ABSTRACT
As a field, science education research has shown that students can, but do not always, experience conceptual change as they participate in scientific argumentation. In this chapter, we use a dynamic refinement model of conceptual change to offer an alternative way to understand student learning of “concepts” through argumentation. In particular, we suggest that conceptual change in argumentation might look more like students: drawing on multiple information sources; connecting to one another’s ideas; and following the logical implications of their inferences. This dynamic refinement framework offers us alternative approaches to evaluating student learning through argumentation.
