SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Bazerman, C., & Paradis, J. (Eds.). (1991). Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 2655.
  • Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brem, S. K., & Rips, L. J. (2000). Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive science, 24(4), 573605.
  • Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2009). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473498.
  • Corcoran, T., Mosher, F., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform. Report of the Center on Continuous Instructional Improvement, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
  • DeFuccio, M., Kuhn, D., Udell, W., & Callender, K. (2009). Developing argument skills in severely disadvantaged adolescent males in a residential setting. Applied Developmental Science, 13, 3041.
  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287312.
  • Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R.Sternberg & J.Davidson (Ed.), The nature of insight (pp. 365395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268291.
  • Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education. New York: Springer.
  • Feist, G. (2008). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32, 135153.
  • Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404423.
  • Gilbert, M. (1997). Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Goldstein, M., Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2009). What constitutes skilled argumentation and how does it develop? Informal Logic [Special issue on Argumentation], 29, 379395.
  • Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in academe: How schooling obscures the life of the mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Greenwald, E. A., Persky, H. R., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1999 Writing Report Card for the Nation and the States. Education Statistics Quarterly, 1(4), 2328.
  • Hallett, D., Chandler, M., & Krettenauer, T. (2002). Disentangling the course of epistemic development: Parsing knowledge by epistemic content. New Ideas in Psychology, 20, 285307.
  • Iordanou, K. (in press). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development.
  • Kelly, G. J., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. (2008). Analysis of lines of reasoning in writtern argumentation. In S.Erduran & M. P.Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research New York: Springer.
  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319337.
  • Kuhn, D. (1995). Microgenetic study of change: What has it told us? Psychological Science, 6, 133139.
    Direct Link:
  • Kuhn, D. (2009). The importance of learning about knowing: Creating a foundation for development of intellectual values. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 112117.
  • Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309328.
  • Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. Manuscript in preparation.
  • Kuhn, D., Crowell, A., & Yanklowitz, S. (2010). Effects of a dialogic argumentation curriculum on middle-school expository writing. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  • Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development, 79, 13111329.
  • Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cognitive Development, 23, 435451. [Special issue, The Development of Scientific Thinking, B. Sodian & M. Bullock, eds.]
  • Kuhn, D., & Katz, J. (2009). Are self-explanations always beneficial? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 386394.
  • Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2008). What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills? Cognition and Instruction, 26, 512559.
  • Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2009). The dual components of developing strategy use: Production and inhibition. In H. S.Waters & W.Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction New York: Guilford Press.
  • Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287315.
  • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 12451260.
  • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 90104.
  • Larson, A. A., Britt, M. A., & Kurby, C. (2009). Improving students' evaluation of informal arguments. Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 339366.
  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and scientific literacy: Supporting development in learning contexts. In K. A.Renninger & I.Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 153196) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  • Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23, 512529. [Special issue, The Development of Scientific Thinking, B. Sodian & M. Bullock, eds.]
  • Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Petrosino, A. J. (2001). Reconsidering the role of experiment in science education. In K.Crowley, C.Schunn, & T.Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 251277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Metz, K. (2004). Children's understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 219290.
  • Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283297.
  • Moshman, D. (2008). Epistemic development and the perils of Pluto. In M.Shaughnessy, M.Vennman, & C. K.Kennedy (Eds.), Metacognition: A recent review of research, theory and perspectives (pp. 161174). Hauppauge, NY: Nova.
  • Muis, K., Bendixen, L., & Haerle, F. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 354.
  • National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 1739.
  • Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 19771999.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 9941020.
  • Russ, R., Scherr, R., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 93, 875891.
  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447472.
  • Sandoval, W. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence. Science Education, 89, 634656.
  • Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 285296.
  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborn, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235260.
  • Walton, D. N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3, 169184.
  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92, 941967.
  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 3562.