Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

History of Science and Argumentation in Science Education

Joining Forces?

  • Chapter
Adapting Historical Knowledge Production to the Classroom

Abstract

These instructions are intended to provide guidance to authors. Although national variations are significant, there appears to be a general trend in most national and international curricula to stress Nature of Science (NOS) elements increasingly in science education as well as to incorporate more and more consciously Critical Thinking (CT) skills, and the understanding of socio-scientific issues (SSI) in the advanced primary and the secondary school education. For all of these aims an adequate image of science and the pivotal role argumentation plays needs to be realised (Driver, Newton et al., 2000)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adúriz-Bravo, A., & Zemplén, G. Á. (2009). Historical case studies to teach the argumentative nature of science. International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Group Biennial Conference (24-28.06.2009). University of Notre Dame, 2009 Jun. 27. http://www.nd.edu/~ihpst09/program-4.html

  • Bazerman, C. (1986). Shaping written knowledge. The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. The University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Lederman, N. G., Mccomas, W. F., & Matthews, M. R. (2001). The nature of science and science education: A bibliography. Science & Education, 10(1), 187-204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billig, M. (1989). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bons, J. A. E. (2002). Reasonable argument before Aristotle. In F. H. V. Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 13-27). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in class- rooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jiménez- Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 159-175). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. V., & Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1, 283-301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. V., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma- dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. V., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 47-69). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), (2008). Argumentation in science education. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, R. P. (2003). Feyerabend and scientific values: Tightrope-walking rationality. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Mila, M., & Anderson, C. (2008). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 29-45). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Adaptive thinking: Rationality in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Murray, D. J. (1987). Cognition as intuitive statistics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gooday, G., Lynch, J. M., Wilson, K. G., & Barsky, C. K. (2008). Does science education need the history of science? Isis; an international review devoted to the history of science and its cultural influences, 99 (2), 322-330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: communication, culture, and credibility. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardwig, J. (1985). Epistemic dependence. The Journal of Philosophy, 82, 335-349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 91-105). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 3-27). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, values, and frames. New York; Cambridge, UK: Russell Sage Foundation; Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, R. (2006). What’s wrong with argumentum ad Baculum? Reasons, threats, and logical norms. Argumentation, 20, 89-100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolsto, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez- Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 71-88). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malamitsa, K., Kasoutas, M., & Kokkotas, P. (2009). Developing Greek primary school students’ critical thinking through an approach of teaching science which incorporates aspects of history of science. Science & Education, 18(3-4), 457-468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 71-88). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking, and education. New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, H., & Biro, J. (2006). Pragma-Dialectic versus epistemic theories of arguing and arguments: Rivals or Partners? In P. Houtlosser & M. A. Van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics (Festshrift for Frans H. van Eemeren) (pp. 1-10). Mahuah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonneux, L. (2008). Argumentation in Socio-Scientific contexts. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez- Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 179-199). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. (2001). Social empiricism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. (2006). Groupthink versus The wisdom of crowds: The social epistemology of deliberation and dissent. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, XLIV, 28-42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. (2006). Norms of epistemic diversity. Episteme, 3, 23-36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. (2007). The social epistemology of NIH consensus conferences. In H. Kincaid & J. McKitrick (Eds.), Establishing medical reality: Essays in the metaphysics and epistemology of biomedical science (Vol. vii, p. 236). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Why societies need dissent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. A. (1996). Defining science - a rhetoric of demarcation. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J. F., Perkins, D. N., & Segal, J. W. (1991). Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (1998). Ad Hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (1999). The appeal to ignorance, or Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam. Argumentation, 13, 367-377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2006). The fallaciousness of threats: Character and Ad Baculum. Argument- ation, 21, 63-81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, J. (1998). Argumentum ad baculum. Argumentation, 12, 493-504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zemplén, G. Á. (2007). Conflicting agendas: Critical thinking versus science education in the international Baccalaureate theory of knowledge course. Science and Education, 16(2), 167-196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zemplén, G. Á. (2009). Putting sociology first - reconsidering the role of the social in ‘Nature of science’ education. Science and Education, 18, 525-559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (pp. 245-268). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gábor Á. Zemplén

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Philosophy and History of Science, Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME). Budapest, Hungary.

    Google Scholar 

  • e-mail: zemplen@filozofia.bme.hu

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Philosophy and History of Science, Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME), Budapest, Hungary

    Gábor Á Zemplén

Authors
  1. Gábor Á Zemplén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gábor Á Zemplén .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    P. V. Kokkotas , K. S Malamitsa  & A. A. Rizaki ,  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zemplén, G.Á. (2011). History of Science and Argumentation in Science Education. In: Kokkotas, P.V., Malamitsa, K.S., Rizaki, A.A. (eds) Adapting Historical Knowledge Production to the Classroom. SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-349-5_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation