The language of science is not exclusively the enunciation of terms and concepts, facts and laws, principles and hypotheses. The language of science is closely related to the restructuring character of scientific claims about method, goals, and explanations, a character firmly established in the history, philosophy and sociology of science (Duschl, 1994; Duschl & Hamilton, 1997; Hodson, 1985). Language of science is a discourse that critically examines and evaluates the numerous and at times iterative transformations of evidence into explanations (Duschl & Grandy, 2007). Thus, as this edited volume on argumentation demonstrates, educational researchers are focusing on ways to understanding the language of science and to support dialogic argumentation in science classrooms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [http://www.nap.edu]
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argument in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–313.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Duschl, R. A. (1996). Research on the history and philosophy of science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 443–465). Macmillan: New York.
Duschl, R. (2000). Making explicit the nature of science. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: Contributions from research (pp. 187–206). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4(1), 37–73.
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (Eds.) (2007). Establishing a consensus agenda for K-12 science inquiry. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Duschl, R. A., & Hamilton, R. J. (1997). Conceptual change in science and the learning of science. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1047–1065). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Argumentation and discourse processes in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.
Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999). Understanding dialogic argumentation among middle school science students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, April.
Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [http://www.nap.edu]
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TApping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.
Goldman, S., Duschl, R., Williams, S. Ellenbogen, K., & Tsou, C. (2002). Interaction and discourse processes during computer mediated communication. In H. Van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources from learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 53–91.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.) (2002) Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hodson, D. (1985). Philosophy of science, science and science education. Studies in Science Education, 12, 25–57.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodrigues, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314–342.
Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Crawford, T. (1998). Methodological considerations for studying science-in-the-making in educational settings. Research in Science Education, 28(1), 23–50.
Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81(5), 533–560.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument. Science Education, 77(3) 319–337.
Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-deductive argumentation with implications for science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1378–1408.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (Eds.) (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College London.
NAEP (2006). Science framework and specifications for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress, Washington, DC. [http://www.nagb.org]
National Research Council (1996). National standards for science education. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.
Osborne, J. Duschl, R., & Fairbrother, B. (2002). Breaking the mould? Teaching science for public understanding. London: The Nuffield Foundation.
Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what student know. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [http://www.nap.edu]
Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3&4), 365–395.
Rescher, N. (1976). Plausible reasoning: An introduction to the theory and practice of plausible inference. Aspen, CO: Van Gorcum.
Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Sandoval, W. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.
Sandoval, W., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition & Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.
Sandoval, W., & Reiser, B. (2004). Explanation driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2006). Assessment of argument in science education: A critical review of the literature. In Proceedings of International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2006, Bloomington, IN. (pp. 655–661).
Sawyer, R. (Ed.) (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation. Informal Logic, 17(2), 159–176.
Takao, A., & Kelly, G. (2003). Assessment of evidence in university students’ scientific writing. Science & Education, 12(4), 341–363.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3–118.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Duschl, R.A. (2007). Quality Argumentation and Epistemic Criteria. In: Erduran, S., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (eds) Argumentation in Science Education. Science & Technology Education Library, vol 35. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-6669-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-6670-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)