Social Aspects of Argumentation

Kolstø, Stein Dankert; Ratcliffe, Mary

doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_6

Cited by 30 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with this pattern, we also saw that, when students had inconsistent claims, the disagreement was often unstated in Ms. B's class, and episodes were concluded with neutral statements, whereas in Mr. S.'s class disagreements were explicit and these episodes were concluded when the teacher terminated the discussion and initiated a new topic. Moreover, classes in related studies (i.e., Cavagnetto et al, 2010; Kolstø & Ratcliffe, 2008; Mercer, 2000; B. Schwarz, Neuman, Gil, & Ilya, 2003; von Aufschnaiter et al, 2008) reveal similar discourse patterns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…By its nature, scientific argumentation is a social practice in which members of a community make sense of the phenomena under study proffering, evaluating, critiquing, challenging, and revising claims through discourse. Kolstø and Ratcliffe (2008) highlight the social nature of this process stating that, during scientific argumentation, “… consensual conclusions on facts, models and theories in science will be backed by arguments produced by several contributors, and based on the judgment of a scientific community as a whole” (p. 119). Thus, we see argumentation as entailing three overlapping goals: making sense of the phenomenon under study (i.e., constructing claims and explanations), articulating those understandings (presenting arguments), and persuading others of their ideas (critiquing and evaluating counterideas while defending their own) (Berland & Reiser, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, in a classroom, a teacher may emphasize the goal of persuasion over the goal of sensemaking, or vice versa, in his or her support of the students. Similarly, Kolstø and Ratcliffe (2008) suggested that the participants' interpretation of the argumentative task (as a competitive discussion that individuals attempt to win by persuading others versus an opportunity to make sense of complex data) influences the type of information that individuals contribute to support their claims and the ways that they evaluate the claims of others.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific argumentation is increasingly seen as a key inquiry practice for students in science classrooms. This is a complex practice that entails three overlapping, instructional goals: Participants articulate their understandings and work to persuade others of those understandings in order to make sense of the phenomenon under study (L. K. Berland & B. J. Reiser, 2009). This study examines the argumentative discussions that emerged in two middle school science classrooms to explore variation in how the goals of sensemaking and persuasion were taken up. Our analyses reveals that each classroom engaged with these two goals but that they did so quite differently. These differences suggest that the students in each class had overlapping but different interpretations of argumentation. In addition, comparing across the class' arguments suggests these two goals of scientific argumentation may be in tension with one another.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the very role of the teacher, who uses evaluation instruments that exert a certain power over the students, does not allow the discussion between teachers and students to take place in conditions that are equally favorable to both sides. For instance, a limit for rational debate between teachers and students follows from the fact that teachers will often be unwilling to give up their position (Kolsto and Ratcliffe 2008;Zemplén 2011). This makes the asymmetry between students and teachers in the didactic situation quite clear.…”

Section: Belief Change and The Primary Goals Of Science Teachingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge, Belief, and Science Education

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article intends to show that the defense of ''understanding'' as one of the major goals of science education can be grounded on an anti-reductionist perspective on testimony as a source of knowledge. To do so, we critically revisit the discussion between Harvey Siegel and Alvin Goldman about the goals of science education, especially where it involves arguments based on the epistemology of testimony. Subsequently, we come back to a discussion between Charbel N. El-Hani and Eduardo Mortimer, on the one hand, and Michael Hoffmann, on the other, striving to strengthen the claim that rather than students' belief change, understanding should have epistemic priority as a goal of science education. Based on these two lines of discussion, we conclude that the reliance on testimony as a source of knowledge is necessary to the development of a more large and comprehensive scientific understanding by science students.

show abstract

“…They also lack a deep understanding of language choices, like nominalization, that would underpin the strength of their case. In sum, research in science education indicates that students have difficulties utilizing the methods, skills and language choices most valued by scientists to construct scientific arguments (Mason & Santi, 1994;Jimenez-Aleixandre et al, 1998;Patronis & Spiliotopoulou, 1999;Kolsto & Ratcliffe, 2008).…”

Section: Knowledge Representations and Complex Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Science in Writing: Learning Scientific Argument in Principle and Practice

Cope

Kalantzis

Abd‐El‐Khalick

et al. 2013

E-Learning and Digital Media

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the processes of writing in science and in particular the 'complex performance' of writing a scientific argument. The article explores in general terms the nature of scientific argumentation in which the author-scientist makes claims, provides evidence to support these claims, and develops chains of scientific reasoning to coordinate claims and evidence. The article then describes a case in which two classes of Grade 8 students in a New York City school wrote scientific arguments in a web-writing and peer review environment that provides each writer with 'as-you-go' formative assessment on the constitutive elements of their arguments.

show abstract

Social Aspects of Argumentation

Cited by 30 publications

References 21 publications

Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation

Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation

Knowledge, Belief, and Science Education

Science in Writing: Learning Scientific Argument in Principle and Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About