Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Challenges and Remedies for Identifying and Classifying Argumentation Schemes

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Notes

  1. Duschl (2008) and Nussbaum (2011) each refer to Walton (1996) as the source for their discussions of argumentation schemes. In this paper we rely on the more recent accounts of argumentation schemes from Walton (2006) and Walton et al. (2008).

  2. We indicate the source of a statement in relation to the topic of the discussion, LF for the group arguing about landfill and ST for the group arguing about sewage treatment group. The number that follows indicates the line number in the transcript.

References

  • Alberta Education. 2006. Knowledge and employability science grades 8 and 9. http://education.alberta.ca/media/791899/sci89_06.pdf.

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2000. Designs for science literacy, Project 2061. Washington DC: National Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amgen Canada Incorporated and Let’s Talk Science. 2012. Spotlight on science learning—A benchmark of Canadian talent Accessed from Let’s Talk Science. http://www.letstalkscience.ca/component/flippingbook/book/3.html?tmpl=component.

  • Aubusson, P.J., A.G. Harrison, and S.M. Ritchie (eds.). 2006. Metaphor and analogy in science education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • BC Ministry of Education. 2008. Science Grade 7-10. Victoria BC. http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/pdfs/sciences/2006sci_8.pdf.

  • Çakmakci, G. and Taşar, M.F. (Eds.). 2010. Contemporary science education research: scientific literacy and social aspects of science. ESERA. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi. http://www.esera.org/media/conferences/Book5.pdf.

  • Cameron, L. 2002. Metaphors in the learning of science: A discourse approach. British Educational Research Journal 28(5): 673–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 1990. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology 13(1): 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Ministers of Education. 1997. Common Framework of Science Learning Outcomes. http://publications.cmec.ca/science/framework/Pages/english/CMEC%20Eng.html.

  • de Vreese, L. 2006. Causal pluralism and scientific knowledge: An underexposed problem. Philosophica 77 (2006) pp. 125–150. https://biblio.ugent.be/input/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=732209&fileOId=762677. Accessed 27 Sept 2013.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R. 1991. On the role of analogies and metapors in learning. Science Education 75(6): 649–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Duschl, R., and J. Osborne. 2002. Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education 38(1): 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Erduran, S., and M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (eds.). 2008. Argumentation in science education: recent development and future directions. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. 2001. The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, J.B. 2003. Assessing statistical reasoning. Statistics Education Research Journal 2(1): 22–38. http://fehps.une.edu.au/serj. Accessed 19 Sept 2012.

  • Godden, D., and D. Walton. 2007. Advances in the theory of argumentation schemes and critical questions. Informal Logic 27(3): 267–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://stem2012.bnu.edu.cn/stem/paper.html. pp 153–161.

  • 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 

  • Kuhn, D. 2010. Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education 94: 810–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J.L. 1990. Talking science: Language, learning and values. Westport, CT: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R.P. 2005. A citation-based reflection on Toulmin and argument. Argumentation 19(3): 259–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, F.A., and A. Konstantinidou. 2013. What students’ arguments can tell us: Using argumentation schemes in science education. Argumentation 27(3): 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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): 367–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, H., and D. Sperber. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34: 57–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. 2011. Argumentation, dialogue theory and probability modeling: An alternative framework for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychology 46(2): 84–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2007. PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Volume1: Analysis. http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/17/39703267.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2012.

  • Province of Manitoba. 2013. An Action plan for science education. http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/science/action_plan/edu_initiative.html. Accessed 11 June 2013.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://www.esera.org/media/conferences/Book5.pdf.

  • Roth, W.-M., and A. Barton. 2004. Rethinking science literacy. New York: Routledge Falmer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Sciences—Making a Difference, eds. S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, and D. T. Hickey, 655–661. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1150129. Accessed 20 July 2012.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Toulmin, S. 1958/2003. The uses of argument (updated edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • UNESCO. 1999 Science and Technology Education. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001180/118048eo.pdf. Accessed 9 Oct 2013.

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 1996. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J., and J. Osborne. 2001. Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada

    Robert Anthony & Mijung Kim

Authors
  1. Robert Anthony
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mijung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Anthony.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anthony, R., Kim, M. Challenges and Remedies for Identifying and Classifying Argumentation Schemes. Argumentation 29, 81–113 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9335-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9335-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation