Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in ContextVol. 4:2 (2015) ► pp.200–231
Characteristics and functions of sixteen-year-old students’ collaborative deliberation when working with socioscientific inquiry assignments
In these student dialogues, deliberative aspects of argumentation in SSI inquiry are documented as different from strictly scientific argumentation. I suggest that deliberative argumentation is a complex alternation between reasoning patterns that relate to different activity layers. This understanding of deliberative argumentation emerged when analyzing students’ dialogues, developing the categories theme (theoria), inquiry (praxis) and inscribing (poeisis). Analyses are presented to account for this emerging understanding. The analyses utilize social functional linguistics (SFL), pragmatic conversation analysis, and rhetorical approaches to argumentation. What characterizes the students’ oral deliberation is an alternation between certain foci. Roberts’s (2011) use the terms theoria, praxis, and techne to characterize similar reasoning patterns in his Vision 1 and 2 of scientific literacy. I suggest that in civic deliberation all patterns of reasoning are necessary to handle SSI, whereas in strictly scientific argumentation, theoria is dominant. Such distinctions should also be considered when analyzing and developing instructional strategies.
References
Aristotle
Rhetoric. A hypertextual resource [URL], compiled by Lee Honeycutt, Alpine Lakes Design ([email protected]) Last modified: 9/27/11, retreived 5/2/14
Andrews, Richard
2010 Argumentation in Higher Education: Improving Practice through Theory and Research. New York and Oxon: Routledge.
Barthes, Roland
2002 S/Z. New York: Blackwell Publishing.
Barton, David
2007 Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Bazerman, Charles
2013 A Rhetoric of Literate Action: Literate Action, (Vol. 11). Perspectives on Writing. Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse and Palor Press.
Bell, Thorsten D., S. Schanze Urhane, and R. Ploetzner
2009 “Collaborative Inquiry Learning: Models, Tools, and Challenges.” International Journal of Science Education 321:349–337. 
Blair, J. Anthony
2012 Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation: Selected Papers of J. Anthony Blair (Vol. 211). London New York: Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg.
Chin, Christine, and J. Osborne
2010. “Students’ Questions and Discursive Interaction: Their Impact on Argumentation during Collaborative Group Discussions in Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47 (7): 883-908.
Clark, Herbert H., and Edward F. Shaefer
1989 “Contributing to Discourse.” Cognitive Science 131: 259–294.
Derry, Sharon, R.D. Pea, B. Barron, R.A. Engle, F. Erickson, R. Goldman, R. Hall, T. Koschmann, J.L. Lemcke, M.G. Sherin, and B.L. Sherin
2010. “Conducting Video Research in the Learning Sciences: Guidance on Selection, Analysis, Technology, and Ethics.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 19 (1):3-53.
Driver, Rosalind, Paul Newton, and Jonathan Osborne
2000 “Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms.” Science Education 841: 287–312.
Du Bois, John, Stephan, Schuetze-Corburn, Danae Paolino, and Susanna Cumming
1993 “Outline of discourse transcription”. In Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research, ed. by J.A. Edwards and M.D. Lampert, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eemeren, Frans H. van
2013 “Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse in Political Deliberation.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 (1): 11–32.
Erduran, Sibel
2008 “Methodological Foundations in the Study of Argumentation in Science Classrooms.” In Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-based Research, ed. by S. Erduran and M.P. Jiménez-Aleixandre, 47–69. Philadelphia: Springer.
Erduran, Sibel, and M.P. Jiménez-Aleixandre
2012 “Argumentation in Science Education Research: Perspectives from Europe.” In Science Education Research and Practice in Europe: Retrospective and Prospective, ed. by Doris Jorde and Justin Dillon, 253–289. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Erickson, Fredrick
2012 “Qualitative Research Methods for Science Education.” In Second International Handbook of Science Education (Vol. 21), ed. by Barry J. Fraser, Kenneth G. Tobin, and Campbell J. McRobbie, 1451–1469. London New York: Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg.
Gabrielsen, Jonas
2008 Topik. Ekskursioner i Retorikkens Toposlære. Åstorp: Retorikforlaget.
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood
2004 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder Education.
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood, and Ruqaiya Hasan
1985 Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Greelong: Deakin University Press.
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood, and J.R. Martin
1993 Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London and Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press.
Johansen, Gerd
2013 ‘Science for all’ — a Mission Impossible? A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Practical Work and Inquiry in Norwegian Upper Secondary School. Ås: Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology. Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, Maria Pilar, and Sibel Erduran
2008 “Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview.” In Argumentation in Science Education, ed. by Sibel Erduran and María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre, 3–28. Philadelphia: Springer.
Knain, Erik, and Stein Dankert Kolstø
(eds) 2011 Elever Som Forskere i Naturfag. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Kock, Christian
2007 “Norms of Legitimate Dissensus.” Informal Logic 27 (2): 179–196.
2009 “Choice Is Not True or False: The Domain of Rhetorical Argumentation.” Argumentation 231: 61–80.
Kock, Christian, and Lisa S. Vildadsen
2012 “Introduction: Citizenship as a Rhetorical Practice.” In Rhetorical Citizenship, ed. by Christian Kock and Lisa S. Villadsen, 1–10. University Park Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Kolstø, Stein Dankert
2001 “Scientific Literacy for Citizenship: Tools for Dealing with the Science Dimension of Controversial Socioscientific Issues.” Science Education 85 (3):291–310.
Macken-Horarik, Mary
2002 “‘Something to Shoot for’: A Systemic Functional Approach to Teaching Genre in Secondary School Science.” In Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives, ed. by Ann M. Johns, 17–42. Mahwa, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mendelson, Michael
2001 “Quintilian and the Pedagogy of Argument.” Argumentation 151: 277–293.
Miller, Carolyn R
1994 “Genre as Social Action.” In Genre and the New Rhetoric, ed. by Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway, 23–42. London: Taylor & Francis.
Murgatroyd, Stephen
2010. “‘Wicked Problems’ and the Work of the School.” European Journal of Education 45 (2): 259-279.
Nussbaum, E. Michael, Gale M. Sinatra, and Marissa C. Owens
2012 “The Two Faces of Scientific Argumentation: Applications to Global Climate Change.” In Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation, ed. by Myint Swe Khine, 17–37. London and New York: Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg.
OECD, Programme for International Student Asessment (PISA)
Osborne, Jonathan
2010. “Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse.” Science 328: 463-466.
Ramage, John, Micheal Callaway, Jennifer Clary-Lemon, and Zachary Waggoner
2009 Argument in Composition. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Roberts, Douglas A
2007 “Scientific Literacy/Science Literacy.” In Handbook of Research on Science Education, ed. by Sandra K. Abell and Norman G. Lederman, 729–780. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2011 “Competing Visions of Scientific Literacy: The Influence of a Science Curriculum Policy Image.” In Exploring the Landscape of Scientific Literacy, ed. by C. Linder, L. Östman, D.A. Roberts, P.-O. Wickman, G. Erickson, and A. MacKinnon, 11–27. New York and Oxon: Taylor & Francis.
Sadler, Troy D
2010. “Situated Learning in Science Education: Socioscientific Issues as Context for Practice.” Studies in Science Education 45 (1): 1-42.
Schleppegrell, Mary J
2001 “Linguistic Features of the Language of Schooling.” Linguistics and Education 91: 49–67.
Silva, Rhetoricae
Simonneaux, Jean, and L. Simonneaux
2012 “Educational Configurations for Teaching Environmental Socioscientific Issues within the Perspective of Sustainability. Research in Science Education 42 (1): 75–94.
Stewart, Craig O
2009 “Socioscientific Controversies: A Theoretical and Methodological Framework.” Communication Theory 191: 124–145.
Svennevig, Jan
1999a Getting Acquainted in Conversation: A Study of Initial Interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
1999b “Talespråket — Mellom Pragmatikk Og Gramatikk.” In Mediet Teller! Tverrfaglige Perspektiver På Skrift Og Tale, ed. by M. Engebretsen and J. Svennevig, 101–116. Agder: Høgskolen i Agder.
2009 Språklig Samhandling: Innføring i Kommunikasjonsteori Og Diskursanalyse. Oslo: Cappelen.
Toulmin, Stephen E
2003 The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas
2011 “An Argumentation Model of Deliberative Decision Making.” In Technologies for Supporting Reasoning Communities and Collaborative Decision Making: Cooperative Approaches, ed. by John Yearwood and Andrew Stranieri, 1–17. Heshey, NY: Information Science Reference.
Walton, Douglas, C. Reed, and F. Macagno
2008 Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas N
1989 “Dialogue Theory for Critical Thinking.” Argumentation 31: 169–184.
Yin, Robert K
1994 Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Zeidler, Dana L., and T.D. Sadler
2008 “The Role of Moral Reasoning in Argumentation: Conscience, Character, and Care.” In Argumentation in Science Education, ed. by S. Erduran and M.P. Jiménez-Aleixandre, 201–216. Philadelphia: Springer.