes consciousness only once it has been filled with ideological (semiotic

content), consequently, only in the process of social interaction” (p. 11). In other words, it is in

talking with other people that we understand ideas, that are at once of our own making but also

based on previous interactions with people and their ideas. The ideas we present influence the

ideas of the people with whom we are talking, and their ideas adjust our own understanding.

VanDerHeide (2017) states more succinctly as she applies it to students’ engagement within the

20
classroom “it may be that as students participate in classroom talk, they internalize the ways they

participate- the moves they make- and can then act in these same ways on their own, such as in

their writing” (p. 327).

Assumptions about Argumentation as Writing to Learn

Three specific assumptions about the teaching and learning of scientific argumentation

shaped this study. The first assumption was that argumentative writing is not monolithic and that

even though people might use the same term – argumentative writing – they are not necessarily

referring to the same thing. Simply stated, teachers and students might define argumentative

writing as the taking of a position and advocating for that position competitively through

argumentation (warrants, evidence, counter arguments, etc.). Alternatively, teachers and students

might define argumentative writing as the exploration, learning and advancement of an idea not

in competition with others but in cooperation and dialogue with others who might have begun

with a different perspective.

Second, it was through and with spoken and written arguments that students acquired the

epistemic discourse practices of academic communities (as mediated by the realities of

classrooms) that are the socially organized and interactionally accomplished ways of knowing

and doing science (Kelly & Licona, 2018). This assumption was grounded in a social

constructivist framework (cf., Lave, 1996; Vygotsky, 1987) applied to classrooms.

Third, as Applebee and Langer (2013) noted, although school science writing almost

always serves an evaluative purpose, research has suggested that argumentative writing may also

provide students with an opportunity to think analytically, to acquire academic knowledge, and

to learn epistemic practices through composing (cf., Newell, 2006).

Research on Modeling and Argumentation

21
 Modeling and the development of models are essential practices of science. Scientists use

models to represent and explain their understanding of systems or phenomena, derive evidence,

construct claims, answer questions, make predictions, and debate arguments with others (Lehrer

& Schauble, 2006; Schwarz et al., 2009). A Framework for K–12 Science Education (National

Research Council, 2012) underscored the pivotal role that models play in science and

engineering:

Both scientists and engineers use their models—including sketches, diagrams,

mathematical relationships, simulations, and physical models—to make predictions about

the likely behavior of a system, and they then collect data to evaluate the predictions and

possibly revise the models as a result. (p.46)

In this way, models make excellent tools to develop scientific arguments, including data

collection, deriving evidence, and making claims. Arguments are constructed around the critique,

evaluation, and revision of tentative models.

Manz (2012) studied the relationship of epistemic practices and students’ engagement in

discourse and modeling instruction. In this study, the third-grade students were involved in an

investigation of a local ecosystem adjacent to their school. Modeling instruction supported

student participation in model creation, making claims with said models, and understanding the

entailments of the models. Through the extended curriculum, the students engaged with several

disciplinary concepts using models in this way. Through interviews and videos of classroom

conversations, Manz argued that the students’ discourse demonstrated that modeling instruction

made visible objects and relationships within the ecosystem, supported deepening of students’

disciplinary understanding, and served as a scaffold for further uses of modeling instruction.

22
Empirical Research on Supportive Dialogue in the Classroom

Classroom dialogue has been analyzed in several different ways. This study specifically

used and adapted methods that explored the characteristics of classroom culture that support

argumentation and features of classroom talk which support argument.

Characteristics of classroom culture that support argumentation

One of the features of classroom culture that support argumentation was the teacher’s

role in facilitating discussions which scaffold literacy practices, provide disciplinary knowledge,

and value student contributions. For example, Weyand and colleagues (2018) used

microethnography (Bloome et al., 2005) to study literacy events surrounding warranting

evidence in two language arts classrooms with teachers from two argumentative epistemologies,

ideational and social processes, as developed by Newell et al. (2015). They analyzed the teaching

through instructional chains of literacy episodes, previously developed by VanDerHeide and

Newell (2013) and worked with teachers to select episodes in instruction which best supported

the students’ efforts to compose written arguments. Weyland and colleagues (2018) built their

argument around literacy events which best represented how the differing epistemologies

impacted the social practices and ways texts were created. They examined the institutional

contexts of both the teacher and class as well as how the teachers viewed the argumentative

writing impacted their teaching and instruction. Mr. Clark’s epistemology that writing is a social

practice enabled his students to develop warrants without the pressure of getting it right, students

were empowered by his viewpoint to take more academic risks in the classroom, and had a richer

experience (Weyand et al., 2018). The teachers’ epistemologies impacted the culture of their

classroom through the activities they employed as well as the way in which they engaged with

their students in academic discussions and participation.

23
Features of classroom talk that support argument

In Bloome and colleagues’ (2005) work they applied intercontextuality, intertextuality,

and interdiscursivity to examine the social identity of students and linked institutional identities

in a 6th grade social studies/language arts lesson. Their analysis enabled them to more closely

examine personhood and the identities related to race, ethnicity, class, and gender. Wynhoff

Olsen and colleagues (2017) developed a coding scheme to better categorize intertextual and

intercontextual traces in students’ writing and the ways in which they made those intertextual

moves. Using the scheme, they were able to identify patterns in the intertextual traces within

students’ essays. Intertextuality and intercontextuality were used in this study to examine

instructional moves by the teacher during the multi-day lab demonstration project. The

intertextual and intercontextual traces in students’ writing were then analyzed through Wynhoff

Olsen and colleagues’ (2018) coding scheme. Examining these connections in the classroom

discourse and students’ writing more closely made it possible to see how students’ incorporated

information from classroom discussions and ideas from earlier written work into the formal

argumentative writing- the claim, evidence, and reasoning (CER) essay.

Kelly and Takao (2002) developed a framework for examining the epistemic levels of

evidence construction in undergraduate oceanography students’ written responses in coursework.

Within this framework they analyzed students’ arguments using their epistemic levels framework

to analyze the complexity of their arguments. More than a decade later, Manz (2015) applied this

framework to science classroom discourse during which evidence was constructed and examined

the participation roles of both the students and the teachers. Relying on Latour’s (1987)

framework for relating observation, evidence, and theory in scientists’ work, Manz (2015)

pushed back on what she views as the “objectification of evidence” (Manz, 2015, p. 1114), She

adapted the framework based on Kelly and Takao’s (2002) prior research and combined it with
24
Cobb and Ryu and Sandovol’s suggestion “that the framework makes visible how students make

connections between these different levels of epistemic work” (Manz, 2015, p. 1117). She added

sub-categories to the epistemic levels based on coding the third-grade students’ responses and

then mapped and analyzed their arguments and discussed how the teachers facilitated the

discussions that supported students’ reach to higher epistemic levels of evidence construction.

She also found that the coding scheme enabled her to more closely examine how evidence was

co-constructed by students and facilitated by the teacher.

Manz and Renga (2017) built upon Manz’s earlier work (2015) and applied talk moves

from studies on teacher talk (Martin & Hand, 2009; McNeill & Pimentel, 2010; Michaels &

O’Connor, 2012) which focused more specifically on the teacher’s facilitation of argumentation

in the discussion about photosynthesis in plants. Ultimately Manz and Renga’s research revealed

that the “teachers positioned the empirical challenges involved in seeing the same thing (e.g.,

bigness, thickness) and privileging observations as evidence (e.g., height versus leaf size or

thickness) as occasions for sense-making, rather than attempting to move students efficiently

past these points of confusion” (p. 609). Manz’s (2015) epistemic levels of evidence construction

also proved valuable in my own efforts to examine how students in the selected high school

biology classroom learned to construct evidence during informal and formal argumentative

writing throughout the multi-day lab demonstration project.

VanDerHeide and Newell (2013) used instructional chains as a method of looking at the

social practices of argumentative writing. They created an index of episodes within the writing

unit, then based on the mapping and context of the unit, they selected episodes to use as part of

the instructional chain. They selected episodes of classroom instruction that are linked together

based on the classroom talk taking place and how it coherently and cumulatively builds.

25
VanDerHeide (2017) combined the use of instructional chains with move analysis (Swales,

1990) and sub-moves (Upton & Cohen, 2009) to examine the writing of arguments by high

school students. She next used these techniques with discourse analysis. Her findings were that

argumentative writing was taught by the teacher through explicit instruction, guided questions,

and selected revoicing. In this dissertation I examined the argumentative moves students made in

their writing as well as the argumentative moves during conversations.

Sarah Hennessey and Sylvia Rojas-Dummond created a framework for analyzing

conversation functions in classroom talk- the Cam-UNAM (Cambridge- National Autonomous

University of Mexico) Scheme for Educational Dialogue Analysis (SEDA© 2015). They built

this framework using research on classroom discourse including exploratory talk (Mercer &

Littleton, 2007) and accountable talk (Michaels et al., 2008). Each of these focus on the ways in

which ideas are constructed as opposed to how they are presented. Researchers combined these

ways of examining classroom talk into a closer examination of nested communicative acts within

communicative events and situations (Hennessy, et al., 2016; Hymes, 1972). They applied their

scheme to two different classroom environments (Hennessy, et al., 2016) and mapped the

conversations taking place.

In Bloome and colleagues (2005) they applied conversational functions from Green and

Wallat (1981). In their examination of the whole classroom discussion, researchers were able to

more closely look at the classroom culture of participation, specifically how the teacher and

students were engaging in adaptations of the typical classroom literacy practices (p. 92-98).

This dissertation applies the Cam-UNAM SEDA Condensed Version © (see Table 3.3) to

examine the conversational functions within multiple whole class and small group discussions.

An examination took place on how the teacher and students acted and interacted with one

26
another in the conversation. The examination also covered how Ms. Fitzgerald involved her

students in practice of modeling by shifting the knowledge development from her to her students

(Bloome et al., 2005, p. 93) and used the scheme to more closely examine the different ways in

which Ms. Fitzgerald and her student teacher, Ms. Matthews, engaged the students.

Shifting from Disciplinary Literacy to Academic Literacies in Secondary Education

Disciplinary literacy is a set of literacy skills “specialized to history, science,

mathematics, literature, or other subject matter.” (Shanahan and Shanahan, 2008, p. 44). As

originally conceptualized by Shanahan and Shanahan (2008), it is a hierarchical construct of how

readers progress through stages:

Basic literacy: literacy skills such as decoding and knowledge of high-frequency words

that underlie all reading tasks. Intermediate literacy: literacy skills common to tasks,

including generic comprehension strategies, common word meanings, and basic fluency.

Disciplinary literacy: Literacy skills specialized to history, science, mathematics,

literature, or other subject matter (p. 44).

Scholars of disciplinary literacy have contributed to the ways in which members of specific

disciplines in higher education and career education conduct literacy in their daily lives. Through

interviews, observations, and the think aloud procedure with professionals engaging in texts,

researchers identified skills and strategies that were used in different disciplines (Shanahan and

Shanahan, 2008; Shanahan et al., 2011). For example, mathematicians predominantly focused on

precision of the language, while historians were more attentive to bias of the author and

presentation of information (Shanahan et al., 2011). In both qualitative studies, the purpose was

to identify the specific literacy strategies within different disciplines from experts in the field,

27
then improve their secondary preservice teacher education programs by designing ways in which

the teachers can implement these techniques with secondary students.

Both studies mentioned above assumed that while there are variations within an academic

specialty, there are static reading skills and strategies which must be acquired by students to

become “literate” in a specific field of study. The examination of these static and unchanging

skills and strategies came from a limited number of volunteers interested in the study. It does not

identify social practices which may have influenced those skills or strategies, nor does it describe

the social context (historically, socially, institutionally, culturally, etc.) within the field. Some

scholars within these fields have tried to decenter certain strategies, for example, in history the

identification of the missing voices and perspectives not included due to previous power

dynamics and class structures. This hierarchy also focused on the development of certain

cognitive processes and skills, and less on incorporating the voices and identities of students as

they learn, adapt, and critique the discipline based on their lived experience. Teaching literacy

through the lens of disciplinary literacy assumes that it is the responsibility of the teachers to

provide access to specific cognitive reading processes and skills that are directly tied to specific

disciplinary content and strategies which are used by discipline specific experts. Teachers and

adults are the gatekeepers and bridges, providing students access to these fields through

apprenticeship in the discipline. Ultimately, disciplinary literacy has given the field a great deal

to think about when it comes to engaging in different disciplines with texts and literacy skills as

well as socializing readers in a discipline. However, it has not gone far enough to consider the

identities, funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992), power relations, institutional pressure, and

social practices of the students and of the members within a discipline community. More

recently, students have been witnessed engaging in movements critiquing the status quo such as

28
climate change, antiracism, gun violence, and book bans; students are adapting and critiquing

their society and government while they learn about it in their classrooms.

Academic Literacies.

In contrast, academic literacies were not originally conceptualized as hierarchical, it

simultaneously involved “literacies as social practices; at level of epistemology and identities;

institutions as sites of/constituted in discourses and power; variety of communication repertoire,

e.g. genres, fields, disciplines; switching with respect to linguistic practices, social meaning and

identities” (Lea & Street, 2000, p. 34). While academic literacies were originally applied to

writing in higher education, it has also been taken up abroad by scholars who have combined it

with English for Academic Purposes (Wingate & Tribble, 2012).

An academic literacies perspective views literacy as a social practice which it gets from

‘new literacy studies’ (Barton, 1994; Baynham, 1995; Lea & Street, 1998; Street, 1984), which

are embedded in institutions (specifically power relations), cultural epistemology of the

discipline, identities of individuals, and genres of the style of communication. This framework

pushes back against a cognitive, skills-focused perspective on literacy. While it includes

apprenticeship into the discipline, it goes beyond “academic socialization: acculturation of

students into the academic discourse” (Lea & Street, 2000, p. 34).

Like disciplinary literacy, an academic literacies lens views literacy as requiring

socialization and a sustained apprenticeship to ensure depth of understanding of ways of

knowing. Academic literacies extend our understanding of literacy as engaging in social

practices that are part and parcel of community of learners into which students are socialized.

From this perspective, teaching students scientific argumentation is not a technical matter but a

matter of socializing students to think, value and use language in particular ways that are shared

29
with others. As presented by Lea and Street (1998; 2000), academic literacies include instruction

in ‘study skills’ and ‘academic socialization’ as part of the model-- while students take up new

practices they are also learning the ways of knowing within a community with its own unique

ways of understanding. (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Rather than a hierarchy in which students must

obtain a certain level of proficiency to participate within a disciplinary community, the academic

literacies framework, in the way it was originally conceived by Lea and Street (1998, 2000), has

the students apprenticing and participating in the disciplinary communities at the same time. In

academic literacies, experts and teachers serve as guides to students in the practices of their

discipline, not just in skills and strategies. These practices in the disciplines are dynamic (Lea &

Street, 2000), responding to the context as opposed to a stable or static culture and discourse in

disciplinary literacy.

Additionally, Lea and Street (2000) argued that an academic literacies perspective “views

the institutions in which academic practices take place in as constituted in, and as sites of

discourse and power” (p. 35). An academic literacies perspective includes the notion of

multiliteracies (Heath, 1983; Street, 2005). Lea and Street (2000) argued that “a dominant feature

of academic literacy practices is the requirement to switch practices between one setting and

another, to deploy a repertoire of linguistic practices appropriate to each setting and to handle the

social meanings and identities that each evokes” (p.35). The transfer of practices allowed for

students to pull from their funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992) and practices learned

elsewhere in their lived experiences. It is this inclusion of the social identity and nestled power

relations of the student which makes this literacy framework so powerful.

Academic literacies scholars include the identities, history, culture, and institutional

context of those involved in a particular literacy event (Castanheira et al., 2015). Castanheira et

30
al. (2015) used an ethnographic perspective to interview Angolan and Campo students who are

underrepresented in Brazilian universities and discourse analysis “to identify features of

academic literacy that students and teachers had come to recognize as required for writing

academic genres” (p. 74). They then contrasted how the students and their tutors viewed

academic literacies from their perspectives. They argued that while different disciplines and

language communities have different concepts of academic writing at varying levels which can

be problematic for students to learn, the students already have an awareness of what is needed,

and the tutors could build on the students’ existing knowledge to inform their instruction. The

researchers examined the larger institutional contexts that shaped the students’ access to specific

discursive knowledge, and they listened to the students’ voices about how this was impacting

their learning experience. In learning about identities of the students, understanding institutional

context, and investigating the varying tensions at play they were able to get a better picture of the

social practices in writing and evaluating academic text.

Theoretical and Empirical Research on Writing to Learn

In Volosinov’s notion of dialogue, writing was viewed as “verbal performance in print”

(Volosinov, 1973, p. 58). Writing to learn (WTL) is a use of writing that has had the attention of

science education researchers for a few decades (Wallace et al., 2004). In their synthesis and

review of Writing and Learning in the Science Classroom, Wallace et al. (2004) claimed

“Writing is an essential activity that all students of science need to engage in to completely focus

their scientific understandings” (p. 2). Although there is a range of ways to conceptualize WTL

(Durst & Newell, 1989; Klein & Boscolo, 2016; Newell, 2006; Wallace, et al., 2004), this study

assumed that writing represents one way for students to enter and contribute to academic

traditions of knowing and doing. Applebee (1996) has argued that curriculum be regarded as a

31
conversation which pivots on the distinction between "knowledge-out-of-context" approaches

and "knowledge-in-action'' approaches to teaching and learning. With the latter, students enter

into and transform both themselves and the fields in which they work--they learn not just about

science but how to do science.

Conclusion

Learning is situated in classroom contexts with their own epistemic practices, so to trace

the learning taking place in a given context it was necessary to gain an understanding of what

particular ways of knowing are being taught and learned in that context. Because students

engage in these practices, opportunities for learning can be understood as the teacher’s efforts to

engage students in epistemic practices such as ways of talking and writing argumentatively about

science. As students make talking and writing moves in their spoken discourse and written texts,

they learn how to engage in conversations about and in the field of biology.

In summary, this dissertation relies on six assumptions: (1) students are agentive

individuals within classroom activities and conversations (Gergen, 2015), (2) students and

teachers take part in conversations which they simultaneously internalize what is said and how

they participate- then students utilize the ideas and ways of discussing them in their writing

(VanDerHeide, 2017; Volosinov, 1973), (3) argumentative writing is defined differently by

different individuals (teachers, students, researchers, etc.), (4) students acquire epistemic

discourse practices of academic communities through talk and writing (Kelly & Licona, 2018),

(5) argumentative writing provides students an opportunity to think analytically, acquire

academic knowledge, and learn epistemic practices (Langer & Applebee, 2013; Newell, 2006),

and (6) literacies are social practices (Street, 1984).

32
 Chapter 3: Research Methods

This chapter includes with the research questions explored in this dissertation, the

researcher role, context of the study, gaining entrance to the research site, the context of the

instructional unit, data collection, methods of analysis, and a brief discussion of empirical and

theoretical validity.

Uses of discourse in the moment of interaction are always situated in a social and cultural

setting. They are constructed in particular ways with conventions that align with the norms and

expectations of the participants. They have consequences for subsequent actions by the

participants. Microethnographic discourse analysis begins by asking ethnographic questions,

such as: What is happening here? How are the norms and expectations constructed, developed,

acknowledged, and legitimized? What counts as knowledge? For whom, under what

circumstances, with what outcomes, with what consequence?

The purpose of this dissertation is to explore how a highly regarded high school biology

teacher used modeling instruction to support her students in learning the complex moves needed

to construct evidence in scientific argumentative writing. Writing was connected to classroom

discussion which is integral to social and communicative practices in science teaching and

learning (Kelly, 2007). Of particular interest was the use of inquiry-based teaching methods

grounded in modeling instruction, and it was fortunate that the teacher was an expert in applying

modeling instruction to high school biology.

Research Questions Explored in this Dissertation

1) How does the teacher engage her students in epistemic practices such as talking and

writing argumentatively about what counts as scientific evidence in small groups and whole class

discussions using scientific modeling during a unit on ecology?

33
2) How do students take up these epistemic practices in their argumentative writing and how

are they made visible through argumentative moves?

Researcher Role

Heath and Street (2008) state “ethnographic research is inherently interpretive,

subjective, and partial” (p. 45). It is important that I account for my own role, experiences, and

active participation during the research. During the study, I positioned myself as an active

observer in class and took notes on either a tablet or computer while on the side of the classroom.

At the beginning of the school year, I introduced myself to the class as a graduate student and

former middle school science teacher. I collected signed consent forms and signed assent forms

over a period of about a month- much longer than anticipated. During that time, I volunteered in

the classroom by setting up lab materials, answered questions the students had about my

research, and familiarized myself with the physical layout of the classroom which included

grouped lab tables and a science lab. After initial interviews with the teacher, I shared with her

my teaching experience in a public urban middle school and as a science teacher at a private

Catholic school. We both attended the same university in another state at different times to earn

Master’s degrees and share a common background of starting our teaching careers in Christian

private schools. Her interest in modeling instruction (Hestenes,2010) in the classroom, closely

aligns with my view that it is powerful to position students as the creators of knowledge in the

classroom. Toward the end of October, I was invited by the teacher to provide a professional

development seminar on evaluating argumentative writing. The presentation focused on a variety

of rubrics and how they could be modified to fit different contexts.

In interviews with students, I encouraged the interviewees to continue talking through

verbal callbacks (Kinloch & San Pedro, 2014). I used their previously written work as a guide for

34
our conversation and the specific questions asked. I tried to have the setting as relaxed as

possible. Usually, these interviews were in a study room within the media center with the

exception of in the hallway outside of the band room during one instance. In writing about Ms.

Fitzgerald, I have tried to take a teacher solidarity lens (Philip et al., 2016). Specifically, I

highlighted the complex discursive moves Ms. Fitzgerald used while she asked questions and

guided the class through the model of interspecific and intraspecific competition as demonstrated

by two Paramecium species.

Context of the Study

The study took place in a 9th and 10th grade accelerated biology class in an urban high

school that is considered one of the most diverse and largest high school populations in a

midwestern state. This school was chosen because of the teaching of Ms. Fitzgerald. A

catalyzing event in the spring of 2019 was my advisor’s invitation to join a group of professors,

graduate students, and science teachers interested in studying and discussing recent

developments in teaching and learning scientific argumentation. The chemistry professor in the

group talked about modeling as a method of instruction and invited the group to attend the local

American Modeling Teachers Association (AMTA) conference. At the same time,

communication occurred with science education professors about teachers they regarded as

highly effective at teaching science; Ms. Fitzgerald was among the teachers they recommended.

After email communication with Ms. Fitzgerald, a meeting occurred at the local AMTA

conference and talked about the research in person. Ms. Fitzgerald extended an invitation to

observe her teach one lesson at her school to see if this was the type of instruction of interest to

the study. Ms. Fitzgerald’s approach to teaching biology is inquiry-based as she utilizes

modeling instruction to include multiple students in classroom discussions. In addition, she had

35
begun assigning written arguments in the form of a claim, evidence, and reasoning (CER) essay,

initially as a summative assessment but more recently as formative assessment to provide her

with feedback regarding her students’ understandings of content and writing about data.

Gaining Entrance to the Research Site

After observing the participating teacher, I arranged with my doctoral advisor to extend a

recently approved the Internal Review Board (IRB) application for research on teaching and

learning scientific argumentation. I then met with the school’s principal with the support of Ms.

Fitzgerald. After sharing my teaching background, background check, and the purpose of the

research, the principal agreed to submit a letter from the school supporting the research and

indicating his consent to pursue research in the building. An application was then sent to the

Internal Review Board of the school district to obtain their approval of the research. Prior to the

fall of 2019, approvals from the school district and the university IRB were received and it was

possible to begin research in Ms. Fitzgerald’s classroom.

I collaborated with Ms. Fitzgerald to decide which of her class periods would be best to

observe. She mentioned that had arranged for an additional accelerated biology course to be

added to her schedule during the 2019-2020 school year and then invited a group of students who

otherwise would not have the chance to take this course. This group of students had a very wide

range of abilities and backgrounds in science. Third period was scheduled to meet between her

planning period and lunch, providing time for me to set up the cameras, recorders, and to briefly

chat with her.

During the second week of the school year, I introduced myself to the students, explained

the study, and explained how the students would be involved in the research process if they

assented to participate. Consent and assent forms were distributed to the students to sign and to

36
take home to their parents for their signed approval. Over a two-week period, 23 of the 30

students in the class provided signed assent and signed parental consent. I additionally obtained

signed consent and assent documents from four Advanced Placement biology students who spent

their study hall in Ms. Fitzgerald’s classroom that period and the student teacher, Ms. Matthews,

from a local public university who had been to Ms. Fitzgerald’s supervision.

Ms. Fitzgerald agreed to rearrange the seating so that the students who were not included

in the research were out of range of the camera. Data collection including video recording class

sessions began at the end of September 2019. In an initial survey consented students were asked

to self-identify their ethnicity, the ethnicity of their name (if known, to be used for assigning

pseudonyms), and if they were interested in being interviewed. Those that were interested in

being interviewed, were then asked to write down when their study hall period was in their class

schedule. Based on students’ interest, four initial focal students were chosen in collaboration

with Ms. Fitzgerald based on their diverse perspectives, backgrounds, and abilities to get a range

of responses to her instruction. Four focal students were interviewed about his/her writing during

the multi-day lab demonstration project discussed in this study during November 2019. Three

small groups that included at least one focal student became the focus of audio and video

recordings during data collection. Occasionally a fourth group of participating students was

recorded as a replacement to the original three small groups when one of the students of the

original three asked not to be recorded that day.

Instructional Context for the Study of Interspecific and Intraspecific Competition among

Paramecia

A description of Ms. Fitzgerald’s instruction prior to and immediately after the target

instructional unit provides curricular context. Prior to observations of the multi-day lab

37
demonstration project on interspecific and intraspecific competition among Paramecium within

the ecology unit, Ms. Fitzgerald had taught two instructional units that included characteristics of

life, plant and animal cells, scientific lab protocols (independent and dependent variables; lab

write ups including hypothesis, procedures, data collection, and conclusion; use of science

equipment), and evolution including reading a phylogenetic tree. After the interspecific and

intraspecific competition multi-day lab demonstration project, the class moved to predation,

natural selection, evolution, and cellular replication.

During lessons prior to the target instructional unit Ms. Fitzgerald had introduced

students to writing a CER report for two purposes (1) as a way for students to communicate their

ideas on a specific scientific phenomenon, and (2) to learn the relevant moves for making a

scientific argument. For example, I observed students writing CER essays on “why pollen was

considered biotic.” Also observed was a white board showing how Ms. Fitzgerald and her

students defined the terms claim, evidence, and reasoning. They defined claim as “what you

know/want to convince the reader of,” evidence as “how do you support your claim,” and

reasoning as “why does your evidence support your claim.”

From mid to late October of 2019, 6 of the 9 lessons making up the multi-day lab

demonstration project on interspecific and intraspecific competition between 2 species of

Paramecium were observed. Given the rich and compelling lessons that involved students

observing pictures of the Paramecium growing in the Petri dishes, recording numerical data onto

a chart to track growth over time, visualizing and discussing the data with line graphs as a group,

and writing drafts arguing (individually and in small groups) about what the data meant

regarding the competition among the species these episodes became the foci of the data

38
collection and analysis. Note that Chapter 4 describes the details of this instructional unit at some

length.

Data Collection

In this study the primary methods of data collection consisted of observations, collection

of texts and artifacts, and interviews with the teacher and focal students. As data were collected,

I initially organized by file type and then re-organized post-data collection by date into folders

and subfolders prior to analysis. Within each folder were subfolders for videos, audio recordings,

photos, field notes, transcripts of key events that day, video log, and in some cases pdf copies of

classwork. Early in the research process, the multi-day lab demonstration project on interspecific

and intraspecific competition between Paramecium species was identified for further

investigation based on the completeness of the data collected, the combination of a scientific

model involving mathematics in addition to science concepts, and the initial explanation of

modeling on the first day of data collection (these events are described in detail in the Chapter 4).

An episodic map was created in Table 3.1 along with a map of the written work during the multi-

day lab demonstration project seen in Figure 6.1. Table 3.1 provides an episodic map of how and

when Ms. Fitzgerald and Ms. Matthews worked alongside their students to co-construct an

understanding of key concepts, written arguments (about interspecific and intraspecific

competition) with a range of evidence. They questioned students about their observations,

provided opportunities to engage in discussing the evidence construction, and assigned writing

tasks asking students to argue using the evidence which supported their claims.

39
Table 3.1 Episodic Map of Lab Demonstration Project on Intraspecific and Interspecific
Competition

Episodes during the class

Wed Annou Whole Small Class Whole Students individually
10/16/19 nceme class group observati class create their graphs &
nts discussi discussion on of discussi determine slope and
1st day of on graph & whiteboa on of birth and death
data Analysis whiteboar rds developi inequalities
collection of P. d creation ng a
during the aurelia concept
project ual
2nd day of model
project Concept referenced: intraspecific competition (specifically graphing data related
to a Paramecium species, & developing a conceptual model)
Modeling: construction of a graph depicting the mathematical representation of
the reproduction of Paramecium aurelia
Informal Writing: What I See & What it Means
Thurs Caught Whole class Teacher assigns Whole class
10/17/19 second half discussion of homework: finish discussion:
of lesson linear versus calculation of slopes and limiting factors,
3rd day of due to exponential written paragraph using competition, & J
project abbreviated growth; peak, vocabulary words to curve
schedule carrying describe the graph
capacity,
limiting factors
Concepts referenced: intraspecific competition (specifically exponential growth,
peak, carrying capacity, limiting factors, intraspecific competition, and J curve)
Modeling: Linking the mathematical representation to the ecological concepts
related to intraspecific competition
Informal Writing: the story of the graph of P. aurelia
Fri-Tues No School Professional Day on Friday Oct 18
10/18-22 Unable to collect data Monday Oct 21 and Tuesday Oct 22 due to teaching
obligations
Wed Annou Whole Small Whole Predictions about both species in
10/23/19 nceme class group class same Petri dish
nts discussi discussion discussio
6th day of on P. n
project caudatu
m
10/22 students whiteboard constructed the P. caudatum but data wasn’t collected
that day
Concepts referenced: carrying capacity= equilibrium & homeostasis, birth and
death inequalities, slope; P. caudatum
Modeling: Application of mathematical representation (slope and inequalities) to
scientific ecological concepts (connection between population numbers and

40
Continued
Episodes during the class
births/deaths, as well as stability in population numbers to carrying capacity of
the ecosystem and what that means in terms of limiting factors)
Informal Writing: what happened to the population of P. caudatum, what was
different than P. aurelia
Thurs Annou Small Students copy down data of P. Whole class Individual
10/24/19 nceme group aurelia & P. caudatum on discussion work
nts whitebo their own graphs
7th day of ards of Note: Primarily taught by
project data student teacher
Concepts referenced: interspecific competition, slopes, birth and death
inequalities
Modeling: application of previous mathematical representations discussed to
scientific ecological concepts
Informal Writing: WIS, WIM, paragraph what is happening in this graph (story of
the graph of both species in the same Petri dish), paragraph contrasting P. aurelia
all by itself versus with competition with P. caudatum, & P. caudatum when it is
all by itself versus when it is in competition with P. aurelia
Fri Annou Vocabul Whol Small Whole Small Whole Watch video
10/25/19 nceme ary quiz e group class group class
nts class discus discus discuss discussi
8th day of discu sion sion ion on
project ssion
Concept referenced: Intraspecific competition, interspecific competition, why 1
species died out while the other continued to grow exponentially; predation and
balancing of ecosystem (documentary about reintroduction of wolves in
Yellowstone Park)
Modeling: application of previous mathematical representations discussed to
scientific ecological concepts; discussion of counter example how adding an
additional species balanced an ecosystem; introduced predator-prey concept
which will be later explored by class
Informal Writing: Answers to questions about documentary; homework to finish
writing paragraphs for Paramecium project- to be turned in on Monday
Mon Annou Whole Small C.E.R. Writing Whole class discussion
10/28/19 nceme class group introduce CER
nts discussi discussion d
9th and on
last day of Concepts referenced: comparing and contrasting interspecific and intraspecific
project competition
Modeling: application of previous mathematical representations discussed to
scientific ecological concepts; discussion within group of question relying on
argumentation
Formal Writing: CER essay “Does interspecific and intraspecific competition
affect the populations of P. aurelia and P. caudatum more than intraspecific
competition alone?” (with 2 highly specific pieces of evidence)

41
Observations of Interactions in Advanced Biology

I observed classroom interactions from early September 2019 through the end of January

2020 using an ethnographic perspective. Blommaert and Jie (2010) describe the process of

making sense of what at first appears to be chaos, but as the researcher becomes more familiar

with the context it becomes a set of processes, practices, and events. Additionally, ethnography

aims to understand the cultural processes within a given context (Heath & Street, 2008).

Data were collected two to three times a week in the form of field notes, photographs,

audio and video recordings in an effort to record, analyze and understand the valued social

processes and literacy practice in which teacher and students engaged. I adjusted my data

collection when the teacher was out for professional development, field trips with an honors

club, and altered schedules (pep rally, severe weather, etc.).

Full class lessons were videotaped with three cameras with two placed with small groups

and one capturing the wider classroom. In addition, three audio recorders were used to capture

three small group discussions occurring between classmates as they were learning biology in

addition to the whole class, teacher-led discussions. I was invited by Ms. Fitzgerald to join her

and the biology teachers for lunch in her classroom. Although the interactions were not recorded

for the study, they added to my understanding of how the school institutionally operated, and Ms.

Fitzgerald’s relationship with the teachers in the department she led.

I took field notes during the activities and discussions occurring in the observed class,

which was also recorded on video and audio equipment (Emerson et al., 2011). The field notes

were written in a notebook or typed onto a tablet throughout the class and immediately following

data collection to capture discussions with the teacher during the lunch period. Written fieldnotes

occasionally included a hand drawn map of the placement of recording devices. Field notes

consisted of a rough timeline of events taking place in the classroom, with methodological notes
42
about when a camera was moved, if a recording needed to be edited to remove a non-

participating student who was momentarily captured, and occasionally follow up questions for

the teacher, or a note about pictures taken of student work or the environment. Table 3.2 is an

example of a typical day’s typed field notes.

Table 3.2 Field Notes from Friday, October 25th, 2019

Timeline and Class activity Methodological notes

9:55-10:05 Students took prefix quiz I took picture of white board
with reminders, zoomed in on
camera on the board, then set
up audio recorder on table 6
10:07 Ms. F having students look up data on day 4 of P.
aurelia and P. caudatum; alone and together, students
talking to each other, several finishing graph from previous
day and writing about what they notice
10:11 P. aurelia alone then versus P. cuadatum comparing
peak alone versus peak when together, student teacher
share, students sharing
10:17 teacher ask about cannibalism, waste, food
10:20 Teacher asking students about Paramecium found in
Wisconsin, to separate is expensive, would you recommend
final recommendation for what should go in a protozoan
bomb, impregnates, the dirt, 4 farms utilizing it on fields in
state of Ohio, would you separate them at a high cost and
why? Encouraged to talk with tablemates
10:21 Students watching documentary on wolves, bear, etc. 10:27am took picture from
Yellowstone, students answering questions on worksheet phone of worksheets
10:32am Teacher stopped documentary and ask students Zoomed in on whiteboard while
about food chains Teacher drawing food web and
later prey graphs

These field notes were later integrated into the same document as the detailed video logs,

which made it easier to find conversations or teacher instruction when identifying intercontextual

connections. Below is Table 3.3 of the same lesson’s video log. The video logs were used during

the phases of data analysis explained later in this chapter.

43
Table 3.3 Video Log of Friday October 25th

October 25th
ZOOM with David, Susan, Jennifer & Victor at table 6
Bell ringer: Prepare for Prefix Quiz C 35-52
Remember that the take home quiz and Paramecium project are due Monday!
Schedule: prefix quiz (10 min)
Movie with guided notes worksheet (40 minutes)- Wolves in Yellowstone Park (previous link
for it https://youtu.be/5UvkPQuOgLM, has since been removed by YouTube for violating
policy)
MVI_0057 What is happening
Timing
0-1:32 Researcher explains to David about why recording small group conversations
instead of just the teacher
1:32-6min ST passes out quiz and shares with class meme about isopod for Halloween
6-13 min ST and T-CF collect quizzes, then T-CF has students pull their notebooks out
13-16:50 T-CF instructs student to pay close attention to Day 4, then stickers for table
leaders, T-CF and ST collect them, T-CF continues Day 4- P. aurelia with P.
caudatum and P. aurelia alone- compare that number, T-CF explains to ST how
the sticker points get calculated in the grade, T-CF continues
16:55-17:10 T-CF “I want you to talk to your neighbors, what do you notice about Day 4 P.
aurelia with P. caudatum and alone?”
17:10-18:29 Students start talking to table
18:29-21:27 Teacher calls on students about day 4, then moves on to day 5 (around 20 min),
something about P. caudatum to die out, P. aurelia starts exponential growth,
talk at table why?
21:27-24:30 Students talking amongst group
24:30- Teacher gets their attention again, concludes discussion and gives them
29:30 something else to think about beyond this experiment
29:30-ent Transition to gray wolves in Yellowstone park; Next two clips on wolves in
(33:27) Yellowstone park and pausing to discuss

44
Collection of Texts and Artifacts

Class lessons consisted of approximately 50-minute recordings. Below is Table 3.3 with

the data log of the data collected during the multi-day lab demonstration project between October

16th and November 7th. Included in the table are the number of video and audio files, the lengths

of video and audio recording of the whole class or small group, the number of photos collected

that day, and whether or not the written work of students was collected, and field notes were

taken during the lesson.

Table 3.4 Data Log of the Multi-day Lab Demonstration Project

Throughout the data collection process, I took photographs of assigned class work during

the unit, student progress on the work during and after class, and completed classroom

whiteboards/presentations. Twice during the data collection period, I was given the opportunity

to create digital pdf files of student completed work during class unit/project. One collection of

pdf files included documents from the multi-day lab demonstration project and the other was a

packet of written worksheets assigned to support students during a computer simulation of

Darwin’s finches.

45
 In Table 3.5, I have included the total amount of collected written work from the students

and categorized it by the type and focus of the writing. The assignments are further explained in

Figure 3.1.

Table 3.5 Writing Collected from Students (n=23) during Instructional Unit

Type of Writing Focus of Amount Collected

Writing
Story of Graph Informal; 60 (not all students completed the story of the
(3 assigned) narrative/ third graph- interspecific competition)
descriptive
Comparison Paragraphs Informal; 69
(3 assigned) comparative
CER Essay (Claims, Formal; 23
Evidence, and argumentative
Reasoning) (1 assigned)

Figure 3.1 maps the sequence of writing tasks across the unit and how the teacher divided

the work into stages. It was created from field notes, video log, interviews with the teacher, and

after digitally copying student participants’ work. This figure includes a list of all the written

work that the students were instructed and expected to include in their packet to be turned into

the teacher. Dates were added along the side to keep track of what topics were taught each day.

While data were not collected on October 15th, 21st and 22nd due to my teaching schedule, Ms.

Fitzgerald shared with me what was taught on those days. October 23rd is repeated because

students finished the conversation on one topic and made predictions about the next at the end of

class.

46
Figure 3.1 Map of Ms. Fitzgerald’s Writing Assignments across the Instructional Unit

Data chart (# of Paramecium 16 days) given to students with pictures of Paramecium in Petri dishes on slide show
P. aurelia Graph created with small group table then whiteboard comparison with classmates, then as a class
intraspecific WIS (what I see) WIM (what it means) done individually, small group, and whole class
competition Story of the graph (paragraph including WIS and WIM)*
(Oct 15, 16, &
17)

Data chart (# of Paramecium 16 days) given to students with pictures of Paramecium in Petri dishes on slide show
Graph created with small group table then whiteboard comparison with classmates, then as a class
P.caudatum WIS (what I see) WIM (what it means) done individually, small group, and whole class
intraspecific
competition Story of the graph (paragraph including WIS and WIM)
(Oct. 21, 22, & Comparison paragraph of P. aurelia's exponential growth to P. caudatum's logistic growth*
23)
47

Data chart (# of Paramecium 16 days) given to students with pictures of Paramecium in Petri dishes on slide show
Graph created with small group table then whiteboard comparison with classmates, then as a class
P. aurelia & P. WIS (what I see) WIM (what it means) done individually, small group, and whole class
caudatum
intraspecific and Story of the graph (paragraph including WIS and WIM)
interspecific Comparison paragraph of P. aurelia alone versus with P. caudatum*
competition Comparison paragraph of P. caudatum alone versus with P. aurelia
(Oct 23, 24 & 25)

Timed writing in class, answering question: "Does interspecific and intraspecific competition affect the populations of P.
aurelia and P. caudatum than intraspecific alone?*
Timed Claim
Evidence
Reasoning Essay
(Oct 28)

47
 Additionally, two participating students provided a twenty-two minute tour of the school.

An audio recording and photographs of flyers that were posted around the school were collected.

This provided information about the culture of the school.

Interviews with Teacher and Focal Students

Initial interviews with the teacher were completed twice in September 2019 to discuss her

background and her teaching methods. Follow-up interviews about the ecology project occurred

on October 24th and the final interview took place on November 6th while the teacher graded

student responses. Each interview with Ms. Fitzgerald was about 1 hour in length as was the

interview of the student teacher, Ms. Matthews, regarding her background. Finally, four brief

text-based interviews (Wynhoff Olsen, et al., 2018) were conducted with the four case study

students about their timed CER essays. The student text-based interview protocol can be found in

Appendix A. The interviews for the students ranged from 7 minutes to 18 minutes.

Methods of Data Analysis

To answer my research questions, I employed a microethnographic perspective (Bloome

et al., 2005) requiring close examination of the instructional conversations during key literacy

events within a classroom (Mitchell, 1984). The ethnographic part of this perspective included

the tracing of intercontextuality among the community, larger institutions, and the classroom

while also balancing the emic perspectives of the students and teachers within the space and the

etic perspective of the researcher. The classroom was shaped by the larger institutional factors

such as school determined behavioral expectations and consequences, state determined

curriculum standards, national standardized tests to examine academic achievement of students,

instruction of teachers, and overall success of the school. The neighborhood home prices are in

part determined by test scores of a local school, etc. The “micro” part of this perspective closely

48
analyzes small conversations within literacy events. Bloome and co-authors (2005) explained

how the conversations within the classroom are part of the cultural literacy practice of “doing

school” which can be seen in the participation structures and substance of conversation such as

initiation, response, and evaluation (IRE).

This microethnographic perspective was particularly useful in my efforts to closely

examine key events that include discussions about scientific evidence and warranting within the

small groups and whole class, and how the teacher facilitated and guided the discussions that

included examining data and applying conceptual ideas and terminology to understand data. To

answer my first research question, the microethnographic perspective identified important

literacy events during the instructional unit and in examining the participation structure and

substance of those conversations taking place as well as in extending their influence on the

written work of students shortly after the conversations occurred. To answer the second question

regarding students’ uptake of the argumentative practices, I relied on intercontextuality and

intertextuality (Bloome et al., 2005) to analyze the written notes and the argumentative writing

that the students did during the unit to consider how writing moves are shaped by the classroom

literacy events. In general, the study focuses on how the application of academic literacies and

social construction lenses with a microethnographic perspective affords the examination of

dialogic conversations occurring within the classroom. These perspectives honor the agency and

identities of students. This framework was also used to reveal the multiple facets involved during

the examination of literacy events within an inclusive disciplinary classroom.

Phase One: Data Organization

During data collection all data from recording devices was initially uploaded on an

encrypted external hard drive using a password protected personal computer within a locked

49
office. The data was then backed up on an encrypted server disconnected from an online network

within a locked location on the campus of a large public university. Access to the server was

limited to the computers within the locked campus office.

During data organization, pseudonyms were assigned with the corresponding first letter

which aligned with the heritage of the students’ names or the ethnicity of the student. When

examining the data, two table groups, of the four recorded, became the focus of the study based

on the high quality (audio and content) of the recordings obtained throughout the unit. These two

groups were set apart from the other groups observed due to the way in which the students

interacted with one another, collectively understanding the material as opposed to one or two

students dominating the conversations. During data analysis, a representative table group of four

students was selected based on the completeness of the data. One of the students in this group of

four was one of the previous focal students, Kelsey. All their written work and small group

conversations during the time of the multi-day lab demonstration project was isolated for

analysis.

Phase Two: Identifying Possible Key Literacy Events

As the video logs were compiled, I noted possible key events (Mitchell, 1984) in the

video log and I identified and highlighted them for consideration. In selecting these key events I

looked for moments when small group or whole class conversations was focused the CER, other

writing assignments and on conversations that summarized, analyzed or considered important

concepts that the teacher presented as central to the unit. I also highlighted moments when the

teacher worked with small group and whole class discussions using questioning techniques, and

moments of direct instruction of mathematical concepts, ecological concepts, or writing about

data in science. The application InqScribe (Inquirium, 2005) was used to transcribe 15 events in

50
the multi-day lab demonstration project on October 16th, October 23rd, October 25th, and October

28th. While no transcript is perfect, I listened and relistened to recordings and preserved the

words which were repeated and eliminated “ums” and “uhs” unless meaningful (such as used to

elicit further explanation from students). Erickson (2008) stated “even our most careful

transcriptions of speech are selective and incomplete, and they are profoundly shaped by the

theoretical assumptions we bring to our attempts to look, listen, and transcribe (see especially

Ochs 1979 on the theory-laden nature of transcription” (p. 195-196). While transcribing I

focused on preserving the meaning making utterances by both the students and the teachers- I

attempted to precisely capture how the participants were socially constructing knowledge in the

classroom of what it meant to construct evidence and use it to interpret scientific phenomena.

Listening carefully to the conversations while transcribing resulted in increased familiarity with

the whole class and small group conversations as well as teacher directions, questioning, and

revoicing. It became clear to that a better way of organizing and understanding the connections

between the events was necessary to understand how concepts and practices unfolded and

developed over time.

I then adapted the methods from VanDerHeide and Newell, (2013); I constructed

instructional chains by linking specific events from the instructional unit during which the

teacher and students engaged in discussions of particular concepts and practices such as slopes

and inequalities, limiting factors and competition, types of growth (exponential, linear, and

logistic), and writing about data. The classroom events in each chain included whole class

discussions (WCD), small group discussions (SGD) at the representative group, the teacher’s

direct instruction, and her use of carefully planned questioning during the building of the

consensus model for each graph of the Paramecium. All whole class discussions were facilitated

51
by Ms. Fitzgerald unless marked with “Ms. M” representing the student teacher- Ms. Matthews.

I later revisited the instructional chains to examine the intercontextual connections in students

writing and during discourse analysis. Figures 3.2-5 depict the four instructional chains with the

four representative key events in this dissertation underlined. For each instructional chain, the

events are listed under the date with a brief description of the topics discussed. The figures below

are to provide clarity about how the analysis was conducted and share how concepts and

practices developed throughout the instructional unit.

52
 Figure 3.2 Instructional chain: Slopes & inequalities

Oct. 16 Oct 17 Oct. 23 Oct. 24

• 14-18min WCD slopes, • 0-5min WCD • 13-20min SGD slopes • 14-17min WCD slopes
inequalities, birth rate, identification of slopes & what to write about & inequalities of
& death rate for linear & exponential story of P. caudatum interspecific graph
• 12-16min WCD • 20-25min WCD slope WCD= whole group discussion
53

inequalities of line calculations used for SGD= small group discussion

graph small changes in Ms. M= Ms. Matthews
population & how it Ms. F= Ms. Fitzgerald
connects to big picture CER= claims, evidence, & reasoning
Figure 3.3 Instructional chain: Types of growth- linear, exponential, & logistic Underlined= key event

Oct. 16 Oct 17 Oct. 23 Oct. 25

• 18-21min SGD • 0-5min WCD • 27-32 WCD S-curve • 13-24min SGD

growth of P. aurelia identification of slopes & logistic growth applying types of
with Ms. F for linear & • 46-47min Review growth terms during
• 27-28min SGD with exponential logistic growth comparison of
Ms. F about • 16-18min WCD J- definition intraspecific alone to
exponential growth of curve & exponential interspecific graph
P. aurelia growth

53
 Figure 3.4 Instructional chain: Limiting factors & competition

Oct. 17 Oct. 23 Oct. 24 Oct. 25 Oct. 28

• 5-12min WCD Ms. M • 2-9min homeostasis, • 10-14 min WCD MS. M • 13-24min SGD applying • 13-28min SGD comparing
inequalities, sexual equilibrium, carrying interspecfic competition- types of growth terms intraspecific competition
reproduction, capacity, size & amount of students suggest reasons for during comparison of alone to interspecific and
overpopulation, specific nutrients why P. aurelia are growing intraspecific alone graph to intraspecific competition &
limiting factors- age, • 36-37 SGD with teacher rapidly and P. caudatum interspecific and what to write
disease, resources (space & carrying capacity, longer are dying out intraspecific graph
food), & cannibalism reproduction time due to
WCD= whole group discussion
54

• 12-21min WCD size, size impacting food SGD= small group discussion
inequalities of exponential and waste Ms. M= Ms. Matthews
line graph, J-curve, • 41-45min SGD making Ms. F= Ms. Fitzgerald
carrying capacity, limiting predictions of interspecific
factor(the term), & competition outcome for CER= claims, evidence, & reasoning
intraspecific competition both species Underlined= key event
Figure 3.5 Instructional chain: Writing about data in science

Oct 16 Oct. 17 Oct 23 Oct 24 Oct. 28

• 8-14minWCD WIS & WIM • 16-21min WCD writing the • 5-9min WGD story of P. • 17-22min WCD Ms. M • 13-28min SGD comparing
interpretation story of P. aurelia- what is caudatum assigned captuion paragraph of intraspecific competition
happening in the graph? • 13-20min SGD slopes & what interspecific and intraspecific alone to interspecific and
to write for story of P. competition graph assigned intraspecific competition &
caudatum • 27-30min WCD Ms. M list all what to write
• 20-25min WCD slope the paragraphs in the multi- • 28-33min WCD CER essay:
calculations used for small day lab demonstration project reviewing acronym and
changes in population & how expectations, review key
it connects to big picture terms, & number graphs
• 37-39min WCD assigning
titles to writing assignments
and comparison paragraph

54
Phase Three: Analyzing Student Writing

To answer the second research question-- How do students take up these epistemic

practices in their argumentative writing as these practices are made visible through

argumentative moves? I applied an ethnographic lens to the written work. Of particular interest

to me was how and when students’ writing was assigned and then interactionally supported

during instructional conversations (Blommaert & Jie, 2010). A multi-phased and multi-layered

analysis was then conducted using procedures based on previous intertextual analysis

scholarship, backward mapping processes (Green & Wallat,1981; Prior, 1998; Wynhoff Olsen, et

al., 2018), and move and submove analysis (VanDerHeide, 2017).

The multi-layered analysis first required the use of the constructed data set of transcribed

classroom interactions, curricular materials, and student writing from within the instructional

unit described above and in more detail in Chapter 4. When I transcribed the written from digital

copies (pdf) of the handwritten student work, I preserved spelling errors and underlining, I also

took the liberty of italicizing the names of species. Second, the map of key events (Table 3.4)

was re-examined and the instructional chains used (Figures 3.1-4) to provide context for the

informal and formal writing assignments. Third, the case study students’ writing was analyzed

for connections to literacy events and conversations (intercontextuality), and graphs and previous

writing (intertextuality) (Bloome et al. 2005; Wynhoff Olsen et al. 2018). Initially a close

examination of the informal and formal written work from this table group took place for all four

students individually and then their paragraph responses were compared to one another. When

selecting case study students for more detailed study, I included just two students in the group of

average ability according to the teacher. A chart was created to compare each of their sentences

55
to one another line by line to identify patterns and sentences that were similar to one another

were highlighted (see Appendix F and Appendix H). Their intertextual connections throughout

the project were coded using Wynhoff and colleagues (2018) scheme.

Fourth, the argumentative writing moves the students made in their paragraphs were

examined (Toulmin, 1958; Newell & VanDerHeide, 2015; VanDerHeide, 2017). To determine

the writing moves that all four students employed in the paragraphs, I conducted a moves

analysis analyzing the argumentative essays from across the unit for the writing moves they

made in their scientific arguments. To determine the unit of analysis, a moves analysis begins

with an analysis of the written texts for the possible moves the writers make in the genre. My

parsing and naming of the moves was primarily influenced by the interviews with the teacher

and focal students about what they understood the writing task to be; I also relied on my field

notes to consider how the classroom context may have shaped the writing. The first level of

moves, or functions, was a parsing of the essays into the argumentative function of the different

chunks of text. I chose to foreground the argumentative function as the genre, as named by the

teacher and the students as a scientific argument.

Because these CER essays were scientific arguments, analyzing for the

argumentative moves did not account for the disciplinary- based action the students made in their

writing. To account for the science aspects of the arguments, I conducted a secondary analysis of

the ways the students made argumentative moves. I use the term “submoves” because the

science- specific submoves constitute the argumentative moves. As in the first step of the moves

analysis, I aimed to parse and name the submoves that the students made in the CER essays.

Accordingly, I coded the writing for epistemic levels of evidence construction created by Manz

(2015), Manz and Renga (2017), and Kelly and Takao (2002). The epistemic levels with

56
examples can be found in Appendix B. Appendix C has argumentative moves in writing and

talk, and an example of how I analyzed the CER essays can be found in Appendix E.

To examine the epistemic levels of evidence construction in the students' written work

throughout the project a color-coded map was created which included subcodes within the

epistemic levels (see Appendix O and Appendix P). When I initially constructed this map, I tried

to reflect the more simplistic mapping of the progression through the levels in the writing as

similar to Kelly & Takao’s (2002) work with oceanography students. However, this method did

not capture the coding for submoves which helped in understanding the more nuanced ways in

which students wrote about their evidence in their paragraphs. Next, an attempt was made to

code the levels using the boxes like Manz’s (2015) mapping of transcripts with columns for each

level, however, this did not record epistemic levels of the writing next to one another overtime.

Ultimately, the color-coded column scheme was settled on because it allowed tracking the

progression of the levels more clearly and it captured the subcodes of the epistemic levels.

Phase Four: Selected, Transcribed, and Analyzed Events Intercontextually Connected CER
Essays

To answer the first research question regarding how the teacher engaged her students in

epistemic practices, I examined whole class and group conversations through event analyses

described by Bloome and colleagues (2005). Specifically, key events were located for analysis.

Using procedures from VanDerHeide and Newell (2013), instructional conversations were

initially reviewed, then field notes were used to map the instructional unit. The mapping of the

target instructional unit is located on Table 4.1. Then using the analysis of the writing,

intercontextual connections were made between the content of each case study participant’ CER

report and key events in the instructional unit in order to explore and examine the relationships

between instructional episodes and student writing. Since 15 of the events on October 16th,

57
October 23rd, October 25th, and October 28th were previously transcribed, it was only necessary

to add an event from October 17th for discourse analysis a total of: 6 events on October 16, 1

event October 17, 3 events October 23rd, 2 events October 25th, and 4 events October 28th (16

events, each 2-7 minutes long). These lessons occurred at significant points in the multi-day lab

demonstration project on interspecific and intraspecific competition. The times selected had clear

or multiple audio and visual recordings of the classroom activities and interactions between the

teacher and her students.

Each event was coded using the Cam-UNAM SEDA Condensed Version © discussed in

Chapter 2, it is presented in Table 3.3. Unfortunately, the scheme did not capture the actions of

the teacher and student teacher when they revoiced (O’Connor and Michaels, 1993) the answers

provided by students during discussion. A code for revoicing was added to the analysis, which is

G7 (under the category “guide direction of dialogue or activity”). O’Connor and Michaels

(1993) argue that revoicing occurs when the teacher re-words or repeats students’ answers for the

purpose of validating student responses, considering statements for critical examination and

evaluation. Their assumption is that revolving serves as a scaffold for student thinking and for

consideration of responses given by peers. The initial plan was to examine the conversational

functions and location of knowledge (Green and Wallat, 1981; Bloome, 1989). However, the

Cam-UNAM SEDA Condensed Version © (Table 3.3 below) included conversation functions

and from the questioning and revoicing it became apparent when the location of knowledge

shifted from to the students.

Additionally, each event has been examined for the epistemic levels of evidence

construction (Kelly & Takao, 2002; Manz, 2015; Manz and Renga, 2017) to capture the claims

and development of evidence during the discussion of the class. This provided a more detailed

58
analysis of how students progressed in their understanding of the way evidence is abstracted and

developed as well as what levels the teachers’ questions are targeting. The epistemic levels did

not provide a way to label warranting, but the Cam-UNAM SEDA Condensed Version ©

includes categories which captured more nuanced discussion moves, including warranting,

“make reasoning explicit,” “invite elaboration or reasoning,” and “build on ideas.” See Appendix

D for the coding scheme with examples from conversations. In summary, I selected four key

events during the instructional unit to represent the patterns throughout the multi-day lab

demonstration project that seemed to shape the students’ writing. Also, a close analysis of

transcribed discourse from selected key events was used to demonstrate how the epistemic levels

of evidence construction revealed significant moves by Ms. Fitzgerald, Ms. Matthews, and their

students as they transformed observed evidence into ways of making an argument in CER

essays. Simultaneously examined were the ways in which Ms. Fitzgerald and Ms. Matthews

engaged the students in these discussions.

While I was analyzing the students’ written work, I decided that it was necessary to

understand how the students were making the intertextual and intercontextual connections

(Bloome et al., 2005). That is, to understand how the instructional conversations may have

shaped what and how students wrote, it made good sense to trace what they were writing back to

events and other texts. As a classroom observer, I had noted several occasions in which students

relied on classroom conversation or activity to develop their written ideas and the teacher alos

assumed that classroom conversation should support student writing. Wynhoff Olsen and

colleagues (2018) created a way to code the connections and examine the ways in which the

students were making them. Their analytic codes for categorizing intertextual traces include

59
thematic, structural, and lexical, and their codes for the ways students can make those moves

include repeating, reordering, responding, and extending (p. 66).

Empirical and Theoretical Validity

Heath and Street (2008) described empirical validity as asking “us to ensure that we can

answer the questions of whether or not the data ‘add up’ and whether they back up the claims

made” (p.45) and theoretical validity as calling “on us to feel confident that the account resulting

from our work can stand up to critiques of the theories we have deployed or of those we posit (cf.

Eisenhart & Howe, 1992)”(p. 45). In this chapter I have made every effort to explain the

methodological decisions made during the dissertation and reasoning for making them.

This recursive analysis (between instructional conversations to writing samples) helped

examine the argumentation practices in the whole class and small group discussions. This frame

was used to closely analyze how Ms. Fitzgerald, a highly regarded urban teacher, engaged

students in participating in knowledge creation using modeling and argumentation. Additionally,

it allowed for an examination of how her questioning and revoicing practices supported students

in their participation in “doing” science within their classroom community (Lave & Wenger,

1991).

Conclusion

This chapter discussed the methods of data collection and analysis which were used to

answer the research questions of this dissertation. Chapters 4 and 5 provide the findings which

answer the first research question and Chapter 6 provides the findings to answer the second

research question.

60
 Chapter 4: Ethnographic Perspective on the Project

This chapter includes an ethnographic perspective on the multi-day lab demonstration

project. It begins introducing the first research question addressed, then a more detailed context

of the study, thorough description of the participants, and a chronological account of important

learning events during the project. Then the chapter concludes with a discussion about the

characteristics of the classroom culture which support argumentation.

To address the first research question regarding how the teacher engaged her students in

epistemic practices, including written scientific argumentation, this chapter provides a broad

ethnographic perspective of the context of the multi-day lab demonstration project as well as a

discussion of how the culture within the classroom supported argumentation and argumentative

writing. Described in detail is how, during an instructional unit, Ms. Fitzgerald, Ms. Matthews,

and the students developed claims, evidence and reasoning in response to the prompt, “Does the

interspecific and intraspecific affect the populations of P. aurelia and P.caudatum more than

intraspecific alone?” In the prompt, Ms. Fitzgerald uses the abbreviation “P.” to mean

Paramecium; this instructional unit included two different species of Paramecium. Of particular

interest to my project is the process of evidence construction that occurred across time beginning

with demonstration lessons, moving to data representation via graphing (representing growth),

and interpreting the meaning of the graph culminating in the composing of a scientific argument

that the teacher referred to as a claim, evidence, reasoning (CER) essay. Literacy events in this

instructional unit were considered as they showed the range of epistemic practices in which the

students engaged with particular attention to how they transformed data from provided images,

to graphing growth data as observed in the photos, to discussing of factors affecting growth, and

writing both informally about their observations and then more formally to make an argument.

61
 Chapter 5 includes a more detailed analysis of key events within the instructional

classroom conversations that unfolded during the unit. My general argument is that these events

supported students’ engagement in epistemic practices such as observing, discussing, and writing

about evidence. Close analysis of transcribed discourse from selected key events was used to

demonstrate how the epistemic levels revealed significant moves by the teacher, student teacher

and their students as they transformed observed data into ways of making an argument with the

data. They were then analyzed for how and when these types of events offered support and a

range of resources for case study students’ efforts to write a scientific argument.

Context of the Study

Fredericksburg High School was an urban high school with approximately 1300 students

grades 9-12 in 2019. It has been considered one of the most diverse and largest high school

populations in the midwestern state, the student body is composed of 51% white students, 27%

Black students 15% Hispanic, 5% identifying as two or more races, and 2 % Asian.

Socioeconomically, 62% of the students attending Fredericksburg High School were eligible for

free lunch and 4% were eligible for reduced lunch. The population of students has grown by

about 11% every year and the diversity of the student body has gradually increased every year

over the last 20 years according to school demographic data found online, and corroborated in

discussions with the principal, and Ms. Fitzgerald. Although the student to teacher ratio has

increased from 16 to 1 to 18 to 1 in 2018, the graduation rate has remained equivalent to the

state’s average graduation rate at 81%. However, the math and language arts scores for the

school on the state-wide assessments were significantly lower than the school district’s three

other high schools and the state-wide achievement scores. The biology and social studies scores

were closer to the school district and state-wide achievement scores. About 20% of the teachers

62
in the school were in their first or second year of teaching and the school had four guidance

counselors. Additionally, several websites pointed out the school has twice the state average for

number of suspended students and chronic absenteeism as well as having a slightly higher

percentage of students with disabilities.

Fredericksburg High School serves an urban working-class area of a midwestern city.

Ms. Fitzgerald noticed that during her tenure of 17 years Latinx neighborhood zoned for the

school has slowly been developed. Additionally, she stated that she believes that several of the

families of her students have had more job opportunities because of the development of local

business. She believes that this has brought several of her students and their families out of

poverty. Sophomore students in her classroom provided a tour of the building which had two

different cabinets for trophies- sports trophies in the front of the school as well as plaques with

pictures of famous alumni (sports anchors, one writer, and a couple athletes) and plaques from

JROTC competitions, and a second cabinet of band trophies in the arts hallway near the entrance

to the theater. The students commented that in the previous year the school district changed the

school zone, and several students were rezoned for their senior year to a suburban and more

affluent high school in the district. Historically, the neighborhood zoned for the school was

initially a farming community in the early 19th century and most of it was joined with the

midwestern city in the 1960s and 1970s, including a large park in the heart of the neighborhood.

The school building was recently renovated in 2015.

Socially, Ms. Fitzgerald describes the school as being a very supportive environment, and

that the students “tend to stick up for the underdog…a bullying incident happened, and it was

amazing how fast kids turned on…the popular challenger.” She said that she has many students

who take their first position in the labor force at a young age. To ensure that her students can

63
take an Advanced Placement Biology class, she accepts sophomores to “catch them before jobs.”

During one of our many informal conversations, Ms. Fitzgerald pointed out that she has noticed

a significant amount of turnover in the school’s teaching staff.

Participants

The participating teacher, Claire Fitzgerald, had been teaching at Fredericksburg High

School for 17 years at the time of the study. Prior to teaching at this high school, she taught

middle school science at a local Christian school, ran a preschool, and worked in a genetics

laboratory. She gave a lot of credit to her high school science teacher who later went on to write

biology textbooks for undergraduate and upper high school students taking collegiate level

biology. She earned two master’s degrees, one in education and one in counseling. Additionally,

she completed two years of coursework in a doctoral degree program in English as a second

language. At the time of the study, she was interested in obtaining a master’s degree in biology

designed for teachers and has struggled to find a program with class times and online work that

will accommodate a working teacher.

Ten years ago, she was introduced to modeling when she was teaching physics and it has

transformed her teaching. She participated in research studying the use of modeling in biology

classrooms and helped them create modeling biology curriculum. She was a national trainer in

American Modeling Teachers Association (www.modelinginstruction.org) and led workshops in

it nationwide during the summer. As a national trainer in modeling and a veteran of the

classroom for almost two decades, Ms. Fitzgerald attended to students’ interactions around

developing scientific concepts, countering their misconceptions, as well as taking time to address

their individual concerns (physical, emotional, etc.). During the observed classes, Ms. Fitzgerald

64
used questioning, whiteboarding, small group discussions, and whole group discussion to support

her students’ understanding of biology.

Recall that in a previous section that I commented that Ms. Fitzgerald intentionally

created an accelerated 9th grade biology class to provide more students the opportunity to

participate in honors level science instruction. Overtime, she has had many former students,

often the first from their families to attend 4-year universities, return and credit her teaching as

the reason they made it to and through their science major in college. She continually challenged

her diverse students to do science within her classroom and figure out the scientific concepts

with her support for them to feel ownership as well as a shift in identity as “science students”.

At the time of the study Ms. Fitzgerald was the head of the high school’s science

department. She provided professional development experiences in the use of modeling in

science instruction to her colleagues, and she continuously served as supervising teacher to

student teachers from a large public research university. She participated in district wide

curriculum committees and voiced her professional opinion about textbooks for the school

district to adopt. Ms. Fitzgerald has worn multiple hats in her position as she taught her students

the ways of knowing, doing, and participating in science and instructed other teachers to support

the students the way she does. Her case made visible the intense amount of work and dedication

required of teachers in urban schools to provide students with an education that is equitable and

just. Ms. Fitzgerald’s continued dedication to her community and students in ways that challenge

the status quo deserve to be recognized and duplicated.

During the study, the student teacher, Ms. Matthews, taught a few lessons and assisted

Ms. Fitzgerald with grading, keeping track of student participation and following procedures of

the class, and addressing student questions in small groups. Ms. Matthews was an undergraduate

65
student at a local large public midwestern university. She consented to being part of the study

and was interviewed for 30 minutes about her background and the courses she was teaching.

Ms. Fitzgerald’s students were part of an accelerated 9th and 10th grade biology class. At

the time of the data collection, this was her largest class with 23 participating students–10

identify as male and 13 identify as female. Students were given the opportunity to self-identify

their ethnic identities or not: 5 students identified as Mexican/Latinx/Hispanic, 3 African

American, 1 Indian, 3 Asian, 10 white/Caucasian, and 1 chose to write “American.” Ms.

Fitzgerald and her student teacher both identified as white/Caucasian. There were additionally 3

students from Ms. Fitzgerald’s Advanced Placement Biology class who “hung out” in the room

during their study hall and on occasion did small errands for her. Ms. Fitzgerald also noted that

more than 75% of the class participated in band which contributed to how well the students know

each other as well as their hesitancy to say something that will not be perceived as cool or

acceptable to their peers.

Observations of the Multi-Day Lab Demonstration Project

The previous chapter includes Table 3.1 which has an episodic map of lab demonstration

project on intraspecific and interspecific competition. It describes the order of events within each

observed class period, the concepts taught, the role modeling instruction played during the unit,

and the kinds of writing the students engaged in. I played close attention during the instructional

unit that was the focus of my study to students’ engagement in mal descriptive and comparative

writing to more formal argumentative timed CER essay.

Students constructed what Ms. Fitzgerald described as stories of the graph, this and the

comparative writing served as the work of learning to argue using the data in the graph. Ms.

Fitzgerald gave students time in class to discuss with peers the data and to begin writing. Several

66
students wrote drafts or jotted down their ideas on the back of a graph to gather their thoughts

and practice writing about the data. The culminating writing assignment, the CER essay,

required the students to argue to learn by comparing intraspecific and interspecific competition.

Students were instructed to use their previous written work and graphs to assist in addressing the

prompt: “Does the interspecific and intraspecific affect the populations of P. aurelia and

P.caudatum more than intraspecific alone?” They were given the prompt in advance to discuss

with their table group, to pull ideas from their previous written work, and to create a list or

outline to use while writing. Ms. Fitzgerald used the process of writing- drafting, revising, and

sharing writing to contribute to what she meant by “doing science.” In her class, the writing

process was an epistemic practice of doing science.

At each stage students began by observing the growth in Petri dishes through pictures on

the LED projector. Students then worked as a small group to graph the population(s) of

Paramecia on their whiteboards and together they interpreted the line graph using inequalities,

slopes, and describing small sections of the graph using “what I see” (WIS) and “what it means”

(WIM). Individually they wrote a paragraph describing their interpretation of the “story of the

graph”. In the second and third round of this process students wrote comparison paragraphs

comparing the graphs and growth of the Paramecia to each other. At the end of the multi-day lab

demonstration project students talked with their peers about the prompt and Ms. Fitzgerald

reviewed the structure of the CER essay. They then were given ten minutes to write a formal

argumentative, CER essay.

In the paragraphs describing the story of the graph and the comparison paragraphs,

students practiced arguing to learn. They interpreted the meaning of the graphs and explained the

differences between them and other line graphs they were interpreting. This informal writing

67
was more explanatory while at the same time providing students an opportunity to argue for their

interpretations using calculations of slopes, inequalities of birth rate and death rate, and applying

concepts and vocabulary they discuss about ecology. The more formal timed CER essay, or more

formal argumentative essay, is practice in learning to argue. Students are required to make a

claim in order to address the prompt and required to support it with evidence and reasoning.

A narrative of the unfolding unit is included in the next section. I relied on field notes,

detailed video logs, interviews with the teacher, pictures of student work, screenshots of the

video of the lesson, and transcripts. Using an ethnographic perspective, it was written

chronologically and focused on how the students were taught to interpret the graphs, write about

them, understand key concepts, and it ends with the description of the discussion just prior to the

timed writing. Although I mention key events in my ethnographic narrative of the unit, they are

presented and analyzed in Chapter 5 only.

“What I See” and “What it Means”: October 16

October 16th was the second lesson of the multi-day lab demonstration project. Students

began working as a small group on their graphs on whiteboards using the data chart created the

previous day. Students adjusted their numerical labeling of the y-axis and x-axis to account for

the data, they added labels of each as well as a title, and they drew a line connecting the data

points on the graph. Some groups had already plotted the points and drew the line but still

needed to add the labels.

In this session the teacher began class with a discussion of the need to label “what I see”

(WIS) and “what it means” (WIM) as a way of interpreting what is occurring at a certain point

along the line graph. She initially asked students for points and areas of the graph for class

discussion. Students verbally described or physically pointed to certain areas and points on the

68
graph. Ms. Fitzgerald continued to circle points on the graph that the students suggested. She

asked the students what was happening between the first and second points on the graph and

broke down the first WIS and WIM before asking the students about its importance for the

population of P. aurelia.

She then assigned the class to write a paragraph combining their WIS and WIM points as

a way of explaining what is occurring in the graph. She encouraged the students to work as a

team to come up with what they would put as WIS and WIM for the other segments/data points

on the graph. As a small group, the students worked on both the WIS and WIM of the graphs

while Ms. Fitzgerald walked around to listen to the discussion at each table. She used

questioning to help the small groups identify the growth of the Paramecium as exponential

growth. A few minutes later she checked in on the group and confirmed that they came up with

the word exponential. After that she asked them a follow up question, “What is the slope really

representing for this population? What is the slope really representing?” and then walks away.

Ms. Fitzgerald ended the small group discussions and informed the students that they

were going to observe the whiteboards of the other groups. Students left their whiteboards on the

table and stood up on the edges of a classroom in a circle around the tables. They then moved

from one table to the next, spending about 2 minutes at each white board to view the graphs that

their peers created. During this time, the video and audio recordings were stopped to protect the

students who had not consented to being in the study.

Pictures were taken of the whiteboards of the consented students. The following pages

show two examples of the mathematical representations the students created during their time

with their tablemates. They provide two different groups’ conceptualization of the graphs of P.

69
aurelia prior to the class’s consensus building and the students completing their individual

graphs.

The first whiteboard is from the representative group of students that were the focus of

this dissertation. The representative group included the title of “The population of P. aurelia

alone in a controlled environment throughout 16 days”, the y-axis is “# of P. aurelia” and the x-

axis is “Time(days)”. The steep slope of the line is labeled “exponential growth” with a note

“slope= rate of change in the population.” At four points along the line the group has labeled

their WIS and WIM. The first is right before the rapid growth in the population occurred “WIS-

The line starts to get steep” and “WIM- The population more than doubled.” The second point

along the graph is along the exponential part of the line, they labeled it “WIS: steepest slope,

WIM: The population increased the most”. The third point selected is at the peak labeled “WIS:

highest point, WIM: highest population.” The fourth point labeled “WIS: drop in population,

WIM: some dies (population decrease).” Finally, the group has included their table number in the

bottom right corner. This first whiteboard shows the group’s understanding of the growth of P.

aurelia as a result of their conversation as a group.

70
Example 4.1 Student Small Group Whiteboard of P. aurelia alone (Group 2)

The second whiteboard from table group 5 is shown as a comparison, to demonstrate

what other students also concluded from their creation of the graph depicting the growth of P.

aurelia. This group has the same x and y-axis labels, however their title is “Amount of

paramecium aurelia over time.” This group chose the same first two points, they drew arrows

and stated their WIS and WIM without the labels. The first point stated, “The slope is increasing

slowly- they’re starting to reproduce slowly” and the second point is labeled “The slope is

increasing, the population is growing exponentially”. The third is where the slope is decreasing

from the peak, they stated “The slope is decreasing so is the population. They have reached max

age.” In this WIM the group has provided what they believe is the cause of the decrease. Next,

their final point has an arrow pointing to “The slope is increasing then decreasing”. This sentence

71
does not have a statement explaining what they believe that means, this is before the students

were taught about the concept of carrying capacity.

Example 4.2 Student Small Group Whiteboard of P. aurelia alone (Group 5)

When the students returned to their seats, the teacher explained to the students that she

wanted them to next work as a class to create their conceptual models of the information. She

used a water bottle as an example of how students create a conceptual model based on what they

observe, how they interact with an item, and how they can learn more about the item through

comparison and careful questioning. She told the students that her goal for the end of the year

was for them to have picked up her style of questioning and used it in their discussions with their

peers in future labs and projects in class.

She then instructed the students to get out their own pieces of graph paper to copy down

the line graph from their whiteboards using the points of data they received the day before when

72
they observed the Paramecium on Petri dishes (mentioned in class but prior to data collection,

pictures of a similar event are on October 23rd). She also had the students copy down their

WISes and WIMs from their table group’s whiteboard.

Inequalities, Slope, and Interpretations of the First Graph

Ms. Fitzgerald used Socratic questioning, part of the modeling instruction process, to

help the students determine the need for slopes and inequalities to depict the birth rate and death

rate of the Paramecium. Based on teaching this unit in the past, students often first came up with

inequalities and then made the connection to calculating slope. She asked students to share what

they noticed based on what she observed when she went to each small group discussion. In the

whole class discussion students made the leap to slope and one student even suggests an equation

for the growth that he created. She accepted the discussion of slope and had the student with the

equation hold it until after she gave the class more hints to get to inequalities. This discussion

was broken down into more detail in the following chapter.

At the end of class, she explained that for homework, students are going to finish the

inequalities, WISes and WIMs and begin thinking about the paragraph combining the WISes and

WIMs to discuss what the graph is portraying.

Explicit Explanation of Modeling

In this first lesson Ms. Fitzgerald introduced to the students the practice of building a

conceptual model using modeling instruction. Now, at that point, students were already building

a mathematical representation, a model, of the Paramecium using a line graph. Scientists create

mathematical models to depict scientific phenomena and here Ms. Fitzgerald had her students

engage and participate in it. She was using modeling instruction through small group whiteboard

discussions, whole class consensus building, and questioning to guide the students toward the

information as opposed to explaining it first and giving an assessment. Her written assessment of

73
the culminating essay using claims, evidence, and reasoning, the argumentative essay, was

integrated into her carefully designed multi-day lab demonstration project. The modeling

instruction in this unit provided students opportunities to contribute their ideas about the

information presented to them and demonstrate how they interpreted what it means for the

population of Paramecium. In these opportunities students made claims, suggested evidence, and

sometimes warranted their ideas during discussions.

October 17: Multiple Possible Limiting Factors

The third lesson of the multi-day lab demonstration project. Ms. Fitzgerald and student

teacher, Ms. Matthews, began the class debriefing the difference between linear growth and

exponential growth. They each wrote out numbers and showed the students what it would look

like in a line graph. To review that concept, Ms. Matthews had the students share how it applied

to their graph of P. aurelia with a partner.

After witnessing Ms. Fitzgerald lead the discussion about limiting factors in lessons

earlier that day in other class periods (as shared in an interview), Ms. Matthews was given the

opportunity by Ms. Fitzgerald to lead the consensus building discussion about the structure of the

P. aurelia graph. After reviewing the exponential growth, Ms. Matthews drew student attention

to the decrease in the population of Paramecium from the peak to the carrying capacity of the

species. Ms. Matthews asked several questions to include many students in suggesting possible

reasons for why it occurred including overpopulation, disease, age, decrease in reproduction, and

cannibalism. The latter idea caused the class to laugh and Ms. Fitzgerald to redirect the class by

recognizing it as a good one and sharing how it applies to the babies of praying mantis.

Next the student teacher introduced the concept of carrying capacity and Ms. Fitzgerald

had the students discuss in small groups the inequality between births and deaths. Ms. Matthews

74
then called on the students from the groups to share what they discussed. The teacher explained

the symbol for equivalent births and deaths while Ms. Matthews wrote it on the board.

In the last five minutes of class, Ms. Fitzgerald went over the homework for the next

class, which was to finish calculating the slopes and begin writing the written explanation of

what is happening to P. aurelia. It was at this point she realized that the student teacher forgot to

mention the vocabulary word for an overarching concept taught earlier- limiting factor. She took

the remaining time to teach the students the relevant words and concepts of intraspecific

competition and J-curve. She then reminded the students that the written paragraph/story of the

graph needs to include the vocabulary terminology which they learned that day.

The last five minutes of class in which the teacher taught were largely lecture based due

to the limitation of time. Ms. Fitzgerald’s realization about the missed definition of limiting

factor and other terms showed how Ms. Matthews focused so intently on the students obtaining

ideas that she lost sight of the established terms and concepts that the students needed to gain

from the discussion. It revealed the expectations of terms and concepts for that day’s lesson, as

opposed to seeing it all unfold in a carefully guided discussion by Ms. Fitzgerald. Ms. Fitzgerald

was a national trainer in modeling and at the time of data collection was the science department

head at the high school. She was actively involved in training other teachers to use modeling in

their classrooms to assist students to actively build their knowledge in science.

Lessons Not Observed and Weekend: October 18-22

The students did not attend school on Friday, October 18th, 2019 since it was a teacher

professional development day and data was not collected on Monday October 21st or Tuesday

October 22nd. Based classroom conversations recorded on October 23rd, students received initial

data the previous day and drew graphs on whiteboards for when the Paramecium were together

75
in the same Petri dish. Conversations with the teacher that day revealed that on Monday October

21st students reviewed the differences between the intraspecific graphs of P. aurelia and P.

caudatum.

Logistic Growth of P. caudatum: October 23

October 23rd was the third day of data collection and the sixth lesson of the multi-day lab

demonstration project. The lesson this day was taught by Ms. Fitzgerald with support from Ms.

Matthews. Ms. Fitzgerald asked the students to get out their P. caudatum graph and she shared

with the class the graph for the P. caudatum with the line graph. She referred to the whiteboards

the students worked on and presented to each other the previous day. She had them add

additional words for carrying capacity- equilibrium and homeostasis. She reviewed with the

students the WISes, WIMs, and inequalities of P. caudatum and discussed with the students how

the bigger organism needs more nutrients to reproduce as well as the different carrying capacities

and peaks of the Paramecium in their separate Petri dishes. She then had the students work with

their group to determine the slopes and write the paragraph describing what happened in the

population.

The following page has the individual graphs of Elizabeth- Example 4.3 and Kelsey-

Example 4.4. It is their written work which is examined in detail in Chapter 6. These graphs are

included to show how the students included the information from this lesson onto their graphs-

their inequalities, calculated slopes, points selected for WIS and WIM, and terminology taught

during this lesson.

76
Example 4.3 Elizabeth’s Graph of P. caudatum

77
Example 4.4 Kelsey’s graph of P. caudatum

About midway through the class one of the students asked Ms, Fitzgerald to share the

slide of the P. caudatum Petri dish and data chart. While she pulled up the slide, Ms. Matthews

mentioned that she noticed the students had trouble selecting which points to use to determine

slope. She instructed the students that anytime there is an inequality change (births greater than

deaths, deaths greater than births, births and deaths are equivalent), they needed to find a new

78
slope. Ms. Matthews continued to give examples of changes in the inequalities between births

and deaths and the need for new slope calculations. Ms. Fitzgerald then took the time to

explicitly explain to the class how this impacts their understanding of the graph. She focused

particularly on how the students are not telling the story of the graph if they select the wrong

points to use for determining slope and she likened it to leaving out important parts of Goldilocks

and the three little bears.

Ms. Fitzgerald then led a discussion for about five minutes introducing the students to the

S-curve, logistic growth, invasive species, and niche. Then she transitioned to a discussion on

why the carrying capacity is lower for the larger species. Toward the end of the class time, there

was a brief discussion on adding titles to the graphs and writing as well as assigning the students

a paragraph comparing and contrasting P. aurelia and P. caudatum. In the final few moments,

Ms. Fitzgerald had the students discuss with one another what they think will happen when the

two species are put together in the same Petri dish. The students made predictions, and the

teacher listened to their discussions within the small groups, asking them to explain certain

reasoning. These predictions enabled the students to apply the information taught that day about

carrying capacity, size of competing species, and it directly lined up with their later writing

comparing the intraspecific competition to the interspecific competition. At the table where the

case study students participated, two members of the group made their predictions and applied

what they learned earlier in the lesson about reproduction, food, and the size of the species.

Paramecium Species in Interspecific Competition: October 24

Ms. Fitzgerald was present for the start and end of the 7th lesson however she was needed

to assist other science teachers in her department. The lesson was primarily taught by the student

teacher, Ms. Matthews, who showed a slide with the data on the Paramecium competing in a

79
Petri dish, gave the students the chart depicted in the pictures taken of the Petri dish over time

and had them copy down the information on their individual graphs and charts. Ms. Matthews

led the class discussion about titling the graph and discussed the growth rate at the beginning for

both species- specifically a lag. She then had the students plot the points from the data given and

she discussed with them possible reasons why the P. aurelia are doing better than P. caudatum

(sexual reproduction because P. aurelia is smaller, P. aurelia does not need as much resources,

P. caudatum makes more waste, and P. caudatum takes up more room). She introduced them to

the term interspecific competition and briefly discussed the inequalities of births and deaths of

the P. caudatum in the interspecific graph.

The following page includes two pictures of what Ms. Matthew’s showed the students-

slides described above displayed on the whiteboard. In Example 4.5, there is a data chart as well

as the first day of the Petri dish with both species. The second picture, Example 4.6 includes the

same data chart from day 14 with no P. caudatum and only P. aurelia.

Example 4.5 Data Table and Picture of Petri Dish Day 1 with P. aurelia and P. caudatum

80
Example 4.6 Data Table and Picture of Petri Dish Day 14 with P. aurelia and P. caudatum

Ms. Matthews assigned the students to complete the slopes, inequalities of P. aurelia, WIS

and WIM for each line, and then she gave them the rest of the time to write the paragraphs. The

students were assigned to finish the caption paragraph for the graph and two comparison

paragraphs for the individual species when they are alone versus when they are competing

against the other species. Ms. Matthews listed out the written work that the students needed to

have completed for collection in class Monday (see Figure 4.1). This lesson was not focused on

in this study due to the differing instructional method chosen by the student teacher that did not

include modeling instruction.

Comparing Across Conditions: October 25

The lesson began with a prefix quiz of common prefixes in biology and their meanings.

These were not specific to this unit, it was a regular occurring fixture in this classroom every few

weeks. The teacher shared with the students that they were going to be watching a video about

the return of the wolves in Yellowstone National Park in the second half of class. This video
81
served as an introduction to the next topic in ecology- predation and food webs in ecosystems

which later lead to the unit on natural selection and evolution.

Next, Ms. Fitzgerald refocused the class back to a small group and whole class discussion

of what occurred amongst the P. aurelia and P. caudatum on days 4 and 5 when they were alone

versus when they were together. Students initially talked with their tables then as a class, she

reviewed what occurred in the interspecific and intraspecific graph versus the intraspecific graph

for the P. aurelia. The P. aurelia experienced exponential growth sooner on its own than when it

was combined with the P. caudatum. She specifically drew their attention to when the P.

caudatum started dying out which was when the P. aurelia population really began its

exponential growth. She turned to the class and had them talk first in their small groups about

why. She instructed them to come up with an alternative explanation other than waste and

energy, she clarified that energy is food.

On the following page are Examples 4.7 and 4.8 of Kelsey’s and Elizabeth’s graphs of

when both species of Paramecia were together in the same Petri dish. These graphs show what

the students wrote down from the lessons on October 24th and 25th. It includes their inequalities,

slope calculations, WIS and WIM statements, as well as information discussed in class. Both

students used their graphs during their informal and formal writing during the project which is

explored in Chapter 6.

82
Example 4.7 Kelsey’s Graph of P. aurelia and P. caudatum

83
Example 4.8 Elizabeth’s Graph of P. aurelia and P. caudatum

As she checked on each table, she encouraged each group to think about why and asked

all of them “could the P. caudatum be doing something?”. When she brought the class together

as a whole group discussion, she revoiced the students’ possible solution of cannibalism and then

Ms. Fitzgerald shared with the class the science teachers’ at the school thought that the P.

caudatum might be producing a chemical that prevented the P. aurelia from reproducing. She

closed the discussion letting the students know that the Paramecium species are found together

84
in ponds in Wisconsin and being used in soil in Ohio. Given that it was very expensive to

separate the Paramecium species from one another prior to use in the soil, she asked the students

if it made sense to separate the species or keep them together based on what occurred in their

class experiment. After giving the students time to think on how to answer that question, she

played the video on wolves and had the students answer questions on a worksheet answered in

the documentary about how wolves impact the food webs and larger ecosystem in Yellowstone

National Park.

The discussion about the possibilities other than waste and food was very interesting,

however it was not selected as a key event since there was not an intercontextual connection

between it and their argumentative writing.

Discussing the CER Prompt and Setting Expectations for Writing it: October 28

Ms. Fitzgerald reviewed with the students the point value of the project when completed

with both the graphs and the required paragraphs. She set their expectations that if they turn it in

by the end of the day they would receive a 5-point deduction rather than turning it in at the end

of class, for every missing paragraph they would lose 5 points. She encouraged the students to

make the best decision for their specific situation.

Ms. Fitzgerald then reviewed the differences between the types of competition and

instructed them to discuss as a group the more specific differences between intraspecific

competition (when the Paramecia were with their own species) and interspecific competition

(when the two Paramecium species were together). She rephrased the question to the students

and focused their attention on the limiting factors and evidence. Specifically, she asked “Was

there a difference when there was only interspecific competition compared to intraspecific

competition with the resources being utilized and with the waste being produced?”

85
 During the small group instruction, Ms. Fitzgerald visited each of the tables and asked for

them to share with her their thoughts, she used questioning to guide their attention back to the

graphs. She encouraged the students to take notes on their discussion and to use their previous

work to support their writing of the timed claim, evidence, and reasoning paragraph (CER). In

the final minutes before writing the paragraph, the teacher wrote the question on the board

(pictured below) and reviewed the expectations for their writing in the timed CER paragraph.

Example 4.9 Picture of timed CER writing prompt

Gloss: “Does interspecific and intraspecific competition affect the populations of P. aurelia and
P. caudatum more than intraspecific alone?”
C P. aurelia intra #1
E (2) highly specific P. caudatum intra #2
R- reasoning both #3

Ms. Fitzgerald asked the students to remind her what the initials of CER stand for and

reviewed with the students what counted in the writing as a claim, as evidence, and as reasoning.

She specifically instructed the students to avoid the word “it” since “it” leaves out specifics in

their writing. Additionally, she clarified the difference between the words interspecific and

intraspecific. The timer was set for ten minutes for the students to write their paragraph. and

when the timer went off the students stapled their timed response to the rest of their work to turn

86
in at the end of class. At the end of the project, the opportunity was provided to digitally copy the

consented students’ completed packets prior to it being graded.

Characteristics of Classroom Culture that Support Argumentation

In the section below I examine the classroom culture of this particular classroom and how

it supported argumentation. Working inductively, I examine interactions within the classroom

and then applied empirical and theoretical research about argumentation (Blommaert & Jie,

2010, p. 12; Heath & Street, 2008, p. 34). I sought to understand “how cultural patterns support,

deny, and change structures and uses of language and multimodal literacies” (Heath & Street,

2008, p. 6).

Using modeling instruction

It was possible to see how Ms. Fitzgerald used modeling instruction as a participation

framework to position her students as the source of knowledge creation by examining the

narrative above of the multi-day lab demonstration project and the key events detailed in the

following chapter. On the first day of data collection, October 16th, Ms. Fitzgerald made explicit

the way in which she uses modeling instruction to create a more dialogic classroom environment

for her students. After presenting the example of the water bottle as a conceptual model, Ms.

Fitzgerald explicitly discussed her goal for class discussions.

My goal, your goal is that as we go through the year, you need me less and less. I get

goose bumps. I can't tell you when I can turn- come into the room and or I'm absent.

That's my favorite. And I just say the kids are going to be discussing their boards today.

That's it. That's my lesson plan. And student teachers and substitutes are like what? She

has no plans! And then you come in and you discuss the boards, intelligently, right?

87
 Because you've figured out how to do this through me modeling the questioning and

through me modeling how to think that's what this year is about.

Above she explained to her students her goal for them to become more independent during the

biology labs and modeling instruction units which Ms. Fitzgerald has designed. Chapter 5 looks

more closely at the discursive ways in which Ms. Fitzgerald and her student teacher, Ms.

Matthews used patterns with questions and revoicing during classroom discussions (key events 2

and 3) and in explicit instruction (key events 1 and 5).

Explicit and implicit instruction

Ms. Fitzgerald and Ms. Matthews used explicit and implicit instruction to teach the

students how to make argumentative moves and construct arguments using evidence. Chapter 5

further discusses the explicit instructions on writing using evidence through a careful

examination of the 1st, 4th, and 5th key events- using WIS and WIM, telling the story of the graph,

and constructing an argument with claim, evidence, and reasoning. In implicit instructional

conversations, Ms. Fizgerald and Ms. Matthews taught students to construct evidence using

measures (key event 2) and making claims about why changes in the population are occurring

due to a variety of limiting factors (key event 3).

Throughout the multi-day lab demonstration project Ms. Fitzgerald used informal writing

after several small group discussions and the students wrote about the creation graphs, their

interpretation of the graphs, and their discussions about how to describe the graphs. Similar to

Mr. Clark in Weyland and colleagues (2018), Ms. Fitzgerald used revoicing to examine students’

claims and evidence they provide in discussions, described in more detail in Chapter 5. She

followed up small group discussions with the whole class and asked questions building on

individual answers during discussions as well, more detail also in Chapter 5.

88
Making sense with graphs

In the first four key events discussed in detail in Chapter 5, students were taught to

interpret their first graph of P. aurelia. During the first key event, Ms. Fitzgerald provided the

students an example of “what I see” (WIS) and “what it means” (WIM) to examine specific

points along the line graph. This strategy divided the interpretation of the graph into smaller

pieces. The second key event was a discussion of different ways in which the students used

mathematical tools (inequalities and slope) to portray the changes in the population of

Paramecium over time. From that day on, every graph the students created in the project

included WIS, WIM, inequalities, and slope. The third key event started as a discussion about the

decline in the population of P. aurelia from their peak due to the carrying capacity and then

shifted to the students' suggestions of why the decline occurred (limiting factors). Finally, the

fourth key event was a discussion about the writing about the graphs. Ms. Matthews discussed

the need to not take in so many points to determine slope, and Ms. Fitzgerald described that by

not capturing the smaller changes in the population of the Paramecium they are missing the

story. All of these discussions were about the graphs and their interpretation.

Careful Construction & Facilitation of Project and Consensus Building on its Completion

The multi-day lab demonstration project was carefully designed to have discussions

which built on one another to support students’ understanding of both the application of the

mathematical tools in science as well as the ecological concepts. Intertextual connections to

students’ previous written work and intercontextual connections to previous classroom events

were observed explicitly during a discussion on the October 28th when Ms. Fitzgerald instructed

students to pull out all their “stuff that has to do with the Paramecium” and briefly reviewed

what the students learned during the unit prior to verbally giving the students the CER prompt

89
and time in class to discuss it with their peers, below is Transcript 4.1 of the brief review of the

entire project.

90
Transcript 4.1 Reviewing the full project before CER essay

Line # Speaker Statements

1 Ms. F. OK, let's talk for a minute. So, we look at Paramecium by itself, P.
aurelia by itself, we looked at P. caudatum by itself. And what kind of
competition was occurring in both of those situations?
2 Student M. Intraspecific
3 Ms. F. Intraspecific. So, what were they competing for?
4 Student P. Resources
5 Ms. F. Resources, food, water, right? OK, what, what were some of the things
that could affect them besides the resources?
6 Student E. Waste
7 Ms. F. I personally think waste was a big deal. One of the things that I could
not show you, but we kind of observed is that there seemed to be, as
the time went on, almost a little cloudiness kind of starting to happen.
But it wasn't something that showed up when we took pictures and it
did, it just started to get a little off color. You know what I'm saying?
So not like milk, but- but more like if we put a drop of milk in water,
you know what I'm saying? OK, next. What, you're going to do now.
Oh, and you look at specific numbers, right?
8 Several Yeah
students
9 Ms. F. When you compared, you looked at like, you know, what was the
growth of them individually compared to each other? And then we put
them in a dish together and we looked at what kind of competition
there when they were in the dish together. You know you can talk to
your neighbors. What kind of competition do you have where they
were in a dish together?
10 Several Interspecific (said to one another)
students
11 Ms. F. So, what did you get? In the dish together, what ?? would you get?

12 Student M. Interspecific
13 Ms. F. inter and- Guys, it was interspecific, but we also have intra?
14 Several Yeah
students
15 Ms. F. Yeah, because they're still fighting with each other. Right? OK. So I'm
going to ask you a question, do you think that all of the factors, the
limiting factors that we've talked about just a second ago, food and
water and waste, what do you think happens when you put them in
there together? What do you think happened, do you think it would be
exactly the same as before when they were alone and only having
intraspecific competition, or do you think it was different? And what
evidence do you have to support them? Talk to each other.

91
 In the transcript above, Ms. Fitzgerald reviewed with the students what they learned

throughout the multi-day lab demonstration project. She discussed each of the conditions that

they created graphs from, referred to discussions they have had as a class about types of

competition, limiting factors, and she set up a small group discussion with their peers prior to

writing a CER essay answering the prompt “does interspecific and intraspecific competition

affect the populations of P. aurelia and P. caudatum more than intraspecific alone?” The

transcript shows how Ms. Fitzgerald is assisting the students in helping them pull together the

information they learned throughout the project to guide their small group discussions toward

answering the prompt of the CER. Ms. Fitzgerald provides the students an opportunity to

develop their ideas for the formal writing through discussion with their peers and utilizing their

previous work the last few days.

Conclusion

The context of the multi-day lab demonstration project has been established and a

discussion included about how the culture in the classroom supported epistemic practices such as

talking and writing argumentatively. The use of modeling instruction created a dialogic

environment which was explicitly described to the students at the beginning of this project. The

discussion patterns used by Ms. Fitzgerald and her student teacher, Ms. Matthews positioned

students as the knowledge creators and valued their ideas through revoicing. Both teachers used

explicit and implicit instruction to teach the students to make argumentative moves and construct

evidence. Ms. Fitzgerald’s epistemology of viewing writing as both an ideational and social

process supported her students’ development of arguments during their informal and formal

writing. Students in the class used intertextual connections to the graphs in their writing which

were supported by discussions about analysis and interpretation of the graphs in class.

92
 From a theoretical perspective, an academic literacies lens captured the way in which Ms.

Fitzgerald positioned her students as actively doing and engaging in science. She provided

lessons on epistemic practices such as interpreting numerical data, writing about a graph,

including specific evidence in their writing, and not using the word “it.” She also socialized

students in searching for answers to why scientific phenomena occurs while simultaneously

carefully asking guided questions which position her students as the knowledge creators and

connectors. It was the students who made the connection for the need to use slope from math

class to examine the growth of Paramecium in their line graphs, and it was the students who

made sense of the task of writing a story which argues for their interpretation of graphs. Their

writing throughout the project was about shaping meaning and not just demonstrating the

technical skills of science or as a way of representing the data.

Chapter 5 presents a more detailed analysis of classroom four key events during the

multi-day lab demonstration project which supported the learning of epistemic practices in

science- particularly how to talk and write argumentatively. This is then followed up by a close

examination of two case study students’ writing which visibly shows their uptake of these

epistemic practices.

93
 Chapter 5: Opportunities to Learn Epistemic Practices: Key Events during Instructional

Conversations

This chapter includes four telling moments, key events, mentioned in the chronological

description of learning events in chapter 4. The key events were isolated using instructional

chains and based on the intercontextual connections from students’ written work. They provide a

more detailed examination of the conversations in the classroom- how the teachers facilitated

talk, and how evidence was constructed as the students and the teachers acted and reacted to one

another. For further explanation and clear examples of the coding used in this chapter see

Appendices B and D.

As argued in Chapter 2, social context is a central construct within an academic literacies

conception. Literacy practices are situated in social contexts. A social context includes multiple

levels ranging from face-to-face situations to academic communities to social institutions as well

as broadly considered cultural ideological contexts. Most relevant to this study is that an

academic literacies framework holds that social context is not viewed as separate from and

external to the interaction of an individual and a text, rather that the essential unit of analysis is

situated literacy practices. Social context, thus, is not conceptualized as an environment or

physical space in which literacy events and literacy practices occur, but an acknowledgment that

any literacy practice is inseparably a part of a history of social events and social practices.

Students’ meaning making with talk and writing is derived from their own histories and as part

of their lives in and across communities and social institutions.

This chapter answers the research question, how does the teacher engage her students in

epistemic practices such as talking and writing argumentatively about what counts as scientific

evidence in instructional conversations about scientific modeling during a unit on ecology? To

94
do so, microethnographic discourse analysis is used to examine four key events described in the

previous chapter. These four events demonstrate how the teacher and student teacher engaged

students in epistemic practices such as talking and writing argumentatively about what counts as

scientific evidence in class discussion through scientific modeling instruction.

First Key Event: “What I See” and “What It Means”

On October 16th, the first day of data collection and second lesson of the multi-day lab

demonstration project, students were taught how to interpret particular points on their line graph

using the prompts WIS “what I see” and WIM “what it means.” Ms. Fitzgerald initially asked

students for points and areas of a graph of the population of P. aurelia for the class to discuss.

Students verbally described or physically pointed to certain areas and points on the graph. Ms.

Fitzgerald continued to circle points on the graph that the students suggested. When students no

longer had additional suggestions, she asked the students what is happening between the first and

second points on the graph and breaks down the first WIS and WIM and then asks the students

about its importance for the population of P. aurelia.

Transcript 5.1 below includes a bit of the initial instructional conversation about

analyzing specific parts of the line graph. This particular event was significant as Ms. Fitzgerald

later instructed the students to continue using WIS and WIM prompts for several points on the

graph in addition to inequalities and slope. She instructed the students to use that analysis to

write their descriptive and comparative paragraphs about the graphs. She described this process

as telling, “the story of the graph.” Throughout the remainder of the project students were

instructed to initially complete WIS and WIM before moving on to writing inequalities and

calculating slope. Note, that the students’ timed CER essays that are analyzed for how students

composed them across the unit include tracings of this discussion of particular points on the

95
graphs. The transcript for this conversation was first examined for how Ms. Fitzgerald and her

students were acting and reacting to one another within the conversation. A participation

framework discussed in Chapter 3, the Cam-UNAM SEDA Condensed Version© was used to

examine the interaction below and in the following events.

In the conversation below, Ms. Fitzgerald uses her authority as the teacher to show the

students how to respond to the prompts, WIS and WIM (lines 1-2). She reflects on the first

question (what do I see?), and then answers it based on what she sees in the graph (lines 3-4).

Her answer is authoritative since it comes from her as opposed to a student proposing a possible

response. She asks the class for agreement/disagreement; this is a move that can be seen in

several of her conversations with students (line 5). She then turns to the class to ask them to

answer the second question (what it means?), which needs an explanation for an answer (line 6).

Susan poses a possible answer by making a claim based on Ms. Fitzgerald asking why the data

she pointed out is important and David explains the kind of reproduction that takes place using

knowledge from outside the classroom (lines 7-8). Later the in the same session, the teacher

asked the class to explain asexual reproduction. Ms. Fitzgerald revoices the student’s answer

lending it credibility and speculates about another possible reason there are two Paramecium

(line 9). A student near the front makes a joke (line 10), and Ms. Fitzgerald refocuses the

discussion (lines 11-12). Ms. Fitzgerald hedges her answer to give herself thinking time, then

authoritatively states what the WIM“is going to be- this organism reproduces asexually” is for

the class (lines 13-14). This event demonstrated how students were taught to make sense of

particular points and spaces between points on a line graph during an instructional conversation.

Ms. Fitzgerald focused attention on why these data points were important for the population of

Paramecium.

96
Transcript 5.1 “What I See” and “What it Means” with Participation Framework Coding

# Speaker Message Unit Participation Framework Coding

1 Ms. F I'm going to show you the first G3-Introduce authoritative perspective
WIS WIM
2 so my WIS WIM right here is G3-Introduce authoritative perspective
going to be
3 what did I see? RD2-reflect on learning outcome
4 Day one had one organism. Day G3-Introduce authoritative perspective
two, had two,
5 right? I2-invite (dis)agreement
6 Why is that significant? I4-ask for explanation
7 Susan because it multiplied R3-speculate based on another's
contribution
8 David. it shows that the species had R1-explain another's contribution; C3-
asexual reproduction connect to wider context
9 Ms. F It showed asexual reproduction or G7-revoicing; R4-speculate
we had a pregnant Paramecium
10 Matt prego-pregnant E2-Make other relevant contribution-
joking/finding humor
11 Ms. F Right. Ok. G5-focusing
12 So since we kind of already know G5-focusing
that we're looking at that
13 kind of, G6-Allow thinking time
14 our WIM then is going to be- this G3-Introduce authoritative perspective
organism reproduces asexually.

Transcript 5.2 below includes an examination of the epistemic levels of evidence

construction in the same transcript this time coding for how the teacher and students navigate

between claims and evidence in the instructional conversation. Note that the coding employed in

the following table follows the coding scheme from Manz and Renga’s (2015) epistemic levels

for evidence construction described in Chapter 3; for a list of codes with definitions and

examples see Appendix B. In this coding scheme, open ended questions are shaded for the

possible levels of which the students answer the question and the students’ answers are shaded

for the level of epistemic evidence construction (Manz & Renga, 2015). This shading is also seen

97
in Transcripts 5.7 and 5.8. The transcripts are broken into message units and not all of the

message units were aimed at evidence construction and therefore have no shading.

Transcript 5.2 “What I See” and “What it Means” with Epistemic Levels of Evidence
Construction

# Speaker Message Unit L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 Rationale for

EL
1 Ms. F I'm going to show
you the first WIS
WIM
2 so my WIS WIM
right here is going
to be
3 what did I see? noticing
4 Day one had one 2 measurements;
organism. Day two, change over time
had two,
5 right?
6 Why is that question for what
significant? it means,
operationalization
of success
7 Susan because it change over time
multiplied
8 David it shows that the claim
species had asexual
reproduction
9 Ms. F It showed asexual claim
reproduction or we
had a pregnant
Paramecium
10 Matt prego-pregnant
11 Ms. F Right. Ok.
12 So since we kind of
already know that
we're looking at that
13 kind of,
14 our WIM then is claim
going to be- this
organism
reproduces
asexually.

98
 Ms. Fitzgerald asks “What did I see?” (line 3), then voices the measurement and changes

over time while writing on the board: “Day one had one organism. Day two, had two.” Then she

asks the students the significance of what happened between the two points, “Why is that

significant?” (line 6). This question seeks an answer explaining what occurred between the two

points and why it was important to the species. It is aimed at the epistemic levels four

(operationalization of success) and five (claim). A student responds with a description of the

change over time in the population (line 7) and another student makes a claim that the species

asexually reproduced (line 8). Ms. Fitzgerald revoices the second student’s claim about asexual

reproduction as well as raises an additional claim that the Paramecium could have been pregnant

at the time (line 9). After a student makes a joke, Ms. Fitzgerald refocuses the class on what they

just discussed and writes the claim on the white board with the WIM for the data points (line 14)

that the class discussed. More broadly, the use of epistemic levels of evidence construction in

coding Transcript 5.2 revealed Ms. Fitzgerald moved the discussion from pointing to a difference

in points on a graph to making a claim about what it means for the population of the paramecia

and how they reproduce. In doing so, she engaged her students in the epistemic practices of

constructing and interpreting evidence using graphing as a tool.

Second Key Event: Using Inequalities and Slope to Depict Changes in Population

In Transcript 5.3, Ms. Fitzgerald and her students have an exchange to explore

mathematical representation of changes in Paramecium populations. In the same class period as

the event above, October 16th, she instructed the students to get out their own pieces of graph

paper to copy down the line graph, as well as the WIS and WIM statements from their

whiteboards. She then uses questioning to help the students determine the need for slopes and

inequalities to depict the birth rate and death rate of the Paramecium. The use of modeling

99
instruction and the questioning in this way responds to how students are understanding the

material and guides students toward an expected understanding. In the following conversation,

Ms. Fitzgerald intended to have the students come up with the inequalities to show how birth rate

and death rate are being represented on the line graph and then discuss the need for slope,

however, one student suggested using slope. Ms. Fitzgerald acknowledged she was not expecting

the suggestion so soon and then opened up the discussion through her questioning for

considering how slope can represent birth-rate (positive number and height of number indicates

how quickly it is changing) and death-rate (negative number). The full conversation can be found

in Appendix N.

100
Transcript 5.3 Using Inequalities and Slope to Depict Changes in Population Coded with
Participation Framework
# Speaker Message Unit Participation Framework
Coding
15 Ms. F. How do you represent that? E1-Inviting ideas
16 Susan reproduction divided by deaths P3-propose resolution
17 Ms. F. So do reproduction, G7-revoicing
18 what now? I6-ask for clarification
19 Susan reproduction divided by death rate. P3-propose resolution
20 Ms. F. So you want to do reproduction rate G7-revoicing
divided by death rate,
21 Ok. G6-Allow thinking time
22 And found the slope, G7-revoicing
23 that is absolutely something that we can G3-authoritative perspective
do.
24 You went further than what I wanted at G4-Provide Informative feedback
this moment,
25 but it's absolutely something we could do G3-authoritative perspective
26 Ms. F. so we could do reproduction or birth, G1-Building on
27 right? I2-inviting agreement
28 So birth rate over death rate. G7-revoicing
29 Yes? inviting agreement
30 David But what- E2-make other relevant contribution
31 we're at a point in not vertically the- E2-make other relevant contribution
32 where in the event E2-make other relevant contribution
33 Where the uh- E2-make other relevant contribution
34 the death rate is more than the growth rate, R2-explaining own contribution
35 it should go- E2-make other relevant contribution
36 it should be a negative slope. E2-make other relevant contribution
37 Ms. F. Could we have a negative slope? I2-Inviting (dis)agreement
38 David Yeah, yeah. P3-propose resolution
39 But not with this thing, E2-make other relevant contribution
40 but it's up there on the board. E2-make other relevant contribution
41 Ms. F. But it wouldn't be on that part of the line. G7-revoicing
42 But could we? I6-ask for clarification
43 Student Yes. P3-propose resolution

The transcript reveals a general pattern: in the first half of the conversation the teacher

begins with a question (inviting ideas-line 15), invites (dis)agreement (lines 27, 29, 37), asks for

clarification (line 18, 42) followed students giving their idea (lines 16, 19, 30-36, 38-40, 43), and

the teacher revoicing it (lines 20, 22, 28, 41). This pattern then repeats. The structure of this

101
pattern differs from the typical initiation-response-evaluation (IRE) (Mehan, 1979) pattern

commonly seen in classroom dialogue. Rather than tell her students to find the slope and use

inequalities, Ms. Fitzgerald had her students come up with the idea for the necessary

mathematical analysis through her use of questioning; then she revoiced the students’

contributions which proposed ways to analyze the data for the populations of Paramecium. Ms.

Fitzgerald used modeling instruction to position her students as the knowledge creators for the

mathematical analysis and through her questioning they learned to take ownership of the ideas,

see their value, and independently conduct this type of analysis going forward.

Ms. Fitzgerald’s acceptance and building on the student’s idea of using slope in

Transcript 5.3, indicated to another student that the discussion was open-ended and they felt

comfortable suggesting their equation for the line (as seen in Transcript 5.4). While the student’s

equation was not developed in the conversation, this demonstrated the ways in which multiple

students contribute to the creation of knowledge in the classroom and the power of modeling

instruction in supporting an inclusive environment. In Transcript 5.4, Ms. Fitzgerald turns down

a different way to find the equation of a line from data points to analyze the growth of the

populations of Paramecium. Luke suggested a regression function to do this, however, in a

conversation after the class ended Ms. Fitzgerald explained that she thought it was beyond the

mathematical ability of most of the class and she was concerned about the amount of time left in

class to get her students to see the need for inequalities.

102
Transcript 5.4 Continued Inequalities and Slope Conversation with Break in Pattern Coded with
Participation Framework

# Speaker Message units Participation Framework Coding

44 Ms. F. And where would that look I6-ask for clarification
like on the-
45 on the line? I6-ask for clarification
46 It would be going down. G7-revoicing
47 Luke I have some- P3-propose resolution
48 an equation P3-propose resolution
49 a model of the same line. P3-propose resolution
50 Ms. F. OK, E1-invite idea
51 Luke I put f x regression- P3-propose resolution
52 Ms. F. Ok, G4-providing informative feedback,
interrupting student's answer
53 You're going to you're going P4-Acknowledge shift of position
to hold that one.

At line 44 when Ms. Fitzgerald answers her own question about where on the line the

negative slope would occur: “And where would that look like on the- on the line? It would be

going down.” Shown in the video recording, David uses his arm to indicate that the line is going

down and the teacher voices what David means by saying “It would be going down". In lines 47-

51, Luke says he has an equation for the line, however, Ms. Fitzgerald interrupts Luke (line 52)

while acknowledging the beginning of his explanation (line 53), she also tells him to stop. Then

she redirects the conversation back to guiding the students to come up with the inequalities

(Appendix J).

Observations of multiple classroom discussions revealed that Luke was frequently called

upon for more sophisticated answers and scientific knowledge. What this interaction with Luke

suggested is a tension between dialogic and authoritative communication described by Scott and

Mortimer (2005). During an interview, Ms. Fitzgerald indicated that typically students express

the inequalities and then she guides them toward deciding they need to calculate slope, however

103
in this discussion the reverse happened, and the additional proposal of a regression function was

beyond her intended outcome for this conversation.

A re-examination of the same discussion using epistemic levels of evidence construction

(Manz, 2015; Kelly & Takao, 2002) revealed little variation beyond the second level- public

attributes since the discussion was primarily focused on determining mathematical tools for

measurement (Appendix B). In the discussion Ms. Fitzgerald engaged her students in the

epistemic practice of using mathematical tools to examine data—in this case to show trends and

changes over time in the data. Later in the unit, she explained how the slopes are a key part of the

narrative in examining the changes in the population of the Paramecia. It was from the slopes

that students were able to discuss limiting factors when the population decreased to the carrying

capacity as discussed in the third event.

Third Key Event: Discussing Possible Limiting Factor

On October 23rd, Ms. Matthews led a discussion about possible reasons for a decrease in

the population of Paramecium from the peak to the carrying capacity of the species. Ms.

Matthews took many students' suggestions for possible reasons for why a drop in population

occurred including overpopulation, disease, age, decrease in reproduction, and cannibalism. This

conversation is presented in Transcripts 5.5-5.8. This conversation began with a similar pattern

seen in the earlier conversations of examining student ideas through revoicing and follow up

questions; it also contains two divergences from the patterns above. These divergences are when

the teachers do not take up a student idea and when the class disagrees with the idea raised by

their peer and the teachers support it. These occurrences in the classroom conversation were seen

as rich points, “all the term means is that something surprising happens that catches a

researcher’s attention. The reason it is ‘rich’-whatever words or actions it might refer to- is

104
because it usually signals differences in lived experience and intentionality between researcher

and subject” (Agar, 2013, p. 147).

When Ms. Fitzgerald planned this discussion, she could have had Ms. Matthews share the

possible limiting factors which were causing a decline of the P. aurelia population from the peak

to their carrying capacity, however, she took the opportunity to have Ms. Matthews ask the

students for their ideas. The two teachers dismissed one idea suggested by a student. Another

idea was dismissed by several students and strongly supported by both teachers. Conversations

with both Ms. Fitzgerald and Ms. Matthews revealed that Ms. Matthews watched Ms. Fitzgerald

facilitate this discussion in her earlier accelerated biology classes that day and this was Ms.

Matthews’ chance to lead this class the way Ms. Fitzgerald did the other classes.

Similar to the second key event, this dialogue led by Ms. Matthews followed a pattern of

question (lines 54-55), answer (lines 56), revoicing (lines 57-58). This pattern occurs prior to the

lines below and immediately after to line 60 (Appendix K).

Transcript 5.5 Discussing Possible Limiting Factors Coded with Participation Framework

# Speaker Message units Participation Framework Coding

54 Ms. M do we have any other ideas? I5-invite possibility thinking or prediction

55 (student's name)? E1-invite ideas
56 Susan Maybe the older ones from like P3-propose resolution
the start of the experiment just
started to dying.
57 Ms. M. So they just got old. G7-revoicing
58 They hit their max age and just G7-revoicing
started passing life,
59 OK, age. (wrote down age) G5-focusing; G7-revoicing
60 Anything else? I5-invite possibility thinking or prediction

Transcript 5.6 includes a later part of the same conversation where Ms. Fitzgerald and

Ms. Matthews dismissed two suggestions from Ian about the growth of the Paramecium being

105
impacted by something else possibly growing in the Petri dishes and something from

contamination in the factory that supplied the dishes. They directly addressed both ideas saying

that neither was observed nor a possibility. Another idea, cannibalism, was dismissed by the

students, however, both teachers supported it as a possibility. The discussion had many more

student voices, even before this transcribed clip. The teachers’ responses to these two students

diverged from the previously observed pattern within this discussion and other class discussions.

In Transcript 5.6, a student suggests there may have been something else in the Petri dish

(lines 62-64) or from the factory that provided the Paramecium (line 66), in both cases Ms.

Matthews and Ms. Fitzgerald dismiss this particular idea (lines 65, 67-68). Another student

repeats their earlier answer of cannibalism (line 70) and the students in the class laugh and talk

over Ms. Matthews (lines 71-73) and Ms. Fitzgerald (lines 74-76) who both accept this answer as

a possibility. The laughter continues as well as more students dismissing the idea (line 77), and

Ms. Matthews defends the answer with a question to challenge their viewpoint (line 78) and Ms.

Fitzgerald shares facts about praying mantis babies eat each other (lines 81-82). The discussion

ends with Ms. Matthews reiterating the inequality is a fact, while the rest are possibilities (see

Appendix K).

106
Transcript 5.6 Divergence from the Pattern in Limiting Factors Discussion
# Speaker Message units Participation Framework Coding
61 Ms. M. OK. Anything else? Yeah. G5- focusing; I5-invite possibility thinking
62 Ian Did you check anything else in there R4-speculate
after the,
63 after you heated it up, R4-speculate
64 later in the experiment was there R4-speculate
anything else?
65 Ms. M. No, just Paramecium. G4-provide informative feedback
66 Ian Was there anything from the factory B2-elaborate own contribution
or anything?
67 Ms. F. We didn't see anything like that. G4-provide informative feedback
68 We didn't see any other cultures. G4-provide informative feedback
69 Ms. M. Yup? E1-invite ideas
70 Patrick Cannibalism? P3-propose resolution
71 Ms. M. Cannibalism. G7-revoicing
72 OK. G4-provide informative feedback
73 It's a possibility. P6-state (dis)agreement
74 Ms. F. Ok G4-provide informative feedback
75 We don't know. P6-state (dis)agreement
76 I think that's a good thought. P6-state (dis)agreement
77 Multiple (laughing, shock, talking about it not P6-state (dis)agreement
Students being possible)
78 Ms. M. Can any of you tell me if P5-challenge viewpoint
Paramecium are cannibals or not?
79 Sarah I mean, I like the idea. P6-state (dis)agreement
80 Ms. F. I mean, I'm going to tell you. RD1-talk about talk
81 Praying mantis being born would C3-link learning to wider contexts
have this kind of growth curve
because they give birth to thousands
at one time.
82 But then immediately they started C3-link learning to wider contexts
eating each other.

The divergences from the set pattern for open-ended discussions showed that the teacher

and student teacher did not take up all ideas that emerged in the discussion. Ian’s question about

what else might be in the Petri dish or from the factory, shows possibility thinking. However, a

tension resulted from the expected answers and Ian’s idea which was quickly addressed, and not

revoiced nor acted upon further (Scott and Mortimer, 2006). The suggestion of cannibalism was

107
also a divergence from the pattern because in this case the class of students found it laughable,

enough for Ms. Matthews to directly challenge the class on their dismissal of the idea and Ms.

Fitzgerald to de-escalate the discussion with an example from nature.

The open-ended questions gave students an opportunity to contribute to creating

scientific knowledge by making claims about what they believe could be impacting the species

as opposed to learning from a lecture or textbook a list of limiting factors. The reactions of Ms.

Matthews and Ms. Fitzgerald indicated that they had expectations for what were acceptable or

plausible answers and this was shown in how they limited the suggestions and did not accept all

of them (Scott and Mortimer, 2006). This caused the discussion to be focused within the bounds

of scientific knowledge that was acceptable by the teachers.

108
 In Transcripts 5.7 and 5.8 are sections of the same conversation in Transcript 5.6, but

with the epistemic levels of evidence construction marked (full conversation can be found at

Appendix L). In Transcript 5.7 a small piece of the discussion was important because it showed

how Ms. Matthews opened the discussion for students to be able to make claims. Ms. Matthews

asks open-ended questions (lines 54, 60) aimed at encouraging the students to discuss the

changes they observe in the graph (level 3), an operationalization of success (level 4), or a claim

(level 5). Repeatedly, the students make claims about possible limiting factors causing the

decline of the P. aurelia population (lines 56). The lines below demonstrate how Ms. Fitzgerald

and Ms. Matthews addressed the pushback from the students about the idea of cannibalism as a

possible limiting factor.

Transcript 5.7 Discussing Limiting Factors with Epistemic Levels

# Speaker Message Unit L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 Rationale for

EL
54 Ms. M do we have any other open ended
ideas?
55 (student's name)?
56 Susan Maybe the older ones Claim
from like the start of
the experiment just
started to dying.
57 Ms. F. So they just got old. Inscription
58 They hit their max age operationalizati
and just started on of success
passing life,
59 OK, age. (wrote down
“age”)
60 Anything else? open ended

In Transcript 5.8, Ms. Matthews and Ms. Fitzgerald state their observations and label the

contribution of cannibalism as a possibility. Ms. Matthews asks a direct question to the class

challenging their disbelief over the possibility of cannibalism which challenges them to come up

with other experimental variables or make a counter claim (levels 4 and 5). Ms. Fitzgerald then

109
shares facts (level 6) about another species (lines 81-82). Regarding argumentative moves, the

open-ended questions invited the students to make claims about the data. These claims were later

incorporated into their writing of the timed CER essay.

110
Transcript 5.8 Cannibalism as a Limiting Factor with Epistemic Levels

# Speaker Message Unit L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 Rationale for

EL
69 Ms. M. Yup?
70 Student Cannibalism? claim
71 Ms. M. Cannibalism.
72 OK.
73 It's a possibility. inscription
74 Ms. F. Ok
75 We don't know.
76 I think that's a good inscription
thought.
77 Students (laughing, shock,
talking about it not
being possible)
78 Ms. M. Can any of you tell me Experimental
if Paramecium are variables &
cannibals or not? claims
79 Susan I mean, I like the idea.
80 Ms. F. I mean, I'm going to
tell you.
81 Praying mantis being facts
born would have this
kind of growth curve
because they give
birth to thousands at
one time.
82 But then immediately facts
they started eating
each other.

The limiting factors of waste, food, age, resources/supplies, and limiting factors as a term

itself showed up in the participating students’ informal descriptive and comparative paragraphs

and more formal timed CER essays. This conversation demonstrated that though the teacher

presented students with an opportunity to learn argumentative moves during instructional

conversations, they were more likely to use such moves when the teacher’s writing assignment

related the same or similar content. There is power in having a discussion where many voices

can be heard suggesting ideas and engaging more students in “doing” science. In an academic

111
literacies perspective, the students have agency and identities which are valued, as opposed to a

disciplinary literacy perspective that tries to recreate and emulate the current experts in the field.

If one of the goals of science education is to make it more accessible and welcoming to more

students, then researchers need a theoretical construct that recognizes their existence beyond

apprenticeship.

Fourth Key Event: Explicit Instructions of CER Essay

On October 28th, the students in Ms. Fitzgerald’s accelerated biology class were given the

final writing prompt for a timed CER essay. Ms. Fitzgerald wrote the prompt on the board:

“Does interspecific and intraspecific competition affect the populations of P. aurelia and

P.caudatum more than intraspecific alone?” She additionally wrote the numbers on the board for

how students are to refer to their graphs created throughout the multi-day lab demonstration

project. The difference between interspecific and intraspecific competition was verbally

reviewed as well as her expectations for what to write for the claim, evidence, and reasoning in

the essay. The prompt can be seen in Example 4.9.

In the dialogue, Transcript 5.11, Ms. Fitzgerald used call and response to remind her

students about the critical parts of the CER essay and explicitly stated her expectations of the

student for their writing of the essay. Several of the participating students, including Elizabeth

and Kelsey discussed in Chapter 6, use CER as a structure for their essay. They labeled their first

sentence “claim”, their second sentence to their second to last sentence “evidence” and their last

sentence “reasoning.” The students who used the CER as a structure often rephrased their first

sentence/claim statement as their last sentence (as seen in Chapter 6). This indicated that students

were not understanding how to write warrants in science- they were struggling with connecting

the pieces of evidence to their claim with explanation. The review session about the parts of the

112
CER essay also followed the pattern mentioned earlier (see Figures 5.2 and 5.3 for a visual of the

pattern).

In this final key event, Ms. Fitzgerald asks her students a question reflecting on the

purpose of each letter in the acronym CER (lines 115, 121, 127). She then revoices (lines

117,123) what the class says in unison (lines 116, 122), with the exception of reasoning (line

128). Here she gives informative feedback accepting their response (line 129). This is then

followed by her proposing action (lines 118, 124, 130) that the students will need to do in their

essays and clarifying it (lines 119-120, 125, 131) and ending the dialogue checking for

agreement (line 19). This is another pattern she used to review and clarify information that is

previously taught. This dialogue was about the teaching of the argumentative moves explicitly

and not constructing evidence for the students, so therefore the epistemic levels of evidence

construction did not apply to this discussion.

113
Transcript 5.9 Explicit Instructions of CER Essay Coded with Participation Framework

# Speaker Message Unit Participation Framework

Coding
114 Ms. F. So just to remind you, RD1-talk about talk
115 what's the c stand for? RD3-reflection on purpose
116 Students Claim C1-refer back
117 Ms. F. Claim G7-revoicing
118 you need to make a claim G2-propose action
119 which is what you think the truth is here B2-clarify own contribution
120 what do you think the evidence is showing B2-clarify own contribution
121 what's the E? RD3-reflection on purpose
122 Students Evidence C1-refer back
123 Ms. F. Evidence G7-revoicing
124 I'm going to expect at least 2 pieces of
evidence G2-propose action
125 and it needs to be highly specific B2-clarify own contribution
She takes a minute to label the graphs with numbers so that the students do not have to keep
repeating the title of the graph. She reviews the words interspecific (both species) and
intraspecific (one species), she also instructs the students to not use the word "it" since the
word leaves "out specifics" in their writing.
126 Ms F. R. G5-Focusing
127 and what's the R? RD3-reflection on purpose
128 Students Reasoning C1-refer back
129 Ms. F Ok G4-give informative
feedback
130 I want to know how you think this evidence
support your claim, G2-propose action
131 how does the evidence support your claim?
B2-clarify own contribution
132 ok? I2-invite (dis)agreement

Conclusion

This chapter shared four key events (Mitchell, 1984) which were viewed as

representative of Ms. Fitzgerald’s teaching throughout the multi-day lab demonstration project.

Each of these events were selected based on the indirect connections students made in their

writing to these events as well as providing a closer examination at the patterns in the

participation framework and the ways in which evidence was constructed during classroom

discussions. As described in the methods chapter, these four key events were chosen as “telling

114
cases” (Mitchell, 1984) from the 16 coded events from this instructional unit. For example, the

first two key events, exploring WIS and WIM and applying inequalities and slope, provided

concrete examples of how Ms. Fitzgerald taught her students to examine the connections

between the numerical data and the graph to its interpretation for the population of P. aurelia. In

these two events, students were instructed on how of construct evidence based on data. In the

case of the third key event, Ms. Matthews copied Ms. Fitzgerald’s facilitation of the discussion

on limiting factors which she observed earlier in the day. Ms. Matthews used the same patterns

on revoicing students’ ideas within the discussion. The discussion demonstrated how students

were being taught to make claims based on changes in the data across time. It also showed

divergences from the pattern based on teachers’ or the students’ rejection of ideas presented.

Students were being taught what counted as acceptable claims based on the data presented.

Finally, the final key event shared more explicit writing instruction and the setting of

expectations for making a formal argument in science. Using the theoretical lenses of academic

literacies and social construction, students are being socialized in the discipline of science as

well as co-constructing knowledge within the classroom. Students are being taught the epistemic

practices of what counts as evidence, interpreting numerical and graphical data, and how to make

an argument in science through these classroom discussions. The following chapter examines

how students appropriate these epistemic practices in their writing.

Additionally, the analysis using the Cam-UNAM SEDA Condensed Version© coding

scheme revealed two patterns in the participation framework from Ms. Fitzgerald’s modeling

instruction which are captured on the following page in Figures 5.2 and 5.3. Figure 5.2 is the

pattern used by Ms. Fitzgerald and Ms. Matthews during modeling instruction in the 1st, 3rd and

4th key events above. The pattern began with the teacher asking a question, the student

115
answering, and the teacher revoicing. Sometimes these first three moves were repeated and

sometimes the revoicing was followed by the teacher proposing an action or asking for

agreement or disagreement and then clarifying what was learned. Figure 5.3 is the second pattern

used by Ms. Fitzgerald and Ms. Matthews in the second and third key events. It began with the

teacher asking a question, the student answering, the teacher asking for agreement or

disagreement, and/or asking for clarification. If asked to clarify, the student then clarified their

answer and the teacher revoiced it to the class.

116
 Figure 5.1 Ms. Fitzgerald's Participation First Pattern Using Modeling Instruction (seen in events: first, beginning of third, and fourth)

4. Teacher
3. Teacher 5. Teacher
1. Teacher asks 2. Student propose action
revoices clarifies
question answers or ask for
information
[dis]agreement
Sometimes first 3
steps repeat, if
additional answers
are requested.
117

Figure 5.2 Ms. Fitzgerald's Second Pattern Using Modeling Instruction (seen in events: second and second half of third)

3. Ask for [dis]agreement

1. Teacher 2. Student 4. Student 5. Teacher
and/or ask for clarification
asks question answers clarifies revoices
from student

117
 This pattern seems to echo previous scholarship (O’Connor and Michaels, 1993), that

indicated that students benefit from the revoicing as an opportunity to have their answers

acknowledged and spoken from a position of relative authority. The combination of open-ended

discussions and revoicing, inherent in modeling instruction, placed students in the position of

generating knowledge and ideas. Even when looking at more explicit instruction, there was a

pattern which included revoicing (fourth key event). These patterns were suggestive of students

engaged in “doing” science and generating its relevant knowledge as part and parcel of this

process instead of being taught in a more transmissive way such as direct instruction during a

lecture. Students in these conversations mentioned in this chapter are recognized for the ideas

they brought to the discussion when given the opportunity through carefully planned guided

questions. The use of epistemic levels of evidence construction revealed how Ms. Fitzgerald and

Ms. Matthews guided students iteratively between consideration of public attributes, data

collection, experimental variables, experimental claims and facts in multiple different

discussions throughout the unit (Kelly and Takao, 2002; Manz, 2015; Manz and Renga, 2017).

Chapter 6 examines how students took the modeled epistemic practices and made them their

own.

118
 Chapter 6: Students’ Uses of Epistemic Practices in Argumentative Writing

This chapter responds to the second research question, “how do students take up these

epistemic practices in their argumentative writing as these practices are made visible through

argumentative moves?”. To do this, it closely examines the writing of two case study students,

Elizabeth and Kelsey, during the multi-day lab demonstration project. It concludes with a

discussion of what is learned about arguing to learn and learning to argue. For an explanation of

the coding with clear examples see Appendices B and C.

The concept of academic literacies assumes that the uses of written language across

academic fields are sufficiently and substantively different to constitute heterogeneous practices.

For example, in English language arts students may be assigned an analytic essay about a literary

work in one class period and then a lab report in a biology classroom the next class period. Each

context for writing requires differing genres, sources of information and writing moves such as

arguing for an interpretation versus arguing for a scientific claim. The emphasis in researching

academic literacies thus focused on describing the literacy practices within disciplinary fields

and how those literacy practices might be acquired (Lea & Street, 1998). What separates

academic literacies from disciplinary literacy are the additional consideration of institutions and

identities which influence the literacy practices and inclusion of student agency (Shanahan &

Shanahan, 2008; Street, 1998).

As defined in Chapter 2, a “literacy practice” is a way of using written language in a

specific type of social situation that is shared with others and learned. “A key aspect of literacy

practices is that they are social; the basic unit of analysis is not the individual and the text, but

people acting and reacting to each other in culturally driven ways (social practices) involving the

use of written language” (Bloome, et al. 2018, p. 890). Accordingly, this chapter considers the

119
literacy practices, or specifically the writing practices, Ms. Fitzgerald’s students engaged in

during the instructional unit as they responded to both informal writing prompts (arguing to

learn) and a more formal CER essay (learning to argue).

The formal argumentative writing was referred to as an essay in class by both the

teachers and students. Students began each of the written responses during class and finished

them for homework the day they were assigned, with the exception of the CER essay which was

completed in 10 minutes during class on October 28th.

Included in the project are three informal descriptive paragraphs- one for each graph,

three comparative paragraphs between the different conditions, and one formal argumentative

essay. I have a copy of all turned in written work from the 23 participating students in the class.

In Table 6.1, I have included the total amount of collected written work from the students and

categorized it by the type and focus of the writing. The assignments are further explained in

Figure 6.1.

Table 6.1 Collected Writing from Instructional Unit

Type of Writing Focus of Amount Collected

Writing (all 23 participating students)
Story of Graph Informal 60 (not all students completed the one for the
(3 assigned) descriptive third graph- interspecific competition)
Comparison Paragraphs Informal 69
(3 assigned) comparative
Claims, Evidence, & Formal 23
Reasoning (1 assigned) argumentative

Figure 6.1 depicts the written assignments during the multi-day lab demonstration project

and when the assignments took place in class. The date October 23rd is repeated in Figure 6.1

since it closed the discussion on P. caudatum intraspecific competition, and the class period

ended with students making predictions about P. aurelia and P. caudatum intraspecific and

interspecific competition.
120
Figure 6.1 Map of Ms. Fitzgerald’s Writing Assignments across the Instructional Unit

Data chart (# of Paramecium 16 days) given to students with pictures of Paramecium in Petri dishes on slide show
P. aurelia Graph created with small group table then whiteboard comparison with classmates, then as a class
intraspecific WIS (what I see) WIM (what it means) done individually, small group, and whole class
competition Story of the graph (paragraph including WIS and WIM)*
(Oct 15, 16, &
17)

Data chart (# of Paramecium 16 days) given to students with pictures of Paramecium in Petri dishes on slide show
Graph created with small group table then whiteboard comparison with classmates, then as a class
P.caudatum WIS (what I see) WIM (what it means) done individually, small group, and whole class
intraspecific
competition Story of the graph (paragraph including WIS and WIM)
(Oct. 21, 22, & Comparison paragraph of P. aurelia's exponential growth to P. caudatum's logistic growth*
23)
121

Data chart (# of Paramecium 16 days) given to students with pictures of Paramecium in Petri dishes on slide show
Graph created with small group table then whiteboard comparison with classmates, then as a class
P. aurelia & P. WIS (what I see) WIM (what it means) done individually, small group, and whole class
caudatum
intraspecific and Story of the graph (paragraph including WIS and WIM)
interspecific Comparison paragraph of P. aurelia alone versus with P. caudatum*
competition Comparison paragraph of P. caudatum alone versus with P. aurelia
(Oct 23, 24 & 25)

Timed writing in class, answering question: "Does interspecific and intraspecific competition affect the populations of P.
aurelia and P. caudatum than intraspecific alone?*
Timed Claim
Evidence
Reasoning Essay
(Oct 28)

121
 As previously stated, the second research question is how do students take up these

epistemic practices in their argumentative writing using these practices? To answer this question,

the writing practices of a group of four students was focused on with several audio recordings of

discussions collected. Unlike the other groups that I recorded, this group worked collaboratively

to generate and explore ideas when they discussed the graphing assignments and writing

assignments. These students built on each other’s ideas and assisted one another with the slope

calculations. Since the focus of the study was how the instructional context and conversations

shaped students’ science writing, initial research was focused on the writing practices of those

four students. However, this chapter focuses on two students, Elizabeth and Kelsey, in the group

of four whose written work clearly exemplified patterns seen across the written responses of all

four students during the project. The weakest and the strongest writers in the group of four were

specifically not chosen, rather the two chosen were representatives of the middle-range of writers

in the class. In examining the two case study students’ written work, I wanted to understand how

the instructional context that I described in chapters 4 and 5 shaped their writing practices and at

a deeper level the moves (argumentative, evidential, etc.) they made as they engaged in these

practices. I was especially interested in intercontextual connections between student writing and

classroom events and the intertextual connections to their previous written work and graphing

practices (Bloome et al., 2005). To further explore how and when the two case students engaged

in literacy practices the argumentative moves in their writing (VanDerHeide, 2017), epistemic

levels of evidence construction in their writing (Manz & Renga 2015), and the type of

intertextual connections and the ways in which they made those moves (Wynhoff Olsen et al.,

2018) were examined and categorized.

122
 During observations and in recordings, Elizabeth chatted with her peers often both on

topic and off and raised her hand to contribute to class conversations. Occasionally, talking to the

boy (Patrick) across from her about band practices and performances at sports games. During the

instructional unit, Ms. Fitzgerald commented to Elizabeth that she has great ideas in the small

group and whole class discussions and that she would like to see those ideas in her writing.

Elizabeth checked her mathematical calculations with her peers and appeared more confident in

agreeing or disagreeing with ideas Kelsey presented. The other student, Kelsey, talked with

Elizabeth, however, she did not speak out during whole class discussions unless called upon by

Ms. Fitzgerald. Kelsey often would suggest ideas in group conversations as questions and look

for agreement or disagreement from Elizabeth or Patrick.

In the following sections, each student is discussed individually, yet the same four

writing assignments and students’ responses were chosen for discussion of the findings. The

three pieces of their informal written responses are one from the beginning, the story of the graph

of P. aurelia, and two from the middle of the project, comparison paragraph of P. aurelia versus

P. caudatum and comparison of P. aurelia alone versus P. aurelia with P. caudatum. The fourth

written response is the formal timed CER essay. For each of the informal writing assignments

students were given the title of the paragraph that they were assigned to write and they developed

their responses based on the whole class and small group discussions along with their

connections to the graph and previous written work.

Elizabeth’s Informal and Formal Writing

Elizabeth wrote six paragraphs during this project- missing the story of the graph of P.

aurelia and P. caudatum in intraspecific and interspecific competition. This was similar to her

peers, who did not write one or more of the required paragraphs. Other students, like Kelsey (the

123
other case study student) went above and beyond, writing several drafts of paragraphs. Elizabeth

wrote a total of forty-five sentences, thirty-three are included below. In terms of the epistemic

levels of evidence construction: twenty-eight (nearly two thirds) of her sentences focused on

level three data collection- specifically changes over time, nine are level two public attributes,

and the remaining sentences fell fairly evenly among the remaining levels. During Elizabeth’s

informal writing, specifically in her paragraphs about P. aurelia, her use of evidence was

sporadic, but she began to get a firmer grasp of writing claims. When she wrote her CER essay,

she included evidence and warrants for the evidence. She incorporated information from each of

the graphs directly; however, she often left out the title or number of the graph or did not specify

from which graph she was pulling information. Similar to her peers, she included information

from the whole class and small group discussions. Elizabeth was actively involved in the

conversation at her small group table and occasionally during whole class discussion.

Elizabeth’s Story of the Graph of P. aurelia

Table 6.2 presents Elizabeth’s first paragraph of the project which was begun in class on

October 17th, the table shows numerous methods of analysis for examining her argument and

how she constructed evidence to support it. In the story of the graph of P. aurelia, Elizabeth

began her descriptive paragraph of the graph of P. aurelia with a claim statement arguing that

the P. aurelia experienced exponential growth and she included the information describing the

environment which was directly pulled from the title of her first graph. The inclusion of

“exponential growth” was a direct lexical connection to a small group discussion with the teacher

using questioning to assist the students in transferring their knowledge of that term from

mathematics to science.

124
 Elizabeth’s second sentence intercontextually connected information the class discussed

on October 16th as they completed the first “what I see” (WIS) and “what it means” (WIM). The

inclusion of the words “doubled” and “graph rate” (or slope) are mathematical connections to the

measurements on the graph. In this second sentence, she wrote what she perceived as the story of

this graph and provided evidence to support her argument of exponential growth. The third

sentence built on the structure of the previous sentence, also intercontextually connecting the

idea to when students completed their own WIS and WIM points and included the mathematical

measurements.

The fourth sentence then pointed out that the population of the Paramecium “more than

doubled”. Here Elizabeth showed how the growth rate impacted the population and provided

additional evidence that the population of paramecia experienced exponential growth. Sentences

5 and 6 followed this pattern of providing specific data and then described the change over time

and how it impacted the population. This pattern changed in the next sentence when Elizabeth

combined both the numerical data with her understanding of how it impacted the growth.

In sentence 7, Elizabeth provides the slope and describes the growth as “exponential”,

directly connecting it to her claim. In the next four sentences (8-11), Elizabeth presented the

slope between two identified days and connected it to the class event when the WIS and WIM

were completed. These sentences repeated the same structure of sentence 7 to present both the

mathematical data and her interpretation of its meaning for the growth of the population of P.

aurelia.

Taking a step back from the data, Elizabeth provided evidence in her paragraph that was

specifically focused on the numerical data as opposed to including key concepts from the

ecology conversations in class, such as limiting factors. This is seen in her sentences 2-11, where

125
Elizabeth includes the slope and describes its impact on the population as an increase or a

decrease. She did not include information about the limiting factors or carrying capacity. While I

cannot be certain, I believe that the ecological information was new for Elizabeth and the

mathematical analysis was more familiar from previous instruction outside of this class. Possibly

showing, that Elizabeth needed more familiarity with the content before appropriating the

information into her argument. Table 6.2 depicts the individual sentence analysis of Elizabeth’s

story of the P. aurelia graph described in the previous paragraphs.

126
 Table 6.2 Elizabeth’s Story of the Graph of P. aurelia
# Sentences from Student Writing Connections to Originating Type of Writing Epistemic Levels of
Graphs, Events, & Connections Moves Evidence Construction
Previous Written Work
1 The graph shows the exponential growth Graph #1, reworded the title Lexical Argument/ Level 5- Experimental
of an organism named P. aurelia alone of graph; 10/16 exponential Claim Claim
in a controlled environment over the growth from small group
course of 16 days. discussion with teacher
2 In the beginning, the population doubled 10/16 First WIS WIM as Thematic Evidence Level 2- Public
from day 0 to day 1, the slope shows a class and slopes discussion Mathematical Attributes (measures)
graph rate of 1 P. aurelia/day.
3 From day 2 to day 3, the slope shows a 10/16 WIS WIM on own and Structural Evidence Level 2- Public
growth of 6 P. aurelia/day. slopes discussion Repeating Attributes (measures)
Thematic
Mathematical
127

4 The population more than doubled from 10/16 WIM written on graph Extending Evidence Level 3-Data Collection
day 2 to 3. of student Thematic (change over time)
5 From day 3 to 4, the slope shows a 10/16 WIS WIM in group Structural Evidence Level 2- Public
growth of 17 P. aurelia/day. discussion and slopes whole Repeating Attributes (measures)
class discussion Thematic
Mathematical
6 This shows a huge increase in a short 10/16 WIM written on graph Lexical Evidence Level 3-Data Collection
amount of time. of student Extending (change over time)
7 From day 4 to day 7, the slope of 8 10/16 WIS WIM on own and Structural Evidence Level 3-Data Collection
shows an exponential growth is slopes discussion, 10/16 Repeating (change over time)
happening. exponential growth Thematic
discussion with small group Mathematical
and teacher
8 But from day 7 to 8, the slope of 4 shows 10/16 WIS WIM on own and Structural Evidence Level 3-Data Collection
a minor growth has happened. slopes discussion Repeating (change over time)
Thematic
Mathematical

127
 Continued
# Sentences from Student Writing Connections to Originating Type of Writing Epistemic Levels of
Graphs, Events, & Connections Moves Evidence Construction
Previous Written Work
9 From day 8 to day 10, the slope shows 10/16 WIS WIM on own and Structural Evidence Level 3-Data Collection
that the growth is decreasing by a factor slopes discussion Repeating (change over time)
of -9 P. aurelia/day. Thematic
Mathematical
10 But from day 10 to day 14 there was an 10/16 WIS WIM in group Structural Evidence Level 3-Data Collection
increase of 1 P. aurelia/day. discussion and slopes whole Repeating (change over time)
class discussion Thematic
Mathematical
11 Lastly, from day 14 to day 16 the slope 10/16 WIS WIM in group Structural Evidence Level 3-Data Collection
shows a decrease of -1 P. aurelia/day. discussion and slopes whole Repeating (change over time)
class discussion Thematic
Mathematical
128

128
Elizabeth’s Comparison P. aurelia versus P. caudatum

Table 6.2 includes an analysis of Elizabeth’s written response to the comparison between

the graphs of P. aurelia and P. caudatum. Prior to writing this paragraph, she wrote some notes

on the back of her second graph. The prewriting notes said “no crash in P. C; same pop. at times

in p. c.- small slopes; crash in p. a; rise and drop multiple times in p. a- big slopes; expo- p.a. lag

J curve; no expo-p.c. no lag S c.” The notes were understood as “no crash in P. caudatum, same

population at times in P. caudatum with small slopes; crash P. caudatum, P. caudatum in P.

aurelia, rise and drop multiple times in P. aurelia, P. aurelia had big slopes, exponential in P.

aurelia lag then J-curve in P. aurelia, no exponential growth in P. caudatum, P. caudatum had

no lag and had an S-curve.” These ideas were included in her comparison of the two graphs of P.

aurelia and P. caudatum in addition to connecting to previous sentences in her paragraphs

describing each of the graphs individually. Holistically, this nine-sentence paragraph showed

more variety in the epistemic levels of evidence construction and started incorporating key

terminology discussed in class in addition to specific numerical data.

A closer examination of Table 6.3 revealed that Elizabeth began her comparison

paragraph stating the experimental variables being the two different paramecia in different Petri

dishes. This first sentence served as an introduction to her comparison paragraph. Her second

sentence began her list of differences; she wrote about their size difference after viewing pictures

of the paramecia in the Petri dishes. This piece of evidence built on her earlier writing about P.

caudatum. Her third sentence discussed the difference between the two line graphs. It

intercontextually connected to the discussion about the lack of a crash in the P. caudatum

population. This piece of evidence showed the changes in the data over time and was reinforced

by her discussion in the next sentence about the impact on the Paramecia populations. The

129
fourth sentence included the same information about the species however, it differs from the

earlier sentence as it specifically refers to the “increase and decrease”. Based on the conversation

in class about the presence of a crash, or lack thereof, this sentence was Elizabeth’s way of

explaining why it is significant.

Sentences 5 and 6 remarked on times when the population of Paramecia was consistent

in each graph. Here Elizabeth pointed out another difference between the two populations,

connecting to earlier sentences written in the P. caudatum paragraph, and it was her way of

telling story of both of the graphs (connecting it to a discussion in class that day). Her seventh

sentence expanded on her sixth sentence by providing the specific days when the population

slightly changed and had two days at the same level. Structurally, this sentence was quite similar

to sentences 10 and 11 from her paragraph on P. aurelia (above), however it did not mention

slope. This sentence continued in her description of discussing how the population of Paramecia

changed over time and it provided specific data numbers from the graph.

In her two last sentences, 8 and 9, Elizabeth connected to earlier conversations in class

about the growth of each Paramecium species and she stated the type of curve and that one of

them was exponential. These two sentences applied the key terminology she learned in class as a

way of constructing another piece of evidence that the two graphs are different. In her last

sentence, 9, she also includes a statement providing one similarity and that they are “in many

ways different”. This sentence was identified as a claim due to how she wrote the paragraph

pointing out the differences between the two-line graphs. In her formal argumentative essay

Elizabeth concluded with an extended version of her claim from the first sentence of this

informal paragraph.

130
 Elizabeth used arguing about the differences between the graphs to learn how to construct

the evidence and make a claim. During her argument, Elizabeth incorporated the terminology

discussed in class- exponential growth, J-curve, and S-curve. Additionally, she compared the size

of each species to each other (sentence 2) and included the terms species and genus in her

argument. As mentioned before, Elizabeth took a few minutes to organize her thoughts prior to

writing the comparison showing that she was given time to come up with ideas to include in her

writing. In this paragraph, Elizabeth included both numerical data relating to the number of

species as well as the type of growth each experienced and she incorporated evidence from each

of the graphs. This paragraph shows how Elizabeth is incorporating the epistemic practices

relating to appropriate numerical evidence and beginning to include the ecological terminology

and concepts into her writing. Table 6.3 shows the analysis of Elizabeth’s informal comparison

between the P. aurelia and P. caudatum as described at the sentence level in the paragraphs

above.

131
 Table 6.3 Elizabeth’s Comparison of P. aurelia versus P. caudatum

# Sentences from Student Writing Connections to Originating Type of Writing Epistemic

Graphs, Events, & Previous Connection Moves Levels of
Written Work Evidence
Construction
1 We have tested the population growth 10/23 comparison paragraph assigned Thematic Introducti Level 4-
of two species, one species being P. in class on Experimental
aurelia and the other being P. variables
caudatum.
2 The P. aurelia is a small sized species 10/15 and 10/21 Reference to seeing Thematic Evidence Level 1- noticing
and P. caudatum is a larger specimen. Paramecium in Petri dishes; Sent 9 P. Lexical
caudatum about larger size
3 In our study of P. aurelia, there was a 10/23 discussion no crash in Thematic Evidence Level 3- Data
crash in the population, but there was population; Graphs 1 and 2; Sent 9 P. Structural Collection
no crash in the P. caudatum. caudatum increased slowly (change over
time)
132

4 There was both an increase and 10/23 discussion no crash in Structural Evidence Level 3- Data
decrease in the population of P. aurelia, population; 10/23 story of graph Thematic Collection
but only an increase of the species P. discussion; Graphs 1 and 2; Sent 9 P. Reordering (change over
caudatum over the course of the 16 day caudatum increased slowly; rephrase of sent time)
study. of sent above above
5 On days 7 and 8, then again on days 12 10/23 story of graph discussion; Structural Evidence Level 3- Data
and 14, the population neither increased Graph 2; Combines Sent. 5 and 7 P. Thematic Collection
nor decreased, but had stayed the same caudatum Repeating (change over
2 days in a row which happened twice time)
in the study of P. caudatum.
6 In the population recorded over 16 days 10/23 story of graph discussion; Structural Evidence Level 3- Data
of the P. aurelia, there was 2 days of Graph 1; Repeat structure and idea Thematic Collection
the same population, but they weren’t 2 from above to P. aurelia Repeating (change over
days in a row. time)

132
 Continued
# Sentences from Student Writing Connections to Originating Type of Writing Epistemic
Graphs, Events, & Previous Connection Moves Levels of
Written Work Evidence
Construction
7 Day 12 we had 49 P. aurelia, then on 10/23 story of graph discussion; Thematic Evidence Level 3- Data
day 14 we had an increase of 1 to make Graph 1; Similar to Sent 10 and 11 of Structural Collection
the population 50, but on day sixteen P. aurelia however this includes Extending (change over
the population decreased back to a number of Paramecium not slope time)
population of 49 P. aurelia.
8 The graph for P. aurelia was a J-curve 10/16 exponential growth small Thematic Evidence Level 2- Public
graph with an exponential growth. group discussion; 10/17 j-curve Lexical Attributes
connected in discussion to Repeating (inscription)
exponential growth; notes on Graph
1;
9 The graph for P. caudatum was an S- 10/23 S-curve in class discussion; Thematic Claim Level 5 -
curve graph and no exponential growth 10/23 Ms. F. assigned comparison Lexical Experimental
133

even though these are the same genus, paragraph; notes on Graph 2 Repeating Claim
they are very different in many different
ways.

133
Elizabeth’s Comparison of P. aurelia alone versus P. aurelia with P. caudatum

In Table 6.4 is the analysis of Elizabeth’s paragraph which compares the populations of

P. aurelia in intraspecific competition alone and interspecific and intraspecific competition. It

was written on October 25th. In Elizabeth’s comparison paragraph she included her claim earlier

in her informal writing and at the end. She also provided both similarities and differences

between the two-line graphs. Her inclusion of similarities in this paragraph led to questions about

whether this decision was influenced by the commonly taught compare and contrast essay

structure in English Language Arts. However, without an interview with this student specifically,

this conjecture cannot be validated, thus proving to be a limitation.

Similar to her earlier writing, Elizabeth began this paragraph stating the experimental

variables which are being compared. To do this she pulled language from the titles of the two

graphs, similar to how she did in the first paragraph describing P. aurelia. Similar to the previous

paragraph analyzed, this first sentence addressed the prompt given in class and connected to an

in-class discussion on the topic. It served as an introduction to the topic covered in the sentences

following. In her second sentence she made a claim about the difference in populations which

connected to the graphs, even though there was not an explicit connection. This sentence served

as an experimental claim for this paragraph since she next provided two sentences describing

numerical data when the population reached a fairly consistent number of Paramecium, the

carrying capacity.

The third sentence connected both to the third graph as well as to a whole class

discussion focusing on the story of the graph though investigating changes in the population and

by selecting “a constant rate” Elizabeth picked the carrying capacity even though she did not use

the term. This connection provided evidence describing the data during a set time period. In the

134
fourth sentence she used the same structure as the third sentence, however, it included

information about the Paramecia in the first graph, connected to the same class discussions, and

it built on earlier writing in the comparison paragraph (sentence seven).

In the fifth sentence Elizabeth provided the similarity between the two populations

depicted in the first and third graphs while still focusing on the story of the graph by saying what

was happening to the populations of Paramecium. Her sixth and final sentence concluded with

her repeating the experimental claim about how the two populations were different. The second

and the sixth statements were considered for a level three generalization across cases, however,

with her repetition and inclusion of evidence from data collected over time, specifically the

carrying capacity of each population, this was determined based on her evidence to be her claim

for this argument.

This paragraph demonstrated Elizabeth’s reliance on numerical data for comparison

between the two populations of P. aurelia as well as describing the increases and decreases in

the population. This paragraph includes the concept of carrying capacity although she did not use

the term. Elizabeth is building on the language from her previous writing and utilizing the

information presented in both graphs to compare them. Table 6.4 includes an individual sentence

analysis of Elizabeth’s comparison paragraph of P. aurelia alone versus P. aurelia with P.

caudatum.

135
 Table 6.4 Elizabeth Comparison of P. aurelia alone versus P. aurelia with P. caudatum

# Sentences from Student Connections to Originating Graphs, Type of Writing Epistemic

Writing Events, & Previous Written Work Connection Moves Levels of
Evidence
Construction
1 In our study, we put the Language from titles of graphs #1 and Lexical Introductio Level 4-
organism P. aurelia in a #3, similar to first sentence of 1st Reordering n Experimental
controlled environment alone, paragraph (about P. aurelia alone), 10/25 Thematic variables
and we put P. aurelia in a compared P. aurelia alone and with P.
controlled environment with P. caudatum in whole class discussion
caudatum.
2 While P. aurelia was alone, it Comparing P. aurelia on both graph #1 Thematic Claim Level 5-
had a higher population than and #3 Experimental
when it was with P. caudatum. claim
3 While they were together, there Graph #3 P. aurelia peak. 10/23 Structural Evidence Level 3-Data
was a constant rate of 46 P. discussion focusing on the story of the Repeating Collection
136

aurelia for both days 12 and 14. graph 10/23 carrying capacity Thematic (change over
time)
4 While P. aurelia was alone, there Graph #1 P. aurelia peak, similar to Structural Evidence Level 3-Data
were two days that it had the sentence 7 of P. aurelia vs. P. caudatum, Repeating Collection
same population, but there was 10/23 discussion focusing on the story of Thematic (change over
an increase in the population the graph 10/23 carrying capacity time)
before they were 49.
5 While they were together and Similarity of both graph #1 and #3; 10/23 Thematic Evidence Level 3- Data
while the P. aurelia was alone, discussion focusing on the story of the Collections
there was a rise and drop in the graph (generalizatio
population. ns across
cases)
6 Overall there were more P. Comparing P. aurelia on both graph #1 Thematic Argument/ Level 5-
aurelia while it was alone than and #3 Repeating claim Experimental
when it was with P. caudatum. (sent 2) Claim

136
Learning to Argue Through the Timed Claims, Evidence, and Reasoning Essay

This section provides the teacher’s instructions and expectations of the timed CER essay

which occurred in class prior to writing it. On the last day of the instructional unit on October

28th, the students in Ms. Fitzgerald’s accelerated biology class were given the final writing

prompt for a timed CER essay. She wrote the prompt on the board: “Does interspecific and

intraspecific competition affect the populations of P. aurelia and P.caudatum more than

intraspecific alone?” She numbered the graphs the students created throughout the project for

easier reference when writing. Next, Ms. Fitzgerald reviewed the difference between

interspecific and intraspecific competition, and discussed her expectations for what the students

will write for the claim, evidence, and reasoning in the paragraph. In Transcript 6.1, Ms.

Fitzgerald is leading a call and response with her review questions about what each letter of the

acronym stands for. She is also reminding the students explicitly what she will be looking for in

their writing using the scientific data in their argumentative writing compositions.

137
Transcript 6.1 Teacher Expectations for Claims, Evidence, and Reasoning

Line # Speaker Message Unit

1 Ms. F. So just to remind you,
2 what's the c stand for?
3 Students Claim
4 Ms. F. Claim
5 you need to make a claim
6 which is what you think the truth is here
7 what do you think the evidence is showing
8 what's the E?
9 Students Evidence
10 Ms. F. Evidence
11 I'm going to expect at least 2 pieces of evidence
12 and it needs to be highly specific

She takes a minute to label the graphs with numbers so that the students do not
have to keep repeating the title of the graph. She reviews the words
interspecific (both species) and intraspecific (one species), she also instructs
the students to not use the word "it" since “the word it leaves out specifics” in
their writing.

13 Ms. F. R.
14 and what's the R?
15 Students Reasoning
16 Ms. F Ok
17 I want to know how you think this evidence support your
claim,
18 how does the evidence support your claim?
19 ok?

Elizabeth’s Timed Claims, Evidence, and Reasoning Essay

In her formal argumentative essay (Table 6.5), Elizabeth labeled the parts of her

argument from the discussion in class that day. The first sentence is labeled “claim”, the second

sentence is labeled “evidence with sentences 3-6 following, and the seventh sentence is labeled

“reasoning”. Similar to her informal writing, Elizabeth made her claim at the beginning and

restated it at the end.

138
 Elizabeth’s first sentence rephrases the prompt written on the whiteboard, using the

words “interspecific and intraspecific competition” from the board. Her rephrasing of the

question formed her claim for her argument. Her second sentence explicitly included the first

graph, yet it made a general statement about numerical data from both graphs; this connected to

an earlier informal writing comparing the population heights of the two species (sentence 2 of P.

aurelia versus P. caudatum). This second sentence made an operationalization of success by

describing the success of one species in one condition over another. Her third sentence used

information from both graphs and built on her fourth sentence from earlier informal writing

comparing P. aurelia versus P. caudatum. She discussed population heights on day 16, providing

a comparison across the conditions and reusing the structure from her earlier writing.

The fourth sentence in the paragraph used data from both graphs to describe the

decreases. This sentence was similar to Elizabeth’s fifth sentence from her paragraph comparing

both species to one another and she focused on telling the story of the graphs which connects to a

discussion in class on October 23rd. This sentence also provided evidence across the two

conditions. The fifth and sixth sentences focused on the P. caudatum portrayed in graphs 2 and 3

and they tell the story of the species connecting it to the class discussion mentioned earlier. She

did not specifically name either graph, but she did discuss changes in the populations of the

species across time as evidence of the different impacts of the different kinds of competition.

The fifth sentence was a rephrasing of sentence 8 from earlier informal writing

comparing P. caudatum alone to P. caudatum with P. aurelia. The sixth sentence reordered both

the ideas and the structure from sentences 4 and 6 of P. caudatum alone to P. caudatum with P.

aurelia. Elizabeth’s last sentence was a lexical and structural repeat of her earlier claim with an

extension to include examples of limiting factors discussed in class on October 23rd. This last

139
inclusion of limiting factors was the first time Elizabeth provides a warrant for why the changes

in the populations occurred.

In reference to the research question, Elizabeth used data directly from graphs,

incorporated information from class lessons about ecology, and used a variety of ways to discuss

evidence, which showed that she picked up the epistemic practices taught by the teacher.

Additionally, she incorporates the limiting factors into her concluding sentence which she has

named “reasoning”, indicating that Elizabeth sees these as reasons for different outcomes based

on the types of competition. Table 6.5 includes the analysis of Elizabeth’s timed CER essay as

described above.

140
 Table 6.5 Elizabeth’s Timed Claims, Evidence, and Reasoning (CER) Essay
# Sentences from Student Writing Connections to Originating Type of Writing Epistemic Levels
Graphs, Events, & Previous Connection Moves of Evidence
Written Work Construction
1 Claim: Interspecific and Intraspecific competition Rephrase of written prompt on Lexical Argument/ Level 5-
does affect the populations of P. aurelia and P. 10/28 Reordering Claim Experimental Claim
caudatum more than intraspecific alone.
2 Evidence: On graph number 1, P. aurelia had a Graph #1 and Graph #3, similar Lexical Evidence Level 4-
much higher population throughout the 16 days to sentence 2 of P. aurelia alone Structural Operationalization
alone than when both P. aurelia and P. caudatum vs with P. caudatum Reordering of Success
were together.
3 While P. aurelia was alone, on day 16, there was Graph #1 and Graph #3, similar Structural Evidence Level 3- Data
a population of 49, while when P. aurelia and P. to sentence 4 of P. aurelia alone Repeating Collection
caudatum were together P. aurelia had a vs with P. caudatum, Thematic (comparisons
population of 44 on day 16. across conditions)
4 There was more of a drastic decrease in P. Graph #1 and Graph #3, similar Thematic Evidence Level 3- Data
aurelia population while P. caudatum and P. to sentence 5 of P. aurelia alone Collection
141

aurelia were together than the decrease when P. vs with P. caudatum, 10/23 (comparisons
aurelia was alone. discussion focusing on the story across conditions)
of the graph
5 While P. caudatum had only intraspecific Graph #2, same idea rephrased as Reordering Evidence Level 3-Data
competition, there was no decrease in population. sentence 8 of P. caudatum alone Thematic Collection (change
vs. with P. aurelia, 10/23 over time)
discussion focusing on the story
of the graph
6 When P. caudatum and P. aurelia were together Graph #3, combines sentences 4 Thematic Evidence Level 3-Data
P. caudatum had such a decrease in population and 6 of P. caudatum alone vs. Reordering Collection (change
that the populations started at 12 then dropped all with P. aurelia, 10/23 discussion over time)
the way to 0. focusing on the story of the graph
7 Reasoning: Interspecific and intraspecific Rephrase of written prompt on Lexical Argument/ Level 5-
competition does affect populations of P. aurelia 10/28, limiting factors from Structural Claim Experimental Claim
and P. caudatum more than intraspecific alone whole class discussion 10/23 Repeating
because more resources are needed, more space Thematic
is needed, and more waste is produced.

141
Kelsey’s Informal and Formal Writing

Kelsey wrote eight paragraphs during the course of the project, in addition to writing all

of the required paragraphs (see Figure 6.1), she also wrote two drafts of the first paragraph

describing the population of P. aurelia. This was similar to some of her peers in the class who

also wrote one to two drafts of different paragraphs throughout the unit. An examination of her

fifty-nine sentences revealed that about one third (nineteen) of them were epistemic levels one,

noticing and two public attributes, one third (twenty-one) were level three data collection, and

the remaining third (nineteen) were levels four experimental variables, five experimental claims,

and six facts.

During Kelsey’s informal writing, she included more statements to warrant the evidence

than Elizabeth and she consistently began her arguments with experimental claims. Similar to

Elizabeth, Kelsey incorporated information from each of the graphs directly, however, she often

left out the title or number of the graph or did not specify from which graph she was pulling

information. Kelsey also included information from the whole class and small group discussions.

She was actively involved in the conversation at her small group and occasionally whole class

discussion.

Kelsey’s Story of the Graph of P. aurelia

Kelsey wrote two drafts of this paragraph prior to deciding on her final description of

what is going on in the graph. Her first draft of the paragraph mentioned numerical points from

her graph of P. aurelia, and she discussed the inequality that applied to that segment of the graph

between the points. An epistemic analysis revealed that her first draft constructed evidence based

on data collection. Her second draft used several key vocabulary terms from the lessons from

October 16th and 17th (J-curve, intraspecific competition, and limiting factor) to describe why the

142
changes are occurring. Regarding the epistemic levels, the second paragraph applied definitions

and inscriptions to the data. Neither paragraph began with a claim, rather each began with an

inscription- the first applying the WIM that the Paramecium “reproduced asexually” and the

second identified the line graph as a “J-curve”. The final draft below includes a few ideas from

both of her first two drafts as Kelsey practiced writing her argument in two different ways before

settling on a final draft which combined both the key terminology and the numerical data. As a

result of this practice, Kelsey’s descriptive and comparative paragraphs following this one began

with a claim statement and included evidence from a variety of epistemic levels.

Table 6.6 presents Kelsey’s first paragraph of the project which was begun in class on

October 17th, the table shows the numerous methods of analysis for examining her argument and

how she constructed evidence to support it. In the story of the graph of P. aurelia, Kelsey began

her descriptive paragraph of the graph of P. aurelia with a claim statement arguing that the P.

aurelia experienced exponential growth. Additionally, she included how long the exponential

growth lasted and her reasoning to support her claim that “the high slopes show how fast they are

growing” (sentence 1, Table 6.5). She explicitly mentioned the graph from where she pulled this

information and her use of the term “exponential growth” connected to a conversation her small

group had with the teacher the previous day.

Kelsey’s second sentence included measures, slopes, she calculated using the data points

on her graph. Here she connected to the conversation which occurred in class on October 16th

when students suggested using slope to mathematically represent the growth of the Paramecium.

She made a thematic connection to the use of slope as evidence to support her claim of

exponential growth and a mathematical connection in her use of what she has calculated. Her

third sentence warranted the previous evidence provided. Here she explained that slopes are an

143
indication of the welfare of the Paramecium and which thematically connected to a class

discussion earlier that day about resources and limiting factors the species need to survive and

reproduce in an environment.

Kelsey’s fourth sentence directly included data from her graph, stated what that data

means for the population, and included an inequality to show the relationship between deaths and

births. The first part of the sentence included specific dates and the slope of the Paramecium

population as it changed during that time period, the second half of the sentence warranted her

evidence as she explained how she interpreted its significance for the Paramecia and provided

backing through the inequality. This fourth sentence also connected to conversations in class

about slopes and inequalities and it shared the same idea as the third sentence of her first draft of

this paper.

The fifth sentence shared the same grammatical structure as the fourth sentence, shared

the same type of information (time period, slopes, and inequality) and it connected to the same

classroom events. However, it did not warrant the information with her interpretation of its

significance for the paramecia population, rather, it states that “this is where the organisms

should be”. In this statement Kelsey built off of the class discussion on carrying capacity being

the level at which the number of births are equivalent to the number of deaths due to numerous

limiting factors. In making this statement, which was very similar to her concluding sentence,

Kelsey was making an operationalization of success (i.e. due to this variable the experiment will

be successful). The sixth sentence applied an inscription, the evidence she included in the

previous sentence is “the carrying capacity”. The seventh sentence warranted the evidence from

the fifth sentence by saying that the carrying capacity is the “best” for the population. This was

144
determined to be an operationalization of success and not a claim due to the labeling of this

particular measure (an attribute) being operationalized to bring about the success of the species.

In Kelsey’s narrative about the population of Paramecium she applied five epistemic

levels of evidence construction in her argument about the growth of the Paramecium. While she

made a claim at the beginning of the argument about the exponential growth of the species and

supported it with both measures and a warrant, she then discussed the second part of the graph.

The description of the second part of her graph provided evidence, however, it was not

connected to her overall claim which was limited in the statement to the first 8 days. Table 6.6

includes the analysis of Kelsey’s story of the graph of P. aurelia as described above.

145
 Table 6.6 Kelsey’s Story of the Graph of P. aurelia
# Sentences from Student Connections to Originating Type of Writing Epistemic
Writing Graphs, Events, & Previous Connection Moves Levels of
Written Work Evidence
Construction
1 According to the graph the P. Graph #1, 10/16 exponential growth Lexical Argument/ Level 5-
aurelia has exponential growth from small group discussion with Claim Experimental
until day 8, because the high teacher Claim
slopes show how fast they are
growing.
2 The slopes were 3/2, 17, and 8. Graph #1, 10/16 calculate slopes Mathematical Evidence Level 2- Public
Attributes
(measures)
3 Showing that the organisms 10/17 discussion about resources/ Thematic Warrant Level 1- noticing
141
146

were thriving in the limiting factors

environment.
4 From day 8-10, the slope was - Graph #1, 10/16 calculate slopes, Mathematical Evidence with Level 3-Data
4.5, showing that there was a 10/16 inequalities, 10/17 review of Thematic warrant Collection
decrease in the population, D>B. inequalities with Ms. M; repeat Lexical (change over
phrase from P. aurelia draft 1 sent 3 Repeating time)
5 From day 10-16, the slopes were Graph #1, 10/16 calculate slopes; Mathematical Evidence Level 4-
1 and -1/2, meaning that the 10/16 inequalities, 10/17 review of Thematic operationalizatio
B≈D and this is where the inequalities with Ms. M; 10/17 Structural n of success
organisms should be. carrying capacity discussion -whole Repeating
class
6 This is the carrying compasity. 10/17 carrying capacity discussion - Lexical Labeling with Level 2- Public
whole class Thematic key Attributes
Extending terminology (inscription)
7 The organisms need to stay 10/17 carrying capacity discussion - Thematic Warrant Level 4-
around this population for the whole class operationalizatio
best birth to death rate. n of success

146
Kelsey’s Comparison of P. aurelia versus P. caudatum

In Kelsey’s comparison paragraph between the P. aurelia and P. caudatum, Table 6.7,

she utilized the structure commonly used in compare/contrast essays in English Language Arts

classes (Hammann & Stevens, 2003). Kelsey made an initial claim that the species are similar

and yet have their differences. She first listed the differences between the two line-graphs

depicting the changes in the population and warranted the differences with information learned

in class. Then she listed similarities between the two species and she concluded the paragraph by

repeating her initial claim that they are similar and different. This was interesting because the

assignment required an explanation of the differences in the populations by comparing them.

Kelsey, however, was not alone in using this structure to write this and other comparison

paragraphs- several of her peers did so as well.

A closer look at Kelsey’s written work revealed that her initial claim states that the two

species are part of “the same Genus but, they are also in many ways different”. This claim was

her way to address the prompt of writing a comparison paragraph, assigned to the students on

October 23rd. Her second sentence provided evidence through making a generalization about the

overall population of P. aurelia being larger than P. caudatum. This sentence refers to both

graphs indirectly by stating “looking at the population growth…” and connected to a class

discussion that occurred earlier that day about the teacher wanting the whole story of the graph.

The third sentence connected to the same class discussion and provided the number of each

Paramecium species at a set point in time, Day 6. This sentence directly used the data from both

graphs, however, did not mention them explicitly. In showing the data point in two different

conditions, she made a third epistemic level of evidence construction relating to the data she

collected and comparing across the conditions.

147
 The fourth sentence compared across the conditions again stating the times when the P.

caudatum species had more than P. aurelia and when it had less. This sentence made a

generalization across the cases through its use of the word “always”. The fifth sentence

warranted the fourth sentence by providing a fact for why the P. caudatum had a smaller

population (epistemic level 6). Through the use of the word “smaller”, Kelsey was still

comparing across the two graphs and she was pulling information which was discussed earlier

that day about how a bigger species needs more space, eats more food, produces more waste, and

takes more time to reproduce. Sentences 6 and 7 provided these additional facts for why the P.

caudatum population was smaller and connected to the same discussion. Sentences 8 and 9 apply

the facts to P. aurelia which is smaller as Kelsey explained why the P. aurelia are able to

reproduce so quickly.

The tenth and eleventh sentences provided similarities between the two organisms. The

tenth sentence states that they are both in the “same Genus” and “reproduce asexually”. The

eleventh sentence provided date ranges for each species, using information from both graphs, to

indicate times when they each increased their populations rapidly. This demonstrated changes

over time in both species as well as comparing across the conditions. The paragraph concluded

with a rephrased initial claim about the similarities and differences between the two species.

Kelsey’s paragraph comparing the two species stood out among her eight paragraphs

because it was the only one to include so many facts. In future paragraphs, she used the facts to

warrant the evidence within the sentence using numerical or descriptive evidence. The epistemic

levels of evidence construction she used were levels three, five and six to support her claim. In

reference to the research question, Kelsey used data directly from graphs, incorporated

information from class lessons about ecology, and used a variety of ways to discuss evidence,

148
which showed that she picked up the epistemic practices taught by the teacher. Table 6.7

includes the analysis of Kelsey’s comparison of P. aurelia versus P. caudatum as described

above.

149
 Table 6.7 Kelsey’s Comparison of P. aurelia versus P. caudatum

# Sentences from Student Writing Connections to Originating Type of Writing Epistemic Levels of
Graphs, Events, & Previous Connection Moves Evidence
Written Work Construction
1 P. aurelia and P. caudatum are in the 10/23 comparison paragraph Thematic Claim Level 5-
same Genus but, they are also in many assigned in class Experimental Claim
ways different.
2 When looking at the population growth Graph 1 and 2; 10/23 Thematic Evidence Level 3- Data
over time, the population of P. aurelia discussion focusing on the Structural Collections
is larger than the population of P. story of the graph; Reordering (generalization
caudatum. across cases)
3 For example, on day 6 P. aurelia has a Graph 1 and 2; 10/23 Thematic Evidence Level 3- Data
population of 43, while P. caudatum discussion focusing on the Structural Collections
has a population of 19. story of the graph; P. aurelia Reordering (comparison across
draft 2 sent 2 conditions)
4 The population of P. caudatum is Graph 1 and 2; Thematic Evidence Level 3- Data
always smaller except days 1 and 2. Collections
150

(generalization
across cases)
5 P. caudatum has a smaller population Graph 1 and 2; 10/23 bigger Thematic Warrant Level 6- Facts
because they are larger and they take species need more food, more
up more space. time to reproduce, produce
more waste
6 Also, since they are bigger they eat 10/23 bigger species need Thematic Warrant Level 6- Facts
more food. more food, more time to
reproduce, produce more waste
7 Furthermore, the more food P. 10/23 bigger species need Thematic Warrant Level 6- Facts
caudatum eats the more waste they more food, more time to
create. reproduce, produce more waste
8 On the other hand, P. aurelia is smaller 10/23 bigger species need Thematic Warrant Level 6- Facts
and uses less resources. more food, more time to
reproduce, produce more waste

150
 Continued
# Sentences from Student Writing Connections to Originating Type of Writing Epistemic Levels of
Graphs, Events, & Previous Connection Moves Evidence
Written Work Construction
9 This makes it easier for P. aurelia to 10/23 bigger species need Thematic Warrant Level 6- Facts
reproduce because they don’t need as more food, more time to
much. reproduce, produce more waste
10 Not only are P. aurelia and P. 10/16 P. aurelia asexual Thematic Evidence Level 6- Facts
caudatum in the same Genus, but they reproduction; 10/23 P.
both reproduce Asexually. caudatum asexual reproduction
11 Both of these organisms have a point Graph 1 and 2; 10/23 Thematic Evidence Level 3- Data
where they grow faster, P. aurelia’s is discussion focusing on the Collection (change
day 3-4 and P. caudatum’s is day 4-7. story of the graph; P. over time and
caudatum sent. 4 comparison across
conditions)
12 P. aurelia and P. caudatum have many 10/23 comparison paragraph Thematic Claim Level 5-
differences and similarities. assigned in class; 1st sentence Structural repeated Experimental Claim
of this paragraph rephrased Reordering
151

151
Kelsey’s Comparison of P. aurelia alone versus P. aurelia with P. caudatum

Table 6.8 includes the analysis of Kelsey’s comparison of P. aurelia alone versus P.

aurelia with P. caudatum. Students began writing this paragraph in class on October 24th with

Ms. Matthews leading a discussion about it the following day. This paragraph, along with the

rest of the informal written work, was due to Ms. Fitzgerald on Monday, October 28th when the

students completed the timed CER essay in class. Unlike the earlier comparison paragraph which

included similarities, this comparison paragraph only pointed out the differences between the

two populations of P. aurelia in different settings. The focus on differences was in alignment

with what Ms. Fitzgerald expected and how Ms. Matthews explained the assignment in class.

The first sentence of the paragraph was a claim that the populations are different from

one another. It specifically says: “by itself than in competition”, which omits the different types

of competition- intraspecific (with the same species) and interspecific (with a different species).

The sentence connected to the assigned paragraphs on the 24th. The second and third sentences

were structured similarly, as well as similar to the second sentence of her second draft of the

story of the graph of P. aurelia. Both sentences provided a measure, the peak in population. The

peak of P. aurelia in intraspecific competition was discussed in class on October 16th. Each

sentence used the data from each of their graphs and neither of them included the title of the

graph, nor did they explicitly say the word. Regarding the epistemic levels of evidence

construction, both of these sentences provided measures- level two, public attributes.

The fourth sentence compared the growth in each and misapplied the term exponential,

when she meant steep. She describes the growth in interspecific competition to be “not as

exponential”. The term exponential growth was first learned in class on October 16th in the small

groups. The fifth sentence compared the highest slopes of each line graph and connected to the

152
second sentence of the final version of the story of the graph of P. aurelia when she listed the

slope calculations. This also connected to the two days within the multi-day lab project when

students discussed the need for slope calculations and the connection between calculating slope

correctly to tell the story fully. Kelsey compared across conditions to construct the evidence in

this sentence. The sixth sentence compared across the conditions and used the same structure as

the fourth sentence. Kelsey looked across both graphs to write the sentence comparing which

Petri dish and had the highest population growth. These three sentences, four through six, are all

speaking about the growth of the Paramecium.

The last two sentences, 7 and 8, provided warrants for the earlier evidence. The seventh

sentence was similar to the third sentence of the second draft of the story of the graph of P.

aurelia and connected to a discussion in class about limiting factors. The final sentence, sentence

8, rephrased the claim made at the beginning of the paragraph about the two populations being

different and explained how it impacted the level of reproduction.

An examination of this paragraph as a whole revealed that Kelsey wrote it in chunks. The

first three sentences discussed differences and immediately provided numerical measures of the

population. The second three sentences discussed the growth of the population, and the final two

sentences provided warrants. This paragraph demonstrated Kelsey’s use of four epistemic levels

of evidence construction to convey her understanding of the P. aurelia population in both

conditions. Table 6.8 includes the analysis of Kelsey’s comparison paragraph of P. aurelia alone

versus P. aurelia with P. caudatum as described above.

153
 Table 6.8 Kelsey’s Comparison of P. aurelia alone versus P. aurelia with P. caudatum
# Sentences from Student Writing Connections to Originating Graphs, Type of Writing Epistemic Levels
Events, & Previous Written Work Connection Moves of Evidence
Construction
1 The population of P. aurelia differs by itself 10/24 list of paragraphs given by Ms. Structural Argument/ Level 5-
than in competition. M Claim Experimental
Claim
2 When P. aurelia was by itself the peak or Graph #1, Similar to P. aurelia draft 2 Thematic Evidence Level 2- Public
highest population was on Day 8 and 55 sentence 2, 10/16 peak of P. aurelia Structural Attributes
organisms. discussed in class (measures)
3 When in competition P. aurelias highest Graph #3 Structural Evidence Level 2- Public
population was day 14 with 50 organisms. Repeating Attributes
(measures)
4 P. aurelias growth is not as exponential Both graphs, 10/16 small group Thematic Evidence Level 3- Data
when it is in competition. discussion about exponential growth Collection
(comparison across
154

conditions)
5 The highest slope by itself is 17 but when it Both graphs, incorporates the slope Mathematical Evidence Level 3- Data
is in competition the highest slope is only from P. aurelia alone sentence 2, Structural Collection
4.8. 10/16 discussion about slope Thematic (comparison across
calculations, 10/23 discussion focusing conditions)
on the story of the graph
6 The huge population growth was not as Both graphs Structural Evidence Level 3- Data
large when in competition. Repeating Collection
(sent 4) (comparison across
conditions)
7 This because P. aurelia was fighting for Similar to P. aurelia draft 2 sentence Thematic Warrant Level 1- noticing
resources. 3, 10/17 limiting factors discussion Structural
Repeating
8 Although P. aurelia was still able to Both graphs Thematic Warrant Level 5-
reproduce and reproduce a lot, it was just Reordering Experimental
not as much as it was when it had no Claim
competition.

154
Kelsey’s Timed Claims, Evidence, and Reasoning Essay

In Kelsey’s formal argumentative statement (Table 6.9), she weaved in her warrants

throughout the paragraph as opposed to placing them all at the end of the paragraph. Her CER

essay was not one continuous paper, rather all three parts of the paragraph were separated by a

line on the paper, and she labeled each part with claim, evidence, and reasoning. Similar to her

peers, Kelsey rephrased the prompt on the whiteboard to make her initial claim, however, unlike

Elizabeth, Kelsey previewed her warranting in her argument stating that not only was the

population of Paramecium impacted more by the combination of interspecific and intraspecific

competition but that was due to “less supplies”. Additionally, like several of her peers, Kelsey

labeled her claim in the paragraph.

The next section of Kelsey’s paper begins with the word “evidence” followed by eight

sentences. The second sentence began with an explicit connection to the first graph, followed by

the measure, carrying capacity of P. aurelia. This made an intercontextual connection to two

classroom events in which carrying capacity was discussed. The third sentence warranted the

second sentence through the application of the definition of limiting factors which was also

discussed in class on October 17th. She states that “there are enough supplies for 50 P. aurelia to

live,” which indicated her understanding of the role that limiting factors play on the population

of the organism. In mentioning the number again, she made another indirect connection to the

graph.

The fourth sentence combined the structure of the previous two sentences and applied it

to the third graph. Regarding evidence construction, it included both the measure of carrying

capacity and the application of the definition of limiting factors- not the word itself. Kelsey then

repeated the same pattern of two separate sentences and one combined, to discuss the carrying

155
capacity and limiting factors as they apply to the P. caudatum in sentences five through seven.

These three sentences connected to the second and third graph indirectly. There was one major

difference in the terminology which she used, Kelsey misapplied the word interspecific when she

meant intraspecific alone in sentence five and used interspecific correctly in sentence seven. Her

misuse of the word initially, demonstrated that Kelsey was not as practiced using this term and

so not as familiar with it.

The eighth and ninth sentences provided additional warrants for the significance of the

carrying capacity. These two sentences provided the reasoning for why Kelsey included the

numbers above; however they were still included in the “evidence” section of her paragraph.

This was intriguing because she followed the structure of claim, evidence, and reasoning

structure and yet did not recognize these sentences as part of her “reasoning”. The eighth

sentence used the variables to operationalize the way in which the P. caudatum uses resources

and how that is connected to a lower carrying capacity. In making this statement she indirectly

connected to the second and third graphs as well as previous discussions in class. The ninth

sentence made a factual statement connected to several discussions in class about both species.

Finally, her last sentence is labeled “reasoning” and it rephrased her initial claim though it did

not provide additional warrants for her evidence. The last sentence served as a recap and

concluding sentence for the paragraph.

Kelsey’s writing in the formal argumentative essay at the end of the multi-day lab

demonstration project demonstrated her understanding of the need to include warrants for her

evidential statements to support her claim. She utilized four of the six levels of evidence

construction and repeated her pattern in providing numerical evidence and connecting to key

concepts learned in class showing how she picked up epistemic practices to include in her

156
argumentative writing. Table 6.9 includes the analysis of Kelsey’s timed CER essay as described

above.

157
 Table 6.9 Kelsey’s Timed Claims, Evidence, and Reasoning (CER) Essay

# Sentences from Student Writing Connections to Originating Graphs, Type of Writing Epistemic Levels
Events, & Previous Written Work Connection Moves of Evidence
Construction
1 Claim: Interspecific and Rephrase of written prompt on 10/28 Lexical Argument/ Level 5-
intraspecific affects the population Reordering Claim Experimental
more than intraspecific alone Claim
because there are less supplies.
2 Evidence: In graph 1, the carrying Graph #1, 10/17 and 10/23 carrying Thematic Evidence Level 2- Public
capacity of the P. aurelia is 50 capacity discussion -whole class Lexical Attributes
organisms. (measures)
3 There are enough supplies for 50 Graph #1, 10/17 limiting factors Thematic Warrant Level 2- Public
P. aurelia to live. discussion Attributes
(definition)
158

4 When P. aurelia was in Graph #3, 10/17 and 10/23 carrying Structural Evidence Level 2- Public
interspecific competition, the capacity discussion -whole class, Repeating with Attributes
carrying capacity was 46, meaning 10/17 limiting factors discussion Thematic warrant (measures and
there was only enough resources definition)
for 46 P. aurelia.
5 On the other hand, P. caudatum Graph #2, 10/17 and 10/23 carrying Structural Evidence Level 2- Public
carrying capacity during capacity discussion -whole class Repeating Attributes
interspecific* competition was 27. *she means intraspecific Thematic (measures)
6 There were only enough resources Graph #2, 10/17 limiting factors Structural Warrant Level 2- Public
for 27 P. caudatum. discussion Repeating Attributes
Thematic (definition)
7 When P. caudatum was in Graph #3, 10/17 and 10/23 carrying Structural Evidence Level 2- Public
Interspecific competition the capacity discussion -whole class, Repeating with Attributes
carrying capacity was 12 P. 10/17 limiting factors discussion, Thematic warrant (measures and
caudatums, meaning there were 10/28 intraspecific and interspecific definition)
only enough resources for 12 P. clarification discussion
caudatums.

158
 Continued
# Sentences from Student Writing Connections to Originating Graphs, Type of Writing Epistemic Levels
Events, & Previous Written Work Connection Moves of Evidence
Construction
8 Showing how carrying capacity Both graphs #3 and #2, 10/17 and Thematic Warrant Level 4-
was lower, shows how P. 10/23 carrying capacity discussion - operationalization
caudatum is using more resources whole class, 10/17 limiting factors of success
than P. aurelia. discussion, 10/23 bigger species more
time to reproduce, more space, more
food, and more waste
9 During interspecific competition 10/17 and 10/23 carrying capacity Thematic Warrant Level 6- Fact
the organism that uses less discussion -whole class, 10/17
resources is better fit. limiting factors discussion, 10/23
small group predictions about
interspecific competition 10/25 P.
159

aurelia with P. caudatum discussion,

10/28 interspecific and intraspecific
discussion with evidence as small
group
10 Reasoning: Interspecific Rephrase of written prompt on 10/28 Structural Argument/ Level 5-
competition and intraspecific and sentence 1 Repeating Claim Experimental
competition affects the amount of Claim
population more than just having
intraspecific competition.

159
Discussion: Examining Elizabeth’s and Kelsey’s Informal and Formal Writing

This section returns to the research question at the beginning of the chapter: how do

students take up these epistemic practices in their argumentative writing using these practices?

Described throughout this chapter were the ways students have incorporated lessons about data

analysis, key vocabulary, and explaining what the data meant to them. Manz (2015) described

the application of the epistemic levels of evidence construction (Kelly and Takao, 2002; Manz,

2015) as a way to reveal “how participants move between and connected different forms of

epistemic work” (p. 1135). The sections below review topics discussed and why they are

significant.

Arguing to Learn: Informal Descriptive and Comparative Writing

Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 provided an examination of the ways Ms. Fitzgerald and her Ms.

Matthews taught students how to examine points of data using WIS (what I see) and WIM (what

it means) as well as how to analyze data using inequalities and slope. The chapters also identified

how they taught students to explore the reasons why the population of the species of

Paramecium rise a fall (limiting factors, overpopulation, asexual reproduction, etc) and how to

write an argument using specific points of data/evidence and write their reasoning for how it

supports their claim. As students participated in these discussions, they wrote informally during

the unit to describe the graphs and compared them to one another as they learned about them.

The informal approach was a pretext for more formal argumentative writing (the timed

CER essay). Just as the conversations in the classroom focused on the graph being taught or how

it compared to another graph, so did their writing. Students initially wrote about their WIS and

WIM as seen in Elizabeth’s first paragraph describing the P. aurelia in intraspecific competition

and Kelsey’s first draft describing what she noticed in the inequality between the points. The

160
students were then encouraged by Ms. Matthews to think more critically about the decrease in P.

aurelia from its peak to the carrying capacity and in the discussion, they explored several

plausible limiting factors. Kelsey’s second draft directly references this discussion. In her final

version of the description, Kelsey incorporated her calculations of slope, the inequalities, and the

identification of the carrying capacity. Her writing explained the changes in the Paramecium

population over time as depicted in the graph.

The students were taught to see these descriptions as “the story of the graph” or a

narrative and they were encouraged to include the vocabulary terms and concepts they learned in

class. Like Manz’s (2015) discussion of classroom discussions, it appears that Elizabeth’s and

Kelsey’s writing demonstrated of their ability to make transformations of the evidence- to go

from simply naming points and terminology, to using evidence and concepts to support their

claim more purposefully and explaining the relationship between the variables, as seen in later

paragraphs as they progress through the unit. For example, Elizabeth’s informal writing includes

slopes, specific numbers of the population of Paramecia, a few key vocabulary, and discusses

changes in the data across time. In her later informal writing Elizabeth explains how she

interprets the numerical data in relation to increases and decreases in the population and

gradually incorporates ecological concepts (carrying capacity, size of the species, and types of

population growth). Kelsey’s informal writing begins with inequalities and a few concepts,

however, over time she incorporates more ecological concepts into her interpretation of the

numerical data. She uses the information taught in class as part of her warranting of the evidence

provided in the graphs and integrates the concepts discussed into her writing.

Kelsey wrote more than Elizabeth and practiced different ways of working with evidence

and using it to support her claims. For epistemic levels of evidence construction, Kelsey used a

161
variety of the levels across her work and consistently began each of her paragraphs with a claim,

except for her two drafts. Elizabeth began her paragraphs with either a claim or introducing the

experimental variables. Regarding key concepts, while they both shared several, Kelsey included

more concepts learned in class into her writing. Argumentatively, both students had similarities

in how they warranted their arguments. Intertextually across their written work both students

developed ideas and used similar sentence structures across time. Intercontextually, both students

wrote their paragraphs either in class or finished them up for homework the day they were

assigned and therefore several of their ideas reflected the discussion in class at their small group

and from the whole class discussion.

Learning to Argue: Formal Argumentative Writing- The Timed CER Essay

Although Kelsey’s essay was longer than Elizabeth’s, both students used three epistemic

levels of evidence construction. While for Elizabeth this was one of her most varied use of the

epistemic levels amongst her paragraphs, for Kelsey this was a restrained use of the epistemic

levels in comparison to her earlier writing. Argumentatively, both had the basic features of the

argument which the teacher required (claims, evidence, reasoning), however they differed in

their warranting of the evidence they included. Interestingly, both students intercontextually

connected their writing to the limiting factors discussion in their inclusion of their discussion

about resources impacting the two species in competition and both students explored the reasons

“why” behind the data. The inclusion of limiting factors as a key concept differed between the

students as described in the chart. Intertextually, both students used data from the graphs without

specifically naming each of the graphs and they both built on earlier ideas and used similar

sentence structures from their previously written work.

162
 In the CER essay, students were actively doing the work of scientists by supporting their

claims with specific evidence from the graphs and warranting using information they learned on

the topic. Students’ earlier composing process of writing about data, led to more sophisticated

arguments and use of evidence. The drafting process that Kelsey did for her first essay helped

her to learn the epistemic practice of incorporating numerical data with the key concepts. This

was something that took Elizabeth longer during the informal writing process. However, both

students utilized several different epistemic levels of evidence construction to support their

claims and embedded their warranting showing their shift from descriptive writing to more

analytical and strategic writing. The comparison paragraphs taught the students to look across the

graphs which was demonstrated in their writing of the final argumentative essay. In summary,

students learned the epistemic practices in the facilitated conversations with the teachers and

demonstrated their understanding of them in their writing throughout the unit and in their

culminating argumentative essay.

163
 Chapter 7: Conclusions and Implications

This dissertation is a microethnographic discourse analytic study of an accelerated

biology classroom to consider how an academic literacies perspective is useful in examining the

epistemic practices taught by a highly regarded teacher and how her students engaged in those

epistemic practices in their writing. This chapter summarizes how the key research findings

answered the research questions in addition to discussing the theoretical, pedagogical, and

implications for future research. Two research questions shaped the investigation with each

question briefly summarized in chapters four through six.

First Research Question

How does the teacher engage her students in epistemic practices such as talking and

writing argumentatively about what counts as scientific evidence in small groups and whole

class discussions using scientific modeling during a unit on ecology?

Recent research in science education has turned toward language and literacy and the

need for authentic argumentation opportunities to engage students in the practice of evidence

construction using modeling instruction (Guy-Gaytan et al., 2019; Lehrer & Schauble, 2015;

Manz, 2012; Manz, 2015; Osborne, 2010; Scott et al., 2006). During the observed multi-day lab

demonstration project, Ms. Fitzgerald purposefully used modeling instruction to create a more

dialogic classroom environment and culture which supported argumentation in talk and writing.

She explained her goal to the students that, by the end of the school year, she expected them to
164
be independently asking questions to each other as they engage in science labs and engaging in

scientific practices and thought processes after observing their teacher’s “modeling how to think”

(Ms. Fitzgerald on October 16th).

There is a demonstrated tension science teachers face in balancing scientific writing that

summarizes previously learned information and “formulating hypotheses and making deductions

from them, explaining subject-area concepts, recording observations, and writing laboratory

reports” (Nachowitz, 2013, p. 96). This tension is also evident when teachers are balancing their

responses to students' questions in authoritative versus dialogic ways (Aguiar, Mortimer, &

Scott, 2010). However, there are not many studies that examine how teachers engage with

students dialogically in how students learn to participate and enact science (cf. Kelly G. J., 2014;

Manz & Renga, 2017). Ms. Fitzgerald utilized patterns during discussions which included

frequent questions for clarification, invitations of multiple possible ideas or solutions, invitations

for agreement/disagreement, and revoicing of student answers. Simultaneously, she used open

ended questions and targeted questions to guide students from lower levels of evidence

construction (noticing, public attributes, and data collection) to considering experimental

variables and making experimental claims (Manz & Renga, 2017). Argumentatively, she invited

students to make claims in the classroom and ask questions that purposefully required evidence

and warranting to be answered fully. Ms. Fitzgerald welcomed student answers, asked follow-up

questions, and recognized student ideas despite moments when they were not sure of the

relevance.

There is currently little research on teachers’ understandings of argumentation and their

ability to participate and facilitate this complex practice (Manz & Suarez, 2018; McNeill &

165
Knight, 2013; Simon et al., 2006). Though not studied in detail within the context of this

research, Ms. Fitzgerald’s view of writing argumentatively as an ideational and social process

(Newell, et al. 2015) supported her students as they wrote informal paragraphs using argument to

learn as well as their formal claims, evidence, and reasoning (CER) essay when they learned to

argue.

Discourse analysis occurred at multiple levels of the selected lessons across six days

within and across phases and days to construct connections and to maintain lesson phase

boundaries. At the level of face-to-face interaction, the analysis of moment-by-moment

interactions of the teacher and students, it became clear that they were constantly signaling to

each other issues of time; indeed, contextualization cues related to time were ubiquitous. The

social construction of intercontextuality was significant to understand how students brought their

own memories to the interactions, and the combined set of memories may be critical to a deeper

understanding of the writing task. Ms. Fitzgerald carefully planned the multi-day lab

demonstration project with other science teachers as well as her guided questions for discussion

to support her students in making connections between the information they learned and

applying it cumulatively in their writing. The multi-day lab demonstration project and

discussions intercontextually and intertextually depended on students’ small group and

individual creation and interpretation of the line graphs representing the growth of the

Paramecium.

Second Research Question

How do students take up these epistemic practices in their argumentative writing as these

practices are made visible through argumentative moves?

166
 Previous research on teaching and learning argumentation and argumentative writing

provided a framework for understanding the ways in which students built on the arguments from

discussions and how their writing in this unit transitions from “learning to argue” to “arguing to

learn” (Newell, et al., 2015). As mentioned in Chapter 3, writing to learn in science includes the

assumption that students are acquiring the epistemic practices of constructing acceptable

scientific evidence, utilizing the graphs and numerical data as resources, and engaging in

argumentation in the classroom through conversations science (Kelly & Licona, 2018; Lave,

1996; Vygotsky, 1987). In the facilitated discussions mentioned in Chapter 4 and analyzed in

Chapter 5, students are integrating talk, writing, and graphing into how they understand what it

means to engage in science. The academic literacies framework views these as part of the

process of socializing students into the disciplines through instruction in the epistemic practices

of the discipline while simultaneously viewing them as practices which are shaped

institutionally, socially, and culturally.

Elizabeth’s and Kelsey’s writing demonstrated of their ability to construct at a variety of

epistemic levels- to go from simply naming points and terminology, to using evidence and

concepts to support their claim more purposefully and explaining the relationship between the

variables, as seen in later paragraphs as they progress through the unit. They were explicitly

taught how to make sense of the graphs, make claims in the comparison paragraphs, and include

evidence from both numbers and key concepts. Students were not just naming the graph; they

were interpreting the meaning of it for the populations of Paramecia. In other words, through

the writing of the descriptive and comparative paragraphs students were taught the process of

how to think about data from simple observation phenomena to phenomenal to make a scientific

167
claim and shift from a description about the graph to an interpretation of its meaning as seen in

their later writing.

The CER essays of all four case study participants included intercontextual connections

to the discussion of limiting factors which involved raising possibilities, making claims. This

raised the question about why this discussion was so impactful for the students. Additionally,

several participating students used the claims, evidence, and reasoning as a structure, they

labeled their claims and evidence parts correctly and mislabeled the reasoning part of their

argument. This indicated that students benefited from more explicit instruction about how to

warrant the evidence they include in their arguments and that the parts of an argument (claim,

evidence, and reasoning) do not have to follow the same structure. Both student essays made

connections to the numerical data on their graphs without the specific label of the graph

title/number. They also both used their previous sentence structures and ideas in subsequent

writing assignments over time. The second student made an idea more concise and reworded it to

better fit her arguments throughout the project. Regarding their evidence construction, the

argumentative writing of both students developed in complexity and sophistication.

Theoretical Implications

This dissertation contributes to the theoretical knowledge of teaching and learning

argumentative writing in science in its application of academic literacies. Earlier research in

academic literacies has focused on its use in higher education (Lea & Street, 1998), international

studies (Russell et al., 2009; Wingate & Tribble, 2012), and in English language arts (Newell et

al., 2015), this dissertation extends the framework to high school science. An academic literacies

lens assumes students are “becoming socialized” in the discipline, it goes beyond a description of

168
academic social practices to a consideration of how students adapt to new situations and

experience the natural tensions that develop when learning new and complex ideas (Lea and

Street, 1998; Lillis and Scott, 2007; Street, 2010). This dissertation examines the written

responses of two students throughout the multi-day lab demonstration project and pays close

attention to their formal argumentative essay. The writing in the last essay was reminiscent of

Bakhtin’s (1984) concept of hidden dialogicality as described by Smagorinsky (2017) “a process

through which tests are produced as conversational turns that take into account prior texts, even

if those texts are not present or acknowledged (Wertsch, 1999)” (p.36). The argumentative essay

was produced directly after conversations with their table group, whole class, and the ideas in it

were developed throughout the project over time both in discussions and in their earlier written

work. In these essays and in the discussions, students were given opportunities to make sense of

the content and their ideas were supported through revoicing and developed through questioning.

When using social construction, “literacy learning takes place in a social environment through

interactional exchanges in which what is to be learn is to some extent a joint construction of

teacher and student” (Cook-Gumperz, 1986, p. 8). In Ms. Fitzgerald’s classroom, the use of

modeling instruction lifted students’ voices and contributions in creating knowledge in the

shared space. The flexibility to follow the conversation in modeling, revoicing students’ answers,

and asking questions encouraged students to think at a variety of epistemic levels about evidence

construction which in turn, shows up in their writing.

Miller and colleagues (2018) proposed the construct of “epistemic agency,” defining it as

“students being positioned with, perceiving, and acting on, opportunities to shape the knowledge

169
building work in their classroom community” (p. 6). In doing so they raised an issue of

significance to the study:

A foundational contradiction underlies these efforts— while we want students to do

science, we seem to mean that students should mimic practices others have selected as

important to learn, and content others have selected as foundational. As a result, students

are rarely positioned with epistemic agency: the power to shape the knowledge

production and practices of a community (Stroupe, 2014).

While the issues raised were complex and even summarizing them would be too far beyond the

limits of the study, one way to examine the construct and face validity of epistemic agency may

be through the study of science writing in classrooms such as Ms. Fitzgerald’s. She supported

her students’ epistemic agency through focusing her attention on how her students make sense of

the natural world and think about science as an active practice, as something you do rather than a

subject that is learned about. When we look at more traditional ways of teaching science where

students are expected to learn information more transmissively and look to the experts in the

field as a model for what strategies and skills to teach the next generation, we miss out on the

contributions that students, particularly students from diverse backgrounds bring to science.

Moje and colleagues (2004) discussed a “third space” created between the disciplinary

knowledge and students’ funds of knowledge and Discourse. This “third space” is at the heart of

academic literacies. The academic literacies lens values the contributions students make and in

addition to the way they are socialized, it takes into consideration student agency, identity,

culture, funds of knowledge, and institutional pressures (Lea and Street, 1998; Lillis and Scott,

2007; Street, 2010). The question raised was how and when did “arguing to learn” provide

170
students with agency after the teacher suggests the possibilities of an idea or problem. In its

current framework, disciplinary literacy has not addressed the tension between students viewing

science as new and science as settled knowledge. Using academic literacies, this dissertation

shows how students were actively engaged in constructing new scientific knowledge while

learned settled scientific concepts through modeling instruction.

Pedagogical Implications

From a pedagogical perspective, this study illustrates how Ms. Fitzgerald utilized

modeling instruction to support her students in their engagement in a multi-day lab

demonstration project. This national expert in modeling instruction carefully planned the project

and opportunities for open ended discussions about the process of analysis and interpretation of

the ecological data and concepts. She utilized patterns which included revoicing student ideas for

agreement among their peers and building on them through her use of follow up questions and

deep content knowledge. This revoicing of ideas supported the co-construction of knowledge

between herself, the student teacher, and her students and it valued student contributions. The

whole class and small group discussions gave students the opportunity to discuss these ideas,

processes, and practices, however writing during this project provided students opportunities to

craft extended individual responses for feedback, reflection, and analysis for both the students

and the teacher. Put another way,

This discussion will be partly oral, in presentations and interactions that make up

dialogue of instruction; but the opportunity for individuals to make extended

contributions during class discussion are necessarily limited. Writing becomes a primary

171
 and necessary vehicle for practicing the ways of organizing and presenting ideas that are

most appropriate to a particular subject area (Langer and Applebee, 1987, p. 150).

Writing provides students the opportunity to synthesize what they learn and make connections

across lessons. Newell and colleagues (2015) stated “Procedures and knowledge, which are

initially co-constructed in interaction with others during classroom discussions, are then

internalized and reconstructed to become unique personal resource that is used for composing a

high-quality argumentative essay.” (p. 138). It also provided the teacher an opportunity to

individually assess their students’ conceptual understanding, vocabulary use, and discipline

specific ways of writing.

Ms. Fitzgerald provided many opportunities for students in small groups to collaborate on

their interpretation of the data presented in the graphs and come up with ideas for them to

include in their written paragraphs describing the graphs and comparing them to one another.

She also provided them with time to discuss the prompt of the timed argumentative essay on the

final day of the project. As a result of this instruction, students acquired the epistemic practices

in their writing during the course of the multi-day lab demonstration project. Her use of

modeling instruction provided a framework for her to possibly continue these discussions about

writing after it has occurred.

It is beneficial for future science teacher education to focus on intentional and explicit

instruction about the writing moves students need to learn in science argumentation. Direct and

intentional instruction is important when doing argumentation, understanding what it is, using it

to build knowledge, and understanding the ways in which science arguments are written, not just

structured. There are numerous genres within science writing- laboratory procedures, supporting

172
scientific claims, describing numerical data, etc. Literacy and writing instruction can support

science instruction using multiple drafts and providing feedback from peers and the teacher to

aid students in the development of their ideas and sentence structures. This is not to replace the

work of English Language Arts, rather it is so that students can learn appropriate ways to make

arguments in science and how to be persuasive in a scientific community.

I return to the questions at the beginning of this dissertation through a lens in light of the

COVID-19 crisis,

• How are future decision makers--current students--being taught to think through

scientific evidence and make conclusions about what it means?

• How are they learning to develop scientific ideas through discussion of scientific

data?

• How are they communicating their ideas in writing and how are they learning to

listen to one another to develop their ideas?

In the classroom observed, students were included in the process of knowledge creation,

they determined the need for slope and suggested ideas of limiting factors. Ms. Fitzgerald sought

to empower her students as participants in the practice of science through her questioning and

revoicing. She used questioning and metaphors in her teaching about how to seek out reasons

why something was occurring, and she utilized explicit instruction in argument as well as small

group conversations to support their writing development.

Ultimately it is through listening to students’ ideas and building on them which shows

that teachers value what they bring to the classroom – their contributions, their personhood, their

identity, their culture, and their voice. Ms. Fitzgerald, a national expert on modeling and urban

173
teacher, uses modeling instruction to engage students in the acts of doing science. As a result,

many of her students credit her for teaching them to think, which enabled them to become first

generation college graduates.

Science education is influenced by our experiences, culture, identities, and agency-it is an

act of humanity. When a society includes more ideas born of different cultures and perceptions

of the world into science education, it makes science better. For example, Perez (2019) points to

the gender data gap in science including but not limited to pharmacology, vehicle safety, and the

implementation of air-conditioning. We also see similar research gaps resulting from further

divisions in our society racially, by ability, by sexual orientation, and across other marginalized

groups. In the end, perhaps researchers and teacher educators can start thinking about science

education as a human endeavor and purposely seeking out frameworks which enable them to

empower teachers to encourage their students from marginalized groups to participate in science.

Implications for further research

The completion of this study and dissertation was not without certain limitations. To get

the best representation of the writing abilities of the participating students, the work of all four

case study students in this project, while analyzed, was not included in this dissertation. The two

students not chosen were the strongest and weakest of the group. Also, since it was not the focus

of this dissertation, Ms. Fitzgerald’s epistemology was not fully investigated. Due to the narrow

focus of this dissertation, only 6 of the 20 recorded lessons were closely analyzed to answer the

research questions. Data collection occurred from September 2019 to January 2020 and was

paused to update data logs. It was intended to resume data collection from March to June 2020,

however due to COVD-19 this was not feasible nor was it within the scope of the IRB.

174
 As a result of these limitations, there are many implications for future research. For

example, a broader investigation of all participating students’ responses to Ms. Fitzgerald’s

teaching may contrast students’ learning across time and differences in responses to instruction.

Also, a closer study of Ms. Fitzgerald’s writing epistemology would be of interest to examine

how it aligns with modeling instruction and how it results in consistently high student

achievement. Another area of interest is a closer examination at the numeracy practices and

numeracy events in science classrooms-building on the extension of Street’s ideological model

of literacy (Street et al., 2005; Street, 1984). Research could more closely examine the semiotic

figures and graphs across the unit.

Further research could utilize the participation framework of positive discourse analysis

(Martin, 2004) to critically examine the power dynamics in modeling instruction. Lessons

recorded outside of the multi-day lab demonstration project could be more closely examined for

additional evidence of epistemic practices in talking and writing argumentatively. Another

broader study conducted throughout an entire academic year could examine how talk and writing

support modeling processes and argumentation development over time. Finally, further research

could see what modeling and argumentation look like in physics or chemistry classrooms.

175
 References

Agar, M. (2013). The Lively Science: Remodeling human social research. Minneapolis: Mill City
Press.
Aguiar, O. G., Motimer, E., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students'
questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, 47(2), 174-193.
Applebee, A. (1996). Curriculum as conversation: Transforming traditions of teaching and
learning. Chicago, Illinois, United States of America: The University of Chicago Press.
Applebee, A., & Langer, J. (2013). Writing instruction that works: Proven methods for middle
and high school classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Barton, D. (1994). Literacy: An introduction to ecology of written language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Baynham, M. (1995). Literacy practices. London: Longman.
Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2010). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of
scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95, 191-216.
Bielik, T., Opitz, S., & Novak, A. (2018). Supporting students in building and using models:
development on the quality and complexity dimensions. Education Sciences, 8(149).
Blommaert, J., & Jie, D. (2010). Ethnographic fieldwork. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Bloome, D. (1989). Beyond access. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Literacy and Classrooms (pp. 53-106).
Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
Bloome, D., Beierle, M., Grigorenko, M., & Goldman, S. (2009). Learning over time: Uses of
intercontextuality, collective memories, and classroom chronotopes in the construction of
learning opportunities in a ninth-grade language arts classroom. Language and
Education, 23(4), 313-334. doi:10.1080/09500780902954257
Bloome, D., Carvalho, G., & Ryu, S. (2018). Researching Academic Literacies. In A. Phakiti, P.
De Costa, L. Plonksy, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Applied
Linguistics Research Methodology (pp. 887-902). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bloome, D., Power Carter, S., Christain, B., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2005). Discourse
analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A microethnographic
perspective. New York City: Routledge.
Buehl, D. (2011). Developing readers in academic disciplines. Newark, Delaware, United States
of America: International Reading Association.
Castanheira, M., Street, B., & Carvalho, G. (2015). Navigating across academic contexts: Campo
and Angolan students in Brazilian university. Pedagogies: An International Journal,
10(1), 70-85.
Chen, Y., Benus, M. J., & Yarker, M. B. (2016). Using models to support argumentation in the
science classroom. The American Biology Teacher, 78(7), 549-559.

176
Clement, J. (2008). Student/teacher co-construction of visualizable models in large group
discussion. In J. Clement, & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model Based Learning and
Instruction (Vol. 2). Springer Science+Business Media B. V.
Cook-Gumperz, J. (1986). Introduction: The social construction of literacy. In J. Cook-Gumperz
(Ed.), The social construction of literacy (pp. 1-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Crombie, A. C. (1994). Styles of scientific thinking in the European tradition: The history of
argument and explanation especially in the mathematical and biomedical sciences and
arts. London: Duckworth.
De La Paz, S., Monte-Sano, C. F., Croninger, R., Jackson, C., & Piantedosi, K. W. (2016). A
Historical Writing Apprenticeship for Adolescents: Integrating Disciplinary Learning
with Cognitive Strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(1), 31-52.
Delpit, L. D. (1988, August). The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other
People's Children. Harvard Educational review, 53(3), 280-298.
Dempsey, N. (2010). Stimulated Recall Interviews in Ethnography. Qualitative Sociology, 33,
349-367.
Driver, P., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation
in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
Durst, R., & Newell, G. (1989). The Uses of Function: James Britton's Category System and
Research on Writing. Review of Educational Research, 59(4), 375-394.
Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in
Science Education. Science Education, 38, 39-72.
Eisenhart, M., & Howe, K. (1992). Validity in educational research. In W. M. M. LeCompte
(Ed.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 643-680). San Diego:
Academic Press.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago,
Illinois, United States of America: University of Chicago Press.
Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J.-Y. (2015). Research Trends on Argumentation in Science
Education: A Journal Content Analysis from 1998-2014. International Journal of STEM
Education, 2(5). doi:10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004, October 4). TAPping into Argumentation:
Developments in the Application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for Studying Science
Discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933. doi:10.1002/sce.20012
Erickson, F. (2008). Talk and Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fang, Z. (2010). Disciplinary Literacies Across Content Areas: Supporting Secondary Reading
Through Functional Language Analysis. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(7),
587-597. doi:10.1598/JAAL.53.7.6
Ford, M. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning.
Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207-245. doi:10.1080/07370008.2012.689383
Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. W. (2006). Redefining Disciplinary Learning in Classroom Contexts.
Review of Research in Education, 1-32.
Gergen, K. J. (2015). An Invitation to Social Construction (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Modeling-based teaching in science education (Vol. 9).
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
177
Gobert, J. D., O'Dwyer, L., Horwitz, P., Buckley, B. C., Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2011).
Examining the relationship between students' understanding of the nature of models and
conceptual learning in biology, physics, and chemistry. International Journal of Science
Education, 33(5), 653-684.
Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., . . . READI, P.
(2016). Disciplinary Literacies and Learning to Read for Understanding: A Conceptual
Framework for Disciplinary Literacy. Educational Psychologist, 5(2), 219-246.
Green, J., & Wallat, C. (1981). Mapping instructional conversations. In J. Green, & C. Wallat
(Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp. 161-195). Norwood, New
Jersey: Ablex.
Greenleaf, C., Littman, C., Hanson, T., Rosen, R., Booscardin, C., Herman, J., . . . Jones, B.
(2011, June). Integrating Literacy and Science in Biology: Teaching and Learning
Impacts of Reading Apprenticeship Professional Development. American Educational
Research Journal, 48(3), 647-717. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27975305
Guy-Gaytan, C., Gouvea, J., Griesemer, C., & Passmore, C. (2019). Tensions between learning
models and engaging in modeling: Exploring implications for science classrooms.
Science & Education, 28, 843-864.
Hammann, L., & Stevens, R. (2003). Instructional approaches to improving students' writing of
compare-contrast essays: an experimental study. Journal of Literacy Research, 35(2),
731-756.
Harris, C. J., Phillips, R. S., & Penuel, W. R. (2012). Examining Teachers' Instructional Moves
Aimed at Developing Students' Ideas and Questions in Learner-Centered Science
Classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 769-788. doi:10.1007/s10972-
011-9237-0
Harris, J. (2006). Rewriting: How to do things with texts. Logan, Utah: Utah State University
Press.
Heath, S. B., & Street, B. V. (2008). Ethnography: Approaches to Language and Literacy
Research. New York City: Teacher College Press.
Heath, S. B., Street, B. V., & Mills, M. (2008). Ethnography: Approaches to Language and
Literacy Research. New York City: Teachers College Press.
Hennessy, S., Rojas-Drummond, S., Higham, R., Marquez, A., Maine, F., Rios, R., . . . Barrera,
M. (2016). Developing a coding scheme for analysing classroom dialogue across
educational contexts. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 9, 16-44.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.12.001
Heras, A. (1993). The construction of understanding in a sixth-grade bilingual classroom.
Linguistics and Education, 5(3-4), 275-299.
Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of
Physics, 55(5), 440-454.
Hestenes, D. (1997). Modeling methodology for physics teachers. AIP Conference Proceedings.
399, pp. 935-958. American Institute of Physics.
Hestenes, D. (2010). ASU Modeling Instruction & MNS Degree Programs: legacy site. Retrieved
from Arizona State University: http://modeling.asu.edu/History-ModelingInstruction.doc
Hillocks, G. J. (1995 ). Teaching writing as reflective practice. New York City: Teachers
College Press.
178
Hotez, P. J. (2021, March). The antiscience movement is escalating, going global and killing
thousands. Scientific American.
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of interaction in language and social life. In J. Gumperz, & D. Hymes
(Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication (pp. 35-71).
London: Basil Blackwell.
Inquirium, LLC. (2005-2022). InqScribe Software (Version 2.2.5). Chicago, Illinois, United
States: FastSpring. Retrieved from https://www.inqscribe.com/
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic
Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ivanic, R. (2004). Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write. Language and Education, 18(3),
220-245.
Jackson, J., Dukerich, L., & Hestenes, D. (2008). Modeling Instruction: An Effective Model for
Science Education. Science Educator, 17(1), 10-17. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ851867.pdf
Kelly, G. (2007). Discourse in Science Classrooms. Handbook of Research on Science
Education, 1, 443-469.
Kelly, G. J. (2014). Discourse Practices in Science Learning and Teaching. In N. G. Lederman,
& S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp.
321-336). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The Sound of Music:Constructing Science as Sociocultural
Practices through Oral and Written Discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
36(8), 883-915.
Kelly, G. J., & Green, J. (1998). The Social Nature of Knowing: Toward a Sociocultural
Perspective on Conceptual Change and Knowledge Construction. In B. Guzzetti, & C.
Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on Conceptual Change: Multiple Ways to Understand
Knowing and Learning in a Complex World (pp. 145-181). Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An Analysis of University
Oceanography Students' Use of Evidence in Writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314-342.
Kelly, G., & Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: Rhetorical-semantic
analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 28-55.
Kelly, G., & Licona, P. (2018). Epistemic Practices and Science Education. In M. R. Matthews
(Ed.), History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching: New Perspectives (pp. 139-165).
Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Khine, M. S. (Ed.). (2012). Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation: Theory, Practice and
Research. Heidelberg: Springer.
Kind, P., & Osborne, J. (2016). Styles of scientific reasoning: A cultural rationale for science
education? Science Education, 101, 8-31.
Kinloch, V., & San Pedro, T. (2014). The Space Between Listening and Storying. In D. Paris, &
M. Winn (Eds.), Humanizing Research: Decolonizing Qualitative Inquiry With Youth and
Communities (pp. 21-42). Los Angeles, California, United States of America: SAGE.
Klein, P. D., & Boscolo, P. (2016). Trends in Research on Writing as a Learning Activity.
Journal of Writing Research, 7(3), 311-350.

179
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for Thinking. Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America:
Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and Learning Science as Argument. (J. Osborne, & M. P. Jimenez-
Aleixandre, Eds.) Science Education, 94, 810-824. doi:10.1002/sce.20395
Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008, October). Arguing on the Computer:
A Microgenetic Study of Developing Argument Skills in a Computer-Supported
Environment. Child Development, 79(5), 1310-1328.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America: Harvard University Press.
Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as Learning, in Practice. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3(3), 149-164.
doi:1074-9039/96/149-164
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New
York City: Cambridge University Press.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. (2000). Student Writing and Staff Feedback in Higher Education: An
Academic Literacies Approach. In Student Writing in Higher Education: New Contexts
(pp. 32-46). Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open
University Press.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The "academic literacies" model: Theory and applications.
Theory into Practice, 45(4), 368-377.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2015). The Development of Scientific Thinking. In L. S. Liben, U.
Muller, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental
science: Cognitive processes (pp. 671-714). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Lillis, T., & Scott, M. (2008). Defining Academic Literacies Research: Issues of Epistemology,
Ideology, and Strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 2-32.
Lin, L. (1993). Language of and in the classroom: Constructing the patterns of social life.
Linguistics and Education, 5(3-4), 367-409.
Manz, E. (2012, October 1). Understanding the Codevelopment of Modeling Practice and
Ecological Knowledge. Science Education, 96, 1071-1105. doi:10.1002/sce.21030
Manz, E. (2015, June 18). Examining Evidence Construction as the Transformation of the
Material World Into Community Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
53(7), 1113-1140. doi:10.1002/tea.21264
Manz, E. (2015, December). Representing Student Argumentation as Functionally Emergent
from Scientific Activity. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 553-590.
Manz, E., & Renga, I. P. (2017). Understanding How Teachers Guide Evidence Construction
Conversations. Science Education, 101(4), 584-615.
Manz, E., & Suarez, E. (2018). Supporting teachers to negotiate uncertainty, science, and
teaching. Science Education, 102, 771-795.
Martin, A., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in elementary
science classroom: A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17-
38.
McComas, W. F. (2002). The Principal Elements of the Nature of Science: Dispelling the Myths.
In W. McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and
Strategies (pp. 53-72). New York City: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

180
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Alamazroa, H. (2002). The Role and Character of the Nature
of Science in Science Education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science in
Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 3-40). New York City: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
McNeill, K., & Knight, A. (2013, November). Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge of
Scientific Argumentation: The impact of professional development on K-12 teachers.
Science Education, 936-972. doi:10.1002/sce.21081
McNeill, K., & Pimentel, D. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of
the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2),
203-229.
Megowan-Romanowicz, C. (n.d.). Helping students construct robust conceptual models. In M. S.
Khine, & I. Saleh (Eds.), Models and Modeling: Cognitive Tools for Scientific Enquiry
(Vol. 6, pp. 99-120). Springer.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking; A
socio-cultural approach. London: Routledge.
Michaels, S., & O.Connor, C. (2012). Talk science Primer. Cambridge, Massachusetts: TERC.
Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized:
Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Study of Philosophy and Education,
27, 283-297.
Miller, E., Manz, E., Russ, R., Stroupe, D., & Berland, L. (2018). Addressing the epistemic
elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards.
Journal of Research in science Teaching, 1-23.
Mitchell, J. (1984). Typicality and the Case Study. In R. Ellen (Ed.), Ethnographic Research: A
Guide to General Conduct (pp. 238-241). New York City: Academic Press.
Moje, E. (2008). Foregrounding the Disciplines in Secondary Literacy Teaching and Learning: A
Call for Change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96-107. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable020111747
Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing Socially Just Subject-Matter Instruction: A Review of Literature
on Disciplinary Literacy Teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1-44. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20185100
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for Teaching:
Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms. Theory into Practice,
31(2), 132-141. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1476399
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary classrooms. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Nachowitz, M. (2013). Chapter 6: Writing in Science. In a. Applebee, & J. Langer, Writing
Instruction that Works: Proven Methods for Middle and High School Classrooms (pp.
94-110). New York: Teachers College Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core Ideas. Washington, District of Columbia, United States
of America: The National Academies Press.

181
Newell, G. (2006). Writing to Learn: How Alternative Theories of School Writing Account for
Student Performance. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of
Writing Research (pp. 235-247). New York City, New York, United States of America:
The Guilford Press.
Newell, G. E., Bloome, D., & Project, A. W. (2017). Teaching and Learning Literary
Argumentation in High School English Language Arts Classrooms. In K. A. Hinchman,
& D. Appleman (Eds.), Adolescent Literacies: A Handbook of Practice-Based Research
(pp. 379-397). New York City, New York, United States of America: Guilford Press.
Newell, G. E., Richard, B., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J. (2011). Teaching and Learning
Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research. (D. Kuhn, & J. Andriessen,
Eds.) Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273-304.
Newell, G., Bloome, D., & Hirvela, A. (2015). Teaching and learning argumentative writing in
high school English language arts classrooms. New York City: Routledge.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington,
District of Columbia, United States: The National Academies Press.
Nunez-Oviedo, M. C., Clement, J., & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (2008). Developing complex mental
models in biology through model evolution. In J. Clement, & M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.),
Model Based Learning and Instruction (Vol. 2). Springer Science+Business B. V.
Osborne, J. (2010, April 23). Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaboration, Critical
Discourse. Science Magazine, 328, 463-466.
Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011, May 23). Scientific Argument and Explanation: A
Necessary Distinction? Science Education, 95, 627-638.
Osbourne, J., MacPherson, A., Patterson, A., & Szu, E. (2012). Chapter 1: Introduction. In M. S.
Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation (pp. 3-16). Springer
Science+Business Media B. V. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_1
Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in
high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185-204.
Perez, C. (2019). Invisible women: Data bias in a world designed for men. New York City:
Abrams Press.
Philip, T. M., Martinez, D., Lopez, E., & Garcia, A. (2016). Toward a teacher solidarity lens:
former teachers of color (re)envisioning educational research. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 19(1), 182-199. doi:10.1080/13613324.2014.946494
Prasad, A. (2021, April). Anti-Science misinformation and conspiracies: COVID-19, post-truth,
and science & technology studies. Science, Technology, and Society.
doi:10.1177/09717218211003413
Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the
academy. Routledge.
Prior, P., & Olinger, A. (2019). Academic Literacies as Laminated Assemblage and Embodied
Semiotic Becoming. In Re-Theorizing literacy practices: complex social and cultural
contexts (pp. 126-140). New York City: Routledge.
Ramage, J., Bean, J., & Johnson, J. (2001). Writing arguments: A rhetoric with readings (5th
ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

182
Rao, A., Morstatter, F., Hu, M., Chen, E., Burghardt, K., Ferrara, E., & Lerman, K. (2021, June).
Political partisanship and antiscience attitudes in online discussions about COVID-19:
twitter content analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(6).
Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (2008). Determining target models and effective learning pathways for
developing understanding of biological topics. In J. Clement, & M. A. Rea-Ramirez
(Eds.), Model Based Learning and Instruction (Vol. 2). Springer Science+Business B. V.
Ribeiro do Amaral, E. M., Fleury Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2004). A conceptual profile for
entropy and spontaneity: a characterization of ways of thinking and speaking in the
chemistry classroom. Chemical Education, 15(3), 218-233.
Rogers, R. (2018). Reclaiming Powerful Literacies: New horizons for critical discourse analysis.
New York City: Routledge.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford
University Press.
Russell, D., Lea, M., Parker, J., Street, B., & Donahue, T. (n.d.). Exploring notions of genre in
"academic literacies" and "writing across the curriculum": approaches across countries
and contexts. In C. B. Bazerman (Ed.), Genre in a Changing World Perspectives on
Writing. Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.
Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding
from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96, 488-526.
Sanchez, C., & Dunning, D. (2021, April). The anti-scientists bias: the roles of feelings about
scientists in COVID-19 attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
51(4), 461-473. doi:10.1111/jasp.12748
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., . . . Krajcik, J.
(2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific
modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.
Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Aguiar, O. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic
discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school
science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605-631. doi:10.1002/sce.20131
Seymour, M., Thanos, T., Newell, G., & Bloome, D. (2020). Teaching literature using dialogic
literary argumentation. New York City: Routledge.
Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three
disciplines: history, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4),
393-429. doi:10.1177/108629XI1424071
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking
content area Lliteracy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and
development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-
3), 235-260. doi:10.1080/09500690500336957
Smagorinsky, P. (2017). Discussion, conversation, and dialogue: Applebee, Bakhtin, and speech
in school. In English Language Arts Research and Teaching: Revisiting and Extending
Arthur Applebee's Contributions (pp. 27-40). New York City: Routledge.
Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

183
Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development,
ethnography and education. London: Longman.
Street, B. V. (1999). The meanings of literacy. In Literacy: An International Handbook (pp. 34-
40). Westview Press.
Street, B. V. (2003). What's "new" in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in
theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2).
Street, B., Baker, D., & Tomlin, A. (2005). Navigating numeracies: Home/school numeracy
practices. Dordrecht: Springer.
Street, B., Lea, M., & Lillis, T. (2015). Revisiting the question of transformation in academic
literacies: The ethnographic imperative. In T. Lillis, K. Harrignton, M. R. Lea, & S.
Mitchell (Eds.), Working with academic literacies: Case studies towards transformative
practice (pp. 383-390). Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America: The WAC
Clearinghouse.
Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and
students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education(98),
487-516.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge,
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New York
City: MacMillan.
Treagust, D. F., & Tsui, C. (Eds.). (2016). Models and modeling in science education: Multiple
representations in biological education (Vol. 7). Dordecht, Netherlands: Springer
Science+Business Media B. V.
Upton, T., & Cohen, M. (2009). An approach to corpus-based discourse analysis: The move
analysis as example. Discourse Studies, 11(5), 585-605.
VanDerHeide, J. (2017). Classroom talk as writing instruction for learning to make writing
moves in literary arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3), 323-344.
VanDerHeide, J., & Newell, G. (2013). Instructional chains as a method for examining the
teaching and learning of argumentative writing in classrooms. Written Communication,
30, 300-329.
VanLeeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Analysis. London:
Oxford University Press.
Volosinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. (L. Matejka, & I. R.
Titunik, Trans.) Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Problems of general psychology,
including the volume thinking and speech. In L. Vygotsky, R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton
(Eds.), Thinking and Speech (Vol. 1, pp. 39-285). Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-
1655-8
Wallace, C., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. New
York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Wells, G. (1995). Language and the inquiry-oriented curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 25(3),
233-269.
184
Wertsch, J. (1999). Revising Russian History. Written Communication, 16(3), 267-295.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Weyand, L., Goff, B., & Newell, G. (2018). The social construction of warranting evidence in
two classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(1), 97-122.
Wingate, U., & Tribble, C. (2012). The best of both worlds? Towards an English for academic
purposes/academic literacies writing pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 481-
495.
Wright, T. S., & Domke, L. M. (2019, January). The role of language and literacy education in
K-5 science and social studies standards. Journal of Literacy Research, 51(1).
doi:10.1177/1086296X18821141
Wynhoff Olsen, A., VanDerHeide, J., Goff, B., & Dunn, M. (2018). Examining intertextual
connections in written arguments: A study of student writing as social participation and
response. Written Communication, 35(1), 58-88. doi:10.1177/074108837739557

185
 Appendix A: Text-based Interview Protocol

Answering questions is optional- can opt out, can ask me to delete an answer, video or audio
record preference? 10-15 min
Describing the class:
• How would you describe the teacher’s teaching to a student not in this class?
Let’s look at one assignment/video clip/audio clip-
• Tell me about the assignment:
o What did you have to do for this assignment?
o How did your teacher tell you what they expected and how it would be graded?
o What did you find challenging/difficult about the assignment?
o structural (How did you organize this section?), ideational/disciplinary (How did
you develop your claim based on evidence from your observations and
measurements?) and social process (What warrants did you use to argue your
claim that your teacher and classmates will find credible, that is, grounded in
scientific knowledge?)
Reading & Writing in Science
• How would you describe reading and writing in this class? What about in science in
general?
• What are some of the things you have wrote/read for & in this class? (Would you be
willing to show me one of these assignments?)
• How do you describe science as a subject area? How do you describe biology?
• How is reading and writing in science different that reading in another content area?
Please give me an example.
Discussion
• When you are discussing ideas, labs, and/or word problems in science what does the
teacher seem to focus on? (Please give an example) As you study biology in general,
what does the teacher seem to focus on?
• When you and other students are discussing ideas, ways of solving problems, and
answering questions at the end of a lab with the teacher, are there times when you
disagree? How do other students feel about disagreements?
Describing the class
• How does the teacher’s support your learning? What are some examples of oral and
written feedback you have received?
• What are different kinds of things you do in this class? Which of these seem most/least
important? Why?
• What has been your favorite and least favorite assignment? Why? Would you be willing
to show me one or both of these assignments?
Identity as a reader/writer
• What kinds of reading and writing do you do outside of school? Tell me more about that

186
• Do you consider yourself a good reader and/or writer? Why? Do you like to read? What
kinds of reading/writing do you do in school?

187
 Appendix B: Epistemic Levels of Evidence Construction with Examples

Epistemic Levels Description Examples from Whole Class Examples from Student
with Sub- Discussion Writing
Categories
6. Facts Statements treated as generalizable Praying mantis being born would Furthermore, the more food P.
knowledge about the beyond the have this kind of growth curve caudatum eats the more waste
scope of the investigation because they give birth to thousands they create.
at one time. But then immediately
they started eating each other.
5. Experimental Statement about how the limiting So why are we getting almost linear Interspecific and intraspecific
188

claims factors contributed to the growth of growth at the beginning? affects the population more than
the Paramecium Maybe the older ones from like the intraspecific alone because there
start of the experiment just started to are less supplies.
dying.
4. Experimental Statement about what specific They hit their max age and just P. caudatum’s population was so
variables- attribute have made the Paramecium started passing life, low because they were so big
operationalization more successful in growing during Once the P. caudatum die out, the P. and there were not enough
of success the intraspecific and interspecific aurelia almost like, catches up resources for them to thrive on.
competition
3. Data Speakers use an attribute to compare When did it hit its peak compared to Also, when P. caudatum was by
collections- across time- specific to one graph; when did it hit its peak when it was itself day 5-16 was almost all
change over time, Speakers make a general statement alone? increase in population, while in
generalizations about all three graphs across time; Births are greater than deaths. competition day 5-16 was almost
188
 Continued
Epistemic Levels Description Examples from Whole Class Examples from Student
with Sub- Discussion Writing
Categories
across time, Speakers use an attribute to compare all decreasing in population,
comparisons across conditions there was no increase.
Across time

2. Public Speakers discuss/debate how it So I'm going to draw on inequality In graph 1, the carrying capacity
attributes- should be measured; Speakers are for that, of the P. aurelia is 50 organisms.
measures, defining a term to support their The peak was almost 30 less.
definitions, understanding of an attribute;
inscriptions Speakers use inscriptions to support
their claims about an attribute
1. Noticings Talk introduces what they see in the We didn't see any other cultures. The population of P. caudatum
graph More dying than being born. had a huge difference when it
was by itself than when it was in
competition.
Adapted from Manz, E. (2015) Examining Evidence Construction as the Transformation of the Material World into Community
189

Knowledge. Journal of Research

Teacher and Student teacher quotations in italics

189
 Appendix C: Argumentation Moves Examples

Argumentation Examples from Talk Examples from Student

Moves Writing
Claim What do you think is going to Interspecific and intraspecific
happen when we put them affects the population more than
together in the same Petri intraspecific alone because
dish? there are less supplies
Um the first is that probably
because there was more
competition is why it took so
much longer.
Evidence And when you can see that When P. caudatum was in
the population (of P. Interspecific competition the
caudatum) started to decline carrying capacity was 12 P.
it, it (P. aurelia) would grow caudatums, meaning there were
faster. only enough resources for 12 P.
caudatums.
Warrant n/a Showing how carrying capacity
was lower, shows how P.
Caudatm is using more
resources than P. aurelia.
Backing n/a During interspecific
competition the organism that
uses less resources is better fit.

190
 Appendix D: Cam-UNAM SEDA Condensed version ©2016: Cluster and Code Summary with Examples

I – Invite elaboration R – Make reasoning

Example from data Example from data
or reasoning explicit
Ask for explanation or
What data supports that Explain or justify it shows that the species had asexual
I1 justification of another’s R1
P. caudatum eats a lot? another’s contribution reproduction
contribution
Invite building on /
elaboration /
Ok, everybody agree or Explain or justify own
I2 (dis)agreement / R2 because they reproduce faster
disagree? contribution
evaluation of another’s
contribution or view
Invite possibility Speculate or predict on
What would that lead
I3 thinking based on R3 the basis of another’s because it multiplied
191

you to to think?
another’s contribution contribution
Ask for explanation or
I4 Why is that significant? R4 Speculate or predict the big ones are going to lose.
justification

191
 Continued
Code Meaning Example from data Code Meaning Example from data
Invite possibility What do you think is going to
I5 thinking or happen when we put them
prediction together in the same Petri dish?
Ask for elaboration
I6 So this? B – Build on ideas
or clarification
this population never reached this
Build on/clarify others'
B1 kind of numbers that P. aurelia
contributions
did,
P – Positioning and Clarify/elaborate own which is what you think the truth
B2
Coordination contribution is here
P1 um, When P. aurelia was by
itself it was able to have more
resources and then it was in
Synthesise ideas competition, like P. Cuadatum
was like eats a lot and it uses a
192

lot of resources and it wastes a

lot.
Evaluate alternative
P2 n/a C – Connect
views
Um, they probably ran out of
P3 Propose resolution C1 Refer back On day two, it had two,
nutrients?
Acknowledge shift You're going to you're going to Make learning What do you call that when the
P4 C2
of position hold that one. trajectory explicit population gets-
Praying mantis being born would
have this kind of growth curve
Can any of you tell me if
Link learning to wider because they give birth to
P5 Challenge viewpoint Paramecium are cannabals or C3
contexts thousands at one time. But then
not?
immediately they started eating
each other.
State (dis)agreement/ Invite inquiry beyond
P6 ok, I agree. C4 n/a
position the lesson
192
 Continued
RD – Reflect on G – Guide direction
Example from data Example from data
dialogue or activity of dialogue or activity
So now what I want you to do is Encourage student- So I want you to do right now is
RD1 Talk about talk G1
with your team. student dialogue talk to your neighbor.
Reflect on learning Well, look at the very end point
Propose action or
RD2 process/ purpose/ G2 of P. aurelia together and P.
You say steep, this is- inquiry activity
value/ outcome aurelia alone,
Invite reflection
the organism that was bigger
about process/ Introduce authoritative
RD3 Is it about Paramecium? G3 would take more nutrients before
purpose/ value/ perspective
they could reproduce
outcome of learning
Provide informative
G4 I think that's a good thought.
feedback
E – Express or invite
G5 Focusing So really quick,
ideas
193

Invite Allow thinking time Um I think, Um,

what are some of the areas that
E1 opinions/beliefs/ G6 [optional when not
you think we should look at?
ideas verbally explicit]
Revoicing so you think that this is
Make other relevant The area where it drops right,
E2 G7 (O’Connor & decreasing because they started
contribution about right there.
Michaels, 1993) doing sexual reproduction?

The Cam-UNAM Scheme for Educational Dialogue Analysis (SEDA: ©2015) was developed by a research team from the University
of Cambridge, UK, and the National Autonomous University of Mexico, led by Sara Hennessy and Sylvia Rojas-Drummond and
funded through a grant from the British Academy. The original scheme and list of co-creators are available at
http://tinyurl.com/BAdialogue.

Examples from conversations in the classroom throughout the multi-day lab demonstration unit

193
 Appendix E: Elizabeth Timed CER Essay Analysis

Line Sentences Argumentative Intertextuality Epistemic Levels Intercontextuality

# Move with Graph
1 Claim: Interspecific and Claim n/a L5- Claim Teacher worded the question
Intraspecific competition does written on the whiteboard: "Does
affect the populations of P. interspecific and intraspecific
aurelia and P. caudatum more competition affect the populations
than intraspecific alone. of P. aurelia and P. caudatum more
194

than intraspecific alone?" October

28 28:50
2 Evidence: On graph number 1, Evidence Graph 1 & 3 L4- n/a
P. aurelia had a much higher operationalization
population throughout the 16 of success
days alone than when both P.
aurelia and P. caudatum were
together.
3 While P. aurelia was alone, on Evidence Graph 1 & 3 L3-comparisons n/a
day 16, there was a population across conditions
of 49, while when P. aurelia
and P. caudatum were together
P. aurelia had a population of
44 on day 16.

194
 Continued
Line Sentences Argumentative Intertextuality Epistemic Levels Intercontextuality
# Move with Graph
4 There was more of a drastic Evidence Graph 1 & 3 L3-comparisons Oct 23 22-25:55 story slopes are
decrease in P. aurelia across conditions telling
population while P. caudatum
and P. aurelia were together
than the decrease when P.
aurelia was alone.
5 While P. caudatum had only Evidence Graph 2 L3- change over Oct 23 22-25:55 story slopes are
intraspecific competition, there time telling
was no decrease in population.
6 When P. caudatum and P. Evidence Graph 3 L3- change over Oct 23 22-25:55 story slopes are
aurelia were together P. time telling
caudatum had such a decrease
in population that the
populations started at 12 then
195

dropped all the way to 0.

7 Reasoning: Interspecific and Restate claim n/a L5- claim limiting factors discussed October
intraspecific competition does with warrant 17 16:19-21:30; bigger species
affect populations of P. aurelia need more time to reproduce Oct
and P. caudatum more than 23 23-25 min; October 23 36:33
intraspecific alone because bigger animal more waste; October
more resources are needed, 28 25:16-28:50 discussion about
more space is needed, and waste
more waste is produced.

195
 Appendix F: Kelsey Intertextuality Across Project
196

196
 Appendix G: October 23rd Transcript of Inequalities, Slope, & Story

Speaker Transcript of what was said

Ms. Can I say something that was so. Guys, I'm noticing that some of you are I
Matthews think you might just be a little bit confused about when to find slope in
like one point, one point versus like some place together. So I think the
easiest way to think about this is if you have any time, do you have any
quality change? So if you go from words that are greater than death and all
of a sudden you have an equilibrium, then this should be a point where
you decided to change your slope or find a new stone because you're going
from an increase to a flat. And so those are going to have different slopes.
Or if you go from first grade to the next to first, less than any time you
change. Also, if you have any kind of drastic change amongst the same
people, so if I have ever suffered the death, where does this look like a
little bit and then all of a sudden it skyrockets. Are those going to have the
same look? You know, how do you know that I'm OK? Because it hurt,
right? If I average these out from the same slope, it's going to show a slope
that goes about in here. And that doesn't make any sense for you. So you
guys want to make sure if you're lumping them together, if you have like a
point from here to here, this is a little bit a little bit like this, almost on the
same spot that some of you are bumping slopes. They kind of go like this
all into one. And that's just it's just not close enough to look like-
Ms. you're just not telling the story.
Fitzgerald
Ms. You know, like if you were telling the story of Goldilocks and three bears,
Fitzgerald you're leaving now, then going in the living room and sitting on the chairs.
Right. So when you when you make your slow too much, like taking too
many points and and don't show those small changes, then you're leaving
out part the story, right?
Ms. And if you’re not sure, you can put in the slope you found and if it seems
Matthews way off your actual lines, you know that you’re probably wrong.
Ms. So in your story, one of the things I'm going to be looking for is are you
Fitzgerald trying to say why? Like, why is this happening? So why are we getting
almost linear growth at the beginning? Ok? Why is it never really
exponential? Why-why isn’t this, like, really slowly going up? Why does
it- right?

197
198 Appendix H: Elizabeth Intertextuality Across the Project

198
 Appendix I: Limiting Factors Discussion on October 17th

Speaker Transcript of what was said

Ms. M. So then why do you guys think that all of a sudden there's a drastic
(student decrease?
teacher)
Student Death rates are more
KhW
Ms. M. They start to die. OK? Does anybody, table three, have any ideas why
this might be decreasing?
Student (inaudible)
Ms. M. Say that again?
Student They might be doing sexual reproduction.
Ms. M. OK, so you think that this is decreasing because they started doing
sexual reproduction? OK, we're going to put a question mark. So what
else we got?
Ms. M. Yeah. (calling on a student)
Student More dying than being born. (student teacher cups ear and walks
toward the student) More dying than being born.
Ms. M. More dying (nods) and what was the last part?
Ms. F. Than being born
Ms. M. More dying than than being born. OK, so I'm going to draw on
inequality for that, so deaths are greater than births. Right? You talked
about that yesterday.
Ms. F. So, what would that be on the exponential then? If you're doing it
inequality, what was the inequality be on the exponential part?
Student Births are greater than deaths.
Ms. F. Births are greater than deaths.
Ms. M. I'm going to draw from here, but hopefully you can remember that for
the whole line. Births are greater than deaths.
Ms. F. If you don't have that on your graph, make sure you have it.
Ms. M. Ok, Um, (student name) , did you have your hand up? ok, what else
you got?
Student J Um, they probably ran out of nutrients?
Ms. M. OK, so you think they ran out of food?
Ms. F. Shhh, guys,

199
 Continued
Speaker Transcript of what was said
Ms. M. All right. Anything else we got? (calls on a student using next word)
Yeah.
David I'm thinking a disease of some sort.
Ms. M. You think a disease got introduced.
Ms. F. You can erase my other stuff.
Ms. M. Ok, I just want to make sure they got everything. All right, do we have
any other ideas, (student's name)?
Susan Maybe the older ones from like the start of the experiment just started
to dying.
Ms. F. So they just got old. They hit theirmax age and just started passing life,
OK, age. (wrote down age) Anything else? (calling on a student) Yeah.
Student Um given the conditions, maybe it got too crowded?
Ms. M. Just overpopulation. OK.
Student Cannabalism
Ms. M. OK. Anything else? Yeah.
Student Did you check anything else in there after the, after you heated it up,
after After the experience was there, later in the experiment, was there
anything else?
Ms. M. No, just Paramecium.
Student Was there anything from the factory or anything?
Ms. F. We didn't see anything like that. We didn't see any other cultures.
Ms. M. Yup?
Student Cannabalism?
Ms. M. Cannibalism. OK. It's a possibility.
Ms. F. Ok We don't know. I think that's a good thought.
Ms. M. Can any of you tell me if Paramecium are cannabals or not?
Susan I mean, I like the idea.
Ms. F. I mean, I'm going to tell you, praying mantis being born would have
this kind of growth curve because they give birth to thousands at one
time. But then immediately they started eating each other.
Students (laughing)
Ms. M. OK, notice real quick that I didn't put a question mark next to the
inequality because we know for a fact that is happening, right? Deaths
are greater than births based on this deacrease of the graph. So this is a
for sure thing. All right. So the rest are all great possibilities, and we
don't know necessarily all of them, but we can probably think that some
of them are from a little more plausible.

200
Appendix J: Using Inequalities and Slope to Depict Changes in Population with Cam-

UNAM SEDA Condensed Version© Coding

Line Speaker Message Unit Cam-UNAM SEDA Condensed

# Version© Application
1 Ms. F. I want a really basic G2-Propose action
mathematical
representation for this.
2 Look at what I got on the G2-Propose action
board,
3 reproduction high, deaths G7-revoicing what a student said
low. earlier in discussion
4 How can you show- E1-inviting ideas
5 How do you represent that? E1-inviting ideas
6 Susan reproduction divided by P3-propose resolution
deaths
7 Ms. F. So do reproduction, G7-revoicing
8 what now? I6-ask for clarification
9 Susan reproduction divided by P3-propose resolution
death rate.
10 Ms. F. So you want to do G6-revoicing
reproduction rate divided
by death rate,
11 Ok. G6-Allow thinking time
12 And found the slope, G-7revoicing
13 that is absolutely G3-authoritative perspective
something that we can do.
14 You went further than what G4-Provide Informative feedback
I wanted at this moment,
15 but it's absolutely G3-authoritative perspective
something we could do
16 so we could do B1-Building on
reproduction or birth,
17 right? I2-inviting agreement
18 So birth rate over death G7-revoicing
rate.
19 Yes? I2-inviting agreement

201
Continued
Line Speaker Message Unit Cam-UNAM SEDA Condensed
# Version© Application
20 David But what- E2-make other relevant contribution
21 we're at a point in not E2-make other relevant contribution
vertically the-
22 where in the event E2-make other relevant contribution
23 Where the uh- E2-make other relevant contribution
24 the death rate is more than R2-explaining own contribution
the growth rate,
25 it should go- E2-make other relevant contribution
26 it should be a negative E2-make other relevant contribution
slope.
27 Ms. F. Could we have a negative I2-Inviting (dis)agreement
slope?
28 David Yeah, yeah. P3-propose resolution
29 But not with this thing, E2-make other relevant contribution
30 but it's up there on the E2-make other relevant contribution
board.
31 Ms. F. But it wouldn't be on that G7-revoicing
part of the line.
32 But could we? I6-ask for clarification
33 David Yes. P3-propose resolution
34 Ms. F. And where would that look I6-ask for clarification
like on the-
35 on the line? I6-ask for clarification
36 It would be going down. G7-revoicing
37 Luke I have some- P3-propose resolution
38 an equation P3-propose resolution
39 a model of the same line. P3-propose resolution
40 Ms. F. OK, E1-invite idea
41 Like I put f x regression. P3-propose resolution
42 Ms. F. Ok, G4-providing informative feedback,
interrupting student's answer
43 You're going to you're P4-Acknowledge shift of position
going to hold that one.
44 OK. G5-focusing
45 I want you to think of C3-link learning to wider context: not
something really simple C1 because it was not in an earlier
back when you were in discussion in this classroom, but
third grade. rather to another school
experience/setting

202
Continued
Line Speaker Message Unit Cam-UNAM SEDA Condensed
# Version© Application
46 And you said ten was a C2-making learning trajectory
bigger number than seven. explicit
47 What did you use? E1-inviting ideas

203
 Appendix K: Discussing Possible Limiting Factors with Cam-UNAM SEDA

Condensed Version© Coding

Line Speaker Message units Cam-UNAM SEDA

# Condensed Version©
Application
1 Ms. M. ok, what else you got? I5-invite possibility thinking or
prediction
2 Student Um, they probably ran out of P3-propose resolution
J nutrients?
3 Ms. M. OK, so you think they ran out of G7-revoicing
food
4 Ms. F. Shhh, guys, RD1-talk about talk
5 Ms. M. All right. Anything else we got? G5-focusing; I5-invite
possibility thinking
6 Yeah. E1-invite ideas
7 David I'm thinking a disease of some P3-propose resolution
sort.
8 Ms. M. You think a disease got G7-revoicing
introduced.
9 Ms. F. You can erase my other stuff. G2-propose action
10 Ms. M. Ok, I just want to make sure they RD2-reflect on learning
got everything. process
11 All right, G5-focusing
12 do we have any other ideas? I5-invite possibility thinking or
prediction
13 (student's name)? E1-invite ideas
14 Susan Maybe the older ones from like P3-propose resolution
the start of the experiment just
started to dying.
15 Ms. M. So they just got old. G7-revoicing
16 They hit their max age and just G7-revoicing
started passing life,
17 OK, age. (wrote down age) G5-focusing; G7-revoicing
18 Anything else? I5-invite possibility thinking or
prediction
19 (calling on a student) Yeah. E1-invite ideas
20 Student Um given the conditions, maybe P3-propose resolution
it got too crowded?

204
Continued
Line Speaker Message units Cam-UNAM SEDA
# Condensed Version©
Application
21 Ms. M. Just overpopulation. G7-revoicing

22 Ok G6-allow thinking time

23 Student Cannabalism P3-propose resolution
24 Ms. M. OK. Anything else? Yeah. G5-focusing; I5-invite
possibility thinking
25 Student Did you check anything else in R4-speculate
there after the,
26 after you heated it up, R4-speculate
27 later in the experiment was there R4-speculate
anything else?
28 Ms. M. No, just Paramecium. G4-provide informative
feedback
29 Student Was there anything from the B2-elaborate own contribution
factory or anything?
30 Ms. F. We didn't see anything like that. G4-provide informative
feedback
31 We didn't see any other cultures. G4-provide informative
feedback
32 Ms. M. Yup? E1-invite ideas

33 Student Cannabalism? P3-propose resolution

34 Ms. M. Cannibalism. G7-Revoicing

35 OK. G4-provide informative

feedback
36 It's a possibility. P6-state (dis)agreement
37 Ms. F. Ok G4-provide informative
feedback
38 We don't know. P6-state (dis)agreement
39 I think that's a good thought. P6-state (dis)agreement
40 Students (laughing, shock, talking about it P6-state (dis)agreement
not being possible)
41 Ms. M. Can any of you tell me if P5-challenge viewpoint
Paramecium are cannabals or
not?
42 Susan I mean, I like the idea. P6-state (dis)agreement
43 Ms. F. I mean, I'm going to tell you. RD1-talk about talk

205
Continued
Line Speaker Message units Cam-UNAM SEDA
# Condensed Version©
Application
44 Praying mantis being born would C3-link learning to wider
have this kind of growth curve contexts
because they give birth to
thousands at one time.
45 But then immediately they started C3-link learning to wider
eating each other. contexts
46 Students (laughing) n/a
47 Ms. M. OK, G5-Focusing

48 Notice real quick that I didn't put G2-propose action

a question mark next to the
inequality because we know for a
fact that is happening.
49 Right? I2-invite (dis)agreement
50 Deaths are greater than births G3-introduce authoritative
based on this decrease of the perspective
graph.
51 So this is a for sure thing. G4-provide informative
feedback
52 All right G5-Focusing
53 So the rest are all great I5-invite possibility thinking or
possibilities, and we don't know prediction
necessarily all of them,
54 but we can probably think that G4-provide informative
some of them are from a little feedback
more plausible.

206
 Appendix L: Discussing Limiting Factors with Epistemic Levels

Line Speaker Message Unit L L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 Rationa

# 1 le for
EL
1 Ms. M. ok, what else you open
got? ended
2 Student J Um, they probably claim
ran out of nutrients?
3 Ms. M. OK, so you think
they ran out of food
4 Ms. F. Shhh, guys,
5 Ms. M. All right. Anything
else we got?
6 Yeah.
7 David I'm thinking a disease claim
of some sort.
8 Ms. M. You think a disease
got introduced.
9 Ms. F. You can erase my
other stuff.
10 Ms. M. Ok, I just want to
make sure they got
everything.
11 All right,
12 do we have any other open
ideas? ended
13 (student's name)?
14 Susan Maybe the older ones claim
from like the start of
the experiment just
started to dying.
15 Ms. F. So they just got old. inscripti
on
16 They hit their max operatio
age and just started nalizatio
passing life, n of
success
17 OK, age. (wrote
down age)

207
 Continued
Line Speaker Message Unit L L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 Rationa
# 1 le for
EL
18 Anything else? open
ended
19 (calling on a student)
Yeah.
20 Student Um given the claim
conditions, maybe it
got too crowded?
21 Ms. M. Just overpopulation.

22 Ok
23 Student Cannabalism claim
24 Ms. M. OK. Anything else?
Yeah.
25 Student Did you check claim
anything else in there
after the,
26 after you heated it up, claim
27 later in the claim
experiment was there
anything else?
28 Ms. M. No, just noticing
Paramecium.
29 Student Was there anything claim
from the factory or
anything?
30 Ms. F. We didn't see noticing
anything like that.
31 We didn't see any noticing
other cultures.
32 Ms. M. Yup?

33 Student Cannabalism? claim

34 Ms. M. Cannibalism.

35 OK.
36 It's a possibility. inscripti
on

208
Continued
Line Speaker Message Unit L L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 Rationa
# 1 le for
EL
37 Ms. F. Ok
38 We don't know.
39 I think that's a good inscripti
thought. on
40 Students (laughing, shock,
talking about it not
being possible)
41 Ms. M. Can any of you tell noticing
me if Paramecium
are cannabals or not?
42 Susan I mean, I like the
idea.
43 Ms. F. I mean, I'm going to
tell you.
44 Praying mantis being facts
born would have this
kind of growth curve
because they give
birth to thousands at
one time.
45 But then immediately facts
they started eating
each other.
46 Students (laughing)
47 Ms. M. OK,

48 Notice real quick

that I didn't put a
question mark next to
the inequality
because we know for
a fact that is
happening.
49 Right?
50 Deaths are greater facts
than births based on
this decrease of the
graph.
51 So this is a for sure
thing.
209
 Continued
Line Speaker Message Unit L L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 Rationa
# 1 le for
EL
52 All right
53 So the rest are all inscripti
great possibilities, on
and we don't know
necessarily all of
them,
54 but we can probably inscripti
think that some of on
them are from a little
more plausible.

210
 Appendix M: Inequalities, Slopes, and "The Story of the Graph" with Epistemic

Levels

Line Speaker Message L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 Rationale of EL

# Unit
1 Ms. M So as I'm
going
around guys,
2 I'm noticing noticing
that some of
you are-
3 I think you noticing
might just be
a little bit
confused
about when
to find slope.
4 In like one how an attribute
point to one is measured
point versus
like
clumping
some points
together.
5 So I think
the easiest
way to think
about this is
6 if you have
any time,
7 do you have asking for
an inequality inscription
change?
8 So if you go example with
for births inscriptions
that are
greater than
deaths

211
Continued
Line Speaker Message L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 Rationale of EL
# Unit
9 and all of a example with
sudden you inscriptions
have
equilibrium,
10 then this how an attribute
should be a is measured
point where
you decided
to change
your slope
11 or find a how an attribute
new slope is measured
12 because inscriptions
you're going
from
increase to a
flat.
The student teacher continues to give examples of changes in the inequalities between
births and deaths and the need for new slope calculations. When she finishes
explaining the last example, the teacher explains why this is important to their writing
about the graph.
13 Ms. F. You just not operationalization
telling the of success; claim
story.
14 You know
15 if you were
telling the
story of
Goldilocks
and the three
bears
16 you're
leaving out
them going
in the living
room and
sitting on the
chairs.
17 Right?
18 So, when
you

212
Continued
Line Speaker Message L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 Rationale of EL
# Unit
19 when you how an attribute
make your is measured
slope too
much and
take in too
many points,
and don't
show small
changes,
20 then you're operationalization
leaving out of success; claim
the part of
the story,
21 right?
22 Ms. M And if
you're not
sure,
23 you can put how an attribute
in the slope is measured
that you
found
24 and if it how an attribute
seems way is measured
off from
your actual
lines,
25 you know how an attribute
that you're is measured
probably
wrong.
26 Ms. F. So in your
story.
27 One of the noticing
things I'm
going to be
looking for
28 is are you noticing
trying to say
why?

213
Continued
Line Speaker Message L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 Rationale of EL
# Unit
29 Like, why is operationalization
this of success;
happening? making a claim
30 So why are operationalization
we getting of success;
almost linear making a claim
growth at the
beginning?
31 OK?
32 Why is it operationalization
never really of success and
exponential? making a claim
33 why- why operationalization
isn't this, of success;
like, really making a claim
slowly going
up?
34 Why does it-
35 right?
36 So you're operationalization
trying to of success;
answer the making a claim
why.

214
 Appendix N: First What I See (WIS) and What It Means (WIM)

# Speaker Message Unit L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6

1 Ms. I'm going to show you the first WIS
Fitzgerald WIM,
2 so my WIS WIM right here is going to
be-
3 What did I see?
4 Day one had one organism
5 Day two had two,
6 Right?
7 Why is that significant?
8 Student Because it multiplied
9 Student It shows that the species has asexual
reproduction
10 Ms. It showed asexual reproduction,
Fitzgerald
11 Or we had a pregnant Paramecium
12 Student Prego-pregnant
13 Ms. Right
Fitzgerald
14 Ok
15 So since we kind of already know that
we're looking at that,
16 kind of.
17 Our WIM then is going to be-
18 this organism reproduces asexually.
19 I want to ask you a question.
20 On day two, it had two
21 right?
22 What does that tell you about the
gestation period
23 or the amount of time it takes them to
reproduce?
24 Student Less than 24 hours
25 Ms. Less than 24 hours.
Fitzgerald
26 We don’t know exactly,
27 but we know it’s less than 24.
28 Good (student name)

215
 Appendix O: Map of Epistemic Levels of Evidence Construction Elizabeth’s Written Work
216

216
 Appendix P: Map of Epistemic Levels of Evidence Construction Kelsey’s Written Work
217

217
 ProQuest Number: 30003869

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2022 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA