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

Abstract

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.

Making a case for Cultural Historical Activity Theory: Examples of CHAT in practice

“…Yet CHAT remains a popular theory. In addition to the three projects presented here in recent years CHAT has underpinned research into mathematical modelling and science education (Chao et al, 2017;Erduran, 2018;Galleguillos & de Carvalho Borba, 2018;Hernandez-Martinez & Vos, 2018), and higher education (Englund, Olofsson, & Price, 2018;Kaatrakoski, Littlejohn, & Hood, 2017). It has been used to investigate mobile tool use (Paskevicius & Knaack, 2018) as well as English language teaching and learning (Montoro, 2016;Rind, 2016).…”

What initiates evidence‐based reasoning?: Situations that prompt students to support their design ideas and decisions

“…In terms of K‐12 education standards, engaging in argument from evidence is one of the eight scientific and engineering practices in NGSS (NRC, 2012; NGSS Lead States, 2013). This practice has been substantially used and researched in precollege science education settings (e.g., Berland & McNeill, 2010; Brown et al, 2010; Driver et al, 2000; Erduran, 2018; Erduran et al, 2004; Osborne et al, 2016), and it is often called scientific argumentation or argumentation (e.g., Driver et al, 2000) and less often evidence‐based reasoning (EBR; Brown et al, 2010; Llewellyn & Ullock, 2017; Sampson & Schleigh, 2013). Argumentation is essential to students' scientific discourse because it provides a framework for them to justify their claims with evidence and reasoning related to theories and laws of science (Abi‐El‐Mona & Abd‐El‐Khalick, 2006; Brown et al, 2010; Sampson et al, 2013).…”

Analisis Kemampuan Siswa Dalam Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions Materi Gerak Dan Gaya

“…Argumentasi merupakan objek dari kegiatan dan dapat didefinisikan sebagai keterampilan yang seharusnya dimiliki oleh siswa untuk mendukung klaim, membuat hubungan antara fakta yang mereka pelajari, dan mentransfer pencapaian pengetahuan ke dalam contoh kehidupan sehari-hari (Erduran, 2018). Ketika para ilmuwan mempertimbangkan interpretasi alternatif dari pengamatan yang sama, mereka berdebat untuk mengidentifikasi kelemahan beberapa penjelasan dan secara bertahap membangun sebuah laporan persetujuan (menggambarkan elemen dari berbagai sumber), sampai pada penjelasan yang paling sesuai dengan bukti (Krajcik & Merritt, 2012).…”