Abstract
In current educational research, there is an increasing acceptance among researchers to emphasize that students must be educated on scientific ways of thinking. Simultaneously, science education practice has focused on the development of scientific thinking skills which are associated with scientific inquiry rather than memorization skills. When it comes to scientific practices, educational reforms highly emphasize scientific practices such as argumentation in science education. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to conduct a synthesis study on argumentation in science education. In order to achieve this purpose, this topic will be reviewed under seven main headings within the current study. These are development of argumentation theory, argumentation approaches, argumentation models used in science education, student’s role in argumentation, teacher’s role in argumentation, activities that create an argumentation environment, difficulties associated with the implementation of the argumentation in the learning environment and scientific argumentation respectively. In addition, some sub-headings will follow the main headings.
Highlights
In current educational research, there is an increasing acceptance among researchers to emphasize that students must be educated on scientific ways of thinking
In another definition on argumentation argued by Kuhn (1993), she stated that argumentation is fundamental to science activity because science education researchers construct arguments, evaluate evidence, form warrants to endorse their hypotheses, and discuss alternative explanations
Mason and Santi’s (1994) argumentation was defined as a way of communication that is ‘epistemic’ which deals with the social composition of knowledge, ‘analytic’ which deals with structure, consistency and getting to a conclusion, and ‘critical’ which deals with current situations and possibilities of the conditions
Summary
According to Bricker and Bell (2008), argument is a core practice for scientific discourse. Other argumentation frameworks were developed such as Johnson and Blair’s (1994) non-formal argumentation and Walton’s (1996) presumptive reasoning. In these frameworks, it was emphasized that the relationship between the premises of arguments and conclusions were important in the evaluation of argument quality (Greenwell, Knight, Holloway, & Pease, 2005). It was emphasized that the relationship between the premises of arguments and conclusions were important in the evaluation of argument quality (Greenwell, Knight, Holloway, & Pease, 2005) These argumentation frameworks established the foundations of the argumentation theory
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
