Shakespeare Starting an argument in science lessons

Starting an argument in
science lessons
David Shakespeare

Structured arguments in science lessons can stimulate pupils’

thinking, raise motivation and deepen understanding. What
methods can we use to withhold our answers and let pupils reach
their own conclusions?

‘I just want to tell them the answers all the
time!’ (Comment overheard from a PGCE
science student, 2002, after running a class
discussion where the pupils were meant to work
it out for themselves!)
These days we hear more and more about the import-
ance of questioning in science lessons. In terms of
pupil motivation, thinking skills, understanding the
nature of science, oral literacy, inclusion and using
different intelligences, the arguments in favour are
clear and convincing. Of course science itself is all
about good questions, and science education has lately
become increasingly focused on how pupils learn
through talking. Science teachers have always run
demonstrations and relied on first-class teacher
exposition, but the shift is more towards pupils’
explanations, as well as their questions to the teacher
and to each other. Among many driving factors are:
■ formative assessment studies highlighting the
need for high-quality teacher intervention (e.g.
Black and Harrison, 2001; Black et al., 2002);
ABSTRACT
Starting from the viewpoint that questioning
sessions in science lessons will be less
motivating, inclusive or effective unless teachers
have engaged pupils emotionally, this article
discusses the use of structured arguments in
science lessons. Methods for provoking,
maintaining, directing and concluding spoken
arguments between groups of pupils are
outlined, with a particular emphasis on the exact
words and phrases teachers can use to
orchestrate the opinions towards the accepted
scientifically correct view.
■ increasing uptake of CASE materials and methods
(Adey, Shayer and Yates, 2001) which use
Vygotsky’s idea of ‘social construction’ (where
learning takes place between members of a group);
■ the emphasis in the National Curriculum on the
way scientific ideas are formed and evaluated by
peer review and agreement;
■ education for the ‘public understanding of science’
– at AS level, and as outlined in draft plans for
GCSE-level science – which is raising the profile
of discussion and debate in science;
■ the ‘Literacy across the curriculum’ National
Strategy for Key Stage 3 (DfES, 2001) which has
a whole section on ‘The management of group
talk’ (to which science teaching can contribute
readily).
This is all very welcome but, as is well known by
teachers ranging from trainees to reflective ex-
perienced staff, coming up with the questions is only
the start. Questioning sessions can fall flat very
quickly when teachers have trouble maintaining a
certain level of input from pupils: we must also make
the most of the answers to develop understanding.
Debate, discussion or
argument?
In the context of the science classroom, how can we
distinguish a debate or discussion from an argument?
For many science teachers, a discussion or debate
on, say, the pros and cons of a controversial topic such
as the use of nuclear power or genetic engineering
does not necessarily have as its end-point an accepted
scientific ‘answer’. The interest and importance of

School Science Review, December 2003, 85(311) 103

 Starting an argument in science lessons
such topics may lie in recognising that many scientific
subjects are controversial, appreciating different
opinions where there is controversy and that scientists
and the public have a common responsibility for many
scientific issues.
Unlike debates, questioning sessions set up to
elicit and correct pupil misconceptions on more clear-
cut subjects (on everything from, say, the processes
of photosynthesis to electrical circuits) should result
in pupils working towards the accepted ‘correct’
scientific viewpoint, which is often one of the learning
objectives for the lesson. As far as the teacher is
concerned there is little controversy to be debated,
and so the temptation, as in the case of the PGCE
student quoted above, is for teachers simply to tell
the pupils what they think the pupils need to know.
Teachers may give an answer to their own question
after only a moment’s delay. Get another teacher to
time you and you realise how even a second seems
like a long time when you’re standing in front of a
class! During this brief time a pupil may adopt that
furrowed-brow ‘I am just trying to remember’ look,
and avoid answering long enough for you (or someone
else) to step in, and thus the pupil avoids both thinking
and learning.
For the pupils to feel they have a ‘stake’ in the
knowledge, they need to engage with the questions,
shape and defend their own ideas and perhaps change
their minds before reaching their own conclusions.
Most parents know that teenagers will argue back
if they care about something and have an emotional
attachment to a viewpoint, so how can science
teachers get them to care enough to get heated about
photosynthesis or the digestive system? And how can
we keep the pupils’ ideas flowing for long enough
without ‘giving it all away’?
To use a musical analogy, the teacher must conduct
the piece while allowing pupils the freedom to
improvise. They can feed off each other’s ideas or
contrast one idea with another, while at any point the
teacher may need to intervene to bring the players
back in time with the music. Finally, the teacher must
also orchestrate a finale where there is resolution and
a coherent conclusion.
This leads to the idea of a structured argument on
scientific topics. Articles such as Selley (2000) suggest
an approach that helps move the focus directly to the
teacher’s words and actions themselves. Unfortunate-
ly, many other published materials do not suggest
many of the actual phrases to use, although it is the
104 School Science Review, December 2003, 85(311)
Shakespeare
words and phrases used that can either keep open or
kill off a question-and-answer session. Osborne et al.
(2001) highlight various ways of developing
arguments in science lessons. They refer to ‘arguing
prompts’ such as: ‘Why do you think that?’, ‘How do
you know?’, ‘Can you think of another argument for
your view?’ These are excellent starting points, but
may not be provocative enough to pull in many on
the fringes. Something more could be needed.
How do you start an argument?
Many pupils are certain that we science teachers have
all the answers because ‘that’s what we’re paid for,
isn’t it?’ In everyday science activities, we can exploit
differences of opinion when they arise, but if we
deliberately want to run a questioning session, the way
we stimulate an argument has to show a pupil that
their opinion is as valid as that of the teacher and other
pupils. Anything apparently ‘cut and dried’ will only
be challenged by the most confident. Apparently
ambiguous or open-ended techniques are more
inclusive. Some of the examples below can be used
as starter activities to try to engage pupils actively in
lessons from the beginning.
■ Incorrect statements
Statements on the board which are ‘factually
economical’ (or just plain wrong) can draw in pupils
to clarify them:
There is no point in eating – it all goes down the
loo anyway!
There is no gravity on the Moon.
You breathe in oxygen but breathe out carbon
dioxide.
In the last example, many pupils quickly agree with
the statement, but it usually just takes one or two
dissenting voices for arguments to start and minds to
change to recognise that this is not the whole story.
Once this has been done, pupils can rephrase or rewrite
the statement using extra clauses for clarification.
■ Open-ended questions
These are in the style of New Scientist magazine’s
‘Last Word’ section:
Why are atom bomb clouds the shape they are?
(to introduce convection)
Why don’t adults fall out of bed when asleep?
(to introduce the senses)
 Shakespeare
Why can birds safely land on high voltage
wires? (to introduce earthing, voltage, current)
■ Concept cartoons
The excellent ConCISE concept cartoons (Naylor and
Keogh, 2000) have been written to engage pupils and
they often polarise views nicely. They are able to draw
out an argument in pupils well beyond the key stage
2/3 age group for which they were designed. With
care they can be used to sustain an argument and
maintain motivation over a whole lesson. For instance,
use of the cartoon ‘Balloon’ can split a group three
ways (Figure 1). It shows three characters with
differing views on whether an inflated balloon weighs
the same, more or less than it did before inflation.
When I have used it as a starter activity in a lesson on
Figure 1 The ‘Balloon’ concept cartoon. (Naylor and Keogh, 2000)
School Science Review, December 2003, 85(311)
Starting an argument in science lessons
conservation of mass in chemical reactions, heated
but well-thought-through arguments develop. This can
then lead on to the practical activity on change of mass
when burning magnesium in a crucible (which,
together with the cartoon, establishes that oxygen and
other components of the air have mass). Finally, on
revisiting the cartoon during the plenary, all pupils
are asked to write down what they consider the most
likely reasons for backing the wrong argument, and
any evidence they have for the correct one.
■ Cognitive conflict
The CASE activities frequently include work where
pupils make observations which do not fit with their
prior expectations, forcing a rethink of their original
105
 Starting an argument in science lessons
understanding. These ‘cognitive conflicts’ are best
undertaken with peers as well as the teacher, and are
well suited to resolution by structured argument. This
in turn encourages another key element in developing
thinking skills: that of ‘metacognition’ (thinking about
one’s own thinking). These ideas can and have been
successfully adapted for use at key stage 4 or post-16
(e.g. Moran and Vaughan, 2000).
Keeping the argument going
The most important and perhaps the most difficult
aspect of keeping the argument going is simply not to
give away any answers! If you have traditionally
belonged to the school of thought that teachers are
there to impart information, you may not be used to
withholding ‘correct’ answers and it can be very hard
to break the habits of a lifetime. It usually requires
some thinking through in advance, followed by trial
and error to find phrases which are most successful
with your pupils.
A good rule of thumb is to plant as many seeds of
doubt as you resolve uncertainties – until you are ready
to conclude the argument. Keep a mental note of how
many questions you are asking compared with the
number of times you provide information. You could
try to make sure that any questions directed at you
are always answered with other questions (in the style
of some TV shows).
The golden rule is ‘Don’t feel you have to say
anything’. Instead, stop yourself and get someone else
to say it for you.
You could try phrases such as:
■ Is that right? What makes you so sure?
■ What other information would help you sort out
this problem?
■ If you were allowed to guess anything, what would
you say?
■ What’s the strength/weakness in your point?
■ What do you think the main argument from others
will be about that view?
Then turning to, and naming, different pupils:
■ What do you think?
■ How would you argue against that?
■ What’s the matter with that idea?
■ What’s the strength/weakness in his/her point?
■ What do you think of his/her point?
106 School Science Review, December 2003, 85(311)
Shakespeare
■ What convinces you that they are right/wrong?
■ Which do you think best explains it – his or her
answer?
■ Can anyone suggest how you could check that
out?
When they look at you for guidance:
■ I’m not sure of the answer myself – any ideas?
[said with conviction!]
■ Don’t look at me – I don’t know! – what do you
think?
■ That could be possible, but what if ...?
■ Good point ... I think ... but hang on, what about
...?
Stronger provocation:
■ Is s/he right or wrong? You’re either with them or
against them!
■ Come on … if what you’re saying is right then
how come ...?
■ I don’t know – I thought I understood this but
now you’re trying to tell me ...
■ You’re kidding! – you reckon ...
■ Yeah, right ... no way! [sarcastically but said with
good humour!]
■ Nicely thought through – it could be wrong of
course but nicely explained either way!
Being non-committal:
■ That’s a good argument/way of putting it.
■ I wouldn’t tell you even if I knew!
■ That sounds possible to me – but I’m still not
completely convinced.
■ Remember there could be many ways to answer
this.
■ I think I’m changing my mind here…run that past
me again.
■ Are you all happy with that answer? [asking class
as a whole]
The teacher can deliberately back up the weaker, less
popular or most ridiculous argument, but must do so
in a way that leaves room for doubt about its merits.
A bolder strategy is deliberately to accept a wrong
answer and write it on the board to give it some kudos
– and then hope for complaints! If none come, finally
tell them it’s wrong and you want to hear reasons why.
This often brings out comments such as ‘I thought
that couldn’t be right!’
 Shakespeare
In general, though, avoid using phrases such as:
■ That’s right/wrong.
■ Yes/no. [given as your own opinion]
■ Good. [given as your own opinion]
or any if you have not given them time to think.
If a pupil scoffs or laughs at another’s answer, try:
■ Oh, do you think so? That answer sounded OK to
me ... what’s the problem with it?
Involving pupils who say
‘I don’t know’
You’ve asked a question, named a pupil and waited
for an answer. Still nothing happens because they are
hoping you will move on to another pupil while they
appear to be thinking about it. Try:
■ You can say ‘I don’t know’ if you like.
A genuine ‘I don’t know’ is a better alternative to a
guessed or avoided answer if they really don’t know
what to say. Many pupils look relieved: you have
given them a way to get out of being put on the spot,
and they could be more willing to contribute when
they do know something.
If ‘I don’t know’ is used repeatedly, or a pupil just
agrees with what others say all the time, then it could
be followed by ‘That’s OK – I’ll ask you another
question in a moment’. Then, make sure you do so
within, say, three questions, and keep doing this until
you have a more constructive response. (Obviously
praise is needed for answers if they are correct or show
attempted reasoning, and careful tailoring of questions
may be needed to avoid humiliation.)
Ending the argument
You have been trying to orchestrate the views of others
in such a way that you all reach similar conclusions
(i.e. the accepted scientifically correct answer).
Throughout the argument you should be positive about
or actively praise all sensible and logical comments,
questions and answers even if they are scientifically
incorrect. Any carefully considered input will have
taken the argument forward and deepened thinking
and understanding.
Hopefully though, as you have steered the dis-
cussion as needed towards the accepted scientific
view, many pupils should now have an emotional
School Science Review, December 2003, 85(311)
Starting an argument in science lessons
attachment to the knowledge. They have fought and
won (or lost), and many will have thought deeply,
got involved and cared about whether their ideas are
valid. They will either have been vindicated by the
accepted view or, if not, will understand better the
arguments behind it. Along the way, misconceptions
and false assumptions may have been revealed, to the
benefit of future teaching and learning.
It is important not to leave pupils with false ideas
or with the impression that there are many answers.
We also need to convey the messages that not all
evidence is equal in weight, not all arguments are
equally valid, and that the science being discussed is
not just a matter of opinion. In this way the messages
of the ‘ideas and evidence’ sections of the National
Curriculum are being reinforced.
Ultimately then, if the pupils are all still supporting
an incorrect idea then of course we must argue our
case as teachers too. As long as all contributions have
been valued, pupils are likely to accept a compelling
argument – not just because the teacher has provided
it. During the explanation, you can give them the
opportunity to question you further.
Finally, summing up you can use comments such
as:
■ Wow! – that’s more complicated than I thought!
■ It would have been so easy to just take that first
answer.
■ You know more about this than you let on at first.
■ What made that question so difficult to answer?
■ Looking back over all that, how many different
ideas have we considered?
Concluding thoughts
The ideas presented here have focused mainly on the
phrases teachers can use in developing argument in
science lessons. Other factors could be included in
any discussion on structured arguments, many
revolving around the ‘stage management’ of the lesson
(e.g. seating arrangements and environment, pupil
grouping, teacher body language and use of voice,
time and pace of the lesson, use of silence and thinking
time).
Teachers who have used arguments in class will
know it is motivating and satisfying to the teacher as
well as the pupils. Apart from being a method of
improving the quality of learning, when arguments
run well they can:
107
 Starting an argument in science lessons Shakespeare

■ engage and motivate pupils through interactive ■ be used flexibly

teaching; – by varying the duration,
■ reveal misconceptions quickly; – with the whole class, small groups or
■ include all pupils (especially lower ability and individuals,
underachieving higher ability); – fitting well into many parts of a varied lesson
■ develop relationships with pupils and encourage (e.g. as starter, plenary, or both) and started on
a ‘learning together’ atmosphere; the spot during the lesson as needed;
■ produce surprising results!

Acknowledgements
The concept cartoon ‘Balloon’ is reproduced with the kind permission of Stuart Naylor and Brenda Keogh.
Thanks also go to Mick Nott and the referees for their advice on this article, and the staff and pupils of Walton
High, Milton Keynes, for inspiration.
References
Adey, P., Shayer, M. and Yates, C. (2001) Thinking science. Naylor, S. and Keogh, B. (2000) Concept cartoons in science
3rd edn. London: Nelson Thornes. education (the ConCISE project). Sandbach, Cheshire:
Black, P. and Harrison, C. (2001) Feedback in questioning Millgate House.
and marking: the science teacher’s role in formative Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S. and Monk, M. (2001)
assessment. School Science Review, 82(301), 55–61. Enhancing the quality of argument in school science.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. and Wiliam, D. School Science Review, 82(301), 63–70.
(2002) Working inside the black box. London: School of Selley, N. (2000) Wrong answers welcome. School Science
Education, King’s College London. Review, 82(299), 41–44.
DfES (2001) Literacy across the curriculum. London: DfEE
Publications. Websites
Moran, J. and Vaughan, S. (2000) Introducing CASE For New Scientist magazine ‘Last Word’ entries past and
methodology at key stage 4: an example of bridging. School present: www.last-word.com
Science Review, 82(299), 47–55. For more information on ConCISE concept cartoons:
www.conceptcartoons.com

David Shakespeare is a science education consultant for Bedfordshire LEA. He writes here in a personal
capacity, and would be interested in the views and experiences of others.
E-mail: shakespeare@tesco.net

108 School Science Review, December 2003, 85(311)