Argumentation in School Science: Breaking the Tradition of Authoritative Exposition Through a Pedagogy that Promotes Discussion and Reasoning

Simon, Shirley; Richardson, Katherine

doi:10.1007/s10503-009-9164-9

Cited by 37 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Simon ve Richardson (2009) argümantasyon sürecine uygun içeriklerle düzenlenmiş ve buna uygun materyallerle desteklenen argümantasyon ortamlarının öğrencilerin argüman düzeylerine etkisini incelemiştir. Literatür taraması yöntemi ile yürütülen çalışma sonucunda, geleneksel öğretim yöntemleri yerine küçük grup tartışmalarının yer aldığı, öğrencilerin gerçekleştirebilecekleri, seviyelerine uygun ve ilgilerini çekecek içeriklere dayandırılarak tasarlanmış argümantasyon etkinliklerinin öğrencileri argümantasyon sürecine katılmaya teşvik ettiği ve bu ortamlarda öğrencilerin daha kaliteli argümanlar ürettiklerini ifade etmiştir.…”

Section: Sonuç Tartışma Ve öNerilerunclassified

“…Yapılan bu çalışma ve benzer çalışmalar (Patronis vd., 1999;Nussbaum, 2002;Simon ve Richardson, 2009) argümantasyon sürecinde öğrencilerin ilgisini çekecek gerçek yaşam problemlerinin kullanılmasının öğrencileri argümantasyon sürecine dahil olma konusunda daha fazla motive ettiği ve öğrencilerin bu konularda daha kaliteli argümanlar oluşturduklarını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu açıdan argümantasyon yönteminin kullanımı artırmak ve öğrencilerin sürece aktif katılmalarını sağlamak için, hazırlanacak olan sosyal bilgiler öğretim programlarında gerçek yaşam problemlerine, güncel ve öğrencilerin ilgisini çekecek konulara daha fazla yer verilmesi önerilmektedir.…”

Section: Sonuç Tartışma Ve öNerilerunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determination of Students' Argument Levels in Argumentation-Based Social Studies Course

Torun

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Sonuç Tartışma Ve öNerilerunclassified

Determination of Students' Argument Levels in Argumentation-Based Social Studies Course

Torun

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Internationally, science education has, in the last few decades, begun to emphasise the role of social interaction in learning and thinking processes and purports that higher thinking processes originate from socially mediated activities, particularly through the mediation of language (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007). As a move to a socially mediated discursive approach, there has been a growing emphasis on the roles of argumentation in science education (Driver et al, 2000;Duschl & Osborne, 2002;S. Simon & Richardson, 2009) and it has now been fairly well established that -understanding the norms of scientific argumentation can lead students to understand the epistemological bases of scientific practice‖ (S. Simon & Richardson, 2009, p. 470).…”

Section: Background Context 12mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In scientific argument, this strength is centred in disciplinary knowledge -that which is acceptable as knowledge within the discipline. Furthermore, the ability to challenge the argument is offered on an epistemic level, giving potential rise to challenge about what is acceptable evidence and reasoning within a discipline (S. Simon & Richardson, 2009).…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Simon and Richardson (2009) created training materials which focused on group work strategies; introduction, sustaining and concluding activities; evaluating arguments; modelling and counter-argument in order to enhance argumentative practices. They found that when teachers were supported with these theoretical perspectives and materials, and encouraged to develop their own practices, there was evidence of increased complexity in their argumentation, and provision of more extended arguments (with backings and rebuttals).…”

Section: Teacher Support and Skillingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Developing argumentation in mathematics: The role of evidence and context

Wells¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple potential benefits to the introduction of argumentation into classroom environments have been identified and documented, including the potential to extend teaching goals to emphasise cognitive and metacognitive processes, epistemic criteria and reasoning, as well as the enculturation of students into the practices and discourses of a subject. Argumentation structures and practices offer the means to focus students on the need for quality evidence, potentially encouraging students to focus deeply on mathematical content. Much of the work with argumentation that has already occurred in mathematics is associated with justification of procedural choices to arrive at a correct answer. By contrast, mathematical inquiry offers the opportunity for students to engage in ill-structured, ambiguous problems that have neither a defined solution path nor a single correct answer. Thus there is great potential for argumentation to be effective in inquirybased learning environments. However, very little research has focused on argumentation practices of students undertaking inquiry of this nature.The study presented is thus exploratory; designed to both develop deeper understanding of Inquiry-Based Argument practices and possibilities, and to identify how students' developing use of evidence in argumentation could be understood and supported.Specifically, the study sought to address the following research questions: A design research methodology approach was utilised, with iterative cycles of inquiry and argumentation implemented in a single inquiry classroom of Year 4-5 students (n=27, aged 8-10). These cycles introduced the role of evidence, the structure of argument, and evidence and argument quality, to a class environment that embraced a knowledge building culture (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1996). Berland and Reiser's (2009) Goals of Argument and McNeill and Martin's (2011)Conclusion-Evidence-Reasoning Framework were used to guide the instructional approach which was modified progressively to meet the developing needs of the students. 3Data were generated through videos of emerging classroom practices, interviews with students, student work artefacts, teaching notes, and observations over the course of ten months. A Grounded Theory Approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) was utilised for data analysis. The analysis identified several significant results of introducing Inquiry-Based Argument into the classroom:1. Introducing argument practices enabled the ‗visibilising' of student thinking, increasing opportunities to develop and utilise cognitive conflict.2. An increased focus by students on the need for quality evidence enables them to be able to put forth and negotiate arguments.In turn, these factors appear to enable students to:1. Develop complex appreciation for argument structure, progressing from intuitive responses to development of qualified arguments.2. Demonstrate understanding and appreciation of the critical role of evidence and evidence quality in the development of deepened mathematical understanding...

show abstract

Acting with epistemic agency: Characterizing student critique during argumentation discussions

González‐Howard

McNeill

2020

Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The various types of interactions that students carry out when engaged in scientific argumentation function together to move forward developing ideas and support sensemaking. As such, incorporating argumentation in classroom instruction holds promise for supporting students in developing and acting with an epistemic agency, being positioned, and taking up, opportunities to inform their classroom community's knowledge construction work. To foster science classrooms in which students take on active roles, argue to learn, and engage in authentic meaning-making, the field needs better understandings of how students are supported in developing, and acting with, epistemic agency. We contend that focusing on critique-specifically, examining circumstances where students partake in this type of exchange with peers when engaged in argumentation-is a productive starting point. In this study, we characterized manifestations of epistemic agency as captured through instances of student critique during argumentation discussions in three middle school classrooms. Specifically, we used social network analysis to illuminate interactional patterns related to critique, and discourse analysis to highlight language moves individuals carried out when student critique was observed. Our findings point to there being multiple, sometimes conflating, approaches to addressing tensions inherent to helping students develop and act with epistemic agency. Our findings also suggest we can learn from critiquing practices that all students bring and employ in the classroom. This latter point is especially important when desiring to create and foster equitable learning environments, where all students' ways of knowing and doing science are appreciated, recognized, and used to support sensemaking.

show abstract

Argumentation in School Science: Breaking the Tradition of Authoritative Exposition Through a Pedagogy that Promotes Discussion and Reasoning

Cited by 37 publications

References 42 publications

Determination of Students' Argument Levels in Argumentation-Based Social Studies Course

Determination of Students' Argument Levels in Argumentation-Based Social Studies Course

Developing argumentation in mathematics: The role of evidence and context

Acting with epistemic agency: Characterizing student critique during argumentation discussions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About