Resolving disagreements in evaluating epistemic and disciplinary claims in middle school science

Supporting argumentation that fosters not only students' disciplinary engagement but also their epistemological development is of great importance in science education. Due to constraints of resources and designs, building "productive moments of uncertainty" (Manz, 2015) into the classroom to facilitate argumentation is challenging. This study addresses such challenge by analyzing how 6th graders resolve disagreements when evaluating epistemic and disciplinary claims. Preliminary findings suggest that talking about epistemic concerns without disciplinary engagement is not productive. Embedding epistemic practice in resolving discip linary disagreements, how everuncomp licated it mayseem, would foster productive argumentation. Understanding what disagreements are challengingly resolvable and how both epistemic and disciplinary practices play a role in evaluating claims thus sheds needed light on designing effective learning environments that foster deep learning.