Argumentation Research in Science Education: Global Publication Trends, Intellectual Structure, and Thematic Transformation (2001–2025)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55549/jeseh.894Keywords:
science education, argumentation, bibliometric analysis, scientific mapping, thematic transformationAbstract
Argumentation has become a cornerstone of science education research, essential for fostering evidence-based thinking, scientific reasoning, and scientific literacy. This study employs bibliometric methods to examine global publication trends, intellectual structures, and thematic transformations in argumentation-focused research between 2001 and 2025. A final dataset of 474 peer-reviewed articles, retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection after applying stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria, was analyzed using the R-based Bibliometrix package. To ensure a holistic interpretation, author keywords were standardized and categorized into overarching themes, allowing the field’s conceptual landscape to be mapped in a more integrated manner rather than through fragmented indicators. The results indicate that argumentation studies emerged between 2001 and 2010, experienced rapid growth from 2011 to 2020, and approached a maturation phase by 2025. Early research focused mainly on cognitive argument structures, while later work increasingly engaged with socioscientific issues, epistemic practices, and classroom discourse. During this process, classical models were recontextualized within contemporary pedagogical settings and underwent terminological transformation. By illustrating the transformation of the science education argumentation literature from a pedagogical tool to a foundational epistemic framework, this study offers an empirically grounded perspective that may inform future research directions in the field.
References
Archila, P. A. (2015). Using history and philosophy of science to promote students’ argumentation. Science & Education, 24(9), 1201–1226.
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975.
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.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.
Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). The role of argumentation in developing scientific literacy. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 115–140). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from network learning, schools and computers (pp. 3–27). Springer.
Kelly, G. J. (2014). Inquiry, signaling, and argument in science education. In J. Loughran, A. Berry, & P. Mulhall (Eds.), Teaching science in the secondary school (pp. 113–125). Routledge.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 313–337.
Kurtuluş, M. A., & Yılmaz, S. (2022). STEM eğitim çalışmalarına farklı bir bakış: Bibliyometrik haritalama. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi, 10(2), 386–405.
Lee, O. (2005). Science education with English language learners: Synthesis and research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491–530.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.
MEB. (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. T.C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
MEB. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar). T.C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
Mulyani A., Hartono H., & Subali B., (2024). Literature review: A snapshot of research on the argumentation of bibliometric analysis in the period 2015-2023. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 12(2), 451–465.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
Noris, M., Sajidan, S., Saputro, S., & Yamtinah, S. (2024). Trends and issues of inquiry and socio-scientific issue (SSI) research in the last 20 years: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 12(3), 773–792.
OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. OECD Publishing.
Orhan, A. T. (2024). Eğitim bilimleri alanında STEM araştırmalarının bibliyometrik analizi. Gazi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(3), 375–396.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.
Osborne, J. F., Borko, H., Fishman, E., Gomez Zaccarelli, F., & Berson, E. (2019). Impacts of a practice-based professional development program on elementary teachers’ facilitation of and student engagement with scientific argumentation. American Educational Research Journal, 56(4), 1067–1112.
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.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio‐scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.
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.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation‐driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.
Tang, K. S. (2024). Informing research on generative artificial intelligence from a language and literacy perspective: A meta‐synthesis of studies in science education. Science Education, 108(5), 1329–1355.
Tosun, C. (2024). Analysis of the last 40 years of science education research via bibliometric methods. Science & Education, 33(2), 451–480.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Wang, S., Chen, Y., Lv, X., & Xu, J. (2023). Hot topics and frontier evolution of science education research: A bibliometric mapping from 2001 to 2020. Science & Education, 32(3), 845–869.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.
Zupic, I., & Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The articles may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Authors alone are responsible for the contents of their articles. The journal owns the copyright of the articles. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of the research material. All authors are requested to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest including any financial, personal or other relationships with other people or organizations regarding the submitted work.
Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH)