Supporting Evidence Construction Practices in elementary classrooms
Abstract
This chapter discusses the features of the learning environment that supported students to explore sophisticated aspects of evidence construction and take on powerful roles in terms of constructing and critiquing ideas and developing a shared epistemic culture. It explains several implications for practicing educators who hope to engage young students in powerful approximations of scientific practice. The chapter presents the growing body of evidence that elementary students can take on powerful scientific roles as they work with scientific evidence. It was March and the students in Mrs. W&s;s third grade classroom were in their 7th day of a six-week plant growth experiment. Mrs. W. then invited other students to propose reasons that the shade plant might have initially been doing better but was not now. Mrs. W. and the first author worked together over several years to design and implement three versions of the plant growth experiment with her students.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The fact that young children can verbally counter-argue a false causal claim by providing evidence clearly indicates an initial understanding that evidence is a means of assessing the veracity of claims.
“As also seen in other studies (Maloney and Simon 2006;Manz and Allen 2017;Ruffman et al. 1993;Sandoval et al. 2014;Sodian et al. 1991), the fact that young children can verbally counter-argue a false causal claim by providing evidence clearly indicates an initial understanding that evidence is a means of assessing the veracity of claims.”
From Young Children's Epistemic Operations and Emergent Argumentation in Inquiry‐Based Discussions: The Role of Teacher Questioning and Collaborative Interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Manz and Allen 2017
An inappropriate use of scaffolding utterances to stimulate advanced reasoning may not obtain the expected result and may even have negative effects, especially with young children.
“An inappropriate use of scaffolding utterances to stimulate advanced reasoning may not obtain the expected result and may even have negative effects, especially with young children”
From Young Children's Epistemic Operations and Emergent Argumentation in Inquiry‐Based Discussions: The Role of Teacher Questioning and Collaborative Interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Manz and Allen 2017
Collaboration among students enables the co-construction of knowledge in elementary school children.
“Although previous studies have shown that collaboration among students enables the co-construction of knowledge in elementary school children”
From Young Children's Epistemic Operations and Emergent Argumentation in Inquiry‐Based Discussions: The Role of Teacher Questioning and Collaborative Interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Manz and Allen 2017
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Caño, L., & Sanz, J. (2025) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.70010 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Manz, E., & Allen, C.
- Venue
- Reframing Science Teaching and Learning
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2017-02-03
- Pages
- 79-94
- OpenAlex
- W2903702931
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Keywords
- evidence construction, elementary school science, scientific practice, student role, epistemic cultures, plant growth experiments, learning environment, third grade
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
