Why Students Get Stuck on Reasoning and What They Need Before Writing
Some students immediately want to know which CER box they should complete first. Others stare at the organizer because they have no idea where to begin.
A graphic organizer can show students where to record a claim, evidence, and reasoning. It can separate the response into manageable parts and provide helpful questions or sentence frames.
What it cannot do is create the connection between those parts.
A student may write a reasonable claim and identify a relevant piece of evidence but still become completely stuck when reaching the reasoning section. The student has information in two of the boxes. What is missing is an understanding of why the evidence supports the claim.
Students cannot organize thinking they have not developed.
Filling the Boxes Is Not the Goal
CER graphic organizers can be useful scaffolds. I use them because they make the structure of a scientific explanation more visible.
However, completing each box does not necessarily mean a student understands how the ideas fit together.
A student might write:
Claim: Liquid A is more viscous than Liquid B.
Evidence: Liquid A took 12 seconds to travel down the ramp. Liquid B took 4 seconds.
The claim and evidence may both be accurate. The student still needs to explain why taking more time to move down the ramp demonstrates greater viscosity.
The reasoning requires the student to connect the evidence to the relevant science concept. In this case, the student needs to understand that viscosity describes a liquid’s resistance to flowing. A liquid that flows more slowly under the same conditions demonstrates greater resistance to flow.
That connection cannot come from the label Reasoning printed at the top of a box.
Why the Reasoning Section Is So Difficult
Students are often more comfortable making a claim than explaining their reasoning.
They may also be able to locate a number in a data table or copy an observation from their notes. When they reach the reasoning section, they sometimes repeat the claim or evidence:
Liquid A is more viscous because it took 12 seconds.
The sentence combines the claim and evidence, but it does not fully explain the relationship between them.
A stronger response identifies the scientific idea that makes the evidence meaningful:
Liquid A took longer to travel the same distance than Liquid B. Viscosity is a liquid’s resistance to flow, so the slower movement of Liquid A provides evidence that it has greater viscosity.
The reasoning answers the question, Why does this evidence matter?
That is difficult because students must do more than recall a definition. They have to apply the scientific concept to the evidence in front of them.
Students May Need to Talk Before They Write
Some students know what they want to say and are ready to begin writing immediately. They do not need an extended partner conversation before every CER response.
Other students benefit from saying an idea aloud before committing it to paper.
Talking gives students a chance to test the connection between their evidence and claim. They can hear whether their explanation makes sense, listen to another perspective, or realize that they have not yet explained the science.
I find this particularly helpful when students reach the reasoning section. A student may understand what happened but need time to put the connection into words.
By the time that student begins writing, the page is no longer completely blank. Some of the difficult thinking has already started.
The point is not to delay students who are ready to work independently. It is to give students who need oral rehearsal an opportunity to develop their ideas before writing.
Partner Talk Needs Direction
Telling students to “talk about your CER” may not give them enough direction.
Some students will discuss the investigation. Others will compare answers without explaining their choices. A few will decide that their responses match and consider the conversation finished.
Focused questions can keep the discussion centered on reasoning:
- What does your evidence show?
- Why is that evidence relevant?
- How does it support your claim?
- What scientific concept explains the result?
- How does that concept connect your evidence to your claim?
Students can refer to a graph, data table, photograph, lab result, or observation chart while they talk. This keeps the conversation connected to the available evidence.
A partner can also ask, “Why does that matter?” when an explanation stops at the evidence.
The goal is not for partners to give each other the reasoning. The conversation should help each student work through the connection.
Sentence Frames Can Support the Language
Multilingual learners and students who struggle with writing may understand the connection but need support expressing it in academic language.
Sentence frames can provide a place to begin:
- This evidence supports my claim because…
- This result shows that…
- The scientific concept that explains this is…
- When ___ happened, it showed ___ because…
- This evidence is relevant because…
The frame should support the language without completing the scientific thinking for the student.
For example:
This evidence supports my claim because Liquid A moved more slowly, which shows…
The student must still decide what the slower movement demonstrates and which scientific concept explains it.
A sentence frame can reduce the language demand enough for a student to communicate an idea. It should not supply the idea itself.
Try an Evidence-to-Reasoning Check
Before students complete the reasoning section, pause and ask them to explain the connection aloud.
They can work through four steps:
- State the claim.
- Identify the strongest evidence.
- Name the scientific concept connected to that evidence.
- Explain why the concept makes the evidence support the claim.
Students might use this structure:
My claim is ___.
My evidence shows ___.
The related science concept is ___.
This supports my claim because ___.
This is not meant to become another script students must use forever. It makes the connection visible while they are learning how reasoning works.
Students who are ready can move directly into writing. Students who need more support can rehearse with a partner, respond to one question at a time, or use a sentence frame.
Check the Connection, Not Just the Sections
When reviewing a CER response, it can be tempting to look at each section separately:
- Is there a claim?
- Did the student include evidence?
- Did the student write something in the reasoning box?
A completed reasoning box is not necessarily a clear explanation.
Instead, I need to look across the response:
- Does the evidence actually support the claim?
- Did the student explain why the evidence matters?
- Is the reasoning based on an accurate scientific concept?
- Can I follow the connection from the claim through the evidence to the explanation?
This helps identify the support a student needs.
A student with irrelevant evidence has a different problem from a student who chose strong evidence but cannot explain its significance. Adding more writing lines or another sentence frame will not address every difficulty.
CER Thinking Extends Beyond Science
Although the CER structure is often associated with science, the thinking behind it appears across content areas.
In ELA, students make an interpretation, support it with evidence from a text, and explain how the evidence supports their interpretation.
In social studies, students develop an argument using information from primary and secondary sources.
In mathematics, students justify a solution or explain why a strategy works.
The terminology and format may change, but students are still being asked to support an idea and explain the connection between that idea and the evidence.
This is why CER is more than a three-part writing format. It gives students practice constructing an evidence-based explanation.
Final Thoughts
A CER graphic organizer can make the structure of an explanation easier to see. It can break a longer response into manageable parts and give students a place to record their ideas.
The organizer is still only a tool.
It cannot decide which evidence is relevant. It cannot identify the scientific concept that explains a result. It cannot build the connection between the evidence and the claim.
That thinking belongs to the student.
Some students will work through the connection independently. Others will need focused questions, partner talk, oral rehearsal, or language support before they are ready to write.
When students struggle with CER, we need to look beyond whether they completed each box. We need to determine whether they understand how the ideas connect.
The organizer can hold the explanation, but it cannot create it.as to happen first.
Leave a Reply