Explore the vast range of titles available.

Argument and debate are common in science, yet they are virtually absent from science education. Recent research shows, however, that opportunities for students to engage in collaborative discourse and argumentation offer a means of enhancing student conceptual understanding and students' skills and capabilities with scientific reasoning. As one of the hallmarks of the scientist is critical, rational skepticism, the lack of opportunities to develop the ability to reason and argue scientifically would appear to be a significant weakness in contemporary educational practice. In short, knowing what is wrong matters as much as knowing what is right. This paper presents a summary of the main features of this body of research and discusses its implications for the teaching and learning of science.

This study explores how student-generated questions can support argumentation in science. Students were asked to discuss which of two graphs showing the change in temperature with time when ice is heated to steam was correct. Four classes of students, aged 12-14 years, from two countries, first wrote questions about the phenomenon. Then, working in groups with members who differed in their views, they discussed possible answers. To help them structure their arguments, students were given a sheet with prompts to guide their thinking and another sheet on which to represent their argument diagrammatically. One group of students from each class was audiotaped. Data from both students' written work and the taped oral discourse were then analyzed for types of questions asked, the content and function of their talk, and the quality of arguments elicited. To illustrate the dynamic interaction between students' questions and the evolution of their arguments, the discourse of one group is presented as a case study and comparative analyses made with the discourse from the other three groups. Emerging from our analysis is a tentative explanatory model of how different forms of interaction and, in particular, questioning are needed for productive argumentation to occur.

Meaningful learning requires deep engagement with ideas. Deep engagement is supported by the critical thinking skill of argumentation. Learning to argue represents an important way of thinking that facilitates conceptual change and is essential for problem solving. In order to appropriately apply argumentation practices to learning, we first discuss reasons for using argumentation in learning environments or instruction. Next, we describe the skills of argumentation along with difficulties that learners experience when trying to argue. Following a brief description of the kinds of argumentation to persuade an audience of the validity of your position or solution (rhetorical) or to attempt to resolve differences in opinions or solutions (dialectical), we describe methods and guidelines for eliciting arguments from students. We conclude with processes for assessing the quality of student-generated arguments.

This work sought to obtain experimental evidence to corroborate cross-sectional patterns of development in argument skills and to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention designed to foster development of these skills in academically at-risk 13- to 14-year-olds. Students participated in 16 sessions of a collaborative, goal-based activity providing dense exercise of argumentive thinking. One condition included peer dialogues; another did not. The former was the more effective, although both groups progressed. Participants showed increased frequency of usage of powerful argumentive discourse strategies, such as counterargument, and decreased frequency of less effective strategies. Quality of individual arguments (for or against a claim) also improved, supporting the existence of a close relation between these two kinds of argument skills.

We report a study of a class of 28 sixth graders engaged in an extended computer-supported argumentive discourse activity. Participants collaborated with a same-side peer in arguing against successive pairs of peers on the opposing side of an issue. Meta-level awareness was facilitated by conducting the dialogs via instant messaging software, which made available a transcript of the dialog that was used in additional reflective activities. In the course of dialogs on 3 successive topics, participants showed significant gains in meta-level communications about the discourse, reflecting at least implicit understanding of its goals, as well as in the strategic moves that constituted the discourse. The latter advances remained evident when the social support of a same-side partner was withdrawn.

Solving complex, ill-structured problems may be effectively supported by case-based reasoning through case libraries that provide just-in-time domain-specific principles in the form of stories. The cases not only articulate previous experiences of practitioners, but also serve as problem-solving narratives from which learners can acquire meaning. The current study investigated the effects of different case-types (success, failures) on analogical transfer to similar problems. In the first week, undergraduate sales management students (N = 36) were assigned to different case library treatments (success, failure) and asked to construct a multifaceted argument (initial argument, counterargument, rebuttal) to resolve an ill-structured, decision-making hiring problem. In the following week, students constructed an argument to solve a novel case without the support of the case library. Data analysis revealed the failure-based case library condition produced significantly higher scores on measurements of counterarguments and holistic argumentation scores on both tasks. A discussion of the implications for pedagogy and instructional design are also presented.

Smith et al. requested that Editor Sealy not be involved in handling the review and editing of the following two letters because of his close professional relationship with one of the first letter's authors. After carefully reviewing the scientific qualifications of the four individuals who reviewed either the original manuscript or the following letter and rebuttal, I can state that these individuals were qualified to provide meaningful and constructive reviews and that the content of their reviews was faithfully transferred to Smith et al. for consideration.

When political actors debate the merits of a public policy, they often focus on the consequences of a bill or legislative proposal, with supporters and opponents making stark but contradictory predictions about the future. Building upon the framing literature, I examine how rhetoric about a policy's consequences influences public opinion. I show that predictive appeals work largely by altering people's beliefs about the impact of a policy. Following in the tradition of recent framing research, this article also examines how opinions are influenced when people are exposed to opposing predictions. The analysis focuses on two strategies that are common in real-world debates-the direct rebuttal (in which an initial appeal is challenged by a statement making the opposite prediction) and the alternate frame (which counters an initial appeal by shifting the focus to some other consequence). There are important differences in the effectiveness of these two strategies-a finding that has implications for the study of competitive framing and the policymaking process more generally.

Over the last decade, researchers have developed sophisticated online learning environments to support students engaging in dialogic argumentation. This review examines five categories of analytic frameworks for measuring participant interactions within these environments focusing on (1) formal argumentation structure, (2) conceptual quality, (3) nature and function of contributions within the dialogue, (4) epistemic nature of reasoning, and (5) argumentation sequences and interaction patterns. Ultimately, the review underscores the diversity of theoretical perspectives represented within this research, the nature of dialogic interaction within these environments, the importance of clearly specifying theoretical and environmental commitments throughout the process of developing or adopting an analytic framework, and the role of analytic frameworks in the future development of online learning environments for argumentation.

In recent years several mathematics education researchers have attempted to analyse students' arguments using a restricted form of Toulmin's [The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1958] argumentation scheme. In this paper we report data from task-based interviews conducted with highly talented postgraduate mathematics students, and argue that a superior categorisation of genuine mathematical argumentation is provided by the use of Toulmin's full scheme. In particular, we suggest that modal qualifiers play an important and previously unrecognised role in mathematical argumentation, and that one of the goals of instruction should be to develop students' abilities to appropriately match up warrant-types with modal qualifiers.