?Doing the lesson? or ?doing science?: Argument in high school genetics

Abstract

This article focuses on the capacity of students to develop and assess ar- guments during a high genetics instructional sequence. The research focused on the locating distinction in argumentation discourse between doing vs. doing school or doing the lesson (Bloome, Puro, & Theodorou, 1989). Participants in this classroom case study were high (9th grade) students in Galicia (Spain). Students were observed, videotaped, and audiotaped while working in groups over six class ses- sions. Toulmin's argument pattern was used as a tool for the analysis of students' con- versation and other frames were used for analyzing other dimensions of students' dialogue; (e.g., epistemic operations, use of analogies, appeal to consistency, and causal relations). Instances of doing and instances of doing the lesson are identified and dis- cussed as moments when the classroom discourse is dominated either by talking science or displaying the roles of students. The different arguments constructed and co-constructed by students, the elements of the arguments, and the sequence are also discussed, showing a dominance of claims and a lesser frequence of justifications or warrants. Implications for developing effective contexts to promote argumentation and science dialogue in the classroom are discussed. 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 84:757- 792, 2000.