The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction?
Abstract
In this paper, we argue that there is an emergent confusion in the literature in the use of the terms “argument'' and “explanation.” Drawing on a range of publications, we point to instances where these terms are either used inappropriately or conflated. We argue that the distinction between these two constructs is, however, important as a lack of clarity of fundamental concepts is problematic for a field. First, a lack of common conception hinders effective communication and, second, it makes defining the nature of the activity we might expect students to engage in more difficult. Drawing on a body of scholarship on argument and explanation, this paper is an attempt to clarify the distinction and to explain why such a distinction might matter. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 95:627–638, 2011
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid
WATSON, J. D., & CRICK, F. H. C. (1953) · Nature · doi:10.1038/171737a0 · Cited by 13,584
Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science
Hacking, I. (1983) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511814563 · Cited by 4,814
Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry
Longino, H. E. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9780691209753 · Cited by 3,092
Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-237x(200005)84:3<287::aid-sce1>3.0.co;2-a · Cited by 2,323
Self-citationKuhn, D. (1991) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571350 · Cited by 2,094
Cartwright, N. (1983) · doi:10.1093/0198247044.001.0001 · Cited by 2,082
Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20035 · Cited by 1,596
Self-citationHow literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.10066 · Cited by 1,398
Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.10008 · Cited by 1,346
DeBoer, G. E. (2000) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::aid-tea5>3.0.co;2-l · Cited by 1,285
Cited by
Argumentation for Learning: Well-Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458 · Cited by 338
Characterizing College Science Assessments: The Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol
Laverty, J. T., Underwood, S. M., Matz, R. L., Posey, L. A., Carmel, J. H., Caballero, M. D., Fata-Hartley, C. L., Ebert-May, D., Jardeleza, S. E., & Cooper, M. M. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162333 · Cited by 262
Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016) · Studies in Science Education · doi:10.1080/03057267.2016.1206351 · Cited by 256
McNeill, K. L. (2011) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20430 · Cited by 254
A Teaching Model for Scaffolding 4th Grade Students’ Scientific Explanation Writing
Yang, H.-T., & Wang, K.-H. (2014) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-013-9392-8 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A.
- Venue
- Science Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-05-23
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 627-638
- ISSN
- 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-237X
- OpenAlex
- W2158408059
- Cited by
- 366
- References
- 41
- FWCI
- 108.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sce.20438
- The paper
- Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20438
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
