Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of open inquiry instruction with low achieving, marginalized high school students. Students with long histories of scholastic failure were asked to participate in question generation, experimental design, and argument construction as a part of their General Science course instruction. Videotapes were collected from daily science instruction, and entrance and exit instruction interviews were conducted using identical open-ended problems. From this dataset, comparisons were made between students' entrance and exit interview responses representing change over time. Shifts in student responses coincided with renegotiated classroom norms for scientific discourse. Results are reported for five students in the form of assertions. Students' arguments were observed to shift toward those more consistent with the nature of the scientific arguments including: (1) students' tentativeness of knowledge claims, (2) students' use of evidence, and (3) students' views regarding the source of scientific authority. Implications are discussed for research and practice in light of the national standards' call for universal scientific literacy.