Students’ Framings and Their Participation in Scientific Argumentation

Chapter

Abstract

Researchers studying student argumentation have begun to focus attention on students’ sense of purpose—what they see themselves as trying to accomplish. This brings the field into contact with an established body of research on framing, which studies how people form a sense of “what is it that’s going on here?” (Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). That literature depicts framing as a dynamic process that is sensitive to context, occurring within and among individuals through subtle, meta-level messages. We give a brief review of research on framing, including epistemological framing (Redish, E.F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. In E. F. Redish & Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School Course, CLVI (pp. 1–63). Bologna, Italy: Italian Physical Society.), and discuss its significance for researchers and educators interested in studying and fostering scientific argumentation in the classroom.

Keywords

Framing Epistemological framing Pseudoargumentation Education 

References

  1. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: An experimental and social study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy (Originally published in 1954). In G. Bateson (Ed.), Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology (pp. 177–193). San Francisco: Chandler.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berland, L. K. (2008). Understanding the composite practice that forms when classrooms take up the practice of scientific argumentation. Evanston, IL: Northwestern.Google Scholar
  5. Berland, L. K. (in press). Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation. Journal of Learning Sciences. Google Scholar
  6. Berland, L. K., & Lee, V. R. (2010). Anomalous graph data and claim revision during argumentation. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  7. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (under review). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  9. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2007, April). “Um...since I argue for fun, I don’t remember what I argue about”: Using children’s argumentation across social contexts to inform science instruction. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). “An experiment is when you try it and see if it works”: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M., & Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 230–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conlin, L., Gupta, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Where to find the mind: Identifying the scale of cognitive dynamics. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  19. de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Michael, B. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duschl, R. A. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 187–206). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. E. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  23. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-Use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 451–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Enyedy, N., & Goldberg, J. (2004). Inquiry in interaction: How local adaptations of curricula shape classroom communities. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 41(9), 905–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 135–153.Google Scholar
  28. Finn, L. E., Kuhn, L., Whitcomb, J. L., Bruozas, M., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Where have all the creatures gone? In J. Krajcik & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  29. Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. In J. Green & A. Luke (Eds.), Review of educational research (Vol. 30, pp. 1–32). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.Google Scholar
  30. Frank, B. W. (2009). The dynamics of variability in physics students’ thinking: Examples from kinematics. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  31. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hammer, D., & van Zee, E. H. (2006). Seeing the science in children’s thinking: Case studies of student inquiry in physical science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  35. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 331–348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84(1), 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506–524.Google Scholar
  40. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kenyon, L., O., Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Student epistemologies of science to guide the practice of argumentation. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), 7th annual international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 321–327). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13(2), 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kuhn, L., Kenyon, L. O., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Fostering scientific argumentation by creating a need for students to attend to each other’s claims and evidence. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), 7th annual international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 370–375). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  47. Larson, A., & Britt, A. (2009). Improving students’ evaluation of informal arguments. The Journal of Experimental Education, 77(4), 339–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Leander, K. M., & Brown, D. E. (1999). “You understand, but you don’t believe it”: Tracing the stabilities and instabilities of interaction in a physics classroom through a multidimensional framework. Cognition and Instruction, 17(1), 93–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Leitao, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  51. Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & Ostman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom: The interplay between teachers’ epistemological moves and students’ practical epistemology. Science Education, 90(1), 148–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lising, L., & Elby, A. (2005). The impact of epistemology on learning: A case study from introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 73(4), 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Louca, L., Hammer, D., & Bell, M. (2002). Developmental versus context-dependant accounts of abilities for scientific inquiry: A case study of 5–6th grade student inquiry from a discussion about a dropped pendulum. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: Fifth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 261–267). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. MacLachlan, G. L., & Reid, I. (1994). Framing and Interpretation. Carlton, VIC: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
  55. McNeill, K. L., Harris, C. J., Heitzman, M., Lizotte, D. J., Sutherland, L. M., & Krajcik, J. (2004). How can I make new stuff from old stuff? In J. Krajcik & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  56. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211–277). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  59. Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Callazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation in primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Paretti, M. (2009). When the teacher is the audience: Assignment design and assessment in the absence of ‘real’ readers. In M. Weiser, B. Fehler, & A. Gonzalez (Eds.), Engaging audience: Writing in an age of new literacies (pp. 165–185). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  63. Petraglia, J. (1995). Spinning like a kite: A closer look at the pseudotransactional function of writing. Journal of Advanced Composition, 15, 19–33.Google Scholar
  64. Radinsky, J. (2008). Students’ sense-making with visual data in small-group argumentation. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  65. Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. In E. F. Redish & Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School Course, CLVI (pp. 1–63). Bologna, Italy: Italian Physical Society.Google Scholar
  66. Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  69. Scherr, R., & Hammer, D. (2009). Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 27(2), 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smith, C., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 349–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sohmer, R., & Michaels, S. (2005). The “two puppies” story: The role of narrative in teaching and learning science. In U. Quasthoff & T. Becker (Eds.), Narrative interaction (pp. 57–91). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  73. Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 761–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Spinuzzi, C. (1996). Pseudotransactionality, activity theory, and professional writing instruction. Technical Communication Quarterly, 5(3), 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 393–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Tannen, D., & Wallat, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 57–76). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  79. Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.Google Scholar
  80. Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K–12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Horizon Research.Google Scholar
  82. Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo [computer program]: Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  83. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TexasAustinUSA
  2. 2.Tufts UniversityMedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations