Finding the place of argumentation in science education: Epistemics and Whole Science

Abstract

Argumentation constitutes an important element in nature of science education. However, its virtues and scope can be overstated. Here, we survey in detail the place of argumentation in science education. Our benchmark is the range of epistemic processes relevant to citizens and consumers as they assess the reliability of scientific claims in personal and public decision making. We consider multiple epistemic stages in the development (or ontogeny) of such claims: (a) observation and material investigation; (b) the crafting of concepts through individual cognition; (c) the checks and balances of the scientific community; (d) the challenges of credibility and expertise in a cultural context; and (e) the interpretation of “science in the wild,” where authentic scientific claims mingle with imitators and misinformation on the Internet and social media and in public discourse. We conclude that many conventional rationalist assumptions haunt current approaches to argumentation and limit its effectiveness, especially in the implicit goal of achieving intellectual independence for students as autonomous scientific agents. A more fruitful approach, from the perspective of functional scientific literacy, is a Whole Science perspective, which gives full expression to the spectrum of epistemic processes in science and science communication.

Promoting student interest in science: The impact of a science theatre project

“…While STEM researchers are more and more informed or sensitized about STEAM, predominant paradigms and practices of teaching STEM in schools present the disciplines as static, coherent, and linear, projecting it as a self-sustaining, selfreproducing cognitive process (Schulze Heuling, 2017). STEAM can provide a responsive pathway for education towards 'whole STEM learning' (Allchin & Zemplen, 2020) in which students experience themselves as 'science makers,' thus enabling them to engage with the complexity of STEM undertakings instead of discouraging potentially interested teenagers from developing an interest in STEM. Furthermore, with teaching towards STEAM rather than STEM, educators can provide an education to their students that fosters diverse and culturally responsive classrooms by enabling the co-creation of contextual knowledge such as aesthetical, emotional, biographical, embodied and practical knowledge in relation to STEM (Gedžune & Gedžune, 2011;Reif & Grant, 2010).…”

A Model Proposal to Address Relationships Between Epistemic Practices and Socioscientific Issues in Science Education

“…In other words, the students should learn how to analyse and appraise data, statements and arguments, in a variety of representations, and reach appropriate conclusions according to the epistemic domain that has been assessed (Alchin & Zéplem, 2020). This having been said, we stress the particularity of the process for evidence assessment within the context of the SSI as, these questions being of a social ilk, it is important that the students pay attention to cognitive trends motivated by ideologies, as in some cases the 'motivated reasoning' distorts the conscientious appraisal of arguments (Allchin & Zemplén, 2020), which can jeopardise the main goal of SSI, that of getting the students to take up conscientious and justifiable positions.…”

“…With regard to the public standards and forums that could be opportunised in approaches to teaching using SSI, the specificity lies in the fact that the criteria for the assessment of evidence and arguments of each line of reasoning that affects the issue shall have different perspectives. This occurs because, for example, the assessment of moral knowledge involved in SSI must follow the same criteria used for the appraisal of scientific knowledge (Allchin & Zemplén, 2020;Moshman & Tarricone, 2016), due to the fact that the former is based on normative principles that guide human actions, while the second is based on evidences (Nunes-Neto & Conrado, 2021).…”

Uma proposta de Modelo para Abordar Relações entre Práticas Epistêmicas e Questões Sociocientíficas no Ensino de Ciências

“…Quanto aos padrões públicos e fóruns que podem ser oportunizados em abordagem de ensino com QSC, a especificidade encontra-se no fato de que os critérios para avaliação de evidências e argumentos de cada linha de raciocínio que afeta a questão terão perspectivas distintas. Isso porque, por exemplo, avaliar o conhecimento moral envolvido na QSC não deve seguir os mesmos critérios utilizados para avaliar conhecimento científico (Allchin & Zemplén, 2020;Moshman & Tarricone, 2016), devido ao fato do primeiro se fundamentar em princípios normativos que guiam as ações humanas, enquanto o segundo se fundamenta em evidências (Nunes-Neto & Conrado, 2021).…”

“…Ou seja, os estudantes devem aprender a analisar e avaliar dados, afirmações e argumentos em uma variedade de representações e tirar conclusões apropriadas de acordo com o domínio epistêmico avaliado (Alchin & Zéplem, 2020). Dito isso, salientamos a particularidade do processo de avaliação de evidência no contexto das QSC, pois sendo essas questões de cunho social é importante que os estudantes estejam atentos as tendências cognitivas motivadas por ideologias, pois em alguns casos, o "raciocínio motivado" distorce a avaliação consciente dos argumentos (Allchin & Zemplén, 2020), e isso pode prejudicar o objetivo das QSC de que os estudantes tomem posicionamentos conscientes e justificados.…”