Argumentation in Science Education, 11-13 March, 2009
Course programme and lecturers' slides
Lecturer:
Sibel Erduran, University of Bristol, United Kingdom and
Stein Dankert Kolstø, University of Bergen, Norway
Organiser:
Rdid-skolen, University of Oslo
Registration:
Before 1 March, 2009. Fill out and send the registration form to Vibeke Torgersen.
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: University of Oslo, Blindern Campus:
Wednesday lunch: at Naturfagsenteret meeting room 286, Physics building, Eastern wing
Wednesday: U36 in Helga Eng
Thursday: U35 in Helga Eng
Friday: Aud 364 in Helga Eng
Hours:
Wednesday 11 March 12.00 – 17.00
Thursday 12 March 09.00 – 17.00 (joint evening dinner at Doris' house, Tåsen terrasse 30)
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:
-
Theoretical models on the conceptualisation of argument;
-
methodological frameworks including tools for analysis in the study of argumentation;
-
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 Jimenez-Aleixandre (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 & Jimenez-Aleixandre, 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 literature:
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 socio-scientific 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.
- In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (2008) (Eds): Argumentation in Science Education. Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. Springer.
- Sandoval & Millwood, chapter 4: What can argumentation tell us about epistemology?
- Kolstø, S. D. & M. Ratcliffe, chapter 6: Social aspects of Argumentation.
- Kelly, Regev & Prothero, chapter 7: Analysis of lines of reasoning i written argumentation.
- Duschl, chapter 8: Quality argumentation and epistemic crtiteria
- Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. Pilar; Rodriguez, Anxela Bugallo; Duschl, Richard A. (2000). "Doing the Lesson" or "Doing Science": Argument in High School Genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. Available at www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/73504637/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
- Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students' argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689-1716.
- Walton, D. (2005). How to evaluate argumentation using schemes, diagrams, critical questions and dialogues. Studies in Communication Sciences Argumentation in dialogic interaction. 51-74. Available at www.dougwalton.ca/papers.htm
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. In-service 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: May 1.
Language: English/Norwegian
Further course information:
Professor Doris Jorde, Department of Teacher Education and School development, Faculty of Ecucation
Researcher Camilla Schreiner, Norwegian Centre for Science Education and Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences