Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation: Theory, Practice and Research

303 Pages·2012·8.08 MB·English

by  Jonathan Osborne

Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation

Myint Swe Khine
Editor
Perspectives on Scientific
Argumentation
Theory, Practice and Research
Foreword by Deanna Kuhn
123
Editor
MyintSweKhine
BahrainTeachersCollege
UniversityofBahrain
Manama
KingdomofBahrain
[email protected]
[email protected]
ISBN978-94-007-2469-3 e-ISBN978-94-007-2470-9
DOI10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9
SpringerDordrechtHeidelbergLondonNewYork
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2011939071
©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2012
Nopartofthisworkmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmittedinanyformorby
anymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,microfilming,recordingorotherwise,withoutwritten
permissionfromthePublisher,withtheexceptionofanymaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurpose
ofbeingenteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
Foreword
This volume, together with a similar recent collection edited by Erduran and
Jiménez-Aleixandre(2007),marktheconcentrationofattentionnowbeingdevoted
toargumentationasaprocesscentraltoscienceandtoscienceeducation.Theidea
ofscienceasargument(Kuhn,1993,2010)isakeyoneinthatitencompassesboth
theepistemologicalandtheproceduralaspectsofdoing,teaching,andlearningsci-
ence.Accordingly,ithassignificantimplicationsforjustaboutalloftheconcerns
ofscienceeducators(Duschl,2008).
Theepistemologicalimplicationsarethemostchallengingforscienceeducators.
Itisonethingforustorecognizeargumentasthecoreofscientificpracticeandquite
anothertogetyoungstudents,andevenolderones,toconceptualizescienceinthis
way.InChapter2,Nussbaum,Sinatra,andOwensdiscusstheneedtoconfrontstu-
dents’misconceptions,andperhapsthemostpervasiveandenduringoftheseisthe
misconception of science as an accumulation of facts. If students are to come to
believe otherwise, it is essential that educators model scientific practice as some-
thing else than this – namely, as a successive revision of theories as new evidence
is brought to bear on them. In the absence of such modeling, how can we expect
studentstoreplacetheirnaïveepistemologiesofsciencewithmorerobustones?
Argumentation is of course the heart of scientific practice. With the right kind
of modeling, engagement, and practice, students can come to experience this sci-
entificprocessforthemselves.Insodoingtheystandtotransformtheirconception
of the product of science from one of facts to one of arguments and the scientific
processtooneofcoordinatingtheoriesandevidence.AsCavagnettoandHandput
itintheirchapter(Chapter3),theycometorecognizethedistinctionbetweendata
and evidence. There is as yet little rigorous evidence that engagement in science
as argument is sufficient to engender change with respect to this epistemological
transformation, but a recent intervention study by Iordanou (2010) contains some
promisingfindingsthatsuggestitcanbe.
OsborneandSzu,BerlandandHammer,andseveralotheroftheauthorsinthis
volume recognize and lament the fact that argumentation of any form is seldom
present in science classrooms. It is not clear what the most effective path will be
toward changing this state of affairs, but one thing that is clear is that the efforts
ofpractitionersandpolicymakersneedtobesupportedbyanexpandedknowledge
v
vi Foreword
baseregardingthenatureofargumentiveskillsandtheirdevelopment.Assessment
and analysis are needed at the level of the classroom, as Sampson, Enderle, and
WalkerhaveundertakenanddescribedinChapter12,atthelevelofdialogicargu-
mentation,theapproachIhavetakeninmyownresearch(Kuhn,2010),andatthe
levelofindividualargument,whichOsborneandSzuaddress.Ateachoftheselev-
els, although considerable progress has been made, we do not yet know enough
aboutthenatureofthecompetenciesinvolved.
A recurring and key question is whether these competencies are specific to the
domain of science or broader in scope, a question that Bricker and Bell, and also
Corner, address in Chapters 7 and 10. My own view is that the question should
not be conceived as an either/or one. Clearly, and at the very least, there are com-
monalities in the argumentive strategies people bring to bear regarding scientific
mattersandmattersinotherdomains.Atthesametimethereareparticularitiesspe-
cifictodomainsthatwarrantattentionintheirownright.Again,Iordanou’s(2010)
researchbringsimportantdatatobearonthisissueinhercomparisonoftheeffects
ofanargumentationinterventioninthesciencedomainandoneinasocialscience
domainontransferofskillstothedomainnotinvolvedintheintervention.Shefinds
transfer,butalsoasymmetry,withskilldevelopmentinthesciencedomainshowing
moretransfertothesocialdomainthanviceversa.
Arelatedquestion,addressedbyCavagnettoandHand,isthepedagogicaloneof
whethertofosterthedevelopmentofargumentskillsinarelativelystand-aloneor
deeply content-embedded manner. My own view, again, is that the question is not
an either/or one. All instruction of course needs to be conducted in the context of
meaningfulcontent.Butthereisnoreasonthatthebalancebetweenskillgoalsand
content goals need be constant across instructional units. Skill goals may be most
prominentinsomecases,andcontentgoalsinanother.Mostimportantisthatwebe
abletoidentifywiththegreatestpossibleclarity,theskills(aswellascontent)that
wewishstudentstomaster.Andhereagain,OsborneandSzuremindusthatwork
remainstobedone.
The surge of interest in argumentation in science education has led to a wide
range of pedagogical efforts to support development of students’ skills, and these
warrant careful analysis and comparison, as Simon, Richardson, and Amos note
inChapter6.Andtheyofcoursedependonrigorousanalysisoftheskillsandsub-
skillsatstake,asBulgrenandEllisdescribeinChapter8.Technologicallysupported
scaffoldingofargumentationispromising,asClarketal.andWuandTsaidescribe
inChapters9and11.Myownstudiesrelyontechnologytosupport(aswellasto
assess)students’argumentation(Kuhn,2010;Goldstein,Crowell,&Kuhn,2009).
Yet we need to be careful that we do not jump in with so much or such highly
structured support as to obscure observation of students’ own reasoning and the
kinds of strategies they bring to bear in engaging in direct, authentic debate with
theirpeers.Thesearethephenomenaweseektounderstandandtosupport,butwe
cannothopetodesignthemosteffectivesupportswithouttherequisiteunderstand-
ing.Appearanceofthecurrentvolumesuggestsalevelofinterestandengagement
Foreword vii
on the part of both researchers and practitioners that stands to move us forward
inthisregard.
TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity DeannaKuhn
NewYork,USA
References
Duschl,R.(2008).Scienceeducationinthree-partharmony:Balancingconceptual,epistemic,and
sociallearninggoals.ReviewofResearchinEducation,32,268–291.
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in science education:
Perspectivesfromclassroom-basedresearch.NewYork:Springer.
Goldstein,M.,Crowell,A.,&Kuhn,D.(2009).Whatconstitutesskilledargumentationandhow
doesitdevelop?InformalLogic,29,379–395.
Iordanou,K.(2010).Developingargumentskillsacrossscientificandsocialdomains.Journalof
CognitionandDevelopment,11,293–327.
Kuhn,D.(1993).Scienceasargument:Implicationsforteachingandlearningscientificthinking.
ScienceEducation,77(3),319–337.
Kuhn,D.(2010).Teachingandlearningscienceasargument.ScienceEducation,94(5),810–824.
ThisisBlankPageIntegra viii
Contents
PartI TheoreticalPremisesoftheStudyofArgumentation
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
JonathanOsborne,AnnaMacPherson,AlexisPatterson,
andEvanSzu
2 TheTwoFacesofScientificArgumentation:Applications
toGlobalClimateChange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
E.MichaelNussbaum,GaleM.Sinatra,andMarissaC.Owens
3 TheImportanceofEmbeddingArgumentWithinScience
Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
AndyCavagnettoandBrianHand
4 ScientificReasoningandArgumentation
fromaBayesianPerspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
EvanSzuandJonathanOsborne
5 Students’FramingsandTheirParticipationinScientific
Argumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
LeemaKuhnBerlandandDavidHammer
PartII PracticePerspectivesinArgumentation
6 TheDesignandEnactmentofArgumentationActivities . . . . . . 97
ShirleySimon,KatherineRichardson,andRuthAmos
7 ArgumentationandReasoninginLifeandinSchool:
ImplicationsfortheDesignofSchoolScienceLearning
Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
LeahA.BrickerandPhilipBell
8 ArgumentationandEvaluationInterventioninScience
Classes:TeachingandLearningwithToulmin . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
JanisA.BulgrenandJamesD.Ellis
ix