Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 4:2 (2015) ► pp.200–231

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Characteristics and functions of sixteen-year-old students’ collaborative deliberation when working with socioscientific inquiry assignments

 | Akershus University College of Applied Sciences
Published online: 29 October 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.2.03byh
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 (51)
Aristotle. Rhetoric. A hypertextual resource [URL], compiled by Lee Honeycutt, Alpine Lakes Design (alpinelakesdesign@gmail.com) 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland. 2002. S/Z. New York: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barton, David. 2007. Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 2013. A Rhetoric of Literate Action: Literate Action, (Vol. 11). Perspectives on Writing. Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse and Palor Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blair, J. Anthony. 2012. Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation: Selected Papers of J. Anthony Blair (Vol. 211). London New York: Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Edward F. Shaefer 1989. “Contributing to Discourse.” Cognitive Science 131: 259–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Driver, Rosalind, Paul Newton, and Jonathan Osborne. 2000. “Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms.” Science Education 841: 287–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van. 2013. “Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse in Political Deliberation.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 (1): 11–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gabrielsen, Jonas. 2008. Topik. Ekskursioner i Retorikkens Toposlære. Åstorp: Retorikforlaget.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood, and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1985. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Greelong: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood, and J.R. Martin. 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London and Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knain, Erik, and Stein Dankert Kolstø (eds). 2011. Elever Som Forskere i Naturfag. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kock, Christian. 2007. “Norms of Legitimate Dissensus.” Informal Logic 27 (2): 179–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. “Choice Is Not True or False: The Domain of Rhetorical Argumentation.” Argumentation 231: 61–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mendelson, Michael. 2001. “Quintilian and the Pedagogy of Argument.” Argumentation 151: 277–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murgatroyd, Stephen. 2010. “‘Wicked Problems’ and the Work of the School.” European Journal of Education 45 (2): 259-279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
OECD, Programme for International Student Asessment (PISA). 2013. PISA 2015. Draft Science Framework. [URL]. Retreived 07/02/2014.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Osborne, Jonathan. 2010. “Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse.” Science 328: 463-466. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramage, John, Micheal Callaway, Jennifer Clary-Lemon, and Zachary Waggoner. 2009. Argument in Composition. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sadler, Troy D. 2010. “Situated Learning in Science Education: Socioscientific Issues as Context for Practice.” Studies in Science Education 45 (1): 1-42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schleppegrell, Mary J. 2001. “Linguistic Features of the Language of Schooling.” Linguistics and Education 91: 49–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silva, Rhetoricae. 2007. Kairos. In Dr. Gideon Burton: The Forest of Rhetoric. [URL]. Retreived 07/02/14.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stewart, Craig O. 2009. “Socioscientific Controversies: A Theoretical and Methodological Framework.” Communication Theory 191: 124–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Språklig Samhandling: Innføring i Kommunikasjonsteori Og Diskursanalyse. Oslo: Cappelen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen E. 2003. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas N. 1989. “Dialogue Theory for Critical Thinking.” Argumentation 31: 169–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Gumilar, Surya, Yann Shiou Ong, Demmy Dharma Bhakti, Irma Fitria Amalia, Dian Nurdiana & Ari Widodo
2025. Examining generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in assessing students’ responses to socio-scientific issues in physics. International Journal of Science Education ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Tang, Xiaowei, Lihua Tan, Troy D. Sadler, Yi Kong & Jing Lin
2025. When Structure and Content of Socioscientific Argumentation Develop in an Unbalanced Way: A Case Study. Science Education 109:5 ► pp. 1464 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue