View in EDS

Negotiations in Scientific Argumentation: An Interpersonal Analysis

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Negotiations in Scientific Argumentation: An Interpersonal Analysis
Language: English
Authors: Governor, Donna (ORCID 0000-0002-9906-0681), Lombardi, Doug (ORCID 0000-0002-4172-318X), Duffield, Catie
Source: Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Nov 2021 58(9):1389-1424.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 36
Publication Date: 2021
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF)
Contract Number: 2027376
1721041
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Persuasive Discourse, College Students, Science Education, Evidence, Models, Cooperation, Language Usage, Group Dynamics, Group Discussion
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21713
ISSN: 0022-4308
Abstract: Argumentation enables students to engage in real world scientific practices by rationalizing claims grounded in supporting evidence. Student engagement in scientific argumentation activates the negotiation process by which students develop and defend evidence-based claims. Little is known, however, on the intricate process and potential patterns of negotiation between students during scientific argumentation. The present study seeks to fill this gap by exploring how a group of university science education students negotiated when evaluating the relationship between lines of evidence and alternative explanatory models of a phenomena (i.e., climate change). This research, theoretically grounded in social constructionism, used Halliday's model of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) within a discourse analysis framework. The authors analyzed transcripts of student conversations during a model-evidence link activity to gain insights into patterns of negotiation. An interpersonal analysis centering on mood and moves revealed students' ability to engage in the negotiation component of scientific argumentation to make assertions about relations between evidence and models. Effective collaboration resulting in group consensus of the relationship (categorized as supports, strongly supports, or contradicts) was facilitated by the use of interrogatives, modulation, and a balanced contribution between group members. Conversely, negotiation which did not reach consensus featured less balanced discussion among group members, contained more interruptions, more conflict moves, and double polarity clauses.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1310750
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1310750
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Negotiations in Scientific Argumentation: An Interpersonal Analysis
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Governor%2C+Donna%22">Governor, Donna</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9906-0681">0000-0002-9906-0681</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lombardi%2C+Doug%22">Lombardi, Doug</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4172-318X">0000-0002-4172-318X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Duffield%2C+Catie%22">Duffield, Catie</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Research+in+Science+Teaching%22"><i>Journal of Research in Science Teaching</i></searchLink>. Nov 2021 58(9):1389-1424.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 36
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 2027376<br />1721041
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persuasive+Discourse%22">Persuasive Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Education%22">Science Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence%22">Evidence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperation%22">Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Usage%22">Language Usage</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Dynamics%22">Group Dynamics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Discussion%22">Group Discussion</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/tea.21713
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-4308
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Argumentation enables students to engage in real world scientific practices by rationalizing claims grounded in supporting evidence. Student engagement in scientific argumentation activates the negotiation process by which students develop and defend evidence-based claims. Little is known, however, on the intricate process and potential patterns of negotiation between students during scientific argumentation. The present study seeks to fill this gap by exploring how a group of university science education students negotiated when evaluating the relationship between lines of evidence and alternative explanatory models of a phenomena (i.e., climate change). This research, theoretically grounded in social constructionism, used Halliday's model of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) within a discourse analysis framework. The authors analyzed transcripts of student conversations during a model-evidence link activity to gain insights into patterns of negotiation. An interpersonal analysis centering on mood and moves revealed students' ability to engage in the negotiation component of scientific argumentation to make assertions about relations between evidence and models. Effective collaboration resulting in group consensus of the relationship (categorized as supports, strongly supports, or contradicts) was facilitated by the use of interrogatives, modulation, and a balanced contribution between group members. Conversely, negotiation which did not reach consensus featured less balanced discussion among group members, contained more interruptions, more conflict moves, and double polarity clauses.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1310750
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1310750
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/tea.21713
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 36
        StartPage: 1389
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Persuasive Discourse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Usage
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Group Dynamics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Group Discussion
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Negotiations in Scientific Argumentation: An Interpersonal Analysis
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Governor, Donna
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lombardi, Doug
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Duffield, Catie
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-4308
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 58
            – Type: issue
              Value: 9
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Research in Science Teaching
              Type: main
ResultId 1