Abstract
Research articles are the typical means scientists use for publishing their scientific results. Therefore, it is important that science students acquire genre knowledge about research articles. This will not only help them with reading science texts but will also provide them with knowledge about the way scientists obtain scientific findings. However, studies have shown that students have difficulties with reading original scientific texts. To support students in acquiring this skill, we have developed a model, the Scientific Argumentation Model (SAM), which can be used as a heuristic in secondary or higher education. This model is based on ideas from argumentation theory and genre analysis and consists of descriptions of seven rhetorical moves that play an important role in a research article’s argumentation: motive, objective, support, counterargument, refutation, main conclusion, and implication. The relations between these moves are depicted in an argumentation scheme. In this study, SAM was validated by investigating its use on research articles from astronomy and biomedical science. The average frequencies of motives, main conclusions, implications, and support chains seem somewhat higher in astronomy papers than in biomedical papers. This might be explained by the different natures of these two disciplines.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alexandrov, A. V. (2004). How to write a research paper. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 18(2), 135–138.
Amsterdamska, O., & Leydesdorff, L. (1989). Citations: Indicators of significance? Scientometrics, 15(5), 449–471.
Blanton, W. E. (1990). The role of purpose in reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 43(7), 486–493.
Bloch, J. (2010). A concordance-based study of the use of reporting verbs as rhetorical devices in academic papers. Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 219–244.
Connor, U., Upton, T. A., & Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007). Introduction to move analysis. In D. Biber, U. Connor, & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure (pp. 23–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cooper, C. R. (1998). What we know about genres, and how it can help us assign and evaluate writing. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: The role of teachers’ knowledge about text, learning, and culture (pp. 23–52). Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.
Du Boulay, D. (1999). Argument in reading: What does it involve and how can students become better critical readers? Teaching in Higher Education, 4(2), 147–162.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 219–228). London: Routledge.
Duncan, D. B., Lubman, A., & Hoskins, S. G. (2011). Introductory biology textbooks under-represent scientific process. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 12(2), 143–151.
Gilbert, G. N. (1977). Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7(1), 113–122.
Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. (2002). Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guilford, W. H. (2001). Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. Advances in Physiology Education, 25(3), 167–175.
Hill, S. S., Soppelsa, B. F., & West, G. K. (1982). Teaching ESL students to read and write experimental-research papers. TESOL Quarterly, 16(3), 333–347.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2007). Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(4), 324–329.
Johns, A. (2002). Destabilizing and enriching novice students’ genre theories. In A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 237–246). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269–292.
Kelly, G., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314–342.
Koeneman, M., Goedhart, M., & Ossevoort, M. (2013). Introducing pre-university students to primary scientific literature through argumentation analysis. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 2009–2034.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.
Norris, S. P., Macnab, J. S., Wonham, M., & De Vries, G. (2009). West Nile virus: Using adapted primary literature in mathematical biology to teach scientific and mathematical reasoning in high school. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 321–329.
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119–138.
Paltridge, B. (1994). Genre analysis and the identification of textual boundaries. Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 288–299.
Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479–497.
Penrose, A. M., & Katz, S. B. (1998). Writing in the sciences: Exploring conventions of scientific discourse. New York: Longman.
Pinch, T. (1985). Towards an analysis of scientific observation: The externality and evidential significance of observational reports in physics. Social Studies of Science, 15(1), 3–36.
Roth, W. M., Bowen, G. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1999). Differences in graph‐related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 977–1019.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472.
Samuels, S. J., Tennyson, R., Sax, M., Patricia, M., Schermer, N., & Hajovy, H. (1988). Adults’ use of text structure in the recall of a scientific journal article. The Journal of Educational Research, 81(3), 171–174.
Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, 65(3), 381–405.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, D. K. (1993). Arguing for experimental “facts” in science: A study of research article results sections in biochemistry. Written Communication, 10(1), 106–128.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Lacum, E., Ossevoort, M., Buikema, H., & Goedhart, M. (2012). First experiences with reading primary literature by undergraduate life science students. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1795–1821.
Van Lacum, E. B., Ossevoort, M. A., & Goedhart, M. J. (2014). A teaching strategy with a focus on argumentation to improve undergraduate students’ ability to read research articles. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13(2), 253–264.
Williams, I. A. (1999). Results sections of medical research articles: Analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 18(4), 347–366.
Yarden, A., Brill, G., & Falk, H. (2001). Primary literature as a basis for a high-school biology curriculum. Journal of Biological Education, 35(4), 190–195.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Lacum, E., Koeneman, M., Ossevoort, M., Goedhart, M. (2016). Scientific Argumentation Model (SAM): A Heuristic for Reading Research Articles by Science Students. In: Papadouris, N., Hadjigeorgiou, A., Constantinou, C. (eds) Insights from Research in Science Teaching and Learning. Contributions from Science Education Research, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20074-3_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20074-3_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20073-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20074-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)