Advertisement

What Can Argumentation Tell Us About Epistemology?

  • William A. Sandoval
  • Kelli A. Millwood
Part of the Science & Technology Education Library book series (CTISE, volume 35)

Who, besides scientists, engages in what we would call scientific argumentation? When? for what purpose? As calls for argumentation to take a central place in science instruction increase (Driver et al., 2000; Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Kuhn, 1993b), answers to these questions become more important. There are two key claims for engaging students in scientific argumentation. One is that argumentation is a central practice of science, and thus should be at the core of science education. The other is that understanding the norms of scientific argumentation can lead students to understand the epistemological bases of scientific practice. We are more interested in this second claim. We think it unlikely that people who do not practice science are likely to engage in truly scientific argumentation. At the same time, we see everyday contexts all around us where people might apply scientific arguments to further other kinds of arguments. For example, using arguments about global climate change to argue for or against particular energy policies or even personal consumer decisions.

Keywords

Science Class Scientific Argumentation Epistemological Belief Scientific Claim Personal Epistemology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). The development of conceptions of the nature of scientific knowledge and knowing in the middle and high school years: A cross-sectional study, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2002). Beliefs about science: How does science instruction contribute? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 321–346). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Griffis, K., & Wise, J. (2005). Sensing the environment. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Embedded Networked Sensing, University of California.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Crawford, T. (1998). Methodological considerations for studying science-in-the-making in educational settings. Research in Science Education, 28(1), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kelly, G. J., & Duschl, R. A. (2002). Toward a research agenda for epistemological studies in science education, Paper presented at the annual meeting of NARST 2002. New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Kitcher, P. (1991). Persuasion. In M. Pera & W. R. Shea (Eds.), Persuading science: The art of scientific rhetoric (pp. 3–27). Canton, MA: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Kuhn, D. (1993a). Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1), 74–103.Google Scholar
  16. Kuhn, D. (1993b). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing the nature of science: What is the nature of our assessments? Science & Education, 7, 595–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In W. Damon, R. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 6th ed., Vol. 4: Child psychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3&4), 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Takao, A., & Kelly, G. (2003). Assessment of evidence in university students’ scientific writing. Science & Education, 12(4), 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • William A. Sandoval
    • 1
  • Kelli A. Millwood
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate School of Education & Information StudiesUCLALos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Metiri GroupCulver CityUSA

Personalised recommendations