The Nature of Argument Among Freshmen College Students, Science Teachers, and Practicing Scientists...
Transcript of The Nature of Argument Among Freshmen College Students, Science Teachers, and Practicing Scientists...
The Nature of Argument Among Freshmen College Students,
Science Teachers, and Practicing Scientists
Issam Abi-El-MonaRowan University
Department of Teacher Education
Fouad Abd-El-KhalickUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDepartment of Curriculum and Instruction
AIMHE Annual MeetingSeptember 24-26, 2008
Issues; Prior Research in Argumentation:
Rarely researchers explicate what they mean by, or how they assess the validity or “goodness” of arguments
Rarely are prior perceptions of nature of an argument from participants considered
Analysis of student arguments using analytical frameworks
Formalized and generic in nature (e.g.Toulmin) Not necessarily derived from studying scientific
practice
Purpose of study
This study aimed to: Elucidate college freshmen science students,
secondary science teachers, and practicing scientists’ perceptions of argument
Characterize the criteria deployed by participants to assess the “validity” or “goodness” of argument
Examine how such perceptions and criteria compare to those of (or consistent with) Toulmin’s (1958) framework
Research questions
What structural elements are evident in arguments about a socio-scientific issue generated by freshmen science students, secondary science teachers, and practicing scientists? How do these elements compare and contrast?
What are freshmen science students, secondary science teachers, and practicing scientists’ perceptions of argument? How do these perceptions compare and contrast?
Research questions
What criteria do freshmen science students, secondary science teachers, and practicing scientists draw upon when judging the “validity” of arguments? Are these criteria consistent among and/or different across the three groups?
To what extent do participants’ perceptions of arguments draw upon elements that are characteristic of those of Toulmin?
Participants
Three groups of participants (N = 30; 50% female) in a large, Midwestern University and neighboring communities: 10 Freshmen college students, 10 secondary science teachers, and 10 practicing scientists
Method
Exploratory and qualitative in nature In-depth, semi-structured interviews Data collection occurred in two phases
Arguments constructed based on issue (global warming) led to construction of maps (following Horn, 2003)
Participants in each group assessed and provided feedback on Phase I arguments
Interviewees identified features of a good argument (assessed “goodness”,“validity” and justified assessments)
Data analysis: Phase I
Transcripts generated argument maps (via a team of three graduate students)
Maps analyzed using Toulminian and non-Toulminian frameworks
Analysis derived participants’ perceptions of the nature of argument. Later compared and contrasted both within and across the three groups
Data analysis: Phases II & III
Phase II transcripts analyzed to Characterize participants’ perceptions of the nature
of arguments Derive criteria deployed by participants to assess
the “validity” or “goodness” of arguments Criteria were compared and contrasted both within
and across the three groups Phase III: Comparing criteria derived from Phase
II with those derived from Toulmin’s framework
Results: Non-Toulminian analysis
Elements noted % Maps of
S T SciClaims-Prior Content Knowledge 30 60 90
Claims-Conclusive 50 50 70
Claims-Counterclaims (TOC) 30 60 70
Facts-Examples 20 20 40
Results: Toulminian analysis
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
C D W R B Q
Toulmin Element
To
tal
Qu
anti
ty P
rese
nt
S
T
Sc
Common perceptions of argument
Data used shows clear support to claims made Explains methods used to collect data
presented Demonstrates use of various types of
quantitative (scientific) data Demonstrates knowledge of scientific facts Is unbiased, clear, comprehensive Is both credible and verifiable
Differing perceptions of argument
Students: A product; persuasive power Students and Teachers: Visual representation;
does not impose claims; avoids bias; addresses ethical issues; is relevant
Teachers: Justification based on ethical issues Teachers and Scientists: A process (~scientific
method); holistic view; reproducible; contains elemental structures (hypotheses-conclusions)
Scientists: logical coherence
Major Criteria for Assessment of Argument
0
2040
60
80100
120
Common Features of Criteria
Per
cen
tag
es S
T
Sc
Minor Criteria for Assessment of Argument
05
1015202530354045
Thi
nkin
g
Com
plet
enes
s
Ana
lysi
s/In
terp
reta
ti
Per
suas
ive
Hol
sitic
Con
clus
ive
Goo
d po
ints
Dig
ress
ion
Goo
d R
easo
ning
Just
ifica
tion
Per
sona
l Lim
its
Use
of
lang
uage
Incl
inat
ion
bias
Dat
a ex
agge
ratio
n
Em
otio
nally
driv
en
Kno
wle
dge
quan
tity
Common (Minor) Features of Criteria
Per
cen
tag
es S
T
Sc
Peer/Others Perceptions of Argument
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Argument PartialArgument
No Argument BestArgument
Overall Judgement
Pe
rce
nta
ge
S
T
Sc
Peer/other assessment of arguments
Contrary to prior research assumptions, teachers were perceived to have the most complete or better arguments by all participant groups
Elements used in assessment go beyond the field-invariant elements emphasized by Toulmin: Use of other (minor) criteria, which correspond to field-dependent elements specific to the context of science
Peer/other assessment of arguments
Possible explanation: Teachers could be more skilled in forms of persuasive, holistic, and/or comprehensive discourse that are characteristic of the pedagogical practices of science teaching
Participants’ perceptions vs. Toulmin
Correspondence with Toulmin in two major respects Major assessment criteria (except “comprehen-
sibility”) map well onto Toulmin’s basic elements
Minor criteria deployed by smaller groups of participants when assessing arguments relate to Toulmin’s dimension of field-dependent elements albeit more elaborately
Discussion
Product vs. Process Bias and ethical issues vs. Logical coherence Data as most essential element in argument
structure Use of elements-counterclaims Common elements with Toulmin were claims but
unlike Toulmin data, and NOT warrants determine the “validity” of an argument
Conclusions
Need to further understand perceptions of the specific nature of elements that compose an argument (e.g., what is considered to be credible data and what is not)
Teaching practice needs to emphasize instruction on models that help identify how to develop structural elements (e.g., using counter claims) within inquiry based contexts
Conclusions
Research efforts need to focus on developing context dependent criteria for analyzing and identifying arguments based on common perceptions of argument held by learners
Phase II interviews
Examined Argument By
Examined Argument By
Examined Argument By
Scientists
Teachers Students
Map Geography Across Groups
Maps S% T% Sc%
Number of cycles 40 50 60
Web design (total) 50 50 70
Linear design (total) 20 30 40
Results: Toulminian analysis
Elements S(f) T(f) Sc(f)
Claims 68 66 83
Data 25 37 46
Warrants 5 12 9
Backings 0 0 2
Rebuttals 0 0 1
Qualifiers 2 2 1
Maps showing Toulmin based Complete arguments (n=10)
4 5 6
Sample scientist map showing Toulmin excerptSample scientist map showing Toulmin excerpt
Sample student map showing Toulmin excerpt
Common assessment criteria of argument as designated by partcipants
Major Minor
Data (mainly as support) Way of thinking
Clarity of position Completeness of data
Comprehensibility Analysis of data
Logical coherence Persuasive power
Holistic views
Conclusive
Good points made