Skip to main content

Scientific Argumentation Model (SAM): A Heuristic for Reading Research Articles by Science Students

  • Chapter

Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE,volume 2)

Abstract

Research articles are the typical means scientists use for publishing their scientific results. Therefore, it is important that science students acquire genre knowledge about research articles. This will not only help them with reading science texts but will also provide them with knowledge about the way scientists obtain scientific findings. However, studies have shown that students have difficulties with reading original scientific texts. To support students in acquiring this skill, we have developed a model, the Scientific Argumentation Model (SAM), which can be used as a heuristic in secondary or higher education. This model is based on ideas from argumentation theory and genre analysis and consists of descriptions of seven rhetorical moves that play an important role in a research article’s argumentation: motive, objective, support, counterargument, refutation, main conclusion, and implication. The relations between these moves are depicted in an argumentation scheme. In this study, SAM was validated by investigating its use on research articles from astronomy and biomedical science. The average frequencies of motives, main conclusions, implications, and support chains seem somewhat higher in astronomy papers than in biomedical papers. This might be explained by the different natures of these two disciplines.

Keywords

  • Primary literature
  • Scientific literacy
  • Science education
  • Genre analysis
  • Argumentation

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20074-3_12
  • Chapter length: 15 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-20074-3
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 12.1
Fig. 12.2

References

  • Alexandrov, A. V. (2004). How to write a research paper. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 18(2), 135–138.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Amsterdamska, O., & Leydesdorff, L. (1989). Citations: Indicators of significance? Scientometrics, 15(5), 449–471.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Blanton, W. E. (1990). The role of purpose in reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 43(7), 486–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, J. (2010). A concordance-based study of the use of reporting verbs as rhetorical devices in academic papers. Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 219–244.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, U., Upton, T. A., & Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007). Introduction to move analysis. In D. Biber, U. Connor, & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure (pp. 23–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, C. R. (1998). What we know about genres, and how it can help us assign and evaluate writing. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: The role of teachers’ knowledge about text, learning, and culture (pp. 23–52). Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Boulay, D. (1999). Argument in reading: What does it involve and how can students become better critical readers? Teaching in Higher Education, 4(2), 147–162.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 219–228). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, D. B., Lubman, A., & Hoskins, S. G. (2011). Introductory biology textbooks under-represent scientific process. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 12(2), 143–151.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, G. N. (1977). Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7(1), 113–122.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. (2002). Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, W. H. (2001). Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. Advances in Physiology Education, 25(3), 167–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, S. S., Soppelsa, B. F., & West, G. K. (1982). Teaching ESL students to read and write experimental-research papers. TESOL Quarterly, 16(3), 333–347.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2007). Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(4), 324–329.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Johns, A. (2002). Destabilizing and enriching novice students’ genre theories. In A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 237–246). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269–292.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314–342.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Koeneman, M., Goedhart, M., & Ossevoort, M. (2013). Introducing pre-university students to primary scientific literature through argumentation analysis. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 2009–2034.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., Macnab, J. S., Wonham, M., & De Vries, G. (2009). West Nile virus: Using adapted primary literature in mathematical biology to teach scientific and mathematical reasoning in high school. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 321–329.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119–138.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Paltridge, B. (1994). Genre analysis and the identification of textual boundaries. Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 288–299.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479–497.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, A. M., & Katz, S. B. (1998). Writing in the sciences: Exploring conventions of scientific discourse. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinch, T. (1985). Towards an analysis of scientific observation: The externality and evidential significance of observational reports in physics. Social Studies of Science, 15(1), 3–36.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., Bowen, G. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1999). Differences in graph‐related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 977–1019.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, S. J., Tennyson, R., Sax, M., Patricia, M., Schermer, N., & Hajovy, H. (1988). Adults’ use of text structure in the recall of a scientific journal article. The Journal of Educational Research, 81(3), 171–174.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, 65(3), 381–405.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. K. (1993). Arguing for experimental “facts” in science: A study of research article results sections in biochemistry. Written Communication, 10(1), 106–128.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Lacum, E., Ossevoort, M., Buikema, H., & Goedhart, M. (2012). First experiences with reading primary literature by undergraduate life science students. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1795–1821.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Van Lacum, E. B., Ossevoort, M. A., & Goedhart, M. J. (2014). A teaching strategy with a focus on argumentation to improve undergraduate students’ ability to read research articles. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13(2), 253–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, I. A. (1999). Results sections of medical research articles: Analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 18(4), 347–366.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Yarden, A., Brill, G., & Falk, H. (2001). Primary literature as a basis for a high-school biology curriculum. Journal of Biological Education, 35(4), 190–195.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Goedhart .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van Lacum, E., Koeneman, M., Ossevoort, M., Goedhart, M. (2016). Scientific Argumentation Model (SAM): A Heuristic for Reading Research Articles by Science Students. In: Papadouris, N., Hadjigeorgiou, A., Constantinou, C. (eds) Insights from Research in Science Teaching and Learning. Contributions from Science Education Research, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20074-3_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20074-3_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20073-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20074-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)