Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract This article examines the relationship between epistemic cognition and classroom argumentation practices in elementary science and history. Literature highlights argumentation as a critical epistemic practice for science and history learning (Duschl National Research Council, 2007, 2012). Although there is ample support for argumentation in the teaching of history and science, the specific epistemic issues that students address through this practice are not always empirically documented. We draw on the work of CitationChinn, Buckland, and Samarapungavan (2011) to examine argumentation practices in science and history in 2 fifth-grade and 2 sixth-grade urban classrooms. Students' and teachers' emergent argumentation practices were coded and analyzed and epistemic reasoning was examined using the 5 components of the Chinn et al. model. Findings highlight that students engaged in complex argumentation practices that were consistent across classrooms. The classroom case examples demonstrate that students addressed all 5 epistemic components in the Chinn et al. model through their argumentation practice. Further research to better understand the relationship between teacher epistemic commitments, pedagogical practices, and student epistemic commitments and learning is suggested. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wish to thank the National Science Foundation for funding to support this research through Award No. 9980536. We thank the four teachers for their collaboration on this project, which offered all of us many opportunities to learn. We are also thankful for our colleagues and collaborators on the data collection phase of this project, including Sam Wineburg, Phil Bell, Reed Stevens, Sherry Yeary, Sandy Toro, and Laura Adriance. Finally, thanks to Cindy Hmelo-Silver and the anonymous reviewers whose comments helped to improve our article. The views expressed are the sole responsibility of the authors. Notes 1Thereby moving away from the fact-based instruction common in these disciplines. However, we do not mean to suggest that students are acting like expert scientists and historians. 2National Science Foundation Award No. 9980536. 3The term theories was used across both science and history for consistency in comparing thinking practices in each of the disciplines. 4Virtues include conscientiousness, intellectual carefulness, intellectual sobriety, intellectual courage, perseverance, humility, rigor, flexibility, thoroughness, open-mindedness, fair-mindedness, insightfulness, impartiality, sincerity, and accuracy. Vices mentioned include closed-mindedness, discomfort with ambiguity, dogmatism, unwillingness to give up beliefs, obtuseness, and conformity. Although CitationChinn et al. (2011) tend to cluster virtues and vices in this manner based on past work in EC and philosophy, they argue that virtues and vices must be understood in context of use and in relationship to epistemic aims. 5In two districts, fifth grade was the last year of elementary school, whereas in the other district sixth grade was the last year. 6Procedural discussions about which group would report first, and so on, were not included in the analytic documents. 7These findings relate some key differences between history and science with regard to epistemic aims and the structure of knowledge in each discipline (CitationChinn et al., 2011). Specifically, in history, one begins by defining the scope of inquiry, but explicit theorizing in advance of collecting, interpreting, and synthesizing documentary evidence is not a common practice.
Herrenkohl et al. (Tue,) studied this question.