Metalogue: Assessment, Audience, and Authenticity for Teaching SSI and Argumentation
- 1.9k Downloads
Sadler: This chapter raises several interesting issues associated with the assessment of argumentation. There is obviously a great deal of support throughout the science education community for featuring argumentation as a fundamental scientific practice that ought to be featured in science learning experiences. However, the tools available for assessing argumentation both for research and teaching purposes remain somewhat limited. Toulmin has had an enormous impact on how science educators think about argumentation and the assessment of arguments, and modifications of the Toulmin argument pattern have been used extensively for assessment purposes (Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004). As discussed in the chapter, Toulmin’s model can be useful but it has a number of drawbacks.
- Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47–69). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
- Evagorou, M. & Osborne, J. (2011). Towards improving the measurement of quality of argument using Toulmin’s framework: A methodological contribution. Presented at the annual conference of the National Association of Research in Science Education (NARST), April 3–6, Orlande, FL.Google Scholar