Abstract
In this study, we examined discursive interactions in a science classroom, in order to learn about a novice teacher’s practices in argumentative contexts. We intend to contribute to research on processes involved in supporting science learning through argumentation. A naturalistic design utilizing qualitative research methods and interactional ethnography was employed to investigate two research questions: In what aspects does argumentation differ in various instructional contexts of a science classroom? How does a science teacher use language in different argumentative contexts in the classroom? The main data sources were as follows: participant observation conducted over 8 months, field notes, audio and video recordings of science lessons, and three interviews with the teacher. Pragma-Dialectical theory of argumentation was adopted to analyze data. The results show differences in argumentation among events from various instructional contexts in relation to the following: relationships among the differences of opinion, nature of the differences of opinion, structure of the argumentation, roles of participants, and whether argumentation components were made explicit or were implicit during discursive interactions. The teacher’s language use varied in two aspects: how he raised questions and how he made explicit/implicit his points of view. Teacher’s discursive strategies were influenced by his goals as well as by relationships between students’ knowledge and scientific school knowledge.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
We will rely on previous reviews or edited books and focus mainly on articles related to teachers’ discourse or teacher education. The first author conducted a search for articles published between 2002 and 2008 in three main journals in the field (Science Education and JRST). A research group from our university identified articles for the period between 2008 and 2012 in the same journals. (This group included both authors; Professor Dr. Marina Tavares; graduate students Cláudia Starling, Simone Estevez, Vanessa Capelle, and Margareth Lovisi; and undergraduate student Rafael Alves.) The works discussed in this chapter were selected from these two lists, considering its relationships with the issues addressed here.
- 2.
References
Aavramidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2005). Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: A first-year elementary teacher’s specialized knowledge and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 965–986.
Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–460). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, M. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In N. M. Mirza & A. N. P. Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127–144). London: Springer.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95, 191–216.
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.
Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Castanheira, M. L., Crawford, T., Dixon, C., & Green, J. (2001). Interactional ethnography: An approach to studying the social construction of literate practices. Linguistics and Education, 11(4), 353–400.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students’ questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883–908.
Dixon, C., & Green, J. (2005). Studying the discursive constructions of texts in classrooms through interactional ethnography. In R. Beach, J. Green, M. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara: Hampton Press Cresskill.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 20, 1059–1073.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge. The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen/Routledge.
Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In Erduran, S. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research pp. (47–69). New York: Springer.
Green, J., Dixon, C., & Zaharlick, A. (2001). Ethnography as logic of inquiry. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. Jensen (Eds.), Research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 201–224). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre & S. Erduran (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–25). New York: Springer.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Gubba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: SAGE.
McDonald, S. P., & Kelly, G. (2012). Beyond argumentation: Sense-making discourse in the science classroom. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research (pp. 265–281). New York: Springer.
McNeil, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94, 203–229.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 53–78.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning-making in secondary science classrooms. Berkshire: Open University Press.
NRC. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. New York: National Academy Press.
Osborne, J., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95, 627–638.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
Ozdem, Y., & Erduran, S. (2011). The development of an argumentation theory in science education. Paper presented at the 2011 ESERA Conference, Lyon.
Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323–346.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.
Sandoval, W., & Millwood, K. (2007). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 71–88). New York: Springer.
Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In N. M. Mirza & A. N. P. Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 91–126). London: Springer.
Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 31–55). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235–260.
Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart; Winston.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., et al. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, A. F. S. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93, 687–719.
Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding pre-service science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437–463.
Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher educational and professional development in argumentation. In M. P. Jimenez & S. Erduran (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245–268). New York: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Souto-Silva, A.P., Munford, D. (2014). Disagreement in “Ordinary” Teaching Interactions: A Study of Argumentation in a Science Classroom. In: Bruguière, C., Tiberghien, A., Clément, P. (eds) Topics and Trends in Current Science Education. Contributions from Science Education Research, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7281-6_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7281-6_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7280-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7281-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)