Content uploaded by Fabrizio Macagno
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Fabrizio Macagno on Dec 06, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
What students’ arguments can tell us.
Using argumentation schemes in science education.
Fabrizio Macagno • Aikaterini Konstantinidou
Argumentation 2012
The role of argumentation in science education has been stressed by a growing literature that
emphasized the problem of constructing students' knowledge taking into account their previous beliefs
(Sampson & Clark, 2008; Schwarz & De Groot, 2007; Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Duschl,
Ellenboger & Erduran, 1999; Jimenez-Aleixandre, Burgalló & Duschl, 2000; Kelly & Takao, 2002;
Erduran & Jimenez-Aleixandre, 2007; Castells et al, 2007). On this view, teaching can be regarded as a
dialogue aimed at persuading the interlocutors, providing them with reasons for accepting new or
different scientific views. In order for this conceptual change to happen, the students’ prior beliefs
cannot be simply replaced by new ideas. On the contrary, such prior understanding becomes the ground
and the target of the teacher's arguments, aimed at leading the students to regard the (new) scientific
ideas as more predictive and convincing than the ones based on their own experience (Carey, 2000;
Hewson, 1992).
This relationship between beliefs, arguments and teaching constitutes the framework of this
paper. Since education can be thought of as an argumentative dialogue, the argumentative skills and the
analysis of argumentation structures becomes crucial (Erduran, Osborne & Simon, 2005). In particular,
in science education the best known and common tools provided by argumentation theory are the
analytical ones developed by Toulmin, which have been used for improving the students’ arguments
and their interactive procedures (Duschl, 2007: 165). These researches showed how students’
arguments supporting predictive claims about scientific problems can reveal much more than reasoning
skills. By making the different components of their arguments explicit, the students can bring to light
important grounds of their scientific ideas, which can be later addressed, investigated and questioned.
On this perspective, the analysis of the structure of the students’ reasoning can become an instrument
for revealing their background beliefs, which are fundamental for the process of learning. However,
how can such beliefs be identified and reconstructed starting from the evidence represented by the
students’ arguments?
The purpose of this paper is to introduce and illustrate how a tool developed in argumentation
theory, argumentation schemes, can be used in the field of science education for uncovering the
structure of the students’ background beliefs underlying their arguments. Argumentation schemes
(Walton, 1995; Walton, Reed & Macagno, 2008, or argument schemes, see Van Eemeren &
Grootendorst, 2004) are abstract pattern of reasoning outlining the semantic and logical structure of the
premises and the conclusion of the most common types of argument. For this reason, they can be used
for retrieving an argument’s tacit premises and unstated concepts and assumptions. In particular, our
theoretical goal is to show how the reconstruction of such implicit components can reveal students'
prior beliefs on which their scientific reasoning, in particular their predictive claims about scientific
problems, is based (Konstantinidou, Cervero, & Castells, 2010).
This proposal addresses from a theoretical perspective the relationship between a quasi-logical
and dialectical tool and the epistemic notions of belief and conceptual change. For this reason, we will
first investigate how beliefs are connected with conceptual change, showing their importance for
persuasion and teaching. As a second step, the crucial question of the relationship between beliefs and
tacit premises will be addressed, and in particular the role of the latter as valuable signs of fundamental
prior concepts (Rees, 2001: 189). The third point that needs to be tackled is the problem of
interpretation: the same argument can be interpreted in different fashions, resulting in different
reconstructions of its implicit premises (Van Eemeren et al., 1994). By specifying the specific material
relations between premises and conclusion, argumentation schemes outline the structure of the
elements left implicit and, for this reason, can provide the most reasonable reconstruction of the hidden
premises. Finally, in order to show how this instrument can be applied to real cases, we will illustrate
our theoretical proposal through the analysis of some students’ arguments, outlining the process of
premise reconstruction, the retrieval of possible background beliefs, and the critical questioning of the
tacit dimension of an argument.
1. Beliefs and teaching
One of the crucial issues in education is the retrieval of previous beliefs (Roschelle, 1995). Students,
during the course of their lives, have developed their “private understanding” (Mestre, 1994) of
scientific concepts and phenomena, such as speed, force or heat. Such understanding often amounts to
concepts having meanings different from the scientific ones and to beliefs that are often incomplete,
fragmented and “fraught with preconceptions” (Mestre, 1994). These preconceptions can be, and often
are, in conflict with scientific concepts and need to be addressed in order for the students to change
their beliefs for two reasons. First, prior beliefs can affect the understanding and interpretation of
scientific texts (Guzzetti et al., 1993). Just like the story of “Fish is fish”, in which the fish interprets all
the descriptions on the life on land in a fish-like form, everything the student hears risks being
incorporated into his pre-existing view (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000: 10-11). Second,
background beliefs, even if fragmented and incomplete, are based on reasons that make them hard to
change or be modified by scientific texts or arguments (Southerland, Sinatra, Matthews, 2001). These
justifications, not accepted in the scientific community, or simply weak or insufficient, need to be
analyzed and rebutted by stronger scientific warrants in order for the learner to be persuaded and a
conceptual change to occur (Duit, 1999).
As the aforementioned studies underscore, the students' background conceptions need to be
taken into consideration in education (Sutton, 1996: 146; see also Martins et al., 2001). According to
Hewson (Hewson, 1992), if a new conception conflicts with a prior belief, it cannot be accepted until
the student is somehow dissatisfied with it and the background conception is rebutted by a more
explicative one. For these reasons, learning can be conceived as a process of developing and addressing
prior beliefs (Osborne, Erduran & Simon, 2004: 995, Carey 2000: 13-14). A scientific idea, for
instance, needs not only to be understood, but also to be accepted as the best explanation of a
phenomenon and the most predictive model (Songer & Linn, 1991: 763). Background beliefs and the
reasons on which they are based need to be retrieved and taken into account, so that they can be
undermined and confronted with more intelligible, more plausible or more predictive scientific
conceptions (Hewson, 1992: 11; Posner et al, 1982).
The process of teaching, or rather the process of modifying the interlocutors’ background
beliefs, should be regarded as essentially argumentative (see Pera & Shea, 1991; Koballa, 1992;
Sandoval & Millwood 2005; Osborne, Erduran & Simon, 2004), as grounded on the interlocutors’
background experience (Baker, 2003: 48) and previous beliefs and interests. Teaching can be ideally
considered as an argumentative persuasive dialogue for two reasons. First, it is aimed at modifying and
developing the other’s “private understanding”, showing its limits or building on it in order to account
for new phenomena (Simons, Morreale & Gronbeck, 2001: 7; Chi & Roscoe, 2002). Second, one of the
crucial instruments used for achieving such a purpose is the use of arguments, which intervene at two
levels. On the one hand, students’ argument can be encouraged in order to bring to light the
background beliefs on which they are based; on the other hand, they can be used for providing reasons
showing their incompleteness and supporting the scientific viewpoint.
For these reasons, the teaching activity fundamentally falls within the framework of
argumentation studies, and in particular within the models that analyze dialogue aimed at the
persuasion of the interlocutor (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1984, 1992, 2004; Walton, 1984; Walton
& Krabbe, 1995). As pointed out in the ancient theories, persuasion is characterized by the freedom of
choice, and is the result of a process of modification of one’s beliefs (Rigotti, 1995: 11), or rather
propositions he is committed to (Walton & Krabbe, 1995). When our interlocutors find an argument
persuasive, it is generally because they think it is reasonable and it proceeds from premises that they
accept or they are committed to (Walton, 2007: 86). For this reason, in teaching the effectiveness and
persuasiveness of teachers’ arguments depend on what the students’ hold as acceptable or reasonable.
As a consequence, the process of reconstruction of the possible previous beliefs of the students
becomes crucial. Such a reconstruction can be carried out only through a dialectical activity
(Nussbaum, 2011), a persuasion dialogue in which the speaker retrieves the basic assumptions of the
interlocutor’s arguments.
However, how can the teacher (or more generally the speaker) reconstruct the background
beliefs on which the interlocutor grounds his arguments? What is the relationship between arguments,
and in particular the tacit premises thereof, and beliefs?
2. Retrieving background beliefs
The contribution of argumentation theory to the analysis and reconstructing of prior beliefs in teaching
hinges on the crucial relationship between the dialectical notion of commitment and the epistemic one
of belief. How can a tacit premise lead to an epistemic status?
2.1. Commitments and beliefs
In argumentation theory, the dialectical and reasoning structure of dialogues is grounded on the notion
of commitment. Arguments are conceived as patterns of reasoning transferring the acceptability of the
premises, or rather the strength of the interlocutor’s commitments to some propositions, to the
conclusion (Hahn & Oaksford, 2006). This model of dialogue is based on two parties, called the
proponent (or speaker) and the opponent (or hearer), and each tries to persuade the other to accept a
claim by using arguments to prove it. The interlocutors intend to change the other party’s
commitments, which can be the description of a state of affairs (Bob stole the milk) or a judgment (Bob
is a thief). The instrument to lead the interlocutor to change their position is a chain of arguments based
on premises belonging to the implicit ground that he shares. This model of argumentative dialogue is
not based on beliefs, which cannot be known or retrieved, but rather on commitments, what the
interlocutor can be accountable for based on what he says and takes for granted.
The dialogical notion of commitment used in argumentation theory is distinct from the
psychological concept of beliefs, which is of crucial importance in education. However, the two
concepts are related. Commitments can be regarded as signs of the speaker’s beliefs (Godden, 2010).
On this view, one of the possible explanations of a commitment is belief (one commits himself because
he believes it). In specific dialogical teaching activities, this explanation can be considered the best one.
For instance when the students are requested to advance predictive claims and justify them based on
their opinions, explicit or implicit commitments are usually regarded as revealing background
conceptions. In such cases other possible explanations, such as the student’s desire to win the
argument, are of secondary relevance compared to presuming his belief in the proposition he
committed to.
Another crucial issue in the relation commitment-belief is the multiplicity of beliefs that can
explain a commitment. For instance, we can consider the following predictive claim:
The melting of ice floating in water results in an increase of the water level.
This commitment can be explained by different beliefs. The student may not know the buoyancy force;
or he may not have considered the submerged part of the ice; or he may not know that a part of ice is
submerged, etc. However, the level of education of the student may exclude some options and privilege
a specific explanation. Moreover, the purpose of the dialogue between teacher and student can lead to
opting for a belief-explanation more focused on potentially lacking or incomplete concepts. We can
represent the explanatory relationship between commitments and beliefs as follows:
Relation between ice melting and water rise
CONTEXT: class activity
Predicting an event.
COMMITMENT (p)
The melting of ice floating in water
results in an increase of the water level.
BEST EXPLANATION
The speaker believes that the
melting of ice floating in water
results in a rise of the water level.
• Context: 12 year-old student - He
may not know complex laws.
• Purpose: Teaching/explaining the
laws of physics
EXPLANATIONS
1. The speaker does not know the
buoyancy force;
2. The speaker does not know that
a part of the ice is submerged in
water;
3. The speaker has not seen/
considered that ice is partially
submerged;
4. The speaker has not taken into
consideration the floating part of
the ice;
….
(possible) EXPLANATORY
CONCLUSION
The speaker does not know
the buoyancy force.
EXPLANATORY BELIEFS
1. The Speaker commits
himself to p because he
believes it.
2. The Speaker commits
himself to p because he wants
to win the dialogue.
Figure 1: Beliefs as possible explanations
The crucial role of background information is emphasized in the models of argumentative dialogue.
The change of attitude that this type of dialogue aims at is based on the knowledge that the
interlocutors share. They can persuade each other because they proceed from a set of commonly
accepted propositions. The problem that the models of argumentative dialogues face is to develop a
procedure for revealing the interlocutors’ hidden commitments. Krabbe introduced the idea of
metadialogue as a dialogue on the conditions of the discussion (Krabbe, 2007: 240-241). In this phase
the interlocutors solve problems of deep, non-explicit commitments (Krabbe, 2003: 641; Finocchiaro,
2007). In Walton’s persuasion dialogue, the persuasion process is based not only on the explicit
commitments of the parties, but also on the so-called implicit (or dark-side) commitments (Walton &
Krabbe, 1995). These commitments are not revealed, but are used during a dialogue in order to build up
persuasive arguments. For instance, in the aforementioned argument the speaker is not committed only
to the explicit premises, but also to the conditional, hidden one that supports the conclusion, namely “If
Bob stole public money then he is a thief”. Such a proposition is treated as part of the interlocutors’
common ground and is the foundation of the argument persuasiveness.
2.2. Reconstructing tacit premises
The process of reconstruction of implicit commitments plays a fundamental role in argumentation. On
the one hand, the hearer can come to know the implicit foundations of the other’s position by
reconstructing his or her arguments and the grounds thereof. On the other hand, the speaker can explain
the success or failure of a piece of reasoning by analyzing the propositions taken for granted and not
accepted by the other party (Walton, 1984: 252-254). In such cases, implicit commitments can be
brought to the light side, discussed and negotiated or corrected. By revealing, defending and retracting
implicit commitments, the parties discover the real deep disagreements underlying their difference of
opinion. On this perspective, the investigation of the implicit commitments is a dialogical process that
results in a redefinition of the problem at issue to make it more understandable or acceptable to the
other party (see also Baker, 2003).
The instruments of argumentation theory can be applied to the dialogical process of teaching.
As mentioned above, teaching as a whole can be considered a persuasive process that somehow needs
to address students’ background beliefs. The argumentative dimension of teaching emerges when the
students need to justify predictive claims, or when the teacher needs to support a specific viewpoint
(such as specific conceptions in an explanation) or counter the positions of his interlocutors. Moreover,
as the modern approaches pointed out, the teaching activity needs to take into account the prior beliefs
of the students. For this reason, the process of reconstructing the implicit premises becomes crucial for
identifying the possible “private understanding” of a concept or phenomenon.
Given this relationship between teaching and prior beliefs, and between beliefs and
commitments, the tools of argumentation theory used for the analysis and assessment of arguments can
be useful resources for education research. In particular, one of the most crucial instruments of premise
reconstruction in argumentation, argumentation schemes, can be an important tool also for teachers.
The argumentative reasoning patterns can reveal the most reasonable missing premises and concepts
underlying students' arguments and predictions, and can be used as both an analytical and dialogical
tool to teaching. Even though such “implicit commitments” do not represent the students’ beliefs, they
can be considered as the argumentative positions for which they can be held to be accountable, namely
what can be addressed in a dialogue and be the target or subject matter of further discussions.
3. An instrument for retrieving implicit premises
Students advance predictive claims or justify their viewpoints by advancing arguments that are borne
out by explicit or implicit premises, or that can be more or less complete (Osborne, 2005: 371-372).
Their arguments can hide implicit information of two kinds. One of the premises needed for the
conclusion to follow can be missing, or rather be hidden (van Eemeren, Grootendorst & Snoek
Henkemans, 2002; Hitchcock, 2003, Groarke & Tindale, 2004). Arguments are often enthymematic in
nature, as they leave some of the premises on which they are based unexpressed (Braet, 1999; Levi,
1995). The reconstruction of this implicit link between premises and conclusion allows one to
understand the reason or the principle supporting a specific view. However, the “logical” implicit
premise allows the conclusion to follow, but often does not represent the semantic relation between the
concepts which can bring to surface the background beliefs of the students concerning a specific issue.
For instance, in the argument “The ice melts. Therefore the level of the water in which it is floating
increases” the premise “If ice melts, the water level increases” can be the reconstructed implicit
“logical” premise. However, this does not reveal anything about the material, semantic relation
underlying the argument, such as cause-effect, correlation, definition, etc. In the following sections we
will show how the use of abstract and prototypical patterns of reasoning called argumentation schemes
(Walton & Macagno, 2006), can be used as instruments for revealing this twofold type of hidden
information.
3.1 Reconstructing arguments
Argumentation theory has provided a framework for the structural analysis of arguments, still
prominent today. Toulmin’s (1958) framework, broadly introduced in research in the field of science
education (e.g., Bell & Linn, 2000; Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004; Jimenez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez
& Duschl, 2000; Kelly & Chen, 1999), has provided researchers with a theoretical perspective on
argument that involves conceptualizing argument in terms of linked components. The advantage to
researchers of adopting this framework is that it can be used to assess the quality of argumentation in
terms of identifying the number of components, hence the complexity of the arguments used (Simon,
2008). Following Toulmin (1958) an argument can be represented as an interconnected set of 1) a
claim (C), 2) data (D), 3) warrants connecting claim and data (“since W”), 4) backings (B)
substantiating the warrants, and 5) rebuttals (R), which indicate under which circumstances the stated
claim would be correct. Qualifiers (Q) describe the strength of the inferences and how universally they
can be applied and are valid. The structure of Toulmin’s model can be represented as follows:
D
DSo, Q, C
So, Q, C
Since W
Since W
On account of B
On account of B
Unless R
Unless R
Figure 2: Toulmin’s structure of argument analysis
For instance, the student can argue that the melting of ice will result in an increase of the water level
(Claim) based on the fact that the melting of the polar ices results in a rise of the sea level (Datum). In
this case the warrant and the backing are missing. Most of the current models based on this structure
are aimed at improving students’ arguments, by teaching them to make all the structural elements
explicit. For instance, in this case the students should have provided all the elements supporting their
claim and expressed the premise they left implicit.
Building on the research advanced in (Duschl, Ellenbogen, & Erduran, 1999; Simon, 2008), we
maintain that the argument approach to teaching can be also used for the purpose of argument analysis
and premise reconstruction. In other words, the argument structure does not apply only as a normative
tool, but as an interpretative instrument. Our research will be focused on how argumentation schemes
can help us find an analytical framework to explore students’ ideas in science and discover their
implicit premises and beliefs. Such a process of reconstruction can become a starting point for further
dialogical and argumentative activities, aimed at undermining previous incomplete conceptions and
leading the student to assessing and changing his prior beliefs.
2.2. Argumentation schemes
Well-constructed and complete arguments can provide understanding of students’ underlying beliefs
about science. However, just like every everyday argument, the reasons supporting the conclusions (or
rather the specific opinions) are often hidden (Walton & Reed, 2005: 348). In order to uncover such
principles it is necessary to delve into the analysis of argument, considering the components and the
reasoning structure underlying them.
The passage from argument analysis to reasoning and therefore warrant analysis can be found in
Toulmin’s The Uses of Argument, where he defines warrants as “general, hypothetical statements,
which can act as bridges, and authorize the sort of step to which our particular argument commits us”
(Toulmin, 1958: 91). These warrants can be different in nature, and therefore can be grounded on laws,
principles of classification, statistics (Toulmin, 1958: 98; 116), authority (Toulmin, 1958: 198), causal
relations or ethical principles (Toulmin, 1958: 162). This generic idea was further developed by
classifying arguments according to their possible types of warrant (Toulmin, Rieke & Janik, 1984:
199):
Figure 3: Toulmin’s classification of argument schemes
Toulmin’s concept of warrant is crucial for describing the types of argument. However, it does not
provide an instrument for reconstructing them. Building on Toulmin’s idea of warrant, Hastings
developed the idea of modes of reasoning, that is, prototypical patterns of argument organized
according to the type of warrant. An argument pattern (or scheme) was analyzed as a set of abstract
premises leading to a conclusion based on a generic statement that authorize a step in an argument
(Hastings, 1963). Every argument can be classified according to some categories of warrant (example,
classification, definition, sign, cause, circumstance, comparison, analogy, testimony) and fit into one of
the patterns, so that the hidden premise can be reconstructed by specifying the abstract variables of the
scheme.
Walton developed Hastings’ proposal, inquiring into the relationship between the principles of
reasoning and the semantic relation between premises. The patterns of arguments were labeled as
argumentation schemes, abstract structures merging together an inferential relation, or rule, systems of
reasoning and logical rules (Walton & Macagno, 2006; Macagno & Walton, 2010). Every
argumentation scheme has a set of critical questions, which point out the potential weak points of the
reasoning. Critical questions are dialectical tools for testing the strength of the argument or the
premises it is based on. Moreover, they can be considered as guidelines for leading the interlocutor to
make the deeper grounds of his or her arguments explicit. For instance we can consider the argument
from cause to effect and argument from analogy, which are often used in the context of science
education. The first argument represents the causal relationship between two events:
Argumentation scheme 1: Argument from cause to effect (from Walton, 1995: 140-141)
CAUSAL LINK:
Generally, if A occurs, then B will occur.
FACTUAL PREMISE:
In this case, A occurs.
CONCLUSION:
Therefore in this case, B will (plausibly) occur.
In this scheme we can notice that the correlation between the two events A and B is expressed as a
causal relation. For instance, if we consider the argument “The water level will rise when ice immerged
in it melts, as liquid takes more space” we can identify the causal relationship and reconstruct the
structure of the missing premise (If liquids take up more space than solids, melted ice will cause the
water level to raise). In this case, the causal relationship is suggested by the ground provided (melting
causes an increase in volume). The reconstruction of an argument structure often reveals deeper
background knowledge. In order to show the causal relationship and how it is related with the premise,
it is necessary to reconstruct further causal links.
Argumentation schemes can be used not only as instrument for interpreting the interlocutor’s
reasoning, but also as a tool for attacking it or leading the hearer to provide further arguments
(Nussbaum, 2011). Every argument has a set of critical questions that are focused on the crucial aspects
of the scheme. For instance we can consider the following questions associated with the argument from
cause:
Critical questions
CQ1: How strong is the causal generalization?
CQ2: Is the evidence cited (if there is any) strong enough to warrant the causal generalization?
CQ3: Are there other causal factors that could interfere with the production of the effect in the
given case?
In the example mentioned above, all of the questions can be used to lead the interlocutor to make the
tacit reasons supporting his reasoning explicit. The hearer can provide a tentative interpretation of the
argument, for instance advancing a causal reconstruction of the argument and investigating the possible
underlying assumptions. For instance, concerning the first question in the example above, the student
can be asked to confirm, support or justify the causal relation between the melting of ice and an
increase of water volume. He or she may confirm or reject the interpretation, and advance other causal
laws, or examples drawn from his or her experience. With the second question the speaker can
investigate whether the interlocutor knows cases in which the generalization fails. The third question
can be used to lead the interlocutor to take into consideration other factors, such as the buoyancy force,
which trigger different effects. The argumentation scheme, together with its critical questions, work not
as a unilateral instrument of text analysis, but as a dialogical tool for discovering and expressing the
tacit premises and concepts within the student’s argument.
The argument from analogy is more problematic:
Argumentation scheme 2: Argument from analogy (Walton, Reed & Macagno, 2008: 315)
GENERALIZATION:
Generally, case C1 is similar to case C2.
SIMILARITY:
Proposition A is true (false) in case C1.
CONCLUSION:
Proposition A is true (false) in case C2.
Critical questions
CQ1: Are there differences between C1 and C2 that would tend to undermine the force of the
similarity cited?
CQ2: Is A true (false) in C1?
CQ3: Is there some other case C3 that is also similar to C1, but in which A is false (true)?
The argumentation scheme from analogy can be helpful to reconstruct the nature of the generalization
underlying an analogy. For instance, we can consider the claim that the melting of ice cubes immerged
in water will result in an increase of the water level, because the melting of ice caps causes the rise of
the sea level. In this case, the premise reconstructed would be that ice caps are similar to ice cubes.
However, the nature of this similarity and the factors considered in establishing it cannot be retrieved.
Critical questions can be a useful instrument for eliciting implicit knowledge, but they presuppose
further dialogical activities.
The abstract pattern of arguments provides a guide for the premise reconstruction. However,
how can they be applied to real cases? What can the combination of the semantic and the logical
dimensions of schemes tell us about students’ possible prior beliefs? In order to illustrate how
argumentation schemes can be used for analyzing students’ arguments and revealing their unstated
conceptions about science, we will apply the aforementioned causal and analogical schemes to real
cases taken from classroom activities on predictive claims about floating and sinking.
4. Applying argumentation schemes to students’ arguments
Argumentation schemes can be a resource for discovering the implicit beliefs affecting a student’s
learning process. In order to illustrate how this instrument can be an instrument of interpretation and a
tool for investigating and bringing to light background beliefs, it is useful to show how it can be
applied to real cases, pointing out the different steps of reconstruction of the different components and
concepts underlying students’ reasoning. In particular, argumentation schemes can be used in three
phases. First, the argument will be reconstructed using the argumentation schemes. Then the
background concepts underlying the student’s reasoning will be retrieved. Finally the critical questions
that can be used in each case will be listed, showing how the process of reconstruction can be
connected with the dialogical and dialectical activity.
The sample arguments have been taken from an activity proposed to two classes of 44 students
of compulsory education (12-13 years old and 14-15 years old) belonging to a public school in the
metropolitan area of Barcelona. The students were requested to answer in writing two questions
concerning Floating and sinking relative to the task summarized below:
Task
Description
Questions asked to the students
Ice cube melting
There is a jug of water in which
some ice cubes are floating.
1. What will happen to the level of
the water when the ice melts?
2. Why?
Table 1: Description of the task
The task followed the Predict-Observe-Explain (POE) strategy (Champagne, Klopfer & Anderson,
1980) used to test students’ hypotheses about scientific relationships between events. First the students
had to predict and justify the outcome of some event. Then they had to describe what they see happen.
Finally, they had to reconcile any conflict between prediction and observation. The most representative
of these arguments will be used in the following subsections to illustrate two argumentation schemes,
argument from analogy and causality argument.
4.1. Causality argument 1
The first scheme that will be applied is the one that was most commonly used in this activity, the
causality argument. The semantic relationship between premises and conclusion is cause-effect,
conceiving such category in a broader sense to include causal laws or intuitions about physical
consequences:
Student: “I think the water will rise when the ice melts. As the ice melts it adds to the volume of the
water, therefore increasing the water level.”
The purpose of the activity was to elicit students’ hypotheses about physical events. In this case the
student advances a strong prediction (“the water will rise”) from a relation between melting and
increase of water level. The semantic relationship of such a correlation can be hypothetically
reconstructed as a causal link (melting causes additional water).
Applying the argumentation scheme
FACTUAL PREMISE
1:
In this case, melting of ice occurs in a jug of water.
IMPLICIT PREMISE
1:
Melting of ice results in water that is added to the volume of the
existing water.
CONCLUSION
1:
Therefore in this case, water will be added to the water in the jug.
IMPLICIT PREMISE
2:
If water is added to other water, then water level will increase.
CONCLUSION
2:
Therefore water level in the jug will increase.
From this structure it is possible to advance a possible reconstruction of the student’s background
beliefs. The implicit premise 1 presupposes two additional implicit premises:
1) Melting of the ice causes the transformation of ice in water.
2) The melting of the ice floating in the water results in additional water.
Such relations result in a third implicit premise:
IMPLICIT PREMISE 3: The ice is “added” to the water (or rather, the ice is not taking any volume
in the water).
Obviously, this is simply a reconstruction, which even if reasonable or the most reasonable one does
not reveal what the students actually believe, but only what they are taking for granted in their
arguments. Such implicit premises can be used as starting point for investigating what the students
actually hold1. For instance, we can notice how the analysis of the concept of “to add” can reveal
further possible implicit premises, which can stem from possible misconceptions about the nature of
ice. For example, the fact that there is a change of state of the ice from solid to liquid can be interpreted
as a difference in mass and not as a difference in volume. The student bringing forward this argument
may have not considered that the ice is floating because it is less dense, that is, its mass is the same but
its volume is bigger. Such hypotheses on students’ beliefs can be assessed through critical questions or
counterarguments during the discussion phases.
Possible Critical questions
CQ1: Does the melting of the ice results in additional water? So what will happen when ice turns
back to water liquid? Does will occupy more or less space?
CQ2: Why floating ice is partly outside the water? Does change of state cause more mass? Does
the mass change?
CQ3: If the mass stays the same, how is it possible for the water level to rise?
4.2. Causality Argument 2
In the previous case (causality argument 1) the causal relation was left implicit and could be based on
observation. In the following case, the student proceeds from a law of physics that he makes explicit
and uses for drawing the conclusion:
Student 1: “I think that when the ice melts the water level will rise because the ice is not but solid
water. And solid is more compact than the liquid and when, when it becomes liquid and atoms are
spread more apart and they become free and then ... they take up more space and the water level will
rise”.
The nature of the reasoning is the same as the causal argument 1 (from a cause to an effect) even if the
epistemic nature of the generalization is different. The structure of this argument can be reconstructed
by applying the argument from cause to effect, showing the factual and causal premises that can be
retrieved from the text.
Applying the argumentation scheme
FACTUAL PREMISE
1:
In this case, melting occurs.
CAUSAL LINK
1:
If melting occurs, then atoms are spread further apart because a
solid is more compact than a liquid.
C
ONCLUSION
1:
In this case, atoms are spread further apart.
CAUSAL LINK
2:
If atoms are spread further apart, then they will take up more space.
CONCLUSION
2:
Therefore in this case, atoms will take up more space.
IMPLICIT PREMISE
:
If the atoms of water take up more space, the water level will rise.
CONCLUSION
2:
Therefore water level in the jug will rise.
1 This activity was carried out in the classroom with the students. The discussion among the students was guided by the
researchers by using critical questions, underscoring the defeasible points of the students' predictive claims. All the
discussions were recorded.
This reconstruction can reveal, generically, the implicit premises taken for granted by the students.
However, if we critically analyze the reconstructed premises according to the argument structure, we
can reveal possible background beliefs underlying the student’s reasoning. For instance, causal link 1
presupposes the following possible implicit assumption:
1. If solid materials melt, their atoms will always be more spread apart (Melting always cause a
wider distance between atoms).
Moreover, the second causal link presupposes the following premise:
2. The wider distance between the atoms causes an increase in the volume of the material.
The background beliefs of the student can be tentatively retrieved from the reconstructed premises. He
is actually holding that all solid materials are more compact than liquids, using a universal
generalization and a concept whose meaning can be controversial (does it mean denser?). The critical
questions can be used to investigate the student’s beliefs, leading him to specify the concepts he is
using and reason on the universal law advanced. On this view, the reconstruction of the argument,
carried out starting from the implications of the student’s explicit premises, shows crucial concepts that
can be discussed and delved into. The following critical questions can provide guidance to the further
dialogue:
Possible Critical questions
CQ1: Is it true that when solids become liquids their atoms are more apart to each other? Does the
same happen with ice and liquid water?
CQ2: What facts that you have observed can support this generalization?
4.3. Analogical Argument
In analogical arguments the relationship between the compared concepts or correlations is implicit and
needs to be reconstructed. Analogical arguments can be used when the causal principle is unknown, to
draw a conclusion based on experience instead of previous knowledge (Juthe, 2005: 4). For example
we consider the following argument:
Student: “I think that when the ice melts, the water level will rise a little, I am watching the news and,
they always say that the sea level is rising and the reason why this is happening is the climate change,
because it is warmer, ice melts in the Antarctic, so therefore I have related this to the glass and I think so
on”.
Applying the argumentation scheme
GENERALIZATION
Ice melting at the poles (climate change) is similar to ice
melting in the jug.
SIMILARITY:
The ice melting at the poles results in a rise of the sea level.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, the ice melting in the jug will result in a rise of
the water level.
The implicit premise in this case is the generic quality (Macagno & Walton, 2009) under which the
terms of the comparison fall. In this case the similarity is possible because the ice in the jug and the ice
at the poles are regarded as specific instances of “melting ice” or more simply “ice” without any
qualification. The difference between the two instances that is relevant and essential for the
consequence “rise of water level” is the location, which the student does not take into consideration. It
is because not all the icecap of Antarctica is floating on water that the sea level raises when the ice
melts. According to the reconstruction of the analogical argument, the student holds that the melting of
the ice is the only cause responsible for the increase of the water level, without considering the location
of the ice or whether it is floating or not. This commitment can reveal possible background beliefs that
need to be inquired into by asking critical questions. For example, the advanced analogical reasoning
can be explained by supposing that the student does not know (or, depending on the level of education
of the student, has not considered) the buoyancy force. In order to assess the reconstruction of the
implicit beliefs the following critical questions can be asked:
Possible Critical questions
CQ1: Are the two situations (melting ice because of the climate change and melting ice in jug)
comparable from the perspective of the effects of the melting?
CQ2: Are there differences between the two situations, the origin of the ice or its location for
example?
CQ3: Is all ice on the earth floating?
CQ4: Has the melting of floating ice the same effects as the ice that is on the earth?
These critical questions can guide the process of discussion concerning this type of reasoning. The
students’ replies can reveal other implicit premises and background beliefs, which can be used for
further discussions.
5. Conclusion
Studies on an argumentative approach to science education have grown in the last years. In particular,
the importance of understanding and improving students’ reasoning has been greatly stressed as an
instrument to enhance both teaching effectiveness and learning abilities. However, recent approaches
have focused on the structure and in particular on the completeness of arguments, without investigating
their nature, their logical properties and their content. Moreover, the reconstruction of the inferential
(material) link has not been studied so far. In this paper we show and illustrate from a theoretical point
of view how argumentation schemes can be used as an instrument for reconstructing the premises left
implicit in students’ arguments.
Argumentation schemes can be considered as tools for specifying the possible quasi-logical
relations between premises. They provide abstract structures representing the possible premises and
conclusions that can be advanced. They can be considered as guides to the process of reasoning
analysis and reconstruction, outlining the role of the explicit premises and the pattern of the hidden
ones. Prior beliefs underlying an argument are not revealed by simply providing the missing premises
constituting the logical minimum (van Eemeren et al., 1994: 90). Argumentation schemes are
instruments for achieving the pragmatic optimum of discovering the semantic relation and the
information presupposed by it. However, they can provide only tentative explanations that need to be
tested through discussions led by the critical questions. On this view, the teacher’s interpretation
becomes the starting point of a dialogical activity aimed at reconstructing the tacit dimensions of
arguments. This process of argument and premise reconstruction, leading to an investigation of implicit
beliefs and activities aimed at a conceptual change, can be represented as follows:
Dialogical activities
(critical questions,
counterarguments)
ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES
Previous beliefs
Missing premises
Conceptual change
Students’ arguments
Dialogical activities:
critical questions,
Counterarguments.
Figure 4: The role of argumentation schemes in education
On the theoretical perspective advanced in this paper, argumentation schemes are regarded as an
instrument and a guide for detecting, retrieving and assessing students’ prior beliefs. They are
presented as argumentative instruments both in the sense of instruments for analyzing arguments and
producing arguments or counterarguments. They can be useful analytical tools, but such an analysis,
given the presumptive nature of the schemes, needs to be confirmed and developed through a dialogical
activity. These two dimensions can make argumentation schemes a potential resource for teaching.
References
Baker, M. J. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific
notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: confronting cognitions
in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47-78). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bell, P. & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artefacts: Designing for learning from
the web with KIE. International journal of science education, 22 (8), 797-817.
Braet, A. (1999). The enthymeme in Aristotle's rhetoric: from argumentation theory to logic. Informal
Logic, 19 (2&3), 101-117.
Bransford, J. Brown, A. & Cocking, R. (eds.) (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and
School. Washington D.C.: National Research Council.
Carey, S. (2000). Science Education as Conceptual Change. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology 21 (1): 13–19.
Castells, M., Enciso, J., Cerveró, J.M., López, P. & Cabellos, M. (2007) What can we learn from a
study of argumentation in the students’ answers and group discussion to open physics’ problems?
In A. R. Pintó & D. Couso (eds.). Contributions from Science Education Research (pp. 417-431).
Dordrecht: Springer,
Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E. & Anderson, J. H. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of
classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics 48: 1074–1079.
Chi, M.T.H. & Roscoe, R.D. (2002). The process and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon
and L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 3-27).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in
Classrooms. Science Education 84: 287–312.
Duit, R. (1999). Conceptual change approaches in science education. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, &
M. Carretero (eds.), New Perspectives on Conceptual Change (pp. 263-282). Oxford: Pergamon.
Duschl, R. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran, & M. Jiménez-
Aleixandre (eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based
research (pp. 159-175). Amsterdam: Springer.
Duschl, R. A., Ellenboger, K. & Erduran, S. (1999). Promoting argumentation in middle school science
classrooms: A project SEPIA evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the national
association for research in science teaching (March 28-31), Boston, MA.
Erduran, S. & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P. (eds.) (2007). Argumentation in science education:
perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S., Osborne, J. & Simon, S. (2005). The role of argument in developing scientific literacy. In
K. Boersma, O. de Jong, H. Eijkelhof, & M. Goedhart (eds.), Research and the quality of science
education (pp. 381-394). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the
application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education 88
(6): 915-933.
Finocchiaro, M. (2007). Arguments, meta-arguments, and metadialogues: a reconstruction of Krabbe,
Govier, and Woods. Argumentation 21 (3): 253-268.
Godden, D. (2010). The importance of belief in argumentation: belief, commitment and the effective
resolution of a difference of opinion. Synthese 172 (3): 397-414.
Groarke, L. & Tindale, C. (2004). Good Reasoning Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guzzetti, B., Synder, T., Glass, G. & Gamas, W. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A
comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science
education. Reading Research Quarterly 28: 117–155.
Hahn, U. & Oaksford, M. (2006). A normative theory of argument strength. Informal Logic 26 (1): 1-
24.
Hastings, A.C. (1963). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Evanston, Illinois:
Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University.
Hewson, P. (1992). Conceptual change in science teaching and teacher education. Paper presented at a
meeting on “Research and Curriculum Development in Science Teaching,” National Center for
Educational Research, Documentation, and Assessment, Ministry for Education and Science,
Madrid, Spain.
Hitchcock, D. (2003). Toulmin’s warrants. In F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard & A.F.
Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Anyone who has a view: theoretical contributions to the study of
argument (pp. 69-82). Dordrecht / Boston / London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jimenez-Aleizandre, M.P., Rodriguez, A.B. & Duschl, R.A. (2000). "Doing the lesson' or "Doing
science': argument in high school genetics. Science Education 84 (6): 757-792.
Kelly, G. & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography
students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education 86: 314-342.
Kelly, G.J. & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: constructing science as sociocultural practices
through oral and written discourse. Journal of research in science teaching 36 (8): 883-915.
Koballa, T. (1992). Persuasion and attitude change in science education. Journal of research in science
teaching 29 (1): 63–80.
Konstantinidou, A., Cerveró, J.M. & Castells, M. (2010). Argumentation and scientific reasoning: the
“double hierarchy” argument. In M.F. Taşar & G. Çakmakcı (eds.), Contemporary science
education research: scientific literacy and social aspects of science (pp. 61-70). Ankara, Turkey:
Pegem Akademi.
Krabbe, E.C.W. (2003). Metadialogues. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard and A. F.
Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the
Study of Argumentation (pp. 641-644). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Krabbe, E.C.W. (2007). On how to get beyond the opening stage. Argumentation 21 (3): 233-242.
Levi, D. (1995). The case of the missing premise. Informal Logic 17: 67-88.
Macagno, F. & Walton, D. (2010). Defeasible Classifications and Inferences from Definitions.
Informal Logic 30: 34-61.
Macagno, F. & Walton, D. (2009). Argument from analogy in law, the classical tradition, and recent
theories. Philosophy and Rhetoric 42 (2): 154-182.
Martins, I., Mortimer, E., Osborne, J., Tsatsarelis, C. & Jiménez Aleixandre, M.P. (2001). Rhetoric and
science education. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, A. Kross and P.
Reiska (eds.), Research in science education – past, present, and future (pp. 189–198).
Amsterdam: Kluwer.
Mestre, J.P. (1994). Cognitive aspects of learning and teaching science. In S.J. Fitzsimmons & L.C.
Kerpelman (eds.), Teacher Enhancement for Elementary and Secondary Science and Mathematics:
Status, Issues, and Problems (pp. 31-53). Arlington: National Science Foundation.
Nussbaum, M. (2011). Argumentation, Dialogue Theory, and Probability Modeling: Alternative
Frameworks for Argumentation Research in Education. Educational Psychologist 46 (2): 84-106.
Osborne, J. (2005). The role of argument in science education. Research and the quality of science
education 7: 367–380.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science.
Journal of research in science teaching 41 (10): 994–1020.
Pera, M. & Shea, W. (1991). Persuading science. Canton, MA: Science History Publications.
Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P. & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of s Scientific Conception:
Towards a Theory of Conceptual Change. Science Education 66 (2): 211-227.
Rees, M.A. van (2001). Argument interpretation and reconstruction. In F.H. van Eemeren (ed.), Crucial
Concepts in Argumentation Theory (pp. 165–199). Amsterdam: SicSat.
Rigotti, E. (1995). Verità e Persuasione. Il nuovo areopago 14 (1): 3-14.
Roschelle, J. (1995). Learning in interactive environments: Prior knowledge and new experience. In J.
H. Falk & L. D. Dierking (eds.), Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research
agenda (pp. 37 - 51). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science
education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education 92
(3): 447-472.
Sandoval, W. & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific
explanations. Cognition and Instruction 23 (1): 23-55.
Schwarz, B. & De Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning 2: 297–313.
Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin's Argument Pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school
science. International journal of research and method in education 31 (3): 277-289.
Simons, H., Morreale, J., & Gronbeck, B. (2001). Persuasion in society. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students' views of science influence knowledge
integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28 (9):761-787.
Southerland, S., Sinatra, G. and Matthews, M. (2001). Belief, Knowledge, and Science Education.
Educational Psychology Review, 13 (4): 325-351.
Sutton, C. (1996). The scientific model as a form of speech. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, and P. Scott
(eds.), Research in science education in Europe (pp. 143–152). London: Falmer Press.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R. & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning, second edition. New York:
Macmillan.
van Eemeren, F. H. van, de Glopper, K., Grootendorst, R. & Oostdam, R. (1994). Student performance
in identifying unexpressed premisses and argumentation schemes. Argumentation and Advocacy
31: 151-162.
van Eemeren, F.H. & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical
model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht:
Floris Publications.
van Eemeren, F.H. & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A
pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Eemeren, F.H. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-
dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R. & Snoek-Henkemans, F. (2002). Argumentation. Analysis,
Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Walton, D. (1984). Logical dialogue-games and fallacies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America,
Inc.
Walton, D. (1995). A pragmatic theory of fallacy. Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama
Press.
Walton, D. (2007). Media argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. & Krabbe, E. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning.
Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.
Walton, D. & Macagno, F. (2006). Argumentative reasoning patterns. In Proceedings of ECAI
Conference 2006. Riva del Garda, 28 August - 2 September 2006 (pp. 1-5), Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Walton, D., Reed, C. & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
