Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148

DOI 10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y

Teaching Strategies for Developing Students’

Argumentation Skills About Socioscientific Issues
in High School Genetics

Vaille Maree Dawson & Grady Venville

Published online: 7 November 2008

# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract An outcome of science education is that young people have the understandings
and skills to participate in public debate and make informed decisions about science issues
that influence their lives. Toulmin’s argumentation skills are emerging as an effective
strategy to enhance the quality of evidence based decision making in science classrooms. In
this case study, an Australian science teacher participated in a one-on-one professional
learning session on argumentation before explicitly teaching argumentation skills to two
year 10 classes studying genetics. Over two lessons, the teacher used whole class discussion
and writing frames of two socioscientific issues to teach students about argumentation. An
analysis of classroom observation field notes, audiotaped lesson transcripts, writing frames
and student interviews indicate that four factors promoted student argumentation. The
factors are: the role of the teacher in facilitating whole class discussion; the use of writing
frames; the context of the socioscientific issue; and the role of the students. It is
recommended that professional learning to promote student argumentation may need to be
tailored to individual teachers and that extensive classroom based research is required to
determine the impact of classroom factors on students’ argumentation.

Keywords Argumentation . Genetics education . Socioscientific issues

V. M. Dawson (*)
Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley 6102 Western
Australia, Australia
e-mail: v.dawson@curtin.edu.au

G. Venville
Graduate School of Education, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley 6009
Western Australia, Australia
e-mail: grady.venville@uwa.edu.au
134 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148

Introduction

Importance of Argumentation in Science Education

Throughout our lives we are faced with a myriad of problems, dilemmas and conundrums
about which we need to make decisions and choices. In our modern society, many of these
issues centre around the products of science and technology. One of the essential outcomes
of school science education is to enable students to use their understanding of science to
contribute to public debate and make informed and balanced decisions about socioscientific
issues that impact on their lives. Socioscientific issues are those that are “based on scientific
concepts or problems, controversial in nature, discussed in public outlets and frequently
subject to political and social influences” (Sadler and Zeidler 2005, p. 113). Young people
are faced with choices related to their personal health and well being. As a society we must
make decisions about how to address issues related to limited energy resources, water
quality and quantity, pollution and population control. Driver et al. (2000) strongly argue
that a central component of science education that will help students make decisions now
and in the future is the process of argumentation.
It is important that school science provides young people with the understanding, skills
and values that are needed to grapple with socioscientific issues. Young people need to be
able to weigh up the risks and benefits of alternative solutions, pose questions, evaluate the
integrity of evidence and counter evidence and make well informed decisions. They also
need the skills to engage in oral debate and discussion about issues (Sadler 2006). One way
of providing structure to assist school students to develop and practice decision-making
skills is through argumentation. Newton et al. (1999) provide several compelling reasons
for the explicit teaching of argumentation in science classrooms. First, argument is the
process by which scientific knowledge is developed and verified. Argumentation is the
discourse of those who practice science. Scientists make propositions and provide evidence
(e.g., observations, inferences, theory) that is then debated, reviewed and criticised within
expert scientific communities. This is the process of constructing scientific knowledge.
When students engage in argument, they begin to understand the norms and language of
scientific debate and how knowledge is constructed in science.
Second, by engaging in argumentation students actively participate in discussion and are
able to talk about their emerging scientific understandings. It is suggested that developing
the ability to argue will promote science learning because speaking and writing about
science, whether it be to explain concepts or to support decisions about socioscientific
issues, will build conceptual understanding. Third, argumentation skills have value beyond
science education. The ability of young people to reason, think critically, understand and
present arguments in a logical and coherent way both orally and in writing allows them to
fully participate in society and is a desirable outcome of education in a democratic society.

What is an Argument?

Kuhn (1991) defines an argument as “an assertion with accompanying justification” (p. 12).
Similarly, Means and Voss (1996) describe an argument as “a conclusion supported by at
least one reason”, (p. 141). Developments in the use of argumentation in science education
draw on the work of Toulmin (1958). He developed a model of argumentation which
outlines the ‘parts’ or structure of an argument and can be used both to teach students, and
their teachers, the skills of argumentation and also to analyse or evaluate students’
argumentation. The main components of Toulmin’s argumentation model are: claims, the
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148 135

conclusion, proposition or assertion; data, the evidence that supports the claim; warrants,
an explanation of the relationship between the claim and the data; backings, basic
underlying assumptions to support the warrants; qualifiers, specific conditions under which
the claim is true; and, rebuttals statements which refute alternative or opposing claims, data
and warrants.

Argumentation and Conceptual Understanding

A review of studies related to argumentation and conceptual understanding suggests that the
development of argumentation skills may influence conceptual understanding (e.g., Albe
2008; Harris and Ratcliffe 2005; Kortland 1996; Sadler 2004). However, research exploring
a possible relationship between argumentation and conceptual understanding is not
straightforward. Some studies suggest a positive relationship (e.g., Aufschnaiter et al.
2008; Zohar and Nemet 2002) while others do not (e.g., Kuhn 1991).
Zohar and Nemet (2002) reported on a case study of year 9 (15 year old) students from
two schools in Israel who were taught a 12-h unit on genetics that integrated explicit
argumentation skills. The aims of the unit were to develop students’ understanding of
genetic topics (e.g., genetic counselling, inheritance, gene therapy and genetic cloning) and
develop argumentation skills (e.g., developing and justifying arguments and counter
arguments). The experimental group of 99 students were taught argumentation skills,
bioethical principles and practised using these skills, while debating ten moral dilemmas.
When they were compared to a comparison group of 87 students who were taught a
traditional genetics topic, the experimental students were more likely to use their biological
knowledge to improve the quality of their arguments about bioethical dilemmas AND they
scored statistically significant higher scores in a genetics test of 20 multiple choice
questions. The authors concluded that teaching of explicit argumentation skills enhances
performance in both conceptual understanding and argumentation.
Aufschnaiter et al. (2008) used Toulmin’s model to analyse the quality of argumentation
demonstrated by groups of year 8 (12–13 year old) students discussing diverse topics
including blood pressure, phases of the moon, diet and matter. The teachers had previously
participated in professional development using a professional development package called
Ideas, evidence and argument in science (IDEAS) (Osborne et al. 2004a). These materials
are described in the following section. The teachers explicitly taught argumentation skills to
the students. Analysis of audio transcripts showed that groups of students were not capable
of composing high quality arguments unless they had some content knowledge.

Teaching Argumentation in the Science Classroom

The study reported in this paper was informed by the work of Jonathan Osborne and
colleagues from King’s College, London. In 2004, Osborne et al. (2004b) reported on a
study of the design, implementation and evaluation of a curriculum based on Toulmin’s
model and designed to enhance argumentation skills of high school science students. As
part of the study, they produced a professional development package for teachers called
Ideas, evidence and argument in science (IDEAS) (Osborne et al. 2004a). The kit
comprised a video and in-service training pack with instructions and resources for six in-
service sessions of half a day each. The sessions, in order, are: introducing argument;
managing small group discussions; teaching argument; resources for argument; evaluating
argument; and, modelling argument. The video contains excerpts of science teachers
teaching aspects of argumentation in a range of contexts and topics.
136 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148

After providing continuous professional development using the IDEAS materials and
teaching resources to a group of 12 junior high school science teachers in the UK, the
teachers subsequently integrated argumentation into their teaching. The authors collected
video and audiotape data about how the teachers developed argumentation skills and how
the students’ participated in discussion and argumentation in small groups. A framework
based on the components of Toulmin’s argumentation pattern was developed to measure the
quality of students’ argumentation in small groups. The transcripts were examined for
instances of claims, data, warrants, backings, qualifiers and rebuttals. Osborne et al.
(2004b) found that there was an improvement in the quality of students’ argumentation post
instruction, but the improvement was not significant when compared with groups not taught
argumentation. Rather, the quality of students’ argumentation seemed to be related to the
extent to which individual teachers provided opportunities for argumentation.
In a different paper based on the same data, Simon et al. (2006) focussed on the
argumentation dialogue used by the 12 teachers who taught argumentation. They compared
the dialogue of teachers whose students demonstrated improvement in the quality of
argumentation skills with those teachers whose students did not. The context of this
analysis was a lesson on a socioscientific issue related to keeping animals in zoos. They
found that changes in students’ argumentation skills were linked to teachers’ classroom
dialogue and that improvement occurred in classes where teachers focussed on helping
students understand the importance of talking, listening and reflecting, taking a position and
justifying it with evidence, constructing arguments and counterarguments and where the
teachers modelled argumentation skills themselves. The role of the teacher in encouraging
reflection and developing counter-arguments was found to be particularly important.
The crucial role of the teacher also was emphasised by Jimenex-Aleixandre et al. (2001)
in a study that examined small group and whole class discussions of 15 year old students
studying genetics. They concluded that where the teacher, “created a climate of confidence
which encouraged students to express and defend their opinions, combined with the use of
tasks that required students to work collaboratively and solve problems” (p. 782)
argumentation was more likely to be exhibited.
Two other findings from the work of Osborne et al. (2004b) and others (e.g., Sadler and
Donnelly 2006; Zohar and Nemet 2002) informed the design of this study. Firstly, Osborne
et al. (2004b) found that it was harder to implement argumentation in a scientific context
than a socioscientific context. Secondly, prior to instruction in argumentation, high school
aged students demonstrate poor argumentation skills. The latter statement is supported by a
recent study where 30 Australian high school students (aged 12–17 years) from five
different schools were interviewed and asked to justify their views of a range of gene
technology processes (Dawson and Venville in press). Without prompting, it was found
that, regardless of age, most students (about 75%) expressed low level arguments consisting
of either claims only or claims and data. Warrants, backings and qualifiers were rarely
present. The findings were consistent with argumentation levels expressed by high school
aged students when arguing about socioscientific issues in the US (Sadler and Donnelly
2006). Thus, in this study of year 10 students (14–15 years old) we assumed that without
instruction, most students would be unable to construct complex arguments with backings,
qualifiers and warrants.
In summary, the research reviewed in this section has called attention to the critical
importance of the quality of instruction with regard to enhancing students’ argumentation
skills. However, little research has explored the implementation of argumentation by
science teachers in naturalistic classroom settings. The aim of the study presented in this
paper was to identify the types of strategies used by an Australian high school science
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148 137

teacher as he introduced argumentation skills to his year 10 science classes in a genetics

context. The research questions were:
1. Following a professional development session on argumentation, what strategies did
the teacher use to promote argumentation?
2. What were the students’ perceptions of the argumentation in the post professional
development classes?

Research Method

The research presented in this paper is part of a larger study to examine the effect of explicit
instruction in argumentation on year 10 students’ conceptual understanding of genetics and
their argumentation about socioscientific issues in a genetics context. The quality of
argumentation used by students before and after explicit instruction and the relationship
between argumentation and conceptual understanding are reported elsewhere (Dawson and
Venville 2008).
An instrumental case study approach (Stake 2000) was the primary research method. It
was intended that the findings of this exploratory case study would inform the design of
further research and professional development on argumentation. Data were generated
through semi-structured pre and post instruction student interviews, teacher interviews,
students’ work samples, field notes of a professional learning session on argumentation,
classroom observations and audiotaped lesson transcripts. The use of these multiple sources
of data allowed triangulation and cross-checking of emergent hypotheses.

Sample

The research site was a metropolitan co-educational high school with an enrolment of 960
students in years 8 to 12. The school is located in a middle class suburb of Perth, Western
Australia. The science department is well resourced with two full time laboratory
technicians, computer support and access to a wide range of laboratory equipment. Most
of the staff are experienced teachers who regularly participate in science professional
development. The research was conducted with Mr. D, a well regarded biology teacher with
19 years experience and his two year 10 classes of 28 and 27 students respectively. Year 10
students (14–15 years) were chosen as the research sample because genetics is typically
taught in year 10 in Australian schools. After year 10, science is no longer a compulsory
subject and only one third of students continue with biology.

Professional Learning Session

In July, 2006, Mr. D agreed to trial the introduction of argumentation skills with his two
year 10 classes. Initially, Mr. D was given a briefing paper written by the authors which
summarised the principles of argumentation and how it could contribute to conceptual
understanding and scientific literacy. Mr. D then participated in a 90-min one-on-one
professional learning (PL) session with the first author using the Ideas, evidence and
argument in science (IDEAS) materials (Osborne et al. 2004a). The session began with a
discussion of what an argument is and how scientists argue and debate with their peers in
many contexts such as within journals and at conferences. For example, scientists argue and
debate about the type of data to be collected, validity and reliability of data, interpretation
138 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148

of data and suitability of models. Resource sheets from the third session of the IDEAS
training pack (Teaching argument) were used to introduce Toulmin’s model of argument,
examples of arguments and their parts (i.e., data, claim, warrant, backing, qualifier and
rebuttal) and the use of argument prompts. Video excerpts showing two teachers
introducing and modelling argumentation were viewed and critiqued. The professional
learning session was conducted as an interactive discussion with Mr. D having significant
input as he discussed his ideas on how best to teach argumentation.
The benefit of using argument in decision-making about socioscientific issues was also
discussed. Mr. D was offered a choice of three socioscientific issues set in a genetics
context that could be used to promote argumentation. The three issues had been used
previously with year 10 students. He chose one based on cystic fibrosis (Dawson and
Taylor 2000) and the other on genetically modified tomatoes (Lewis 2000) as he believed
they best suited the genetics content that the students had recently been taught. Mr. D also
suggested the use of a writing frame with guiding questions to scaffold students’ thinking.
With input from Mr. D a writing frame with questions was constructed for each
socioscientific issue. The questions were designed to act as a mental prompt for students
as they worked individually to express their arguments about the issues. Examples of
questions on the writing frames included: “What evidence supports your answer?” and, “If
someone disagreed with you, how would you convince them that your answer is the best?”
Writing frames have been shown to enhance thinking and writing skills in science (Hand et
al. 2004b). See Appendix A for a copy of the writing frames with the socioscientific issues
and guiding questions. Note that in the version used by students, space was allowed for
students to write their responses.

Data Sources and Analysis

The argumentation lessons were taught towards the end of the genetics topic after students
had studied inheritance and some uses of gene technology including genetics testing and
genetic modification. The timing of the argumentation lessons was deliberate as it had been
shown previously that students of this age displayed better argumentation skills if they have
some prior knowledge (Aufschnaiter et al. 2008; Lewis and Leach 2006). Extensive field
notes were recorded during the professional development session, a pre lesson, and the
lessons on argumentation. Audiotapes of all lessons were transcribed. The transcript
sections where Mr. D promoted argumentation were coded using the framework developed
by Simon et al. (2006). A summary of this analytical framework follows:

& Talking and listening

○ Encourages discussion
○ Encourages listening
& Knowing meaning of argument
○ Defines argument
○ Exemplifies argument
& Positioning
○ Encourages ideas
○ Encourages positioning
○ Values different positions
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148 139

& Justifying with evidence

○ Checks evidence
○ Provides evidence
○ Prompts justification
○ Emphasises justification
○ Emphasises further justification
○ Plays devil’s advocate
& Constructing arguments
○ Uses writing frame or written work/prepares presentations/gives roles
& Evaluating arguments
Encourages argument process—using evidence/content—nature of evidence
& Counter-arguing/debating
○ Encourages anticipating counter argument
○ Encourages debate (through role play)
& Reflection on argument process
○ Encourages reflection
○ Asks about mind-change
A sample of 12 students from Mr. Ds two classes, six students from each class, were
interviewed before studying the 10-week genetics topic. Ten of these students were re-
interviewed after the topic. The remaining two students were absent each time the authors
visited the school. Interviewed students were asked questions about their understanding of
genetics concepts and their decision-making about two genetics dilemmas. The students
were selected by Mr. D using a purposive sampling method (Patton 1990) that allowed for a
range of academic abilities. The classes at this school were not streamed for academic
ability and the interviewed students were identified by the teacher as being of high, medium
and low academic achievement in science. In the post instruction interview, the students
also were asked what they thought of the argumentation lessons. A copy of the interview
protocol is presented in Appendix B. The interviews were transcribed and the post unit
transcript sections on students’ perceptions of argumentation were analysed for emergent
themes.

Results

The Lessons

Mr. D’s classes were observed prior to the argumentation lessons to ascertain his teaching
style. Mr. D was a very confident teacher who encouraged independent learning in his
students because he wanted them to take responsibility for their learning. Typically, the
students worked independently in small groups, with Mr. D calling the class together at
intervals to check on progress and provide information. As students worked he circulated
from group to group. There was a hum of noise in the class and students were largely on
task.
140 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148

Mr. D taught argumentation skills to his two year 10 classes over two consecutive
lessons of 50 min each (100 min in total). Both classes were approaching the end of a
10-week genetics topic which covered reproduction, inheritance, Mendelian genetics,
human genetic diseases, genetic engineering and genetic screening for single gene
disorders. The structure of the argumentation lessons was as follows. After reviewing the
previous lesson, Mr. D explained to students that they were going to learn about some
strategies for decision-making. A diagram of a tomato was drawn on the white board and
inside the diagram were the words, ‘data’, ‘claim’, ‘warrant’, ‘backings’ and ‘rebuttal’. Mr.
D explained what each of the words meant in relation to argumentation. He then handed out
the writing frame for the genetically modified tomato issue. Students were asked to read
about the socioscientific issue by themselves and write down what they would do. Without
discussion, they were instructed to answer the first two questions about what further
information they needed and about evidence to support their decision. Mr. D then led a
whole class discussion interspersed with periods when the students used the writing frames.
Students were asked to consider the benefits and risks of their decision and how they would
convince someone who disagreed with them. After the discussion, students answered the
final question about whether or not they had changed their decision. In the next lesson, Mr.
D repeated the same process using the writing frames and whole class discussion with the
cystic fibrosis issue.
In order to examine more closely the strategies used by Mr. D to promote argumentation,
the audiotaped lesson transcripts were analysed using the framework developed by Simon
et al. (2006) and outlined in the previous section. As described in the introduction, the
framework of Simon et. al. was developed by scrutinising the types of teaching strategies
and dialogue used by teachers whose students subsequently displayed better argumentation
skills compared with those teachers whose students did not improve their argumentation
skills. Table 1 provides exemplars from the audiotaped lesson transcripts of the behaviours
exhibited by Mr. D. All behaviours were demonstrated on at least one occasion.

Students’ Perceptions

During the argumentation lessons, we observed that the students were engaged and on task.
They appeared to enjoy expressing their views about the two socioscientific issues. The
students listened to each other and did not tend to talk over or interrupt each other, partly as
a result of Mr. D managing the discussion. Apart from when students were using the writing
frames, there was a constant dialogue of student–student and student–teacher talk about the
issues.
During the post interviews, conducted 2 weeks after instruction, all students vividly
recalled the socioscientific issues and initially responded by describing the socioscientific
issues and outlining their views. For example student S recalled her response to the
socioscientific issues.
OK, from that lesson I learnt that as much as genetics has a really, really—like some
up sides, and it’s also got some really down ones. Like with the Flavr savr—we didn’t
know if the tomato would still have like the same nutritional value as like an organic
tomato or if it had other problems with it that they hadn’t really told us about. (S, 17/
806)
Yeah, it needs to be like a bit more information on it and with the cystic fibrosis, I
don’t think I would have told the parents at first because you could like ruin their
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148 141

Table 1 Examples of argumentation processes exemplified by Mr. D while teaching argumentation

Argument Codes for teacher Example from transcript

process facilitation

Talking and Encourages discussion p. 3 What was your first initial response
listening to the business about the Flavr Savr tomato?
p. 6 So you’re saying that everybody on
this planet is so ethically and morally
perfect nobody will do the wrong thing?
Encourages listening p. 4 Oh that’s good Steph. Yes, so Steph’s
also making that comparison.
Knowing meaning Defines argument p. 3 So with the tomato, you’ve got a claim and a
of argument counter claim.
Exemplifies argument p. 9 So it’s a bit like saying, man never
landed on the moon, or man landed on the
moon, and the counter claim is, of course,
no he didn’t, you look at the flag, there’s
no way they could have done it. So
we’ve got a claim and a counter claim.
Positioning Encourages ideas p. 14 Good, Bryce is thinking out various
scenarios in his head. I think that’s
always good.
Encourages positioning p. 11 If you were the genetics counsellor,
would you tell both Mr. and Mrs. C
the test results?
Values different p. 9 But I think that sometimes we need that,
positions we need people to stand up and give us
that other point of view.
Justifying with Checks evidence p. 11 They’ve actually given you that
evidence word, Danielle, what is that word?
(Danielle—mutation)
Provides evidence p. 7 The hostesses or stewards will walk up
and down the isle and they’ll say please
fill out these quarantine cards and watch the
video.
Prompts justification p. 11 Teacher—Now because it’s recessive
if you have just one of them, can you get
the disease? (S—No) Teacher—No, so
we’re drawing back on the work we
did in genetics.
Emphasizes p. 10 Teacher—What do I need more of?
justification (S—Evidence) Teacher—More evidence.
So like I need more data.
Encourages further p. 6 Once again another example of where
justification we need a bit more research, a bit more data so
we can back up some comments.
Plays devil’s advocate p. 13 What if you were the father,
would you want to know?
Constructing Uses writing frame or p. 2 I’m going to hand out a sheet to you.
arguments written work/prepares Have a bit of a read first and as you are reading
presentations/gives roles it be critical.
Evaluating Encourages evaluation p. 2 You know when you read something
arguments you should be a little bit critical.
142 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148

Table 1 (continued)

Argument Codes for teacher Example from transcript

process facilitation

Evaluates arguments p. 8 …how would you try and convince

process—using evidence/
content—nature of evidence
Counter-arguing/ Encourages anticipating
debating counter-argument
Encourages debate
(through role play)
Reflecting on Encourages reflection
argument
process
Asks about mind-change
that your claim, or the way that you thought
about a problem, how would you try to
convince other people?
p. 6 And then we’ve got people who are
willing to, and we discussed this one the
other day too, you know there is going to be
a bit of a rebuttal there to. What are we going
to qualify?
p. 11 If you were the genetics counsellor,
would you tell both Mr. and Mrs. C the
test results?
p. 13 What if you were the father, would
you want to know?
p. 10 That’s a really good point. Do you think
that’s what schools are trying to do with their
science programs though? Is there any way
that a school with maybe one lesson of science
a day, is going to bring you fully up to speed
with what’s happening in the science world?…
So we’re not actually asking you to remember
absolutely everything. Perhaps we are asking
you to remember certain techniques, like
we’re doing now. We’re talking about how
to create a constructive argument.
p. 9 Okay, hand up those people who have
changed their mind between the start of the
sheet and…. Who heard what somebody
else said and maybe changed their
mind on it?

relationship, but then on the other hand if the father already knew or like they had a
sperm donation or whatever you probably wouldn’t know so it probably best to like
not say it at first just in case, and maybe talk to the mother about it first and yeah. (S,
17/806)
The analysis of the interview transcripts revealed that many of the students identified
and discussed critical strategies used by Mr. D in facilitating argument during the lessons.
(In order to demonstrate this connection, relevant aspects of the analytical framework are
included in square parentheses in text.) When asked what they thought of the lessons, the
students were unanimous in stating that they enjoyed and valued whole class discussions
and the use of writing frames [encourages discussion, uses writing frames].
Yeah, I thought it was quite fun because I was alright at it and, yeah, it was fun just
discussing stuff, like I didn’t do a heap of writing. Yeah, I didn’t find it too hard or
anything like that. It was easy to cope with. (J, 17/8/06)
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148 143

I did enjoy it because it was different than just telling the facts and the way Mr. D did
it, he asked everybody, we did the sheet first, just the first page of it and that was just
making up your mind (C, 17/8/06)
Mr. D also provided information to support or rebut their claims and built on their
answers by providing more data [provides evidence].
If we gave a reason he’d kind of expand on that and he like helped us understand—
lots of people were confused about a few things (R, 17/8/06)
Mr. D also asked questions to draw out backings and qualifiers from students [prompts
justification, encourages further justification, plays devil’s advocate].
He gave us some scenarios and inside the scenario he’d say like, what if this
happened? And then what about if you put this and this and then what would happen?
(J, 17/8/06)
Mr. D also encouraged students to express a range of views (claims and counter claims)
[encourages ideas]. For example:
It was good how we like, yeah, everyone had their own input. (R, 17/8/06)
The students valued listening to the arguments (counter claims and rebuttals) put forward
by their peers [values different positions, encourages debate, encourages reflection]. For
example:
I learnt that like there are lots of different opinions and it’s kind of good how everyone
has their own input—that’s what I liked about it and like yeah, there was lots of
different opinions which can twist the way you look at it and some were good and
some were bad. (R, 17/8/06)
I thought the lesson was good because we all got to discuss and we all like heard
different opinions from other people and we all thought about it. (S2, 17/8/06)
The students not only listened to, but were influenced by the evidence put forward by
their peers [encourages listening, encourages positioning, asks about mind change].
Everyone has their own opinions on certain topics and it kind of changes the way you
think about the topic when you hear other people’s opinions so you might be for it and
when you hear certain things you might be against it. (S1, 17/8/06)
We kind of had a light debate about it—like we’d all give our own opinion and then
he was like it’s OK if you change your mind, like if you started off thinking one thing
and then changed it, like that’s fine but we all like gave our opinions and then we kind
of thought outside the box and how they would feel and how the father would feel
and… it kind of brought ideas to your head but then you still had yours—you kind of,
you’re fighting with yourself on which one to choose. (V, 17/8/06)

Most students recognised the benefits of discussion where evidence was used to support
claims (provides evidence, encourages ideas, emphasises justification). For example:
We built off each other’s ideas and came up with more ideas than we would have done
by ourselves and learnt more about the cystic fibrosis one, DNA testing and with the
Flavr Savr one all about how it could be different with climate conditions…It left it up
to us to think and then by using our ideas and some of the things Mr D said and
144 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148

everybody else, we were able to understand more of the different effects and
everything. (Ca, 17/8/06)

Discussion

In this study, an experienced biology teacher introduced his year 10 students to

argumentation skills during a genetics topic as they examined two socioscientific issues,
one on a genetically modified tomato and the other on prenatal genetic testing for cystic
fibrosis. The argumentation lessons were 100 min in total. When the lesson transcripts were
analysed according to the framework developed by Simon et al. (2006) we identified
multiple instances where Mr. D exhibited the same argumentation processes found in UK
teachers who had participated in an extensive professional development program AND
were effective in improving students’ argumentation skills. This was despite Mr. D
participating in a brief (90-min) targeted professional development session. An analysis of
the classroom observations, audiotaped lesson transcripts and the post instruction interview
transcripts suggested that four factors that promoted argumentation in Mr. D’s classroom
emerged from the data. These factors included: the role of the teacher in facilitating whole
class discussion; the use of the writing frames; the context of the socioscientific issue; and,
the role of the students.
Mr. D regularly used whole class discussion in his teaching. We observed that Mr. D
used students’ names whenever they responded to, or asked a question. He called on all
students during the lessons. Often he would rephrase or restate a student answer so that the
whole class could hear the response. He would then build on the students’ responses by
providing more evidence, taking an alternative position, or asking for justification. He
encouraged students to answer each others’ questions with himself as the intermediary. He
used humour and listened actively to students often asking follow up questions to prompt
justification. He exemplified argument by providing examples to illustrate the language of
argumentation, reminding students of the importance of providing evidence, using claims
and counter claims. When students seemed to be in agreement he would play devil’s
advocate by offering a counter argument. Students seemed familiar with the rules of whole
class discussion with several being reminded that they had reached their quota of asking
questions.
The whole class discussion was interspersed with periods when students wrote their
answers to questions from the writing frames. The questions were designed to act as
argument prompts to encourage students to make a decision and to articulate reasons for
their decision. The nature of the questions (e.g., ‘How would you convince someone who
disagreed with you?’) encouraged students to use data, warrants and make explicit the
underlying assumptions (backings) that supported their claims. We observed that all
students wrote answers and Mr. D used the questions as a starting point for the periods of
whole class discussion.
Another feature of the lesson was that the teacher selected and used socioscientific issues
that were set in a genetics context so that students were able to readily apply their newly
acquired knowledge. This is similar to the successful use of bioethical dilemmas to promote
argumentation used by Zohar and Nemet (2002). Lewis (2000) and Aufschnaiter et al.
(2008) both state that students must have some scientific knowledge if they are to
successfully engage in argumentation. During discussion, Mr. D was able to draw on his
broad biology background knowledge and awareness of students’ content knowledge. This
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148 145

enabled him to provide further information to prompt students’ when required. We

observed that students used genetic terms in the discussion, writing frames and post unit
interviews.
The culture and abilities of the students needs to be considered when developing their
argumentation skills in science. If students are unaccustomed to questioning scientific
knowledge, evidence, or the teacher, they may be reluctant to engage in argumentation.
However, in the classes observed students seemed very comfortable with providing their
point of view and were also willing to listen to the teacher and their peers. We observed that
the students seemed interested and motivated by the socioscientific issues. The post unit
interview comments indicated that students enjoyed the lessons and the activities including
the whole class discussion and writing frames. Indeed, as one student left the class he
turned and asked Mr. D, “Can we do this again next period?”

Conclusion

In this study, Mr. D, after a brief professional development session on teaching

argumentation, introduced argumentation to two year 10 science classes in a genetics
context. Analysis of pre and post unit questionnaires on these students’ argumentation
about a socioscientific issue indicates that their quality of argumentation improved more
than students who were not taught argumentation (Dawson and Venville 2008). The two
main teaching strategies used by Mr. D were whole class discussion and individual student
writing frames. An advantage of whole class discussion was that Mr. D could control and
monitor all student input, ensure that students were on task and direct argument strategies to
the whole class. Also, unlike writing frames where students were working individually, they
were able to articulate their views and listen to rebuttals, warrants, backing, qualifiers and
data that they may not have been aware of.
Research from the UK has shown that a lack of teacher expertise in facilitating discussions
may inhibit students’ ability and opportunity to engage in argumentation (Oulton et al. 2004).
Similarly, after interviews with 41 Scottish biology teachers, Bryce (2004) found that they
were reluctant to consider social and ethical aspects of controversial issues because they felt
that they did not have the skills to effectively use discussion. In contrast, Mr. D had no
difficulty using whole class discussion with his students. Both authors of this paper are
experienced science education researchers and have conducted numerous classroom
observations. After observing Mr. D teach, we agreed that he is an exemplary biology
teacher. During the pre-argumentation classroom observations we noted that Mr. D was
highly accomplished at facilitating discussion and that he frequently employed the whole
class discussion strategy. As a consequence, his students also understood the social
conventions and structure of discussion including their roles of listening to the teacher and
their peers, answering and asking questions, and sharing their understandings and views.
In contrast, when students used the writing frames they wrote and thought individually
without input from their peers. The writing frames provided a scaffold to guide students in
recording their thoughts about the socioscientific issues. The prompt questions on the
writing frames required students to provide evidence and alternative viewpoints.
There is some evidence that the activity of writing and recording thoughts can enhance
reasoning and critical thinking amongst high school aged students (e.g., Hand et al. 2004a;
Keys 1999).
The choice of topics for the two socioscientific issues included a genetically modified
tomato and genetics testing for cystic fibrosis. Mr. D selected these two issues because he
146 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148

believed that the students had the requisite prior knowledge to engage in meaningful
discussion and make a decision. We conclude that the choice of socioscientific issue should
be carefully selected by teachers and researchers to ensure that students have sufficient
background knowledge to engage in argumentation. The issues should also be about topics
likely to be of interest to the students. As stated in the “Research Method” section, both the
socioscientific issues used in Mr. D’s class in this research had previously been successfully
used with students of similar age.

Implications and Recommendations

This study does seem to demonstrate that for this experienced biology teacher, a brief
professional development session on argumentation was sufficient for him to develop the
skills to successfully introduce his students to argumentation. Simon et al. (2006) claim that
teachers’ skills prior to professional development on argumentation are crucial in their
ability to develop their own students’ argumentation skills. Thus, it is recommended that
professional learning activities may need to be tailored to individual teachers depending on
their content knowledge of the topic, experience with whole class discussion, prior teaching
of socioscientific issues and familiarity with argumentation skills. If teachers are
inexperienced or unfamiliar with any or all of these aspects, they may need an extended
period of time prior to introducing argumentation skills to practice whole class discussion
using familiar topics.
In this study we identified four factors that seem to be important in the teaching of
argumentation. The factors were: the role of the teacher in whole class discussion; the use
of writing frames; the type of socioscientific issue; and, the role of the students. In this
study we were unable to ascertain the relative importance of each of these factors. However,
we are currently engaged in a larger scale professional development program working with
eight biology teachers in different schools. It is hoped that this study will provide evidence
about the relative impact of each of the identified factors. Finally, we recommend that
science educators who recognise the importance of developing students’ argumentation
skills work with science teachers and focus on classroom based research to provide much
needed data about effective strategies to aid in the development of students’ argumentation.

Appendix A Writing Frames on Socioscientific Issues

The Flavr Savr Tomato

Today, the Flavr Savr tomato went on sale in the USA for the first time. Normal tomatoes
rot quickly once ripe. To overcome this, producers pick them when they are green and
allow them to ripen during shipping and storage. Many people complain that this makes the
tomato tasteless.
The Flavr Savr tomato has been genetically altered to prevent it from rotting as quickly
as normal tomatoes. It can be picked once ripe and will not rot during transport or storage.
Producers claim that this makes the Flavr savr tomato taste better.
Should the Flavr Savr tomato be grown and sold in Australia?
Yes _________________
I don’t know __________
No___________________
Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148 147

Questions

What further information would help in making your decision?

What evidence supports your answer?
What are the possible benefits or advantages of your response?
What are the possible risks or disadvantages of your response?
Are there other reasons for why your claim is true?
Under what conditions is your claim true?
If someone disagreed with you how could you convince them that your answer is the best?
Has your original decision changed? In what way?

Cystic Fibrosis

Mr. and Mrs. C come to a genetics clinic for prenatal diagnosis. They have each been tested to
determine whether they carry the gene for cystic fibrosis, a hereditary lung disease that causes
severe breathing problems. The cystic fibrosis gene is recessive, so a child must inherit a copy
from each parent to get the disease. In this case, both Mr. and Mrs. C are carriers for the cystic
fibrosis gene. The specific mutations for each parent were identified in earlier tests.
Mrs. C, who is pregnant, undergoes prenatal diagnosis to determine if the foetus is
affected. DNA analysis indicates that the foetus does have two copies of the cystic fibrosis
gene, but one of the mutations it carries is different from that of either Mr. or Mrs. C. That
makes it virtually certain that Mr. C is not the baby’s father.
If you were the genetics counselor would you tell BOTH Mr. and Mrs. C the test results?

Appendix B Post Unit Interview Questions about Argumentation Lessons

I would like to ask you some questions about the lesson where you looked at the Flavr Savr
tomato and the cystic fibrosis issues.
Can you tell me what you learnt from that lesson?
Did you enjoy the lesson? Why/why not?
What can be learnt from looking at scenarios like that?
What did your teacher do to help you understand and make up your minds about the
scenarios?
Could scenarios like this help you to learn genetics? Why/why not?
Do you have any suggestions about how this lesson could be improved?

References

Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations
intersect: students’ argumentation in group discussion on a socioscientific issue. Research in Science
Education, 38(1), 67–90. doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2.
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(1), 101–131. doi:10.1002/tea.20213.
Bryce, T. (2004). Tough acts to follow: the challenges to science teachers presented by biotechnological progress.
International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 717–733. doi:10.1080/0950069032000138833.
Dawson, V. M., & Taylor, P. C. (2000). Do adolescents’ bioethical decisions differ from those of experts?
Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 1–5.
148 Res Sci Educ (2010) 40:133–148

Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (in press). High school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about
biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, accepted
February 18th, 2008.
Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2008, April). Argumentation and conceptual understanding: Grade 10 students
learning about genetics. A paper presented at the annual international conference of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Baltimore, 30th March–2nd April.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in
classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-
SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A.
Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2004a). Exploring students’ responses to conceptual questions when
engaged with planned writing experiences: a study with year 10 science students. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 41(2), 186–210. doi:10.1002/tea.10128.
Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. (2004b). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning
outcomes from laboratory outcomes in seventh-grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects.
International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131–149. doi:10.1080/0950069032000070252.
Harris, R., & Ratcliffe, M. (2005). Socio-scientific issues and the quality of exploratory talk—what can be
learned from schools involved in a ‘collapsed day’ project? Curriculum Journal, 16, 439–453.
doi:10.1080/09585170500384396.
Jimenex-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2001). “Doing the lesson” or “doing
science”; argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792. doi:10.1002/1098-237X
(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F.
Keys, C. W. (1999). Language as an indicator of meaning generation: an analysis of middle school students’
written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1044–
1061. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199911)36:9<1044::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-J.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision-making on the waste issue. Science
Education, 80(6), 673–689. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199611)80:6<673::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-G.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, J. (2000). Making the science relevant: classroom discussion of social issues with a science content.
In H. Bayrhuber & U. Unterbruner (Eds.), Lehren and lernen im biologieunterricht (pp. 107–119).
Innsbruck-Wein-Munchen: Studien.
Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: the role of science knowledge.
International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267–1287. doi:10.1080/09500690500439348.
Means, M., & Voss, J. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informed reasoning among children of
different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–178. doi:10.1207/
s1532690xci1402_1.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science.
International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576. doi:10.1080/095006999290570.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004a). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. In-service training
pack, resource pack and video. London: Nuffield Foundation.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004b). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035.
Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues.
International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411–423. doi:10.1080/0950069032000072746.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. doi:10.1002/tea.20009.
Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 17, 323–346. doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4.
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and
morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific
decision-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138. doi:10.1002/tea.20042.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in
the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260. doi:10.1080/
09500690500336957.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd
ed., pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in
human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. doi:10.1002/tea.10008.