From Stereotypes to Reason: Argumentation as a Tool for Engaging and Empowering Girls in STEM

Sibel Erduran �

International Women’s Day

March 6th, 2015

Outline

GENDER STEREOTYPES AND STEM

• Is STEM education contributing to the problem?

• How is STEM conceptualized in education?

INQUIRE-ENGAGE-EMPOWER THROUGH ARGUMENTATION

• What is argumentation and why do we need it in STEM education?

• How can it be a useful strategy in engaging and empowering girls in STEM?

Gender Stereotypes in STEM

Stereotyped Solutions

Contributions of STEM Education?

How is STEM is conceptualised in education?

All students are bombarded with de-contextualised and fragmented knowledge Matter is made of tiny, indivisible particles.

Day and night are caused by a spinning Earth.

Plants convert light and water into food.

Emphasis on ‘what’ we know rather than ‘how’ we know’ What’s the evidence?

How do we justify our claims?

Nature of Science: A ‘Family’ of Fields of Inquiry

Family Resemblance Approach: Science as a Cognitive-Epistemic and

Social-Institutional System

Argumentation

Argumentation as the justification of knowledge claims with evidence

Commitment to evidence and rationality

Emphasis of reason and justification

Tool for enhancing STEM habits of mind

Argumentation as a key reasoning strategy in STEM

Argumentation as a skill for informed citizenship

Curriculum Context

0 10 20 30 40 50

Other

Grouped Discussion

Preparing or Clearing Away

Open Practical Task

Closed Practical Task

Observing Demonstration

Open paper and Pencil Task

Copying

Set Exercise

Reading

Listening

%

Non-Practical

Practical

Time dedicated in science lessons to different activities

(Driver et al., 1989)

Research in Argumentation in STEM Education

Example:

Third year chemical engineering

students

Design in refrigeration

Difficulties in coordinating

theory and evidence

Example including claim, data, warrant:

T Yeah. Can you think of any others for?

S The zoo has like endangered species

T Yes, if they are becoming extinct or endangered then it becomes a way of protecting endangered species doesn't it?

(Erduran, Simon & Osborne, 2004)

Analysing Argumentation

Defining Argument

DATA CLAIM

WARRANT

BACKING

REBUTTAL

TOULMIN’S ARGUMENT PATTERN

(Toulmin, 1958)

Teacher 1

Teacher A

Teacher B

Level 1: Level 1 arguments are arguments that are a simple claim v a counter claim or a claim v claim

Level 2: Level 2 arguments consist of claims with either warrants, backings or data but do not contain any rebuttals

Level 3: Level 3 arguments consist of a series of claims or counter claims with either data, warrants or backings with the occasional weak rebuttal

Level 4: Level 4 arguments consist of a claim with a clearly identifiable rebuttal. Such an argument may have several claims and counter claims as well but this is not necessary

Level 5: This is an extended argument with more than one rebuttal

Levels of Argument

Quality of Argumentation

Argumentation by level – 24 lessons, 48 groups

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1 2 3 4 5

Argument Level

Zoo/Sci 1

Leisure/Sci 2

Co-construction of Arguments

Physics example

Biology example

Chemistry example

Modeling Argumentation Practices in Teachers’ Professional Development

Identifying a problem to investigate Negotiating and justifying choice of topic, pupils etc.

Gathering and evaluating data School-based work including peer video-taping and pair conversations on data

Selecting and justifying evidence Group selection of video and resource data

Communicating knowledge Workshop presentations to peers; conference presentation by team

(Erduran & Yan, 2010; Erduran, Yee & Ingram, 2012)

Professional Development Resources

“The rationality of science is secured by its commitment to evidence; the fostering of a

commitment to evidence is a fundamental educational aim. Science's rationality thus

makes it particularly well suited to the general task of education, and science education

can, and should be seen as a central component of an education dedicated to the

fostering of rationality and critical thinking. The commitment to evidence is basic both to

science and to education.”

Siegel, H. (1989). The Rationality of Science, Critical

Thinking and Science Education. Synthese, 80(1), 9-42.

Value of Argument