Articulation of Conceptual Knowledge and Argumentation Practices by High School Students in Evolution Problems

The oral arguments of 12th grade students while solving tasks related to evolution are examined. Two groups (N = 45), taught by the same teacher, were studied during a complete teaching sequence. The paper focuses on data from the last sessions, devoted to solving problems in small groups, problems related to different dimensions of the evolutionary model. Data include video recordings, the students’ written productions and the researcher (first author) field notes. The objective is to examine the process of articulation of students’ argumentation practices with their use of evolutionary models. The results show that participants were able to apply notions such as common ancestors, radiation, or gradualism to different contexts. The arguments required the articulation of evolution notions with argumentative practices as coordinating evidence with claims at different epistemic levels. The influence of the teacher’s strategies in the students’ role is discussed.     

Argumentation,Dialogue Theory,and Probability Modeling: Alternative Frameworks for Argumentation Research in Education

Toulmin's model of argumentation, developed in 1958, has guided much argumentation research in education. However, argumentation theory in philosophy and cognitive science has advanced considerably since 1958. There are currently several alternative frameworks of argumentation that can be useful for both research and practice in education. These frameworks include Walton's dialogue theory and Bayesian models of everyday arguments. This article reviews and evaluates these frameworks and shows how each can be applied instructionally (e.g., through the teaching of critical questions or probability modeling) and, from a research standpoint, in evaluating the content and quality of informal arguments. It is concluded that attention to these and other contemporary argumentation frameworks can help move the study of argumentation in education forward.     

Dialectical Features of Students’ Argumentation: A Critical Review of Argumentation Studies in Science Education

This paper explores the challenges of using the Toulmin model to analyze students’ dialogical argumentation. The paper presents a theoretical exposition of what is involved in an empirical study of real dialogic argumentation. Dialogic argumentation embodies dialectical features — i.e. the features that are operative when students collaboratively manage disagreement by providing arguments and engaging critically with the arguments provided by others. The paper argues that while dialectical features cannot readily be understood from a Toulminian perspective, it appears that an investigation of them is a prerequisite for conducting Toulminian analysis. This claim is substantiated by a detailed review of five of the ten most significant papers on students’ argumentation in science education. This leads to the surprising notion that empirical studies in the argumentation strand — even those studies that have employed non-dialectical frameworks such as the Toulmin model — have implicitly struggled to come to terms with the dialectical features of students’ discourse. The paper finally explores how some scholars have worked to attend directly to these dialectical features; and it presents five key issues that need to be addressed in a continued scholarly discussion.     

A US-China Interview Study: Biology Students’ Argumentation and Explanation About Energy Consumption Issues

As China and the United States become the top two carbon emitters in the world, it is crucial for citizens in both countries to construct a sophisticated understanding of energy consumption issues. This interview study examines how U.S. and Chinese students compare in explaining and arguing about two critical energy consumption issues: burning fossil fuels and using electricity. In particular, we focused on using scientific knowledge to explain and argue about these issues. Based on relevant literature and our previous research, we developed a model to guide separate assessment and evaluation of students’ argumentation and explanation. We conducted clinical interviews with 40 biology majors, including 20 U.S. students and 20 Chinese students. This study generated several important findings. First, Chinese students tended to be less consistent across explanations and argumentation, and their levels of argumentation were lower than their levels of explanation. Second, in comparison to their Chinese counterparts, U.S. students provided more scientific arguments but many fewer scientific explanations. Finally, although all participants were college students and had completed at least one introductory level science course before the interviews, some of their explanations and arguments were based on informal ideas rather than matter and energy. We discuss the possible interpretations of these findings and their implications for teaching and learning of scientific explanation and argumentation in both countries.     

Assessing and Enhancing Pre-service Science Teachers’ Self-Efficacy to Teach Science Through Argumentation: Challenges and Possible Solutions

The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of an intervention on pre-service science teachers’ self-efficacy to teach science through argumentation and explore the challenges they experienced while implementing argumentation. Forty pre-service science teachers in their final semester of schooling participated in an intervention that lasted for 11 weeks. Intervention focused on participants’ understanding of argumentation as a scientific practice and as a pedagogical tool. The participants engaged in argument construction, evaluation, and critique, taught three argumentation lessons, engaged in peer observation of teaching, and reflection on their teaching skills. Data were collected through Argumentation Self-Efficacy Scale and an open-ended questionnaire. The results show that the intervention had a significantly positive effect on pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy. Despite this reported self-efficacy, participants experienced significant challenges in guiding their students to construct scientific arguments and assessing the arguments developed by their students. Discussion focuses on implications for professional development of pre-service and in-service science teachers.     

Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice

Current research indicates that student engagement in scientific argumentation can foster a better understanding of the concepts and the processes of science. Yet opportunities for students to participate in authentic argumentation inside the science classroom are rare. There also is little known about science teachers' understandings of argumentation, their ability to participate in this complex practice, or their views about using argumentation as part of the teaching and learning of science. In this study, the researchers used a cognitive appraisal interview to examine how 30 secondary science teachers evaluate alternative explanations, generate an argument to support a specific explanation, and investigate their views about engaging students in argumentation. The analysis of the teachers' comments and actions during the interview indicates that these teachers relied primarily on their prior content knowledge to evaluate the validity of an explanation rather than using available data. Although some of the teachers included data and reasoning in their arguments, most of the teachers crafted an argument that simply expanded on a chosen explanation but provided no real support for it. The teachers also mentioned multiple barriers to the integration of argumentation into the teaching and learning of science, primarily related to their perceptions of students' ability levels, even though all of these teachers viewed argumentation as a way to help students understand science. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 1122–1148, 2012     

Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics

This study examined the outcomes of a unit that integrates explicit teaching of general reasoning patterns into the teaching of a specific science content. Specifically, this article examined the teaching of argumentation skills in the context of dilemmas in human genetics. Before instruction only a minority (16.2%) of the students referred to correct, specific biological knowledge in constructing arguments in the context of dilemmas in genetics. Approximately 90% of the students were successful in formulating simple arguments. An assessment that took place following instruction supported the conclusion that integrating explicit teaching of argumentation into the teaching of dilemmas in human genetics enhances performance in both biological knowledge and argumentation. An increase was found in the frequency of students who referred to correct, specific biological knowledge in constructing arguments. Students in the experimental group scored significantly higher than students in the comparison group in a test of genetics knowledge. An increase was also found in the quality of students' argumentation. Students were able to transfer the reasoning abilities taught in the context of genetics to the context of dilemmas taken from everyday life. The effects of metacognitive thinking and of changing students' thinking dispositions by modifying what is considered valuable in the class culture are discussed. © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 35–62, 2002     

Promoting Discourse and Argumentation in Science Teacher Education

Given a sociocultural framework of teaching and learning, argumentation and discourse become central elements of education, particularly in science education because of argumentation’s key role in scientific communities. This study documents preservice teachers’ perceptions of and aptitudes related to argumentation as they participated in a science methods course designed to promote discourse and argumentation. Data sources consisted of instructor reflections, course documents, and student work. Participants tended to view argumentation as a central element of science and as a means for promoting conceptual development in science classrooms. They were generally adept in the construction of arguments, particularly with respect to the evidentiary support of claims and demonstrated improved practice as the course progressed. Implications for using this course as a model and suggestions for its improvement are discussed.     

When Scientific Knowledge,Daily Life Experience,Epistemological and Social Considerations Intersect: Students’ Argumentation in Group Discussions on a Socio-scientific Issue

Socio-scientific issues in class have been proposed in an effort to democratise science in society. A micro-ethnographic approach has been used to explore how students elaborate arguments on a socio-scientific controversy in the context of small group discussions. Several processes of group argumentation have been identified. Students’ arguments were elaborated from scientific data, common ideas and epistemological and strategic considerations. Students’ social interactions influenced the patterns of argumentation elaborated within the group discussions. Implications of this study for the teaching of socio-scientific issues in class are discussed.     

Exploring teachers’ meta-strategic knowledge of science argumentation teaching with the repertory grid technique

ABSTRACT

This study investigated two science teachers’ meta-strategic knowledge (MSK) of argumentation teaching by applying the repertory grid technique (RGT). One teacher was a novice, while the other was experienced in teaching argumentation. Using the RGT, we elicited the objectives and strategies of the two teachers regarding their argumentation teaching involving two social scientific issue (SSI) scenarios. The results showed that the experienced teacher had more varied and organised MSK for teaching argumentation than the novice teacher. Meanwhile, the novice teacher indicated a belief that the learning of argumentation should occur in a more student-centred manner, rather than relying on a traditional lecture-based environment. Consequently, she spent a considerable amount of time engaging students with their peers’ ideas through discussion and collaboration. On the other hand, the experienced teacher noticed that most of students had the ability to generate arguments, but that few knew how to argue based on evidence. Therefore, she helped students to collect data from various resources and suggested that they construct their own knowledge framework in order to improve students’ ability to incorporate their understanding of scientific knowledge into scientific argumentation.     

Preservice elementary science teachers’ argumentation competence: impact of a training programme

The recent literature has shown the importance of preservice elementary science teachers (PESTs) having a deep understanding of argumentation, as this factor may affect the nature of the class activities that are taught and what students learn. A lack of understanding of this factor may represent an obstacle in the development of science education programmes in line with the development of scientific competences. This paper presents the results of the design and implementation of a training programme of 6 sessions (12 h of class participation plus 8 h of personal homework) on argumentation. The programme was carried out by 57 Spanish PESTs from Malaga, Spain. The training programme incorporates the innovative use of certain strategies to improve competence in argumentation, such as teaching PESTs to identify the elements of arguments in order to design assessment rubrics or by including peer assessment during evaluation with and without rubrics. The results obtained on implementing the training programme were evaluated based on the development of PESTs’ argumentation competence using Toulmin’s argumentative model. Data collection methods involved two tasks carried out at the beginning and the end of the programme, i.e., pre- and post-test, respectively. The conclusion of the study is that students made significant progress in their argumentation competence on completing the course. In addition, PESTs who followed the training programme achieved statistically better results at the end than those in the control group (n = 41), who followed a traditional teaching programme. A 6-month transfer task showed a slight improvement for the PESTs of the experimental group in relation to the control group in their ability to transfer argumentation to practice.     

Teachers' knowledge in argumentation: contributions from an explicit teaching in an initial teacher education programme

Many researchers have highlighted the important role of teachers in creating and managing argumentative, as well as the need for teachers, during their training, to have opportunities to develop knowledge about arguments, enabling them to work from the perspective of argumentation. This study investigates to what extent a context of explicit teaching of argumentation contributed to developing this knowledge. The data sources include video records of explicit teaching of argumentation, collection of materials produced and used by pre-service teachers, and field notes. Analysis of the data indicates that the explicit teaching of argumentation influenced the conceptual learning of pre-service teachers concerning the elements interwoven into argumentative practice, especially evidence and justifications, and the development of pedagogical aspects in the context of argument. Although the pre-service teachers had expressed some teaching knowledge of argumentation in classroom discussion situations, the use of this approach in teaching situations still appears to be challenging for these teachers. The findings of this study highlight contributions to the area of teacher education in argumentation in terms of knowledge that is essential to plan and conduct argumentation-based teaching, and also to the structure of the initial teacher training programmes directed at teaching in argumentation.     

Missed Opportunities for Science Learning: Unacknowledged Unscientific Arguments in Asynchronous Online and Face-to-Face Discussions

We explored the scientific argumentation that occurs among university biology students during an argumentation task implemented in two environments: face-to-face in a classroom and online in an asynchronous discussion. We observed 10 student groups, each composed of three students. Our analysis focused on how students respond to their peers’ unscientific arguments, which we define as assertions, hypotheses, propositions, or explanations that are inaccurate or incomplete from a scientific perspective. Unscientific arguments provide opportunities for productive dissent, scientific argumentation, and conceptual development of scientifically desirable conceptions. We found that students did not respond to the majority of unscientific arguments in both environments. Challenges to unscientific arguments were expressed as a question or through explanation, although the latter was more common online than face-to-face. Students demonstrated significantly more epistemic distancing in the face-to-face environment than the online environment. We discuss the differences in discourse observed in both environments and teaching implications. We also provide direction for future research seeking to address the challenges of engaging students in productive scientific argumentation in both face-to-face and online environments.     

Argumentation in elementary science education: addressing methodological issues and conceptual understanding

In this review essay I respond to issues raised in Mijung Kim and Wolff-Michael Roth’s paper titled “Dialogical argumentation in elementary science classrooms”, which presents a study dealing with dialogical argumentation in early elementary school classrooms. Since there is very limited research on lower primary school students’ argumentation in school science, their paper makes a contribution to research on children’s argumentation skills. In this response, I focus on two main issues to extend the discussion in Kim and Roth’s paper: (a) methodological issues including conducting a quantitative study on children’s argumentation levels and focusing on children’s written argumentation in addition to their dialogical argumentation, and (b) investigating children’s conceptual understanding along with their argumentation levels. Kim and Roth emphasize the difficulty in determining the level of children’s argumentation through the Toulmin’s Argument Pattern and lack of high level arguments by children due to their difficulties in writing texts. Regarding these methodological issues, I suggest designing quantitative research on coding children’s argument levels because such research could potentially provide important findings on children’s argumentation. Furthermore, I discuss alternative written products including posters, figures, or pictures generated by children in order to trace children’s arguments, and finally articulating argumentation and conceptual understanding of children.     

LEARNING ARGUMENTATION SKILLS THROUGH INSTRUCTION IN SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES: THE EFFECT OF ABILITY LEVEL

This article describes an effort to explore and enhance argumentation skills of Taiwanese grade 6 students through instruction in socioscientific issues. An experienced elementary school teacher was given 8 months of personalized instruction on argumentation skills and socioscientific issues, then subsequently implemented a 17-h classroom unit on the establishment of Ma-Guo National Park. His students learned to establish claims and warrants, construct counterarguments, offer supportive arguments, and provide evidence for each one. Data consisted of student responses to questionnaires and individual follow-up interviews. A multiple regression analysis revealed that success in learning argumentation skills was not substantially related to pre-instruction argumentation skills, but significantly related to the student ability levels. High-ability students were significantly better than low-ability students at generating complete arguments. Most students elaborated their arguments, and more high-ability students offered rebuttals after instruction. However, even these high achievers did not completely understand the meaning of evidence and often misused supplementary warrants as evidence.     

Students' Argumentative Writing Skills in Science and First-Language Education: Commonalities and differences

The ability to build arguments is a crucial skill and a central educational goal in all school subjects including science as it enables students to formulate reasoned opinions and thus to cope with the increasing complexity of knowledge. In the present cross-sectional study, we examined the domain-specificity of argumentative writing in science by comparing it with a rather general type of argumentation as promoted in first-language education and with formal reasoning to gain insight into different forms of argumentation on theoretical and empirical levels. Using a paper-and-pencil test, we analyzed written argumentations and the reasoning abilities of 3,274 Grade-10 students in German secondary schools. Correlation and multiple regression analyses as well as a qualitative analysis of students' answers to a subset of tasks in the domains of science and first-language education were conducted. Results showed moderate relations between argumentation in science, argumentation in first-language education, and reasoning. Half of the variance in argumentation in science was explained by individual differences in argumentation in first-language education and reasoning. Furthermore, the examination of written arguments revealed differences, for example, in students' weighing of pros and cons. We assume that the familiarity of the underlying scientific information may play an essential role in the argumentation process and posit that it needs to be investigated in more detail. Overall, the study indicates that investigating the argumentational abilities of learners in first-language education and reasoning abilities can help to shed light on the domain-specificity of argumentation in science.     

Effects of a training intervention to foster argumentation skills while processing conflicting scientific positions

Argumentation skills play a crucial role in science education and in preparing school students to act as informed citizens. While processing conflicting scientific positions regarding topics such as sustainable development in the domain of ecology, argumentation skills such as evaluating arguments or supporting theories with evidence are beneficial for developing deep understanding and well-grounded conclusions. We developed a 50-min training intervention to foster argumentation skills in the domain of ecology on topics related to sustainable development and analyzed its effects in a control-group design: (a) training intervention to foster argumentation skills (n = 41), (b) no such training intervention (n = 42). Results showed that this short-term training intervention successfully fostered three components of argumentation skills (i.e., evaluative knowledge, generative knowledge, and argument quality) and declarative knowledge about argumentation. The positive effect on declarative knowledge was stable 1 week after the training and it was mediated by learning processes during the training intervention: self-explaining the principles of argumentation underlying the video-based examples mediated the effect on declarative knowledge 1 week after the training. In short, the training intervention is an effective instructional method to enhance argumentation skills as well as declarative knowledge about argumentation.     

论证的基于标记的论据状态

本文针对抽象论证体系中的论据状态给出了一种基于标记的定义方法.与基于扩张的传统方法相比,此定义能够更加细致准确地描述论据状态.同时,本文对论据状态的等级进行了定义和区分,并把该等级作为接受或驳斥论据的依据.由于该方法基于标准论证体系定义,在实现上使用了已有的基于论证的证明方法,因此,该定义与以往的抽象论证体系是完全兼容的.