Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 1061–1085 | Cite as

Dialogical argumentation in elementary science classrooms

  • Mijung Kim
  • Wolff-Michael Roth
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

To understand students’ argumentation abilities, there have been practices that focus on counting and analyzing argumentation schemes such as claim, evidence, warrant, backing, and rebuttal. This analytic approach does not address the dynamics of epistemic criteria of children’s reasoning and decision-making in dialogical situations. The common approach also does not address the practice of argumentation in lower elementary grades (K–3) because these children do not master the structure of argumentation and, therefore, are considered not ready for processing argumentative discourse. There is thus little research focusing on lower elementary school students’ argumentation in school science. This study, drawing on the societal-historical approach by L. S. Vygotsky, explored children’s argumentation as social relations by investigating the genesis of evidence-related practices (especially burden of proof) in second- and third-grade children. The findings show (a) students’ capacity for connecting claim and evidence/responding to the burden of proof and critical move varies and (b) that teachers play a significant role to emphasize the importance of evidence but experience difficulties removing children’s favored ideas during the turn taking of argumentative dialogue. The findings on the nature of dialogical reasoning and teacher’s role provide further insights about discussions on pedagogical approaches to children’s reasoning and argumentation.

Keywords

Argumentation Dialogical Evidence Burden of proof Lower elementary children 

초록

학생들의 논증 기술을 이해하기 위하여 과학교육안에서는 툴민의 틀을 중심으로 주장, 자료, 보증, 뒷받침, 반증, 수식어 등을 논증의 구성 요소로 보고 이를 바탕으로 학생들의 논증 기술을 분석, 이해하고자 노력 하여 왔다. 이런 구성요소 중심의 분석적 접근은 교실 상황안에서 발생하는역동적인 대화 중심의 학생들의 논증을 분석하는데 다소 어려움이 있으며 논증 안에서 일어나는 학생들의 인지 활동이나 사고 과정을 이해하는데 제한점이 따른다. 특히, 수업 안에서 대화 등의 상호 작용을 통해 지식과 사고 기술을 배워 나가는 초등 저학년 학생들의 논증이나 추론 과정을 이해하고자 할때 논증 구성 요소를 수적으로 분석하는 접근 방식을 적용하기에는 다소 무리가 있다. 본 연구는 비고츠키의 역사적 사회적 이론의 틀을 바탕으로 초등 저학년생들의 논증이 교실 대화 상황에서 어떻게 일어나고 발달하는지에 대해 알아 보고자 하였다. 특히 학생들과 교사의 대화 안에서 주장, 증거 그리고 입증 부담 지우기 등의 요소가 어떻게 일어나고 이들은 교실 대화를 어떻게 논증 과정으로 발달 시키는지 알아보고자 하였다. 대화 분석 과정을 통해 본 연구는 저학년의 대화 안에서도 비록 차이는 있었지만 주요 논증 요소가 발생, 발달 되며 이 안에서 교사가 논증 집단의 한 구성원으로 학생들의 추론과 논증의 발생 및 발달에 어떤 역할을 하는지보여 주고자 하였다.

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

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was made possible by several research grants; CER-Net UVIC, SSHRC No. 435-2013-0260, and SAS Grant University of Alberta. The responsibility for the content lies with us. We are grateful to the students and teacher who participated in this study with curiosity, enthusiasm, and dedication to learning and teaching science. We thank all of the reviewers and editors involved for their feedback that led to the current version of the text.

References

  1. Bakhtin, M. M. (1990). Tvorčestvo Fransua Rable i narodnaja kul’tura srednevekov’ja i Renessansia [The work of François Rabelais and popular culture of the Middle Age and Renaissance]. Moscow: Xudošestvennaja literatura.Google Scholar
  2. Bateson, G. (1996). Communication. In H. B. Mokros (Ed.), Interaction and identity (pp. 45–70). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 139(4), 544–559.Google Scholar
  4. Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, N. S., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010). The evidence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15(3/4), 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M., & Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, A.-M., Anderson, R., Kuo, L.-J., Kim, I.-H., Archodidou, A., & Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2003). Collaborative reasoning: Expanding ways for children to talk and think in school. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crowell, A., & Kuhn, K. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duschl, R. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 159–175). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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(6), 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., Villarroel, C., & Gilabert, S. (2015). Arguing collaboratively: Argumentative discourse types and their potential for knowledge building. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 372–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007). The burden of proof and its role in argumentation. Argumentation, 21, 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hardy, I., Kloetzer, B., Moeller, K., & Sodian, B. (2010). The analysis of classroom discourse: Elementary school science curricula advancing reasoning with evidence. Educational Assessment, 15(3–4), 197–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Il’enkov, E. V. (2007). Knowledge and thinking. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 45(4), 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim, M., Anthony, R., & Blades, D. (2014). Decision making through dialogue: A case study of analyzing preservice teachers’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research In Science Education, 44(6), 903–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim, M., & Roth, W.-M. (2014). Argumentation as/in/for dialogical relation: A case study from elementary school science. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 9, 300–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kolsto, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2007). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 117–136). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuhn, D. (2011). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 497–523). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1, 113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lazarou, D., Erduran, S., & Sutherland, R. (2016). Argumentation in science education as an evolving concept: Following the object of activity. Learning, Culture And Social Interaction.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  30. Leont’ev, A. N. (1959). Problemj razvitija psixiki [Problems in the development of the psyche]. Moscow: Akademii Pedagogičeskix Nauk.Google Scholar
  31. Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Macagno, F., & Konstantinidou, A. (2013). What students’ arguments can tell us: Using argumentation schemes in science education. Argumentation, 27(3), 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1962). Werke Band 23: Das Kapital [Works vol. 23: Capital]. Berlin: Dietz.Google Scholar
  35. Mead, G. H. (1972). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Metz, K. (2011). Young children can be sophisticated scientists. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(8), 68–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mikhailov, F. T. (2001). The “other within” for the psychologist. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 39, 6–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research In Science Education, 37(1), 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Piekny, J., & Maehler, C. (2013). Scientific reasoning in early and middle childhood: The development of domain-general evidence evaluation, experimentation, and hypothesis generation skills. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 153–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roberts, R., & Gott, R. (2010). Questioning the evidence for a claim in a socioscientific issue: an aspect of scientific literacy. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(3), 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roth, W.-M. (2005). Doing qualitative research: Praxis of methods. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Roth, W.-M. (2014). Science language Wanted Alive: Through the dialectical/dialogical lens of Vygotsky and the Bakhtin circle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 1049–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roth, W.-M. (2015). Rigor in qualitative data analysis. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roth, W.-M. (2016a). Concrete human psychology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Roth, W.-M. (2016b). On the social nature of mathematical reasoning. For the Learning of Mathematics, 36(2), 34–39.Google Scholar
  50. Roth, W.-M., & Jornet, A. (2016). Perezhivanie in the light of the later Vygotsky’s Spinozist turn. Mind, Culture and Activity, 23, 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roth, W.-M., & Jornet, A. (2017). Understanding educational psychology. A late Vygotskian, Spinozist approach. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roth, W.-M., & Radford, L. (2010). Re/thinking the zone of proximal development (symmetrically). Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Roth, W.-M., & Thom, J. (2009). The emergence of 3D geometry from children’s (teacher-guided) classification tasks. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 45–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sandoval, W., & Millwood, K. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 68–85). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. 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, 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spinoza, B. (2002). Complete works. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  58. ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 13–29). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  62. Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., & Cowan, B. M. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92(1), 65–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vološinov, V. N. (1930). Marksizm i folosofija jazyka: osnovye problemy sociologičeskogo metoda b nauke o jazyke [Marxism and the philosophy of language: Main problems of the sociological method in linguistics]. Leningrad: Priboj.Google Scholar
  64. Vygotskij, L. S. (1934). Myšlenie i reč’ : psixologičeskie issledovanija [Thinking and speaking: psychological investigations]. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe social’noèskonomičeskoe isdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
  65. Vygotskij, L. S. (2005). Psyxhologija razvitija čeloveka [Psychology of human development]. Moscow: Eksmo.Google Scholar
  66. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Vygotsky, L. S. (1989). Concrete human psychology. Soviet Psychology, 27(2), 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Walton, D. (1988). Burden of proof. Argumentation, 2, 233–254.Google Scholar
  69. Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Walton, D. (2008). A dialogical theory of presumption. Artificial Intelligence Law, 16, 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wittgenstein, L. (1953/1997). Philosophical investigations/Philosophische Untersuchungen (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. (First published in 1953).Google Scholar
  72. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  73. Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93(4), 687–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zembal-Saul, C., McNeill, K., & Hershberger, K. (2013). What’s your evidence? Engaging K–5 students in constructing explanations in science. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options