Understanding and practice of argumentation: A pilot study with Mainland Chinese pre-service teachers in secondary science classrooms

Understanding argumentation in science education

Argumentation is not a new word to the public and it is also widely used in our daily life. It has long been discussed in philosophy. In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Blackburn, 2005), argument is defined as follows, “considerations designed to support a conclusion. An argument is either the process of doing this ... or the product...the pattern of inference and the conclusion reached...Logic is the study of valid and invalid forms of argument”² . Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004) defined argumentation as “a verbal, social and rational activity at convincing a reasonable critic of the acceptability of a standpoint... (see p.1).” In this definition, standpoint is addressed as a significant part of argumentation. From the description above, we can identify some specific characteristics of argumentation. Firstly, it is a kind of verbal expression which is used when the individual standpoint is not accepted by others. Secondly, in order to persuade others, logic is necessary in argumentation. In general, the logic is built based on an acceptable connection between the claim and data. Thirdly, the process of constructing logic in argumentation implies an internal thinking process, and the external expression makes the thinking visible (Kuhn, 1993).

Differing from every-day argumentation, scientific argumentation not only possesses the characteristics mentioned above, but also places more stress on rational thinking. In other words, the connection between claims and data should be built based on rational thinking. It is widely accepted that argumentation consists of scientists’ rational thinking processes, and scientific argumentative expression makes this thinking visible (Kuhn, 1993). The concern of argumentation in science education is influenced by its role in science.

In the past, argumentation was viewed as the language of science (Driver et al., 2000) and as a core epistemic practice in science (Brick & Bell, 2008). It is widely accepted that argumentation plays a central role in scientific practice (Brick & Bell, 2008; Driver et al., 2000; Kuhn, 1993). Any scientific theories are developed based on full arguments. In order to make conclusions acceptable, scientists should also construct argumentation very carefully, starting from the research design. Despite its importance, argumentation has not received due attention in science education in the past. However, with the movement of research studies on argumentation, its role in science education has been discussed (e.g., Clark & Sampson, 2007; Driver & Newton, 2000; Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004; Lawson, 2003; Maloney & Simon, 2006; Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004). It is widely accepted that argumentation plays a central role in scientists’ work (Brick & Bell, 2008; Driver et al., 2000; Kuhn, 1993) and thus it should also be an essential goal of science education (McNeill & Pimentel, 2010).

Difference between argumentative and traditional science classrooms

Argumentation is a kind of verbal expression. To implement argumentation in science education means to change the discussion pattern in traditional science classrooms. As is well known, in traditional science classrooms the discussion is always led by the teacher. The teacher initiates questions, students respond or reply to the questions, and then the teacher evaluates the students’ answers (McNeill & Pimentel, 2010; Mehan 1979). This has been named the IRE pattern. To search for the right answer is the main objective in this kind of science classroom. In order to help students get the correct answer, most questions in the IRE pattern are closed questions and students just need to reply using low-level recall, short utterance responses (McNeill & Pimentel, 2010). In such classrooms, the science teacher is recognized as the sole authority who determines the direction of the discussion. Students are not central to the lesson. Compared to this traditional IRE pattern, many differences can be found in argumentative classrooms.

First of all, to acquire scientific knowledge is not the single objective in argumentative classrooms. As argumentation has been recognized as a core scientific practice, by experiencing argumentation in science classrooms students not only deepen their scientific knowledge understanding but also develop understanding of the nature of science and develop the skills related to argumentation. Secondly, the question types given by teachers are different. In argumentative classrooms, more open-ended questions are raised with the aim of stimulating students’ argumentation (McNeill & Pimentel, 2010). Open questions have been regarded as crucial to the occurrence of argumentation in science classrooms (Osborne et al., 2004). Thirdly, in argumentative classrooms, the discussion pattern is changed in that the discussion may be initiated by the students themselves, and they have more opportunities to voice their opinions. Different answers and conflicts are welcome in the classroom discussion (Simon, Erduran, & Osborn, 2006). In conclusion, in argumentative classrooms, students have more opportunities to compose argumentation and they play a more central role in science learning.

The science teacher has been regarded as crucial to the implementation of argumentation in the science classroom (Martin & Hand, 2009). Since there are so many differences between traditional IRE and argumentative classrooms, to implement argumentation in science learning, the science teacher should acquire sufficient understandings and skills.

Teachers’ role in promoting argumentation in the science classroom

“Effective teaching requires prior understanding” (Lawson, 2002, p237). There are many factors which affect science teachers’ instructional practice of argumentation. Science teachers’ abilities of argumentation have been identified as one of these factors (Lawson, 2002). However, past studies have indicated that science teachers’ performance of argumentation tends to be relatively limited. Lawson (2002) investigated 22 pre-service biology teachers’ argumentation performance by analyzing students’ laboratory reports, and found that when faced with unobservable evidence, pre-service teachers have relatively weak ability to compose hypothetico-predictive arguments. Since scientific argument is different from argument in daily life (Sampson & Gerbino, 2010), composing scientific argumentation is always a challenge to science teachers. Past studies have also indicated that science teachers even face difficulties providing evidence of the fundamental tenets of contemporary science (Durant, Evans, & Thomas, 1989; Erduran, Ardac, & Yakmaci-Guzel, 2006).

Science teachers’ pedagogical understandings are also significant in implementing argumentation. Zohar (2008) indicates that to improve argumentation, science teachers need to make a fundamental shift in their pedagogical understandings. Science teachers’ pedagogical understanding of science education objectives is one of the important factors influencing their teaching practice. However, “the ability to develop argument is a goal not usually set in science classrooms”（Jiménez-Aleixandre, Rodríguez, & Duschl, 2000, p781). In addition, to implement argumentation, the role of science teachers should also change from being the centre of the classroom to being the facilitator of students’ learning. Science teachers’ understanding should also develop in this respect.

²Retrieved on 2nd May 2011 from the web of online Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?entry=t98.e239&srn=1&ssid=330499839#FIRSTHIT