Archives
Current issue
About
About us
Aims and Scope
Abstracting and Indexing
Editorial Office
Open Access Policy
Publication Ethics
Journal History
Publisher
Follow us: Twitter
Contact
For Authors
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
Copyright & Licencing
Publication Fees
Fee Waiver Policy for Doctoral Students
EJMSTE Language Editing Service
More
Statistics
Special Issues
Special Issue Announcements
Published Special Issues
LITERATURE REVIEW
A Critical Review of Scientific Argumentation in Science Education
1
Department of Humanities, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad, PAKISTAN
Online publication date: 2017-11-15
Publication date: 2017-11-15
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(1):475-483
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The use of argumentation in science education is associated with many benefits. Some of these include developing critical skills, promoting spirit of enquiry, enhancing conceptual understanding and improving academic performance of students. However, there are also some issues and challenges while using argumentation in science classrooms. This research will discuss the strength of using scientific argumentation in science education. The findings from other such studies will also be critically reviewed to seek an in-depth understanding of the use of argumentation in teaching and associated challenges. The research would help in improving the use of argumentation in teaching and exploring solution to problems and challenges associated with this method.
REFERENCES (69)
2.
Berland, L. K. & Lee, V. R. (2012) In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation, International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1857-1882, doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.645086.
3.
Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.
4.
Bricker, L.A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473-498.
5.
Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753-1773.
6.
de Lima Tavares, M., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Mortimer, E. F. (2010). Articulation of conceptual knowledge and argumentation practices by high school students in evolution problems. Science and Education, 19, 573-598.
7.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
8.
Druker, S. L., Chen, C., & Kelly, G. J. (1996). Introducing content to the Toulmin model of argumentation via error analysis. In NARST meeting, Chicago, IL.
9.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2017). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning, 693(September). doi:10.1080/09500690305016.
10.
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.
11.
Duschl, R. A. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 187–206). Buckingham: Open University Press.
12.
Duschl, R. A., Scweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking Science to School: learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
13.
Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
14.
Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in the science classroom. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jimenez- Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47-69). Dordre, Netherland: Springer.
15.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the use of Toulmin’s argument pattern in studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
16.
Faize, F. A. (2015). Introducing Argumentation at Higher Education in Pakistan- A New Paradigm of Teaching Ethic based Topics. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 9(1), 8-13.
17.
Foong, C. C., & Daniel, E. G. S. (2010). Assessing students’ arguments made in socio-scientific contexts: The considerations of structural complexity and the depth of content knowledge. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences Journal, 9, 1120–1127.
18.
Foong, C., & Daniel, E. (2013). Students’ argumentation skills across two socio-scientific issues in a Confucian classroom: Is transfer possible? International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2331-2355.
19.
Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
20.
Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing collaborative online argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 167-180.
21.
Iordanou, K. (2013). Developing face-to-face argumentation skills: Does arguing on the computer help? Journal of Cognition and Development, 14(2), 292-320.
22.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Munhoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190.
23.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). Doing the lesson or ‘doing science’: Argument in high school genetic. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
24.
Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation practices in classroom: Pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1139-1158.
25.
Kaya, E., Erduran, S., & Cetin, P. S. (2012). Discourse, argumentation, and science lessons: Match or mismatch between students’ perceptions and understanding? Mevlana International Journal of Education, 2(3), 1-32.
26.
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.
27.
Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2006). Do children and adults learn differently? Journal of Cognition and Development, 7(3), 279-293.
28.
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.
29.
Lin, S. S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socio-scientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 993-1017.
30.
Lu, J., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Scaffolding argumentation in intact class: Integrating technology and pedagogy. Computer and Education, 69, 189-198.
31.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. Thinking with Data, 233–265.
32.
McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229.
33.
McNeill, K., & Knight, A. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K–12 teachers. Science Education, 97, 936-972.
34.
Mcneill, K., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 153-191.
35.
National Research Council. (2008). Ready, set, science! Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
36.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
37.
Norris, S., Philips, L., & Osborne, J. (2007). Scientific inquiry: The place of interpretation and argumentation. Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting, 87–98.
38.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative framework for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologists, 46(2), 84-106.
39.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384-395.
40.
Ohlsson, S. (2002). Generating and understanding qualitative explanations. In J. Otero, J. A. Le’on, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The Psychology of science text comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science. The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463-466.
42.
Osborne, J., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction. Science Education, 95(4), 627-638.
43.
Osborne, J., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315–347.
44.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
45.
Ozdem, Y., Ertepinar, H., Cakiroglu, J., & Erduran, S. (2013). The nature of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2559-2586.
46.
Passmore, C., & Svoboda, J. (2012). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modelling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1535-1554.
47.
Polman, J. L., & Pea, R. D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85(3), 223–238.
48.
Rudsberg, K., Öhman, J., & Östman, L. (2013). Analyzing students’ learning in classroom discussions about socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 97(4), 594-620.
49.
Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526.
50.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socio scientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
51.
Sadler, T.D., & Fowler, S.R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socio scientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986–1004.
52.
Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1122-1148.
53.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484.
54.
Sampson, V., Enderle, P., & Grooms, J. (2013). Argumentation in science education: Helping students understand the nature of scientific argumentation so they can meet the new science standards. The Science Teacher, 80(5), 30.
55.
Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257.
57.
Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 277-289.
58.
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.
59.
Simonneaux, L., & Simonneaux, J. (2009). Students’ socio-scientific reasoning on controversies from the viewpoint of education for sustainable development. Cultural Study of Science Education, 4, 657-687.
60.
Topcu, M., Sadler, T., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2010). Pre-service science teachers’ informal reasoning about socio-scientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475–2495.
61.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
62.
Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. (2012). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977.
63.
von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
65.
Walton, D. N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3, 169-184.
66.
Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning. New York: Springer.
67.
Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93(4), 687–719.
68.
Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jime´nez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht: Springer.
69.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students‟ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1305-8223 |
| ISSN: | 1305-8215 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
