Analyze why some evidence is Distinguish among facts, solutions in light of currently relevant to a scientific question reasoned judgment based on accepted explanations, new Respectfully provide and receive and some is not. research findings, and evidence, limitations (e.g., critiques about one’s speculation in an explanation. constraints, and ethical explanations, procedures, issues. Distinguish between opinions models, and questions by citing and evidence in own Respectfully provide and receive relevant evidence and posing one’s explanations. critiques from peers about a and responding to questions that Evaluate the claims, evidence, proposed procedure, elicit pertinent elaboration and and reasoning behind currently explanation, or model by citing detail. accepted explanations or Listen actively to arguments to relevant evidence and posing solutions to determine the merits indicate agreement or specific questions. of arguments. disagreement based on Construct, use, and present oral evidence, or to retell the main and written arguments supported points of the argument. Construct and/or support an by empirical evidence and Respectfully provide and receive argument with evidence, data, or scientific reasoning to support or critiques on scientific arguments a model. refute an explanation or a model by probing reasoning and Construct an argument with for a phenomenon or a solution evidence, by challenging ideas evidence to support a claim. to a problem. and conclusions, by responding Use data to evaluate claims thoughtfully to diverse about cause and effect. Make a claim about the perspectives, and by determining Make an oral or written argument effectiveness of an object, tool, what additional information is that supports or refutes the or solution that is supported by Make a claim about the merit of a required to resolve advertised performance of a relevant evidence. solution to a problem by citing contradictions. device, process, or system. relevant evidence about how it Based the argument on empirical meets the criteria and constraints evidence concerning whether or Construct, use, and present oral of the problem. not the technology meets and written arguments or relevant criteria and constraints. counter-arguments based on data and evidence. Evaluate competing design solutions based on jointly Make and defend a claim based developed and agreed-upon on evidence about the natural design criteria. world or the effectiveness of a design solution that reflects scientific knowledge and evidence. Evaluate competing design solutions to a real-world problem based on scientific ideas and principles, empirical evidence, and logical arguments. Consider relevant factors (e.g. economic,
Analyze why some evidence is relevant to a scientific question and some is not. Distinguish between opinions and evidence in one’s own explanations. Listen actively to arguments to indicate agreement or disagreement based on evidence, or to retell the main points of the argument. Construct an argument with evidence to support a claim. Make a claim about the effectiveness of an object, tool, or solution that is supported by relevant evidence. Distinguish among facts, reasoned judgment based on research findings, and speculation in an explanation. Respectfully provide and receive critiques from peers about a proposed procedure, explanation, or model by citing relevant evidence and posing specific questions. Construct and/or support an argument with evidence, data, or a model. Use data to evaluate claims about cause and effect. Make a claim about the merit of a solution to a problem by citing relevant evidence about how it meets the criteria and constraints of the problem. Respectfully provide and receive critiques about one’s explanations, procedures, models, and questions by citing relevant evidence and posing and responding to questions that elicit pertinent elaboration and detail. Construct, use, and present oral and written arguments supported by empirical evidence and scientific reasoning to support or refute an explanation or a model for a phenomenon or a solution to a problem. Make an oral or written argument that supports or refutes the advertised performance of a device, process, or system. Based the argument on empirical evidence concerning whether or not the technology meets relevant criteria and constraints. Evaluate competing design solutions based on jointly developed and agreed-upon design criteria. solutions in light of currently accepted explanations, new evidence, limitations (e.g., constraints, and ethical issues. Evaluate the claims, evidence, and reasoning behind currently accepted explanations or solutions to determine the merits of arguments. Respectfully provide and receive critiques on scientific arguments by probing reasoning and evidence, by challenging ideas and conclusions, by responding thoughtfully to diverse perspectives, and by determining what additional information is required to resolve contradictions. Construct, use, and present oral and written arguments or counter-arguments based on data and evidence. Make and defend a claim based on evidence about the natural world or the effectiveness of a design solution that reflects scientific knowledge and evidence. Evaluate competing design solutions to a real-world problem based on scientific ideas and principles, empirical evidence, and logical arguments. Consider relevant factors (e.g. economic,