Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education

Bricker, Leah A.; Bell, Philip

doi:10.1002/sce.20278

Cited by 239 publications

(170 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

134

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In recent years, scientific argumentation has been increasingly recognised as an important practice to foster within science classrooms (e.g., Osborne, 2010) because it enables students to actively engage in sensemaking through processes that bear similarity to the practices of the scientific community (Bricker & Bell, 2008;Chin & Osborne, 2010;Duschl, 2000). The term "argumentation," is used to describe discursive processes in which individuals defend claims by providing evidence for their own ideas and challenging alternatives (Osborne & Patterson, in press).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Berland

Lee

2012

International Journal of Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, an emphasis on scientific argumentation in classrooms has brought focus collaborative consensus-building as an instructional strategy. In these situations, students with differing and competing arguments are asked to work with one another in order to establish a shared perspective. However, literature suggests that consensus-building can be challenging for students because their interpretations of the argumentative task and context may not enable their productive engagement with counter-arguments and evidence. Our goal in this paper is to explore the ways in which student interactions support or inhibit their consensus-building. To that end, we examine and describe three cases that represent different ways in which initially dissenting students try to work towards consensus with their peers. Through these cases, we demonstrate that peer legitimization of disparate or incorrect ideas is one vehicle that can enable students whose arguments rely on incorrect ideas feel that were heard by the rest of their group and have value. As such, we suggest that this legitimization is important because it can help students "save face". This enables students to move away from the competitive and persuasive aspects of argumentation and towards interactions that align more closely with sensemaking and consensus building. IN PURSUIT OF CONSENSUS 3

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Berland

Lee

2012

International Journal of Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Bricker and Bell (2009), argumentation is a core epistemic practice of science. Therefore, the goal of science education must not only be to master the scientific concepts rather learning how to engage in scientific discourse.…”

Section: Dialogical Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of the Importance of Peer Instruction Argumentative Strategy (PIAS) in Science Learning

Kola¹

2017

EDUPIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper believes the method a teacher employed in science class for instruction makes students' learning difficult. A literature review of some common methods of teaching in science was done. The paper highlighted the conceptual framework of the Peer Instruction Argumentative Strategy (PIAS) and discussed the importance of PIAS to science learning. The paper recommended PIAS for science education classes based on its perceived advantages over the other teaching strategies.

show abstract

“…According to Bricker and Bell (2009), argumentation is a core epistemic practice of science. Therefore, the goal of science education must not only be mastery of scientific concepts, but also learning how to engage in scientific discourse.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation of Incorporating Dialogical Argumentation into Peer Instruction (PI) for Pre-Service Teacher Learning of Current Electricity

Kola¹

2017

unibulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study is a quasi-experimental research employing the pretest-posttest design. 52 pre-service teachers from a college of education were sampled with 26 pre-service teachers in both the control group (CG) and experimental group (EG). The instruments used to collect data were Physics Achievement Test (PAT), Peer Instruction Dialogical Argumentation Questionnaire (PIDAQ), and Adopted Physics ConcepTest (APC) for teaching the experimental group. The instruments were validated by experts in science education and physics. The reliability of the PAT, based on a pilot test conducted, shows that the Cronbach's alpha coefficient is 0.876. The data obtained were analyzed using t-test, Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), and descriptive statistics. Findings revealed that the incorporation of DA into PI has an impact on the students' learning of current electricity. The study considered some implications of the findings on the teaching and learning of physics.

show abstract

Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education

Cited by 239 publications

References 37 publications

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

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

A Review of the Importance of Peer Instruction Argumentative Strategy (PIAS) in Science Learning

An Investigation of Incorporating Dialogical Argumentation into Peer Instruction (PI) for Pre-Service Teacher Learning of Current Electricity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About