Argumentation in Science Education
11-13 March, 2009
Lecturer: Dr Sibel Erduran, University of Bristol, United Kingdom and
Stein Dankert Kolstø, University of Bergen, Norway
Organiser: Forskerskolen i realfagdidaktikk, Universitetet i Oslo
Registration: Please contact Vibeke Torgesen (ILS) to register for the course. Be
sure to write that you will be attending the Argumentation course given by the
doctoral school in science and math education.
v.t.torgersen@ils.uio.no
Responsible:
Professor Doris Jorde, Department of Teacher Education and School Development,
Faculty of Education
Researcher Camilla Schreiner, Norwegian Centre for Science Education and Faculty
of Mathematics and Natural Sciences
Dates: Wednesday March 11th to Friday March 13th, 2009
Room: To be announced. University of Oslo, Blindern Campus
Hours:
Wednesday 11 March 12.00 (lunch) – 17.00
Thursday 12 March 09.00 – 17.00
Friday 13 March
09.00 – 15.00
Subject:
The course will investigate the role of argumentation in science education. The
overall purpose is to provide a forum for discussions particularly with respect to:
1. Theoretical models on the conceptualisation of argument;
2. methodological frameworks including tools for analysis in the study of
argumentation;
3. educational research on the design of learning environments and professional
development programmes to promote argumentation in science education.
The Ph.D. course will use the newly edited book Argumentation in Science
Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research by Erduran and JimenezAleixandre (2008) to build on the rationale for promoting argumentation in science
teaching, learning and professional development. The sessions will cover some
fundamental issues including the cognitive, epistemological and methodological
aspects of argumentation as well as some applied themes such as the role of ICT,
socio-scientific issues and writing in the teaching and learning of argumentation.
Literature:
Over the past few decades, research literature in science education increasingly
focused on the role of argumentation in science education (Erduran & JimenezAleixandre, 2008). Numerous studies have highlighted the importance of discourse in
the acquisition of scientific knowledge and the development of habits of mind in
science. Contemporary science education literature has thus framed science learning
in terms of the appropriation of community practices that provide the structure,
motivation and modes of communication required to sustain scientific discourse.
Argumentation plays a central role in the building of explanations, models and
theories. Scientists use arguments to relate the evidence they select to the claims they
reach through use of warrants and backings. The PhD course will address the
theoretical and empirical aspects of research in argumentation in science education. It
will include an introduction to the literature in argumentation as well as engagement
of the participants in analysis of classroom data. The theoretical background will
contextualize the role of argumentation in scientific literacy and scientific inquiry. It
will also highlight a review of the professional development programs to promote
argumentation in teacher education including the use of videos of exemplary teaching.
Participants will be engaged in the analysis of argumentation discourse in the context
of whole class and student group discussions using a range of analytical tools
including frameworks proposed by Toulmin (1958) and Walton (1996).
Key book:
Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.) (2008). Argumentation in Science Education:
Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Relevant references:
Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in
Science Education, 38, 39–72.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the use of
Toulmin’s Argument Pattern in studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), pp.915-933.
Goldman, S., Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K. Williams, S. & Tzou, C. (2003). Science inquiry in a digital
world: Possibilities for making thinking visible. In H. V. Oostendorp (Ed.) Cognition in a digital
world. Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”:
Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Kelly, G., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography
students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314–342.
Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education. 28(14), 1689-1716.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Zeidler, D. (2003) (Ed.) The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science
education, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
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.
Training resources:
There are resources available for teacher educators to conduct workshops with middle
school science teachers. They also include suggested lesson plans and activities for
students. Some examples from these resources will be given to illustrate some
evidence-based approaches to professional development, using research evidence in
the teachers’ learning.
Erduran, S., Braund, M., Taber, K., Simon, S., & Tweats, R. (2005). Teaching Ideas and Evidence at
Key Stage Three. Teaching Resources CD. London: Gatsby Foundation.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2005). Ideas, Evidence and Argument in Science Education. Inservice Training Pack and DVD. London: King’s College London.
Work format: The course will be a series of lectures and group discussions. The
participants will be expected to be actively contributing to the sessions by generating
and communicating ideas.
Extent: 17 hours
Credits: 4.5 ECTS. A 10 page paper on a topic covered by the seminar will be
required for course credits.
Documentation:
Paper (10-12 pages) to be submitted after completed course. The nature of the
document will be negotiated individually with the course tutor to allow relevant
consideration of the content of the course for the work and purposes of the participant.
Paper due date: To be decided
Language: English/Norwegian
Further course information:
Professor Doris Jorde, Department of Teacher Education and School development,
Faculty of Ecucation, e- mail: doris.jorde@ils.uio.no
Researcher Camilla Schreiner, Norwegian Centre for Science Education and Faculty
of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, e-mail: camilla.schreiner@naturfagsenteret.no