Making sense of argumentation and explanation

Abstract

ABSTRACT:Constructing scientific explanations and participating in argumentative discourse are seen as essential practices of scientific inquiry (e.g., R. Driver, P. Newton, & J. Osborne, 2000). In this paper, we identify three goals of engaging in these related scientific practices: (1) sensemaking, (2) articulating, and (3) persuading. We propose using these goals to understand student engagement with these practices, and to design instructional interventions to support students. Thus, we use this framework as a lens to investigate the question: What successes and challenges do students face as they engage in the scientific practices of explanation and argumentation? We study this in the context of a curriculum that provides students and teachers with an instructional framework for constructing and defending scientific explanations. Through this analysis, we find that students consistently use evidence to make sense of phenomenon and articulate those understandings but they do not consistently attend to the third goal of persuading others of their understandings. Examining the third goal more closely reveals that persuading others of an understanding requires social interactions that are often inhibited by traditional classroom interactions. Thus, we conclude by proposing design strategies for addressing the social challenges inherent in the related scientific practices of explanation and argumentation.

Students’ Interaction and Its Relationship to Their Actions and Verbalized Knowledge during Chemistry Labwork

“…Therefore, it emerged that when the students participate (with regard to their verbalized knowledge and actions) similarly and the work is carried out collectively by all the members of the group, then they tend to formulate statements combining the used apparatus and materials with chemistry concepts. This link is both an essential objective of the labwork and a finding in line with research results which showed that the active and similar participation of the students in the discourse promotes dialogical argumentation and the construction of concepts by them (Berland & Reiser, 2009;Engle & Conant, 2002;Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004;Sampson, 2009).…”

In Pursuit of Consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation

“…Thus, we suggest that the students' various ways of legitimizing 6 one another's disparate ideas (in this case, making concessions and maintaining two competing ideas) enabled all students to be perceived as competent in their discussions. This sense of competency made it acceptable for the students to be wrong and revise their thinking even in the face of the typical school goal of demonstrating individual success (Johnson & Johnson, 1994), and the argumentative goal of being persuasive (Berland & Reiser, 2009). …”

“…Berland and Reiser (2009; depict scientific argumentation as the negotiation of two goals-sensemaking and persuasion. Or, as depicted by Ford (2008), argumentation requires two roles-knowledge constructor and knowledge critic.…”

“…In scientific argumentation, the argumentative interactions are done in service of building knowledge (Andriessen, 2007;Longino, 1990;Wegerif, 2007). That is, scientific argumentation is a dynamic social process in which ideas are tested and refined as individuals work to both persuade others of an idea and make sense of the available evidence and counter evidence (Berland & Reiser, 2009). As described by Ford (2008), this negotiation requires that individuals shift between the roles of knowledge critic and knowledge constructor.…”

Enhancing Pre-service Physics Teachers’ Perceived Self-efficacy of Argumentation-based Pedagogy through Modelling and Mastery Experiences

“…Clark & Sampson, 2006;Osborne, Erduran, Simon, 2004;Sandoval & Reiser, 2004) for teachers to teach science through argumentation. Supporters of argumentation in science classrooms maintain that the implementation of these curriculum materials or instructional strategies advocated in current science education literature requires knowledgeable teachers that understand the theoretical assumptions underpinning scientific argumentation, value argumentation-based teaching as a way to promote meaningful learning in their classrooms and hold practical knowledge and skills to teach science through argumentation (Berland & Reiser, 2009;Erduran, Ardac, Yakmaci-Guzel, 2006;Knight & McNeill, 2011;Kuhn, 2010;McNeill et al, 2006;McNeill, 2009;Osborne, Simon, Howell-Richardson, Christodoulou, 2010;Sampson, 2009). As Erduran et al (2006, p.3) state, "the execution of argumentation in real science classroom will demand more than rhetoric".…”