Argumentation

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 225–243 | Cite as

What Students’ Arguments Can Tell Us: Using Argumentation Schemes in Science Education

Article

Abstract

The relationship between teaching and argumentation is becoming a crucial issue in the field of education and, in particular, science education. Teaching has been analyzed as a dialogue aimed at persuading the interlocutors, introducing a conceptual change that needs to be grounded on the audience’s background knowledge. This paper addresses this issue from a perspective of argumentation studies. Our claim is that argumentation schemes, namely abstract patterns of argument, can be an instrument for reconstructing the tacit premises in students’ argumentative reasoning and retrieving the background beliefs that are the basis of their arguments. On this perspective, the process of premise reconstruction is followed by a heuristic reasoning process aimed at discovering the students’ previous intuitions that can explain the premises and concepts that are left unexpressed in their arguments. The theoretical insights advanced in this paper are illustrated through selected examples taken from activities concerning predictive claims on scientific issues.

Keywords

Argumentation Education Argumentation schemes Persuasion Reasoning Conceptual change Prior beliefs Argument from cause Analogy 

References

  1. Baker, M.J. 2003. Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, ed. J. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D. Suthers, 47–78. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, P., and M.C. Linn. 2000. Scientific arguments as learning artefacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education 22(8): 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braet, A. 1999. The enthymeme in Aristotle’s rhetoric: From argumentation theory to logic. Informal Logic 19(2, 3): 101–117.Google Scholar
  4. Bransford, J., A. Brown, and R. Cocking (eds.). 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  5. Carey, S. 2000. Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 21(1): 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castells, M., J. Enciso, J.M. Cerveró, P. López, and M. Cabellos. 2007. What can we learn from a study of argumentation in the students’ answers and group discussion to open physics’ problems? In Contributions from science education research, ed. A.R. Pintó and D. Couso, 417–431. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Champagne, A.B., L.E. Klopfer, and J.H. Anderson. 1980. Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics 48: 1074–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chi, M.T.H., and R.D. Roscoe. 2002. The process and challenges of conceptual change. In Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice, ed. M. Limon and L. Mason, 3–27. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Driver, R., P. Newton, and J. Osborne. 2000. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education 84: 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duit, R. 1999. Conceptual change approaches in science education. In New perspectives on conceptual change, ed. W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, and M. Carretero, 263–282. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  11. Duschl, R. 2007. Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, ed. S. Erduran and M. Jiménez-Aleixandre, 159–175. Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duschl, R.A., K. Ellenboger and S. Erduran. 1999. Promoting argumentation in middle school science classrooms: A project SEPIA evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the national association for research in science teaching (March 28–31), Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  13. Erduran, S., and M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (eds.). 2007. Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Erduran, S., S. Simon, and J. Osborne. 2004. TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education 88(6): 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erduran, S., J. Osborne, and S. Simon. 2005. The role of argument in developing scientific literacy. In Research and the quality of science education, ed. K. Boersma, O. de Jong, H. Eijkelhof, and M. Goedhart, 381–394. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finocchiaro, M. 2007. Arguments, meta-arguments, and metadialogues: A reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods. Argumentation 21(3): 253–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Godden, D. 2010. The importance of belief in argumentation: Belief, commitment and the effective resolution of a difference of opinion. Synthese 172(3): 397–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Groarke, L., and C. Tindale. 2004. Good reasoning matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Guzzetti, B., T. Synder, G. Glass, and W. Gamas. 1993. Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly 28: 117–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hahn, U., and M. Oaksford. 2006. A normative theory of argument strength. Informal Logic 26(1): 1–24.Google Scholar
  21. Hastings, A.C. 1963. A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Evanston, IL: Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  22. Hewson, P. 1992. Conceptual change in science teaching and teacher education. Paper presented at a meeting on “Research and Curriculum Development in Science Teaching,” National Center for Educational Research, Documentation, and Assessment, Ministry for Education and Science, Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
  23. Hitchcock, D. 2003. Toulmin’s warrants. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argument, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 69–82. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jimenez-Aleizandre, M.P., A.B. Rodriguez, and R.A. Duschl. 2000. “Doing the lesson’ or “Doing science’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education 84(6): 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Juthe, A. 2005. Argument by analogy. Argumentation 19:1–27.Google Scholar
  26. Kelly, G.J., and C. Chen. 1999. The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36(8): 883–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kelly, G., and A. Takao. 2002. Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education 86: 314–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koballa, T. 1992. Persuasion and attitude change in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29(1): 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Konstantinidou, A., J.M. Cerveró, and M. Castells. 2010. Argumentation and scientific reasoning: The “double hierarchy” argument. In Contemporary science education research: Scientific literacy and social aspects of science, ed. M.F. Taşar, and G. Çakmakcı, 61–70. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.Google Scholar
  30. Krabbe, E.C.W. 2003. Metadialogues. In Proceedings of the fifth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 641–644. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  31. Krabbe, E.C.W. 2007. On how to get beyond the opening stage. Argumentation 21(3): 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levi, D. 1995. The case of the missing premise. Informal Logic 17: 67–88.Google Scholar
  33. Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2009. Argument from analogy in law, the classical tradition, and recent theories. Philosophy and Rhetoric 42(2): 154–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2010. Defeasible classifications and inferences from definitions. Informal Logic 30: 34–61.Google Scholar
  35. Martins, I., E. Mortimer, J. Osborne, C. Tsatsarelis, and M.P. Jiménez Aleixandre. 2001. Rhetoric and science education. In Research in science education—past, present, and future, ed. H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, A. Kross, and P. Reiska, 189–198. Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  36. Mestre, J.P. 1994. Cognitive aspects of learning and teaching science. In Teacher enhancement for elementary and secondary science and mathematics: Status, issues, and problems, ed. S.J. Fitzsimmons, and L.C. Kerpelman, 31–53. Arlington: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. Nussbaum, M. 2011. Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist 46(2): 84–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Osborne, J. 2005. The role of argument in science education. Research and the Quality of Science Education 7: 367–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Osborne, J., S. Erduran, and S. Simon. 2004. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(10): 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pera, M., and W. Shea. 1991. Persuading science. Canton, MA: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Posner, G., K. Strike, P. Hewson, and W. Gertzog. 1982. Accommodation of s scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education 66(2): 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rigotti, E. 1995. Verità e Persuasione. Il Nuovo Areopago 14(1): 3–14.Google Scholar
  43. Roschelle, J. 1995. Learning in interactive environments: Prior knowledge and new experience. In Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda, ed. J.H. Falk and L.D. Dierking, 37–51. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.Google Scholar
  44. Sampson, V., and D. Clark. 2008. Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education 92(3): 447–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sandoval, W., and K. Millwood. 2005. The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction 23(1): 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schwarz, B., and R. De Groot. 2007. Argumentation in a changing world. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2: 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simon, S. 2008. Using toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research and Method in Education 31(3): 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simons, H., J. Morreale, and B. Gronbeck. 2001. Persuasion in society. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Songer, N., and Linn, M.C. 1991. How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28(9): 761–787.Google Scholar
  50. Southerland, S., G. Sinatra, and M. Matthews. 2001. Belief, knowledge, and science education. Educational Psychology Review 13(4): 325–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sutton, C. 1996. The scientific model as a form of speech. In Research in science education in Europe, ed. G. Welford, J. Osborne, and P. Scott, 143–152. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  52. Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Toulmin, S., R. Rieke, and A. Janik. 1984. An introduction to reasoning, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Floris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  56. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst and F. Snoek-Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. van Eemeren, F.H., K. van de Glopper, R. Grootendorst, and R. Oostdam. 1994. Student performance in identifying unexpressed premisses and argumentation schemes. Argumentation and Advocacy 31: 151–162.Google Scholar
  59. van Rees, M.A. 2001. Argument interpretation and reconstruction. In Crucial concepts in argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, 165–199. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  60. Walton, D. 1984. Logical dialogue-games and fallacies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.Google Scholar
  61. Walton, D. 1995. A pragmatic theory of fallacy. Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  62. Walton, D. 2007. Media argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Walton, D. and F. Macagno. 2006. Argumentative reasoning patterns. In Proceedings of ECAI conference 2006. Riva del Garda, 28 August2 September 2006 (pp. 1–5). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  64. Walton, D., and E. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  65. Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ArgLab, Instituto de Filosofia da Linguagem (IFL)FCSH, Universidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Faculty of Teacher TrainingUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations