Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation from a Bayesian Perspective

Szu, Evan; Osborne, Jonathan

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_4

Cited by 13 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From this perspective, scientific reasoning is best seen as an inference to the best explanation. This means that the rhetorical task confronting the scientist is not solely one of convincing other scientists of why their scientific account is correct, but also one of convincing them of why alternative theoretical accounts are wrong (Szu & Osborne, 2011). Constructing knowledge then, is not so much a product of one conception being replaced by another (e.g.…”

Section: Five Arguments For Critiquementioning

confidence: 98%

Beyond Construction: Five arguments for the role and value of critique in learning science

Henderson

MacPherson

Osborne

et al. 2015

International Journal of Science Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Five Arguments For Critiquementioning

confidence: 98%

Beyond Construction: Five arguments for the role and value of critique in learning science

Henderson

MacPherson

Osborne

et al. 2015

International Journal of Science Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Critique is essential as human reasoning is fundamentally probabilistic (Oaksford & Chater, 2007). Judgments about what to believe are essentially decisions made about the relative probabilities between competing arguments (Szu & Osborne, 2011), where knowing why the wrong answer is wrong is as important as knowing why the right answer is right.…”

Section: Conceptual Framework and Related Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of a Practice-Based Professional Development Program on Elementary Teachers’ Facilitation of and Student Engagement With Scientific Argumentation

Osborne¹,

Borko²,

Fishman

et al. 2019

American Educational Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports an investigation of a professional development program to enhance elementary teachers’ ability to engage their students in argument from evidence in science. Using a quasi-experimental approach, three versions were compared: Version A—a 1-week summer institute with a 2-week summer practicum experience and 8 follow-up days (four per year), Version B without the practicum experience, and Version C—a revision of Version A in Year 3. All teachers were videoed twice each year, and the videos were rated using an instrument to measure the quality of discourse. All versions led to a significant improvement in teachers’ facilitation of classroom discourse. Neither the practicum nor the revised program had an additional effect. Implications for the field are discussed.

show abstract

“…Confronted with the uncertainty caused by the need to resolve two conflicting ideas, students like all humans resort to reasoning which is fundamentally probabilistic. Innovative descriptions of this process have been developed by using Bayesian models of human reasoning (Howson & Urbach, 2006; Oaksford & Chater, 2007) where knowledge construction is perceived as a dialectic requiring the evaluation of competing alternatives (Szu & Osborne, 2011). As such, the process of knowledge construction can be seen as being dependent on learning to argue (Billig, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports the outcomes of a project in which teachers' sought to develop their ability to use instructional practices associated with argumentation in the teaching of science-in particular, the use of more dialogic approach based on small group work and the consideration of ideas, evidence, and argument. The project worked with four secondary school science departments over 2 years with the aim of developing a more dialogic approach to the teaching of science as a common instructional practice within the school. To achieve this goal, two lead teachers in each school worked to improve the use of argumentation as an instructional practice by embedding activities in the school science curriculum and to develop their colleague's expertise across the curriculum for 11-to 16-yearold students. This research sought to identify: (a) whether such an approach using minimal support and professional development could lead to measurable difference in student outcomes, and (b) what changes in teachers' practice were achieved (reported elsewhere). To assess the effects on student learning and engagement, data were collected of students' conceptual understanding, reasoning, and attitudes toward science from both the experimental schools and a comparison sample using a set of standard instruments. Results show that few significant changes were found in students compared to the comparison sample. In this article, we report the findings and discuss what we argue are salient implications for teacher professional development and teacher learning. ß 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 50: 2013

show abstract

Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation from a Bayesian Perspective

Cited by 13 publications

References 33 publications

Beyond Construction: Five arguments for the role and value of critique in learning science

Beyond Construction: Five arguments for the role and value of critique in learning science

Impacts of a Practice-Based Professional Development Program on Elementary Teachers’ Facilitation of and Student Engagement With Scientific Argumentation

Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About