A Negotiation Cycle to Promote Argumentation in Science Classrooms

Chen, Ying-Chih; Steenhoek, Joshua

doi:10.2505/4/ss13_036_09_41

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Duschl and Osborne (2002) suggested that “Science as a way of knowing…involves the use of critical arguments and processes that are more akin to diplomatic negotiation than to conflict” (p. 54). Negotiation then, is a subset of argumentation, where students present a position, agree or disagree with each other by offering explanations and counter arguments, and reach conclusions through civil discourse and conversation (Chen & Steenhoek, 2013; Nussbaum, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiations in scientific argumentation: An interpersonal analysis

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argumentation enables students to engage in real world scientific practices by rationalizing claims grounded in supporting evidence. Student engagement in scientific argumentation activates the negotiation process by which students develop and defend evidence‐based claims. Little is known, however, on the intricate process and potential patterns of negotiation between students during scientific argumentation. The present study seeks to fill this gap by exploring how a group of university science education students negotiated when evaluating the relationship between lines of evidence and alternative explanatory models of a phenomena (i.e., climate change). This research, theoretically grounded in social constructionism, used Halliday's model of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) within a discourse analysis framework. The authors analyzed transcripts of student conversations during a model‐evidence link activity to gain insights into patterns of negotiation. An interpersonal analysis centering on mood and moves revealed students' ability to engage in the negotiation component of scientific argumentation to make assertions about relations between evidence and models. Effective collaboration resulting in group consensus of the relationship (categorized as supports, strongly supports, or contradicts) was facilitated by the use of interrogatives, modulation, and a balanced contribution between group members. Conversely, negotiation which did not reach consensus featured less balanced discussion among group members, contained more interruptions, more conflict moves, and double polarity clauses.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiations in scientific argumentation: An interpersonal analysis

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Those questions can scaffold students' thinking toward the main function of the digestive system to answer the driving question. We encourage teachers to provide students with multiple rounds of public negotiation to revise their arguments (Chen & Steenhoek, 2013). In our class, students did one more round of public negotiation.…”

Section: The American Biology Teacher Core Scientific Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arguing Like a Scientist

Chen

Steenhoek²

2014

The American Biology Teacher

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argumentation is now seen as a core practice for helping students engage with the construction and critique of scientific ideas and for making students scientifically literate. This article demonstrates a negotiation model to show how argumentation can be a vehicle to drive students to learn science’s big ideas. The model has six phases: creating a testable question, conducting an investigation cooperatively, constructing an argument in groups, negotiating arguments publicly, consulting the experts, and writing and reflecting individually. A fifth-grade classroom example from a unit on the human body serves as an example to portray how argumentation can be integrated into science classrooms.

show abstract