Argumentation In Science Education Research Articles

Teachers’ interventions in science education at primary school. The role of semiotic resources during argumentative interactions in classroom

ABSTRACT Background In the field of science education, adults often set up practical-based activities with the idea of stimulating children’s reasoning and approaching science in a playful way. Although the potential role of objects in stimulating social practices has been considered in the literature, how teachers work on semiotic aspects of argumentation is still less explored. Purpose In this paper, the purpose is to identify how practice-based experiences settled up by teachers shape children’s argumentation in science education. Sample design and methods We analyzed argumentation in science tasks involving a total of 39 children (6–7 years old) and their three teachers, coming from two different classrooms of cycle 1 (Harmos, grades 3–4) 1 recruited in the French speaking-part of Switzerland. The tasks were video-recorded and then transcribed. Through the lenses of the pragma-dialectical approach, we selected the argumentative discussions emerging during the experiences and we performed a qualitative analysis of these interactions, by looking at different semiotic resources: speech, gaze direction, deictic gestures, and position of physical objects. Results The findings show that teachers play a crucial role in sustaining children’s argumentation by the integration of different semiotic resources during the activities. Conclusion As argumentation in classroom evolves through the mobilization of various communicative tools, the present study can contribute to strengthen the interplay between different channels of interaction during science education at primary school.

Developing Students' Critical Thinking Skills and Argumentation Abilities Through Augmented Reality-Based Argumentation Activities in Science Classes.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and adapting the classes urgently to distance learning, directing students’ interest in the course content became challenging. The solution to this challenge emerges through creative pedagogies that integrate the instructional methods with new technologies like augmented reality (AR). Although the use of AR in science education is increasing, the integration of AR into science classes is still naive. The lack of the ability to identify misinformation in the COVID-19 pandemic process has revealed the importance of developing students’ critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities. The purpose of this study was to examine the change in critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities through augmented reality–based argumentation activities in teaching astronomy content. The participants were 79 seventh grade students from a private school. In this case study, the examination of the verbal arguments of students showed that all groups engaged in the argumentation and produced quality arguments. The critical thinking skills of the students developed until the middle of the intervention, and the frequency of using critical thinking skills varied after the middle of the intervention. The findings highlight the role of AR-based argumentation activities in students’ critical thinking skills and argumentation in science education.

Argumentation and intellectual humility: a theoretical synthesis and an empirical study about students’ warrants

ABSTRACT Background Argumentation, the justification of claims with reasons and/or evidence, has emerged as a significant goal in science education in recent years. Yet, there is limited understanding of secondary students’ arguments and particularly their use of warrants in interdisciplinary contexts such as science and religious education. Furthermore, research on argumentation in science education has not paid sufficient attention to how students’ arguments may potentially reflect intellectual humility. The concept of intellectual humility reinforces the view that one is not excessively arrogant regarding their beliefs, or excessively dismissive of their or others’ beliefs Purpose It is important to understand students’ engagement in argumentation particularly in the context of topics such as evolution and creationism that often present tension and conflict. For classroom argumentation activities to be fruitful, students’ understanding of warrants as well as their intellectual humility are prerequisite. Sample The data are drawn from Year 9 students’ engagement in a card sort activity in the context of a funded project in England. The activity engaged the students in a task on the origins of life, where evidence and reasons were related to evolution versus creationism. Design and Methods The card sort activity was designed to limit students’ contributions about different evidence and emphasise specifically, the link (warrant) by providing fixed evidence and claims. During the activity, students were presented with ‘evidence cards’. Students were asked to consider each card and place it under the claim that they felt the card supported even if the student did not support that claim personally. They were further asked to explain why they thought the evidence might be used to support that claim. Students’ verbal accounts of their warrants for placing cards were explored. Conclusion Students’ warrants included repetition of evidence statements without articulating the reasons. As intellectual humility concerns accurately tracking the positive epistemic status of a belief or argument, a lack of coherence within students’ arguments contradicts the embodiment of intellectual humility.

Finding the place of argumentation in science education: Epistemics and Whole Science

AbstractArgumentation constitutes an important element in nature of science education. However, its virtues and scope can be overstated. Here, we survey in detail the place of argumentation in science education. Our benchmark is the range of epistemic processes relevant to citizens and consumers as they assess the reliability of scientific claims in personal and public decision making. We consider multiple epistemic stages in the development (or ontogeny) of such claims: (a) observation and material investigation; (b) the crafting of concepts through individual cognition; (c) the checks and balances of the scientific community; (d) the challenges of credibility and expertise in a cultural context; and (e) the interpretation of “science in the wild,” where authentic scientific claims mingle with imitators and misinformation on the Internet and social media and in public discourse. We conclude that many conventional rationalist assumptions haunt current approaches to argumentation and limit its effectiveness, especially in the implicit goal of achieving intellectual independence for students as autonomous scientific agents. A more fruitful approach, from the perspective of functional scientific literacy, is a Whole Science perspective, which gives full expression to the spectrum of epistemic processes in science and science communication.

PROCESSO COMUNICATIVO EM UM CURSO DE FORMAÇÃO DE PROFESSORES: UMA ANÁLISE BASEADA NOS PRINCÍPIOS ARGUMENTATIVOS DE PERELMAN E OLBRECHTS-TYTECA

Embora muitos estudos sejam realizados sobre a argumentação em Educação em Ciências, ainda existem vários aspectos a serem explorados. Esta pesquisa objetiva analisar, com base nos princípios argumentativos de Perelman e Olbrechts-Tyteca (1996), os argumentos docentes elaborados a partir de uma Sequência de Ensino Investigativo durante o Curso “FormAÇÃO de Professores na Perspectiva do Ensino Investigativo”, realizado na região Centro-Oeste paulista para 24 professores. Uma das questões a considerar no presente artigo é: como os qualificadores presentes na argumentação do professor formador e dos cursistas, por ocasião da resolução de problemas experimentais investigativos, permitem interlocuções na construção de processos comunicativos e categorias argumentativas? A metodologia de abordagem qualitativa, concebe técnicas argumentativas no processo comunicativo professor-alunos, apresentando-se como opção eficiente que visa potencializar um tratado argumentativo no ensino investigativo contextualizado na ação docente, realizado em ambiente não formal de ensino. A efetivação dessa análise intenciona discutir a importância do trabalho docente na perspectiva argumentativa, apresentando a complexa dinâmica que envolve processos de argumentação e que tem motivado o desenvolvimento de pesquisas, e suas expectativas na condução comunicativa no contexto educativo.

Argumentation and interdisciplinarity: reflections from the Oxford Argumentation in Religion and Science Project

Argumentation has emerged as a key area of research and development in science education in recent years. Simply defined, argumentation is about the justification of knowledge claims with evidence and reasons. Although there is now a vast amount of work in argumentation, much research remains to be pursued. Given the interdisciplinary nature of argumentation, the dialogue between science education and other relevant domains can potentially produce constructive research agendas that could profit argumentation research and lead to practical applications. Following an overview of the relevant interdisciplinary investigations that can be pursued in science education, the paper subsequently focuses on the interphase of science and religion. Although science education research has witnessed considerable debate about particular issues related to science and religion such as the teaching and learning of evolution and creationism, the role of argumentation remains an uncharted territory. Hence, the paper focuses on how argumentation may be explored in science and religious education in comparison. Some preliminary observations from the Oxford Argumentation in Religion and Science (OARS) Project are reported including a comparative analysis of curricula and teachers’ views. Implications for interdisciplinarity in the context of argumentation in science education are discussed.

Synthesis Study on Argumentation in Science Education

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.

Organising a culture of argumentation in elementary science

ABSTRACTMost of the research on argumentation in science education has documented the myriad flaws in students’ argumentation, and the difficulties teachers have organising productive arguments in the classroom. We apply a sociocultural framework to argue that productive argumentation emerges from a classroom culture in which its practice meaningfully serves classroom goals. We present a case study using interaction analysis to contrast two elementary teachers’ efforts to organise productive scientific argumentation in their classrooms. One teacher used discourse moves to orient students to each other’s contributions in ways the other did not, reflecting differences in underlying aims for collective versus individual sense-making. This analysis shows that connecting discourse practices specifically to a goal of collective sense-making promotes productive argumentation.

Prospective biology teachers’ critical thinking skills in microbiology argument-based inquiry laboratory activities

Argumentation in science education have been realized to have connections with many benefits including critical thinking skills. This study explored the implementation of argument-based inquiry activities ini microbiology laboratory course and how the implementation may improve students critical thinking skills. The subject of this research was the fifth semester students of a biology teacher educational institution in Cirebon. The data collected were the students’ critical thinking skills using a set of critical thinking skills test in microbiology lab course. The result showed that the students’ participation in the microbiology argument-based inquiry laboratory activities significantly improved the critical thinking skills of the students. The aspects of the critical thinking skills that influenced the most by the program was developing and maintaining a position in an issue by analyzing, evaluating and producing explanations.

ARGUMENTAVIMO MOKYMAS TYRINĖJANT DIRBTINĘ EKOSISTEMĄ – AKVARIUMĄ

Argumentation is essential in many sciences. For example, in mathematics it is sought to prove all new statements, theories, tasks, answers. There is also argumentation in biology science to explore ant prove molecular processes in the cell, the process of life evolution. Argumentation has widely explored in logic science, psychology, philosophy, and philology. The ability to argue logically and reasonably is also important in the everyday life of a person. Each of us every day provides some arguments for communicating with family members, colleagues, friends and any other person. Because of that argumentation is one of the essential components of our life. Therefore, it can be said that the ability to argue for a modern person is important because, by being able to provide logical arguments, he will be able to communicate successfully with other people. Looking from the perspective of the natural sciences, the argumentation in this science is no less important than in the sciences mentioned above. It plays an important role in science education. Such argumentation skills are useful in developing a “deep” perception and sound conclusions, especially when dealing with controversial approaches. Moreover, participation in argumentation, direct submission of arguments reinforces conceptual understanding. Scientists claim that ten-year-old child’s thinking has been already fluent, so ten-year-olds can take on more complex cognitive tasks. It means that in carrying out the task in the middle childhood, the child is able to give a logical conclusion, which indicates the ability to argue, to provide evidence, to justify the answer. Therefore, one can conclude that primary school pupils can be successfully trained in argumentation while teaching natural science content. The article presents the results received from analysis of the pupil’s answers which were given while exploring artificial ecosystem-aquarium. The article outlines how students are able to argue during exploration of the artificial ecosystem-aquarium. Keywords: argumentation in primary education, aquarium exploration, argumentation in science education.

Toulmin\u2019s argument pattern as a \u201chorizon of possibilities\u201d in the study of argumentation in science education

Kim and Roth (this issue) purport to draw on the social-psychological theory of L. S. Vygotsky in order to investigate social relations in children’s argumentation in science topics. The authors argue that the argumentation framework offered by Stephen Toulmin is limited in addressing social relations. The authors thus criticize Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP) as an analytical tool and propose to investigate the genesis of evidence-related practices (especially burden of proof) in second- and third-grade children by studying dialogical interactions. In this paper, I illustrate how Toulmin’s framework can contribute to (a) the study of “social relations”, and (b) provide an example utilizing a theoretical framework on social relations, namely Engeström’s Activity Theory framework, and (c) describe how we have used the Activity Theory along with TAP in order to understand the development of argumentation in the practices of science educators. Overall, I will argue that TAP is not inherently incapable of addressing social relational aspects of argumentation in science education but rather that science education researchers can transform theoretical tools such as Toulmin’s framework intended for other purposes for use in science education research.

A Critical Review of Scientific Argumentation in Science Education

The use of argumentation in science education is associated with many benefits. Some of these include developing critical skills, promoting spirit of enquiry, enhancing conceptual understanding and improving academic performance of students. However, there are also some issues and challenges while using argumentation in science classrooms. This research will discuss the strength of using scientific argumentation in science education. The findings from other such studies will also be critically reviewed to seek an in-depth understanding of the use of argumentation in teaching and associated challenges. The research would help in improving the use of argumentation in teaching and exploring solution to problems and challenges associated with this method.

Perceptions of Prospective Biology Teachers on Scientific Argumentation in Microbiology Inquiry Lab Activities

Inquiry laboratory activity and scientific argumentation in science education should be promoted and explicitly experienced by prospective biology teacher students in classes, including in microbiology courses. The goal of this study is to get information about perceptions of prospective biology teachers on scientific argumentation in microbiology inquiry lab activities. This study reported the result of a survey research to prospective biology teachers about how their perception about microbiology lab classes and their perception about inquiry and argumentation in microbiology lab activities should be. The participants of this study were 100 students of biology education department from an institute in Cirebon, West Java taking microbiology lecture during the fifth semester. The data were collected using questionnaire to explore the perceptions and knowledge of prospective biology teachers about microbiology, inquiry lab activities and argumentation. The result showed that students thought that the difficulties of microbiology as a subject were the lack of references and the way lecturer teaching. The students’ perception was that argumentation and inquiry should be implemented in microbiology courses and lab activities. Based on the data from questionnaire, It showed that prospective biology teacher students had very little knowledge about scientific argumentation and its implementation in science education. When the participants made arguments based on the problems given, they showed low quality of arguments.

Learning to Use Evidence in Elementary School Over Time: A Study of the Discursive Construction of Ways of Answering Questions in Science Lessons

The use of evidence in science lessons has been considered an important practice to bedeveloped in science education. In this study, we investigate how 3rd graders constructed discursively the practice of using evidence. The theoretical and methodological framework of the study was grounded in Microethnography and Interactional Etnography. We characterize “ways of doing” related to evidence use based on the use of discursive resources: words/expressions that were emphasized by the participants in face-to-face interactions, through contextual cues of speech, such as intonation/volume shifts and pausing moments. We indicate how these ways of doing have changed over time and how participants negotiated a shared model in building answers using evidence. We also discuss methodological implications for research in Argumentation in science education and for classroom practice.

The pedagogy of argumentation in science education: science teachers’ instructional practices

ABSTRACTArgumentation has been a prominent concern in science education research and a common goal in science curriculum in many countries over the past decade. With reference to this goal, policy documents burden responsibilities on science teachers, such as involving students in dialogues and being guides in students’ spoken or written argumentation. Consequently, teachers’ pedagogical practices regarding argumentation gain importance due to their impact on how they incorporate this practice into their classrooms. In this study, therefore, we investigated the instructional strategies adopted by science teachers for their argumentation-based science teaching. Participants were one elementary science teacher, two chemistry teachers, and four graduate students, who have a background in science education. The study took place during a graduate course, which was aimed at developing science teachers’ theory and pedagogy of argumentation. Data sources included the participants’ video-recorded classroom practices, audio-recorded reflections, post-interviews, and participants’ written materials. The findings revealed three typologies of instructional strategies towards argumentation. They are named as Basic Instructional Strategies for Argumentation, Meta-level Instructional ‌St‌‌rategies for ‌Argumentation, and Meta-strategic Instructional ‌St‌‌rategies for ‌Argumentation. In conclusion, the study provided a detailed coding framework for the exploration of science teachers’ instructional practices while they are implementing argumentation-based lessons.

Argumentation in science education as an evolving concept: Following the object of activity

Abstract The paper argues that the way we realise or define argumentation in a research project aiming at promoting the practice in primary science education should not be considered as something static and pre-given but may change during the various phases of the project, based on stakeholders' motives and needs. This claim is supported through the findings of a two-year empirical study that took place in Cyprus, which illustrate in detail the transformations that the definition and meaning of argumentation in primary science education went through. Activity theory is used as a theoretical, methodological and analytical framework. Specifically, the paper mainly draws on the notion of the object of the activity, used as a conceptual heuristic, and on the notions of the springboard and the microcosm from expansive learning theory, used as methodological and analytical tools, in order to trace the various definitions and meanings attributed to argumentation by stakeholders. Implications for research and the assessment of teachers are also presented.

Using Drama to Promote Argumentation in Science Education

The purpose of this study was to use drama as a springboard for promoting argumentation among 91 first-semester undergraduate medical students (56 females and 35 males, 16–30 years old) in Colombia during a complete teaching–learning sequence (TLS) supervised by the same teacher. The drama used was the play Should’ve, written by Nobel laureate Roald Hoffmann. The data was derived from students’ written responses, audio and video recordings, and written field notes. This investigation provides evidence that an approach combining drama and argumentation could increase students’ awareness of the relevance of ethics in science as one of the features of science (FOS). The findings show that the play Should’ve can be useful for promoting students’ argumentation and is also appropriate for medical students. Future studies could include other science disciplines (e.g., astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth science, ecology, physics); students of other ages; and other plays and experiments in other parts of the world.

Research on evaluation of Chinese students' competence in written scientific argumentation in the context of chemistry

Attending to practice has become a significant topic in science education today. As scientific argumentation is a typical form of scientific practice as well as an important educational practice, more and more attention has been paid to it by science education researchers. Evaluating students' competence in scientific argumentation is one of the most important research topics, but in China, science researchers seldom concentrate on it because the diverse educational values of scientific argumentation need to be further understood. The present study sought to examine the performance of Chinese students participating in written scientific argumentation in the context of chemistry. After clarifying the conception of scientific argumentation in science education, and comparing the evaluation criteria in domestic and international science education research, written scientific argumentation tasks in the context of chemistry were designed and criteria for their evaluation were constructed and improved. In total five tasks were designed for evaluation. All of the five tasks were aimed at evaluating students' competence of selecting (or putting forward) claims, evidence and warrants, in addition, two tasks investigated the competence of refuting arguments. The general criteria for evaluation was constructed according to the four dimensions of scientific argumentation, they were the structure components, the content quality, the logic of justification and language. For each task, content criteria and performance criteria for evaluation were constructed. After analysis and improvement of the criteria based on two pilot tests and the Rasch model, it was obvious that the criteria met the standards, effectively and credibly, for this study on the assessment of students' competence in written scientific argumentation. The number of students who participated in the formal test was 578 (304 males and 274 females). Through this kind of evaluation, this study found that the students' competence in written scientific argumentation was generally weak, and was influenced by some factors. Specifically, firstly, the students could put forward claims and evidence more easily than warrants and rebuttals. Secondly, the specific tasks had an influence on the performance of the students in written scientific argumentation. In regard to other factors, gender did not influence the students' competence in written scientific argumentation, but the grade level and school level were key factors. The students' competence in written scientific argumentation at grade level four and three other school grade levels were significantly different. Finally, some changes to the Chinese chemistry curriculum were proposed based on the results of this study.

Argumentation in science education as a systemic activity: An activity-theoretical perspective

The main aim of the paper is to show that argumentation in primary science education can be exhibited not only as a collective activity, comprising of a series of discrete teaching and learning actions, but also as a systemic activity. This is achieved through an effort to reconstruct the activity of argumentation by examining both the ensemble of sociocultural practices that facilitate it and to reveal the dynamics and interrelations that exist between the activity’s elements. Appropriate methodological and analytical tools from Cultural-Historical Activity Theory were used. The data to support the claim of the paper stem from an empirical study of examining the practices that facilitate argumentation in science education in six primary schools in Cyprus.

Research trends on argumentation in science education: a journal content analysis from 1998–2014

The primary objective of this paper is to provide a review of research on argumentation in science education based on publications from 1998 to 2014 in three science education journals. In recent years, the teaching and learning argumentation (i.e. the coordination of evidence and theory to support or refute an explanatory conclusion, model or prediction) has emerged as a significant educational goal. Argumentation is a critically important discourse process in science and it should be taught and learned in the science classroom as part of scientific inquiry and literacy. Argumentation stresses the evidence-based justification of knowledge claims, and it underpins reasoning across STEM domains. Our aim in this study was to investigate how argumentation has been positioned within the publications of three top academic journals: Science Education, International Journal of Science Education, and Journal of Research in Science Teaching. A methodology for content analysis of the journals is described using quantitative and qualitative techniques. One of the contributions of our analysis is the illustration that researchers studying argumentation from a linguistic perspective have been emphasizing related concepts in different ways. While the emphasis has been on discourse and discussion across all journals, the related concepts of talk, conversation, dialogue and negotiation were observed to a lesser extent. Likewise, the fine-level analysis of the key epistemic concepts such as reasoning, evidence and inquiry indicates variation in coverage. The findings can provide evidence-based indicators for where more emphasis needs to be placed in future research on argumentation, and in particular they can provide guidelines for journals in soliciting articles that target underemphasized aspects of argumentation in science education.