Cited by 268Science Education and PedagogyEvolution and Science EducationTeacher Education and Leadership Studies

Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students

Osborne, Jonathan, Simon, Shirley, Christodoulou, Andri, Howell‐Richardson, Christina, Richardson, Katherine·2013·Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Abstract

This article reports the outcomes of a project in which teachers' sought to develop their ability to use instructional practices associated with argumentation in the teaching of science—in particular, the use of more dialogic approach based on small group work and the consideration of ideas, evidence, and argument. The project worked with four secondary school science departments over 2 years with the aim of developing a more dialogic approach to the teaching of science as a common instructional practice within the school. To achieve this goal, two lead teachers in each school worked to improve the use of argumentation as an instructional practice by embedding activities in the school science curriculum and to develop their colleague's expertise across the curriculum for 11‐ to 16‐year‐old students. This research sought to identify: (a) whether such an approach using minimal support and professional development could lead to measurable difference in student outcomes, and (b) what changes in teachers' practice were achieved (reported elsewhere). To assess the effects on student learning and engagement, data were collected of students' conceptual understanding, reasoning, and attitudes toward science from both the experimental schools and a comparison sample using a set of standard instruments. Results show that few significant changes were found in students compared to the comparison sample. In this article, we report the findings and discuss what we argue are salient implicat…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/tea.21073

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous interventionist studies have achieved only patchy success as regards target dialogue.

    “the initiatives have achieved only patchy success as regards target dialogue (e.g.Alexander et al., 2017;Lefstein & Snell, 2014;Osborne et al., 2013;Pehmer et al., 2015;Pimentel & McNeill, 2013;Ruthven et al., 2017;Wells & Arauz, 2006).”
  • Studies that analyze teacher-student dialogue and assess outcomes with an approach concurring with the present one sometimes detect positive outcomes when theoretically productive forms are frequent, but they concern broader packages and do not allow effects of teacher-student dialogue to be isolated.

    “Sometimes (not always), these studies detect positive outcomes when theoretically productive forms are frequent.However, concerned with broader 'packages' that include good task design and/or productive small-group dialogue amongst students, these studies do not allow the effects of teacher-student dialogue to be isolated.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell‐Richardson, C., & Richardson, K.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of London (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Osborne, Jonathan
Venue
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-01-17
Volume
50
Issue
3
Pages
315-347
ISSN
  • 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2736
OpenAlex
W2088235020
Cited by
268
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9
FWCI
112.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Research in Science Teaching (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (RES-062-23-0571-A)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
Keywords
argumentation in science teaching, dialogic teaching, small group work, teacher professional development, instructional practices, secondary school science, student conceptual understanding, scientific reasoning, attitudes toward science, student engagement, teacher learning

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