The Importance of Examining the Cognitive, Epistemic, and Social Aspects of Scientific Argumentation

• In Event: Advancing Students' Argumentation: Moving Beyond Structure

Abstract

Introduction
Scientific argumentation can be defined as a process of proposing, supporting, critiquing and refining claims based on criteria that are valued in science (Author et al., 2011). The ability to engage in an episode of high quality scientific argumentation requires individuals to be able to coordinate the cognitive, epistemic, and social aspects of the process in a way that reflects the goals, norms and practices of scientific community (Duschl, 2008; Author et al., 2011). These three aspects of scientific argumentation, however, are not a focus of most current analytic frameworks. In this paper, the author will discuss the affordances and constraints of an instrument that is designed to measure the cognitive, epistemic, and social aspects of scientific argumentation. This instrument is called the [name] (Author et al., 2011).

Moving beyond structure: Examining multiple aspects of argumentation
The intent of the [name] is to help researchers move beyond the ‘coding and counting’ approach that serves as the foundation of most frameworks that focus on the structural elements of an argument. This observation protocol is used to assess how students engage in the cognitive, epistemic, and social aspects of scientific argumentation. The [name] consists of a set of 24 indicators that can be used to score an episode of argumentation.

Added value: The importance of examining multiple aspects of argumentation
There are a number of benefits associated with using an instrument, such as the [name], that focuses on the cognitive, epistemic, and social aspects of argumentation. First, it allows researchers to assess both the domain general and domain specific features of argumentation. Second, it allows researchers to determine how different aspects of student engagement in argumentation change over time in a specific context or in response to an intervention. This type of information is important because it can help researchers develop new theories to explain how students learn to participate in argumentation over time and how the nature of instruction affects student growth.

Implications for Practice
As the number of studies that focus on scientific argumentation increase, the frameworks that science educators use to assess how students propose, support, critique and refine ideas must change in order to allow the field to move in new directions. An instrument the focuses on cognitive, epistemic, and social aspects of scientific argumentation, such as the [name], therefore represents an important development in the field. This type of instrument provides a more nuanced way to measure and compare the effectiveness of interventions that are designed to help student learn how to participate in argumentation. The [name] may also speed up research in the field because it decreases the amount of time and labor that is needed to assess an episode of argumentation. It also provides a way to assess argumentation as it happens, which could facilitate real time revisions to new interventions and formative assessment. This type analytical approach, as a result, has the potential to shape both research and classroom instruction.

Author

• Victor Dale Sampson, The University of Texas - Austin