Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring Nature of Science and Argumentation in Science Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Science Education: A Global Perspective

Abstract

This chapter reviews empirical studies that have examined nature of science (NOS) and argumentation in science education. The review sought to explore the nature of this relationship and examined studies conducted in socioscientific and scientific contexts. A critical review of 23 empirical studies from high-quality science education journals found many similarities regarding the nature of the relationship between NOS and argumentation in both contexts. Assessment studies in both contexts found evidence of the influence of NOS views on reasoning and positive relationships linking informed views of NOS to high-quality argumentation. Intervention studies in both contexts indicate that NOS views influence argumentation, although in different ways. An important point of difference between contexts related to the inclusion of explicit NOS instruction, with socioscientific interventions reporting improvements in NOS views with explicit NOS instruction; whereas scientific interventions reported improvements in NOS views without implementing explicit NOS instruction. The duration of the intervention was also found to be a pivotal factor in the success of the examined studies, with longer interventions producing more favourable results. In addition, studies underpinned by sociocultural perspectives were generally successful in achieving their desired aims.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • (AAAS) American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • (AAAS) American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • (ACARA) Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012). Australian curriculum: Science F-10 version 3.0. Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • (NRC) National Research Council, (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. S. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Corvallis: Oregon State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). The development of conceptions of the nature of scientific knowledge and knowing in the middle and high school years: A cross-sectional study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), New Orleans, LA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000a). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000b). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussion on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? The impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 414–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualisations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 34–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2006, April). Characteristics of students’ argumentation practices when supported by online personally-seeded discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, T. (2005). What counts as knowing: Constructing a communicative repertoire for student demonstration of knowledge in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 139–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., Tal, R., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies: Can we improve higher-order thinking skills of non-science majors? Science Education, 87, 767–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science Education in 3-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289–2315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evagorou, M. (2011). Discussing a socioscientific issue in a primary school classroom. The case of using a technology-supported environment in formal and nonformal settings. In T. Sadler (Ed.), Socioscientific issues in the classroom (pp. 133–160). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (1979). Understanding scientific reasoning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govier, T. (2010). A practical study of argument (7th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanuscin, D. L., Akerson, V. L., & Phillipson-Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90, 912–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R., & Ratcliffe, M. (2005). Socio-scientific issues and the quality of exploratory talk: What can be learned from schools involved in a ‘collapsed day’ project? Curriculum Journal, 16, 439–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84(1), 51–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 663–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.-P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M.-P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, K. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2012a). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 489–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2012b). Nature of science and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39, 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94, 810–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, L. & Reiser, B. J. (2006, April). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, J., Millar, R., Ryder, J., & Sere, M.-G. (2000). Epistemological understanding in science learning: The consistency of representations across contexts. Learning & Instruction, 10, 497–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S.-Y., Lin, C.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). College students’ scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision-making. Science Education, 95, 497–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matkins, J. J., & Bell, R. L. (2007). Awakening the scientist inside: Global climate change and the nature of science in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 137–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V., & McRobbie, C. J. (2012). Utilising argumentation to teach nature of science. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 969–986). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition & Instruction, 14, 139–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 771–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. A. (2012). Co-opting science: A preliminary study of how students invoke science in value-laden discussions. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 275–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977–1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95, 627–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 174–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96, 488–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualisations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V. D. & Clark, D. B. (2006, April). The development and validation of the nature of science as argument questionnaire (NSAAQ). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Cam, A. (2011). Elementary children’s judgments of the epistemic status of sources of justification. Science Education, 95, 383–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2007). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran & M.-P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 71–88). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schalk, K. A. (2012). A socioscientific curriculum facilitating the development of distal and proximal NOS conceptualizations. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schommer-Aitkins, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 406–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tal, R., & Hochberg, N. (2003). Assessing high order thinking of students participating in the ‘WISE’ project in Israel. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29, 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tal, T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socio-scientific issues: Classroom culture and students’ performances. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(4), 615–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C.-C., & Liu, S.-Y. (2005). Developing a multi-dimensional instrument for assessing students’ epistemological views toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1621–1638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387–1410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(2), 1163–1187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). High school students’ informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 371–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socio-scientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 74–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., Ruzek, M., Linder, A., & Lin, S.-S. (2013). Cross-cultural epistemological orientations to socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 251–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeineddin, A., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2010). Scientific reasoning and epistemological commitments: Coordination of theory and evidence among college science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1064–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, 176 Messines Ridge Road, Mt Gravatt, 4122, Queensland, Australia

    Christine V. McDonald

Authors
  1. Christine V. McDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine V. McDonald .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, Abuja, Nigeria

    Ben Akpan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McDonald, C.V. (2017). Exploring Nature of Science and Argumentation in Science Education. In: Akpan, B. (eds) Science Education: A Global Perspective . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32351-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32351-0_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32350-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32351-0

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation