Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Utilising Argumentation to Teach Nature of Science

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Second International Handbook of Science Education

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE,volume 24))

Abstract

The quest for the achievement of informed nature of science (NOS) views for all learners continues to inspire science educators to seek out effective instructional interventions to aid in the development of learners’ NOS views. Despite the extensive amount of research conducted in the field, the development of informed NOS views has been difficult to achieve, with many studies reporting difficulties in changing learners’ NOS views. Can engaging learners in argumentation lead to improvements in their NOS views? This review answers this question by examining studies which have explored NOS and argumentation in science education. The review also outlines a rationale for incorporating argumentation in science education, together with a brief overview of important recent studies in the field. Implications drawn from this review suggest that the incorporation of explicit NOS and argumentation instruction, together with consideration of various contextual, task-specific and personal factors which could mediate learners’ NOS views and engagement in argumentation, could lead to improvements in learners’ views of NOS.

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 429.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. S. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002, April). 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 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1057–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 Report. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 352–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (1996). Science teachers’ social conscience and the role of controversial issues in the teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 319–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999, March). Promoting argumentation in middle school science classrooms: A project SEPIA evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.-P. (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (1979). Understanding scientific reasoning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanuscin, D. L., Akerson, V. L., & Phillipson-Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90, 912–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.-P., Bugallo Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.-P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran and M.-P Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.-P., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenyon, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2006, April). A functional approach to nature of science: Using epistemological understandings to construct and evaluate explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolsto, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., Mestad, I., Quale, A., Sissel, A., Tonning, V., & Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90, 632–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovalainen, M., Kumpulainen, K., & Vasama, S. (2002). Orchestrating classroom interaction in a community of inquiry: Modes of teacher participation. Journal of Classroom Interactions, 36, 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2006, April). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, J., Millar, R., Ryder, J., & Sere, M.-G. (2000). Epistemological understanding in science learning: The consistency of representations across contexts. Learning & Instruction, 10, 497–527.

    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, 331–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., Schwartz, R. S., & Akerson, V. L. (2001, March). Assessing the un-assessable: Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS). Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137–1164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition & Instruction, 14, 139–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 771–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2002, April). Enhancing the quality of on-line discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E.M., Sinatra, G.M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977–1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogunniyi, M. B. (2006, April). Using an argumentation-instrumental reasoning discourse to facilitate teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 745–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualisations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V. D., & Clark, D. B. (2006, April). The development and validation of the nature of science as argument questionnaire (NSAAQ). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

    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, 447–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2007). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran and M.-P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 71–88). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 369–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1997). Argumentation. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 208–229). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004, April). The role of students’ understanding of the nature of science in a debate activity: Is there one? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 807–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt, QLD, 4122, Australia

    Christine V. McDonald

  2. School of Mathematics, Science and Technology, Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Campbell J. McRobbie

Authors
  1. Christine V. McDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Campbell J. McRobbie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine V. McDonald .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Science & Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, West Australia, Australia

    Barry J. Fraser

  2. The Graduate Centre, City University of New York, New York, 10016-4309, New York, USA

    Kenneth Tobin

  3. Ctr. Mathematics & Science Education, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Rd., Kelvin Grove, 4059, Queensland, Australia

    Campbell J. McRobbie

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McDonald, C.V., McRobbie, C.J. (2012). Utilising Argumentation to Teach Nature of Science. In: Fraser, B., Tobin, K., McRobbie, C. (eds) Second International Handbook of Science Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_64

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation