Practical activities without thinking and talking about science can lead to serious shortcomings. It can give false impressions of science as an unproblematic collation of facts about the world and it does not empower students with the ability to examine scientific claims critically (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000). Contemporary science educators, however, agree that science education has a responsibility to help students to understand the nature of science, scientific methods and how scientists work (Association for Science Education, 1981; National Research Council, 1996; National Science Teachers Association, 1995). This responsibility has an intrinsic justification in that knowing about the activities of science is an essential part of scientific literacy and public understanding of science. It is also often given a two-fold extrinsic justification (Wellington, 1998). First, it is required as part of education for citizenship and the ability to be a decision maker in a democracy imbued with science (Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996); and second, the activity of working like a scientist and the skills of scientific method are said to be valued by employers (Woolnough, 1998). From this point of view, present school science practical work needs to be examined and reformed to reflect the authentic features of scientific inquiry.

As Lemke pointed out, learning science means learning to talk science (Lemke, 1990, p. 1). To learn science, it is necessary to use the specialized language of science in reading and writing, in reasoning and problem solving, and in guiding practical action in the laboratory and in daily life (Lemke, 1990). To use scientific language, students need to be given opportunities to participate in the discourse of conjecture, argument and challenge. In doing practical work, it is necessary to examine the relationship between evidence and claims and to allow students to attempt to justify their views while others express doubts and suggest alternatives. This type of communication, which reflects authentic scientific communication, helps students not only to clarify their concepts but also to understand the norms of language in the scientific community. Researchers in the history and philosophy of science see argument and argumentative practice as a core activity of scientists (Franklin, 1986; Fuller, 1997; Pera, 1994; Taylor, 1996). Science as argument involves engaging students in ways of talking that scientists use in generating, refining and communicating their ideas as well as in ways of reasoning and doing science in everyday contexts (Kuhn,   1993).

This study is a second part of the research to enhance students’ discursive involvement in scientific inquiry. The research was conducted in three phases: a) a theoretical discussion for argumentative scientific inquiry to support students’ peer argumentation (Kim & Song, 2004); b) a case study on the features of students’ peer argumentation carried out during argumentative scientific inquiry; and c) investigation on what and how students learned through the argumentative process during argumentative scientific inquiry.

The focus of this paper is to examine the features of peer argumentation among students during scientific inquiry. The following research questions guided this study.

1. What are the sources of evidence used in students’ arguments?

2. Which strategies are used in students’ argumentation?

3. How does critical discussion proceed?

4. Which types of discussion are found in critical discussion?

5. Scientific Inquiry and  Argumentation

Scientific Inquiry and Argumentation

Argumentation is a verbal, social and rational activity aimed at convincing a reasonable critic of  the  acceptability of a standpoint by putting forward stellation of one or more propositions to justify this  standpoint  (van  Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Henkemans, 2002). Argumentation is a genre of discourse and an epistemological framework central to doing science. Current research into the activities of scientists shows that argument is a central feature of the resolution of scientific controversies (Fuller, 1997; Taylor, 1996). Although the final reports that appear in journals and textbooks typically portray science as purely analytical and logical, studies of science in the making (e.g., laboratory studies) demonstrate that much  of  science  involves  dialectical  and  rhetorical  argumentation  in  writing, research  and  the  production  of  knowledge  (Latour & Woolgar,  1986;  Sutton, 1992).  Scientists  devote  their  energies  to  persuading  others  that  what  they  have perceived  is  important  and  that  their  interpretations  are  valid  (Cunningham  & Helms,  1998).  Pera  also  argued  that  science’s  rationality  resides  in  the  fact  that science can and does rely on rhetorical argument (persuasive argument) to justify its decisions (Pera, 1994).