ABSTRACT
At a general descriptive level, science argument can be defined by structural descriptions in the form of claims supported by evidence warranted by principle-based reasoning. This same structural definition can be applied to argument in other disciplines. However, general-level description masks important and fundamental differences in argumentation between science and other disciplines (e.g., history, literature), as well as differences among sub-disciplines in science. These differences are intimately related to variations within the sciences and across disciplines in the nature of knowledge and how knowledge is generated, the representations that convey information, and the oral and written discourse structures used to communicate ideas. Understanding these differences is fundamental to understanding the nature of argumentation and explanation in the sciences, as well as in other disciplines. We argue that these differences necessitate domain-specific analyses and accounts. Through comparative analyses of information resources within the sciences (e.g., models in the life sciences versus models in the physical sciences – chemistry in particular) and between the sciences and the social sciences and humanities, we provide support for our claims about the limitations of general-level accounts of argument and the need for domain-specific levels. Instructional implications include the need for domain-specific approaches to conceptualizing what students need to know and teaching resources that support them in learning it, including professional development that provides opportunities for teachers to examine and deepen their own understanding of argumentation, explanation, and their assessment in the sciences.
