ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF ARGUMENTATION

IN SCHOOL SCIENCE

 

 

 

 

 

Shirley Simon**

Sibel Erduran*

Jonathan Osborne*

 

 

* King's College London

**Institute of Education, London

 

 

 

 

Address for Correspondence:  Jonathan.Osborne@kcl.ac.uk

Department of Education and Professional Studies, King’s College London, Franklin-Wilkins Building, 150 Stamford Street, London SE1 9NN, United Kingdom.

 

 

Introduction

Curriculum innovations in science like those sponsored by Nuffield in the UK and the National Science Foundation in the USA in the 60s and 70s, have had little impact on the practices of science teachers (Welch, 1979).  Four decades after Joseph Schwab’s introduction of the idea that science should be taught as an ‘enquiry into enquiry’ and almost a century since John Dewey advocated classroom learning be a student-centered process of enquiry, we find ourselves still struggling to bring student-centered enquiry practices to the classroom.  Witness the publication of the AAAS edited volume on inquiry (Minstrell & Van Zee, 2000), the recent release of Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 2000) and the inclusion of ‘scientific enquiry’ as a separate strand in the English and Welsh science national curriculum (Department for Education and Employment, 1999).  These three works serve as signposts to an ideological commitment that teaching science needs to accomplish much more than simply detailing what we know.  Equally important is the need to educate our pupils and citizens about how we know and why we believe; e.g., science as a way of knowing (Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996; Duschl, 1990; Millar & Osborne, 1998).  The shift requires a focus on (1) how evidence is used in science for the construction of explanations and (2) the development of criteria used in science to evaluate the selection of evidence and the construction of explanations.   An important insight that has developed over the last 50 years, and yet not fully unrealised at the level of the classroom, is the important role language plays in learning and in the design of effective learning environments. 

 

The purpose of this paper is to report recent research on a particular type of language genre, namely argumentation.  Whilst the consideration of the important role language, conversation and discussion have in science learning can be traced back 3 or 4 decades (Scheffler, 1960; Bruner, 1964; Lansdown, Blackwood & Brandwein, 1971), it was not until the 1980s that serious discussion of the role of language in science learning began (c.f., (Aikenhead, 1991; Gee, 1996; Lemke, 1990; Sutton, 1992)).  More recently, the field has turned its attention to that discourse which addresses argumentation (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999).   The case made here is that argumentation, i.e., the coordination of evidence and theory to support or refute an explanatory conclusion, model or prediction (Suppe, 1998) is a critically important epistemic task and discourse process in science.  Situating argumentation as a central element in the design of enquiry learning environments has two functions:  one is as a heuristic to engages learners in the coordination of conceptual and epistemic goals, and the other is to make student scientific thinking and reasoning visible to enable formative assessment by teachers.  From this perspective, epistemic goals are not additional extraneous aspects of science that are marginalized to single lessons or the periphery of the curriculum.  Rather, striving for epistemic goals like developing, evaluating and revising scientific arguments represent an essential element of any contemporary science education.

 

For contemporary science impinges directly upon many aspects of people’s lives. Individuals and societies have to make personal and ethical decisions about a range of socio-scientific issues (e.g., genetic engineering, reproductive technologies, food safety) based on information available through the press and other media. Often accounts of new developments in science report equivocal findings or contested claims. Evaluating such reports is not straightforward requiring the ability to assess whether the evidence is valid and reliable, to distinguish correlations from causes, and to assess the degree of risk (Millar & Osborne, 1998; Monk & Osborne, 1997). Within the context of a society where scientific issues increasingly dominate the cultural landscape, where social practices are constantly examined and reformed in the light of scientific evidence, and where the public maintain an attitude of ambivalence (Giddens, 1990) or anxiety about science (Beck, 1992), there is an urgent need to improve the quality of young people’s understanding of the nature of scientific ‘argument’. An important task for science education, therefore, is to develop children’s ability to understand and practice scientifically valid ways of arguing, and enable them to recognise not only the strengths of scientific argument, but also its limitations (Osborne & Young, 1998). Hence, the research discussed in this paper, seeks to study whether young people’s quality of ‘argument’ about scientific issues and their critical capabilities can be enhanced in science lessons. In doing so, it builds on previous research into young people’s epistemologies of science (Driver et al, 1996) and the conduct of group discussion in science lessons (Alexopoulou & Driver, 1997)

 

Previous research on argument

Over the past few decades certain influential educational projects have all laid foundations for the work on argumentation in science lessons. These projects have promoted independent thinking, the importance of discourse in education and the significance of co-operative and collaborative group work (e.g., Rudduck, 1983; Barnes, 1977; Cowie and Rudduck, 1990; Solomon, 1990, Ratcliffe, 1996).  In addition to these projects, a body of relatively unintegrated research concerning argumentative discourse in science education has begun to emerge (e.g., Russell, 1983; Geddis, 1991; Alverman et al., 1995; Boulter and Gilbert, 1995; Hammer, 1995; Means and Voss, 1996; Mitchell, 1996; Mason, 1996; Herrenkohl and Guerra, 1995; Herrenkohl et al., 1999). Perhaps the most significant contribution to this literature has come from Kuhn (e.g., (Kuhn, 1991)) who explored the basic capacity of individuals to use reasoned argument. Kuhn investigated the responses of children and adults to questions concerning problematic social issues. She concluded that many children and adults (especially the less well educated) are very poor at the co-ordination of evidence (data) and theory (claim) that is essential to a valid argument.  More recent work by Hogan and Maglienti (2001) exploring the differences between the reasoning ability of scientists, students and non-scientists found, likewise, that the performance of the latter two groups were significantly inferior.

 

Koslowski (1996), who is critical of Kuhn’s emphasis on covariation, was less doubtful of young people’s ability to reason pointing to the fact that theory and data are both crucial to reasoning and interdependent and that lack of knowledge of any relevant theory often constrains young people’s ability to reason effectively.  Whilst this is an important point, what it suggests is that scientific rationality requires a knowledge of scientific theories, a familiarity with their supporting evidence and the opportunity to construct and/or evaluate their inter-relationship.  Kuhn’s research is important because it highlights the fact that, for the overwhelming majority, the use of valid argument does not come naturally. The implication that we draw from the work of Kuhn and others is that argument is a form of discourse that needs to be appropriated by children and explicitly taught through suitable instruction, task structuring and modelling. Just giving students scientific or controversial socio-scientific issues to discuss will not prove sufficient to ensure the practice of valid argument which needs to be fostered by teachers. Similar conclusions were reached by Hogan and Maglienti (2001:683) who argued that ‘students need to participate over time in explicit discussions in the norms and criteria that underlie scientific work’

 

Hence our focus has been upon the pedagogical practices that support argumentation and foster students’ epistemological development. And, whilst general advice concerning how to structure successful discussion and argumentation can be found in the literature (e.g., (Dillon, 1994)) – only a little has been situated within the specific context of the science classroom.

 

A significant problem confronting the development of argumentation in the science classroom is that it is fundamentally a dialogic event carried out among two or more individuals.  Scott (1998)), in a significant review of the nature of classroom discourse shows how it can be portrayed to lie on a continuum from ‘authoritative’, which is associated with closed questioning and IRE dialogue, to ‘dialogic’ which is associated with extended student contributions and uncertainty.  However, the combination of nature of the power relationship that exists between science teacher and student and the rhetorical project of the science teacher which seeks to establish the consensually agreed scientific world-view with the student, means that opportunities for dialogic discourse are minimised.  Hence, introducing argumentation will require a shift in the normative nature of classroom discourse.   Change will require teachers have to be convinced that argumentation is an essential component for the learning of science.  In addition, they require a range of pedagogical strategies that will both initiate and support argumentation if they are to adopt and integrate argumentation into the classroom.   

 

At the core of such strategies is the requirement to consider not singular explanations of phenomena but plural accounts (Monk & Osborne, 1996, Driver, Newton & Osborne, 2000).  Students must, at the very least spend time considering not only the scientific theory but an alternative such as the common lay misconception, i.e. that all objects fall with the same acceleration v the notion that heavier things fall faster.  Such contexts can also be social considerations of the application of science such as the use of animals for drug testing, problem-based learning situations, or computer mediated situations such as the material developed by the WISE project (Bell & Linn, 2000), amongst others. 

 

The evidence that exists suggests that argumentation is fostered by a context in which student-student interaction is permitted and fostered.  For instance, Kuhn, Shaw, and Felton (Kuhn, Shaw, & Felton, 1997) in testing the hypothesis that engagement in thinking about a topic enhances the quality of reasoning about the topic, found that dyadic interaction significantly increased the quality of argumentative reasoning in both early adolescence and young adults.  Likewise, the work of Eichinger et al. (1991) & Herrenkohl et al. (1999) found though that bringing scientific discourse to the classroom required the adoption of instructional designs that serve permit students to work collaboratively in problem solving groups.  Some of the research on discourse points, too, to the importance of establishing procedural guidelines for the students (Herrenkohl, Palincsar, DeWater, & Kawasaki; 1999). The point to make is that both epistemological and social structures in the classrooms are important factors for designing inquiry activities that foster argumentation.  Thus, whilst one element is the need to provide students access to not a singular world-view but to plural accounts of phenomena and the evidence that could be used in an argument, of itself, that is not sufficient as the second element is a context which foster dialogic discourse.  This we see as requiring the use of techniques such as student presentations, small-group discussions couple with guidelines and assistance that support the appropriation of argumentation skills and discourse. In the work reported with this paper we have worked initially with a group of 13 teachers to explore and develop their practice at initiating argumentation in the classroom, and then in the second year with a subset of 6 teachers to explore what effect such activities had on the classroom discourse and student use of argument.  In developing materials and strategies for argumentation, we have used, therefore these elements as guiding principles which underlie the approach and design of all that we have sought to do.

 

Research Objectives

We believe that promoting the practice of ‘argument’ in science lessons requires the development of appropriate pedagogical strategies that offer practical guidance for teachers. Furthermore, the benefit of such guidance needs to be assessed through empirical studies. Our research was seeking, therefore to:

(i)     identify the pedagogical strategies necessary to promote ‘argument’ skills in young people in science lessons;

(ii)    trial the pedagogical strategies and determine the extent to which their implementation enhances teachers’ pedagogic practice with ‘argument’;

(iii)   determine the extent to which lessons which follow these pedagogical strategies lead to enhanced quality in pupils’ arguments.

Achieving these objectives, and helping pupils to comprehend the argumentative nature of science, would, we believe, contribute to enhancing the public understanding of, and engagement with, science.  For they would enhance their understanding of the role of argument in constructing the link between data, claims and warrants, and students’ ability to critically assess reports about science.

 

Our analytic perspective upon argument

Assuming, as the research evidence suggests, that a context that fosters and develops students’ use of argumentation can be established, then what can teachers learn by listening to these conversations and how can they foster and improve the quality of argument?  Essentially, how can they respond formatively to assist their students and develop their reasoning?  How, for instance, can they identify the essential features of an argument?  How are they to judge that one argument is better than another?  And how should they model arguments of quality to their students?  Before we can ask teachers to engage their students in argumentation and use the information they acquire from the process to plan subsequent lessons or evaluate students learning, it is essential to provide some theoretical guidance to answer such questions.   Thus, an important component of this research has been the need to adopt and develop a set of criteria to analyse both the content and the form of children’s arguments.

 

In our analysis of argument in this research we have chosen to focus on the form of argument rather than its content.  This is because we believe that engaging in the process of argumentation is an a priori necessity to any examination of its content.  Thus, helping students to construct elaborated arguments, albeit fallacious, will provide vital insights into the form and type of reasoning that underlies science and the first stage to developing their thinking and reasoning skills.  Developing their ability to evaluate and critique such arguments is, therefore, a secondary process that builds on students evolving ability to construct coherent links between claims, warrants and data.

 

In our work, despite examining other models of argumentation (Walton, 1996), we have chosen to use the analytic framework developed by Toulmin (1958).  His model of argument was one of the first to challenge the ‘truth’ seeking role of argument and consider, instead, the rhetorical elements of argumentation and their function.  For Toulmin, the essential elements of argument are claims, data, warrants and backings.  Normatively, any argument relies on an evidential base which consists of supporting data whose relationship to the claim is elaborated through the warrant, which in turn, may be dependent on a set of underlying theoretical presumptions or backings.  Arguments may be hedged with qualifications to show the limits of their validity and are commonly challenged by querying the data, warrants or backings.  In practice, arguments are field dependent.  As in practice, the warrants and backings used to make claims are shaped by the guiding conceptions and values of the field.  Toulmin’s model has been used as a basis for characterising argumentation in science lessons (Russell, 1983) and is implicit in a coding system (Kuhn et al., 1997; Pontecorvo, 1987) that we will draw on. In addition, following Pontecorvo, we have focussed on the epistemic operations adopted by students—that is their reasoning functions and strategies. These are the salient cognitive operations, produced by the speaker, which correspond to strategies which are more or less effective for constructing valid argument. Features which we have concentrated on, therefore, in the analysis of argumentation in both scientific and socio-scientific contexts, include: the extent to which students have made use of data, claims, warrants, backings and qualifiers; and the extent to which they have engaged in claiming, elaborating, reinforcing or opposing the arguments of each other.

 

The Research Programme

General features of the research

A group of teachers interested in collaborating with us was initially established for some preliminary work in the area.  From this group, 13 were selected - our principal criteria being the experience and confidence of the teachers, as the work would involve a degree of risk on their part, drawn from schools that had a broadly representative sample of pupils of average academic ability.  The teachers involved in the study incorporated a series of nine argument-based lessons, approximately once a month, involving focussed discussions relevant to the National Curriculum science during the first year. The first and ninth lessons were devoted to discussion of a socio-scientific issue of whether zoos should be permitted whilst the remaining lessons have been devoted solely to discussion and argument of a scientific nature. Our initial work with teachers led to the choice of students in Grade 8 as the most suitable because of the freedom from examination constraints.

 

Teachers were initially provided with a set of materials drawn from a trawl of the literature, and our own ideas, for use with students.  These aimed to develop their knowledge and capabilities with scientific reasoning by examining evidence for/against a theory, e.g. the particle hypothesis, the explanation of day and night. Other activities have focussed on sets of data, their interpretation and the conclusions that can be drawn from them.  Resources for teaching all of these lessons have also been developed by teachers.

 

The research has been conducted in essentially two phases. In the first year (Sept 99 – Sept 2000), we have sought to focus on developing the skills of the teacher and the materials for use in argument-based lessons.  To this end, we have video and audio-recorded the teacher at the beginning of year 1 and year 2 and systematically analysed these transcripts to evaluate the characteristics of their approach to argumentation, to see if there is an identifiable measure of their progress.   We have also taped and transcribed two groups in each class to develop a schema for evaluating the quality of their argumentation.    During that time, they have also attended 6 half day meetings, held at King's College London, to discuss and share pedagogical strategies for teaching such lessons, develop materials and to develop their understanding of our theoretical perspective on argument.   In the second phase of the project (Sept 00 – Sept 01), we have worked with a reduced subset of 6 teachers and asking them to repeat the process. Support in this phase was reduced to three half-day meetings across the year and in situ feedback provided whenever a visit was made for the purpose of data collection.  In addition, another set of classes, taught by the same teacher, has been used as a control.  The focus of our analysis in this stage has been on the recordings and transcripts of the discussions by pupils to see if there was any improvement in the quality or quantity of argument.  The intention of this paper is to summarise the salient findings that have emerged from the work of the project and explore their implications. 

 

Developing Teacher’s Practice

Materials and Support for Argument

One of the features of this work was to try and develop materials that could be used for supporting argumentation in the classroom.  The essential precursor to initiating argument is the generation of difference or plural theoretical interpretations.  Hence, a common framework for all the materials we have developed has taken the form of presenting competing theories to students for examination and discussion.  These have been presented to pupils to read in small groups and then discuss.  However, initiating argument also requires a resource or evidence to enable the construction of argument.  Hence, commonly, competing theories have been accompanied by evidence which students are asked to use to to decide whether the evidence presented supports theory 1, theory 2, both or neither – an example of which is shown beneath.

 

Example 1: Competing Theories A

Theory 1:     Light rays travel from our eyes onto the objects and enable us to see them.

Theory 2:     Light rays are produced by a source of light and reflect off objects into our eyes so we can see them.

 

Which of the following pieces of evidence supports Theory 1, Theory 2, both or neither.  Discuss.

 

a.         Light travels in straight lines

b.         We can still see at night when there is no sun

c.         Sunglasses are worn to protect our eyes

d.         If there is no light we cannot see a thing

e.         We ‘stare at’ people, ‘look daggers’ and ‘catch people’s eye’

f.           You have to look at something to see it.

 

In addition, sessions with the teachers in the first year of work aimed to develop their theoretical understanding of argument and explored how argument could be supported in the classroom through the use of argument prompts.  Fuller details can be found in Osborne, Erduran, Simon & Monk (2001).

 

Data Sources

The data sources were verbal conversations of teachers and students audio-taped in classes of year 8 (age 12-13) students.  In year 1, we worked with 13 teachers videoing two lessons – one at the beginning of the year and one a year later. At this stage of our work the focus was on argumentation in socio-scientific context.  Hence, the main task within these lessons was an exploration of arguments for, and against, the funding of a new zoo. Each lesson had 3 sections. At the onset, the teacher distributed a letter outlining the task and there was a whole class discussion on the pros and cons of zoos. Then the students were put into groups and asked to come to some consensus about whether or not the zoo should be built. Finally, in the last phase of the lesson, the groups made presentations and shared their opinions with the rest of the class. As homework, students were typically asked write a letter or compose a poster that would communicate their arguments.  Needless to say, there was considerable variation between teachers in the detail of each individual teacher’s implementation

 

The schools chosen for this work were located in the Greater London area and ranged from urban to suburban settings with mixed ethnic groups.  Three schools were all-girls schools, one school was private, and 12 schools were public.  Audiotape recorders were wired on the teachers so as to capture their verbal contribution to the lesson as well as their interactions with students during the group format.  In addition, two groups of four pupils were selected and their conversations recorded. 

 

In the second year of our work, a smaller subset of teachers were selected on the basis that they were individuals who were, for a variety of reasons, considered to have made more progress in their ability to facilitate and incorporate argumentation in their pedagogical practice.  As well as recording their second attempt at teaching the zoo lesson, this phase sought to examine their ability to incorporate and use argumentation in a scientific context and to compare the development of the experimental group with a control.  Thus in addition to the data collected from the 6 lessons exploring arguments for and against the establishment of a new zoo at the beginning of year 2, data were collected from the same teachers teaching the same lesson to a control group; and from the same teachers implementing argument in a scientific context.  In each of the lessons, a tape was collected from the two teachers and two selected groups of four pupils.

 

In the intervening period, teachers taught a minimum of 8 lessons using argument in a scientific context.  Because of the contingent nature of individual schemes of work and school curricula, it was impossible to expect that all teachers taught the same lessons.  Thus using a general set of frameworks that had been developed to support argumentation; teachers wrote their own lesson material to facilitate the use of argumentation in that was appropriate to the content of their curricula.

 

At the end of the year, another set of data was collected from the same group of 6 teachers teaching argumentation to the intervention class in a scientific context and in a socio-scientific context.  Again, data were collected by audio taping the teachers and videoing the same set of four pupils, wherever possible (12 teacher tapes, 24 pupil videos).  In addition, a set of exactly similar data was collected from the control group for comparison purposes (6 teacher audiotape, 12 pupil videos).  In addition, field notes were collected of salient features of the lesson and the materials used by the teachers. 

 

Finally, a semi-structured interview was also conducted with the teachers at the beginning of each year to ascertain their views on argumentation and to explore their reflections on the zoo lesson.  These data sought to identify teachers’ perceptions of the salience of teaching argumentation to pupils and their understanding of its significance.  Such interviews were also used as a means of identifying any changes that had occurred over the year. Each interview was recorded and transcribed.  The interviews included questions on how teachers felt about their zoo lesson and what they viewed as important for student participation and learning of argumentation. No final interview was conducted but a group discussion was held at the end of the project which was recorded and transcribed.

 

Analyses

All of the audiotapes were transcribed and analysed to determine the nature of argumentation in the whole class and the small group student discussion formats.  The analysis of the teacher transcripts sought to answer our second question – that is what development had taken place in the teachers’ use of argumentation in the classroom, whilst the analysis of the student group discussions sought to answer our third question – that is what development had occurred in the quality of the pupils’ ability to argue and reason in a scientific and socio-scientific context.

 

Identification of arguments

The approach taken to the analysis of the teachers’ discourse was to use the Toulmin (1958) model of argument as an analytical framework to identify the salient features of argument in the speech.  This required an extended process of defining and elaborating how this framework should be interpreted and used. The following section illustrates our method of coding the transcripts using TAP as a guiding framework.  In the case of the following example:

 

‘Zoos are horrible, I am totally against zoos’

 

our focus would be on the substantive claim.  In this case, the difficulty lies in the fact that both can be considered to be claims i.e.

 

‘Zoos are horrible’   and    ‘I am totally against zoos’

 

The question for the analysis then becomes which of these is the substantive claim and which is a subsidiary claim.  Our general view is that there is inevitably a process of interpretation to be made and that some of that process is reliant on listening to the tape and hearing the force of the various statements here.  Part of this might be substantiated by Austins’ (1976) distinction between locutionary statements – ones which have an explicit meaning and perlocutionary statements – ones which have implicit meaning.  And the perlocutionary force with which these statements are distinguished is an aid to resolving which is intended as the substantive claim.

 

Here our reading is that the emphasis lies on the second part of the statement because the task context demands a reference to a particular position (for or against zoos) and that this is therefore the substantive claim. In choosing to use TAP in this manner, we have developed a good reliability (more than 80 %) between the coders.

 

As an example, we’ll consider the following case between the student and the teacher.

 

S             I’ve got a con.  If the animals are always walking about in the same places they might get angry and be dangerous.

 

T             Right, this is an anti, is it?  So, being caged may alter their behaviour. 

The position represented by the student is ‘against zoos’ expressed as a claim in the phrase: “I’ve got a con.” The student further adds to this claim by saying that “if the animals are always walking about in the same places, they might get angry and be dangerous.” This elaboration, we consider as data to support his claim.  The teacher’s subsequently interprets and justifies the choice for data by saying that “being caged may alter their behaviour.” We regard the teacher’s contribution as the warrant to the argument being constructed. Such a co-construction of arguments between students and teachers was typical in all the transcripts we have studied in our project.  Thus, our approach to the work was always to seek to identify, through either a careful reading of the transcript, or alternatively, listening to the tape, what constituted the claim.  Once, the claim was established, the next step was the resolution of data, warrants and backings.  Our view here is that a necessary requirement of all arguments that transcend mere claims are substantiated by data.  Therefore, the next task is the identification of what constitutes the data for the argument which is often preceded by words such as ‘because’, ‘since’ or ‘as’.   The warrant, if present, is then the phrase or substance of the discourse which relates the data to the claim.  For instance, in the following argument which is co-constructed by teacher and student: 

 

T   Yeah.  Can you think of any others for?

S   The zoo has like endangered species.

T       Yes, if they are becoming extinct or endangered then it becomes a way of protecting endangered species doesn't it?

 

A claim is advanced that they are for zoos using the data that that ‘the zoo has endangered species which is substantiated by the warrant that ‘if they [animals] are becoming extinct or endangered, then it [the zoo] becomes a way of protecting endangered species.’  Using this approach to the analysis of argument, we were able to achieve inter rater reliability in excess of 80%.

 

Lesson structure and features of teacher talk

Lesson structures were determined by viewing video material of each Zoo lesson and noting the main lesson phases and time spent in whole class and small group formats. Viewing was accompanied by a study of the transcript of the audiotape.  Extracts of teacher talk focusing on aims and organisation of argument activity or facilitation of the processes of argument were identified and summarised for each phase of the lesson. For example talk focusing on a lesson aim, such as the extract beneath was coded as ‘introduces aim of task, to produce good arguments’.

 

‘And we are trying to think this morning about what sorts of things will make a good argument. How are you going to persuade this agency that yes, the zoos should be opened? You need to put forward strong arguments, or if you don’t want it, strong arguments against the zoo.’

 

Such talk is an indicator of the ways in which the teachers view the nature and teaching of argument, and how they view the learning process. In essence it provides insights into teachers’ beliefs, practices (Fullan, 2001), value congruence and knowledge and skills (Harland & Kinder, 1997) and how these may have changed in one year.

 

Interviews

Using a grounded approach, an initial coding schema was developed to capture the major themes, with reliability checks undertaken by two members of the research team. Following our analyses of TAP and teacher talk, these coded themes were examined and cross-referenced to the data from the lessons.  A particular focus of analysis were comments relevant to teachers’ actions and talk about argumentation including the ways in which they conceptualised the teaching of argument, the decisions they made about teaching strategies, and their reflections on students’ progress and performance with argumentation.

 

 

Results

Changes in the Teachers

Each teacher implemented the same activity one year apart with comparable students. The lessons were similar in structure in that there was an introduction, group discussions, group presentations and finally assignment of homework in either case for both years. Typical transcript data on two teachers for the two years are summarized in Figures 1 and 2. The x-axis indicates the features of Toulmin’s argument pattern (TAP) that were used in different combinations. For example, CD indicates those instances where a claim (C) was coupled with data (D). CDWB indicates that there was a claim, data, warrant and backing as part of one argument presented. The y-axis illustrates the frequency of instances that such permutations of TAP occurred within the transcript. In other words, we counted the number of times each sort of TAP occurred in the data across both years for each teacher.

 

The figures seem to suggest several trends. First, there was argumentation discourse in the classroom across both years. In the figures we see specific examples of to what extent each teacher’s class is involved in the construction of which aspect of TAP. In other words, we can trace the nature of different permutations of TAP in either teacher’s implementation of the lesson. Second, each teacher carries out/uses argument in the same way across the two years. In other words, the trends across the use of different permutations of TAP are similar across two years. This would suggest that there is no common pattern and that the use of argumentation is teacher dependent – there are no universals.

 

Figure 1: Sarah Year 1 vs. 2

 

 

 

Figure 2: Matthew Year 1 vs. 2

 

 

Overall, the figures illustrate the nature of progression of teachers across two years. Going from left to right on the x-axis, there is an increasing complexity in the way that TAP is constructed, i.e. inclusion of warrants, backings, rebuttals. Hence, the right side of the graphs indicate an improvement in the nature of arguments. Likewise if there is a shift, for example, from CD (claim-data) to CDW (claim-data-warrant) then this shift across two years is taken as an improvement in the arguments constructed in the class format.  Using this approach to analysis for all the teachers, we have produced a profile of the discourse of argumentation for all the teachers across the two years (Table 1).

 

Table 1:  Profile of argumentation discourse for the classrooms of all the teachers from year 1 to year 2.

 

Teacher

Year

CD, CR

CDW, CDR

CDWR, CDWB

CDWBR

Sig

Bunn+

Year 1

48

47

5

0

 

 

Year 2

59

27

14

0

*

Drayton

Year 1

41

47

10

2

 

 

Year 2

23

31

38

8

**

Evans

Year 1

36

43

21

0

 

 

Year 2

43

43

14

0

 

Frearson+

Year 1

33

9

49

9

 

 

Year 2

52

3

42

3

*

Henderson

Year 1

0

82

18

0

 

 

Year 2

8

44

44

4

**

Kaufman

Year 1

48

38

14

0

 

 

Year 2

25