2010 - Cavagneto - Argument To Foster Scientific Literacy - The Best Journal in Education

ER376953RER10.
3102/0034654310376953CavagnettoArgument Interventions in K–12

cience Contexts
Review of Educational Research

September 2010, Vol. 80, No. 3, pp. 336–371
DOI: 10.3102/0034654310376953
© 2010 AERA. http://rer.aera.net
Argument to Foster Scientific Literacy:

A Review of Argument Interventions
in K–12 Science Contexts
Andy R. Cavagnetto
Binghamton University–State University of New York
The goal of scientific literacy has led to a steady increase in argument-based

interventions in science education contexts. It has been suggested that student
participation in argument develops communication skills, metacognitive aware-
ness, critical thinking, an understanding of the culture and practice of science,
and scientific literacy. Although argument does influence communication skills,
metacognition, and critical thinking, not all forms of argument promote an under-
standing of scientific practice and, subsequently, scientific literacy. This study of
54 articles from the research literature examines how argument interventions
promote scientific literacy. Articles were classified across three domains to deter-
mine structural patterns of the various argument interventions: (a) the nature of
the argument activity, (b) the emphasis of the argument activity, and (c) the aspects
of science included in the argument activity. The structures of the interventions
suggest that researchers approach learning of argument through immersion,
teaching the structure of argument, and emphasizing the interaction of science
and society. Immersion-oriented interventions utilized argument as an integrated
component to student investigations. Argument structure interventions taught the
structure of argument separate from investigations and asked students to apply
it across various explanatory activities. Science- and society-based interventions
used socioscientific issues to contextualize and provide purpose for argument.
The three orientations toward argument instruction are discussed in light of the
epistemic nature of science and scientific literacy. The orientations can serve as
an opportunity to refine understanding of argument interventions, particularly
with regard to the pursuit of scientific literacy.
Keywords: instructional practices, learning processes, learning strategies, literacy,

science education
Traditional characterizations of scientific literacy have emphasized an understand-
ing of science concepts and processes with the assumption that such understanding
would lead to an informed citizenry able to enact their knowledge in personal and
societal issues (DeBoer, 2000). However, accessing and integrating science knowledge
in societal issues is a complex process that increases in complexity as the situation
336
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 18, 2015
Argument Interventions in K–12 Science Contexts
moves further away from the science classroom in which one’s knowledge was
originally constructed. Although a personal issue might be remedied by insertion of
one’s understanding of a science concept, scientific literacy requires more than appli-
cation of distinct components of science. It requires the ability to accurately and
effectively interpret and construct science-based ideas (Norris & Phillips, 2003).
Interpretation and construction are founded in an understanding of the basis of author-
ity in science. Therefore, scientific literacy is supported by the integration of science
concepts and processes, metacognitive processes, critical reasoning skills, and cultural
aspects of science (e.g., the epistemic nature of science). These understandings and
abilities collectively reflect the practice of science.
Language plays a central role in scientific practice (and therefore scientific
literacy) because it requires and develops abilities such as metacognition and
critical reasoning. Furthermore, language is fundamental because it drives the
epistemic nature of science and captures the culture of science; both inform inter-
pretation and knowledge construction related to science (Ford, 2008). This central
role of language has gained greater prominence in recent decades, building on
advances in learning theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and the notion that science is not
possible without text, various modes of representation, and talk (Gee, 2004; Lemke,
2004; Norris & Phillips, 2003).
Argument is a particularly important aspect of the language practices of science.
It is of key importance in the reliable generation of new scientific understandings.
In recognition of the importance of argument, there has been a steady increase in
argument-based interventions in science education contexts since the late 1980s.
Jimenez-Aleixandre and Erduran (2007, pp. 4–12) rationalized the increase by
contending that argument in science classrooms is desirable because argument
(a) is critical to meaningful learning as it enables participation in cognitive and
metacognitive processes, (b) develops students’ communication skills, (c) prompts
students’ critical reasoning skills, (d) supports students’ understandings of scientific
culture and practice, and (e) fosters scientific literacy. All forms of argument foster
cognitive and metacognitive processes, communication skills, and critical reasoning
skills (D. Kuhn, 2005). Because these general learning abilities and skills contribute
to scientific literacy, it is logical to conclude that all forms of argument promote,
to some extent, scientific literacy. However, not all forms of argument foster a
robust understanding of scientific culture and practice. Because the nature of argu-
ment is dependent on community norms, scientific argument is a unique form of
argument. For example, in legal contexts, lawyers compete in a contest in which
there is only one winner. In such contexts, argument is strictly adversarial. Con-
versely, although argument in science can be competitive (as two scientists advocate
for their ideas), it is also collaborative. Scientists use argument to vet ideas as they
work toward a common goal—advancement of scientific knowledge (Toulmin,
Rieke, & Janik, 1984). This collaboration through critique is a process of negotiat-
ing meaning that distinguishes science from other disciplinary forms of argument.
Thus, forms of argument that develop the practice of science (in which the culture
can be realized) are critical to motivating scientific literacy.
Although not all disciplinary forms of argument are the same, the practical
question remains whether argument interventions in school science foster scientific
literacy. To date, there have been few empirical studies that directly attempt to
337
Cavagnetto
answer this question. The characteristics of argument interventions in the research

literature can provide insight into how argument interventions themselves foster
scientific literacy. Furthermore, the intervention characteristics can illustrate
the various orientations by which researchers attempt to implement argument in
school science.
There have been two previous reviews of research related to argument in science
education. In an effort to inform future research and classroom practice, Sadler
(2004) explored 13 articles to ascertain the state of research associated with socio-
scientific issues. The review emphasized informal reasoning in the context of
argument. Articles were reviewed across four categories associated with informal
reasoning: (a) argument, (b) nature of science, (c) conceptual understanding, and
(d) critical assessment of information. Approximately three to four articles were
germane to each of the four categories, and conclusions were drawn in each category.
As such, four key conclusions were extracted from Sadler’s review: (a) students
often make unjustified claims and struggle to recognize opposing arguments during
argument construction in socioscientific contexts, (b) students do not commonly
use scientific evidence to inform their personal decision making, (c) content knowl-
edge influences reasoning ability in contexts associated with the particular content,
and (d) people are not very competent at analyzing and evaluating arguments. A
second review of the argument in science education literature was reported in
Driver, Newton, and Osborne (2000). Importantly, the number of studies conducted
related to argument in science education was sparse at the time of publication, so
the review drew from key studies that had implications for argument in science
education research and practice. Similar to Sadler, the review found that students
struggled with argument construction and consideration of evidence that contra-
dicted their initial views. In addition, based on the literature, Driver et al. suggested
that students could gain proficiency with argument and argumentation through
rehearsal. They also concluded that teachers could play an important role in facili-
tating student engagement in argument; however, teachers were inexperienced in
facilitating argument-based discussions.
The purpose of the current review is to determine how argument interventions
from education research literature promote argument to foster scientific literacy.
In this article I argue that there are distinctions in argument interventions that
can be used to refine our understanding of scientific argument toward scientific
literacy. The analysis presented allows researchers and practitioners to make
useful distinctions between orientations such as understanding scientific argument
through (a) immersion in practice, (b) explicit instruction in the structure of
argument, and (c) an understanding of the socioscientific aspects of science. By
developing these three areas of distinction, this study allows educational research-
ers to reflect on the current status and future directions of research in this important
area of study.
The Role of Argument in School Science
International and national organizations have emphasized argument by placing
greater attention on the epistemic nature of science (Australian Curriculum, Assessment
and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2009; National Research Council [NRC], 2007;
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2003; U.K.
338
Department for Children, Schools, and Families [DCSF], 2009). Despite this emphasis
and the increased attention in the research literature over the past two decades, argument
is not common in science classrooms (Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999; NRC, 2007;
Osborne & Dillon, 2008). Science instruction attempts to replicate the science process
using cookbook-style labs that serve as verification of ideas rather than construction
and critique of ideas (Roth et al., 2006; Weiss, Banilower, McMahon, & Smith, 2001).
Such activities focus on surface structures of science—hypotheses, methods, results,
and conclusions—rather than the discourse at the heart of these processes. The lack of
argument has led to a conception of science as a collection of static facts about nature
and a perception of science as a secular religion (Driver et al., 2000). These difficulties
with transfer of argument from the research literature to the science classroom may be
linked to perceptions of science and the role of language in science.
Contrary to school science, science operates in a manner in which social interac-
tion plays a central role in a continually changing landscape. T. Kuhn (1962) made
this explicit in his investigations of the history of science. He argued that the facts,
theories, and laws (components often dominating school science) are only the
products of a rich process that is influenced by participants’ experience, culture,
and existing understanding of natural phenomena. In other words, science is not
completely objective because the researcher cannot be fully separated from a given
context or situation. Although Kuhn’s position is only one of a number of diverse
views of the nature of science, the idea that social and cultural factors influence
science has been widely accepted (Driver et al., 2000; Lemke, 2004; NRC, 2007;
Tauber, 1997). Importantly, although there seems to be agreement that social and
cultural context and nature play a role in science knowledge construction, their
relative influences are not clearly delineated.
The relative influences of social and cultural factors and nature are derived from
various worldviews, forming a continuum from a positivist position to a relativist
position. The place where instruction is founded on the continuum can affect the
practice of science in school. Historically in school science, the facts or the right
answers have been emphasized often to the exclusion of scientific practice and
thinking. As such, students often work independently or in pairs with little oppor-
tunity to share findings, interpretations, or ideas with peers. This context, which
may be the result of a positivist worldview or more likely a continuation of the
norms of formal schooling, can serve as an obstacle for integration of more modern
perspectives of the nature of science. Clarifying one’s perception of the place of
science on the epistemological continuum can inform one’s instruction.
Ford (2008) provides a useful model when attempting to situate the relative
influences of nature and social and cultural elements on scientific truth.1 Ford char-
acterized truth as the result of an iterative interaction between material and social
aspects of science. The material aspect includes two senses, getting nature to “speak”
and “portraying nature’s voice” (Ford, 2008, p. 408). Getting nature to speak includes
identifying questions for exploration, designing appropriate ways to answer the
questions, accurately conducting investigations, and clearly communicating these
processes to others. Ford characterized portrayal of nature’s voice as interpretation
of data and subsequently construction of evidence-based explanations. Although
these processes are influenced by one’s conceptual lens and worldview, certain
processes reveal the mechanisms of natural phenomena more clearly than others
339
Cavagnetto
and therefore are more appropriate than others. That is, merit of the material aspect
is not relative. The social aspect, the process of peer review, is critical to knowledge
construction in science as it shapes the knowledge through quality control. Peer
review is unique in science as compared to political or judicial forms of peer review.
In science, peer review is both adversarial, when competing scientists challenge
each other’s ideas, and communal, as scientists work toward a common goal (Toulmin
et al., 1984). This unique disposition allows nature to participate in the social discourse
community. Thus, the movement between the material and social aspects of science
(continual construction and critique of ideas) is the practice by which nature serves
as the most influential arbiter of truth (Ford, 2008). Nature’s critical role is evidenced
by the robust track record of scientific knowledge. Despite the diversity of cultures
and experiences of those who have participated in science over time, scientific
knowledge has been remarkably reliable.
Ford’s (2008) characterization of nature’s role creates a basis of authority that
is interactive, thereby rejecting a traditional positivist worldview as well as a rela-
tivist worldview. Although this model cannot fully predict the influences of culture
and society (as they are context dependent), it does provide a useful framework
for conceptualizing a general point on the aforementioned positivist–relativist
continuum and in doing so informs the nature of science-based interventions (includ-
ing argument) in schools.
Based on this framework, it is reasonable to consider that researchers may vary
in their perception of what science is and subsequently when and how argument
should be used in science classrooms. An additional point of potential variation of
argument interventions may be the role or purpose of the argument intervention.
That is, the goal of the intervention could be to teach students argument, science,
or ethical and political considerations associated with science. This review of the
research literature explores these potential areas of variance among argument inter-
ventions in an effort to gain understanding about how argument is used to promote
scientific literacy.
Method
This study aims to analyze the characteristics of argument-based interventions
in the research literature to determine how argument is used to foster scientific
literacy. An exhaustive search of peer-reviewed journals using the databases Edu-
cation Research Complete, ERIC, Education Index, and PsycINFO was conducted
using the keywords science education and argumentation, and science education
and argument. The search yielded 1,119 articles. Considering the goal of the
review, only articles that established a connection between argument and scientific
literacy or the nature of science were used. Thus, articles testing an argument
intervention solely based on its utility for developing metacognition, communica-
tion, or reasoning skills were not included. The results of the search were further
narrowed using the following criteria: (a) articles reporting on research associated
with argument-based interventions or a component of the intervention (articles
from peer-reviewed practitioner journals were not included), (b) articles that
offered a clear description of the intervention, and (c) articles reporting on inter-
ventions designed for K–12 students. The search was performed twice for verifi-
cation, first by a graduate assistant and a second time by the author. A total of
340
39 articles met the criteria for inclusion. The criteria were then applied during an
ancestral search using the references of the original 39 articles. An additional 15
articles were found from the ancestral search that fit the criteria for inclusion,
increasing the total number of articles reviewed to 54. Importantly, the search
included multiple articles by the same or related researchers. As such, there is
potential for the findings to be skewed by a small number of researchers. The
redundancy of researchers was necessary to reflect the emphasis placed on the
various interventions in the research literature.
Three domains were developed as a framework to examine how school sci-
ence argument interventions were used to cultivate scientific literacy. The domains
were based on an initial sampling of the argument literature (Cavagnetto, 2009),
international standards for science education (ACARA, 2009; DCSF, 2009; NRC,
2007; OECD, 2003), and Ford’s (2008) characterization of scientific practice.
That is, these works stimulated questions about the characteristics of argument
interventions in school science contexts, specifically the following: (a) When are
argument interventions used during an instructional unit? (b) What are interventions
designed to stimulate argument about? and (c) What aspects of science are present
in argument interventions? These questions not only are practical to both research-
ers and practitioners but also allow for distinction with regard to the role of language
among the various interventions. The three domains of consideration derived from
the questions were (a) the nature of the argument intervention, (b) the emphasis of
the argument intervention, and (c) the aspects of science included in the argument
intervention. Table 1 describes the three domains.
The nature of the argument intervention considered the instructional context in
which the argument intervention was used. Articles in the review were classified
as a culminating activity, an explanation of a phenomenon, or an integral component
to a student investigation. Interventions were characterized as being an integral
component to a student lab investigation if argument was used as a tool to refine
questions for explorations, procedures, and/or knowledge claims throughout an
exploration in which students manipulated variables or conducted an organized
experiment. A culminating activity was an intervention used after initial content
instruction as an opportunity to apply the newly learned science knowledge. Inter-
ventions that were disconnected from the science curriculum as one-time activities
were also considered to be culminating activities. An explanation of a phenomenon
was an intervention that required students to generate an argument to explain a
science phenomenon or use argument to refine one’s explanation of a science
phenomenon. This categorization did not include any organized experimentation
by the student.
A second area of distinction found in the initial sampling of argument literature
(Cavagnetto, 2009) was the purpose for the engagement in the argument interven-
tion. The emphasis of the argument intervention took into account the purpose of
the argument intervention. That is, was the primary goal of the intervention to teach
science content, science argument and language processes, or moral, political, and
ethical considerations associated with science? Although many articles in the review
reported on interventions that valued all or some combination of the three emphases,
they were classified based on the primary objective of the argument intervention.
This was determined by language associated with goals in the articles and in some
instances included consideration of sequencing of the curricular activities.
341
Table 1
Coding categories and descriptions
Nature of argument
intervention
Culminating activity Activity requiring student application of previously
learned material (e.g., debate in which students use
their knowledge of a natural phenomenon) or one-
time activities that are disconnected from curriculum
Explanation of Students are asked to describe or propose a mechanism
phenomenon for the occurrence of a natural phenomenon; students
observe nature but do not manipulate variables or
conduct an organized exploration (e.g., teacher
demonstration)
Integral component to Activity in which students manipulate variables or
student investigation conduct an organized exploration to determine
mechanism of natural phenomenon
Emphasis
Moral, ethical, political Focus on moral, ethical, or political considerations in
the argument activity
Argument, language Emphasis on language processes of science or the
structure of argument
Science content Argument is used to learn science content
Aspect of science included
Social Students work within small groups or at the whole
class level to construct or defend knowledge claims
Material (one sense) Students either work to get nature to speak (e.g., design
experiments) or portray nature’s voice (e.g., interpret
experimental data)
Material (both senses) Students work to both get nature to speak and portray
nature’s voice
Social + material (one Students participate in a combination of the social
sense) aspect and one material sense
Social + material (both Students participate in both the social and material
senses) aspects of science
Nature as well as social and cultural factors influence science knowledge forma-
tion (Driver et al., 2000; T. Kuhn, 1962; Tauber, 1997). Ford (2008) suggested that
these factors are present in the construction and critique that accompanies move-
ment within and between the material and social aspects of science. The material
senses of getting nature to speak and interpreting nature’s voice are shaped by the
accompanying social exchanges. The aspects of science included in the argument
intervention characterized the inclusion of these two aspects. Five possible clas-
sifications were derived from Ford’s framework: (a) social aspect (including col-
laborative group settings or public settings), (b) material aspect (one sense—either
getting nature to speak or portraying nature’s voice), (c) material aspect (both
senses), (d) social and material aspects (one sense), and (e) social and material
aspects (both senses).
342
Argument use in each article was coded in each domain by two independent
raters (author and an external rater). Interrater reliability was 87% (n = 141) across
the 162 total codings. The 21 codes that were initially discrepant were discussed,
and consensus was reached between the two raters.
Results
Review of the 54 articles indicated that argument is used in a variety of ways
in K–12 classrooms. Argument-based interventions ranged from those characteristic
of science knowledge construction practices to those that emphasized the interac-
tion between science and society. Frequencies for each of the three domains of
consideration (the nature of the intervention, aspects of science included in the
intervention, and emphasis of the intervention) are presented, followed by the pat-
terns found across the three domains. The appendix contains summaries of and
categorizations for each argument intervention.
Nature of the Argument Intervention
The nature of the argument intervention categorization allowed for distinction
in the phase of instruction in which argument was integrated and the extent to
which argument was used for gaining new understanding. Central to the practice
of science are construction and critique to refine ideas during and when drawing
conclusions from experiments. The argument intervention as an integral component
to a student investigation category was meant to capture interventions that mirrored
this practice. Such interventions were common in the research literature. Slightly
more common were interventions categorized as culminating activities. Culminat-
ing activities provided opportunities for students to apply newly learned material.
Argument was used to create new understanding in 56% of the reviewed articles.
Of the articles reviewed, 37% (n = 20) were identified as using argument as an
integral component to a student investigation. For example, Jimenez-Aleixandre
and Pereiro-Munoz (2002) reported on an extended investigation in which students
studied the environmental management options for a local series of marshes. The
activity was organized around a set of cooperative learning jigsaw activities. The
context and problem were established in the first five class sessions. Over the seven
subsequent sessions, each of six groups of students analyzed an aspect of the bio-
logical considerations associated with a proposed management plan of draining
sewage out of the marshes (e.g., landscape values, plant or animal communities,
projected drainpipes). Maps and reports were constructed to describe group find-
ings. In Sessions 13 to 16, jigsaw groups shared the six group reports, and subse-
quently each newly formed team produced a final report based on all of the findings.
The reports were debated in Session 17. Although this example is an explanation
of a phenomenon and does include a culminating debate, the argument was embed-
ded throughout the investigation as students made decisions, created plans, and
presented their ideas to their peers.
Argument was used in a culminating activity in science classrooms in 44% (n = 24)
of the reviewed articles. One example of argument as a culminating activity was
found in Maloney and Simon (2006). The authors studied elementary students’ abili-
ties to use evidence to justify their ideas throughout four decision-making activities
that were distinct from the curriculum. In the first activity, students were given pictures
343
Cavagnetto
and descriptions of three homes and asked to determine which was the most appro-
priate home for gerbils. In the second activity, students were asked to determine
which of three cups should be taken to a picnic. Data were provided about the various
cups, which students were to use to guide their decisions. The third activity presented
a scenario in which bats were in a library roof. Students were asked to determine
how to solve the problem using bat fact cards as support for their solutions. In the
fourth activity, students were asked to review three different explanations of the effect
of friction on the speed of a rolling marble and determine which was correct. The
explanations and supporting data were provided for students to analyze.
Of the articles, 19% (n = 10) were classified as an explanation of a natural phe-
nomenon. These interventions used argument to explain mechanisms for a discrepant
event or a situation that offered competing theories for a phenomenon. For example,
Sampson and Clark (2009) report on student construction of written arguments
in response to a discrepant event called ice melting blocks. Students were asked to
explain why ice cubes placed on two similar-looking blocks melted at different rates.
In a follow-up task students were asked to explain why a metal chair and a wooden
table top felt like they were different temperatures even though they were located
in the same environment. In these interventions, students were not asked to participate
in investigations that required them to manipulate variables.
Emphasis of the Argument Intervention
The emphasis of the argument intervention categorization allowed the researcher
to understand the purposes of the various uses of argument. Interventions were
classified based on the primary emphasis determined by language in the articles
and the sequencing of instruction. In science, argument plays a critical role in vet-
ting new ideas to ensure that the knowledge is valid and reliable. Similarly, argu-
ment in school science can be a vehicle for students to develop new understandings
of science content. This was the most commonly found emphasis among the argu-
ment interventions. A significant proportion of interventions emphasized argument
and language processes, and to a slightly lesser extent, interventions emphasized
the moral, ethical, and political impact of scientific advancements. Detailed exam-
ples of these classifications are now discussed.
Science content was most often the emphasis of the argument interventions (54%,
n = 29). One example of using argument to learn science content is the use of concept
cartoons (Keogh & Naylor, 1999; Naylor, Keogh, & Downing, 2007). Concept cartoons
depict a multiple-choice-type question about common science misconceptions in a
cartoon illustration. The cartoons served as prompts for argument about fundamental
science concepts, such as the effect of insulators on heat transfer, and subsequently
led to student investigations that concluded in whole-class plenary sessions.
Science argument or language processes were the emphasis in 26% (n = 14) of
the articles. The IDEAS project exemplified this categorization (Erduran, Simon,
& Osborne, 2004; Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004; Simon, Erduran, & Osborne,
2006; von Aufschnaiter, Erduran, Osborne, & Simon, 2008). In the IDEAS project,
students completed instruction in Toulmin’s (1958) pattern of argument and were
then asked to generate arguments around both social issues and science phenomena.
Students completed nine argument-based lessons over the duration of the project
(no information on the sequencing of the activities over the various units of study
344
was provided). The first and last activities utilized socioscientific issues as the basis
for argument, and the middle seven utilized science content. Various tasks (or frame-
works) were provided as options for teachers to foster argument. For example, students
were given a table of statements about a topic and asked to construct an argument
as to why they agreed or disagreed with each statement. In a second framework,
students were given a lab report written by a student that could be improved. The
students were asked to provide suggestions on how and why to improve the report.
Of the nine frameworks available to teachers, competing theories—ideas and
evidence was utilized most frequently by participating teachers. In the competing
theories framework, competing theories and various pieces of evidence were offered
for students to consider. Students were asked to evaluate the quality and significance
of the various pieces of evidence and then argue for one of the theories. Although
these studies called attention to content and moral, ethical, and political consider-
ations, the primary emphasis of the reported activities was to learn and use Toulmin’s
(1958) pattern of argument.
Moral, ethical, and political considerations were found to be the emphasis of 20%
(n = 11) of the interventions. Moral, ethical, and political considerations were empha-
sized in Walker and Zeidler’s (2007) article about discourse around socioscientific
issues. The authors reported on a unit of seven 90-minute sessions that scaffolded
students (using the Web-based Inquiry Science Environment) toward a policymaking
debate on genetically modified foods. The first two activities provided an overview
of genetically modified foods and genetic engineering. Various stakeholders in the
debate (e.g., farmers, genetic engineer, Environmental Protection Agency representa-
tive) were then introduced, including the role of the government in the genetic engi-
neering issue. Students subsequently planned and participated in the policy-making
debate. Throughout the unit, students were prompted with questions about the nature
of science related to moral and personal values influencing science and the tentative
nature of science. Such prompts, along with the stakeholders in the role-play, sug-
gested that the primary goal of the argument intervention was to illustrate the subjec-
tive and tentative nature of science as well as the external influences on science.
Aspects of Science Included in the Argument Intervention
Science is a process of continual construction and critique of ideas in which nature
plays a key role as the most influential arbiter. As such, scientists practice within both
the material and social aspects of science (Ford, 2008). As previously defined, the
social aspect is the peer-review process, whereas the material aspect consists of two
senses, getting nature to speak and portraying nature’s voice. Ford’s framework was
used to determine which aspects of science were included in each intervention. All
of the reviewed interventions contained some form of the social aspect of science.
Therefore, none of the interventions solely utilized the material aspect of science.
Interventions most commonly included the social aspect and one of the material
senses of science (portraying nature’s voice through data interpretation). Another
significant portion of the articles included only the social aspect of science, whereas
a small number of interventions included both material senses and the social aspect.
These results suggest that argument was not commonly used to define parameters
for investigations (getting nature to speak). Frequencies of the various classifications
of the aspects of science are presented in the following paragraphs.
345
Cavagnetto
Most articles involved the social aspect and one material sense of science (50%,
n = 27). An example of the social and one material sense categorization was found
in Berland and Reiser (2009). The article reported on a study conducted in classrooms
that utilized the Investigating and Questioning Our World Through Science and
Technology curriculum and a claim, evidence, and reasoning structure for explana-
tion of phenomena. Two learning sets were used in the curriculum. The first set
focused on invasive species. The initial 3 days were used to learn about invasive
species, and a case study of the sea lamprey was presented. The following 6 days
were an exploration of the features that allow the lamprey to survive in its new
environment. Using data provided through computer simulations, students generated
and then defended their explanations to questions such as the following: “Why did
some finches die and others survive in 1977?” and “With which organisms do the
invasive sea lamprey compete?” Interventions characterized as containing the social
aspect and one material sense align with critical aspects of argument in science,
namely, the construction and critique of evidence-based arguments to describe natural
phenomena. These interventions did not, however, use argument for construction
and critique of research questions and designs.
Nearly 32% (n = 17) of the interventions reviewed solely captured the social
aspect of science. Albe (2008) provided an example of an argument intervention
that included the social aspect but not the material aspect as students debated knowl-
edge claims but did not interpret experimental data or construct experimental designs.
Albe reported on a debate about mobile phones and the associated health risks.
Students were trained to evaluate the validity and reliability of research results. They
then reviewed (in groups of six) seven extracts (similar to abstracts) of research
studies. To reach consensus on validity and reliability issues, students voted. Using
the information from the extracts, students presented arguments in the form of a
role-play in which an employee was taking his employer to court. The employee
contended that his health problems were related to the mobile phone use. Students
served as expert witnesses to support either the prosecution or the defense and
questioned the arguments put forward by the opposing group.
Of the articles reviewed, 10 (18.5%) reported on argument interventions that
captured the social and material aspects of science including both senses of the
material aspect. For example, Yerrick (2000) reported on a series of extended inquiry
activities based around questions generated by students. Four questions were
explored: (a) “What makes a light bulb burn out when the glass breaks?” (b) “How
do batteries make appliances work?” (c) “Are the clouds we see day after day made
of the same water or is it different?” and (d) “How do audiotapes store music?” With
each question, students constructed tentative explanations, designed and carried out
investigations, made observations and knowledge claims, and discussed their con-
clusions with respect to their initial ideas. Although the level of argument was not
necessarily characteristic of that found in the scientific community, as students often
came to unanimous agreement, the structure of the task was representative of the
material and social aspects of science.
Engle and Conant (2002), reporting on a Fostering Communities of Learners
classroom (Brown & Campione, 1994), also addressed both aspects of science.
Although their students did not engage in empirical collection of data, they did
generate proposals for exploration, investigated their topics (various animals) by
346
consulting books and other sources, and prepared a written summary (in the form
of book chapters) of their findings. Students then engaged in a cooperative learning
jigsaw activity in which they shared and discussed their chapters. The activities
reported by Engle and Conant (2002) and Yerrick (2000) included students devel-
oping ways to address questions, construction of explanations for the research
questions, and defense of their ideas. Thus, students participated in both material
senses and the social aspect of science.
Patterns Found Across the Three Domains
When looking across the three domains, variation in the nature of interventions
exists (Table 2). Within this variation, three orientations for argument are evident:
(a) immersion in science for learning scientific argument (immersion), (b) learning
the structure of argument to learn and apply scientific argument (structure), and
(c) experiencing the interaction between science and society to learn scientific
argument (socioscientific). Although a few of the articles cross multiple orienta-
tions or do not fit clearly, the overwhelming majority appear to be grounded in one
of the three orientations. Examples of each of the three orientations are described
below.
Immersion in science to learn and understand scientific argument. A number of

the interventions found in the literature appear to be guided by the notion that
learning scientific argument occurs by using scientific argument in investigative
contexts. Interventions in this orientation facilitated argument through scaffolds
such as prompts, strategic selection for group collaboration, and use of student
misconceptions.
Interventions that used scaffolds were used to inform both argument construc-
tion and student investigative decisions. For example, the Science Writing Heuristic
(Keys, Hand, Prain, & Collins, 1999; Martin & Hand, 2009) utilized questions to
scaffold student construction of arguments. Students were prompted with questions
such as the following: “What is my question?” “How can I answer my question?”
“What is my claim?” “What is my evidence?” and “How does my claim compare
with those of others?” These questions helped students construct explanations of
phenomena and required students to make decisions about how to approach the
investigation. Similar directional scaffolds were provided with the computer pro-
gram ExplanationConstructor (Sandoval & Millwood, 2005; Sandoval & Reiser,
2004). In doing so, ExplanationConstructor emphasized the relationship between
investigation and explanation.
Creating cognitive conflict was also a strategy used to support argument. In
a series of articles, Clark and Sampson (2007, 2008) and Clark, D’Angelo, and
Menekse (2009) report on the use of Personally Seeded Discussions, a computer
program that arranged discussion groups based on differences in students’ initial
explanations. Another series of articles (Keogh & Naylor, 1999; Naylor et al.,
2007) described the use of concept cartoons, which used common misconceptions
as contexts for argument and investigation. Although immersion-based interven-
tions did vary, they all focused on argument as an embedded aspect to scientific
practice.
347
Table 2
Orientations guiding the structure of the argument interventions
Nature of Science
Group description activity Emphasis aspect n
Immersion in science to learn Integral Science Full material + 9
scientific argument (n = 22) component to content social
investigation
Integral Science One material + 9
component to content social
investigation
Explanation of Science One material + 1
phenomenon content social
Culminating Science Full material + 1
activity content social
Culminating Science One material + 2
activity content social
Contains aspects of immersion and Culminating Science One material + 1
structure (n = 3) activity content social
Integral Argument, One material + 2
component to language social
investigation
Understanding the structure to learn Explanation of Argument, One material + 8
scientific argument (n = 10) phenomenon language social
Culminating Argument, One material + 1
activity language social
Culminating Argument, Social aspect 1
activity language
Understanding the interaction Culminating Argument, Social aspect 2
of society and science to learn activity language
scientific argument (n = 15) Culminating Science Social aspect 2
activity content
Culminating Moral, Social aspect 11
activity ethical,
political
Does not clearly fit into any of the Culminating Science One material + 3
three orientations (n = 4) activity content social
Explanation of Science Social aspect 1
phenomenon content
Learning the language structure to learn and use scientific argument. A second
orientation approached argument by explicitly teaching a structure for argument
and asking students to apply the structure in scientific and sometimes socioscien-
tific contexts. Such orientations were evident in two major research efforts: the
IDEAS project (Erduran et al., 2004; Osborne et al., 2004; Simon et al., 2006;
348
von Aufschnaiter et al., 2008) and the claims, evidence, and reasoning structure
identified in McNeill (2009), McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik, and Marx (2006), and
McNeill and Krajcik (2008). In the IDEAS project, students were taught Toulmin’s
(1958) argument structure and then gained experience with its application across
nine argument topics. Students were most often asked to generate explanations
by evaluating evidence for competing mechanisms for a phenomenon. The claims,
evidence, and reasoning structure reported by McNeill and colleagues was applied
as student-generated written explanations for phenomena associated with chemical
change. The researchers supported students’ construction of explanations by explicit
instruction followed by prompts that faded in frequency as students gained experi-
ence developing explanations. These interventions emphasized the structure of
argument, particularly the use of backing and warrants in the construction of
arguments.
Understanding the interaction between science and society to learn scientific

argument. The final orientation toward learning scientific argument emphasized
the interaction between science and society, including moral, ethical, and politi-
cal influences on decision making in scientific contexts. Socioscientific issues
and science, technology, and society-based interventions were used as contexts
for engaging students in argumentation. These interventions often occurred in
culminating activities such as class debates or role-plays. For example, Walker
and Zeidler (2007) report on a policymaking debate about genetically modified
foods. Students participated in explorations using Web-based investigative soft-
ware and applied their conceptual understandings in the policymaking debate.
A similar intervention occurred in Sadler, Chambers, and Zeidler (2004), Sadler
and Donnelly (2006), and Sadler and Fowler (2006), when students read scenarios
about gene therapy and asked why or why not they perceived it as appropriate.
Others such as Kolsto (2001, 2006) and Wu and Tsai (2007) utilized more com-
mon issues, such as high-transmission power lines and construction of nuclear
power plants, to seed argument. These interventions focused on realizing moral,
ethical, and political considerations associated with the application of science
knowledge rather than argument for constructing an understanding of scientific
principles. One exception to this pattern is Zeidler, Sadler, Applebaum, and
Callahan (2009) and Fowler, Zeidler, and Sadler (2009), who designed a cur-
riculum for an anatomy and physiology course contextualized in socioscientific
issues.
The argument orientations are derived from the nature of the interventions. The
immersion orientation included interventions embedded in student investigations.
The structure orientation tended to emphasize argument in explanatory contexts,
whereas the socioscientific orientation highlighted social and cultural influences
to understanding argument in science. Socioscientific-orientated interventions were
often situated in culminating activities.
A few studies reported on interventions that fit between the immersion and
structure orientations. Herrenkohl and Guerra (1998) and Herrenkohl, Palincsar,
DeWater, and Kawasaki (1999) reported on the effects of defined roles, which served
as scaffolds for scientific practice, particularly the construction of arguments. Like
349
Cavagnetto
the structure orientation, explicit instruction about the roles was provided prior to
engagement. The nature of scientific explanations was explained through the roles
as students were to monitor three aspects of developing explanations: (a) predicting
and theorizing, (b) summarizing results, and (c) relating the results to theory and
predictions. The intervention was similar to the immersion orientation in that it
portrayed argument as an embedded component to scientific practice. That is, the
three aspects of explanations informed participation in the lab investigations.
A second intervention that seems to be located between the immersion and structure
orientations was found in Bell and Linn (2000). In this article, students participated
in a capstone project about the nature of light. The intervention emphasized the
structure of argument (although it was not taught separate from the capstone activ-
ity) as students participated in a computer investigation requiring them to interpret
data provided and collected during computer simulations.
Four articles did not clearly fit any of the three orientations. Jimenez-Aleixandre,
Rodriguez, and Duschl (2000) reported an intervention in which students were
asked to apply their understandings of heredity and evolution to provide explana-
tions for variation in the color of chicks’ feathers from a chicken farm. No specific
instruction in explanation was provided to students. Argument was not immersed
in a scientific investigation, and socioscientific issues were not emphasized as
important in learning argument. Similarly, Taasoobshirazi and Hickey (2005) and
Cross, Taasoobshirazi, Hendricks, and Hickey (2008) reported on the use of the
argumentation review routine. This intervention was used to refine students’ under-
standing of quiz questions. Students generated explanations based on data and
evidence provided by their teacher and their peers. The fourth article that did not
clearly fit into any of the orientations was Chin and Teou (2009). They reported
on the use of concept cartoons to stimulate debate on common misconceptions.
Their use of concept cartoons, however, was not afforded the same characterization
as Keogh and Naylor (1999) and Naylor et al. (2007) because it was not clear that
the concept cartoon led into a student investigation that utilized argument. It should
be noted that all four of these interventions may be grounded in one of the three
orientations, but their descriptions did not allow for clear categorization into the
three orientations.
Discussion
This review was undertaken to gain greater perspective on the nature of argu-
ment interventions in the research literature and ultimately to understand how the
research community attempts to use argument in pursuit of scientific literacy. The
results indicate diversity as the interventions employed various combinations of
the three domains. The characteristics of the interventions indicate that researchers
approach students learning the language of scientific practice using three ori-
entations: (a) understanding the interaction of science and society to learn scientific
argument (socioscientific), (b) immersion for learning scientific argument (immer-
sion), and (c) understanding the structure to learn scientific argument (structure).
At some level all three orientations promote scientific literacy. Perhaps a more
meaningful question is, to what extent do the orientations promote scientific lit-
eracy? Building on Norris and Phillips’s (2003) perspective of scientific literacy,
350
Ford’s (2008) goal of grasp of scientific practice, and commonalities in language

from international bodies related to science education (ACARA, 2009; DCSF,
2009; NRC, 2007; OECD, 2003), the answer to this question lies in their respective
portrayals of the role of argument in science.
Socioscientific-orientated interventions were designed to use argument as a
vehicle to explore societal elements that influence science (e.g., moral, ethical, and
political issues). In turn, these issues provided an authentic context for science
instruction. Students certainly need to recognize that science intersects with social
issues and that scientists participate in social debates; however, it is important to
differentiate between science talk and the talk of scientists. That is, it is true that
scientists play a role in social issues, but they enter a predominantly political arena
when advocating for particular social issues. In the political arena, the discourse
responsible for construction of reliable scientific knowledge does not apply. The
needs and desires of the various stakeholders, moral issues, religion, and other
cultural variables take on a greater role than they do in science (e.g., debates about
global climate change, the teaching of evolution in schools, euthanasia). In science,
nature plays a more prominent role than in socioscientific contexts. Therefore, the
scientific view of evolution by natural selection (developed through scientific
practice) does not change because people have different views of the teaching of
evolution. A perspective that would suggest such a change is at the relativist extreme
of the epistemological continuum.
Conversely, the immersion orientation portrayed argument as a tool for both the
construction and understanding of science principles and cultural practices (includ-
ing discourse practices) of science. Immersion-oriented interventions were designed
to embed argument within student explorations of science principles. That is, argu-
ment was not considered something that was done to conclude the inquiry but was
found throughout the inquiry as students generated questions, designed experiments,
interpreted data, and constructed and defended evidence-based knowledge claims
based on their evidence. Immersion approaches have been found to be effective in
other settings such as second language acquisition (Genesee, 1985). Although sci-
ence is not a traditional language, it does share critical characteristics with traditional
languages. Most notably, science uses specialized vocabulary and includes cultural
norms that influence the discourse and the community’s knowledge construction.
Building on this relationship, Gee (2004) and others (Sandoval & Millwood, 2007;
Wallace & Narayan, 2002) suggest that although scientific language can be learned
through explicit instruction, students gain useable understanding through
immersion.
Structure-oriented interventions were designed to aid in the transfer of an argu-
ment structure to diverse situations. The interventions focused on the communication
and defense of knowledge claims while offering fewer opportunities for students
to engage in other elements of scientific practice such as controlling variables,
experimental trials, error, data transformation, and interpretation of data. For
example, when provided with competing theories and evidence, students were
asked to evaluate the quality and significance of the evidence and subsequently
argue for one of the theories (Erduran et al., 2004). In this case, the intervention
focused on generation and defense of evidence-based knowledge claims and did
not attend to the other elements of knowledge construction in science. From this
351
Cavagnetto
perspective, argument is more of a product of inquiry than an enmeshed component

of inquiry.
Scientific literacy is the ability to accurately and effectively interpret and con-
struct science-based ideas in the popular media and everyday contexts. As such,
scientific literacy is realized by an understanding of scientific principles, processes,
and argument, all of which are supported by cognitive and metacognitive process
as well as critical reasoning and communication skills. Although each of the three
orientations toward argument utilizes these components that motivate scientific
literacy, only the immersion orientation appears to fully capture the culture, includ-
ing the epistemic nature, of science that is embedded in scientific practice.
Ford (2008) recognizes this cultural aspect in his intricate portrait of knowledge
construction and critique in science, implying that a rich understanding of the nature
of science is more complex than that which bulleted lists of characteristics can
portray (NRC, 1996). This complex nature of science suggests the skill of argument
(knowing and applying the argument structure) and understanding science principles
and processes are not adequate to support scientific literacy. The distinction between
skills and practice is important because practice includes not only knowledge of
evidence-based arguments but also the abstract, nuanced features at the junction
of science processes, argument structure, and construction of science conceptual
knowledge. These components of science are bound within and inform the culture
of science. Therefore, the goal of argument instruction in the context of scientific
literacy is not the transfer of argument skills but rather the transfer of an under-
standing of scientific practice.
Transfer of an understanding of scientific practice as opposed to distinct parts
of scientific practice is analogous to reading and writing proficiency. Literacy
requires the abilities to decode and copy text but also the abilities to infer and
interpret meaning from text and synthesize text strategically (Norris & Phillips,
2003). Scientific literacy parallels general literacy in that it requires the abilities
and background understandings to infer and interpret meaning from text, talk, and
other modes of representation to build new interpretations. In reading and writing,
the interaction of rhetorical and content knowledge drives interpretation, inference,
and construction of new text (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Galbraith, 1999; Norris
& Phillips, 2003). Importantly, rhetorical knowledge is dependent on social and
cultural aspects of the community (Gee, 2004). Similarly, in science, literacy is
supported by the integration of scientific principles (content knowledge) and com-
munity norms (cultural aspects rooted in the practice of science). The interaction
among these knowledge spaces allows individuals to make judgments based on
the written or spoken words representing ideas, the authority presenting the ideas,
and the methods by which the ideas were derived.
An understanding of scientific practice is possible through participation in sci-
ence (Ford, 2008). Through immersion, students have the opportunity to authenti-
cally wrestle with fundamental elements of science (e.g., control of variables, error,
data transformation, etc.). According to Ford (2008), these fundamental elements
of science are uncovered as students engage in construction and critique of ideas
(argument) throughout investigations. Some of these fundamental elements are
included in the structure and socioscientific orientations. However, these two
orientations focus on individual elements (e.g., construction and critique of claims
352
based on evidence). In doing so, they neglect other fundamental elements of sci-
ence (e.g., controlling variables) and do not allow students to experience the inte-
gration of the elements.
Considering the immersion orientation fully addresses scientific practice, it
appears to hold the most promise for motivating scientific literacy. The author,
however, makes this claim cautiously as further study needs to establish the limits
of argument for fostering scientific literacy. Specifically, factors that influence the
portability of knowledge need to be explored in the contexts of scientific argument
and literacy.
Failure to transfer knowledge spontaneously has been well established in labo-
ratory and classroom settings (Haskell, 2001). For knowledge to be portable,
students must realize that their science knowledge is relevant in a particular situ-
ation. That is, they must recognize the similarities between their knowledge and
the situation requiring transfer (Gick & Holyoak, 1987). Thus, abstract knowledge
tends to support transfer whereas highly contextualized knowledge reduces the
likelihood of transfer because students are less likely to recognize similarities
between the transfer task and their background knowledge (Bransford, Brown, &
Cocking, 2000). Therefore, transfer is fostered by providing students with a large
number of examples of the learning objective during initial learning (Gick &
Holyoak, 1987).
Scientific literacy relies on not only the ability to recognize when to enact sci-
ence knowledge but also the ability to recognize what is the most appropriate
science knowledge to enact. The quality of the enacted knowledge relies on the
student’s familiarity with the various patterns found in the transfer context. Famil-
iarity allows students to quickly retrieve and screen potential responses to the situ-
ation. Thus, the depth of the student’s background knowledge, the level of
understanding, is also important (Bransford et al., 2000).
Such research raises the question of whether school science can offer enough
repetitions of scientific practice to allow students the ability to see the necessary
patterns for recognition and quality enactment of their knowledge. Although the
immersion orientation offers broad experiences in the practice of science, it is
reasonable to suggest that in a given amount of time the depth of such knowledge
may not be as great as that constructed from a more focused orientation. Obstacles
related to time may require concessions with regard to the depth of the scientific
practice that students are able to experience. Concessions, perhaps in the form of
hybrid interventions, may be necessary to optimize argument interventions in sup-
port of scientific literacy.
Implications
The diversity found among the various argument interventions is an opportunity
to enhance our understanding of argument in pursuit of scientific literacy. Debate
of key aspects of the different interventions is crucial to refining argument-based
instruction. This study is an attempt to stimulate such debate because the results
allow researchers to make useful distinctions among orientations. To further inform
such debate, future studies should clarify the contributions of the various orienta-
tions toward argument through either meta-analysis or common metrics that facilitate
comparison across orientations.
353
354
Appendix
Summary and classification of articles
Aspects of
Nature of Emphasis of science in
Study Participants Description of argument activity activity activity activity
Albe (2008) 12 Grade 11 After evaluation of research abstracts, students Culminating Science Social
students presented arguments in the form of a role-play. Set activity argument
in the context of a court case, students served as and language
expert witnesses in which an employee was suing processes
his employer alleging that his health problems
were the result of using his cell phone for work.
Bell and Linn 172 (86 pairs) Students completed computer explorations and Culminating Science content Social and
(2000) middle generated and subsequently defended their ideas activity 1 material
school when presented with two competing theories about sense
students how far light goes. (portraying
nature’s
voice)
Berland and 53 middle Students participated in two units of study: how Explanation of Science Social and
Reiser (2009) school can I make new stuff from old stuff and what phenomenon argument 1 material
students in will survive. Students generated scientific and language sense
the United explanations (using a claims, evidence, and processes (portraying

States reasoning structure), articulated their explanations nature’s
to persuade others, and publicly defended their voice)
explanations.
(continued)
Appendix (continued)
Aspects of
Chin and Teou 74 fifth and Students debated explanations of concept cartoons Explanation of Science content Social
(2009) sixth grade in small groups and then presented their ideas phenomenon
students in to their classmates for further debate. In small
Singapore group discussions, students made use of one
of two scaffolds to structure their discussion.
The Discussion Template prompted students to
explain the rationale for their ideas and questions
to challenge opposing viewpoints. The Paper
Dialogue allowed students to record ideas and
questions on a document shared among group
members.
Clark and Eighth and Students engaged in personally seeded discussions Integral to Science content Social and
Sampson (2007, ninth grades after generating explanations during computer- student lab 1 material
2008); Clark, students in simulated experiments. In the personally seeded investigation sense
D’Angelo, and the United discussions, groups with opposing explanations (portraying
Menekse (2009) States were paired together to discuss their explanations. nature’s
voice)
Dori, Tal, and 200 students Students used case studies to explore implications of Culminating Moral, ethical, Social

Tsaushu (2003) in Grades biotechnology. After reviewing the cases, students activity political
10–12 responded to three questions relating to the considerations
knowledge and understanding of the technological
innovation, possible advantages of the innovation,
and rationale for sociopolitical arguments about
the innovation.
355
(continued)
356
Aspects of
Engle and Conant Fifth grade After a video about animals, students were required Integral to Science content Full material
(2002)a students to write a proposal for an animal that they student lab and social
wanted to explore. Proposals were reviewed and investigation
animals were assigned based on the quality of the
proposals. Students consulted books and other
sources, including a meeting with experts at an
aquarium. Student groups prepared a book chapter
with each student contributing specific aspects of
the chapter. They then shared their chapters with
their peers during a jigsaw activity.
Furberg and Two secondary Students in two different cities collaborated via an Culminating Moral, ethical, Social
Ludvigsen classrooms interactive Web-based program. In groups, students activity political
(2008) in Norway wrote scientific articles pertaining to the scientific considerations
and ethical aspects of gene technology. The articles
were published on a student-designed website.
Herrenkohl and Third, fourth, These articles focused on the use of roles and public Integral to Science Social and
Guerra (1998); and fifth artifacts as scaffolds to students engaging in student lab argument 1 material
Herrenkohl grade scientific thinking and discourse. Students adopted investigation and language sense
et al. (1999) students in roles around three aspects of scientific explanation: processes (portraying
the United (a) predicting and theorizing, (b) summarizing nature’s

States results, and (c) theory building and relating results voice)
to predictions. Students then took on the various
roles as they carried out small group investigations
in which they generated explanations of
phenomena and orally presented their findings.
(continued)
Aspects of
Jimenez- One class of The intervention was organized around a set of Integral to Science content Full material
Aleixandre and 11th grade jigsaw activities in the context of an environmental student lab and social
Pereiro-Munoz students in management issue. After presentation of the investigation
(2002) Spain problem and a tour of the site of the issue, each
of six groups of students analyzed a biological
consideration associated with the issues (e.g.,
landscape values, plant or animal communities,
projected drainpipes). Students constructed maps
and reports and shared them in jigsawed teams.
Teams produced a final report based on all of the
findings. The reports were debated in a final session.
Jimenez- One class of After introduction to genetics and evolution related Culminating Science content Social and
Aleixandre, 9th grade concepts, student groups were asked to serve as activity 1 material
Rodriguez, and students in consultants to biologists studying a chicken farm. sense
Duschl (2000) Spain Students provided explanations for the cause of (portraying
recent variation in the color of chicks’ feathers nature’s
from a chicken farm by applying their new voice)
knowledge. On a subsequent day, students were
prompted with possible solutions and asked to

provide evidence for and against the solutions.
Kelly and Chen 9th–12th grade Working in small groups, students designed musical Integral to Science content Social and
(1999) students in instruments and conducted tests on the instruments. student lab 1 material
a secondary They then made modifications and retested the investigation sense
physics class instruments. Following the testing, students wrote (portraying
in California, technical reports about their findings. nature’s
United States voice)
357
(continued)
358
Aspects of
Kelly, Druker, and 9th–12th grade Students participated in a performance assessment Culminating Science content Full material
Chen (1998)b students in with batteries, wires, and bulbs to determine activity and social
a secondary contents of six mystery boxes. When they thought
physics class they knew the contents of a box, the students
in California, provided an argument for their conclusion.
United States
Keogh and Seventh grade Students reflected on concept cartoons and Integral to Science content Social and
Naylor (1999); students; subsequently discussed their ideas in groups. student lab 1 material
Naylor, Keogh, primary-level These discussions were used as springboards investigation sense
and Downing students in into teacher-designed practical investigation, (portraying
(2007) the United after which students participated in a whole-class nature’s
Kingdom plenary session. voice)
Keys, Hand, Elementary Students participated in extended investigations in Integral to Science content Full material
Prain, and students which they designed, conducted, and presented student lab and social
Collins (1999); in the findings to peers. Students engaged in writing, debate, investigation
Martin and midwestern and reading in an effort to construct knowledge
Hand (2009) United States claims and subsequently evaluate their claims.
Kim and Song Two boys and Students, working in small groups, carried out Integral to Science content Full material
(2006) six girls in open-inquiry activities in which they generated student lab and social

grade eight a question, designed way(s) to answer their investigation
in South question, generated claims, and presented findings
Korea to peers. The presentations were conducted one to
one with other groups in a debate format.
(continued)
Aspects of
Kolsto (2001, 22 students After their teachers shared stories from a local Culminating Moral, ethical, Social
2006) from four newspaper about high-transmission power lines activity political
science in residential neighborhoods, students worked in considerations
classes in groups to discuss their ideas associated with the
Norway issue. Each group formulated an opinion on the
issue and generated logical arguments to support
their decision.
Maloney and 10- and In four activities students were asked to make Culminating Science Social and
Simon (2006) 11-year-old decisions by evaluation of provided data. For activity argument 1 material
children in example, in one activity students were asked to and language sense
the United determine which of three cups should be taken to a processes (portraying
Kingdom picnic. Data were provided on the various cups. In nature’s
a second activity, students were provided solutions voice)
using “bat facts” for removing bats from inside the
library roof. The purpose of the activities was to
teach students to make decisions using evidence.
Mason (1996) Grade 5 Students argued about the effect of a plastic bag on Integral to Science content Social and

students in the condition of leaves left out on a table. Students student lab 1 material
Italy discussed their initial hypotheses and the results of investigation sense
an experiment comparing leaves left on a table and (portraying
leaves in a plastic bag on the same table. nature’s
voice)
(continued)
359
360
Aspects of
McNeill, Lizotte, Middle school In these series of studies, students participated in Explanation of Science Social and
Krajcik, and students a unit of study, how can I make new stuff from phenomenon argument 1 material
Marx (2006); in the old stuff, designed to foster understanding of and language sense
McNeill and midwestern scientific explanations. Students were taught the processes (portraying
Krajcik (2008); United claims–evidence–reasoning structure for scientific nature’s
McNeill (2009)c States explanations and applied it with varying levels voice)
of scaffolding throughout the 8-week unit. With
the focus on explanations of natural phenomena,
students participated in investigations and
activities in which evidence was provided.
Osborne, Junior high As part of the IDEAS project, teachers instructed Explanation of Science Social and
Erduran, and school students in Toulmin’s (1958) pattern of argument phenomenon argument 1 material
Simon (2004); science and then were asked to generate arguments and language sense
Erduran, Simon, classes around both social issues and science phenomena. processes (portraying
and Osborne Teachers had the opportunity to implement nature’s
(2004); Simon, different strategies for students to generate voice)
Erduran, arguments. In the most widely used strategy,
and Osborne competing theories and various pieces of evidence
(2006); von were offered to students to consider. Students

Aufschnaiter, were asked to discuss which pieces of evidence
Erduran, supported the competing theories.
Osborne, and
Simon (2008)
(continued)
Aspects of
Palincsar, Sixth grade Students were introduced to collaborative problem Integral to Science content Full material
Anderson, and students solving by engaging in a task to “stack” four student lab and social
David (1993) different colored solutions and provide an investigation
explanation of the problem’s mechanism. Then,
students engaged in a small group problem-based
task to develop the fastest and then the slowest
way to dissolve sugar. During the activity students
determined the solvents for use and the parameters
of the dissolving race to establish a fair test.
Radinsky (2008)d Sixth grade In small groups, students investigated tectonic plate Culminating Science content Social and
students boundaries over 5 days at the conclusion of a activity 1 material
19-day instructional unit. Students were assigned sense
a location on Earth and had to identify the (portraying
boundaries of the tectonic plate on which it was nature’s
situated. Students presented their group findings to voice)
the rest of the class.
Richmond and Grade 10 Students completed four student-designed Integral to Science content Full material
Striley (1996) students in investigations of science phenomena associated student lab and social

the United with the cholera epidemic in the 19th century. investigation
States Students constructed and defended their
arguments about predictions, experimental design,
and knowledge claims based on evidence. These
arguments occurred in small group settings over
the course of the four investigations.
(continued)
361
362
Aspects of
Sadler, Chambers, 56 high school This study reported on students’ argument construction Culminating Moral, ethical, Social
and Zeidler students during interviews. After receiving an explanation of activity political
(2004); Sadler gene therapy, student participants were asked to read considerations
and Donnelly three scenarios about gene therapy: (a) gene therapy
(2006); Sadler as a cure for a disease, (b) gene therapy to increase
and Fowler intelligence, and (c) gene therapy for cloning.
(2006) After each reading, participants were asked if gene
therapy was appropriate and why.
Sampson and High school This article reported on a study in which participants Explanation of Science content Social and
Clark (2009) chemistry (randomly assigned to individual or collaborative phenomenon 1 material
students groups) had to determine which explanation (of sense
six provided) best explained a discrepant event (portraying
called ice melting blocks. Participants then had to nature’s
justify their claims with appropriate evidence and voice)
reasoning in the form of a written argument. To
assess understanding of the phenomena, participants
completed the task again without the provided
explanations and an additional similar task.
Sandoval and High school Students explored large data sets and provided Integral to Science content Social and

Reiser (2004); biology explanations for population decline of Galapagos student lab 1 material
Sandoval and students in finches and bacterial resistance (evolution investigation sense
Millwood the United problems). Computer software used prompts to (portraying
(2005) States scaffold student written arguments. nature’s
voice)
(continued)
Aspects of
Seethaler and 190 grade eight Students participated in a 10-day curriculum Culminating Moral, ethical, Social
Linn (2004) students about genetically modified foods (GMF). The activity political
curriculum was built in the Web-based Inquiry considerations
Science Environment. Students learned about the
history of corn, genetic engineering, and GMF
found in common foods. Students explored one of
four different positions in the GMF debate. Using
provided evidence, students constructed posters
for oral presentations to peers. These presentations
allowed students to hear all of the evidence for
and against GMF and organic food. Using the
reported evidence, students constructed written
arguments to identify and defend their positions.
Simon (2008) Two 13-year- Students used a computer program, Digalo, which Culminating Science Social
old students mapped their ideas into an argumentative activity argument
structure. In the example reported, “Is the Atkins and language
diet safe?” students constructed arguments using processes
provided evidence.
Simonneaux Upper Students took part in a role-play activity to Culminating Moral, ethical, Social

(2001) secondary determine whether to allow a new fish farm on the activity political
classroom coast that bred genetically modified salmon. Cards considerations
were used to identify the characters involved
and the observers’ tasks. Historical and scientific
information about transgenesis was presented
didactically to students. Following the role-play,
students wrote their opinions about the issue.
363
(continued)
364
Aspects of
Squire and Jan Fourth grade, Students participated in a virtual environment in Culminating Science Social
(2007) middle which they played the role of a friend of a man activity argument
school, and who was found dead in a lake. Students made and language
alternative decisions about who to speak with (13 other processes
high school characters) to gather evidence and were required
students to piece the evidence together to generate the most
plausible explanation. They then provided a 20- to
30-minute debriefing to a police investigator.
Taasoobshirazi 28 biology Questions on quizzes were used to seed feedback Culminating Science content Social and
and Hickey students conversations, which were structured around activity 1 material
(2005); Cross, from a four-step argumentation review routine sense
Taasoobshirazi, Grades 10 process. For each question, each student shared (portraying
Hendricks, and and 11; 15 and explained the rationale for their answer. nature’s
Hickey (2008) astronomy They then tried to agree on the most sensible voice)
students solution to the question. Finally, students used
from Grades an answer explanation rubric to determine the
11 and 12 most appropriate answer and confirm the group’s
understanding.
Varelas et al. 2 classes of Students classified materials as solids, liquids, and Culminating Science content Social and

(2008) 1st–3rd gases and provided written explanations to support activity 1 material
grade their classifications. A concluding whole-class sense
students discussion produced class consensus. (portraying
nature’s
voice)
(continued)
Aspects of
Walker and 36 students in Students used the Web-based Inquiry Science Culminating Moral, ethical, Social
Zeidler (2007) Grades 9–12 Environment to prepare for a policy-making activity political
debate on GMF. Students played such roles considerations
as famers, genetic engineers, and government
representatives during the debate.
Watson, Swain, 60 Grade 8 Students participated in an exploration of factors Integral to Science content Full material
and McRobbie students affecting the strength of paper chains. Students student lab and social
(2004) chose a variable (e.g., paper width, paper investigation
type) to manipulate while maintaining the
other variables. They then made predictions,
conducted the experiment, and drew conclusions
based on evidence.
Wu and Tsai 71 Grade 10 Students received instruction on energy use, Culminating Moral, ethical, Social
(2007) students in energy options, and the ramifications of energy activity political
Taiwan options. Students provided written responses considerations
to the question of whether a nuclear power
plant should be built and how their decisions

were made (intuitive or evidence based). After
reading a summary report about the advantages
and disadvantages of nuclear power, students
wrote responses to questions associated with the
arguments for and against nuclear power.
(continued)
365
366
Aspects of
Yerrick (2000) Five general Students explored questions such as “What makes Integral to Science content Full material
science a light bulb burn out when the glass breaks?” student lab and social
high school by designing and conducting experiments. They investigation
students subsequently drew conclusions and debated their
in the ideas to reach a whole-class conclusion.
midwestern
United
States
Zeidler, Sadler, 11th and In this study, the authors reported on the Culminating Science content Social
Applebaum, 12th grade effectiveness of a curriculum developed around activity
and Callahan students socioscientific issues. Students analyzed the
(2009); Fowler, in Florida, quality of evidence, generated explanations, and
Zeidler, and United defended and critiqued the explanations. For
Sadler (2009) States example, in one unit relating to marijuana use,
students read articles with diverse perspectives,
evaluated and ranked evidence, and discussed
their conclusions within and among groups.
aThe language and the length of time for generating the proposals suggested that the task was robust and included how the student planned to explore the animal. This robust

interpretation of proposal was used during analysis.
bThe performance assessment was embedded in an inquiry-based unit that may well have offered opportunities to engage in argument. However, given it was not the focus of the
reported study and the insufficient detail provided, the inquiry-based unit was not used in this review.
c In this series of articles and in Berland and Reiser (2009), it is clear the students construct explanations but unclear with regard to the extent that students engage in activities where
they manipulate variables in an organized fashion. Therefore, these articles likely include, among the various activities, some that are integral to student lab investigations.
d This intervention could have also been characterized as an integral component to student investigation as it was an extended exploration (5 days). It was characterized as a
culminating activity as it was designed as a summative application of previously learned material.

Note
1
Given the nature and progression of scientific understanding, “truth” should not be
interpreted as absolute in this context.
References
*References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the review.
*Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and
social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a
socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2009, May). Shape of the
Australian curriculum: Science. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au
*Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing
for learning from the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22,
797–817.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
*Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation.
Science Education, 39, 26–55.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain,
mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners.
In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom
practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cavagnetto, A. R. (2009, January). The role of authentic science in science education:
Past models and approaches and directions for the future. Paper presented at the
Association for Science Teacher Education international conference, Hartford, CT.
*Chin, C., & Teou, L. (2009). Using concept cartoons in formative assessment: Scaf-
folding students’ argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 31,
1307–1332.
*Clark, D., D’Angelo, C., & Menekse, M. (2009). Initial structuring of online discus-
sions to improve learning and argumentation: Incorporating students’ own explana-
tions as seed comments versus an augmented-preset approach to seeding discussions.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 321–333.
*Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold
online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 253–277.
*Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online envi-
ronments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 45, 293–321.
*Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D. T. (2008). Argumentation:
A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. Interna-
tional Journal of Science Education, 30, 837–861.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary
meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in
*Dori, Y. J., Tal, R. T., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case
studies—Can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science
Education, 87, 767–793.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argu-
mentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
367
Cavagnetto
*Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive
disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of
learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–483.
*Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Develop-
ments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse.
Science Education, 88, 915–933.
Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and
learning. Science Education, 92, 404–423.
*Fowler, S., Zeidler, D., & Sadler, T. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socio-
scientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science
Education, 31, 279–296.
*Furberg, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2008). Students’ meaning-making of socio-scientific
issues in computer mediated settings: Exploring learning through interaction trajec-
tories. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1775–1799.
Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge constituting process. In M. Torrence &
D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production
(pp. 139–160). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the
heart of school-based literacy. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and
science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 13–32). Arlington, VA:
NSTA Press.
Genesee, F. (1985). Second language learning through immersion: A review of U.S.
programs. Review of Educational Research, 55, 541–561.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1987). The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer. In
S. M. Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of learning: Contemporary research
and applications (pp. 9–46). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, and reasoning.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
*Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse,
and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431–473.
*Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Develop-
ing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 8, 451–493.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education:
An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in sci-
ence education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–28). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer.
*Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or
knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental
management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171–1190.
*Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson”
or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
*Kelly, G., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocul-
tural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 36, 883–915.
*Kelly, G., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Com-
bining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal
of Science Education, 20, 849–871.
*Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science:
An evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 431–446.
368
*Keys, C., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic
as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1065–1084.
*Kim, H., & Song, J. (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school
students’ scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36, 211–233.
*Kolsto, S. D. (2001). “To trust or not to trust . . .”: Pupils’ ways of judging information
encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education,
23, 877–901.
*Kolsto, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-
focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28,
1689–1716.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Lemke, J. L. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders
in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 32–47).
Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
*Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children’s discussions of evidence in
science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science
Education, 28, 1817–1841.
*Martin, A., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in
the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science
Education, 39, 17–38.
*Mason, L. (1996). An analysis of children’s construction of new knowledge through
their use of reasoning and arguing in classroom discussions. Qualitative Studies in
Education, 9, 411–433.
*McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing
scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93, 233–268.
*McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and eval-
uating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 45, 53–78.
*McNeill, K., Lizotte, D., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2006). Supporting students’ con-
struction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 153–191.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching
science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
*Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science.
Research in Science Education, 37, 17–39.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy
of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central
to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). The PISA 2003
assessment framework. Retrieved from http://www.pisa.oecd.org
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections
(Report to the Nuffield Foundation). London, UK: King’s College.
*Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation
in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.
369
Cavagnetto
*Palincsar, A. S., Anderson, C., & David, Y. D. (1993). Pursuing scientific literacy in the
middle grades through collaborative problem solving. Elementary School Journal, 93,
643–658.
*Radinsky, J. (2008). Students’ roles in group-work with visual data: A site of science
learning. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 145–194.
*Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes
in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in
Roth, K. J., Druker, S. L., Garnier, H. E., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T.,
& . . . Gallimore, R. (2006). Teaching science in five countries: Results from the TIMSS
1999 video study (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics NCES 2006–011). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review
of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
*Sadler, T., Chambers, F., & Zeidler, D. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature
of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science
Education, 26, 387–409.
*Sadler, T., & Donnelly, L. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of
content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28,
1463–1488.
*Sadler, T., & Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for
socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.
*Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of
scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93, 448–484.
*Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence
in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23–55.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2007). What can argumentation tell us about
epistemology? In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in
science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 71–88). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer.
*Sandoval, W., & Reiser, B. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating concep-
tual and epistemic scaffolds for epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science
Education, 88, 345–372.
*Seethaler, S., & Linn, M. (2004). Genetically modified food in perspective: An
inquiry-based curriculum to help middle school students make sense of tradeoffs.
International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1765–1785.
*Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumenta-
tion in school science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31,
277–289.
*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.
*Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and
justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science
Education, 23, 903–927.
*Squire, K. D., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad city mystery: Developing scientific argumenta-
tion skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 16, 5–29.
*Taasoobshirazi, G., & Hickey, D. T. (2005). Promoting argumentative discourse:
A design-based implementation and refinement of an astronomy multimedia
370
curriculum, assessment model, and learning environment. Astronomy Education

Review, 4, 53–70.
Tauber, A. I. (1997). Introduction. In A. I. Tauber (Ed.), Science and the quest for reality
(pp. 1–49). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Macmillan.
U.K. Department for Children, Schools, and Families. (2009). The national strategies.
Retrieved from http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/
*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 instruc-
tional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92,
65–95.
*von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn
and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their
scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 101–131.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
*Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific
issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29,
1387–1410.
Wallace, C. S., & Narayan, R. (2002, September). Acquiring the social language of
science: Building science language identities through inquiry-based investigations.
Paper presented at the Conference on Philosophical, Psychological, and Linguistic
Foundations for Language and Science Literacy Research, Victoria, Canada.
*Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students’ discussions in prac-
tical scientific inquiries. research report. International Journal of Science Education,
26, 25–45.
Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Smith, P. S. (2001, December).
Report of the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel
Hill, NC: Horison Research.
*Wu, Y., & Tsai, C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-
scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Sci-
ence Education, 29, 1163–1187.
*Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry
instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 807–838.
*Zeidler, D., Sadler, T., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. (2009). Advancing reflective
judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
46, 74–101.
Author
ANDY R. CAVAGNETTO is an assistant professor of education in the school of education
at Binghamton University-State University of New York, School of Education, P.O. Box
6000, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000; e-mail: acavagne@binghamton.edu. His research
interests relate to language use in formal science instructional settings.
371

2010 - Cavagneto - Argument To Foster Scientific Literacy - The Best Journal in Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2010 - Cavagneto - Argument To Foster Scientific Literacy - The Best Journal in Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ER376953RER10.

3102/0034654310376953CavagnettoArgument Interventions in K–12

Review of Educational Research

Argument to Foster Scientific Literacy:

The goal of scientific literacy has led to a steady increase in argument-based

Keywords: instructional practices, learning processes, learning strategies, literacy,

answer this question. The characteristics of argument interventions in the research

Immersion in science to learn and understand scientific argument. A number of

Understanding the interaction between science and society to learn scientific

Ford’s (2008) goal of grasp of scientific practice, and commonalities in language

perspective, argument is more of a product of inquiry than an enmeshed component

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 18, 2015

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 18, 2015

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 18, 2015

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 18, 2015

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 18, 2015

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 18, 2015

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 18, 2015

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 18, 2015

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 18, 2015

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 18, 2015

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 18, 2015

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 18, 2015

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 18, 2015

culminating activity as it was designed as a summative application of previously learned material.

curriculum, assessment model, and learning environment. Astronomy Education

You might also like