Dialectical Features of Students’ Argumentation: A Critical Review of Argumentation Studies in Science Education

Abstract

This paper explores the challenges of using the Toulmin model to analyze students' dialogical argumentation. The paper presents a theoretical exposition of what is involved in an empirical study of real dialogic argumentation. Dialogic argumentation embodies dialectical features -i.e. the features that are operative when students collaboratively manage disagreement by providing arguments and engaging critically with the arguments provided by others. The paper argues that while dialectical features cannot readily be understood from a Toulminian perspective, it appears that an investigation of them is a prerequisite for conducting Toulminian analysis. This claim is substantiated by a detailed review of five of the ten most significant papers on students' argumentation in science education. This leads to the surprising notion that empirical studies in the argumentation strand -even those studies that have employed non-dialectical frameworks such as the Toulmin model -have implicitly struggled to come to terms with the dialectical features of students' discourse. The paper finally explores how some scholars have worked to attend directly to these dialectical features; and it presents five key issues that need to be addressed in a continued scholarly discussion.

The role of socioscientific issues in biology teaching: from the perspective of teachers

“…the reduction without notable remainder of socioscientific teaching activities to activities that revolve around biological content) to the tendency of science education researchers to reduce the analysis or appraisal of socioscientific argumentative discourse to a matter of the presence and quality of science factual content (for an overview see Nielsen, 2013aNielsen, , 2013b. Indeed, it seems that the widespread focus among researchers and teachers on factual science content is woven so tightly into the fabric of science education that it effectively precludes a concerted effort to implement fullfledged socioscientific teaching.…”

“…In order to preserve the dialectical context (Nielsen, 2013a) the transcripts of the interviews explicated all talk-turns and interjections in the recordings.…”

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

“…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). The authors continue that As a result, analyzing with TAP schemes and any analytical models for high-level writing skills might not sufficiently explain how children learn to evaluate evidence, persuade and are convinced by others, and reach conclusions when their ideas are challenged in the classroom, especially younger children in elementary schools.…”

Objects prompt authentic scientific activities among learners in a museum programme

“…It was necessary to make special note of instances of dialectical reasoning, in which arguments and activities were executed in several turns, interspersed between other events (cf. Nielsen, 2013). In other words, constructing the participant praxeologies sometimes entailed piecing together activities, gestures and verbal exchanges that were temporally detached from one another, yet in essence contiguous.…”