Claim Evidence Reasoning¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 2 studies (1 causal, 1 quant-synthesis), q2–q3 · 1 of 2 report an effect size

Description¶

Claim Evidence Reasoning (CER) is a scaffolding framework, developed for science education by McNeill and Krajcik, that structures learners' explanations into three components: a claim (an assertion answering a question), evidence (data or observations supporting the claim), and reasoning (a justification linking the evidence to the claim via a scientific principle). Learners produce written or oral explanations using this template, typically with sentence starters ("My claim is… The evidence for this is… This happens because…") that fade as proficiency grows.

Design Implications¶

CER converts the diffuse skill of "arguing from evidence" into a learnable, assessable structure, addressing the well-documented finding that students routinely provide claims without evidence or evidence without justification Argumentation improves reasoning quality. [+M]. Its power lies in making the hidden third component — the warrant connecting data to conclusion — an explicit requirement rather than an optional flourish.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A driving question or phenomenon with genuinely contestable or non-obvious answers
• Access to data, observations, or texts learners can cite as evidence (Case Studies, lab data, datasets)
• An explicit rubric defining what counts as sufficient evidence and appropriate reasoning
• Repeated opportunities to practice across varied content, since the framework transfers only with spaced use

Constraints¶

• The reasoning component is hardest to teach and most often omitted; without feedback targeting it specifically, learners plateau at claim-plus-evidence Argumentation improves reasoning quality. [-W]
• Over-reliance on the sentence-frame template can produce formulaic writing that mimics the structure without genuine justification [~M]
• Works poorly when the "correct" claim is obvious — the framework adds little where no interpretation is required
• Requires disciplinary knowledge to supply the "because" principle; novices without relevant content knowledge produce circular reasoning

Implementation Variability¶

• Written CER paragraphs — the standard form; individual accountability, easy to assess
• CER discussion protocols — claims stated aloud, peers challenge evidence quality; combines with Argumentation
• CER with competing claims — learners evaluate two provided claims against the same data, sharpening evidence discrimination
• Gallery/peer critique — structured peer review of CER responses using the same rubric

Target Learners¶

• Middle school through undergraduate learners in science and data-rich subjects; originally designed for K-12 science Argumentation improves reasoning quality. [+M]
• English language learners benefit from the predictable rhetorical structure, provided vocabulary support accompanies it
• Less suited to learners already fluent in evidence-based argument, for whom the scaffold adds overhead without new demand

Target Learning Goals¶

• Scientific explanation and evidence-based reasoning
• Epistemic practices: understanding what makes data relevant and sufficient
• Transferable argumentation skill applicable to civic reasoning and media evaluation

Instructions¶

1. Pose a driving question about a phenomenon or dataset that admits more than one plausible answer.
2. Have learners gather or examine evidence (Case Studies, experiments, provided datasets).
3. Learners draft a CER response using sentence starters, stating claim, evidence, and reasoning separately.
4. Apply a three-component rubric; give feedback that specifically targets the reasoning link, not just accuracy of the claim.
5. Fade the template over successive tasks, moving to open explanation writing (Fading).

Related Strategies¶

• Argumentation — CER is a scaffolded entry point into full argumentation; the reasoning component is a Toulminian warrant
• Argument Construction — the broader skill CER structures
• Combine element identification, rubric design, peer assessment and role-playing on socio-scientific issues to train argumentation competence

Examples¶

• McNeill & Krajcik's middle-school chemistry curriculum — students explain whether two unknown substances are the same, writing CER responses from solubility and reaction data; the canonical implementation.
• OpenSciEd (https://www.openscied.org) — open science curriculum units that repeatedly use "write an explanation" tasks structured around claim, evidence, and reasoning across grade levels.
• Data-based CER in biology — students given graphs of antibiotic resistance write CER paragraphs explaining whether a resistance gene is plasmid-borne, citing specific data points as evidence.

Key Sources¶

• McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Pearson.
• McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations that support conceptual development by learning to trade off between goal and process. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Learning Sciences.
• Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. doi:10.1002/sce.20286
• Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824. doi:10.1002/sce.20395
• Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.