What Students’ Arguments Can Tell Us: Using Argumentation Schemes in Science Education

Macagno, Fabrizio; Konstantinidou, Aikaterini

doi:10.1007/s10503-012-9284-5

Cited by 37 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Walton's reasoning scheme is interpreted based on context, subjects, and topics (Nussbaum, 2011). Reasoning scheme such as correlation to cause and cause to effect are more often used in the context of science education than other discipline (Macagno & Konstantinidou, 2013). For example, in a study conducted by Nussbaum and Edwards (2011), found six reasoning schemes when students engaged in global warming issues.…”

Section: Assessing Collaborative Scientific Reasoning Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting Argumentative Practice in Socio-Scientific Issues through a Science Inquiry Activity

Nam

Chen

2017

EURASIA J MATH SCI T

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines how the use of a science inquiry activity in an environmental socioscientific issue (SSI) impacts pre-service teachers' argumentative practice in two ways: social negotiation and epistemic understanding of arguments. Twenty pre-service science teachers participated in this study as a part of their science methods class. Small group discussions, while participating in an SSI debate, before and after engaging in a science inquiry activity, were collected as a main data source. The data were analyzed by an analytic framework adapted from both Toulmin's (1958) model of argument structure and Walton's (1996) reasoning scheme. The results indicate that the use of a science inquiry activity during SSI debate not only affects the teachers' social negotiation patterns, but also enhances their epistemic understanding. This study suggests that incorporating a science inquiry practice into an SSI debate has the potential to improve students' disciplinary engagement and the quality of their argumentative practice.

show abstract

Section: Assessing Collaborative Scientific Reasoning Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting Argumentative Practice in Socio-Scientific Issues through a Science Inquiry Activity

Nam

Chen

2017

EURASIA J MATH SCI T

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rick has fair skin, red hair and freckles, and he sunbathed the whole day. Because of its form-focusing nature, this framework has been mainly used for assessing students' written arguments (Macagno & Konstantinidou, 2013;, but with various concerns and limitations (Rapanta et al, 2013;. Its application to classroom oral discourse is described by Erduran et al (2004), but it has never been extensively used for this latter purpose.…”

Section: Data (Premise) Claimmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Argumentation schemes theory The last framework underlying several approaches to the assessment of the quality of argumentative texts is argumentation schemes theory (Anthony & Kim, 2015;Macagno & Konstantinidou, 2013;Metaxas, Potari, & Zachariades, 2016;Nussbaum, 2003Nussbaum, , 2008). Walton's theory of argumentation schemes (Walton, 1995;Walton, Reed, & Macagno, 2008) is focused on the analysis and classification of Toulmin's warrants (Toulmin, Rieke, & Janik, 1984).…”

Section: Second-order Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Dimensions of Argumentative Texts and Their Assessment

Macagno

Rapanta

2019

Studia paedagogica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The definition and the assessment of the quality of argumentative texts has become an increasingly crucial issue in education, classroom discourse, and argumentation theory. The different methods developed and used in the literature are all characterized by specific perspectives that fail to capture the complexity of the subject matter, which remains ill-defined and not systematically investigated. This paper addresses this problem by building on the four main dimensions of argument quality resulting from the definition of argument and the literature in classroom discourse: dialogicity, accountability, relevance, and textuality (DART). We use and develop the insights from the literature in education and argumentation by integrating the frameworks that capture both the textual and the argumentative nature of argumentative texts. This theoretical background will be used to propose a method for translating the DART dimensions into specific and clear proxies and evaluation criteria.

show abstract

“…In reviewing Toulmin's framework, Kim and Roth (this issue) provide a series of criticisms to highlight why TAP is not suitable as a framework for their purposes of identifying social relational aspects of argumentation. For example, they cite that TAP (a) is linear and technical when adapted as a sole analytical framework in research (Macagno and Konstantinidou 2013); (b) presented difficulties in the ambiguity of coding schemes (Kelly and Takao 2002); (c) proved to be problematic for analyzing students' argumentation encountering difficulties in coding between data and warrants and warrants and backings (Erduran, Simon, Osborne 2004); (d) does not sufficiently explain the dynamics of epistemic and social criteria of argumentation (Nussbaum 2011). Simply coding students' argumentation with TAP schemes makes it a challenge to understand the criteria of claim acceptance or rejection, implicit premises and standpoints, and the dynamics of social interactions and presumption that are often present in argumentative discussions (Nielsen 2013).…”

Section: Critique Of Toulmin's Argument Pattern: Is It Justified?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Toulmin’s argument pattern as a “horizon of possibilities” in the study of argumentation in science education

Erduran

2018

Cult Stud of Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kim and Roth (this issue) purport to draw on the social-psychological theory of L. S. Vygotsky in order to investigate social relations in children's argumentation in science topics. The authors argue that the argumentation framework offered by Stephen Toulmin is limited in addressing social relations. The authors thus criticize Toulmin's Argument Pattern (TAP) as an analytical tool and propose to investigate the genesis of evidence-related practices (especially burden of proof) in second-and third-grade children by studying dialogical interactions. In this paper, I illustrate how Toulmin's framework can contribute to (a) the study of "social relations", and (b) provide an example utilizing a theoretical framework on social relations, namely Engeström's Activity Theory framework, and (c) describe how we have used the Activity Theory along with TAP in order to understand the development of argumentation in the practices of science educators. Overall, I will argue that TAP is not inherently incapable of addressing social relational aspects of argumentation in science education but rather that science education researchers can transform theoretical tools such as Toulmin's framework intended for other purposes for use in science education research.

show abstract

What Students’ Arguments Can Tell Us: Using Argumentation Schemes in Science Education

Abstract: The role of argumentation in science education has been stressed by a growing literature that emphasized the problem of constructing students' knowledge taking into account their previous beliefs

Cited by 37 publications

References 44 publications

Promoting Argumentative Practice in Socio-Scientific Issues through a Science Inquiry Activity

Promoting Argumentative Practice in Socio-Scientific Issues through a Science Inquiry Activity

The Dimensions of Argumentative Texts and Their Assessment

Toulmin’s argument pattern as a “horizon of possibilities” in the study of argumentation in science education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About