Critical Thinking and Argumentation in Teaching Science
Martin Braund
The University of York Science Education Group (UYSEG)
The ‘Big Picture’
Critical thinking and argumentation
When is an argument not an argument
Chickens!
The structure and levels of arguments
Types of arguments
Debating controversial issues
Better arguments – lessons from research
Classroom resources
(Critical) thinking skills
Seen as ‘desirable’ in education systems for at least
60 years –
Reuven Feuerstein’s ‘instrumental enrichment’ - Israel in the
1950s
Mathew Lipman’s philosophy for children – US 1960s
Victor Quinn – Critical thinking for young minds – England 1980s
Paul and Elder’s – ‘building intellectual capacity’ (for further and
higher education students)
Shayer and Adey’s ‘Cognitive Acceleration in Science Education
(CASE)
Critical thinking
Critical thinking is an essential component of effective
learning, especially in science. We wish to see learners that
have better developed reasoning and hence are more
intellectually empowered. Critical thinking does this by
providing learners with more disciplined ways of thinking
through which they more skilfully; conceptualise, apply
knowledge and ideas, synthesise, analyse and evaluate so as
to better guide their thoughts, beliefs and actions.
Botha, T. et al. (2006)
What does critical thinking involve?
(Facione’s Delphi Study, 1990)
Skill
Sub-skill
Interpretation:
categorisation
decoding significance
clarifying meaning
Analysis:
examining ideas
identifying arguments
analysing arguments
Evaluation:
assessing claims
assessing arguments
Inference:
querying evidence
conjecturing alternatives
drawing conclusions
Explanation:
stating results
justifying procedures
presenting arguments
Self-regulation:
self-examination
self-correction
Argumentation
Why argue in science?
It is an essential part of what science is and scientists do
Argument is at the heart of good thinking
It is good preparation for ‘life’ (a life skill?)
The (national) curriculum requires it – ‘How science works’
It is fundamental to academic (examination) success in school
and in the future
Argument and non-argument
Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.
Arguer: Well! it CAN be!
Man: No it can't! An argument is a connected series of
statements intended to establish a proposition.
Monty Python- Argument Clinic Sketch – BBC (SERIES 3)
So what is ‘good’ argument in the science
classroom?
Assertions with Reasons
Reasoned challenges rather than
contradictions
Listening to others rather than always promoting
your own view
Helping others explain
Deciding on a consensus view of the group (even
though some still do not agree entirely!)
Talk and learning…
“Children, we know, need to talk … in order to think and learn. Reading,
writing and number may be acknowledged as the curriculum ‘basics’, but
talk is arguably the true foundation of learning.”
Robin Alexander, 2006
“The readiest way of making an understanding is often through talk, because
the flexibility of speech makes it easy for us to try out new ways of arranging
what we know…”
Douglas Barnes, 1992
“Speech is civilisation itself. The word, even the most contradictious word,
preserves contact -it is silence which isolates.”
Thomas Mann, 1924
9
An example: Arguing about chickens
As you know, different animals, such as chickens, pigs, or cows, are raised on farms, in
order to get meat and eggs without having to kill animals which live in the wild.
But, since chickens are raised on farms, there is a problem: many chickens are born with
yellow feathers instead of the spotted brown of the chickens that live in the wild. Some
people don’t want to buy them, because they look awkward, and this causes the farms to
lose a lot of money.
Near our town a new chicken farm, ‘The Happy Hen’, was set two years ago, with huge
buildings where they raise chickens. But in the last year, they had some problems,
because many chickens have yellow-coloured feathers, instead of spotted. The farm
gathered their biologists’ team to solve the problem.
You are asked to advise the biologists, studying what could be the cause of this colour
change in the chickens, but always giving reasons for your answer. If you give an
answer and cannot back it up with arguments, then this answer has no value.
You can also suggest which tests you would perform to show that you are right.
Adapted from: Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000).
‘Wild’ chicken
Farm Chicken
Chickens - claims
Here are some possible causes that other people suggested:
Possible causes
Reasons in favour of it
Reasons against it
Food
Hereditary variation
Colour in the environment
(farm)
Other
You have to discuss which one of these (or a different one) looks appropriate, and give
reasons for it.
The structure of an argument
On this farm after 2 years
Qualifier
Chickens are yellow because of
inherited variation
Farm chickens are yellow
Data
Claim
Warrant
Yellow chickens survive in the
farm but not in the wild
Backing
Colour variants with selective
advantage survive and breed
Rebuttals
Levels in arguments
Level 1: A simple claim versus a counter-claim or a claim versus a
claim
Level 2: Claims with either data, warrants or backings but not any
rebuttals
Level 3: A series of claims or counter-claims with either data, warrants
or backings with the occasional weak rebuttal
Level 4: A claim with a clearly identifiable rebuttal. An argument with
several claims and counter-claims
Level 5: An extended argument with claims supported by data and
warrants with more than one rebuttal
(After: Osbourne, Erduran and Simon, 2004)
Types of argument (in science lessons)
Arguments about:
Scientific data e.g. from experiments – Rolling Ball
Evidence in support of (competing) claims based in science knowledge –
Euglena
Different (competing) explanations of phenomena or events (based in
science concepts) - concept cartoons, changes of state
Decisions based in socio-scientific contexts, - Organ trafficking, zoos,
cloning
Decisions based in socio-economic contexts, - Nuclear power stations,
limestone quarrying
Rolling Ball
Some students clamp a wooden slope near the edge of a table. They release a ball from a height h above the table as shown in the diagram. The
ball leaves the slope horizontally and lands on the floor a distance d from the edge of the table. Special paper is placed on the floor on which the
ball makes a small mark when it lands.
The students want to investigate how the distance d on the floor changes when they vary the height h. They use a metre stick to measure d and
h.
ball
h
slope
table
floor
d
Two groups of students compare their results for d. Their readings for five releases from the same height (90 mm) are shown below, together with
their averages.
Our result for
I have another
d agrees with
No, our results
Group B
Group A
idea to explain
yours.
do not agree.
Release
d (mm)
d (mm)
1
2
3
4
5
Average:
439.5
438.3
433.1
422.8
431.3
433.0
435.4
439.2
428.0
433.1
438.3
434.8
Researching the rolling ball context
266 school students aged 14-16 in South African classrooms (70 groups
in five differently resourced schools):
Very few arguments above level 2 before the group discussions
About 25% improved their levels of argument without any teacher
interventions after group discussions
The resourcing levels in the schools – previous experience with equipment have a positive effect on change in argument levels
Arguing (through writing) in a second language sometimes has an impact
Arguments about:
Scientific data e.g. from experiments – Rolling Ball
Evidence in support of (competing) claims based in science knowledge –
Euglena
Different (competing) explanations of phenomena or events (based in
science concepts) - concept cartoons, changes of state
Decisions based in socio-scientific contexts, - Organ trafficking, zoos,
cloning
Decisions based in socio-economic contexts, - Nuclear power stations,
limestone quarrying
Euglena (Is it a plant or an animal cell ?)
Euglena – a framework for scientific
arguments
What is Euglena?
We are considering whether … Euglena is an animal or plant cell …
List the reasons for believing Euglena to be an
animal cell
List the reasons for believing Euglena to be a plant
cell
The most convincing reason for believing Euglena to
be an animal cells is …
The most convincing reason for believing Euglena to
be a plant cell is …
Having considered the arguments, do you think Euglena is a plant or animal cell?
Discuss your decision with your table. Having discussed your ideas, did you change your mind, if so, why?
An example of unsupported group argument
about Euglena
L1
I would say Euglena is part of Protozoa because here they say ‘others
resembled
animals because they move about by means of
flagellate’ or. … ‘digested food –
a single cell absorbs food from the
environment.’ So I say that’s why it’s an animal because Protozoa
is a sub-kingdom of Animalia.
L2:
It’s a plant cell because it can photosynthesise. (She is challenging
Learner 1?)
L3:
A plant can’t move. Plants aren’t motile.
L2:
A plant CAN (emphasis) move. Yes, a plant can move (smiling &
nodding)
L1:
(smiling) See how that tree walks. Plants aren’t motile. They don’t walk
– that’s growth. That’s not movement. That’s growth.
An example of group discussion with teacher
interventions about Euglena (placing evidence cards)
T:
Why is this (card) over here (in the column for neither a plant nor an
animal) – ‘Euglena is a single cell’?
L1:
(Indistinct - more than one learner speaking) …. It’s a single cell so …
not plant or animal …so …
L2:
Some characteristics (referring to the full set of evidence cards) are
plant … um (indistinct other learners’ voices seem to indicate
agreement) .. like photosynthesis … so it needs light.
L3:
Ja … and it’s light sensitive (as an additional backing for Euglena
synthesising and therefore being a plant)
T:
Yes but when it talks about ‘light sensitive’ … it means it looks for where
light is and it can detect light and move towards it (rather than light
being required for photosynthesis).
Arguments about:
Scientific data e.g. from experiments – Rolling Ball
Evidence in support of (competing) claims based in science knowledge –
Euglena
Different (competing) explanations of phenomena or events (based in
science concepts) - concept cartoons, changes of state
Decisions based in socio-scientific contexts, - Organ trafficking, zoos,
cloning
Decisions based in socio-economic contexts, - Nuclear power stations,
limestone quarrying
Concepts cartoons as the basis for
argument and critical thinking
What do you think?
Arguments about:
Scientific data e.g. from experiments – Rolling Ball
Evidence in support of (competing) claims based in science knowledge –
Euglena
Different (competing) explanations of phenomena or events (based in
science concepts) - concept cartoons, changes of state
Decisions based in socio-scientific contexts, - Organ trafficking, zoos,
cloning
Decisions based in socio-economic contexts, - Nuclear power stations,
limestone quarrying
Socio-scientific arguments:
the value of positioning
There is a desperate shortage of human organs for transplants. Some people are
being persuaded to sell their organs (such as a kidney) to provide organs for
transplant to patients who need them to live.
T
We now get into a moral issue about this (organ trafficking) … I think … it’s a
personal thing that we probably have to sit down and personally make this …
how you feel about your own moral values and how you’ve been brought up will
decide eventually what decision (about whether or not to donate a kidney) you
will take.
L1
If they (medics) say your son needs a transplant .. OK … and you are a suitable
donor … and it’s (having organs removed/having an operation) is against your
religion you are .. you are .. going to think of your son first, even though your
religion says … You are going to help your son. The first thing you think about is
about helping your son rather than .. OK, your religion says he must die. This is
what I think.
Socio-scientific arguments:
lessons from research
Different to other types of argument
Usually have high value, motivation and engagement for learners
Valued by teachers (and they fit well with curriculum demands!)
They are complex because science is mixed with ethical, moral,
cultural and religious values and beliefs
Careful lesson management and task structure is required
Insert masibambane slide
S upporting socio -scientific arguments
(See article in SSR)
Two-part tasks
Structuring debate and discussion
Open debate then consider a range of claims
Debate the science issues first
Individual work then group discussion (bit like Rolling Ball?)
Classic parliamentary debate – presentation and questions from the
floor
Role-play
Using argument writing (thinking!) frames
See example from Osborne et al.
An argument thinking frame
Argument thinking frame
My idea is that …
The evidence to support my idea is …
Arguments against my idea might be that …
I would convince someone who doesn’t believe me by …
The evidence I would use to convince them is …
Better argument in sciences: the
lessons from research
A classroom environment for collaborative group
discussion
Clear objectives and emphasis on features of good
arguments
Encourage reasoning rather than blind assumptions
Use of argumentation ‘thinking frames’
Two stage arguments – science first before the
ethics/morals?
Two stage arguments – individual and then group, group
then whole class
Positioning or playing devil’s advocate
Avoiding unreasoned consensus
Gracias
Viva Chile!
Critical Thinking and Argumentation in Teaching Science
Martin Braund
The University of York Science Education Group (UYSEG)