Ask anyone who has done work on argumentation in science classrooms what their primary concern has been in this line of research, and they will most likely respond with one word: methodology. Most likely they will then begin to ask you if you have figured out how to distinguish data from warrants. The questions will continue: can theoretical statements be data? If a warrant is not explicitly stated, can it still be assumed that it is part of the argument? Indeed the study of argumentation in the science classroom raises significant methodological questions. What counts as an argument in children's talk anyhow? What is the unit of analysis of argument and of argumentation in classroom conversations? What criteria drive the selection and application of coding tools? What justifies the choice of one methodological approach over another? What does a particular methodological approach enable us to do and how does it do so?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Beardsley, M. C. (1950). Practical logic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Castells, M., Enciso, J., Cerveró, J. M., López, P., & Cabellos, M. (2007). What can we learn from a study of argumentation in the students’ answers and group discussion to open physics’ problems? In R. Pinto & D. Couso (Eds.), Contributions from science education research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Chinn, C. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 315–368.
Clark, D., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (in press). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review.
Duschl, R., Erduran, S., Grandy, R., & Rudolph, J. (2006). Guest editorial. Science Studies and Science Education, 90(6), 961–964.
Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999). Understanding dialogic argumentation among middle school science students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, April 1999.
Erduran, S. (in press). Breaking the law: Promoting domain-specificity in chemical education in the context of arguing about the Periodic Law. Foundations of Chemistry.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2007). Exemplary teaching of argumentation: A case study of two middle school science teachers. In R. Pinto & D. Couso (Eds.), Contributions of Science Education Research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Erduran, S. (2006). Promoting ideas, evidence and argument in initial teacher training. School Science Review, 87(321), 45–50.
Erduran, S., Ardac, D., & Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1–14.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.
Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Govier, T. C. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Providence, RI: Foris.
Hample, D. (1977). The Toulmin model and the syllogism. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 14, 1–9.
Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663–687.
Jiménez-Aleixandre M.P., & Pereiro Muñoz, C. (2005). Argument construction and change when working on a real environmental problem. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of Science Education (pp. 419–431). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Kelly, G.J., Chen, C., & Crawford, T. (1998). Methodological considerations for studying science-in-the-making in educational settings. Research in Science Education, 28(1), 23–50.
Kelly, G., Drucker, S., & Chen, K. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387–1408.
Loui, R. P. (2005). A citation-based reflection on Toulmin and argument. Argumentation, 19, 259–266.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children’s discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817–1841.
Marquez, C., Izquierdo, M., & Espinet, M. (2006). Multimodal science teachers’ discourse in modeling the water cycle, Science Education, 90 (2), 202–226.
Means, L.M., & Voss, J.F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–178.
Piccinini, C. L., & Martins, I. (2005). Comunicação Multimodal na sala de aula de Ciências. Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 6(1), 1–14.
Pollock, J. L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11, 481–518.
Reed, D., & Rowe, G. (2005). Translating Toulmin diagrams: Theory neutrality in argument representation. Argumentation, 19, 267–286.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2006). The development and validation of the Nature of Science as Argument Questionnaire (NSAAQ). Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching Conference, San Francisco, April.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.
Scerri, E. (2003). Philosophical confusion in chemical education research. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(5), 468–474.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.
Takao, A. Y., & Kelly, G. J. (2003). Assessment of evidence in university students’ scientific writing. Science & Education, 12(4), 341–363.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. Argumentation, 19, 347–371.
Verheij, B. (2003a). Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, 150, 291–324.
Verheij, B. (2003b). DefLog: On the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 319–346.
Voss, J. (2005). Toulmin’s model and the solving of ill-structured problems. Argumentation, 19, 321–329.
Voss, J. F., Greene, T. R., Post, T. A., & Penner, B.C. (1983). Problem solving skill in the social sciences. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 17, Advances in research and theory (pp. 165–213). New York: Academic Press.
Walton, D.N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, P. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437–463.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological Foundations in the Study of Argumentation in Science Classrooms. In: Erduran, S., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (eds) Argumentation in Science Education. Science & Technology Education Library, vol 35. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-6669-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-6670-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)