Studies on students' argumentation, particularly on science-related issues, show that social dimensions influence argumentation (Grace, 2005; Kolstø, 2006; Mercer, 2000; Solomon, 1992). The purpose of this chapter is to explore some of these social aspects and discuss their legitimacy and possible consequences for teaching argumentation in science education. The scope for our exploration is the social aspects of argumentation in science-related issues. We conceptualise argumentation as a goal directed social practice embedded in different types of dialogues (Walton, 1998). The nature of argumentation will be discussed from both a philosophical and an empirical point of view. In addition, we will also relate the discussion to social aspects of science in order to clarify the context in which students' argumentation on scientific matters are embedded. We define an argument as a claim supported by a justification. The characteristics of justifications are not included in our definition, as the quality of the justification, according to the nature of arguments, is to be judged by the debaters.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socioscientific issues in pre-college science classroom. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1994). The social contract of science. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 11–20). New York: Teachers College Press.
Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision-making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 72(2), 185–201.
Collingridge, D., & Reeve, C. (1986). Science speaks to power: The role of experts in policy making. London: Frances Pinter.
Costello, P. J. M., & Mitchell, S. (1995). Introduction—argument: Voices, texts and contexts. In P. J. M. Costello & S. Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices: The theory and practice of argument (pp. 1–9). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young peoples’ images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Fullick, P., & Ratcliffe, M. (Eds.) (1996). Teaching ethical aspects of science. Totton, UK: Bassett Press.
Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Assessing STS literacy: What’s rational? Paper presented at the 7th IOSTE Symposium, Enschede, The Netherlands, 23–31 August (Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Canada).
Geddis, A. N. (1991). Improving the quality of science classroom discourse on controversial issues. Science Education, 75(2), 169–183.
Grace, M. M. (2005). Adolescent decision-making about biological conservation issues. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Hardwig, J. (1985). Epistemic dependence. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(7), 335–349.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001a). “To trust or not to trust …”—pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877–901.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001b). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.
Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689–1716.
Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., Mestad, I., Quale, A., Tonning, A. S. V., & Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632–655.
Kolstø, S. D., & Mestad, I. (2005). Learning about the nature of scientific knowledge: The imitating-science project. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 247–258). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Lederman, N. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Martin, B., & Richards, E. (1995). Scientific knowledge, controversy, and public decision-making. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 506–526). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.
Mestad, I. (2003). Opne forsøk i ungdomsskulen. Ei etterlikning av naturvitenskapeleg arbeidsmåte (Open experiments in lower secondary). Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Mork, S. M. (2006). ICT in science education. Exploring the digital learning materials at viten.no. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo.
Norris, S. P. (1995). Learning to live with scientific expertise: Toward a theory of intellectual communalism for guiding science teaching. Science Education, 79(2), 201–217.
Ratcliffe, M. (1996). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues, within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182.
Ratcliffe, M. (1999). Evaluation of abilities in interpreting media reports of scientific research. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1085–1099.
Siegel, H. (1988). Rationality and epistemic dependence. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20, 1–6.
Solomon, J. (1992). The classroom discussion of science-based social issues presented on television: Knowledge, attitudes and values. International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 431–444.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tynes, T. (1996). Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer. The Cancer Registry of Norway/Institute of General Practice and Community Medicine, Oslo: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Walton, D. N. (1992). The place of emotion in argument. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, D. N. (1997). Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Wood, N. V. (2000). Perspectives on argument (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ziman, J. (2000). Real science. What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kolstø, S.D., Ratcliffe, M. (2007). Social Aspects of Argumentation. In: Erduran, S., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (eds) Argumentation in Science Education. Science & Technology Education Library, vol 35. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-6669-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-6670-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)