Science Activities

Projects and Curriculum Ideas in STEM Classrooms

ISSN: 0036-8121 (Print) 1940-1302 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsca20

Teaching Scientific Core Ideas through Immersing

Students in Argument: Using Density as an
Example

Ying-Chih Chen, Jia-Ling Lin & Yen-Ting Chen

To cite this article: Ying-Chih Chen, Jia-Ling Lin & Yen-Ting Chen (2014) Teaching Scientific Core
Ideas through Immersing Students in Argument: Using Density as an Example, Science Activities,
51:3, 78-88, DOI: 10.1080/00368121.2014.915792

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2014.915792

Published online: 09 Jun 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 227

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vsca20
Science Activities, 51:78–88, 2014
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0036-8121 print / 1940-1302 online
DOI: 10.1080/00368121.2014.915792
Teaching Scientific Core Ideas through
Immersing Students in Argument:
Using Density as an Example
Ying-Chih Chen
Arizona State University, Tempe,
AZ
Jia-Ling Lin
University of Minnesota–Twin
Cities, St. Paul, MN
Yen-Ting Chen
National Taichung University of
Education, Taichung City, Taiwan
Address correspondence to Ying-Chih
Chen, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers
College, Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ 85287, USA. E-mail:
ychen495@asu.edu
Color versions of one or more of the
figures in the article can be found
online at www.tandfonline.com/vsca.
ABSTRACT Argumentation is one of the central practices in science learning
and helps deepen students’ conceptual understanding. Students should learn
how to communicate ideas including procedure tests, data interpretations, and
investigation outcomes in verbal and written forms through argument
structure. This article presents a negotiation model to show how argument can
be a vehicle to drive students to learn core ideas of density. The negotiation
model consists of five phases: (1) creating a testable question, (2) constructing
an argument in groups, (3) critiquing arguments publicly, (4) advancing
students’ arguments, and (5) writing and reflecting individually.
KEYWORDS argument, argumentation, density, language of science, scientific literacy
INTRODUCTION
The Next Generation Science Standards (National Research Council [NRC]
2013) are composed of eight practices from A Framework for K–12 Science Educa-
tion (NRC, 2012) to learn a limited number of core ideas thoroughly in science
classrooms:
1. asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering);
2. developing and using models;
3. planning and carrying out investigations;
4. analyzing and interpreting data;
5. using mathematics and computational thinking;
6. constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for
engineering);
7. engaging in argument from evidence; and
8. obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information.
The eight scientific practices identify the reasoning behind, discourse about,
and application of the core ideas in science. The importance is to create curric-
ula and learning environments that center learning on the core ideas of the sci-
ence discipline area through argumentative practices. The Common Core State
Standards amplify the importance of argumentation for students being able to
78
learn to read, write, speak, listen, and use language
effectively in a variety of content areas: “They [stu-
dents] use relevant evidence when supporting their
own points in writing and speaking, making their rea-
soning clear to the reader or listener, and they construc-
tively evaluate others’ use of evidence” (National
Governors Association [NGA] Center for Best Practi-
ces and Council of Chief State School Officers
[CCSSO] 2010, 7). Therefore, a critical aspect of argu-
mentation is the requirement of constructing and cri-
tiquing arguments consisting of claims with the
support of evidence (Choi, Hand, and Greenbowe
2013; Sampson, Enderle, and Grooms 2013). That is,
argument is a vehicle to learn science core ideas
through defending, critiquing, and refining claims and
evidence (Chen and Steenhoek 2014; Osborne et al.
2013). Studies have shown that immersing students in
the use of argument as a vehicle to learn science helps
students achieve a deeper understanding; advance criti-
cal thinking skills; and, ultimately, promote literacy
in science (e.g., Chen, Hand, and McDowell 2013;
Cavagnetto 2011; Cross et al. 2008; Sampson and
Walker 2012).
Incorporating argument as a vehicle to learn science
is challenging for both students and teachers (Duschl
2008; McNeill 2009). To address this challenge, we
introduce a negotiation model, adopted from the sci-
ence writing heuristic (SWH) (Hand et al. 2009), to
demonstrate how argument can be integrated in science
classrooms as a vehicle to drive students to learn sci-
ence core ideas. The described negotiation model, an
argument-based inquiry approach, aims to progres-
sively build students’ understanding of the core ideas.
It is based on the framework of argument, which
engages students in activities of posing questions, col-
lecting data, and generating claims supported by evi-
dence. Students are encouraged to use argument as a
structure to share, debate, organize, and reflect their
understanding through oral and written discourse. To
depict how the negotiation model may be applied in
science teaching, we integrate the negotiation model in
teaching the unit of density in a seventh-grade class-
room teaching.
THE NEGOTIATION MODEL
The negotiation model has two templates: a teacher
template and a student template (see Figure 1). Both
79
templates consist of five phases: (1) creating a testable
question, (2) constructing an argument in groups, (3)
critiquing arguments publicly, (4) advancing students’
arguments, and (5) writing and reflecting individually.
In each phase, students are encouraged to use the
argument structure to scaffold critical thinking (see
Figure 2). There are three components in the argument:
question, claim, and evidence (Chen 2013; Chen, Hand,
and McDowell 2013) A question is defined as when a
student encounters uncertainty or confusion seeking
clarifications and explanations. Without a question,
learning science is just a blind groping in the dark
(Dewey 1938). A claim includes solutions, conclusions,
and proposition about observations and discussions
that provide answers to the question. It is supported by
evidence. Evidence is a judgment consisting of data and
individuals’ reasoning to show how or why the claim is
true (Chen, Hand, and McDowell 2013). In science,
data is a set of qualitative or quantitative information
collected from investigations. Scientists provide their
own reasoning to make the data meaningful. They
analyze, interpret, and search patterns from the raw
data to generate a convincing evidence to support a
claim. Scientists with different perspectives examine
the same data set may generate different evidence.
Not all data are used for evidence (Chen and Steen-
hoek 2013; Villanueva and Hand 2011). Therefore,
data are not the same as evidence. To make a judg-
ment, however, requires evidence with sufficient and
appropriate data and strong reasoning (Sampson and
Walker 2012).
The lesson described in this article is designed to
help students understand the big idea what density
means and how it is used and calculated. Ideally, stu-
dents will understand that the ratio of mass to volume
determines the density of an object in the end of the
lesson. The following sections illustrate each phase of
the model when we employ it in our classroom.
MATERIALS
 Cups with water
 Writing tools
 Copper, steel, iron, zinc, aluminum, glass, mahog-
any, oak, pine, balsa, marble (appropriate sizes
smaller than cups)
 Balance
Teaching Scientific Core Ideas
 Phase Student Template
1 Creating a testable question
What are my questions? How are my
questions related to the big idea?
2 Constructing an argument in groups
Test—What did I do?
Observation—What did I see?
Claim—What can I claim?
Evidence—How do I know? Why am I
making these claims?
3 Critiquing arguments publicly
How can I strength my argument?
4 Advancing students’ arguments
How can I improve my argument?
5 Writing and reflecting individually
How have my ideas changed?
FIGURE 1 Negotiation model template for both teacher and students.
Big Idea: One simplified statement that captures
all of the essential learning from a particular unit
and connects question, claims, and evidence
Guide
Scientific Argument
Question: A sentence in an interrogative
Guide form for discussion or investigation
Answer
Question guides
data collection, Claim: A statement about the solution,
analysis, and conclusion, or position to the question
interpretation of
Lead
data as evidence Support
for discussion
Evidence: An explanation consisting of
data and reasoning in support of the claim
Lead
Figure 1. A conceptual model for argument
Data + Reasoning: Analysis and
interpretation of data gathering from
observations, experience, or references
from materials
FIGURE 2 A conceptual model for argument structure.
Y.-C. Chen et al.
Teacher Template
Creating a testable question
Exploration of pre -instruction understanding
through individual or group concept
mapping; pre -activities, including informal
writing and designing an essential inquiry
question
Constructing an argument in groups
Participation in laboratory activity for the
gathering of data; constructing written group
arguments
Critiquing arguments publicly
Critique arguments as a whole class
Advancing students’ arguments
Conduct another investigation to advance
students’ arguments
Individual reflection and writing
Conduct writing-to-learn activity to help `
students reflect what they learned
PROCEDURE
Phase 1: Creating a Testable Question
Identifying a question is the first step of the process
for doing science (Windschitl and Buttemer 2000).
Typical lessons for teaching science include multiple
investigation questions that often result in some diffi-
culties for students to determine what they should
focus on while conducting an investigation (Zangori,
Forbes, and Biggers 2012). We suggest that teachers use
one single, concrete, open-ended, and clear “how” or
“why” investigative question to guide students to col-
lect data from investigation. This type of investigative
question effectively guides students to generate explan-
ations from the data, rather than simply confirm or dis-
confirm their hypothesis without any reasoning after
investigation (Chen and Steenhoek 2014).
To create a testable question, we used a preinvestiga-
tion activity to stimulate students’ curiosity toward the
topic. For example, we posed the following situation of
sinking and floating (see Figure 3) to ask students
to make their claims and explanations about their
observations. This preinvestigative activity makes a
80
FIGURE 3 An example of sink and float for discussion prior to investigation.
connection between students’ everyday life and sci-
ence, and it fosters brainstorms in explaining phenom-
ena they experience every day.
During discussions of why a log floated on water (see
Figure 3), some students considered sizes of materials
as a factor, while others considered mass of materials as
a determinant. Students often hold incomplete under-
standings about why an object sinks or floats in science
(Yin, Tomita, and Shavelson 2008). If they do not
know how to confront misconceptions that they bring
into the classroom, they will not be able to gain deep
understandings in learning science. The followings
were some of their explanations about the phenomena
of floating and sinking.
Kyle: I think the larger piece of log would sink.
John: I agree. It is bigger and heavier.
Mary: Me too, but I think less than half of the larger
log floats above the water surface
Teacher: John, what do you mean bigger? Can you
explain it?
After students discussed their ideas, students’
learning interest about the topic was greatly
enhanced because they were able to share their prior
knowledge with each other (Chen and Steenhoek
2014; Hand et al. 2009). We posed questions for
example, Do objects sink and float because of mass?
Or because of volume? After students discussed their
ideas about volume and mass, we guided students to
narrow down to generate a single testable question
including the two factors of mass and volume: “How
81
do mass and volume of an object affect sinking and
floating in the water?” The focus on a single testable
question draws students’ attention not only to the
two basic factors of density but also to the relation-
ship of these two, paving the way to help students
comprehend the conception that the ratio of mass to
volume determines the density of an object.
Phase 2: Constructing an Argument
in Groups
In this phase, we divided students into small teams
of three or four. Each group was given a packet that
includes materials and a worksheet with the goal and
research question for investigations (see Figure 4).
Before conducting the investigation, we asked students
to make claims with their reasoning. Figure 5 shows a
sample of students’ worksheet. Damion’s worksheet
included his claims and evidence of why the materials
sink or float.
After conducting the investigation, students should
use their data (i.e., what they know now) to construct
evidence (i.e., how and why they know it) that fully
answers the question generated as a whole class. To
support the activity, we provided a worksheet for
students to construct their argument in small groups
(Figure 6). The worksheet contains guidelines and the
three argument components: question, claim, and evi-
dence. Figure 7 is an example of students’ argument
that shows how students construct the evidence to sup-
port the claim. Although students have not developed
scientifically correct ideas about sink and float in this
Teaching Scientific Core Ideas
 Testable Question: How do mass and volume of an object affect sinking and floating in the
water?
Goal: You and your group will explore what makes different object sink or float. You will
need to observe and record what happens to each object when you place it in the cup filled
with water. To be successful, you will need to record the findings and collect data from the
investigation. You will need to analyze the data and develop an argument consisting of a
claim and evidence to answer the research question. Your group will present your argument
in the class to convince your classmates that your ideas are acceptable and valid to answer the
question.
Materials: cups with water, wood, iron aluminum, wax, lead, marbles (the sizes of the
materials should be smaller than cups)

FIGURE 4 Worksheet provided for students before investigation.

phase of the negotiation model, as shown in Figure 7,
they gradually shifted their views after their preheld
ideas were contradictory to what they observed. They
used data they collected from the investigation (e.g.,
copper, lead, iron, aluminum and marble sink; half of
wood floats above the water surface) to make a rebuttal
(e.g., “but wood is heavier than marble and alumi-
num”) and a judgment (e.g., “weight is not the only fac-
tor to determine whether or not an object sinks or
floats”) to support the claim (e.g., “it is not determined
by the weight but determined by the characteristics of
objects”). The practice of argumentation facilitated this
change.
Phase 3: Critiquing Arguments
Publicly
This phase provides an environment in which stu-
dents can share, compare, communicate, and critique
their claim and evidence in a whole-class negotiation.
Students are encouraged to understand and compare
other groups’ arguments to their own arguments. The
focus of this phase is not to win a debate, but to learn
about others’ ideas and to find patterns. Making
students aware of the following guidelines is particu-
larly important during discussion:
 Make others’ argument better: Focus on the claim and
evidence, not the person.
 Provide evidence for what you say: When you support,
reject, defend an idea, you must use evidence. Ask
questions such as: Does you claim answer the ques-
tion? Does your evidence support the claim? Can
you explain how you reach the claim?
Teachers play an important role in determining the
nature of discourse (Alonzo, Kobarg, and Seidel 2012).
The matrix shown in Table 1 provides three aspects of
how teachers scaffold students’ skills to use argument
as vehicle and provide constructive feedback. The first
aspect focuses on how teachers use argument structure
(questions, claims, and evidence) to help students to
debate, discuss, and critique their arguments. The sec-
ond aspect focuses on how teachers use diverse ques-
tioning skills to establish the dialogic interaction. The
third aspect emphasizes how teachers immerse students
in discussions that focus on concepts to develop deep
scientific understandings. Teachers can increase their
effectiveness in scaffolding students’ skills in critiquing
argument publicly significantly by rising from the lim-
ited level toward the exemplary level shown in this
table.

Phase 4: Advancing Students’

FIGURE 5 An example of students’ prior knowledge including
claims and evidence.
Arguments
Once students experience the discussion about
their arguments in a whole class, they begin to under-
stand both the strength and the weakness of their
arguments. We set up two events with apparent

Y.-C. Chen et al. 82

 Question: How do mass and volume of an object affect sinking and floating in the water?
Claim: (What inferences can I make?)
• Make sure your claim relates to core idea and answers the question.

• Just state one sentence which can lead to your evidence.

Evidence: (How do I know? Justify your claim by providing data and reasoning for it.)
• Don’t forget to always make connections to core idea, class experience, investigations, and
outside resource.

• You are trying to convince your readers. Focus on explanation about why and how! Not just
state what you observe during experiments.

• You can use pictures, math, and graphs to explain your ideas. These help readers understand
your ideas.

FIGURE 6 A worksheet consisting of question, claim, and evidence.

discrepancies for students to further their investiga-
tions and arguments. The first event was to provide
one piece of wood and one piece of iron with the
same size (volume) for students to test (Figure 8).
After examining these two objects, we asked students
to bind 10 pieces of wood together to make the total
mass of wood heavier than one piece of iron. Stu-
dents can place the bundled wood and iron in a con-
tainer filled with water. This experiment provided
students with an opportunity to observe that even
though the bound wood pieces are now heavier than
the iron, wood still floats on water. The second event
was to provide another piece of iron that is much
smaller and lighter than the wood. This experiment
allowed students to see that even though the iron
FIGURE 7 An example of students’ argument.
piece has a smaller volume and a lighter mass than
that of the wood, the iron still sinks.
Next, we guided students to measure the mass and
the volume of objects that were tested in previous
experiments, and we asked students to calculate the
ratio between the mass and the volume for different
materials. We set up different stations for mass mea-
surement of different objects first. Then we guided
students to measure and calculate the volume of
these objects. For example, students can use a ruler
to measure each side of a rectangle and estimate the
volume of the rectangle, which they have learned
from mathematics class. After measuring the mass
and estimating the volume of each object, we guided
students to display the relationship between mass
and volume of different objects in a graph. The
Appendix is a worksheet to guide students to record
the measured masses and volumes of objects as well
as to search if there is any pattern about how the
mass and the volume of an object are related through
a mass–volume plot.
Figure 9 is an example of student’s work that repre-
sents the relationship between mass and volume. We
introduced the ratio of mass to volume for water is
1 g/cm3 and asked students to draw a line that charac-
terizes the mass to volume ratio of 1 g/cm3 in this
graph. In Figure 9, objects placed on the lower right
side float in water. In contrast, all objects on the upper
left side sink in water. When an object has the mass over
volume ratio that is less than that of water, it floats on
water. Otherwise, it sinks. We then introduced the

83 Teaching Scientific Core Ideas

TABLE 1 The Matrix of Critiquing Argument Publicly
Level 3: Exemplary Level 2: Basic Level 1: Limited

Science argument Teacher consistently engages
(questions, claims, students to use the three
evidence) components of argument,
examine students’ thinking
based on the three
components of argument,
and link questions, claims,
and evidence together.
Teacher questions Teacher adopts multiple layers
of questions (i.e., Bloom’s
taxonomy) to engage
students in evaluating their
arguments by comparing to
alternative arguments to
consider whether evidence
supports their proposed
claims.
Concept focus The conversation focuses on
the core ideas of the unit
and builds students’
understanding based on
their prior knowledge and
investigation.
Teacher attempts to use the
argument structure to drive
students to reflect their
arguments.
Teacher attempts to elicit and
clarify students’ ideas from
their arguments, but limits
to restate and rephrase
students’ arguments.
The conversation focuses on
the core ideas of the unit
but does not connect to
students’ prior knowledge.
Teacher does not use the
argument structure to drive
the dialogue or only
attempts to get the correct
answer for claims and
evidence.
Teacher uses closed-end
questions, asked in rapid-
fire fashion to obtain the
correct answer and move
on.
The conversation does not
focus on the core ideas of
units.

concept of “density,” expressed as the ratio of mass to search the pattern of data to construct scientific
volume to describe one of the many physical properties evidence.
of an object (material). The mass–volume graph also Activities in this phase provide students with
illustrates how multiple representations help students to opportunities to master the concept of density

FIGURE 8 An example of wood and iron for testing.

Y.-C. Chen et al. 84

 through several approaches. These activities allow
students to apply what they have learned from
mathematics classes (ratio and volume estimation)
to science learning. They also teach students how to
use different representations of the same concept.
For example, students can use tables, diagrams, and
graphs to record the data. Immersing students in
arguments, however, is the core practice that engages
students in critical thinking while making sense of
data that they collected from investigation. They
not only learn how to make a scientific argument
and how to articulate a scientific claim and evidence
through searching the trends and patterns of data
using multimodal representations, but they also mas-
ter the concept of density, its mathematical formula,
FIGURE 9 A diagram to inductively represent objects’ ratio
of mass to volume.
and its practical application.

TABLE 2 Writing Rubric for Argumentative Writing

Score

Component Exemplary (3) Basic (2) Limited (1)

Claim: Clarity Makes a scientifically correct
claim, completely answer
the essence of the question,
and show understanding of
the big idea
 Identifies density as the ratio
of mass and volume as
dimensions that are critical
to floating/sinking
Evidence: Sufficiency Evidence uses important and
adequate data points
 Organizes multiple data and
provides counterevidence
(heavy wood but floats) to
strengthen the quality of
evidence
Evidence: Coherence Makes a strong and
sophisticated connection
between claim and
evidence through examples,
explanations, and multiple
modes of representations
 Explains what density is and
how the ratio of mass and
volume determine objects
sinking and floating
 Provides different data and
examples (wood, iron, lead,
cooper, etc.) to make
evidence strong
Total Score
Makes a scientifically correct
claim, but does not answer
the essence of the question
 Addresses what objects sink
and what objects float but
do not address the
relationship between mass/
volume and sinking/floating
Evidence use some important
data points and a few
unimportant data points
 Provides more than one
piece data but no
counterevidence
Evidence attempts to tell how
the data support claim but
mostly tells what was done
to test
 Provides tables or diagrams
but no/little explanation or
reasoning
Makes a scientifically incorrect
claim
 Does not address the
relationship between mass/
volume and sinking/floating
Evidence uses no data or data
that is not important
 Just restates the claim
without any data support or
uses data without any
meaning
Does not make any connection
and explanation to claim
 Only addresses what objects
sink and float without any
reasoning

85 Teaching Scientific Core Ideas

 Phase 5: Writing and Reflecting
Individually
Writing can help students clarify and strengthen
their conceptual understanding and encourage them to
reflect on and explain what they have learned. Writing
also allows students to reflect on challenges they have
faced and evaluate whether their arguments have
answered the research question (Chen, Hand, and
McDowell 2013; Choi, Hand, and Greenbowe 2013;
Dlugokienski and Sampson 2008; Sampson and
Walker 2012). Students can compare their initial ideas
in the beginning of the unit to their final arguments to
trace their progression of learning. Each student was
required to produce a written argument in support of
one of the claims and evidence. We also used students’
argument for the purpose of summative assessment
and as an opportunity to provide students with feed-
back at the end of the unit (Chen and Steenhoek 2013).
An example of an argumentative writing rubric
developed to assess students’ understanding of the unit
of density and their ability to produce persuasive writ-
ing is provided in Table 2. The writing rubric includes
three components to help craft a high-quality writing
argument based on the argument framework (see
Table 2). Teachers can tailor the rubric as needed to fit
a specific unit or a situation.
The following excerpts from one student’s work
clearly demonstrate the understanding of density:
The ratio of mass to volume is a factor that makes things
float and sink. We call the ratio density. Density is a measure
of how much mass is squeezed into a given volume. Differ-
ent objects (materials) have different density: ratio of mass to
volume. The ratio of water of mass to volume is 1g/cm3.
Wood is about 0.7 g/cm3 and iron is about 7.5 g/cm3.
Therefore, wood floats in water because the mass-to-volume
ratio is less than water. Iron sinks in water because the ratio
of Iron of mass to volume is bigger than water.
CONCLUSIONS
The Next Generation Science Standards and the
Common Core State Standards emphasize the use of
argument as a vehicle to help students deepen their
understanding of the core ideas in science learning. Yet
“lack of guidance or examples about how to convey the
integration of crosscutting concepts, core ideas, and
practices” (NRC 2012, 332) in their classrooms presents
challenges to many science teachers. Specifically, incor-
porating argument as a vehicle to learn core ideas in
Y.-C. Chen et al.
science instruction is not an easy task. We provide the
negotiation model that helps students learn science
core ideas through participation of argumentative prac-
tices to support science teaching. This negotiation
model is different from traditional hands-on activities
that ask students to follow step-by-step or “cookbook-
type” instructions with less or no explanations. The
negotiation model requires students to build knowl-
edge progressively through the use of argument. As sci-
ence teachers, we must provide learning opportunities
that allow students to engage in generating their own
research questions, collecting data to construct coher-
ent evidence to support claims, and applying their argu-
ment to real-world situations.
REFERENCES
Alonzo, A. C., M. Kobarg, and T. Seidel. 2012. Pedagogical content
knowledge as reflected in teacher–student interactions: Analysis of
two video cases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49(10):
1211–1239.
Cavagnetto, A. 2011. The multiple faces of argument in school science.
Science Scope 35(1): 34–37.
Chen, Y.-C. 2013. Writing an argument to a real audience: Alternative
ways to motivate students in writing about science. Teaching Sci-
ence 59: 8–12.
Chen, Y.-C., B. Hand, and L. McDowell. 2013. The effects of writing-to-
learn activities on elementary students’ conceptual understanding:
Learning about force and motion through writing to older peers.
Science Education 97: 745–771.
Chen, Y.-C., and J. Steenhoek. 2013. A negotiation cycle to promote
argumentation in science classrooms. Science Scope 36(9): 41–50.
Chen, Y.-C., and J. Steenhoek. 2014. Arguing like a scientist: Engaging
students in core scientific practices. The American Biology Teacher
76: 231–337.
Choi, A., B. Hand, and T. Greenbowe. 2013. Students’ written argu-
ments in general chemistry laboratory investigations. Research in
Science Education 43: 1763–1783.
Cross, D., G. Taasoobshirazi, S. Hendricks, and D. T. Hickey. 2008. Argu-
mentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing sci-
entific identities. International Journal of Science Education 30:
837–861.
Dlugokienski, A., and V. Sampson. 2008. Learning to write and writing to
learn in science. Science Scope 32: 14–19.
Duschl, R. 2008. Science education in three part harmony: Balancing con-
ceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in
Education 32: 268–291.
Dewey, J. 1938. Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and
Company.
Hand, B., L. Norton-Meier, J. Staker, and J. Bintz. 2009. Negotiating sci-
ence: The critical role of argument in student inquiry: Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
McNeill, K. L. 2009. Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in
writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Educa-
tion 93: 233–268.
National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices and
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). 2010. Common
core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/
social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC:
NGA and CCSSO. http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/
uploads/ELA_Standards.pdf (accessed May 6, 2014).
86
National Research Council. 2012. A framework for K–12 science educa-
tion: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Osborne, J., S. Simon, A. Christodoulou, C. Howell-Richardson, and
K. Richardson. 2013. Learning to argue: A study of four
schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumenta-
tion as a common instructional practice and its impact on
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 50:
315–347.
Sampson, V., P. Enderle, and J. Grooms. 2013. Argumentation in science
education. The Science Teacher 80(5): 30–33.
87
Sampson, V., and J. P. Walker. 2012. Argument-driven inquiry as a way
to help undergraduate students write to learn by learning to write
in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education 34: 1443–
1485.
Villanueva, M. G., and B. Hand. 2011. Data versus evidence. Science
Scope 35(1): 42–45.
Windschitl, M., and H. Buttemer. 2000. What should the inquiry experi-
ence be for the learner? American Biology Teacher 62(5): 346–350.
Yin, Y., M. K. Tomita, and R. J. Shavelson. 2008. Diagnosing and dealing
with student misconceptions: Floating and sinking. Science Scope
31(8): 34–39.
Zangori, L., C. Forbes, and M. Biggers. 2012. This is inquiry. . .Right? Sci-
ence & Children, 50(1): 48–53.
Teaching Scientific Core Ideas
APPENDIX: WORKSHEET FOR SEARCHING THE PATTERNS OF THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN MASS AND VOLUME
1. Fill in the following table of masses and volumes for cooper, steel, iron, zinc, aluminum, glass, mahogany, oak,
pine, balsa.

Materials X: Volume (cm3 ) Y: Mass (g) Ratio: (Y/X)

Cooper
Steel
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Glass
Mahogany
Oak
Pine
Balsa

2. Plot these points on a mass versus volume graph

Y.-C. Chen et al. 88