Sibel Erduran

Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom

The research reported in this study focuses on an investigation into the teaching of argumentation in secondary science classrooms. Over a 1‐year period, a group of 12 teachers from schools in the greater London area attended a series of workshops to develop materials and strategies to support the teaching of argumentation in scientific contexts. Data were collected at the beginning and end of the year by audio‐recording and video‐recording lessons where the teachers attempted to implement argumentation. To assess the quality of argumentation, analytical tools derived from Toulmin’s argument pattern were developed and applied to classroom transcripts. Teachers’ use of argumentation developed across the year, the pattern of use was teacher‐specific, as was the nature of change. To inform future professional development programmes, transcripts of five teachers, three showing a significant change and two showing no change, were analysed in more detail to identify features of teachers’ oral contributions that facilitated and supported argumentation. All teachers attempted to encourage a variety of processes involved in argumentation; teachers whose lessons included the highest quality of argumentation (Toulmin’s argument pattern analysis) also encouraged higher‐order processes in their teaching. The analysis of teachers’ facilitation of argumentation has helped to guide the development of in‐service materials and to identify the barriers to learning in the professional development of less experienced teachers.

Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview

Charles Darwin once described On the Origin of Species as “one long argument”. This sentence can be viewed as embodying several of the different dimensions of argumentation discussed in this book. On the one hand, it provides evidence, coming from someone with undisputable authority, on argument being an integral part of the construction of scientific knowledge. On the other hand, when applied to the outstanding piece of scientific thinking that is On the Origin of Species, the description combines two aspects of argumentation. The first aspect relates to the justification of knowledge claims, by marshalling converging lines of reasoning (see Kelly, Regev, & Prothero, this book), theoretical ideas and empirical evidence toward a claim. Darwin weaved together population theory from Malthus, or uniformitarianism from Lyell, with empirical data gathered in his voyage to Central and South America in his bold claim of the theory of natural selection. A second aspect of argumentation has to do with argumentation as persuasion, in Darwin’s case as an attempt to convince an audience, composed both of scientists and of the general public, that the animals and plants had changed, that the species living on Earth descended from other species instead of having being created all at a time. Darwin was well aware that the task of persuading his contemporaries was not an easy one, such awareness being one of the reasons for delaying the publication of his book for about twenty years. In fact a joint presentation by Darwin and Wallace in the Linnean Society in 1858 stirred little interest, and the president of the Society summarised the year as one that “has not indeed been marked by any of those striking discoveries which at once revolutionize science” (Beddall, 1968, pp 304–305). However, one year later, the publication of Darwin’s book launched a great controversy, corresponding yet to another aspect of argumentation, as debate among two parties with contrasting positions on a subject. Argumentation, in whatever sense it is conveyed, is an integral part of science and we argue it should be integrated into science education. In this chapter, we present an overview of a line of research in science education whose main purpose has been exactly such attempts to make argumentation a component of instruction and learning. Indeed the field on argumentation in science education has been receiving growing attention in recent years. Firstly we outline a rationale for why should we, teachers or science educators, promote argumentation in science classrooms. Second we discuss different meanings of argumentation and some

Philosophy of Chemistry: An Emerging Field with Implications for Chemistry Education.

Traditional applications of history and philosophy of science in chemistry education have concentrated on the teaching and learning of history of chemistry. In this paper, the recent emergence of philosophy of chemistry as a distinct field is reported. The implications of this new domain for chemistry education are explored in the context of chemical models. Trends in the treatment of models in chemistry education highlights the need for reconceptualizing the teaching and learning of chemistry to embrace chemical epistemology, a potential contribution by philosophy of chemistry.

Methodological Foundations in the Study of Argumentation in Science Classrooms

Ask anyone who has done work on argumentation in science classrooms what their primary concern has been in this line of research, and they will most likely respond with one word: methodology. Most likely they will then begin to ask you if you have figured out how to distinguish data from warrants. The questions will continue: can theoretical statements be data? If a warrant is not explicitly stated, can it still be assumed that it is part of the argument? Indeed the study of argumentation in the science classroom raises significant methodological questions. What counts as an argument in children’s talk anyhow? What is the unit of analysis of argument and of argumentation in classroom conversations? What criteria drive the selection and application of coding tools? What justifies the choice of one methodological approach over another? What does a particular methodological approach enable us to do and how does it do so? While in one sense, such methodological questions are about the reliability and validity of methodological tools for the analysis of arguments (e.g., Duschl et al., 1999), in another sense they are questions about the very nature and function of methodologies for a line of research that challenges positivist characterizations of scientific knowledge stripped off of the cultural, affective, economical and personal contexts and processes of science. In a review of literature on the use of methodologies in science education, Kelly et al. (1998) observed incongruities between theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches adapted in studies on the Nature of Science. Although the bodies of literature informing the Nature of Science studies used multiple methodological orientations, the majority of the empirical Nature of Science studies used either survey instruments or interviews, without observational data of teachers and students. The state of affairs in the case of argumentation might present an example of an opposite trend where, roughly two decades later since argumentation has taken root in science education, our methodological work remains heavily focused on observational data at the expense of surveys and interviews. It is worthwhile to note that concentrating on quantitative analyses of argumentation does not necessarily imply a contradiction between methodological and theoretical orientations of science education. Quantitative analyses

The Role of Argument During Discourse about Socioscientific Issues

This chapter synthesizes research on the role of argument and the pitfalls of fallacious reasoning in student classroom discussions of socioscientific topics and issues. Its specific focus is on the nature of the argument that emerges in such context and its evaluation. For while there is a growing imperative that students should have the opportunity to ‘consider the power and limitations of science in addressing industrial, social and environmental questions’ (DfEE, 1999), asking teachers to engage in such practice and its discourse confronts them with a number of dilemmas. Foremost is the requirement that such activity requires some kind of formative evaluation of the activity itself. For only then can teachers provide the kind of essential feedback required to aid students identify the weaknesses in their own argument and improve their critical reasoning. Yet how, for instance, does the science teacher identify weaknesses in students’ argument? What perspective should they use to evaluate their discourse – to decide that some contributions are better than others? And what, for instance, constitute exemplars of good practice – that makes one student’s contribution more effective than another? For without such frameworks, it is difficult for the teacher to engage in the process of scaffolding discourse and to make the activity a learning experience from which the student might emerge more able to engage in similar experiences. The chapter seeks, therefore, to explore a number of perspectives on analyzing the discourse that emerges in such contexts and evaluating the quality of argument. To that end, common examples of argumentation and examining moral and ethical

THE NATURE OF CHEMICAL KNOWLEDGE AND CHEMICAL EDUCATION

In this chapter we have argued that chemistry education needs to be reconceptualised to incorporate salient themes from the emerging field of philosophy of chemistry. We have outlined an example framework for the application of philosophy of chemistry in chemistry education. In particular we have presented reduction, explanation, laws and supervenience as critical themes that provide the foundation for philosophy of chemistry, and have suggested some implications for theories of learning, curriculum design and teacher education. In so doing, we have indicated that future efforts in the inclusion of HPS in science education will need to take domain-specificity of disciplinary knowledge more seriously. The application of philosophy of chemistry in chemistry education has the potential to make Schwab’s foreseen recommendations for effective science teaching a reality.

The Nature of Pre-service Science Teachers’ Argumentation in Inquiry-oriented Laboratory Context

The aim of this study was to investigate the kinds of argumentation schemes generated by pre-service elementary science teachers (PSTs) as they perform inquiry-oriented laboratory tasks, and to explore how argumentation schemes vary by task as well as by experimentation and discussion sessions. The model of argumentative and scientific inquiry was used as a design framework in the present study. According to the model, the inquiry of scientific topics was employed by groups of participants through experimentation and critical discussion sessions. The participants of the study were 35 PSTs, who teach middle school science to sixth through eighth grade students after graduation. The data were collected through video- and audio-recordings of the discussions made by PSTs in six inquiry-oriented laboratory sessions. For the analysis of data, pre-determined argumentation schemes by Walton were employed. The results illustrated that PSTs applied varied premises rather than only observations or reliable sources to ground their claims or to argue for a case or an action. It is also worthy of notice that the construction and evaluation of scientific knowledge claims resulted in different numbers and kinds of arguments. Results of this study suggest that designing inquiry-oriented laboratory environments, which are enriched with critical discussion, provides discourse opportunities that can support argumentation. Moreover, PSTs can be encouraged to support and promote argumentation in their future science classrooms if they engage in argumentation integrated instructional strategies.

The Role of Argumentation in Developing Scientific Literacy

Recent approaches in educational research frame science learning in terms of the appropriation of discourse practices where argumentation plays a central role in the development of explanations and theories. The main objectives of the research reported in this paper were to (1) investigate the pedagogical strategies necessary to promote argumentation skills in students; (2) determine the extent to which the implementation of such strategies enhances teachers’ pedagogical practices with argumentation; and (3) examine the extent to which lessons which follow these pedagogical strategies lead to enhanced quality in students’ argumentation. Data collected from a set of lessons on scientific and socioscientific topics from twelve, year 8 schools in London are reported and discussed. These lessons were analysed using a framework based on Toulmin’s Argument Pattern. There were statistically significant differences in the quality of arguments generated in the classrooms of the project teachers who had participated in the training workshops. The strategies that we have adopted for working with teachers, and the frameworks to support argumentation will be discussed.

Learning from international frameworks for assessment: EAL descriptors in Australia and the USA

Guidelines for the assessment of learners with English as an Additional Language (EAL) in the UK, such as The assessment of the language development of bilingual pupils (OfSTED, 1997) and Assessing English as an additional language (QCA, 2000a), maintain the importance of teacher assessment as a component in the reporting process. Stobart (1999: 2) goes further and, reviewing the validity of National Curriculum assessment using Crooks et al.’s (1996) eight stage model of ‘Threats to the valid use of assessment’, regards teacher assessment as crucial: ‘the validity of national curriculum assessment hinges on the balance between Teacher Assessment and testing. Between them they meet Crooks’ requirements of a valid assessment system.’ In the UK context, the national arrangement for the assessment of EAL learners is based on a combination of National Curriculum descriptors developed for mother tongue speakers together with supplementary descriptors in A language in common (QCA, 2000b) and a wide range of EAL descriptors generated by local education authorities and schools. In contrast, countries such as Australia, the USA and Canada have developed assessment frameworks specifically for use with ESL=EAL learners, both within specialized language programmes and in mainstream education. Underpinned by theories of language acquisition and assessment, these frameworks reflect widespread international recognition that learners with Eng-

Argumentation in Science Education Research

Argumentation studies in science education are relatively young. It can be said that classroom-based research in scientific argumentation began in the 1990s. The first batch of studies focused on exploring whether science classroom environments favoured argumentation, an exploration with negative outcomes (e.g., Driver, Newton & Osborne, 2000), as well as on investigating students’ argumentation (e.g., Duschl, Ellenbogen, & Erduran, 1999; Jimenez-Aleixandre, Bugallo & Duschl, 2000; Kolste, 2006; Kortland, 1996). As the field continued to develop, the focus shifted towards an interest in the quality of arguments, or how to analyze the development of students’ argumentation competences (e.g., Erduran, 2008; Erduran, Simon & Osborne, 2004). In the last few years there is an emerging interest about how to support students’ engagement in argumentation, through the design of learning environments (e.g., Jimenez-Aleixandre, 2008; Mork, 2005) and professional development of science teachers (e.g, Erduran, Ardac & Yakmaci- Guzel, 2006; Erduran, 2006; Simon, Erduran & Osborne, 2006).