Abstract
The focus of this chapter is on an Argumentation and Evaluation Intervention (AEI) and the associated graphic organizer, the Argumentation and Evaluation Guide (AEG). The primary goal is to describe the final version of the intervention and graphic organizer developed during a 3-year design study funded by the National Science Foundation for use in middle and secondary science classrooms that contained students of diverse abilities. The framework for the intervention was based on components of argumentation described by Toulmin (The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958). As such, it incorporated consideration of claims, qualifiers, evidence or grounds, warrants, rebuttals or counterarguments, and conclusions or judgments. This chapter presents detailed descriptions of the major components of the AEG and instructional procedures. After the description of each component, we will present insights from the design study, during which the project staff developed the intervention in collaboration with participating teacher-researchers. In discussions, teacher-researchers provided insights into their views of argumentation, perceptions of their own abilities to teach higher-order thinking associated with argumentation, and their views about students’ abilities to engage in argumentation. Then, via classroom observations and debriefings, they provided information about implementation of the procedures in science classrooms. Finally, observations and discourses with the teacher-researchers and others in the participating schools provided information on the use of additional general supportive instructional strategies and cross-curricular implications of the AEI.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number 0554414. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Mullis, I. V., Latham, A. S., & Gentile, C. A. (1994). The national assessment of education progress 1992 report card. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32, 21–24.
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice, National Research Council.
Bulgren, J. A., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Lenz, B. K. (2000). The use and effectiveness of analogical instruction in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 426–441.
Bulgren, J. A., & Lenz, B. K. (1996). Strategic instruction in the content areas. In D. D. Deshler, E. S. Ellis, & B. K. Lenz (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategies and methods (2nd ed., pp. 409–473). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Bulgren, J. A., Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., & Marquis, J. (2002). The use and effectiveness of a comparison routine in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 356–371.
Bulgren, J. A., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1988). Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(1), 3–17.
Carver, S. (2001). Cognition and instruction: Enriching the laboratory school experience of children, teachers, parents, and undergraduates. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 385–426). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005, April). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1986). Learning strategies: An instructional alternative for low-achieving adolescents. Exceptional Children, 52(6), 583–590.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, D. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Ellis, J., & Bulgren, J. (2009, March). Professional development materials to develop student knowledge and skills of scientific argumentation. (Year 3 report submitted to the National Science Foundation). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.
Institute for Education Sciences—National Center for Educational Statistics. (2007). Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of US 15-year-old students in science and mathematics literacy in an international context. NCES 2008016. Washington, DC: Author.
Kelly, A. E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115–128.
Klahr, D., Chen, Z., & Toth, E. (2001). Cognitive development and science education: Ships that pass in the night or beacons of mutual illumination? In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 75–119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Klahr, D., Fay, A. L., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25(1), 111–146.
Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Koslowski, B., Okagaki, L., Lorenz, C., & Umbach, D. (1989). When covariation isn’t enough: The role of causal mechanism, sampling method and sample size in causal reasoning. Child Development, 60, 1316–1327.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Loughlin, M. (Eds.). (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego, CA: Academic.
Kuhn, D., Garcia-Mila, M., Zohar, A., & Andersen, C. (1995). Strategies of knowledge acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60 (4, Serial No. 245).
Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387–1408.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87, 517–538.
Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–178.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2004). Trends in international mathematics and science study. Retrieved December 9, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/timms/Results.asp?Results=1
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Taking science to school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Penner, D., & Klahr, D. (1996). The interaction of domain-specific knowledge and domain-general discovery strategies: A study with sinking objects. Child Development, 67, 2709–2727.
Reiser, B., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263–306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rosenshine, G., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.
Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32, 102–119.
Stevens, R., Wineburg, S., Herrenkohl, L. R., & Bell, P. (2005, Summer). Comparative understanding of school subjects: Past, present, and future. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 125–157.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning. New York: MacMillan.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Michael, C. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Yang, E. (2004). The science writing heuristic: Using writing as a tool for learning in the laboratory. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 355–368). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Ysseldyke, J. (2009). When politics trumps science: Generalizations from a career of research on assessment, decision making, and public policy. Communique, 38(4), 6–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bulgren, J.A., Ellis, J.D. (2012). Argumentation and Evaluation Intervention in Science Classes: Teaching and Learning with Toulmin. In: Khine, M. (eds) Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2469-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2470-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)