SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science/Project 2061 (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science/Project 2061 (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Andrews, R. (2005). Models of argumentation in educational discourse. Text, 25(1), 107127.
  • Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K.Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443460). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Aristotle, & Kennedy, G. A. (1991). Aristotle on rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R.Hall, N.Miyake, & N.Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL '97: The Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 1019), Toronto, Canada.
  • Bell, P. (2002). Using argument map representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In T.Koschmann, R.Hall, & N.Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 449485). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students' argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In M. C.Linn, E. A.Davis, & P.Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 115143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797817.
  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2002). Beliefs about science: How does science instruction contribute? In B. K.Hofer & P. R.Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 321346). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Bell, P., Bricker, L. A., Lee, T. R., Reeve, S., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2006). Understanding the cultural foundations of children's biological knowledge: Insights from everyday cognition research. In S. A.Barab, K. E.Hay, & D.Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (pp. 10291035). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
  • Barnes, B., Bloor, D., & Henry, J. (1996). Scientific knowledge: A sociological analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
  • Billig, M. (1987/1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology (new ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Blackburn, S. (1994). The Oxford dictionary of philosophy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Brante, T. (1993). Reasons for studying scientific and science-based controversies. In T.Brante, S.Fuller, & W.Lynch (Eds.), Controversial science : From content to contention Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2007, October). Evidentiality and evidence use in children's talk across everyday contexts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), Montreal, Canada.
  • Ceccarelli, L. (2001). Shaping science with rhetoric: The cases of Dobzhansky, Schrödinger, and Wilson. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Collins, H. M., & Pinch, T. (1993). The golem: What everyone should know about science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Corsaro, W. A. (2003). We're friends right? Inside kids' culture. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
  • Dewey, J. (1910/1997). How we think. Mineola, NY: Dover. (Original work published 1910)
  • Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (2008). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. In R. A.Duschl & R. E.Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation(pp. 1–37). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  • Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds). (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
  • Fahnestock, J. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3(3), 275296.
  • Fahnestock, J. (1999). Rhetorical figures in science. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Galison, P. (1997/1998 abridged). Trading zone: Coordinating action and belief. In M.Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 137160). New York: Routledge.
  • Gieryn, T. F. (1992). The ballad of Pons and Fleischmann: Experiment and narrativity in the (un)making of cold fusion. In E.McMullin (Ed.), The social dimensions of science (pp. 217243). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
  • Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company.
  • Goodwin, M. H. (2006). The hidden life of girls: Games of stance, status, and exclusion. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1987). Children's arguing. In S. U.Philips, S.Steele, & C.Tanz (Eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective (pp. 200248). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Groarke, L. (1996). Logic, art and argument. Informal Logic, 18(2 and 3), 105129.
  • Harris, M. (1987). Cultural anthropology (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
  • Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2003). The use of argumentation in Haitian Creole science classrooms. Harvard Educational Review, 73(1), 7393.
  • Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, activity, and epistemic practice. In R. A.Duschl & R. E.Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation(pp. 99117). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  • Kelly, G. J., & Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: A rhetorical-semantic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 2855.
  • Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155178.
  • Kuhn, D. (1993a). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319337.
  • Kuhn, D. (1993b). Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1), 74103.
  • Kuhn, L., Kenyon, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Fostering scientific argumentation by creating a need for students to attend to each other's claims and evidence. In S. A.Barab, K. E.Hay, & D.Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (pp. 370375). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Kukla, A. (1998). Studies in scientific realism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • Kyratzis, A. (2004). Talk and interaction among children and the co-construction of peer groups and peer culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 625649.
  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1979)
  • Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Westport, CT: Ablex.
  • Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R.Martin & R.Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87113). New York: Routledge.
  • Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Morris, W. (Ed.). (1981). American heritage dictionary. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
  • National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553576.
  • Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2008). Literacy practices and science communication. In R. A.Duschl & R. E.Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation(pp. 233262). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  • Ochs, E., & Taylor, C. (1992). Science at dinner. In C.Kramsch & S.McConnell (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp. 2945). Lexington, MA: DCHeath.
  • Ochs, E., Taylor, C., Rudolph, D., & Smith, R. (1992). Storytelling as a theory-building activity. Discourse Processes, 15, 3772.
  • Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692720.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 9941020.
  • Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science (C.Botsford, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Perelman, C. (1979). The new rhetoric and the humanities. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel.
  • Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J.Wilkinson & P.Weaver, Trans.). South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
  • Pike, K. L. (1954). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. Ann Arbor, MI: Braun-Brumfield.
  • Prelli, L. J. (1989). A rhetoric of science: Inventing scientific discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
  • Prior, P. (2005). Toward the ethnography of argumentation: A response to Richard Andrews' “models of argumentation in educational discourse.” Text, 25(1), 129144.
  • Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 551.
  • Sarangapani, P. M. (2003). Constructing school knowledge: An ethnography of learning in an Indian village. New Delhi, India: Sage.
  • Saul, E. W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
  • Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry, the teaching of science (pp. 3103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Simosi, M. (2003). Using Toulmin's framework for the analysis of everyday argumentation: Some methodological considerations. Argumentation, 17, 185202.
  • Sismondo, S. (2004). An introduction to science and technology studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Slade, C. (2003). Seeing reasons: Visual argumentation in advertisements. Argumentation, 17, 145160.
  • Stanford, P. K. (2006). Instrumentalism. In S.Sarkar & J.Pfeifer (Eds.), The philosophy of science: An encyclopedia (pp. 400405). New York: Routledge.
  • Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (updated ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1958)
  • Toulmin, S. E. (1976). Knowing and acting: An invitation to philosophy. New York: Macmillan.
  • Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectic approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M.Cole, V.John-Steiner, S.Scribner, & E.Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. C. (1953). Molecular structure of nucleic acids. Nature, 171(4356), 737738.