Advertisement

Metalogue: Assessment, Audience, and Authenticity for Teaching SSI and Argumentation

  • Maria EvagorouEmail author
  • Troy D. Sadler
  • Tali (Revital) Tal
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 39)

Abstract

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. López-Facal, R., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Identities, social representations and critical thinking. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 4(3), 689–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on students learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V.  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Evagorou
    • 1
    Email author
  • Troy D. Sadler
    • 2
  • Tali (Revital) Tal
    • 3
  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of Nicosia (UNic)NicosiaCyprus
  2. 2.School of Teaching and LearningUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Education in Technology and ScienceTechnion–Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations