Examining the Use of Scientific Argumentation Strategies in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Learning Contexts to Teach Climate Science

被引：0

作者：

Ross A.D. ^{[1
]}

Yerrick R. ^{[2
]}

Pagano T. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Science and Mathematics, National Technical Institute for the Deaf at the Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, 14623, NY

[2] Department of Learning and Instruction, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, 14260, NY

来源：

ACS Symposium Series | 2019年 / 1327卷

关键词：

Audition - Climate change;

D O I：

10.1021/bk-2019-1327.ch006

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Differences in schooling, life experiences, or sociocultural backgrounds, reveal certain groups of postsecondary learners may not have been adequately exposed to field-specific discourse or scientific inquiry methods such as argumentation strategies. This might be especially true for Deaf and hard-of-hearing (D/d/HH) students who are underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields and who often use American Sign Language (ASL) as their primary language. We conducted a study that incorporated English language learner (ELL) strategies for writing and scientific argumentation tasks for concepts surrounding climate science. Throughout the qualitative study, we found that the D/d/HH students generally performed as two groups of learners ("explainers" and "persuaders") when given the task of convincing others about potential sources of climate change. Through data collection and the subsequent assignment of student-specific "argumentation spectra," results demonstrate the tools that students have (or need) to succeed in this form of scientific discourse. As we aim to level the STEM education and employment attainment playing field for D/d/HH students, we believe that instructors need to provide argumentation strategies in the curriculum to improve the scientific literacy of students. © 2019 American Chemical Society.

引用

页码：75 / 95

页数：20

共 37 条

[1]

Oliver M., Social Policy and Disability: Some Theoretical Issues, Disability Soc., 1, pp. 5-17, (1986)

[2]

Woodward J., Implications for Sociolinguistic Research among the Deaf, Sign Language Studies, 1, pp. 1-7, (1972)

[3]

Driver R., Newton P., Osborne J., Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms, Sci. Educ., 84, pp. 287-312, (2000)

[4]

Duschl R., Osborne J., Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education, Stud. Sci. Educ., 38, pp. 39-72, (2002)

[5]

Erduran S., Jimenez-Aleixandre M., Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research, (2008)

[6]

Stokoe W.C., Sign Language Structure: The First Linguistic Analysis of American Sign Language, (1978)

[7]

Spencer P.E., Marschark M., Evidence-Based Practice in Educating Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students, (2010)

[8]

Singleton J., Morgan D., DeGello E., Wiles J., Rivers R., Vocabulary Use by Low, Moderate, and High ASL-Proficient Writers Compared to Hearing ESL and Monolingual Speakers, J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., 9, pp. 86-103, (2004)

[9]

Cummins J., A Theoretical Framework of Bilingual Special Education, Exceptional Children, 56, pp. 111-119, (1989)

[10]

Israelite N., Ewoldt C., Hoffmeister R., Bilingual-Bicultural Education for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students, (1992)

← 1 2 3 4 →