Main Article Content
Cooperative learning and scientific argumentation are two contemporary topics in educational literature. The claim made in this paper is that the two concepts support and fulfill each other. Cooperative learning takes place when students work in groups and share information based on alternative ways of thinking. Too often, however, the group discussion does not stimulate alternative views, and students too quickly fall into a common and narrow way of thinking, because of leading group dominance, and the guarding of given material (text book) influence. This is still cooperative learning, but of less value. The most valuable learning happens when students put forward multiple views based on their different background and personal theories, in addition to; the given materials and this enhances students challenge each other in real debates. In this way of learning, students act similar to scientists, historians, mathematicians and other academics, because all academic debates are based on argument about contrasting views. Debate about contrasting views, however, is also the fundamental idea in teaching based on scientific argumentation. The basis for the claim of the paper, accordingly, is that scientific argumentation, as a means (pedagogy), can be used to stimulate meaningful cooperative learning by encouraging contrasts and variation in students’ thinking. And the other way, that cooperative learning is a useful perspective that can help and guide teachers who want to use scientific argumentation in the teaching. The aim of the paper is therefore to combine the two concepts in a common rationale for science teaching using analytical review. The paper was first analyse cooperative learning and scientific argumentation in more details separately, and from these analyses conclude with similarities and differences in pedagogically and in nature of science to underlying rationales. Next, the paper was merging the two perspectives into a common rationale to guide science teaching.
Johnson DW, Johnson R. New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, & General Psychology Monographs. 2005;131(4):285-358.
Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Stanne ME. Cooperative learning methods. A Meta-Analysis; 2000. CLC website (www.clcrc.com).
Erduran S, Jimenez-Aleixandre M. (Eds.). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research Dordrecht: Springer; 2008.
Driver R, Newton P, Osborne J. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education. 2000;84(3);287-312.
Latour, Woolgar. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd Ed).Princton, NJ: Princton University Press; 1969.
Druker SL, Chen C, Kelly GJ. Introducing content to the Toulmin Model of argumentation via error analysis. Paper presented at NARST meeting, Chicago, IL; 1996.
Taylor. Defining science: a rhetoric of demarcation .Modison: WI: University of Wisconsin Press; 1996.
Norris SP, Phillips LM. Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1996;31(9);947–960.
National Council of Teachers Mathematics. Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA. Author; 2000.
Van Eemeren FH. A world of difference: The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic. 1995;17(2):144–158.
Binkley RW. Argumentation, education and reasoning. Informal Logic. 1995;17(2):127– 14.
Longino. The fact of knowledge, Princeton, NJ. Princeton University Press; 2002
Posner GJ, Strike KA, Hewson PW, Gertzog WA, Accommodation of a Scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education. 1982;66(2):211–227.
Simon S, Erduran S, Osborn J. Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in science classroom. International journal of science Education. 2006;28:235-260.
Shulman LS, Quilan KM. The comparative psychology of school subjects, In DC, Berliner, and R.C. Calfee (Eds), Hand book of educational psychology. New York. Simon, and Schuster; 1996.
Engle RA, Conant FR. Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction; 2002;20:399–484.
Slavin RE. Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (8th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2007.