, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 81–113 | Cite as

Challenges and Remedies for Identifying and Classifying Argumentation Schemes

  • Robert Anthony
  • Mijung Kim


The development of a framework for coding argumentations schemes in the transcripts of classroom dialogical deliberations on controversial, socioscientific topics is described. Arriving at a coding framework involved resolving a number of complex issues and challenges that are discussed in order to create practical remedies. The description of the development process is based on audio recordings and written exchanges between the authors as they attempted to resolve differences in the interpretation and application of argumentation schemes (Walton et al. 2008). These deliberations address theoretical and practical concerns for adapting notions of argumentation schemes to the practical context of analyzing authentic classroom interactions. The framework was developed to accommodate research and curriculum development in school science education. A practical framework for analyzing argumentation in authentic classroom contexts is proposed and implications for science education and argumentation theory are raised.


Argumentation schemes Science education Scientific literacy 



We are grateful to the three anonymous reviewers for useful suggestions and criticisms on earlier versions of this article.


  1. Alberta Education. 2006. Knowledge and employability science grades 8 and 9.
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2000. Designs for science literacy, Project 2061. Washington DC: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  3. Amgen Canada Incorporated and Let’s Talk Science. 2012. Spotlight on science learning—A benchmark of Canadian talent Accessed from Let’s Talk Science.
  4. Aubusson, P.J., A.G. Harrison, and S.M. Ritchie (eds.). 2006. Metaphor and analogy in science education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. BC Ministry of Education. 2008. Science Grade 7-10. Victoria BC.
  6. Çakmakci, G. and Taşar, M.F. (Eds.). 2010. Contemporary science education research: scientific literacy and social aspects of science. ESERA. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.
  7. Cameron, L. 2002. Metaphors in the learning of science: A discourse approach. British Educational Research Journal 28(5): 673–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, D., V. Sampson, A. Weinberger, and G. Erkens. 2007. Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review 19(3): 343–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 1990. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology 13(1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Council of Ministers of Education. 1997. Common Framework of Science Learning Outcomes.
  11. de Vreese, L. 2006. Causal pluralism and scientific knowledge: An underexposed problem. Philosophica 77 (2006) pp. 125–150. Accessed 27 Sept 2013.
  12. Driver, R., P. Newton, and J. Osborne. 2000. Establishing norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education 84(3): 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duit, R. 1991. On the role of analogies and metapors in learning. Science Education 75(6): 649–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duschl, R. 2008. Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In Argumentation in Science Education, ed. S. Erdurans, and M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre, 159–175. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Duschl, R., and J. Osborne. 2002. Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education 38(1): 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erdurans, S. 2008. Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In Argumentation in Science Education, ed. Sibel Erdurans, and M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre, 47–69. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Erduran, S., and M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (eds.). 2008. Argumentation in science education: recent development and future directions. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Fullan, M. 2001. The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  19. Garfield, J.B. 2003. Assessing statistical reasoning. Statistics Education Research Journal 2(1): 22–38. Accessed 19 Sept 2012.
  20. Godden, D., and D. Walton. 2007. Advances in the theory of argumentation schemes and critical questions. Informal Logic 27(3): 267–292.Google Scholar
  21. Khine, M.S. 2012. Development of argumentation knowledge in science education. In Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research, ed. M.S. Khine, 283–288. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim, M., R. Anthony and D. Blades. 2012. Argumentation as a tool to understand complexity of knowledge integration. Proceedings 2nd International STEM in Education Conference pp 153–161.
  23. Kim, M., R. Anthony, and D. Blades. 2014. Decision making through dialogue: A case study of analyzing pre-service teachers’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education on line. doi: 10.1007/s11165-014-9407-0.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn, D. 2010. Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education 94: 810–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lemke, J.L. 1990. Talking science: Language, learning and values. Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  26. Loui, R.P. 2005. A citation-based reflection on Toulmin and argument. Argumentation 19(3): 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Macagno, F.A., and A. Konstantinidou. 2013. What students’ arguments can tell us: Using argumentation schemes in science education. Argumentation 27(3): 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin, A.M., and B. Hand. 2007. Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education 39: 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mercer, N., L. Dawes, R. Wegerif, and C. Sams. 2004. Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal 30(3): 367–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mercier, H., and D. Sperber. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34: 57–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. National Research Council. 2012. A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  32. Nielsen, J.A. 2013. Dialectical features of students’’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education 43: 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nussbaum, M. 2011. Argumentation, dialogue theory and probability modeling: An alternative framework for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychology 46(2): 84–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. OECD. 2007. PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Volume1: Analysis. Accessed 20 July 2012.
  35. Province of Manitoba. 2013. An Action plan for science education. Accessed 11 June 2013.
  36. Reed, C., and D. Walton. 2005. Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11: 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roberts, R., and R. Gott. 2010. A framework for practical work, argumentation and scientific literacy. In Contemporary Science Education Research: Scientific literacy and social aspects of science, eds. G. Çakmakci and M.F. Tașar, 99–106. ESERA. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.
  38. Roth, W.-M., and A. Barton. 2004. Rethinking science literacy. New York: Routledge Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sampson, V., and D.B. Clark. 2008. Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education 92: 447–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sampson, V., and D. Clark. 2006. Assessment of argument in science education: A critical review of the Literature. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning SciencesMaking a Difference, eds. S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, and D. T. Hickey, 655–661. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Accessed 20 July 2012.
  41. Sampson, V., and M. Blanchard. 2012. Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49(9): 1122–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sampson, V., J. Grooms, and J. Walker. 2011. Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education 95(2): 217–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sandoval, W. A., and P. Bell (Eds.). 2004. Design-based research methods for studying learning in context. [Introduction-Special Issue] Educational Psychologist, 39(4): 199-201.Google Scholar
  44. Sandoval, W.A., and K. Millwood. 2005. The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction 23(1): 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scheid, N. 2010. Pre-service teachers’ ideas and knowledge about the notion of argument—a metacognitive approach. In Contemporary Science Education Research: Scientific literacy and social aspects of science, eds. G. Çakmakci and M.F. Tașar, 87–98. ESERA. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.Google Scholar
  46. Simon, S., S. Erduran, and J. Osborne. 2006. Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education 28(2–3): 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Toulmin, S. 1958/2003. The uses of argument (updated edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. UNESCO. 1999 Science and Technology Education. Accessed 9 Oct 2013.
  49. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Walton, D. 1996. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  51. Walton, D. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Walton, D. 2012. Using argumentation schemes for argument extraction: A bottom-up method. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence 6(3): 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wellington, J., and J. Osborne. 2001. Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Yore, L.D., S. Bisanz, and B. Hand. 2003. Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science education. 25(6): 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yore, L.D., and D.F. Treagust. 2006. Current Realities and Future Possibilities: Language and science literacy—empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education 28(2–3): 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and InstructionUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations