Basing its arguments in current perspectives on the nature of the scientific enterprise, which see argument and argumentative practice as a core activity of scientists, this article develops the case for the inclusion and central role of argument in science education. Beginning with a review of the nature of argument, it discusses the function and purpose of dialogic argument in the social construction of scientific knowledge and the interpretation of empirical data. The case is then advanced that any education about science, rather than education in science, must give the role of argument a high priority if it is to give a fair account of the social practice of science, and develop a knowledge and understanding of the evaluative criteria used to establish scientific theories. Such knowledge is essential to enhance the public understanding of science and improve scientific literacy. The existing literature, and work that has attempted to use argument within science education, is reviewed to show that classroom practice does provide the opportunity to develop young people's ability to construct argument. Furthermore, the case is advanced that the lack of opportunities for the practice of argument within science classrooms, and lack of teacher's pedagogical skills in organizing argumentative discourse within the classroom are significant impediments to progress in the field. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed84:287–312, 2000.

Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms

The research reported in this paper stemmed from our conviction that argument is a central dimension of both science and science education. Our specific intention was to determine whether secondary science teachers in England give pupils opportunities to develop and rehearse the skills of argumentation during their lessons. We found that classroom discourse was largely teacher dominated and tended not to foster the reflective discussion of scientific issues. Opportunities for the social construction of knowledge, that are afforded by the use of argument-based pedagogical techniques, were few and far between. After a discussion of teachers' responses to this finding, we highlighted two major explanations: firstly, limitations in teachers' pedagogical repertoires; secondly, external pressures imposed upon science teachers in England by the National Curriculum and its assessment system.

The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science

In this study we examined the discourse components, interaction patterns, and reasoning complexity of 4 groups of 12 Grade 8 students in 2 science classrooms as they constructed mental models of the nature of matter, both on their own and with teacher guidance. Interactions within peer and teacher-guided small group discussions were videotaped and audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed in a variety of ways. The key act of participants in both peer and teacher-guided groups was working with weak or incomplete ideas until they improved. How this was accomplished differed somewhat depending on the presence or absence of a teacher in the discussion. Teachers acted as a catalyst in discussions, prompting students to expand and clarify their thinking without providing direct information. Teacher-guided discussions were a more efficient means of attaining higher levels of reasoning and higher quality explanations, but peer discussions tended to be more generative and exploratory. Students' discourse was more vari...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3233840.pdf

Discourse Patterns and Collaborative Scientific Reasoning in Peer and Teacher-Guided Discussions

The purpose of this paper is to examine university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Drawing from rhetorical studies of science writing and studies of argumentation in science education, a model for assessing students' arguments is proposed that considers the relative epistemic status of propositions comprising students' written texts. The study was conducted in an introductory university oceanography course in a large public university that utilized an interactive CD-ROM that provided geological data sets for student exploration of scientific questions. Student arguments were analyzed through a process of sorting propositions by epistemic level and identifying the explicit links within and across levels. These epistemic levels were defined by discipline-specific geological constructs from descriptions of data, to identification of features, to relational aspects of features, to theoretically formulated assertions. This form of argumentation analysis allowed for assessment of each student's writing on normative grounds and for comparisons across students' papers. Results show promise for the argumentation model as a methodological tool. The examination of epistemic status of knowledge claims provided ways of distinguishing the extent to which students adhered to the genre conventions specified by the task, i.e., providing evidentiary support for their argument concerning the theory of plate tectonics with real earth data. We draw on the findings to discuss ways argumentation theory can contribute to reform in science education. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed86:314–342, 2002; Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/sce.10024

Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing.

Recognizing that empirical research into classroom dialogue has been conducted for about 40 years, a review is reported of 225 studies published between 1972 and 2011. The studies were identified through systematic search of electronic databases and scrutiny of publication reference lists. They focus on classroom dialogue in primary and secondary classrooms, covering the full age range of compulsory schooling. The methods of data collection and analysis used in the studies are described and discussed, with changes and continuities over time highlighted. Study results are then summarized and integrated to present a succinct picture of what is currently known and where future research might profitably be directed. One key message is that much more is known about how classroom dialogue is organized than about whether certain modes of organization are more beneficial than others. Moreover, epistemological and methodological change may be required if the situation is to be remedied.

Classroom dialogue: a systematic review across four decades of research

This study analyzed student talk in working groups during four laboratory investigations. Its purpose was to understand the process by which students solve scientific problems, the difficulties students encounter in developing the requisite pieces of scientific arguments while negotiating their social roles, and the ways these roles shape task engagement and the development and articulation of the arguments themselves. The discourse of 6 groups of four students each was audiotaped and 2 groups were videotaped during the planning, execution, and interpretation of student-designed experiments in a 10th-grade interdisciplinary science class. Goals of student engagement, knowledge building within an intellectual framework, and construction of scientific arguments were used to examine conceptual difficulties and social interactions. Within-group comparisons across labs and across-group comparisons within labs were made. It was determined that: (a) students became much better at using the scientific method to construct convincing arguments, and (b) specific social roles and leadership styles developed within groups that greatly influenced the ease with which students developed scientific understanding. The results demonstrate not only that knowledge building involves the construction of scientifically appropriate arguments, but that the extent to which this knowledge building takes place depends on students learning to use tools of the scientific community: their expectations about the intellectual nature of the tasks and their role in carrying these tasks out: and the access they have to the appropriate social context in which to practice developing skills. © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Joanne Striley

Papers

Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small‐group discourse and scientific knowledge building