Student Thinking in Non-formal STEM Contexts

Research on argumentation as part of students’ ways of thinking in STEM is currently limited. The purpose of this paper is to utilize an argumentation framework to illustrate trends in student thinking that surface during STEM-based learning activity. We provide details on our analytic coding process followed by results from our analysis of four learning episodes in collaborative, non-formal, STEM-based learning environments. Our findings illustrate that student thinking, as evidenced in student argumentation practices, followed certain trends. Specifically, student claims were characterized by their explicit, informal, certain, and novel nature. In-the-moment activities, such as observation and manipulation, were the primary sources of evidence used. Finally, the primary locus of reasoning to support the claims came from the students, not an authority or more knowledgeable other, as the students made regular use of experience and drew on their own personal authority. In addition to these trends, our analysis revealed three important characteristics of the students’ learning experiences as related to student thinking. These included how the task influenced the disciplinary nature of the thinking, students’ use of in-the-moment evidence, and the role of challenge claims. Implications on curriculum and instruction are provided, including a call for learning environments that encourage risk in support of student claim making and learning activities that promote and build on the use of in-the-moment evidence.