Suchergebnisse

Background: Argumentation, that is the coordination of evidence and reasons to support claims, is an important skill for democratic society, developing subject-specific literacies, and can be embedded in multiple school subjects. While argumentation has been extensively researched in science education, interdisciplinary argumentation is less explored, particularly between subjects where collaboration is not the norm, such as science and religious education (RE). Yet everyday issues often involve considering information from multiple sources, such as scientific information or ethical, moral, or religious perspectives. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to better understand students' abilities in argumentation within and across the school subjects of science and RE to inform research and practice of interdisciplinary argumentation. Sample: The participants of this study were 457 students, aged between 11 and 14 years, from 10 secondary schools in England. Following data cleaning, 394 student responses were analysed. Design and Methods: Students completed simultaneous written assessments for argumentation in three tasks which are situated within three different subject contexts: (1) science (2) RE, and (3) an interdisciplinary context which involved argumentation from science and RE. Results: In each of the three contexts, high proportions of students achieve all available marks for identifying claims and evidence. These proportions drop when constructing the link between claim and evidence (warrant) and constructing an evaluative argument. Higher performances were generally noted in the context of science and that students experience particular challenges in argumentation in the RE scenario. Conclusions: This study contributes to our understanding of the challenges and successes of students' argumentation within and across the subjects of science and RE. Implications for both research and practice are discussed.

The importance of developing students' ability to argue effectively is generally recognised across the curriculum, however what this means within religious education has not been thoroughly investigated. We explore this issue first through an initial review of both wider philosophical and curriculum literature on argumentation, notably Toulmin's work, and then a review of relevant research within religious education. We then describe our curriculum analysis, addressing three research questions focusing on the frequency, purpose and conceptualisation of argumentation, though a mixed-methods curriculum analysis of locally agreed syllabuses across England (LASs). A quantitative analysis of frequency in thirty-five LASs showed that although argumentation was never mentioned, other cognates were always present. A detailed qualitative analysis of six LASs showed that its purpose was linked to personal expression within democratic participation, and epistemic and empathetic flexibility. Using Toulmin's model of argumentation as a frame, it is generally conceptualised around the elements of claim, evidence and rebuttal, but the precise nature of evidence, warrant and backing are not explicit, especially as the field-dependent elements are unspecified. The implications of these findings for both general conceptualisations of argumentation and curriculum development within religious education are outlined.

Citizens often face problems and dilemmas about which they need to make decisions and choices that impact their everyday lives. Some of these issues are related to science and religion. For example, genetic cloning, nuclear energy and climate change can potentially appeal to moral and religious values as well as scientific knowledge. The ability to coordinate knowledge and values in reaching justified conclusions has thus become increasingly important in contemporary democratic societies. The process of justification of knowledge claims with evidence and reasons is often referred to as 'argumentation'. Curriculum standards of school subjects such as science and religious education (RE) include references to argumentation, and teachers are expected to teach to these standards. Yet, there is often limited opportunity for teachers of conventionally disparate subjects to express their understanding of how argumentation is broadly conceptualised in their own subject and in relation to other school subjects. The primary purpose of this paper is to report an empirical study that investigated how science and RE teachers view the nature of argumentation. The empirical data were drawn from 16 science and 17 RE teachers' responses to survey questions. The findings illustrate how teachers describe both the distinguishing features (e.g. the forms of evidence acceptable for substantiating a claim) and similarities (e.g. the structures and processes of argument construction) of argumentation in science and religious education.