Lakatos' scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues

Shu Nu Chang, Mei-Hung Chiu 

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

45 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore how Lakatos' scientific research programmes might serve as a theoretical framework for representing and evaluating informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. Seventy undergraduate science and non-science majors were asked to make written arguments about four socio-scientific issues. Our analysis showed that the science majors' informal arguments were significantly better than the non-science majors' arguments. In terms of the resources for supporting reasons, we find that personal experience and scientific belief are the two categories that are generated most often in both groups of the participants. Besides, science majors made significantly greater use of analogies, while non-science majors made significantly greater use of authority. In addition, both science majors and non-science majors had a harder time changing their arguments after participating in a group discussion. In the study of argumentation in science, scholars have often used Toulmin's framework of data, warrant, backing, qualifiers, claims, and rebuttal. Our work demonstrates that Lakatos' work is also a viable perspective, especially when warrant and backing are difficult to discern, and when students' arguments are resistant to change. Our use of Lakatos' framework highlights how the 'hard core' of students' arguments about socio-scientific issues does, indeed, seem to be protected by a 'protective belt' and, thus, is difficult to alter. From these insights, we make specific implications for further research and teaching.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1753-1773
Number of pages21
JournalInternational Journal of Science Education
Volume30
Issue number13
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2008 Oct 17

Fingerprint

argumentation
science
group discussion
student
Teaching
resources
experience
Group

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

@article{98e8ac4d68f94c2fb980c908aa0f8a1f,
title = "Lakatos' scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues",
abstract = "The purpose of this study is to explore how Lakatos' scientific research programmes might serve as a theoretical framework for representing and evaluating informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. Seventy undergraduate science and non-science majors were asked to make written arguments about four socio-scientific issues. Our analysis showed that the science majors' informal arguments were significantly better than the non-science majors' arguments. In terms of the resources for supporting reasons, we find that personal experience and scientific belief are the two categories that are generated most often in both groups of the participants. Besides, science majors made significantly greater use of analogies, while non-science majors made significantly greater use of authority. In addition, both science majors and non-science majors had a harder time changing their arguments after participating in a group discussion. In the study of argumentation in science, scholars have often used Toulmin's framework of data, warrant, backing, qualifiers, claims, and rebuttal. Our work demonstrates that Lakatos' work is also a viable perspective, especially when warrant and backing are difficult to discern, and when students' arguments are resistant to change. Our use of Lakatos' framework highlights how the 'hard core' of students' arguments about socio-scientific issues does, indeed, seem to be protected by a 'protective belt' and, thus, is difficult to alter. From these insights, we make specific implications for further research and teaching.",
author = "Chang, {Shu Nu} and Mei-Hung Chiu ",
year = "2008",
month = "10",
day = "17",
doi = "10.1080/09500690701534582",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "1753--1773",
journal = "International Journal of Science Education",
issn = "0950-0693",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "13",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Lakatos' scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues

AU - Chang, Shu Nu

AU - Chiu , Mei-Hung

PY - 2008/10/17

Y1 - 2008/10/17

N2 - The purpose of this study is to explore how Lakatos' scientific research programmes might serve as a theoretical framework for representing and evaluating informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. Seventy undergraduate science and non-science majors were asked to make written arguments about four socio-scientific issues. Our analysis showed that the science majors' informal arguments were significantly better than the non-science majors' arguments. In terms of the resources for supporting reasons, we find that personal experience and scientific belief are the two categories that are generated most often in both groups of the participants. Besides, science majors made significantly greater use of analogies, while non-science majors made significantly greater use of authority. In addition, both science majors and non-science majors had a harder time changing their arguments after participating in a group discussion. In the study of argumentation in science, scholars have often used Toulmin's framework of data, warrant, backing, qualifiers, claims, and rebuttal. Our work demonstrates that Lakatos' work is also a viable perspective, especially when warrant and backing are difficult to discern, and when students' arguments are resistant to change. Our use of Lakatos' framework highlights how the 'hard core' of students' arguments about socio-scientific issues does, indeed, seem to be protected by a 'protective belt' and, thus, is difficult to alter. From these insights, we make specific implications for further research and teaching.

AB - The purpose of this study is to explore how Lakatos' scientific research programmes might serve as a theoretical framework for representing and evaluating informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. Seventy undergraduate science and non-science majors were asked to make written arguments about four socio-scientific issues. Our analysis showed that the science majors' informal arguments were significantly better than the non-science majors' arguments. In terms of the resources for supporting reasons, we find that personal experience and scientific belief are the two categories that are generated most often in both groups of the participants. Besides, science majors made significantly greater use of analogies, while non-science majors made significantly greater use of authority. In addition, both science majors and non-science majors had a harder time changing their arguments after participating in a group discussion. In the study of argumentation in science, scholars have often used Toulmin's framework of data, warrant, backing, qualifiers, claims, and rebuttal. Our work demonstrates that Lakatos' work is also a viable perspective, especially when warrant and backing are difficult to discern, and when students' arguments are resistant to change. Our use of Lakatos' framework highlights how the 'hard core' of students' arguments about socio-scientific issues does, indeed, seem to be protected by a 'protective belt' and, thus, is difficult to alter. From these insights, we make specific implications for further research and teaching.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=53549128119&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=53549128119&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/09500690701534582

DO - 10.1080/09500690701534582

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:53549128119

VL - 30

SP - 1753

EP - 1773

JO - International Journal of Science Education

JF - International Journal of Science Education

SN - 0950-0693

IS - 13

ER -