Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms

“The main point we wish to make is that, if we intend to show the socially constructed nature of scientific knowledge, we must give a much higher priority than is currently the case to discursive practices in general and to argument in particular.”

Reasons why argumentation is needed in science classrooms: Students need to be able to evaluate arguments in a democratic society Argumentation can promote conceptual understanding Argumentation needs to be used to elucidate the purposes of investigative work. Can help students understand the epistemology of science Helps students see science as a social practice Important for development of scientific literacy

Evidence from the field:

• survey of schools in London area shows limited opportunities for argumentation in science classrooms
• teachers indicate they have limited support in conducting discussions

Interventions need to focus on enhancing argumentation in students AND enhancing teachers’ abilities to manage class discussions and argument.

Argumentation practices:

• assessing alternatives,
• weighing evidence,
• interpreting texts,
• evaluating the potential viability of scientific claims

are all seen as essential components in constructing scientific arguments (Latour & Woolgar, 1986).

Also:

• appropriateness of an experimental design
• the interpretation of evidence in the light of alternative theories

(Druker, Chen, & Kelly, 1996)

"Rather than portraying empirical work as constituting the basic procedural steps of scientific practice (the “scientific method”), it should be valued for the role it plays in providing evidence for knowledge claims." - 289

The positivist fallacy: "The “positivist” view of science, placing as it does emphasis on factual recall with confirmatory experiments, denies the role of the historical and social accounts of science, presenting science as a linear succession of successful discoveries. Applications of science, and their social implications, are simply limited to illustrations of the “use” to which scientific knowledge can be put." - 289

What positivism ignores:

The closed manner in which practical activities are often framed underplays, or even ignores, the importance of the thinking that needs to go into the planning of those activities;

What is the question that is being addressed in the experiment?

How might that question be answered empirically?

What alternative methods could be used and how might one select between them?

Similarly, the thought that is necessary in the interpretation of results,

What trust can we place in these data?

How might these data be interpreted?

Are there different possible interpretations (Atkinson & Delamont, 1977)?

Norris (1997), with whom we would concur, goes further, arguing that:

"To ask of other human beings that they accept and memorize what the science teacher says, without any concern for the meaning and justification of what is said, is to treat those human beings with disrespect and is to show insufficient care for their welfare. It treats them with a disrespect, because students exist on a moral par with their teachers, and therefore have a right to expect from their teachers reasons for what the teachers wish them to believe. It shows insufficient care for the welfare of students, because possessing beliefs that one is unable to justify is poor currency when one needs beliefs that can reliably guide action." (p. 252)

We are persuaded to view the practice of argument by pupils in groups as an important mechanism for scaffolding the construction of argument by pupils individually.

Toulmin:

● Data: these are the facts that those involved in the argument appeal to in support of their claim. ● Claim: this is the conclusion whose merits are to be established. ● Warrants: these are the reasons (rules, principles, etc.) that are proposed to justify the connections between the data and the knowledge claim, or conclusion. ● Backing: these are basic assumptions, usually taken to be commonly agreed that provide the justification for particular warrants.

Based on this model, the basic structure of argument as represented in sentences is thus: because (data) . . . since (warrant) . . . on account of (backing) . . . therefore (conclusion).

● Qualifiers: these specify the conditions under which the claim can be taken as true; they represent limitations on the claim. ● Rebuttals: these specify the conditions when the claim will not be true.

Blair and Johnson (1987):

• “relevance” (is there an adequate relationship between the contents of the premises and the conclusion?);
• “sufficiency” (does the premise provide enough evidence for the conclusion?);
• “acceptability” (are the premises true, probable, or reliable?)

"Observation and experiment are not the bedrock on which science is built, but rather they are the handmaidens to the rational activity of generating arguments in support of knowledge claims." - 297

...it is our view that conceptual change is dependent on the opportunity to socially construct, and reconstruct, one’s own personal knowledge through a process of dialogic argument.

plural interpretations of phenomena:

Kuhn (1992) argued: Only by considering alternatives—by seeking to identify what is not—can one begin to achieve any certainty about what is. (p. 64)