Categorizing Classroom-based Argumentation in Elementary STEM Lessons: Applying Walton’s Types of Argument Dialogue
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51355/jstem.2022.125Keywords:
collective argumentation, Walton's types of argument dialogue, STEM, elementary education, Toulmin diagramsAbstract
Argumentation is a practice that spans STEM disciplines and is an explicit goal for K12 students in reform-based standards documents. The purpose of this study was to investigate the applicability of Douglas Walton’s theoretical model for describing the types of argument dialogue encountered in elementary classrooms focused on learning concepts in science, mathematics, and computer coding. We examined two elementary teachers’ STEM classrooms to explore the types of argument dialogue that were evident. We found evidence of six types of dialogues: persuasion, negotiation, information-seeking, deliberation, inquiry, and discovery based on Walton’s model. Our findings demonstrate the applicability of Walton’s types of argument dialogue to argumentation in elementary STEM contexts. Even though our work takes place in the United States with teachers of children in grades 3-5 (ages 8-10 years), we believe our approach is applicable to other dialogues found in K12 STEM education. We postulate that students having opportunities to engage in arguments with a diverse range of goals (e.g., to prove a hypothesis, to persuade, or to exchange information) is important for their development in learning how to argue in STEM.
References
Aberdein, A. (2020). Dialogue Types, Argumentation Schemes, and Mathematical Practice: Douglas Walton and Mathematics. Journal of Applied Logics, 8(1), 159-182.
Baytelman, A., Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2020). Epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of the construction of different types of arguments on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(8), 1199–1227. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21627
Conner, A. (2008). Expanded Toulmin diagrams: A tool for investigating complex activity in classrooms. Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME, 32, 361-368.
Conner, A., & Singletary, L. M. (2021). Teacher support for argumentation: An examination of beliefs and practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 52(2), 213–247. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc-2020-0250
Conner, A., Singletary, L. M., Smith, R. C., Wagner, P. A., & Francisco, R. T. (2014). Teacher support for collective argumentation: A framework for examining how teachers support students’ engagement in mathematical activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(3), 401-429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9532-8
Cross, D. I. (2009). Creating optimal mathematics learning environments: Combining argumentation and writing to enhance achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(5), 905–930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-008-9144-9
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29(4), 417. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v29i4.2907
Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., Villarroel, C., & Gilabert, S. (2015). Arguing collaboratively: Argumentative discourse types and their potential for knowledge building. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 372–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12078
Gainsburg, J., Fox, J., & Solan, L. M. (2016). Argumentation and decision making in professional practice. Theory Into Practice, 55(4), 332–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1208072
Gilabert, S., Garcia-Mila, M., & Felton, M. K. (2013). The effect of task instructions on students’ use of repetition in argumentative discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2857–2878. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.663191
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210134857
K–12 Computer Science Framework Steering Committee. (2016). K–12 Computer Science Framework. http://www.k12cs.org
Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 53–81. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1801_03
Kim, S., & Hand, B. (2015). An analysis of argumentation discourse patterns in elementary teachers’ science classroom discussions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9416-x
Kolstø, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2007). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (pp. 117–136). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_6
Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229-269). Erlbaum.
Macagno, F., Mayweg-Paus, E., & Kuhn, D. (2015). Argumentation theory in education studies: Coding and improving students’ argumentative strategies. Topoi, 34(2), 523–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-014-9271-6
Martins, M., & Justi, R. (2019). An instrument for analysing students’ argumentative reasoning when participating in debates. International Journal of Science Education, 41(6), 713–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1579005
McBurney, P., & Parsons, S. (2001). Chance discovery using dialectical argumentation. In T. Terano & Jink? Chin? Gakkai (Eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence: Joint JSAI 2001 Workshop Post-Proceedings. Springer.
Meiland, J. R. (1989). Argument as inquiry and argument as persuasion. Argumentation, 3(2), 185–196.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. Routledge.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Metaxas, N., Potari, D., & Zachariades, T. (2016). Analysis of a teacher’s pedagogical arguments using Toulmin’s model and argumentation schemes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93(3), 383-397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9701-z
Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. http://corestandards.org/
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). APPENDIX F: Science and Engineering Practices in the Next Generation Science Standards. In Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States (pp. 382–412). The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.06.001
Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558816
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
Ozdem, Y., Ertepinar, H., Cakiroglu, J., & Erduran, S. (2013). The nature of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2559–2586. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.611835
Rapanta, C. (2018). Potentially argumentative teaching strategies—And how to empower them. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 52(3), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12304
Rapanta, C., & Christodoulou, A. (2019). Walton’s types of argumentation dialogues as classroom discourse sequences. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100352
Rasmussen, C., Wawro, M., & Zandieh, M. (2015). Examining individual and collective level mathematical progress. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(2), 259-281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9583-x
Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. SAGE Publications.
Staples, M., & Newton, J. (2016). Teachers’ contextualization of argumentation in the mathematics classroom. Theory Into Practice, 55(4), 294–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1208070
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005 (Original work published 1958)
von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213
Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher’s role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516–551. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308320292
Walton, D. N. (1998). The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. University of Toronto Press.
Walton, D. (2010). Types of dialogue and burdens of proof. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 216, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-619-5-13
Walton, D. (2019). How the context of dialogue of an argument influences its evaluation. In F. Puppo (Ed.), Informal Logic: A “Canadian” Approach to Argument (pp. 196–233). Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
Walton, D. (2020). Formal dialogue models for argumentation in education and linguistics. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100388
Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. C. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY press.
Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Turrou, A. C., Johnson, N. C., & Zimmerman, J. (2019). Teacher practices that promote productive dialogue and learning in mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.009
Yackel, E. (2002). What we can learn from analyzing the teacher’s role in collective argumentation. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(4), 423-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(02)00143-8
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Jonathan K. Foster, Joanna Gillespie Schneider, Lorraine Franco, Yuling Zhuang, Barbara A. Crawford, AnnaMarie Conner
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
