Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
The relationship between teaching and argumentation is becoming a crucial issue in the field of education and, in particular, science education. Teaching has been analyzed as a dialogue aimed at persuading the interlocutors, introducing a conceptual change that needs to be grounded on the audience’s background knowledge. This paper addresses this issue from a perspective of argumentation studies. Our claim is that argumentation schemes, namely abstract patterns of argument, can be an instrument for reconstructing the tacit premises in students’ argumentative reasoning and retrieving the background beliefs that are the basis of their arguments. On this perspective, the process of premise reconstruction is followed by a heuristic reasoning process aimed at discovering the students’ previous intuitions that can explain the premises and concepts that are left unexpressed in their arguments. The theoretical insights advanced in this paper are illustrated through selected examples taken from activities concerning predictive claims on scientific issues.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Baker, M.J. 2003. Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, ed. J. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D. Suthers, 47–78. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bell, P., and M.C. Linn. 2000. Scientific arguments as learning artefacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education 22(8): 797–817. CrossRef
Braet, A. 1999. The enthymeme in Aristotle’s rhetoric: From argumentation theory to logic. Informal Logic 19(2, 3): 101–117.
Bransford, J., A. Brown, and R. Cocking (eds.). 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Carey, S. 2000. Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 21(1): 13–19. CrossRef
Castells, M., J. Enciso, J.M. Cerveró, P. López, and M. Cabellos. 2007. What can we learn from a study of argumentation in the students’ answers and group discussion to open physics’ problems? In Contributions from science education research, ed. A.R. Pintó and D. Couso, 417–431. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRef
Champagne, A.B., L.E. Klopfer, and J.H. Anderson. 1980. Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics 48: 1074–1079. CrossRef
Chi, M.T.H., and R.D. Roscoe. 2002. The process and challenges of conceptual change. In Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice, ed. M. Limon and L. Mason, 3–27. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRef
Driver, R., P. Newton, and J. Osborne. 2000. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education 84: 287–312. CrossRef
Duit, R. 1999. Conceptual change approaches in science education. In New perspectives on conceptual change, ed. W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, and M. Carretero, 263–282. Oxford: Pergamon.
Duschl, R. 2007. Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, ed. S. Erduran and M. Jiménez-Aleixandre, 159–175. Amsterdam: Springer. CrossRef
Duschl, R.A., K. Ellenboger and S. Erduran. 1999. Promoting argumentation in middle school science classrooms: A project SEPIA evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the national association for research in science teaching (March 28–31), Boston, MA.
Erduran, S., and M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (eds.). 2007. Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S., S. Simon, and J. Osborne. 2004. TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education 88(6): 915–933. CrossRef
Erduran, S., J. Osborne, and S. Simon. 2005. The role of argument in developing scientific literacy. In Research and the quality of science education, ed. K. Boersma, O. de Jong, H. Eijkelhof, and M. Goedhart, 381–394. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossRef
Finocchiaro, M. 2007. Arguments, meta-arguments, and metadialogues: A reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods. Argumentation 21(3): 253–268. CrossRef
Godden, D. 2010. The importance of belief in argumentation: Belief, commitment and the effective resolution of a difference of opinion. Synthese 172(3): 397–414. CrossRef
Groarke, L., and C. Tindale. 2004. Good reasoning matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guzzetti, B., T. Synder, G. Glass, and W. Gamas. 1993. Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly 28: 117–155. CrossRef
Hahn, U., and M. Oaksford. 2006. A normative theory of argument strength. Informal Logic 26(1): 1–24.
Hastings, A.C. 1963. A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Evanston, IL: Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University.
Hewson, P. 1992. Conceptual change in science teaching and teacher education. Paper presented at a meeting on “Research and Curriculum Development in Science Teaching,” National Center for Educational Research, Documentation, and Assessment, Ministry for Education and Science, Madrid, Spain.
Hitchcock, D. 2003. Toulmin’s warrants. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argument, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 69–82. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossRef
Jimenez-Aleizandre, M.P., A.B. Rodriguez, and R.A. Duschl. 2000. “Doing the lesson’ or “Doing science’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education 84(6): 757–792. CrossRef
Juthe, A. 2005. Argument by analogy. Argumentation 19:1–27.
Kelly, G.J., and C. Chen. 1999. The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36(8): 883–915. CrossRef
Kelly, G., and A. Takao. 2002. Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education 86: 314–342. CrossRef
Koballa, T. 1992. Persuasion and attitude change in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29(1): 63–80. CrossRef
Konstantinidou, A., J.M. Cerveró, and M. Castells. 2010. Argumentation and scientific reasoning: The “double hierarchy” argument. In Contemporary science education research: Scientific literacy and social aspects of science, ed. M.F. Taşar, and G. Çakmakcı, 61–70. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.
Krabbe, E.C.W. 2003. Metadialogues. In Proceedings of the fifth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 641–644. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Krabbe, E.C.W. 2007. On how to get beyond the opening stage. Argumentation 21(3): 233–242. CrossRef
Levi, D. 1995. The case of the missing premise. Informal Logic 17: 67–88.
Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2009. Argument from analogy in law, the classical tradition, and recent theories. Philosophy and Rhetoric 42(2): 154–182. CrossRef
Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2010. Defeasible classifications and inferences from definitions. Informal Logic 30: 34–61.
Martins, I., E. Mortimer, J. Osborne, C. Tsatsarelis, and M.P. Jiménez Aleixandre. 2001. Rhetoric and science education. In Research in science education—past, present, and future, ed. H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, A. Kross, and P. Reiska, 189–198. Amsterdam: Kluwer.
Mestre, J.P. 1994. Cognitive aspects of learning and teaching science. In Teacher enhancement for elementary and secondary science and mathematics: Status, issues, and problems, ed. S.J. Fitzsimmons, and L.C. Kerpelman, 31–53. Arlington: National Science Foundation.
Nussbaum, M. 2011. Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist 46(2): 84–106. CrossRef
Osborne, J. 2005. The role of argument in science education. Research and the Quality of Science Education 7: 367–380. CrossRef
Osborne, J., S. Erduran, and S. Simon. 2004. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(10): 994–1020. CrossRef
Pera, M., and W. Shea. 1991. Persuading science. Canton, MA: Science History Publications.
Posner, G., K. Strike, P. Hewson, and W. Gertzog. 1982. Accommodation of s scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education 66(2): 211–227. CrossRef
Rigotti, E. 1995. Verità e Persuasione. Il Nuovo Areopago 14(1): 3–14.
Roschelle, J. 1995. Learning in interactive environments: Prior knowledge and new experience. In Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda, ed. J.H. Falk and L.D. Dierking, 37–51. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
Sampson, V., and D. Clark. 2008. Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education 92(3): 447–472. CrossRef
Sandoval, W., and K. Millwood. 2005. The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction 23(1): 23–55. CrossRef
Schwarz, B., and R. De Groot. 2007. Argumentation in a changing world. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2: 297–313. CrossRef
Simon, S. 2008. Using toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research and Method in Education 31(3): 277–289. CrossRef
Simons, H., J. Morreale, and B. Gronbeck. 2001. Persuasion in society. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Songer, N., and Linn, M.C. 1991. How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28(9): 761–787.
Southerland, S., G. Sinatra, and M. Matthews. 2001. Belief, knowledge, and science education. Educational Psychology Review 13(4): 325–351. CrossRef
Sutton, C. 1996. The scientific model as a form of speech. In Research in science education in Europe, ed. G. Welford, J. Osborne, and P. Scott, 143–152. London: Falmer Press.
Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S., R. Rieke, and A. Janik. 1984. An introduction to reasoning, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.
van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Floris Publications. CrossRef
van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst and F. Snoek-Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F.H., K. van de Glopper, R. Grootendorst, and R. Oostdam. 1994. Student performance in identifying unexpressed premisses and argumentation schemes. Argumentation and Advocacy 31: 151–162.
van Rees, M.A. 2001. Argument interpretation and reconstruction. In Crucial concepts in argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, 165–199. Amsterdam: SicSat.
Walton, D. 1984. Logical dialogue-games and fallacies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.
Walton, D. 1995. A pragmatic theory of fallacy. Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press.
Walton, D. 2007. Media argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Walton, D. and F. Macagno. 2006. Argumentative reasoning patterns. In Proceedings of ECAI conference 2006. Riva del Garda, 28 August– 2 September 2006 (pp. 1–5). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Walton, D., and E. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- What Students’ Arguments Can Tell Us: Using Argumentation Schemes in Science Education
- Springer Netherlands
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta