Students’ argumentation in the contexts of science, religious education, and interdisciplinary science-religious education scenarios

Figures & data

Table 1. Examples of different levels of argumentation in science and religious education (after Osborne et al. 2016).

Constructing	Critiquing	Description	Science example	RE example
Constructing a claim		Student states a relevant claim.	A frog is an amphibian.	Drinking alcohol is wrong
	Identifying a claim	Student identifies another person’s claim.	They say a turtle is a reptile.	Some Christians say that abortion is wrong
	Identifying evidence	Student identifies another person’s piece of evidence.	They say turtles are reptiles because they have scaly skin.	Some Christians say that abortion is wrong because it is murder.
Constructing reasoning to link claim and evidence		Student constructs an explicit reasoning that links their claim to evidence.	A frog is an amphibian because it has soft, moist skin, lays eggs and has a backbone, and amphibians are egg-laying vertebrates which have soft, moist skin so they can absorb water through their skin.	Drinking alcohol is wrong because the Qur’an prohibits wine and intoxication, which by analogy cover all forms of alcohol.
Providing a two-sided comparative argument		Student makes an evaluative judgment about two competing arguments and makes an explicit argument for why one argument is stronger and why the other is weaker.	They claim that turtles are reptiles because they have scaly skin, but some fish also have scales – they need another reason. But the argument about frogs explains why frogs are amphibians and not a different class, so it is a better argument.	Christians say that abortion is wrong because it is murder, but it is only murder if the foetus is human – so they need another line of reasoning. But the Muslim argument about alcohol explains how a specific prohibition on wine and intoxication extends to all alcohol

Table 2. Structure of student argumentation tasks.

Religious Education	Science	Science and Religious Education
Christmas and Non-Christians Identifying a claim (1) Identifying Evidence (1) Constructing reasoning that links claim and evidence (2) Identifying a claim (1) Identifying Evidence (1) Constructing reasoning that links claim and evidence (2) Constructing a two-sided comparative argument (3)	What is growing? Identifying a claim (1) Identifying Evidence (1) Constructing reasoning that links claim and evidence (2) Identifying a claim (1) Identifying Evidence (1) Constructing reasoning that links claim and evidence (2) Constructing a two-sided comparative argument (3)	A Zoo Near You? Identifying a claim (1) Identifying a claim (1) Identifying Evidence (1) Constructing reasoning that links claim and evidence (2) Identifying Evidence (1) Constructing reasoning that links claim and evidence (2) Constructing a two-sided comparative argument (3)
Total 11 Marks	Total 11 Marks	Total 11 Marks

Table 3. Demographics of students in cleaned data set.

Year	n	%	Sex	n	%	Age	n	%
7	23	5.8	M	272	69.0	11	19	4.8
8	16	4.1	F	121	31.7	12	17	4.3
9	355	90.1	n/a	1	0.3	13	277	70.3
						14	79	20.1
						n/a	2	0.5

Table 4. Means and standard deviations of performance for each task and level of argumentation.

	Available Mark	Mean	Standard Deviation
CfNC Total	11	5.28	2.28
Claim	2	1.74	0.49
Evidence	2	1.22	0.77
Warrant	4	1.16	1.06
Evaluative Argument	3	1.15	0.93
WG Total	11	6.76	2.28
Claim	2	1.77	0.57
Evidence	2	1.58	0.66
Warrant	4	1.86	1.18
Evaluative Argument	3	1.56	1.56
ZNY Total	11	6.20	2.02
Claim	2	1.95	0.27
Evidence	2	1.61	0.59
Warrant	4	1.50	1.15
Evaluative Argument	3	1.13	0.75
Levels of Argumentation
Total Claim	6	5.46	0.89
Total Evidence	6	4.40	1.26
Total Warrant	12	4.53	2.20
Total Evaluative Argument	9	3.84	1.96

Figure 1. Distribution of task scores.

Figure 2. Distribution of scores for identifying claims.

Figure 3. Distribution of scores for identifying evidence.

Figure 4. Distribution of scores for warrant.

Figure 5. Distribution of scores for constructing evaluative argument.

Osborne, J. F., J. B. Henderson, A. MacPherson, E. Szu, A. Wild, and S.-Y. Yao. 2016. “The Development and Validation of a Learning Progression for Argumentation in Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 53 (6): 821–846. doi:10.1002/tea.21316.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar