Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Lakatos' scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socioscientific issues
Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för samhälls- och välfärdsstudier. (FontD)
National Taiwan Normal University.
2008 (English)In: International Journal of Science Education, ISSN 0950-0693, E-ISSN 1464-5289, Vol. 30, no 13, 1753-1773 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2008. Vol. 30, no 13, 1753-1773 p.
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-8601DOI: 10.1080/09500690701534582OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kau-8601DiVA: diva2:449142
Available from: 2009-12-15 Created: 2011-10-19 Last updated: 2011-10-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Chang, Shu-Nu

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Chang, Shu-Nu
In the same journal
International Journal of Science Education

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 31 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf