SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Anderson, R., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M., & Yi, H. (1997). On the logical integrity of children's arguments. Cognition and Instruction 15(2), 135167.
  • Anderson, R., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., & Reznitskaya, A. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction 19(1), 146.
  • Andriessen, J., Baker, M. J., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers, (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 125). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Baron, J. (2000). Thinking and deciding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • 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.
  • Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765793.
  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. (2008). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 2655.
  • Boulter, C. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (1995). Argument and science education. In P. J. M. Costello & S. Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices: The theory and practice of argumentation (pp. 8498). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
  • Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473498.
  • Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students’ questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883908.
  • Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253277.
  • Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K–12 Science Education Standards. (2012). Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
  • Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837861.
  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in the classroom. Science Education, 84(3), 287312.
  • Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159179). New York: Springer.
  • Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 3972.
  • Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu.
  • Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez- Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 4769). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, J. M. (2012). Research on argumentation in science education in Europe. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe: Retrospective and prospective (pp. 253289). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.
  • 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), 915933.
  • Felton, M. (2004). The development of discourse strategy in adolescent argumentation. Cognitive Development, 19, 3958.
  • Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29, 417446.
  • Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2/3), 135153.
  • Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. A., & Dowdy, N. S. (2000). The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 694702.
  • Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2008). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 2947). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Gilbert, M. (1997). Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Gilabert, S., Garcia-Mila, M., & Felton, M. (2012). The effect of task instructions on students’ use of repetition in argumentative discourse. International Journal of Science Education, DOI:10.1080/09500693.2012.663191.
  • Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In L. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 331348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Iordanou, K. (2010). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 293327.
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 327). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo-Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757792.
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Muñoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 11711190.
  • Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 5381.
  • Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36(8), 883915.
  • Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81(5), 533559.
  • Kelly, G. J., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. (2008). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 137157). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Kroll, B. M. (2005). Arguing differently. Pedagogy, 5, 3760.
  • 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. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810824.
  • Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2010). Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development, 79(5), 13101328.
  • Kuhn, D. & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 12451260.
  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986), Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Petrosino, A. (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. 251278). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Leitao, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332360.
  • Lin, S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation sills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 9931017.
  • Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children's discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation, International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 18171841.
  • Makau, J. M., & Marty, D. L. (2001). Cooperative argumentation: A model for deliberative community. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence and reasoning. In J. Luft, R. Bell, & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as inquiry in the secondary setting (pp. 121134). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
  • McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203229.
  • Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139178.
  • Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.
  • Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 1739.
  • Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224240.
  • Nussbaum, E. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(3), 286313.
  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157169.
  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 384395.
  • Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 19771999.
  • OECD. (2012). PISA in Focus. Paris: Author.
  • Orsolini, M. (1993) Dwarfs do not shoot: An analysis of children's justifications. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3/4), 281297. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F07370008.1993.9649026.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(16), 9941020.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82, 6370.
  • Ozdem, Y., Cakiroglu, J., Ertepinar, H., & Erduran, S. (in press). The nature of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context, International Journal of Science Education.
  • Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review on methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, DOI:10.3102/0034654313487606.
  • Rheinberger, H. J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Rojas-Drummond, S., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 99111.
  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 427.
  • 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. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 2355.
  • Skoumios, M. (2009). The effect of sociocognitive conflict on students’ dialogic argumentation about floating and sinking. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(4), 381399.
  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Venville, G. D., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 952977.
  • von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 101131.
  • Walton, D. N. (1992). Plausible argument in everyday conversation. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic. conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
  • Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807838.
  • 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.