The Structure of Scientific Arguments by Secondary Science Teachers: Comparison of experimental and historical science topics

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 46-65

  Gray, Ron ^a,b   Kang, Nam Hwa ^a  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Nature of science

Indexed keywords

EID: 84889663045     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2012.715779     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701. doi: 10.1080/09500690050044044
2. Alexander, P.A., Fives, H., Buehl, M.M., & Mulhern, J. (2002). Teaching as persuasion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 795-813. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00044-6
3. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518-542. doi: 10.1002/sce.20432
4. Ault, C.R. (1998). Criteria of excellence for geological inquiry: The necessity of ambiguity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 189-212. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199802)35:2<189::AID-TEA8>3.0.CO;2-O
5. Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
6. Bell, R.L., Matkins, J.J., & Gansneder, B.M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers' understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 414-436. doi: 10.1002/tea.20402
7. Bond-Robinson, J., & Stucky, A.P. (2005). Grounding scientific inquiry and knowledge in situated cognition. Proceedings of the 27th annual cognitive science society, Stresa, Italy.
8. Brown, B. (2011). Ecology as historical science. Philosophy of Ecology, 11, 251-284. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-51673-2.50010-8
9. Buchwald, J.Z. (1995). Scientific practice, Chicago: University of Chicago press.
10. Carlsen, W.S. (1997). Never ask a question if you don't know the answer: The tension in teaching between modeling scientific argument and maintaining law and order. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32(2), 14-23.
11. Cartier, J.L., & Stewart, J.H. (2000). Teaching the nature of scientific inquiry: Further developments in a high school genetics curriculum. Science & Education, 9, 247-267. doi: 10.1023/A:1008779126718
12. Cleland, C.E. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69(3), 447-451. doi: 10.1086/342455
13. Collins, H. (1992). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice, Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
14. Department for Education England. (2007). The national curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum/secondary/b00198831/science
15. Diamond, J.M. (1997). Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
16. van Dijk, E.M. (2011). Portraying real life science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086-1100. doi: 10.1002/sce.20458
17. Dodick, J., Argamon, S., & Chase, P. (2009). Understanding scientific methodology in the historical and experimental sciences via language analysis. Science & Education, 18(8), 985-1004. doi: 10.1007/s11191-008-9146-6
18. Dodick, J., & Orion, N. (2003). Introducing evolution to non-biology majors via the fossil record: A case study from the Israeli high school system. The American Biology Teacher, 65(3), 185-190. doi: 10.1662/0002-7685(2003)065[0185:IETNMV]2.0.CO;2
19. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
20. Druker, S.L., Chen, C., & Kelly, G.J. (1996). Introducing content to the Toulmin model of argumentation via error analysis. Paper presented at NARST meeting, Chicago, IL.
21. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Duschl, R.A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72. doi: 10.1080/03057260208560187
23. Duschl, R.A., Schweingruber, H.A., & Shouse, A.W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
24. 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. doi: 10.1002/sce.20012
25. Erwin, D.H. (2011). A paleontological look at history. Cliodynamics, 2(1), 27-39.
26. Ford, M. (2008). 'Grasp of practice' as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17(2-3), 147-177. doi: 10.1007/s11191-006-9045-7
27. Galison, P., & Stump, D. (Eds.). (1996). The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power, Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
28. Giere, R.N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach, Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
29. Gould, S.J. (1986). Evolution and the triumph of homology, or why history matters. American Scientist, 74(1), 60-69.
30. Gray, R.E. (2009). Teacher argumentation in the secondary science classroom: Images of two modes of scientific inquiry (Doctoral dissertation). Oregon State University. Retrieved from http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/jspui/handle/1957/13559
31. Grootendorst, R., & van Eemeren, F.H. (2003). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach, New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Jeffares, B. (2009). Guessing the future of the past. Biology & Philosophy, 25(1), 125-142. doi: 10.1007/s10539-009-9155-0
33. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodriguez, A.B., & Duschl, R.A. (2000). 'Doing the lesson' or 'doing science': Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. doi: 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
34. Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2011). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/c27q2m7014451231/
35. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 1-48. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1
36. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
37. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39. Latour, B. (1988). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society, (pp. 287 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40. Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values, Westport, CT: Ablex.
41. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42. Lynch, M. (1987). Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shop talk in a research laboratory. Sociology of Health & Illness, 9(2), 219-220. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347044
43. Matthews, M.R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science, (pp. 287 London: Routledge.
44. Mayr, E. (1985). How biology differs from the physical sciences. In D.J. Depew, & B.H. Weber (Eds.). Evolution at a crossroads: The new biology and the new philosophy of science, (pp. 43-63). Cambridge: MIT Press.
45. McComas, W.F. (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies, (pp. 365 Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
46. Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
47. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
48. Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
49. Myers, N. (2008). Molecular embodiments and the body-work of modeling in protein crystallography. Social Studies of Science, 38(2), 163-199. doi: 10.1177/0306312707082969
50. National Research Council (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
51. Nersessian, N.J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. Cognitive Models of Science, 15, 3-44.
52. Nersessian, N. (2005). Interpreting scientific and engineering practices: Integrating the cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions. In M. Gorman, R.D. Tweney, D. Gooding, & A. Kincannon (Eds.), Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 17-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
53. Nersessian, N.J. (2009). How do engineering scientists think? Model-based simulation in biomedical engineering research laboratories. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(4), 730-757. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01032.x
54. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006, Paris: Author.
55. Osbeck, L.M., Nersessian, N.J., Malone, K.R., & Newstetter, W.C. (2010). Science as psychology: Sense-making and identity in science practice, New York: Cambridge University Press.
56. Osborne, J., Duschl, R.A., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., & Millar, R. (2003). What 'ideas-about-science' should be taught in school science? A delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720. doi: 10.1002/tea.10105
57. Osborne, J., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction?. Science Education, 95(4), 627-638. doi: 10.1002/sce.20438
58. Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185-204. doi: 10.1002/tea.10020
59. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
60. Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science, Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
61. Pickering, A. (1995a). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science, Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
62. Pickering, A. (1995b). Beyond constraint: The temporality of practice and the historicity of knowledge. In J.Z. Buchwald (Ed.), Scientific practice: Theories and stories of doing physics, (pp. 42-55). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
63. Popper, K.R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery, (pp. 479 New York: Basic Books.
64. Roth, W.M. (2009). Radical uncertainty in scientific discovery work. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 34(3), 313-336. doi: 10.1177/0162243907309627
65. Roth, W.M., & Bowen, G.M. (2001). Creative solutions' and 'fibbing results': Enculturation in field ecology. Social Studies of Science, 31(4), 533-556. doi: 10.1177/030631201031004003
66. Rouse, J. (1996). Engaging science: How to understand its practices philosophically, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
67. Rudolph, J.L. (2000). Reconsidering the'nature of science' as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403-419. doi: 10.1080/002202700182628
68. Rudolph, J.L. (2003). Portraying epistemology: School science in historical context. Science Education, 87(1), 64-79. doi: 10.1002/sce.1055
69. Rudolph, J.L., & Stewart, J. (1998). Evolution and the nature of science: On the historical discord and its implications for education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1069-1089. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199812)35:10<1069::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-A
70. Ruivenkamp, M., & Rip, A. (2010). Visualizing the invisible nanoscale study: Visualization practices in nanotechnology community of practice. Science Studies, 23(1), 3-36.
71. Russell, T.L. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: Can teachers' questions distort scientific authority?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(1), 27-45. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660200104
72. Sampson, V.D., & Clark, D.B. (2006). Assessment of argument in science education: A critical review of the literature. Social Work Education, 21(2), 655-661. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
73. 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. doi: 10.1002/sce.20421
74. Schumm, S.A. (1991). To interpret the earth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
75. Schwab, J.J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
76. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
77. Tobin, K.G., & McRobbie, C.J. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science. Science Education, 80(2), 223-241. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199604)80:2<223::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-I
78. Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The uses of argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
79. Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
80. Tucker, A. (2011). Historical science, over- and underdetermined: A study of Darwin's inference of origins. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62(4), 805-829. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axr012
81. Turner, D.D. (2007). Making prehistory: Historical science and the scientific realism debate, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.