Browse > Article

Students Opportunities to Develop Scientific Argumentation in the Context of Scientific Inquiry: A Review of Literature  

Flick, Larry (Science and Mathematics Education, Oregon State University)
Park, Young-Shin (Science and Mathematics Education, Oregon State University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean earth science society / v.25, no.3, 2004 , pp. 194-204 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this literature review is to investigate what kinds of research have been done about scientific inquiry in terms of scientific argumentation in the classroom context from the upper elementary to the high school levels. First, science educators argued that there had not been differentiation between authentic scientific inquiry by scientists and school scientific inquiry by students in the classroom. This uncertainty of goals or definition of scientific inquiry has led to the problem or limitation of implementing scientific inquiry in the classroom. It was also pointed out that students' learning science as inquiry has been done without opportunities of argumentation to understand how scientific knowledge is constructed. Second, what is scientific argumentation, then? Researchers stated that scientific inquiry in the classroom cannot be guaranteed only through hands-on experimentation. Students can understand how scientific knowledge is constructed through their reasoning skills using opportunities of argumentation based on their procedural skills using opportunities of experimentation. Third, many researchers emphasized the social practices of small or whole group work for enhancing students' scientific reasoning skills through argumentations. Different role of leadership in groups and existence of teachers' roles are found to have potential in enhancing students' scientific reasoning skills to understand science as inquiry. Fourth, what is scientific reasoning? Scientific reasoning is defined as an ability to differentiate evidence or data from theory and coordinate them to construct their scientific knowledge based on their collection of data (Kuhn, 1989, 1992; Dunbar & Klahr, 1988, 1989; Reif & Larkin, 1991). Those researchers found that students skills in scientific reasoning are different from scientists. Fifth, for the purpose of enhancing students' scientific reasoning skills to understand how scientific knowledge is constructed, other researchers suggested that teachers' roles in scaffolding could help students develop those skills. Based on this literature review, it is important to find what kinds of generalizable teaching strategies teachers use for students scientific reasoning skills through scientific argumentation and investigate teachers' knowledge of scientific argumentation in the context of scientific inquiry. The relationship between teachers' knowledge and their teaching strategies and between teachers teaching strategies and students scientific reasoning skills can be found out if there is any.
Keywords
scientific inquiry; scientific argumentation; scientific thinking; procedural skills; reasoning skills; scaffolding;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Driver, R., Newton, P, and Osborne, J., 2000, Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Gallagher, J.J. and Tobin, K., 1987, Teacher management and student engagement in high school science. Science Education, 71(4), 535-555   DOI
3 Klahr, D. and Dunbar, K., 1988, Dual space search during scientific reasoning, Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Krajcik, K., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Bass, K.M., Fredricks, J., and Soloway, E., 1998, Inquiry in projectbased science classrooms: Initial Attempts by middles students. The Journal of the Learning Science, 7 (3 & 4), 313-350.
5 Kuhn, D., 1986, Education for thinking. Teachers College Record, 87(4), 495-511
6 Lemke, AL., 1990, Talking science: Language, Learning, and Values. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation
7 National Research Council, 1996, National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press
8 Pressley, M., Hogan, K., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta, J., and Ettenberger, S., 1996, The challenges of instructional scaffolding: The challenges of instruction that supports student thinking. Learning Disabilities Research & Practices, 11(3), 138-146
9 Vellom, R.P. and Anderson, C.W., 1999, Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 179-199   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Reif, F. and Larkin, J.H., 1991, Cognition in scientific and everyday domains: Comparison and learning implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28(9), 733-760   DOI
11 Duschl, R.A. and Osborne, J., 2002, Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in science education, 38, 39-72   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Kuhn, D., 1989, Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674-689   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
13 Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., and O'Loughlin, M., 1988, The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego: Academic Press, INC
14 Hogan, K., Nastasi, B.K., and Pressely, M., 2000, Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Crawford, T., Kelly, GJ., and Brown, C., 2000, Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 237-258   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Kuhn, D., 1992, Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178
17 Richmond, G. and Striley, J., 1996, Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in Small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Klahr, D. and Kotovsky, L., 1989, Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
19 Kuhn, D., 1993, Science as argument: Implication for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Herren Kohl, L.R., Palincsar, A.S., DeWater, S.L., and Kawasaki, K., 2000, Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3 & 4), 451-493
21 Crawford, B.A., 2000, Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Yerrick, RK., 2000, Lower track science students argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Bybee, RW., 2000, Teaching science as inquiry. In Minstrell, J. and van Zee, E.H., Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 21-46). American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington, DC
24 Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., and Unger, C., 1989, An experimental is when you try and see if it works: Middle school conception of science. International Journal of Science Education, 1I (special issue), 514-529
25 Kuhn, D., 1989, Making cognitive development research relevant to education. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child development today and tomorrow (261-287). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers