Dialectical Features of Students' Argumentation: A Critical Review of Argumentation Studies in Science Education

Research in Science Education

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 371-393

  Nielsen, Jan Alexis ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Dialectics; Dialogue; Science education; Toulmin

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872871061     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-011-9266-x     Document Type: Article

References (123)

1. Andrews, R. (2005). Models of argumentation in educational discourse. Text: Transactions of the Society for Textual Scholarship, 25(1), 107-127.
2. Aristotle. (1997). Topics. Books I and VIII, with excerpts from related texts (trans: Robin Smith). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
3. Aufschnaiter, C. V., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2007). Arguments and the learning of science. In R Pintó & D Couso (Eds.), Contributions from Science Education (pp. 377-88). Dordrecht: Springer.
4. Aufschnaiter, C. V., 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.
5. Beard, D. (2003). Informal logic. Review of Communication, 3(3), 254-259.
6. Berland, L. K., & Mcneill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793.
7. Bermejo-Luque, L. (2006). Toulmin's model of argument and the question of relativism. In D. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin Model (pp. 71-85). Dordrecht: Springer.
8. Blair, J., & Johnson, R. (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1(1), 41-56.
9. 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(3), 473-498.
10. Castaneda, H. (1960). On a proposed revolution in logic. Philosophy of Science, 27, 279-92.
11. Castells, M., Erduran, S., & Konstantinidou, A. (2009). Argumentation & scientific conceptions in peer discussions: a comparison between Catalan & English students. In G. Cakamaki & M. F. Tasar (Eds.), Contemporary science education reserach: Scientific literacy and social aspects of science. A collection of papers presented at ESERA 2009 Conference (pp. 51-60). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
12. Chambliss, M. J. (1995). Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 778-807.
13. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students' questions and discursive interaction: their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883-908.
14. Clark, G. (1990). Dialogue, dialectic, and conversation: a social perspective on the function of writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
15. Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
16. Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321.
17. Cooley, J. (1959). On Mr. Toulmin's revolution in logic. The Journal of Philosophy, 56(7), 297-319.
18. Cowan, J. (1964). The uses of argument - an apology for logic. Mind: A Quarterly Review of Philosophy, 73(289), 27-45.
19. Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2009). High-school students' informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: an indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421-1445.
20. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
21. Duschl, R. A. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
22. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
23. Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999). Middle school students' dialogic argumentation. In M. Komorek, H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, & A. Kross (Eds.), Research in science education: Past, present and future; Proceedings of the Second International Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (pp. 420-422). Kiel: IPN.
24. Eemeren, F. H. V., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: a pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum.
25. Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education, vol. 35 (pp. 47-69). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
26. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
27. Finocchiaro, M. A. (2006). Reflections on the hyper dialectical definition of argument. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics (pp. 51-62). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Fraser, B. (1975). Hedged performatives. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: speech acts (pp. 187-210). New York: Academic.
29. Freeman, J. B. (2005). Systematizing toulmin's warrants: an epistemic approach. Argumentation, 19, 1-46.
30. Freeman, J. B. (2009). Argument Strength, the Toulmin Model, and Ampliative Probability. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on Problems of Argumentation (pp. 191-205). Dordrecht: Springer.
31. Fulkerson, R. (1996). Teaching the argument in writing. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.
32. Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2007). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 29-45). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
33. Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34. Goodwin, J. (2001). One Question, Two Answers. In H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Argumentation and Its Implications. Windsor, Ontario: Ontario Society for the Study of Argument, CD-ROM, ISBN: 0-9683461-2-X, Retrieved from http://www. public. iastate. edu/~goodwin/pubs/goodwinone. pdf.
35. Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (2007). A framework for practical work in science and scientific literacy through argumentation. Research in Science, 25(3), 271-291.
36. Govier, T. (2010). A practical study of argument (7th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
37. Gross, A. G. (1984). A comment on the uses of Toulmin. College English, 46, 10-14.
38. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the rationalization of society (trans: T. McCarthy). Boston: Beacon Press.
39. Hample, D. (1992). The Toulmin model and the syllogism. In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample, & P. J. Benoit (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 225-238). Dordrecht: Foris.
40. Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Kind, P. (2008). Learning in and from science laboratories: enhancing students' meta-cognition and argumentation skills. In C. L. Petroselli (Ed.), Science education issues and developments (pp. 59-94). New York: Nova.
41. Jacobs, S. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation, 14(3), 261-286.
42. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Designing Argumentation Learning Environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 91-115). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
43. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: an overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 3-27). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
44. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Muñoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190.
45. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Muñoz, C. (2005). Argument Construction and Change while Working on a Real Environment Problem. In Kerst Boersma, Martin Goedhart, Onno Jong & Harrie Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the Quality of Science Education (pp. 419-31). Dordrecht: Springer.
46. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
47. Johnson, R. H. (1981a). Toulmin's bold experiment (i). Informal Logic Newsletter, 3(2), 1-12.
48. Johnson, R. H. (1981b). Toulmin's bold experiment (ii). Informal Logic Newsletter, 3(3), 1-9.
49. Johnson, R. H. (1995). Informal logic and pragma-dialectics: some differences. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirs ISSA conference on argumentation, volume I: Perspectives and approaches (pp. 237-245). Amsterdam: SicSat.
50. Johnson, R. H. (2002). Manifest rationality reconsidered: reply to my fellow symposiasts. Argumentation, 16(3), 311-331.
51. Katriel, T., & Dascal, M. (1984). What do indicating devices indicate? Philosophy and Rhetoric, 17, 1-15.
52. Keith, W., & Beard, D. (2008). Toulmin's rhetorical logic: what's the warrant for warrants? Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41(1), 22-50.
53. Kelly, G., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 883-915.
54. Kelly, G., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871.
55. Kim, H., & Song, J. (2005). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students' scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211-233.
56. Klumpp, J. (2006). Warranting arguments, the virtue of verb. In D. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin Model (pp. 103-113). Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands.
57. Kock, C. (2007a). Is practical reasoning presumptive? Informal Logic, 27(1), 91-108.
58. Kock, C. (2007b). Norms of legitimate dissensus. Informal Logic, 27(2), 179-196.
59. Kock, C. (2007c). Dialectical obligations in political debate. Informal Logic, 27(3), 233-247.
60. Kolstø, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2007). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education, vol. 35 (pp. 117-136). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
61. Krabbe, E. (1999). Profiles of dialogue. In J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, & Y. Venema (Eds.), JFAK. Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday, III (pp. 25-36). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
62. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332-360.
63. Leitão, S. (2001). Analyzing changes in view during argumentation: A quest for method. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(3). Retrieved from http://www. qualitative-research. net/index. php/fqs/article/view/907/1983.
64. Lunsford, K. (2002). Contextualizing Toulmin's model in the writing classroom. Written Communication, 19(1), 109-174.
65. Lynch, M. (1982). Closure and disclosure in pre-trial argument. Human Studies, 5(1), 285-318.
66. Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children's discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1842.
67. Molinatti, G., Girault, Y., & Hammond, C. (2010). High school students debate the use of embryonic stem cells: the influence of context on decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 99999(1), 1-17.
68. Munneke, L., van Amelsvoort, M., & Andriessen, J. (2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1-2), 113-131.
69. Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 17-39.
70. Newman, S., & Marshall, C. (1991). Pushing Toulmin too far: Learning from an argument representation scheme. Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA, USA, Technical Report SSL-92-45.
71. Nielsen, J. A. (2010). Functional roles of science in socio-scientific discussions. In Ingo Eilks & Bernd Ralle (Eds.) Contemporary Science Education - Implications from Science Education Research about Orientations, Strategies and Assessment (pp. 83-96). Aachen: Shaker.
72. Nielsen, J. A. (forthcoming). Co-opting Science: A preliminary study of how students invoke science in value-laden discussions. Forthcoming in International Journal of Science Education.
73. Okada, A., & Shum, S. B. (2008). Evidence-based Dialogue Maps as a research tool to investigate the quality of school pupils' scientific argumentation. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 291-315.
74. O'Keefe, D. (1977). Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13(3), 121-128.
75. Orsolini, M., & Pontecorvo, C. (1992). Children's talk in classroom discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 113-136.
76. Osborne, J. (2005). The role of argument in science education. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 367-380). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
77. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
78. Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
79. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
80. Pomerantz, A. M. (1984a). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
81. Pomerantz, A. M. (1984b). Giving a source or basis: the practice in conversation of telling 'how I know'. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 607-625.
82. Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3/4), 365.
83. Pontecorvo, C., & Pirchio, S. (2000). A developmental view on children's arguing: the need of the other. Human Development, 43(6), 361-363.
84. Primatarova-Miltscheva, A. (1987). Sequence with concessive, adversative, and restrictive sentences and clauses and the simulation of dialogical argumentation patterns in monological discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches (pp. 41-53). Dordrecht: Foris.
85. Ravenscroft, A., & Mcalister, S. (2008). Investigating and promoting educational argumentation: towards new digital practices. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 317-335.
86. Reed, C., & Rowe, G. (2005). Translating Toulmin diagrams: theory neutrality in argument representation. Argumentation, 19(3), 267-286.
87. Rees, M. V. (2009). Dissociation in argumentative discussions: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.
88. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: the effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488.
89. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004.
90. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.
91. Schlegoff, E. (1988). Presequences and indirection: applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 55-62.
92. Shea, N., Duncan, R. G., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Exploring Genetic Literacy: How Undergraduate Science Majors Reason About Authentic Genetic Dilemma. Paper presented at the annual meeting of NARST, April 3-6, Orlando, Fl.
93. Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17(2), 159-176.
94. Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin's argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 277-289.
95. Simon, S., & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5), 669-688.
96. Skoumios, M. (2008). The effect of sociocognitive conflict on students' dialogic argumentation about floating and sinking. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(3).
97. Smith, R. (1993). Aristotle on the uses of dialectic. Synthese: An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, 96(3), 335-358.
98. Smith, P. C. (1995). Towards a discursive logic: Gadamer and Toulmin on Inquiry and Argument. In L. K. Schmidt (Ed.), The specter of relativsm (pp. 159-177). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
99. Snoeck Henkemans, A. (1992). Analysing complex argumentation. The reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
100. Snoeck Henkemans, A. (1996). Indicators of independent and interdependent arguments: 'anyway' and 'even'. In J. van Benthem, F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, & F. Veltman (Eds.), Logic and argumentation (pp. 77-87). Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.
101. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
102. Trent, J. (1968). Toulmin's model of an argument: an examination and extension. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 54(3), 252-259.
103. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1982). The speech acts of arguing and convincing in externalized discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 6(1), 1-24.
104. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
105. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2007). The study of argumentation as normative pragmatics. Pragmatics: Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association, 15(1), 161-177.
106. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook of Argumentation theory: A critical survey of classical backgrounds and modern studies. Dordrecht: Foris.
107. van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.
108. Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin's scheme. Argumentation, 19, 47-71.
109. Walker, K., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410.
110. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates.
111. Walton, D. N. (1999). Profiles of dialogue for evaluating arguments from ignorance. Argumentation, 13, 53-71.
112. Walton, D. N. (2000). The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Synthese: An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, 123(3), 327-346.
113. Walton, D. N., & Godden, D. M. (2007). Informal logic and the dialectical approach to argument. In H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Reason reclaimed (pp. 3-17). Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
114. Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.
115. Wenzel, J. (1993). Rhetoric and argumentation: an introduction. Informal Logic, 15(1), 1-3.
116. Willard, C. (1976). On the utility of descriptive diagrams for the analysis and criticism of arguments. Communication Monographs, 43(4), 308-319.
117. Willard, C. (1989). A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
118. Wishart, J., Green, D., Joubert, M., & Triggs, P. (2011). Discussing ethical issues in school science: an investigation into the opportunities to practise and develop arguments offered by online and face-to-face discussions. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 1(1), 47-69.
119. Wohlrapp, H. (1987). Toulmin's theory and the dynamics of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation: perspectives and approaches (pp. 327-335). Dordrecht: Foris.
120. Wu, Y., & Tsai, C. (2007). High school students' informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187.
121. Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2006). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97-116). Dordrecht: Springer.
122. Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 245-268). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
123. 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.