A framework for practical work in science and scientific literacy through argumentation

Abstract

This paper draws on earlier work on ideas that underpin the collection and use of evidence in science in schools. It establishes that different types of practical work share the same procedural underpinnings. It then takes the work of Toulmin on argumentation to suggest that the idea of the ‘public claim’ can be used to forge a link between scientific experimentation in schools and emerging ideas of scientific literacy. It concludes with a discussion of possible implications.

Acknowledgements

We should like to thank Paul Duggan for providing an example of a diagnostic task and Barry Cooper, Phil Johnson and Ros Roberts for their helpful comments on drafts of this article.

Notes

1. By ‘fair test’ investigations we refer to experiments where the independent variable is changed and, to test the effect of this change on the dependent variable, all other variables are controlled as far as is possible in what has become a routinised way (Gott & Duggan, 2002).

2. Project work is one such, but it can be seen as a collection of experimental (and other) tasks which more or less conform to one of these types.

3. Observing and an observation. We need to distinguish here how we have chosen to use the terms observing and observation. We take observing to be theory‐driven. It is the act of looking at (or more generally sensing) an event though a particular (substantive) conceptual framework. A physicist observing the shape of low‐profile tyres on a sporty car would see the structural rigidity inherent in their profile, etc. An observation, by contrast, we take to be the act of judging some qualitative event. So, the ammonia smell referred to in the above example is a measurement of its presence or absence and relies on experience in knowing what ammonia smells like as well as deciding whether the smell is strong enough to be counted as present. At that point, the measurement is made as present or absent (or 1 or 0).

4. Recent research on lab‐based investigations with undergraduate students (Gott & Roberts, in press) suggests that approaches to design can be grouped as one of the following: (a) a ‘linear’ approach—a decision is made on the design at the beginning. The design is then adhered to, regardless of any problems that might arise; (b) a ‘divergent’ approach—a design which allows the investigator to collect any data which might, or might not, be relevant as s/he proceeds but one in which the focus is lost. This leads to problems with analysis when the student may become overwhelmed with the data; (c) an ‘iterative’ approach—the design is economical but flexible with the investigator modifying the design as problems emerge, repeating it with each modification and always keeping the task in mind.

5. It is not always the case that substantive ideas are ‘secondary’ of course—in designing an investigation they may well be at the forefront. But in defending a claim the quality of the data is the critical factor since, on rare occasions, its lack of consonance with established theory can constitute a scientific breakthrough.

6. This is akin to ‘evaluation’, but likely to be more attractive to pupils who will be familiar with the idea of the ‘scientist in the courtroom’ in the detective television series popular across the world.