Methodological Foundations in the Study of Argumentation in Science Classrooms

Ask anyone who has done work on argumentation in science classrooms what their primary concern has been in this line of research, and they will most likely respond with one word: methodology. Most likely they will then begin to ask you if you have figured out how to distinguish data from warrants. The questions will continue: can theoretical statements be data? If a warrant is not explicitly stated, can it still be assumed that it is part of the argument? Indeed the study of argumentation in the science classroom raises significant methodological questions. What counts as an argument in children’s talk anyhow? What is the unit of analysis of argument and of argumentation in classroom conversations? What criteria drive the selection and application of coding tools? What justifies the choice of one methodological approach over another? What does a particular methodological approach enable us to do and how does it do so? While in one sense, such methodological questions are about the reliability and validity of methodological tools for the analysis of arguments (e.g., Duschl et al., 1999), in another sense they are questions about the very nature and function of methodologies for a line of research that challenges positivist characterizations of scientific knowledge stripped off of the cultural, affective, economical and personal contexts and processes of science. In a review of literature on the use of methodologies in science education, Kelly et al. (1998) observed incongruities between theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches adapted in studies on the Nature of Science. Although the bodies of literature informing the Nature of Science studies used multiple methodological orientations, the majority of the empirical Nature of Science studies used either survey instruments or interviews, without observational data of teachers and students. The state of affairs in the case of argumentation might present an example of an opposite trend where, roughly two decades later since argumentation has taken root in science education, our methodological work remains heavily focused on observational data at the expense of surveys and interviews. It is worthwhile to note that concentrating on quantitative analyses of argumentation does not necessarily imply a contradiction between methodological and theoretical orientations of science education. Quantitative analyses