DISCUSIÓN:

Argumentation is not new, and for many years religion, politics and law have relied on it as a means to express a viewpoint or maintain a stance (Erduran, Ardac & Yakmaci-Guzel, 2006). Teaching argumentation in science has been suggested in many a study in science education (e.g. Ogunniyi, 2004, 2006, 2007; Ogunniyi and Hewson, 2008; Osborne et al, 2004, It has become a subject of increased interest especially in relation to classroom discourses (e.g., Driver et al, 2000; Ebenezer, 1996; Erduran et al, 2004; Ogunniyi, 2004, 2006, 2007 a & b; Simon et al, 2006; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). Several of these studies have indicated the value of dialogical argumentation as a leading instructional approach to develop teachers’ and learners’ scientific knowledge in science education as well as increasing their awareness about scientific inquire (Ogunniyi, 2004).

Since argumentation is vital in producing, evaluating, and advancing scientific knowledge, its process is of utmost importance. To participate meaningfully in an argument certain conditions must be met. These include the ability to follow and be willing to submit to the force of a better argument. The need to recognize one another as equal and reasonable arguers. No matter what we think or know, the opportunity to argue with other people may help us to learn new things. But whatever the case, the worldview we may want to convince others about in an argument may after all be relative i.e. what is valid for one may not be so to the other. Each stance a person takes depends on the underlying assumptions. The merits or demerits of an argument is, an unavoidable rhetorical tool for participating in a significance discussion (Ogunniyi 2007a). The main aim of an argumentation is to inform and shed light on thoughts in order to reach a decision.

According to Ratcliff & Grace (cited by Maloney and Simon, 2006:1817), “The extent to which children learn how to engage in debate and use evidence in science is important for future decision- making, particularly in the context of socio-scientific issues.” My teaching experience supports this view in the sense that young children love socio-scientific topics and when such topics are introduced into the classroom debates cannot be easily prevented. It seems that arguments and debates tend to deepen their scientific knowledge on the particular topic in question. One will be surprised to find out what learners already know about socio-scientific issues. When they feel that their prior knowledge is valued they argue freely.

31

This results in an attitudinal change to the extent that even learners who do not usually talk tend to come out of a shell so to speak on the subject matter being debated. Maloney & Simon (2006) state further that if the ability arises in developing argumentation, children need to learn how to reason, to assess options and to justify claims through evidence. Argumentation is dialogic in the sense that it is done individually, thereafter co-constructed in the group, considering the claims of other group members. Children can argue naturally, but to argue scientifically, needs definite guidance. Therefore, teachers need to plan the activities to such an extent so that the learners can argue even if they have limited science knowledge. The more they are exposed to argumentation, the more they are able to reason scientifically and excel in it.

Kuhn (1991) on the other hand also agrees that argumentation is obtained through continuous practice by hands of appropriate activities. Other researches (Hogan & Maglienti 2001; Zoar & Nemet, 2002) have also agreed on the same conclusions. Maloney & Simon (2006) explored the behaviour of 10-11 years-old groups of children arguing and using evidence in decision-making in science. It involved four different collaborative activities. A mapping technique was developed to evaluate the discussions and identify different argumentation levels. The results show that appropriate collaborative activities that focus on the discussion of evidence can be developed to exercise children’s ability to argue effectively when making decisions as well as determining the level of their argumentation.

Argumentation plays a major role in the resolutions of questions, issues, and disputes (Siegel, 1995) and can be done in schools through activities where children reason about problems in different contexts (Jimenez-Alexander & Pereiro-Munaz, 2002, 2005; Zeidler et al., 2003). On the other hand, Carsaro (2003) did a study in three pre-schools, namely California, Indiana, and in Italy. He discover that children are skilled at forming arguments and engaging in argumentation. Nonetheless argumentation is seen as a negative practice at the middle or upper middle class, pre-school, and adults are quick to not be in favour of it. He disagrees and states that argumentation can be seen as a fundamental role in children’s peer culture, supplying societal peer groups, rising and strengthening friendship ties, the confirming of cultural values, and the individual development and display of self. In developing decision-making skills, children need to learn how to reason to evaluate alternatives, and to weigh up evidence completely; in other words, to develop the ability to engage in argumentation (Maloney & Simon, 2006 )

32

The knowledge of scientific facts is not all that matters in Science Education. Value must be put on the process of critical reasoning and argument that will enable children to understand science (Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996; Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Millar & Osborne, 1998). Not enough justice is being done to teaching and learning of argumentation in science as such. If argumentation is applied through appropriate tasks and pedagogical methodologies, it will promote epistemic, cognitive and social goals as well as children’s conceptual understanding of science (Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004). According to Kelly et al (1998) several researches have experienced problems in using TAP to determine the construction and components of an argument, whereas Erduran et al. 2004; Jimenez-Alexander & Pereiro-Munoz, (2005) claim that other researcher have found it valuable as a logical device to relate to classroom dialogue.

Simon et al. (2006) pointed out that the ability to understand and follow arguments of a scientific nature is a critical part in scientific literacy in its basic sense. Ratcliffe & Grace (2003) emphasize the importance of argumentation skills to be taught to young children as early as possible as group intervention for older children will have a limited impact. Children are eager to participate in-group discussions. If teachers confront learners with activities that make them think rather than take note verbatim they are likely to seek for evidence to justify their claims. Keogh, Naylor and Downing (2003) investigated the use of argumentation with concept cartoons in science education with 7-9 year olds. The results showed that the children were able to co-construct arguments which enhanced their overall understanding of the task they were confronted with.