Argumentation in school science: Breaking the tradition of authoritative exposition through a pedagogy that promotes discussion and reasoning

Argumentation

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 469-493

  Simon, Shirley ^a   Richardson, Katherine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Classification; Dialogic; Professional development; Reasoning; Science education; Teaching resources

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350620281     PISSN: 0920427X     EISSN: 15728374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-009-9164-9     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Adey, P. 2004. The professional development of teachers: Practice and theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
2. Adey, P., and M. Shayer. 1994. Really raising standards. London: Routledge.
3. Adey, P., A. Robertson, and G. Venville. 2001a. Let's think!. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
4. Adey, P.S., M. Shayer, and C. Yates. 2001b. Thinking science, 3rd ed. London: Nelson Thornes.
5. Alexander, R. 2005. Towards dialogic teaching. Thirsk: Dialogos.
6. Alverman, D.E., G. Qian, and C.E. Hynd. 1995. Effects of interactive discussion and text type on learning counterintuitive science concepts. Journal of Educational Research 88: 146-154.
7. Anderson, R.C., C. Chinn, M. Waggoner, and K. Nguyen. 1998. Intellectually-stimulating story discussions. In Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning, ed. J. Osborn and F. Lehr, 170-186. New York: Guildford Press.
8. Asterchan, C.S.C., and B.B. Schwarz. 2007. The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology 99 (3): 626-639.
9. Bell, P., and M.C. Linn. 2000. Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing from learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education 22 (8): 797-817.
10. Chinn, C.A., and R.C. Anderson. 1998. The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record 100: 315-368.
11. Clark, D.B., and V. Sampson. 2008. Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45 (3): 293-321.
12. Davis, E.A., and J. Krajcik. 2005. Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher 34 (3): 3-14.
13. Dawes, L. 2004. Talk and learning in classroom science. International Journal of Science Education 26 (6): 677-695.
14. Driver, R. 1995. Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In Constructivism in education, ed. L.P. Steffe and J. Gale, 385-400. Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Driver, R., and J. Easley. 1978. Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education 10: 61-98.
16. Driver, R., A. Squires, P. Rushworth, and V. Wood-Robinson. 1994. Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. London: Routledge.
17. Driver, R., J. Leach, R. Millar, and P. Scott. 1996. Young people's images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
18. Driver, R., P. Newton, and J. Osborne. 2000. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education 84 (3): 287-312.
19. Duschl, R., and J. Osborne. 2002. Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education 38: 39-72.
20. Erduran, S., and M. Jiménez-Aleixandre, eds. 2008. Argumentation in science education. New York: Springer.
21. Erduran, S., S. Simon, and J. Osborne. 2004. TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education 88 (6): 915-933.
22. Harlen, W. 2000. Teaching and learning and assessing science, 5-12. London: Paul Chapman.
23. Howe, C., A. Tolmie, A. Thurston, K. Topping, D. Christie, K. Livingston, E. Jessiman and C. Donaldson. 2009. Group work in elementary science: towards organizational principles for supporting pupil learning. Learning and Instruction 17 (5):549-563.
24. Howe, C., and N. Mercer. 2007. Children's social development, peer interaction and classroom learning (Primary Review Research Survey 2/1b). Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
25. Howe, C.J., and A. Tolmie. 2003. Group work in primary school science: Discussion, consensus and guidance from experts. International Journal of Educational Research 39: 51-72.
26. Howe, C., D. McWilliam, and G. Cross. 2005. Chance favours only the prepared mind: Incubation and the delayed effects of peer collaboration. British Journal of Psychology 96: 67-93.
27. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., A.B. Rodríguez, and R. Duschl. 2000. "Doing the Lesson" or "Doing Science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education 84 (6): 757-792.
28. Kolstø, S.D. 2001. "To trust or not to trust..."-pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education 23 (9): 877-901.
29. Koslowski, B., J. Marasia, M. Chelenza, and R. Dublin. 2008. Information becomes evidence when an explanation can incorporate it into a causal framework. Cognitive Development 23 (4): 472-487.
30. Krajcik, J., and B.J. Reiser, eds. 2004. IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Faculty of Education.
31. Kuhn, D. 1991. The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Kuhn, D., V. Shaw, and M. Felton. 1997. Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction 15 (3): 287-315.
33. Lederman, N.G. 2007. Nature of science: Past, present and future. In Handbook of research on science education, ed. S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman, 831-880. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34. Lemke, J.L. 1990. Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.
35. Levinson, R., and S. Turner. 2001. Valuable lessons: Engaging with the social context of science in schools. London: The Wellcome Trust.
36. Limón, M. 2001. On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction 11: 357-380.
37. Maloney, J. and S. Simon. 2006. Mapping children's discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education 28 (15):1817-1841.
38. Mercer, N., L. Dawes, R. Wegerif, and C. Sams. 2004. Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal 30(3): 359-377.
39. Mortimer, E., and P. Scott. 2003. Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
40. Naylor, S., and B. Keogh. 2000. Concept cartoons in science education. Sandbach: Millgate House Publishers.
41. Nuffield-Chelsea Curriculum Trust. 1993. Nuffield primary science. London: Collins Educational.
42. Osborne, R., and P. Freyberg. 1985. Learning in science. Auckland: Heinemann Education.
43. Osborne, J., and S. Simon. 1996. Primary science: Past and future directions. Studies in Science Education 27: 99-147.
44. Osborne, J., S. Erduran and S. Simon. 2004a. Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(10): 994-1020.
45. Osborne, J., S. Erduran, and S. Simon. 2004b. Ideas, evidence and argument in science. In-service training pack, resource pack and video. London: Nuffield Foundation.
46. Pfundt, H., and R. Duit. 1994. Bibliography: Students' alternative frameworks and science education, 4th ed. Kiel: IPN.
47. Posner, G.J., K.A. Strike, P.W. Hewson, and W.A. Gertzog. 1982. Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education 66 (2): 211-227.
48. Ratcliffe, M., and M. Grace. 2003. Science education for citizenship teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
49. Sadler, T. 2004. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (5): 513-536.
50. Sandoval, W.A. 2005. Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education 89: 634-656.
51. Sandoval, W.A., and K.A. Millwood. 2008. What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In Argumentation in science education, ed. S. Erduran, and M. Jiménez-Aleixandre. New York: Springer.
52. Schwartz, B.B., and A. Glassner. 2003. The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In Arguing to learn, ed. J. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D. Suthers. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
53. Science Enhancement Programme. 2004. Teaching ideas and evidence in science at key stage 3. London: Science Enhancement Programme.
54. Shayer, M., and P. Adey. 1981. Towards a science of science teaching. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
55. Sherrod, S.E., and J. Wilhelm. 2009. A study of how classroom dialogue facilitates the development of geometric spatial concepts related to understanding the cause of moon phases. International Journal of Science Education 31 (7): 873-894.
56. Simon, S., P. Black, E. Blondel, and M. Brown. 1994. Forces in balance. Hatfield: ASE.
57. Simon, S., S. Erduran, and J. Osborne. 2006. Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education 28 (2-3): 235-260.
58. Simon, S., S. Naylor, B. Keogh, J. Maloney, and B. Downing. 2008. Puppets promoting engagement and talk in science. International Journal of Science Education 30 (9): 1229-1248.
59. Skamp, K., ed. 1998. Teaching primary science constructively. London: Harcourt Brace.
60. Smith, M.K., W.B. Wood, W.K. Adams, C. Wieman, J.K. Knight, N. Guild, and T.T. Su. 2009. Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science 323: 122-124.
61. Strike, K.A., and G.J. Posner. 1985. A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In Cognitive structure and conceptual change, ed. L. West, and L. Pines. Orlando: Academic Press.
62. Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63. Tyson, L.M., G.J. Venville, A.G. Harrison, and D.F. Treagust. 1997. A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education 81: 387-404.
64. University of York and Nuffield Foundation. 2006. Twenty first century science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65. Von Aufschnaiter, C., S. Erduran, J. Osborne, and S. Simon. 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.
66. Walker, K.A., and D.L. Zeidler. 2007. Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education 29 (11): 1387-1410.
67. Watt, D. 1998. Children's learning of science concepts. In ASE guide to primary science education, ed. R. Sherrington. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.
68. White, R., and R. Gunstone. 1992. Probing understanding. London: Falmer.
69. Zeidler, D. 1997. The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education 81 (4): 483-496.
70. Zeidler, D.L., T.D. Sadler, S. Applebaum, and B.E. Callahan. 2009. Advancing reflective judgement through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46 (1): 74-101.
71. Zohar, A., and F. Nemet. 2002. Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39 (1): 35-62.