Kind, P. M., Kind, V., Hofstein, A., & Wilson, J. (2011). Peer argumentation in the school science laboratory – Exploring effects of task features. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2527–2558.
Helping learners to engage with argumentation is one key part of science education. Lab work is another. Combining the two, therefore, would seem sensible. This study examined the effect of three different lab-based tasks on the quality of any subsequent argumentation. It found that tasks providing explicit instructions to interrogate data and justify claims were the most productive.
Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473–498. doi:10.1002/sce.20278
In order to broaden the conceptualizations of argument in science education, Bricker and Bell draw from diverse fields: the sociology of science, the learning sciences, and cognitive science to help practitioners think of new ways to bring argumentation into learning spaces while expanding what counts as scientific argument.
Swanson, L. H., Bianchini, J. A., & & Lee, J. S. (2014). Engaging in argument and communicating information: A case study of English language learners and their science teacher in an urban high school. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 31–64. doi:10.1002/tea.21124
In this study, the researchers investigated opportunities and challenges English language learners (ELLs) faced while learning the scientific practices of argumentation and communication of findings (NGSS practices 7 and 8; NGSS Lead States, 2013). Specifically, they asked how the teacher engaged ELLs in argumentation and communication and how the ELLs actually used these practices.
Byrne, J., Ideland, M., Malmberg, C., & Grace, M. (2014). Climate change and everyday life: Repertoires children use to negotiate a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1491–1509. doi:10.1080/09500693.2014.891159
The premise underlying this paper by Byrne, Ideland, Malmberg, and Grace is that citizenship should not be regarded as a privilege — and responsibility — only of adulthood. Children, too, can be actively engaged as citizens. In their study, Byrne and colleagues examined the interpretive repertoires of children engaged in discussions about socioscientific issues. They found that the children used productive argumentation to negotiate complex issues and propose solutions.
Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2003). The use of argumentation in Haitian Creole science classrooms. Harvard Educational Review, 73(1), 73–93.
This article uses critical ethnography and analysis of student talk to refute claims that Haitian children are less than fully engaged in science classrooms. Josiane Hudicourt-Barnes provides examples from a bilingual science classroom to explain cultural differences in language and in students’ understanding of scientific argumentation. Hudicourt-Barnes posits that the Creole talk style of bay odyans is naturally scientific because it uses logic in argumentation. Ultimately, Hudicourt-Barnes proposes, cultural ways of thinking and speaking are good bases for science talk, particularly for argumentation.
Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94. doi:10.1002/tea.20446
The new standards posit that “scientific argumentation,” in which students use data to argue from evidence, is a key practice for student science learning. However, a mismatch in expectations about the purpose of classroom discussions can inhibit productive forms of argumentation. Berland and Hammer compare forms of class discussions to identify how best to support students’ engagement in argumentation.
Polman, J. L., & Gebre, E. H. (2015). Towards critical appraisal of infographics as scientific inscriptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(6), 868–893. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21225
As infographics and other visual forms of data become increasingly common, many educators wonder how to best integrate them into learning activities. Polman and Gebre interviewed 10 experts in science representation to understand common practices they used for selecting and interpreting infographics. The authors build on study results to generate guidelines for educators' use of infographics.
Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824.
Learning how to communicate and engage in scientific discourse has become a significant goal of science education. Argumentation, or the practice of persuasion using evidence, is identified as a core epistemic practice of science and this study aims to identify some of the essential characteristics and skills students need to engage in scientific argumentation. For ISE professionals teaching science communication, the description and outcomes of this study encompass goals and techniques that might be applied to their own programs.
Gottlieb, E., & Wineburg, S. (2012). Between veritas and communitas: Epistemic switching in the reading of academic and sacred history. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 84–129.
How do people make sense of conflicting beliefs? Although Gottlieb & Wineburg’s paper is about highly educated professionals reading history, informal science educators will recognize similar issues when working with people who hold beliefs incompatible with scientific ways of understanding the world. “Epistemic switching” was a way of considering criteria for truth, reliability, and validity according to one belief system or another. Rather than simply believing or excluding ideas as people who held to only one value system, the people with multiple, competing affiliations actually more deeply considered the meanings and reasons for claims – a key skill in scientific argumentation, too.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484.
In this study, researchers investigated the commonly held view that collaboration improves scientific argumentation. The study tested the perspective that in collaborative investigations individuals build off each others' ideas, taking advantage of different cognitive and monitoring resources in the group, in order to develop more compelling and accurate scientific arguments than they would have if they had been working alone. The study results showed a mix of outcomes for the students.