ARGUMENTATION FROM EVIDENCE: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURE OF AN INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH FIELD
Abstract
Argumentation from evidence is treated as a core scientific practice in contemporary science education, yet the term argumentation is used with different meanings across several research communities. This creates difficulty in delimiting the literature when a review is undertaken. This study maps the knowledge structure of the literature on argumentation associated with data and evidence, using metadata from Scopus and four science mapping techniques implemented in VOSviewer. A high-sensitivity query on the TITLE-ABS-KEY field returned 14,938 records, with no restriction on year, document type, subject area or language. The keyword co-occurrence network retained 1,000 keywords in five clusters; the co-citation network retained 251 cited references in seven clusters; the co-authorship network retained 13 authors in three clusters; and the document citation network retained 21 documents in six clusters. The four analyses converge on a single observation: the field is a set of communities that share terminology rather than an integrated research area. The science education cluster in the co-citation network has the highest total link strength among the seven clusters and contains a stable set of foundational works published mainly between 2000 and 2010. The argumentation theory cluster is the smallest in size but has the highest mean link strength, indicating that it is cited across clusters. Keywords emerging in the final two years of the dataset are associated with generative artificial intelligence. Two implications are drawn, one for the design of search strategies in review studies and one for research on argumentation in school science.
Downloads
References
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Ministry of Education and Training. (2018). General education curriculum: Master curriculum (Issued with Circular No. 32/2018/TT-BGDĐT of 26 December 2018). Hanoi. [In Vietnamese]
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
Nguyen, T. S., & Nguyen, H. B. (2020). Unravelling Vietnamese students' critical thinking and its relationship with argumentative writing. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(11B), 5972–5985. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.082233
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press.
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
Author(s) and co-author(s) jointly and severally represent and warrant that the Article is original with the author(s) and does not infringe any copyright or violate any other right of any third parties, and that the Article has not been published elsewhere. Author(s) agree to the terms that the Global Publication House will have the full right to remove the published article on any misconduct found in the published article.
