Mathis, C. A., & Siverling, E. A., & Glancy, A. W., & Moore, T. J. (2015, June), Teachers’ Use of Argumentation in the Development of Integrated STEM Curricula (Fundamental)  Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.24797

\bibitem{asee_peer_24797}
  Mathis, C. A., \& Siverling, E. A., \& Glancy, A. W., \& Moore, T. J. (2015, June), \emph{Teachers’ Use of Argumentation in the Development of Integrated STEM Curricula (Fundamental)}
  Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Seattle, Washington.
  10.18260/p.24797

Corey A Mathis, Emilie A. Siverling, Aran W Glancy, and Tamara J Moore.  "Teachers’ Use of Argumentation in the Development of Integrated STEM Curricula (Fundamental)".  2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 2015, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2015.  https://peer.asee.org/24797 Internet.  10 May, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_24797}
  Corey A Mathis, Emilie A. Siverling, Aran W Glancy, and Tamara J Moore.
  "Teachers’ Use of Argumentation in the Development of Integrated STEM Curricula (Fundamental)".
  \emph{2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 2015, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2015.
  https://peer.asee.org/24797 Internet.  10 May, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_24797
author = "Corey A Mathis, Emilie A. Siverling, Aran W Glancy, and Tamara J Moore"
title = "Teachers’ Use of Argumentation in the Development of Integrated STEM Curricula (Fundamental)"
booktitle = "2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2015"
month = "June"
address = "Seattle, Washington"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/24797}
number = {10.18260/p.24797}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -           Teachers’ Use of Argumentation in the Development of STEM                     Integration Curricula (Fundamental)The recently released Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) contain two aspects that arerelatively unique when compared with other versions of national and state science standards: 1)the equal emphasis of science and engineering practices, as well as cross-cutting concepts, withdisciplinary core ideas; and 2) the introduction of engineering as both a set of practices and adisciplinary core idea. One of the fundamental practices identified in NGSS is argumentation,which has been researched in K-12 science education for the previous two decades but has yet tobe studied within the context of K-12 engineering education. This paper explores how teachers ina professional development program captured their use of argumentation in the development ofSTEM integrated units. The following research questions guided this study: How do teachersincorporate argumentation into teacher-developed STEM integrated curricula? How doesargumentation used in the curricula support the learning of engineering concepts?Elementary and middle school science teachers participated in a summer professionaldevelopment institute. The goal of this institute was to support teachers in the development andimplementation of STEM integration units using engineering design-based instruction. While theinstitute did not include explicit instruction about argumentation, the researchers anticipated thatit would be included in the curricula due to the prevalence of argumentation pedagogies inscience. To gain a better understanding of when and how teachers included argumentation intheir curricula, a multiple case study approach was conducted using four STEM integration units.The four curricula were analyzed using two frameworks. Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern wasused to identify instances of argumentation within the curricular units; these instances were thenmapped to the Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering Education to identify howargumentation was used to support various aspect of engineering.Preliminary findings show that though curricular teams were not directed to use argumentation inthe development of the units, all of them did contain elements of argumentation. Argumentationwas used in four general ways: as a content assessment tool, to improve critical thinking, toprovide motivation and engagement, and to develop communication skills. Additionally,argumentation was found to support engineering concepts such as the process of design,engineering thinking, communication in engineering contexts, and the application of science,mathematics and engineering content. While these uses of argumentation were found in thecurricula, the degree to which they appeared in each case varied. These findings support the ideathat although teachers may use argumentation, additional professional development may supplythe support needed to improve the incorporation of argumentation in their curricula.       Keywords: STEM integration, argumentation, case study, professional development
AU  - Corey A Mathis
AU  - Emilie A. Siverling
AU  - Aran W Glancy
AU  - Tamara J Moore
CY  - Seattle, Washington
DA  - 2015/06/14
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Teachers’ Use of Argumentation in the Development of Integrated STEM Curricula (Fundamental)
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/24797
DO  - 10.18260/p.24797
ER  -