Abstract
This chapter suggests a set of design principles for science curricula that will enable students to produce evidence-based arguments expressing views related to their own interests. It is based on the assumption that the ability to construct evidence-based arguments strengthens students’ ability to promote their own views in the interest of social justice. This is of special importance for students not enculturated into such argumentation through their upbringing. To promote one’s own views in a debate means to critique others’ arguments, and especially to ensure one’s own arguments are resistent to criticism. Insight into the nature of science includes insights in how to construct sound arguments based on facts and research results. The discussion of design principles is based on an analysis of two science projects in two lower secondary schools in Norway (Grade 8). In the first project, students produced scientific claims based on evidence from their own practical experiments. In the second project, the students developed and applied a method for estimating energy use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The students used their findings to construct arguments related to local transport plans. The analysis focuses on challenges and successes in scaffolding students at different competence levels to successfully produce evidence-based arguments.
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
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200012)37:10%3C1057::AID-TEA3%3E3.0.CO;2-C.
Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20432.
Bailin, S., & Battersby, M. (2016). Fostering the virtues of inquiry. Topoi-an International Review of Philosophy, 35(2), 367–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6.
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202799183133.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.
Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20269.
Barton, A. C., Ermer, J. L., & Burkett, T. A. (2003). Teaching science for social justice. Teachers College Press.
Basu, S. J., & Barton, A. C. (2010). A researcher-student-teacher model for democratic science pedagogy: Connections to community, shared authority, and critical science agency. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(1), 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680903489379.
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction: Research findings and recommendations (the Delphi report). Retrieved from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED315423: https://eric.ed.gov/
Garii, B., & Rule, A. C. (2009). Integrating social justice with mathematics and science: An analysis of student teacher lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(3), 490–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.11.003.
Goeden, T. J., Kurtz, M. J., Quitadamo, I. J., & Thomas, C. (2015). Community-based inquiry in allied health biochemistry promotes equity by improving critical thinking for women and showing promise for increasing content gains for ethnic minority students. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(5), 788–796. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400893f.
Golding, C. (2011). Educating for critical thinking: Thought-encouraging questions in a community of inquiry. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.499144.
Grandy, R., & Duschl, R. (2008). Consensus: Expanding the scientific method and school science. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 304–325). Rotterdam: Sense.
Gupta, T., Burke, K. A., Mehta, A., & Greenbowe, T. J. (2015). Impact of guided-inquiry-based instruction with a writing and reflection emphasis on chemistry Students’ critical thinking abilities. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(1), 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500059r.
Hand, B., Shelley, M. C., Laugerman, M., Fostvedt, L., & Therrien, W. (2018). Improving critical thinking growth for disadvantaged groups within elementary school science: A randomized controlled trial using the science writing heuristic approach. Science Education, 102(4), 693–710. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21341.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1.
Khishfe, R. (2012). Nature of science and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.559490.
Lederman, N. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. Abell, K. Appleton, & D. L. Hanuscin (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203824696.
Leung, J. S. C., Wong, A. S. L., & Yung, B. H. W. (2015). Understandings of nature of science and multiple perspective evaluation of science news by non-science majors. Science & Education, 24(7–8), 887–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9736-4.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching. The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Merchan, N. Y. T., & Matarredona, J. S. (2016). Contributions of intervention teaching using socioscientific issues to develop critical thinking. Ensenanza De Las Ciencias, 34(2), 43–65. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.1638.
O’Neill, T. B. (2010). Fostering spaces of student ownership in middle school science. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680903484909.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. A. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105.
Quitadamo, I. J., Faiola, C. L., Johnson, J. E., & Kurtz, M. J. (2008). Community-based inquiry improves critical thinking in general education biology. Cbe-Life Sciences Education, 7(3), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-11-0097.
Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.778204.
Thadani, V., Cook, M. S., Griffis, K., Wise, J. A., & Blakey, A. (2010). The possibilities and limitations of curriculum-based science inquiry interventions for challenging the “pedagogy of poverty”. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680903408908.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, H. H., Chen, H. T., Lin, H. S., Huang, Y. N., & Hong, Z. R. (2017). Longitudinal study of a cooperation- driven, socio-scientific issue intervention on promoting students’ critical thinking and self-regulation in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 39(15), 2002–2026. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1357087.
Yacoubian, H. A. (2012). Towards a philosophically and a pedagogically reasonable nature of science curriculum. Doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/143c1900-551c-434c-9763-d8559349b5e6
Yacoubian, H. A. (2015). A framework for guiding future citizens to think critically about nature of science and Socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education, 15(3), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2015.1051671.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the the Norwegian Research Council [grant number 275835].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kolstø, S.D. (2020). Teaching Robust Argumentation Informed by the Nature of Science to Support Social Justice. Experiences from Two Projects in Lower Secondary Schools in Norway. In: Yacoubian, H.A., Hansson, L. (eds) Nature of Science for Social Justice. Science: Philosophy, History and Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47260-3_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47260-3_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-47259-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-47260-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)