Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Argumentation in School Science: Breaking the Tradition of Authoritative Exposition Through a Pedagogy that Promotes Discussion and Reasoning

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The value of argumentation in science education has become internationally recognised and has been the subject of many research studies in recent years. Successful introduction of argumentation activities in learning contexts involves extending teaching goals beyond the understanding of facts and concepts, to include an emphasis on cognitive and metacognitive processes, epistemic criteria and reasoning. The authors focus on the difficulties inherent in shifting a tradition of teaching from one dominated by authoritative exposition to one that is more dialogic, involving small-group discussion based on tasks that stimulate argumentation. The paper focuses on how argumentation activities have been designed in school science. Examples of classroom dialogue where teachers adopt the frameworks/plans are analysed to show how argumentation processes are scaffolded. The analysis shows that several layers of interpretation are needed and these layers need to be aligned for successful implementation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adey, P. 2004. The professional development of teachers: Practice and theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adey, P., and M. Shayer. 1994. Really raising standards. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adey, P., A. Robertson, and G. Venville. 2001a. Let’s think!. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adey, P.S., M. Shayer, and C. Yates. 2001b. Thinking science, 3rd ed. London: Nelson Thornes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. 2005. Towards dialogic teaching. Thirsk: Dialogos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alverman, D.E., G. Qian, and C.E. Hynd. 1995. Effects of interactive discussion and text type on learning counterintuitive science concepts. Journal of Educational Research 88: 146–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R.C., C. Chinn, M. Waggoner, and K. Nguyen. 1998. Intellectually-stimulating story discussions. In Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning, ed. J. Osborn and F. Lehr, 170–186. New York: Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asterchan, C.S.C., and B.B. Schwarz. 2007. The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology 99 (3): 626–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C.A., and R.C. Anderson. 1998. The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record 100: 315–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D.B., and V. Sampson. 2008. Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45 (3): 293–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E.A., and J. Krajcik. 2005. Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher 34 (3): 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, L. 2004. Talk and learning in classroom science. International Journal of Science Education 26 (6): 677–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R. 1995. Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In Constructivism in education, ed. L.P. Steffe and J. Gale, 385–400. Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., and J. Easley. 1978. Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education 10: 61–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., A. Squires, P. Rushworth, and V. Wood-Robinson. 1994. Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., J. Leach, R. Millar, and P. Scott. 1996. Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., P. Newton, and J. Osborne. 2000. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education 84 (3): 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., and J. Osborne. 2002. Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education 38: 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., and M. Jiménez-Aleixandre, eds. 2008. Argumentation in science education. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W. 2000. Teaching and learning and assessing science, 5–12. London: Paul Chapman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C., A. Tolmie, A. Thurston, K. Topping, D. Christie, K. Livingston, E. Jessiman and C. Donaldson. 2009. Group work in elementary science: towards organizational principles for supporting pupil learning. Learning and Instruction 17 (5):549–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C., and N. Mercer. 2007. Children’s social development, peer interaction and classroom learning (Primary Review Research Survey 2/1b). Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C.J., and A. Tolmie. 2003. Group work in primary school science: Discussion, consensus and guidance from experts. International Journal of Educational Research 39: 51–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C., D. McWilliam, and G. Cross. 2005. Chance favours only the prepared mind: Incubation and the delayed effects of peer collaboration. British Journal of Psychology 96: 67–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., A.B. Rodríguez, and R. Duschl. 2000. “Doing the Lesson” or “Doing Science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education 84 (6): 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S.D. 2001. “To trust or not to trust…”—pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education 23 (9): 877–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koslowski, B., J. Marasia, M. Chelenza, and R. Dublin. 2008. Information becomes evidence when an explanation can incorporate it into a causal framework. Cognitive Development 23 (4): 472–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., and B.J. Reiser, eds. 2004. IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Faculty of Education.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., V. Shaw, and M. Felton. 1997. Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction 15 (3): 287–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N.G. 2007. Nature of science: Past, present and future. In Handbook of research on science education, ed. S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman, 831–880. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J.L. 1990. Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, R., and S. Turner. 2001. Valuable lessons: Engaging with the social context of science in schools. London: The Wellcome Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Limón, M. 2001. On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction 11: 357–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, J. and S. Simon. 2006. Mapping children’s discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education 28 (15):1817–1841

    Google Scholar 

  • 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): 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E., and P. Scott. 2003. Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naylor, S., and B. Keogh. 2000. Concept cartoons in science education. Sandbach: Millgate House Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuffield-Chelsea Curriculum Trust. 1993. Nuffield primary science. London: Collins Educational.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, R., and P. Freyberg. 1985. Learning in science. Auckland: Heinemann Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., and S. Simon. 1996. Primary science: Past and future directions. Studies in Science Education 27: 99–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., S. Erduran, and S. Simon. 2004b. Ideas, evidence and argument in science. In-service training pack, resource pack and video. London: Nuffield Foundation.

  • Pfundt, H., and R. Duit. 1994. Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education, 4th ed. Kiel: IPN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G.J., K.A. Strike, P.W. Hewson, and W.A. Gertzog. 1982. Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education 66 (2): 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, M., and M. Grace. 2003. Science education for citizenship teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. 2004. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (5): 513–536.

    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., and K.A. Millwood. 2008. What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In Argumentation in science education, ed. S. Erduran, and M. Jiménez-Aleixandre. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B.B., and A. Glassner. 2003. The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In Arguing to learn, ed. J. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D. Suthers. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science Enhancement Programme. 2004. Teaching ideas and evidence in science at key stage 3. London: Science Enhancement Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shayer, M., and P. Adey. 1981. Towards a science of science teaching. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherrod, S.E., and J. Wilhelm. 2009. A study of how classroom dialogue facilitates the development of geometric spatial concepts related to understanding the cause of moon phases. International Journal of Science Education 31 (7): 873–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., P. Black, E. Blondel, and M. Brown. 1994. Forces in balance. Hatfield: ASE.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., S. Naylor, B. Keogh, J. Maloney, and B. Downing. 2008. Puppets promoting engagement and talk in science. International Journal of Science Education 30 (9): 1229–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skamp, K., ed. 1998. Teaching primary science constructively. London: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M.K., W.B. Wood, W.K. Adams, C. Wieman, J.K. Knight, N. Guild, and T.T. Su. 2009. Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science 323: 122–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K.A., and G.J. Posner. 1985. A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In Cognitive structure and conceptual change, ed. L. West, and L. Pines. Orlando: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyson, L.M., G.J. Venville, A.G. Harrison, and D.F. Treagust. 1997. A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education 81: 387–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • University of York and Nuffield Foundation. 2006. Twenty first century science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Aufschnaiter, C., S. Erduran, J. Osborne, and S. Simon. 2008. Arguing to learn and learning to argue: case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45 (1): 101–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watt, D. 1998. Children’s learning of science concepts. In ASE guide to primary science education, ed. R. Sherrington. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R., and R. Gunstone. 1992. Probing understanding. London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. 1997. The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education 81 (4): 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D.L., T.D. Sadler, S. Applebaum, and B.E. Callahan. 2009. Advancing reflective judgement through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46 (1): 74–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., and F. Nemet. 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. Department of Geography, Enterprise, Mathematics and Science, Faculty of Culture and Pedagogy, Institute of Education, University of London, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL, UK

    Shirley Simon & Katherine Richardson

Authors
  1. Shirley Simon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shirley Simon.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Appendix 1

1.2 Appendix 2

1.3 Appendix 3

See Table 2.

Table 2 Euglena evidence cards
Full size table

1.4 Appendix 4

1.4.1 Phases of the Moon

Most people who have looked up in the sky and seen the Moon notice that it does not always have the same shape. Scientists say that the Moon has different phases. Many adults, however, cannot explain why the Moon has different phases. The following are some ideas which have been suggested to explain why the Moon has different phases.

Read the explanations carefully and discuss them in your group.

Choose the best explanation and give your reasons why you decided this was the best.

Then try to give reasons why you think the other explanations are not so good or are wrong.

 

A

The Moon spins around so that the half of the moon that gives out light is not always facing us

B

The Moon shrinks and then gets bigger during each month

C

The rest of the Moon is blocked out by clouds

D

We cannot always see all the part of the Moon which is lit up by the sun

E

The Moon moves in and out of the Earth’s shadow and so light from the sun cannot always reach the Moon

1.5 Appendix 5

1.6 Appendix 6

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Simon, S., Richardson, K. Argumentation in School Science: Breaking the Tradition of Authoritative Exposition Through a Pedagogy that Promotes Discussion and Reasoning. Argumentation 23, 469–493 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9164-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9164-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation