Argumentation in the Teaching of Science



Argumentation is a fundamental discourse of science, a part of the practice of science for evaluating, refining and establishing new theories. It is therefore considered a core element of the scientific enterprise, one which can engage students in the social practices of science. Argumentation has been the emphasis of many science education studies during the last decades and general questions about argumentation and how students and adults argue have been addressed. A central question that still remains unanswered however is “Why do some students engage in argumentation whilst others do not, and what is the teacher’s role in this process?” This chapter provides an overview of argumentation, explains the importance of argumentation in the teaching of science, and reviews studies that explore how pre- and in-service teachers approach argumentation in their teaching. Then, in the second part of the chapter, we explore some of these issues through two case studies of teachers implementing the same curriculum in their classes, and conclude with implications for research and practice.


  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  2. Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2005). Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: A first year elementary teacher’s specialized practices and knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9), 965–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In M. Linn, E. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 115–143). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Beyer, C., & Davis, E. (2008). Fostering second graders’ scientific explanations: A beginner elementary teacher’s knowledge, beliefs and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 381–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brem, S. K., & Rips, L. J. (2000). Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive Science, 24, 573–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  7. Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 1042–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2006). Characteristics of students’ argumentation practices when supported by online personally seeded discussions. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, April 3–6, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  9. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.Google Scholar
  13. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  15. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. Washington: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  17. Eick, C., & Reed, C. (2002). What makes an inquiry-oriented science teacher? The influence of learning histories on student teacher role identity and practice. Science Education, 86, 401–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evagorou, M. (2009). Argue-WISE: Exploring young students’ features of argumentation within a socio-scientific issue when they engage with an on-line learning environment. PhD Thesis, King’s College London, UK.Google Scholar
  20. Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2007). Argue-WISE: Using technology to support argumentation in science. School Science Review, 89, 103–110.Google Scholar
  21. Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2008). Identifying features of young students’ construction of arguments in the science classroom. New York: Annual American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  22. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, A. R. (2000). ‘Doing the Lesson’ or ‘Doing Science’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. London: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  26. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2005). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, Texas.Google Scholar
  29. Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Mellado, V. (1998). The classroom practice of preservice teachers and their conceptions of teaching and learning science. Science Education, 88(2), 197–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Page, R. N. (1990). The lower track curriculum in a college-preparatory high school. Curriculum Inquiry, 20(3), 249–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57, 1–22.Google Scholar
  41. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding (Vol. 1). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93, 687–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B. A., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, P. (2002). Scaffolding pre-service science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classroom: Students’ learning and teachers’ professional development. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of NicosiaNicosiaCyprus
  2. 2.King’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations