Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond Argument in Science: Science Education as Connected and Separate Knowing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Second International Handbook of Science Education

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE,volume 24))

Abstract

Over the past 15 years, the discourse of argument has been presented as fundamental to knowing science, with claims being made for its potential to support dialogue and advance scientific literacy. However, even for scientific knowledge, which is typically presented through arguments in which embedded empirical evidence supports specific models and theories, we have a cognitive bias towards linear narrative in the construction of knowledge. In usability trials for the Molecules and Minds study, we found that students constructed their own narrative (story) with plausible cause and effect to rationalise and contextualise what they were observing in simulations. Narratives provide conceptual links between students’ experiential everyday knowledge and paradigmatic structural knowledge, in the form of scientific argument that is often found in science textbooks. Whilst not denying the importance of argument to understanding science, I take a feminist stance and propose that argumentation, as the discourse of separate knowing, exists in a dialectical relationship with connected knowing and that both are critical for learning science. Using narrative, connected knowing seeks first to understand, an essential attribute for learning science, and provides insight into the nature of discovery in science. Separate knowing, which objectifies the known, provides insight into the relationship between evidence and claims.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 429.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abbott, H. P. (2003). Unnarratible knowledge: The difficulty of understanding evolution by natural selection. In D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative theory and the cognitive sciences (pp. 143–162). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Trans.), M. Holquist (Ed.).Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banister, F., & Ryan, C. (2001). Developing science concepts through story-telling. School Science Review, 83, 75–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: Supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barthes, R. (1978). Image-music-text. S. Heath (Trans.) New York: Hill & Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1997). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind (Tenth anniversary edition). New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bricker, L. A. & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1986). Possible worlds, actual minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clinchy, B. (1989). The development of thoughtfulness in college women: Integrating reason and care. American Behavioral Scientists, 32, 647–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinchy, B. M. (1994). On critical thinking and connected knowing. In K. S. Walters (Ed.), Re-thinking reason: New perspectives on critical thinking (pp. 33–42). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clinchy, B. M. (1996). Connected and separate knowing: Toward a marriage of two minds. In N. R. Goldberger, J. M. Tarule, B. MV. Clinchy, & M. F. Belenky (Eds.), Knowledge, difference, and power: Essays inspired by Women’s Ways of Knowing (pp. 205–247). New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortazzi, M. (1993). Narrative analysis. London: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dear, P. (1985). Totius in Verba. Isis, 76, 142–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dear, P. (1991). Narratives, anecdotes and experiments: Turning experience into science in the seventeenth century. In P. Dear (Ed.), The literary structure of scientific argument (pp. 135–163). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other (pp. 3–12). New York: Bergin & Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2005). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In R. Yerrick & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 19–39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodrum, D. & Rennie, L. J. (2007). Australian school science education national action plan 2008–2012 Volume 1: National action plan. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1987). Children’s arguing. In S. U. Philips, S. Steele, & C. Tanz (Eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective (pp. 200–248). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. S. (2000). Argument and 17th-century science: A rhetorical analysis with sociological implications. Social Studies of Science, 30, 371–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GutiĂ©rrez, K., Baquedano-Lopez, P., & Turner, M. G. (1997). Putting language back into language arts: When radical middle meets the third space. Language Arts, 74, 368–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, D. (2003). Stories as a tool for thinking. In D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative theory and the cognitive sciences (pp. 163–192). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrand, G. M. (1996, April). Writing in/forms science and science learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St Louis, MO, April 1996 (ERIC Document: ED393694).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrand, G. M. (1998). Disrupting hegemonic writing practices in school science: Contesting the right way to write. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 345–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, F. L. (1987). Scientific writing and scientific discovery. Isis, 78, 220–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jegede, O. J., & Okebukola, P. A. O. (1991). The effect of instruction on socio-cultural beliefs hindering the learning of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 275–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keselman, A., Kaufman, D. R., & Patel, V. L. (2004). “You can exercise your way out of HIV” and other stories: The role of biological knowledge in adolescents’ evaluation of myths. Science Education, 88, 548–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second generation cognitive psychology. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 143–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurth, L. A., Kidd, R., Gardner, R., & Smith, E. L. (2002). Student use of narrative and paradigmatic forms of talk in elementary science conversations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 793–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. (1990). Talking Science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholes, R. (1981). Language, narrative, and anti-narrative. In W. J. T. Mitchell (Ed.), On narrative (pp. 200–208). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi, P. (1984). The periodic table. R. Rosenthal (Trans.) New York: Schocken Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, C. (1998). Philosophically correct science stories? Examining the implications of heroic science stories for school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, C., Plass, J., Homer, B., Jordan, T., Wang, Y., Schwartz, R., & Chang, Y. K. (2008, July). Beyond argument: The role of narrative in science education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Brisbane, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, C., Plass, J., Homer, B., Jordan, T., Schwartz, R., Chang, Y. K., Khan M., & Ching, D. (2011). Developing narrative scaffolds for use within multimedia chemistry simulations: Challenges and possibilities. AERA Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, 8–12 April, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and Discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 38–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, P. (1994). The Bakhtin reader: Selected writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev and Voloshinov. London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, G. (1991). Politeness and certainty: The language of collaboration in an AI project. Social Studies of Science, 21, 37–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M., Smith, M. L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips, L. M. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89, 535–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patriotta, G. (2003). Sensemaking on the shop floor: Narratives of knowledge in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 349–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., Wang, Y., Kim, M., Milne, C., & Jordan, T. (2008, July). Using narratives as contextual scaffolds for science simulations. Paper presented at the Conference of the International Society of the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing to learn in the junior secondary science classroom: Issues arising from a case study. International Journal for Science Education, 18, 117–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (2005). Telling in purposeful activity and the emergence of scientific language. In R. Yerrick & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 45–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68, 35–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, T. (1983) Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: Can teachers’ questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation, Science Education, 90, 986–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, B. J. (2000). A culture of fact: England, 1550–1700. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. (2002). Science stories and science texts: What can they do for our students? Studies in Science Education, 37(1), 85–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., & Cowan, B. M. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92, 65–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. (1980). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. In G. S. Stent (Ed.), New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H. (1981). The value of narrativity in the representation of reality. In W. J. T. Mitchell (Ed.), On narrative (pp. 1–23). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (2006). Connected knowledge in science and mathematics education. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1579–1599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teaching and Learning, Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, New York University, New York, NY, 10003, USA

    Catherine Milne

Authors
  1. Catherine Milne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Milne .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Science & Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, West Australia, Australia

    Barry J. Fraser

  2. The Graduate Centre, City University of New York, New York, 10016-4309, New York, USA

    Kenneth Tobin

  3. Ctr. Mathematics & Science Education, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Rd., Kelvin Grove, 4059, Queensland, Australia

    Campbell J. McRobbie

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Milne, C. (2012). Beyond Argument in Science: Science Education as Connected and Separate Knowing. In: Fraser, B., Tobin, K., McRobbie, C. (eds) Second International Handbook of Science Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_63

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation