In science and engineering, about the natural and and designed worlds. reasoning and argument designed worlds. Arguments may also come based on evidence are from current scientific or essential to identifying the historical episodes in science. best explanation for a Identify arguments Compare and refine Compare and critique two Compare and evaluate natural phenomenon or that are supported by arguments based on an arguments on the same competing arguments or the best solution to a evidence. evaluation of the topic and analyze whether design solutions in light of design problem. Distinguish between evidence presented. they emphasize similar or currently accepted explanations that Distinguish among different evidence and/or explanations, new evidence, Scientists and engineers account for all facts, reasoned interpretations of facts. limitations (e.g., trade-offs), use argumentation to gathered evidence and judgment based on constraints, and ethical listen to, compare, and those that do not. research findings, and issues. evaluate competing ideas Analyze why some speculation in an Evaluate the claims, and methods based on evidence is relevant to explanation. evidence, and/or reasoning merits. a scientific question behind currently accepted and some is not. explanations or solutions to Distinguish between determine the merits of Scientists and engineers opinions and evidence arguments. engage in argumentation in one’s own when investigating a explanations. phenomenon, testing a design solution, resolving Listen actively to Respectfully provide Respectfully provide and Respectfully provide and/or questions about arguments to indicate and receive critiques receive critiques about receive critiques on measurements, building agreement or from peers about a one’s explanations, scientific arguments by data models, and using disagreement based on proposed procedure, procedures, models, and probing reasoning and evidence to evaluate evidence, and/or to explanation, or model questions by citing evidence and challenging claims. retell the main points by citing relevant relevant evidence and ideas and conclusions, of the argument. evidence and posing posing and responding to responding thoughtfully to specific questions. questions that elicit diverse perspectives, and pertinent elaboration and determining what additional detail. information is required to resolve contradictions.
In science and engineering, reasoning and argument based on evidence are essential to identifying the best explanation for a natural phenomenon or the best solution to a design problem. Scientists and engineers use argumentation to listen to, compare, and evaluate competing ideas and methods based on merits. Scientists and engineers engage in argumentation when investigating a phenomenon, testing a design solution, resolving questions about measurements, building data models, and using evidence to evaluate claims. about the natural and designed worlds. and designed worlds. Arguments may also come from current scientific or historical episodes in science. Identify arguments that are supported by evidence. Distinguish between explanations that account for all gathered evidence and those that do not. Analyze why some evidence is relevant to a scientific question and some is not. Distinguish between opinions and evidence in one’s own explanations. Compare and refine arguments based on an evaluation of the evidence presented. Distinguish among facts, reasoned judgment based on research findings, and speculation in an explanation. Compare and critique two arguments on the same topic and analyze whether they emphasize similar or different evidence and/or interpretations of facts. Compare and evaluate competing arguments or design solutions in light of currently accepted explanations, new evidence, limitations (e.g., trade-offs), constraints, and ethical issues. Evaluate the claims, evidence, and/or reasoning behind currently accepted explanations or solutions to determine the merits of arguments. Listen actively to arguments to indicate agreement or disagreement based on evidence, and/or to retell the main points of the argument. Respectfully provide and receive critiques from peers about a proposed procedure, explanation, or model by citing relevant evidence and posing specific questions. 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. Respectfully provide and/or receive critiques on scientific arguments by probing reasoning and evidence and challenging ideas and conclusions, responding thoughtfully to diverse perspectives, and determining what additional information is required to resolve contradictions.