Argumentation resource in scientific pedagogy as an object of research

Introduction. The analysis of the argumentation employed by scientists and educators in recent years reveals a tendency to adopt an uncritical attitude towards the opinions of scientific authorities, as     well as distortions in the formulation of definitions and inaccuracies in both theoretical and empirical justifications of conclusions. These issues indicate attempts at methodological “interference” within the argumentative discourse in science education. Aim. The present research aims to identify the specifics of scientific argumentation in pedagogy and categorise the criteria for its compliance with the methodological framework into two parts: the formulation of “strict” and “soft” requirements. Methodology and research methods. The following research methods were employed: analysis of recordings of scientific dialogues, as well as texts from articles, monographs, and dissertations on pedagogy to assess argumentative correctness; analysis of methodological literature addressing the issues of argumentation across various fields of knowledge; and a method for dividing the field of scientific argumentation into two categories based on the characteristics of the subject of pedagogical research, including the potential for definition and the construction of theoretical frameworks. Results. The outcome of the study is the identification of the requirements for scientific arguments in pedagogy, shaped by the unique characteristics of its subject area. These requirements can be categorised into two types: “strict” requirements, which should be aspired to, and “soft” requirements, which can be described as mitigating circumstances that assist pedagogical researchers in addressing criticisms arising from comparisons between pedagogical argumentation and analogous processes in other scientific disciplines. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of this research lies in the justification for dividing the field of argumentation – an essential component of pedagogical methodology – into “hard” and “soft” criteria that align the arguments of scientific pedagogy with methodological norms. Practical significance of the results lies in the potential to utilise the presented material as educational content for students enrolled in pedagogical education programmes, serving as a guide for completing their final qualifying works.

1. Ghanizadeh A., Al-Hoorie A.H., Jahedizadeh S. Higher Order Thinking Skills in the Language Classroom: A Concise Guide. Springer Cham; 2021. 195 p. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-56711-8

2. Šeďová K., Šalamounová Z., Švaříček R., Sedláček M. Getting Dialogic Teaching into Classrooms. Singapore: Springer; 2020. 184 p. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-9243-0

3. Clinton J. Argument as Dialogue Across Difference: Engaging Youth in Public Literacies. New York, London: Routledge; 2017. 178 p. doi:10.4324/9781315619590

4. Schwarz B.B., Baker M.J. Dialogue, Argumentation and Education: History, Theory and Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2017. 294 р. doi:10.1017/9781316493960

5. Morrow R.A. Dialogue, critical thinking, and critical pedagogy. In: Peters M.A., ed. Encyclopedia of Teacher Education. Singapore: Springer; 2022:189–235. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-1179-6_320-1.

6. Ellerton P., Kelly R. Creativity and critical thinking. In: Berry A., Buntting C., Corrigan D., Gunstone R., Jones A., eds. Education in the 21st Century: STEM, Creativity and Critical Thinking. Springer International Publishing; 2021:9–27. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-85300-6_2

7. Marangio K., Carpendale J., Cooper R., et al. Supporting the development of science pre-service teachers’ creativity and critical thinking in secondary science initial teacher education. Research in Science Education. 2024;54:65–81. doi:10.1007/s11165-023-10104-x

8. Spector J.M., Ma S. Inquiry and critical thinking skills for the next generation: from artificial intelligence back to human intelligence. Smart Learn. 2019;6(8). doi:10.1186/s40561-019-0088-z

9. Abrami P.C., Bernard R.M., Borokhovski E., Waddington D.I., Wade C.A., Persson T. Strategies for teaching students to think critically: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2015;85(2):275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063

10. Ennis R.H. Critical thinking across the curriculum: a vision. Topoi. 2018;37:165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4

11. Gronostay D. To argue or not to argue? The role of personality traits, argumentativeness, episte mological beliefs and assigned positions for students’ participation in controversial political classroom discussions. Unterrichtswissenschaft. 2019;47:117–135. doi:10.1007/s42010-018-00033-4

12. Asterhan C.S.C., Schwarz B.B. Argumentation for learning: well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist. 2016;51(2):164–187. doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458

13. Rapanta C., Macagno F. Authentic questions as prompts for productive and constructive sequences: A pragmatic approach to classroom dialogue and argumentation. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal. 2023;11(3). doi:10.5195/dpj.2023.546

14. Martínez C.J.P., Catasús G.M., Fontanillas R.T. Impact of using learning analytics in asynchronous online discussions in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2020;17:39. doi:10.1186/s41239-020-00217-y

15. Lommi S. Causal and epistemic relevance in appeals to authority. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Analitica. 2015;6(1). doi:10.13130/2037-4445/4673

16. Rapanta C. Argumentation as critically oriented pedagogical dialogue. Informal Logic. 2019;39(1). doi:10.22329/il.v39i1.5116

17. Kallio H., Virta K., Kallio M. Modelling the components of metacognitive awareness. International Journal of Educational Psychology. 2018;7(2):94–122. doi:10.17583/ijep.2018.2789

18. Zenker F. Introduction: reasoning, argumentation, and critical thinking instruction. Topoi. 2018;37(1):91–92. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9416-x

19. Snaza N. Aleatory entanglements: (post)humanism, hospitality and attunement – a response to Hugo Letiche. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy. 2018;14:256–272. doi:10.1080/15505170.2017.1398700

20. Letiche H. Bewildering pedagogy. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy. 2017;14:236–255. doi:10.1080/15505170.2017.1335662

21. Alexander Н.A. What is critical about critical pedagogy? Conflicting conceptions of criticism in the curriculum. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2016;50(10):903–916. doi:10.1080/00131857.2016.1228519

22. Alexander P.A. Reflection and reflexivity in practice versus in theory: challenges of conceptualization, complexity, and competence. Educational Psychologist. 2017;25(4):307–314. doi:10.1080/00461520.2017.1350181

23. Leś T. The research potential of educational theory: on the specific characteristics of the issues of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2017;49(14):1428–1440. doi:10.1080/00131857.2017.1313716

24. Koivuniemi M., Järvenoja H., Järvelä S. Teacher education students’ strategic activities in challenging collaborative learning situations. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 2018;19:109–123. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.05.002

25. Kim M.-Y., Wilkinson I.A.G. What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 2019;21:70–86. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.003

26. Irawan N., Valentina T.F. The language of argumentation: a book review. Journal of Language and Education. 2021;7(2):274–276. doi:10.17323/jle.2021.12538

27. Boogaart R., Jansen H., van Leeuwen M. The Language of Argumentation. Cham: Springer; 2021. 323 p. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-52907-9

28. Rapanta C., Macagno F. The dimensions of argumentative texts and their assessment. Studia Paedagogica. 2020;24(4):11–44. doi:10.5817/SP2019-4-1

29. Nussbaum M.E., Dove I.J., Putney L.G. Bridging dialogic pedagogy and argumentation theory through critical questions. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal. 2023;11(3). doi:10.5195/dpj.2023.548