Argumentation: The language of science

In the past two decades, the role of language in the science curriculum has become prominent in science education literature (e.g., Dawes, 2004; Gee, 1989; Lemke, 1990; Yore, Bisanz, & Hand, 2003). From a constructivist perspective, language mediates social interaction and meaning is constructed as learners interpret and reinterpret events through the lens of prior knowledge (Barnes, 1992; Berk & Winsler, 1995). This perspective applied to the science classroom results in the view that scientific knowledge is socially constructed, negotiated, validated, and communicated in the context of the specific discourse practices of science (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994). The rhetorical goal of scientific discourse is consensus based on evidence rather than compromise or conciliation achieved through democratic processes. As scientists attempt to reach consensus, they engage in a process known as argumentation whereby they attempt to persuade others of the validity of their claims. In fact, argumentation has been called the language of science (Duschl, Ellenbogan, & Erduran, 1999). Argumentation has also been identified as a possible mechanism for conceptual growth and change (e.g., Driver et al., 1994; Mercer, Dawes, Wegerif, & Sams, 2004; Nussbaum & Sinatra, 2003). In this article, I begin by briefly discussing forms of argument and describing two frameworks that may be used to analyze arguments. Next, I review the science argumentation literature, highlight themes, and examine research trends. Finally, I pose questions that could be addressed by future research and reflect upon two pedagogical implications that arise in the science argumentation literature.