1 On behalf of NASA’s Mars Exploration Program, this lesson was prepared by Arizona State University’s Mars Education Program, under contract to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology. These materials may be distributed freely for non-commercial purposes. Copyright 2014; 2012; 2010; 2000. Last edited: April 24, 2014 Marsbound! Mission to the Red Planet

A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas

On Educational psychology: A cognitive view.

Basing its arguments in current perspectives on the nature of the scientific enterprise, which see argument and argumentative practice as a core activity of scientists, this article develops the case for the inclusion and central role of argument in science education. Beginning with a review of the nature of argument, it discusses the function and purpose of dialogic argument in the social construction of scientific knowledge and the interpretation of empirical data. The case is then advanced that any education about science, rather than education in science, must give the role of argument a high priority if it is to give a fair account of the social practice of science, and develop a knowledge and understanding of the evaluative criteria used to establish scientific theories. Such knowledge is essential to enhance the public understanding of science and improve scientific literacy. The existing literature, and work that has attempted to use argument within science education, is reviewed to show that classroom practice does provide the opportunity to develop young people's ability to construct argument. Furthermore, the case is advanced that the lack of opportunities for the practice of argument within science classrooms, and lack of teacher's pedagogical skills in organizing argumentative discourse within the classroom are significant impediments to progress in the field. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed84:287–312, 2000.

Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms

The research reported in this paper focussed on the design of learning environments that support the teaching and learning of argumentation in a scientific context. The research took place over two years between 1999 and 2001 in junior high schools in the greater London area. The research was conducted in two phases. In the first developmental phase, working with a group of 12 science teachers, the main emphasis was to develop sets of materials and strategies to support argumentation in the classroom and to assess teachers‘ development with teaching argumentation. Data were collected by videoing and audio recording the teachers attempts to implement these lessons at the beginning and end of the year. During this phase, analytical tools for evaluating the quality of argumentation were developed based on Toulmin‘s argument pattern. Analysis of the data shows that there was significant development in the majority of teachers use of argumentation across the year. Results indicate that the pattern of use of argumentation is teacher specific, as is the nature of the change. In the second phase of the project, teachers taught the experimental groups a minimum of nine lessons which involved socioscientific or scientific argumentation. In addition, these teachers taught similar lessons to a control group at the beginning and end of the year. Here the emphasis lay on assessing the progression in student capabilities with argumentation. Hence data were collected from several lessons of two groups of students engaging in argumentation. Using a framework for evaluating the nature of the discourse and its quality, the findings show that there was an improvement in the quality of students‘ argumentation. In addition, the research offers methodological developments for work in this field.

http://disciplinas.stoa.usp.br/pluginfile.php/28363/mod_resource/content/1/Enhancing%20the%20Quality%20of%20Argumentation%20in%20School%20Science.pdf

Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science

This paper reports some methodological approaches to the analysis of argu- mentation discourse developed as part of the two-and-a-half year project titled "Enhancing theQualityofArgumentinSchoolScience"supportedbytheEconomicandSocialResearch CouncilintheUnitedKingdom.Inthisprojectresearcherscollaboratedwithmiddle-school scienceteacherstodevelopmodelsofinstructionalactivitiesinanefforttomakeargumenta- tion a component of instruction. We begin the paper with a brief theoretical justification for why we consider argumentation to be of significance to science education. We then contex- tualize the use of Toulmin's Argument Pattern in the study of argumentation discourse and provide a justification for the methodological outcomes our approach generates. We illus- trate how our work refines and develops research methodologies in argumentation analysis. In particular, we present two methodological approaches to the analysis of argumentation resulting in whole-class as well as small-group student discussions. For each approach, we illustrate our coding scheme and some results as well as how our methodological approach has enabled our inquiry into the quality of argumentation in the classroom. We conclude withsomeimplicationsforfutureresearchinargumentationinscienceeducation. C ! 2004

http://disciplinas.stoa.usp.br/pluginfile.php/14593/mod_resource/content/1/TAPping.pdf

TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse

This article focuses on two of the principal issues for science curriculum developers who wish to introduce the history and philosophy of science into the teaching of science — the jus- tification for, and the placement of, historical materials within teachers' schemes of work. First, it is argued that the history and philosophy of science must have a rationale that is integral to, and con- sistent with, teachers' main aims to have any chance of being considered for inclusion in a program of study. Second, the justification must point to places in schemes of work where the inclusion of history of science will directly contribute to students learning of science concepts and satisfy that principal objective. A new model for the inclusion of such material is proposed that directly ad- dresses both children's alternative frameworks and the historical and sociocultural context of the discovery. It is argued that this model offers potential for improved learning of the concepts of sci- ence and for learning about science. ©1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 81:405 - 424, 1997.

Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum : a model for the development of pedagogy

This article makes a case for why teaching about ‘ideas and evidence’ requires more attention t o the teaching of argument in school science. Based on research work at Kings’ College London conducted with local teachers, it outline s various practical methods and strategies b y which this might be achieved. The difficulties and obstacles are also explored. Why argument ? Contemporary science impinges directly upon man y aspects of people’s lives. Individuals and societies have to make personal and ethical decisions about a range of s ocio-scientific issues, such as genetic engineering, reproductive technologies and food safety, based on information available through the press and other media. Often accounts of ne w developments in s cience report contested claims. Evaluating such reports is not straightforward as it requires, for instance, the ability to assess whether the evidence is valid and reliable, to distinguis h correlations from causes or hypotheses from observations (Millar and Osborne, 1998). Within the context of a s ociety where scientific issues increasingly dominate the contemporary landscape (Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1999), there is an urgent need to improve the quality of y oung people’s understanding of the nature of scientific ‘argument’. Consequently, an important task for science education is to develop children’s ability to understand and practise valid ways of arguing in a s cientific context. They need to be able to recognise not onl y the strengths but also the limitations of s uc h arguments. In our work, then, we have sought to stud y whether the quality of y oung people’s ‘argument’ about scientific issues, and their critical capabilities, can be enhanced in science lessons. For instance, ca n the abilities to r eason, use and criticise argument within a scientific context be taught? And, perhaps more importantly, can these abilities be improved? This is what we are attempting to do in our project ‘Enhancing the Quality of Argument in School Science’ (EQuASS), funded by the Economic and Social Science Research Council. First, it is important to point out that by ‘argument’ we do not mean the pejorative use of the word wit h its confrontational connotations. We mean the putting forward of r easons where claims are justified b y relating them to the dat a on which they are based. Evidence for any claim consists of at least tw o components – dat a and warrants. Warrants are essentially the means by which the data are related t o claims providing the justification for belief. Thus the claim that diversity of species is a product of random variation and selection by the environment was supported originally by Darwin’s data on the variety of finches’ beaks found in the Galapagos. The warrant was that each adaptation gave each species a competitive advantage that ensured their survival on a particular island. A s imple representation of a n argument is provided by Toulmin (1958) (Figure 1).

Enhancing the quality of argument in school science

This paper discusses the differential distribution of opportunities for professional development of science teachers in post-apartheid South Africa. It is argued that northern/western ideas about teacher change and development are poorly suited to modelling practices and challenges for those who were historically disadvantaged. The environment in which teachers work-physical, social and political-act to select a more limited repertoire of behaviour than those providing in-service might imagine. The paper proposes that evolutionary ideas on teacher change and development offer a more effective model of the constraints under which teachers work. These ideas have general application to educational systems in sub-Saharan Africa. The implications for policy are a need to research current practices more thoroughly and to facilitate change through modest steps.

Teacher Development and Change in South Africa: A critique of the appropriateness of transfer of northern/western practice

This chapter synthesizes research on the role of argument and the pitfalls of fallacious reasoning in student classroom discussions of socioscientific topics and issues. Its specific focus is on the nature of the argument that emerges in such context and its evaluation. For while there is a growing imperative that students should have the opportunity to ‘consider the power and limitations of science in addressing industrial, social and environmental questions’ (DfEE, 1999), asking teachers to engage in such practice and its discourse confronts them with a number of dilemmas. Foremost is the requirement that such activity requires some kind of formative evaluation of the activity itself. For only then can teachers provide the kind of essential feedback required to aid students identify the weaknesses in their own argument and improve their critical reasoning. Yet how, for instance, does the science teacher identify weaknesses in students’ argument? What perspective should they use to evaluate their discourse – to decide that some contributions are better than others? And what, for instance, constitute exemplars of good practice – that makes one student’s contribution more effective than another? For without such frameworks, it is difficult for the teacher to engage in the process of scaffolding discourse and to make the activity a learning experience from which the student might emerge more able to engage in similar experiences. The chapter seeks, therefore, to explore a number of perspectives on analyzing the discourse that emerges in such contexts and evaluating the quality of argument. To that end, common examples of argumentation and examining moral and ethical

The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues

This paper reports a comparative study of attitudes to the aims of practical work given by science teachers from Egypt, Korea and the UK. The ratings of aims given by specific groups of teachers can be used to characterize those groups. The characterizations can be interpreted from knowledge of the conditions in which teachers work. The choice of aims reflects pedagogic practice. The UK teachers have attitudes to aims for practical that reflect current concerns in the UK for investigations. The Korean teachers show a positivistic attitude to science and aims for practical which can be traced back to the emphasis on factual recall and illustrative practicals. The Egyptian teachers show concerns in their choice of aims for practical work which can be traced back to the lack of practical work in current Egyptian science education. All three groups express a common attitude to the aims of practical work that reflect an acknowledgement of the methods by which scientists make new knowledge. It is conjectured th...

A Comparative Study of Attitudes to the Aims of Practical Work in Science Education in Egypt, Korea and the UK.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Martin Monk

Author Tools

Chat about Author