An Argument for Arguments in Science Classes

Abstract

Science education has a problem. Science is deemed so important that all students must study the subject for many years and, in most states, schools are evaluated in part on their students' science achievement. Across the globe, sustaining the scientific and technological base of advanced economies is now of such concern that it has generated a succession of reports about how to address students' lack of interest in science. An increasing body of evidence suggests that curricula that are defined by a long list of standards combined with examinations that test their recall of a broad body of knowledge are undermining students' interest in science (Osborne, Simon, and Collins 2003; Sjoberg and Schreiner 2005; Au 2007). Of particular concern is a finding from a recent study involving over 20 countries showing a negative correlation between quantitative measures of how advanced a society is and students' interest in the further study of science and scientific careers (Sjoberg and Schreiner 2005). Science curricula are predominantly framed by scientists and their needs, and their dominant requirement is the need to educate the next generation of scientists (Millar and Osborne 1998). Too often, the outcome is science curricula based on state standards that are written as a list of separate and detailed concepts and lack an overarching narrative that might provide coherence. The result is that students often experience science as a miscellany of facts. This conception of the subject is reinforced by an assessment system that tests students' ability to recall elements of atomized knowledge and by a teaching style that emphasizes recall over higher-order thinking. The result is a lack of emphasis on the ability to reason or argue in a scientific context. Rarely are students able to explore how we know what we know, how such knowledge came to be, or why it matters. The irony in this state of affairs is twofold. First, science, more than any discipline, has allowed us to transcend the shackles of received wisdom; yet it is taught in a manner that is the antithesis of the spirit of open inquiry and invention that it has fostered. Second, the ability to synthesize knowledge from different domains and engage in critical and analytical thinking is the very skill needed to enhance a nation's economic competitiveness (National Research Council 2008; Hill 2008). This concern is driving many countries to implement standards-based curricula even though there is evidence that such an approach engenders negative attitudes toward science (Sjoberg and Schreiner 2005; Osborne and Dillon 2008). In addition, this approach minimizes opportunities for critical thinking. How, then, can science education foster both the knowledge and the skills required by society? An Argument for Argument Giving students opportunities to construct arguments and counter-arguments can be an effective strategy for both developing students' ability to reason and enhancing their conceptual understanding. A body of research suggests, however, that the skills of reasoning and argumentation are domain specific, that is, students who can argue successfully in history may not argue successfully in science. Hence, in science education, where researchers have argued strongly for a conception of science as a process of collecting evidence, critically evaluating, and constructing explanations (Driver, Newton, and Osborne 2000), the argument for incorporating more argumentation in school science has grown. Indeed, the argument for reasoning and critical thinking in science education is central in the recent NRC volume, Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Grades K-8 (Duschl, Schweingruber, and Shouse 2006). Consequently, a growing body of research on how to incorporate argumentation in school science has emerged. An important finding in this research is that students who have been able to explore why the wrong idea is wrong have a more secure and deeper understanding of why the right idea is right (Alverman, Qian, and Hynd 1995). …