arguingtolearninscience osborne moocversion

8/10/2019 ArguingToLearnInScience Osborne MOOCVersion

1/14

Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse

Paper submitted for consideration for a Special Issue of Science

Dr. Jonathan Osborne

School of Education

Stanford University

485 Lasuen Mall

California 94305

E-mail: [email protected]

Date Submitted: Jan 6, 2010

Abstract

Argument and debate are common in science, yet they are virtually absent from science

education. Recent research shows, however, that opportunities for students to engage in

collaborative discourse and argumentation offer a means of enhancing student conceptual

understanding and students skills and capabilities with scientific reasoning. As one of the

hallmarks of the scientist is critical, rational scepticism, the lack of opportunities to develop

the ability to reason and argue scientifically would appear to be a significant weaknesss in

contemporary educational practice. In short, knowing what is wrong matters as much as

knowing what is right. This paper presents a summary of the main features of this body of

research and discusses its implications for the teaching and learning of science.


2/14

The goal of science is to produce new knowledge of the natural world. Two practices

essential to achieving this objective are argument and critique. Whether it is new theories,

novel ways of collecting data, or fresh interpretations of old data, argumentation is the

means that scientists use to make their case for new ideas. In response, other scientists

attempt to identify weaknesses and limitations; a process which happens informally in lab

meetings and symposia and formally in peer review. (Latour & Woolgar, 1986; Popper,

1963). Over time, ideas that survive critical examination attain consensual acceptance within

the community and by discourse and argument, science maintains its objectivity (Longino,

1990). Critique is not, therefore, some peripheral feature of science, but rather it is core to its

practice and, without argument and evaluation, the construction of reliable knowledge would

be impossible. Whether it is the theoretician who is developing new models of phenomena

or the experimentalist who is proposing new ways of collecting data, all scientists must

subject their ideas to the scrutiny of their peers. But what of science education?

Science Education and the absence of argument

Science education, in contrast, is notable for the absence of argument (Newton, Driver, &

Osborne, 1999; Norris et al., 2008). While instructors and teachers may offer many

explanations, these are not arguments. To offer an explanation of a fact is to presume it is

true. An argument, in contrast, is an attempt to establish truth and commonly consists of a

claim that may be supported by either data, warrants (that relate the data to the claim),

backings (the premises of the warrant), or qualifiers (the limits of the claim) (see Figure 1).

Some or all of these elements may be the subject of rebuttals or counter- arguments

(Toulmin, 1958). Arguments containing rebuttals are thought to be of the highest quality as

they require the ability to compare, contrast and distinguish different lines of reasoning.


3/14

Within science, arguments may be verbal or written and are commonly reliant on supporting

visualizations in the form of graphs or symbolic models.

Typically in education, in the rush to present the major features of the scientific landscape,

most of the arguments required to achieve such knowledge are excised. Consequently,

science can appear to its students as a monolith of facts, an authoritative discourse where the

discursive exploration of ideas, their implications, and their importance is absent (Osborne

& Collins, 2001). Students then emerge with nave ideas or misconceptions about the nature

of science itself; a state of affairs that exists even though the National Research Council, the

American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a large body of research, major

aspects of which are presented here, all emphasize the value of argumentation for learning

science(American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989; National Academy of

Science, 1995; National Research Council, 2000).

The common explanation of the absence of argument is that it is a product of an

overemphasis by teachers, curricula, and textbooks on what we know at the expense of how

we know (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000). Deep within our cultural fabric education is

still seen simplistically as a process of transmission where knowledge is presented as a set of

unequivocal and uncontested facts and transferred from expert to novice. In this world-

view failure of communication is the exception and success the norm. However, the reality is

the opposite; education is a highly complex act where failure is the norm and success the

exception (Reddy, 1979). For instance, a meta-analysis of 14 classes taught using traditional

methods, shows that students achieved an average gain of only 25% between their pre and

post test scores. In contrast, when lecturers paused and asked students to discuss the


4/14

concept presented in pairs or small groups (3 or 4 students) students achieved an average

gain of 48% (Hake, 1998).

rgumentation and Learning Science

Over the past two decades, in an attempt to address the problem posed by the failure of

traditional methods, educational research has explored the contribution of collaborative

discourse and argumentation to learning. Drawing on theoretical perspectives that see

language as core to learning and thought and language as inseparable, the implications of

these ideas for education have been developed by a number of theorists (Alexander, 2005;

Halliday, 1993; Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Wertsch, 1991). A critical feature of this work is a

view that learning is often the product of the difference between the intuitive or old models

we hold and new ideas we encounter (Bachelard, 1968). Through a cognitive process of

comparison and contrast, supported by dialogue, the individual then develops new

understanding. Consequently, learning requires opportunities for students to advance claims,

to justify the ideas they hold, and then to be challenged. Although this may happen

internally, it is debate and discussion with others that are most likely to enable new meanings

to be tested by rebuttals or counter-arguments.

In this sense, learning to argue is seen as a core process both in learning to think and

construct new understandings (Billig, 1996; Kuhn, 1992). Comprehending why ideas are

wrong then matters as much as understanding why other ideas might be right. For example,

students who read texts that explained why common misconceptions were flawed (as well as

explaining why the right idea was right) had a more secure knowledge than those who had

only read texts which explained the correct idea (Hynd & Alvermann, 1986). Likewise,


5/14

researchers have found that groups holding differing ideas learn more than those who hold

similar preconceptions, many of whom made no progress whatsoever (Howe, Tolmie, &

Rodgers, 1992; Schwarz, Neuman, & Biezuner, 2000). Indeed, one study found that even if

the difference between individuals was based on incorrect premises, significant learning gains

can occur; a case of two wrongs making a right, and with learning effects that were still

significant on delayed post-tests(Ames & Murray, 1982).

These findings are also supported by a number of classroom-based studies, all of which

show improvements in conceptual learning when students engage in argumentation

(Asterhan & Schwarz, 2007; Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif, & Sams, 2004; Sampson & Clark,

2009; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). For instance, students who were asked to engage in small-

group discussions significantly outperformed a group of control students in their use of

extended utterances and verbal reasoning, features which are rare in formal science

education (Lemke, 1990). Significant improvements were also produced in their non-

verbalreasoning, and understanding of science concepts (Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif, & Sams,

2004). Another study with two classes of 16 to 17 year old students studying genetics

required students to engage in argumentative discourse about the appropriate answer to

specific problems. Compared to a control group, the frequency of students who used

biological knowledge appropriately (53.2% versus 8.9%) was significantly higher (Zohar &

Nemet, 2002).

A recent meta-analysis of 18 studies grouped learning activities into three major categories:

those that are interactive and require collaborative discourse and argumentation (either with

a peer or an expert tutor); those that are constructive and require individuals to produce a


6/14

product such as an essay or lab report; or those which are active, such as conducting an

experiment (Chi, 2009). Comparing the learning gains achieved when using each of these

three approaches, the work shows conclusively that a hierarchical schema of learning

activities exists from interactive (the most effective), to constructive, to active (the least

effective). Studies show, however, that group discourse which contributes to learning

effectively is dependent on a number of factors. Most importantly, students need to be

taught the norms of social interaction and to understand that the function of their discussion

is to persuade others of the validity of their arguments. Therefore, consideration needs to be

given to the relative ability of group members. In addition, exemplary arguments need to be

modelled and instructors need to define a clear and specific outcome while groups need

materials to support them in asking the appropriate questions and help in identifying

relevant and irrelevant evidence. (Barron, 2003; Berland & Reiser, 2008; Blatchford, Kutnick,

Baines, & Galton, 2003; Mercer & Wegerif, 1999).

Scienti f i c Reasoning and rgumentation

Argumentation in science education requires students to construct and evaluate scientific

arguments and to reason scientifically. The picture that research presents of students ability

to undertake scientific reasoning is complex (Zimmerman, 2007). Students ability to argue

would appear to be dependent on the nature of the possible outcome with students tending

to adopt reasoning strategies with a confirmatory bias rather than using logical criteria. It is

also dependent on their domain- specific knowledge. For instance, individuals ability to

identify covariation is significantly enhanced by knowledge of a plausible theoretical

mechanism (Koslowski, Marasia, Chelenza, & Dublin, 2008), for example that exposure to

sunlight can cause skin cancer when the nature of ultra-violet radiation is understood. The


7/14

situation is somewhat confounded, however, by a recent study where Chinese physics

undergraduates outperformed comparable American undergraduates on tests of content

knowledge, in some cases by 3 effect sizes, yet there was no difference in their performance

on adomain-general test of scientific reasoning (Bao et al., 2009). Moreover, there is

disagreement about how and when students capabilities with reasoning develops between

those who argue that it develops through adolescence versus those who argue that even pre-

adolescent children are capable of making evidence-based inferences (Metz, 1995); essentially

that the limits on students capability is due to their lack of knowledge rather than their

reasoning capability.

In addition, notions of what constitutes scientific reasoning differ somewhat. Much of the

research on individuals capability with scientific reasoning is a product of laboratory based

psychological research examining individuals skills with specific competencies. Early

Piagetian studies defined scientific reasoning as the capability to undertake a set of logico-

mathematical operations such as seriation, logical reasoning, probabilistic thinking, and

manipulate abstract variables. For instance, whether students could conserve volume when

water was transferred from a thin, tall cylinder to a wide, short, one (Inhelder & Piaget,

1958). More recent research has focussed a wider set of skills such as students ability to

develop testable hypotheses, generate experimental designs, control variables, coordinate

theory and evidence, and respond to anomalous evidence (Zimmerman, 2007).

Sociologists, however, offer a different, empirically based vision of scientists marshalling

resources to mount persuasive arguments for the validity of their cases. Philosophers, in

contrast, offer a normative, idealized description of how science functions. A synthesis of


8/14

the work from these three domains would suggest that the reasoning skills that science

education might seek to develop are the ability to:

identify patterns in data, such as covariation, and make inferences;

coordinate theory with evidence and discriminate between evidence which supports

(inclusive), does not support (exclusive) or is simply indeterminate;

construct evidence-based, explanatory hypotheses or models of scientific phenomena

and persuasive arguments that justify their validity; and

resolve uncertainty which requires a body of knowledge about concepts of evidence

such as the role of statistical techniques, the measurement of error and the

appropriate use of experimental designs such as randomized double-blind trials.

The study of reasoning also offers an opportunity to explore the types of arguments used in

science which may be abductive (inferences to the best possible explanation) such as

Darwins arguments for the theory of evolution; hypothetico-deductive, such as Pasteurs

predictions about the outcome of the first test of his anthrax vaccine; or simply inductive

generalizations archetypal represented by laws.

Enhancing Student Argumentation and Reasoning Skills?

Do students become better at scientific reasoning if it is an overt feature of their education?

Many studies have shown that explicit teaching of specific strategies does improve students

scientific reasoning. For instance, a laboratory-based study found that the performance of

students explicitly taught about the control of variables through a structured intervention

improved significantly compared to a group who were given no such instruction (Klahr &


9/14

Nigam, 2004). Similar findings emerge from a recentclassroom-based study which showed

significant developments in students strategic and meta-strategic thinking (Zohar & David,

2008). The strongest evidence comes from a, UK classroom-based study using 30 lessons

dedicated to the teaching of reasoning over two years with grade 7-8 children in 11 schools.

Students scores on test of conceptual knowledge in the intervention schools were

significantly better than the control sample (Shayer & Adey, 1993). Additionally, two years

later these students significantly outperformed a control sample not only in science but also

in language arts and mathematics, leading the authors to argue that their program had

accelerated students general intellectual processing abilities. This finding has been replicated

many times by the same authors collecting data from new cohorts in the schools which use

this program. The form of reasoning measured here, however, was restricted to the students

ability to perform Piagetian-based logical operations. A one-year classroom intervention

aimed at improving students ability to construct arguments showed no significant

improvements (Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004).

Future Challenges

Research on the development of students skills in argumentation is still in its infancy and

lacking valid and reliable instruments with which students competency can readily be

assessed. In addition, we still need to understand in greater detail how argumentation

produces learning and what features of learning environments produce the best arguments

among students (Jerman & Dillenbourg, 2003). Quite a lot is understood about how to

organize groups for the purposes of learning and how the norms of social interaction can be

supported and taught but how such groups can be supported to produce elaborative, critical

discourse is less evident (Webb, 2009). Where studies are unequivocal, however, is that if


10/14

student skills are to develop not only must there be explicit teaching of how to reason but

also students need a knowledge of the meta-linguistic features of argumentation (claims,

reasons, evidence, andcounter-argument) to identify the essential features of their own and

others arguments (Herrenkohl & Guerra, 1998). Younger students, particularly, need to be

desensitized to the negative connation of conflict surrounding the word and to see it as an

essential process in constructing knowledge.

What is in little doubt is that employers, policy makers, and educators believe that

individuals ability to undertake critical, collaborative argumentation is an essential skill

required by future societies (National Research Council, 2008). Of its own, the evidence

from research to date is that mere contact with science does not develop such attributes.

Indeed, the cultivation of critical scepticism, a feature that is one of the hallmarks of the

scientist, would appear to have only minimal value within science education. Yet, research

has demonstrated that teaching students to reason, argue, and think critically will enhance

students conceptual learning. This will only happen, however, if students are provided

structured opportunities to engage in deliberative exploration of ideas, evidence, and

argument. In short, how we know what we know, why it matters, and how it came to be.

Evidence would also suggest that such approaches are more engaging for students (Nolen,

2003). Collaborative discourse where students engage constructively with each others ideas

therefore offers a means for improving the quality of the student experience, the depth of

student thinking and, most importantly, their learning of science itself.


11/14

References

Alexander, R. (2005). Towards Dialogic Teaching. York: Dialogos.American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans : a

Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics and technology.Washington, D.C.:

AAAS.Ames, G. J., & Murray, F. B. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitivechange by social conflict. Developmental Psychology, 18, 894-897.

Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogicalargumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. .Journal of EducationalPsychology, 99(3), 626-639.

Bachelard, G. (1968). The Philosophy of No (G. C. Waterston, Trans.). New York: Orion Press.Bao, L., Cai, T., Koenig, K., Fang, K., Han, J., Wang, J., et al. (2009). Learning andScientific

Reasoning. Science, 323(5914), 586-587.Barron, B. (2003). When Smart Groups Fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307-

359.Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. (2008). Making Sense of Argumentation and

Explanation. ScienceEducation, 93(1), 26-55.Billig, M. (1996).Arguing and Thinking (2cnd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogyof classroom

group work. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 153-172.Chi, M. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for

Differentiating Learning Activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73-105.Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. F. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific

argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-

studentsurvey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses.American Journal ofPhysics, 66(1), 64-74.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics andEducation, 5(2), 93-116.

Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant Structures, Scientific Discourse, andStudent Engagement in Fourth Grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431-473.

Howe, C. J., Tolmie, A., & Rodgers, C. (1992). The acquisition of conceptual knowledge inscience by primary school children: group interaction and the understanding of motiondown an inclined plane. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 113-130.

Hynd, C., & Alvermann, D. E. (1986). The Role of Refutation Text in OvercomingDifficulty with Science Concepts.Journal of Reading, 29(5), 440-446.

Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adoloscence.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Jerman, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating New Arguments through a CSCL script.

In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.),Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions inComputer- Supported Collaborative Learning Environments (pp. 205-226). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early scienceinstruction. Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science,15(10), 661-667.


12/14

Koslowski, B., Marasia, J., Chelenza, M., & Dublin, R. (2008). Information becomesevidence when an explanation can incorporate it into a causal framework. CognitiveDevelopment, 23(4), 472- 487.

Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as Argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178.11

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986).Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts

(2nd ed.).Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Lemke, J. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex

Publishing.Longino, H. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge. Princetown, NJ: Princetown University Press.

Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: ways ofhelping

children to use language to learn science. British Education Research Journal, 30(3), 359-377.Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and Development of Children's Thinking: asociocultural

approach. London: Routledge.Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (1999). Children's Talk in the Development of Reasoning.British

Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95-111.Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science

instruction.Review of Educational Research, 65, 93-127.National Academy of Science. (1995).National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.:

National Academy Press.National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards.

Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.National Research Council. (2008). Research on Future Skill Demands. Washington D.C.:

National Academies Press.Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. F. (1999). The Place of Argumentation in the

Pedagogy of School Science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.Nolen, S. B. (2003). Learning Environment, Motivation and Achievement in High School

Science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 347-368.Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., Smith, M. L., Guilbert, S. M., Stange, D. M., Baker, J. J., et al.

(2008). Learning to read scientific text: Do elementary school commercial readingprograms help?

Science Education, 92(5), 765-798.Osborne, J. F., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils' views of the role and value of the science

curriculum: afocus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-468.Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the Quality of Argument in

School Science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.

Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.),Metaphor and Thought. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientificargumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484.

Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two Wrongs May Make a Right... IfThey Argue Together! Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461-494.


13/14

Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (1993). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middleand high school students IV: Three years after a two-year intervention. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 30(4), 351-366.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher's role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the

classroom.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79

(1), 1-28.Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the Mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary andmiddle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172-223.

12Zohar, A., & David, A. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic

classroom situations.Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 59-82.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.


14/14

Figure 1.Toulmins argument diagram offers a generic representation of allarguments that are claims to knowledge (Toulmin, 1958). For instance, the claimthat climate change is happening is supported by data, e.g., rising CO2levels,melting glaciers. A warrant is the justification that explains the relation of thedata to the claim. Often, warrants rest on theoretical assumptions that are only

tacitly acknowledged. Finally, qualifiers express the limits of the validity of theclaim. Arguments arise when attempts are made to rebut or refute the claimeither by attacking the validity of the data or the validity of the warrant. Inscience, arguments arise over the predictions and validity of theories, themethods of collecting data, and the interpretation of data sets.

arguingtolearninscience osborne moocversion

Documents