The goal of this article is threefold: First, the theoretical background for a model-based framework of argumentation to describe and evaluate argumentative processes in science education is presented. Based on the general model-based perspective in cognitive science and the philosophy of science, it is proposed to understand arguments as reasons for the appropriateness of a theoretical model which explains a certain phenomenon. Argumentation is considered to be the process of the critical evaluation of such a model if necessary in relation to alternative models. Secondly, some methodological details are exemplified for the use of a model-based analysis in the concrete classroom context. Third, the application of the approach in comparison with other analytical models will be presented to demonstrate the explicatory power and depth of the model-based perspective. Primarily, the framework of Toulmin to structurally analyse arguments is contrasted with the approach presented here. It will be demonstrated how common methodological and theoretical problems in the context of Toulmin's framework can be overcome through a model-based perspective. Additionally, a second more complex argumentative sequence will also be analysed according to the invented analytical scheme to give a broader impression of its potential in practical use.

No abstract

Based on the indeterminate character of the sustainability concept, a procedural and discursive understanding of sustainability decision making and corresponding approaches for education for sustainability (EFS) is proposed. A set of criteria for teaching strategies to promote sustainability decision making, taking into account the demands of deliberative democracy theory, are presented. These criteria (such as reason, complexity management, critical thinking, etc.) are used to argue for an educational approach that involves the development, justification, and weighting of arguments in combination with an instructional tool called Target-Mat. According to a consequent process orientation, structures for arguing or defining sustainability are not given as authorized standards. Suggestions from previous social discourse are only introduced as controversial pairings-for example, different definitions of sustainability. Examples of student decision-making processes are given to demonstrate the potential of the approach to encourage student reflection and cooperative negotiation that engenders a successive deepening of their argumentation. strengthen the general critical reflection of the process. This only takes place when diverse viewpoints of different interest groups (or representatives of such groups) are included in the process. Therefore, deliberation concerns values of participants, but as it is not always clear which concrete interests or arguments are connected to abstract values, these have to be made concrete during deliberation in order to make interests and arguments available for negotiation.Referring to Cohen [33], Chappell summarizes key features as background conditions for deliberative democracy, such as the process relying on a free and independent association for deliberation of equals, no necessary commitment to any belief structure, a transparent relation between the process and the outcome, and the recognition of participants as legitimate deliberators.Having given these conditions as the basis for deliberation, the procedure itself is characterized by the following aspects [37] (p. 25):"Freedom. Members of a deliberative democracy are bound only by the results of their own deliberation, and the fact that decisions are arrived at through deliberation is a sufficient reason to comply with them.Reason. The results of deliberation depend only on the reasons members of the group present for making, defending or opposing a proposal.Equality. Members of a deliberative democracy are both formally and substantively equal.Consensus. The aim of ideal deliberation is to arrive at a consensus. In the absence of a consensus, decisions may be made through voting".