SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Alexopoulou, E. & Driver, R. (1997). Small group discussions in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 10991114.
  • Alverman, D.E., Qian, G., & Hynd, C.E. (1995). Effects of interactive discussion and text type on learning counterintuitive science concepts. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 146154.
  • Alvermann, D.E. & Hynd, C.R. (1986). Effects of prior knowledge activitation modes and text structure on nonscience majors' comprehension of physics. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 97102.
  • Andrews, R. (1995). Teaching and learning argument. London: Cassell.
  • Austin, J.L. & Urmson, J.O. (1976). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). London: Oxford University Press.
  • Bachelard, G. (1940). The philosophy of no. Paris: Paris University Press.
  • Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. London: Penguin.
  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
  • Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141178.
  • Cohen, D. (1995). Argument is war…and war is hell: Philosophy, education, and metaphors for argumentation. Informal Logic, 17, 177188.
  • Cowie, H. & Rudduck, J. (1990). Co-operative learning traditions and transitions. Learning together—working together. Vol. 3. London: BP Educational Service.
  • Dillon, J.T. (1994). Using discussion in classrooms. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
  • Eichinger, D.C., Anderson, C.W., Palinscar, A., & David, Y.M. (1991, April). An illustration of the roles of content knowledge, scientific argument, and social norms in collaborative problem solving. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
  • Erduran, S., Osborne, J.F., & Simon, S. (in press). TAPping into Argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education.
  • Garratt, J., Overton, T., & Threlfall, T. (1999). A question of chemistry: Creative problems for critical thinkers. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
  • Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  • Gilbert, J.K. & Watts, D.M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspective in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 6198.
  • Goldsworthy, A., Watson, R., & Wood-Robinson, V. (2000). Developing understanding in scientific enquiry. Hatfield, UK: Association for Science Education.
  • Guzetti, B.J., Synder, T.E., Glass, G.V., & Gamas, W.S. (1993). Meta-analyis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education to promote conceptual change in science. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116161.
  • Harland, J. & Kinder, K. (1997). Teachers' continuing professional development: Framing a model of outcomes. British Journal of In-Service Education, 23, 7184.
  • Herrenkohl, L., Palinscar, A., DeWater, L.S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 451493.
  • Herrenkohl, L.R. & Guerra, M.R. (1995). Where did you find your theory in your findings? Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Paper presented at the AERA annual meeting.
  • Herrenkohl, L.R. & Guerra, M.R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431473.
  • Hogan, K. & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 663687.
  • Hynd, C. & Alvermann, D.E. (1986). The role of refutation text in overcoming difficulty with science concepts. Journal of Reading, 29, 440446.
  • Hynd, C., McNish, M., Qian, G., Keith, M., & Lay, K. (1994). The role of instructional variables in conceptual change in high school physics topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 933946.
  • Hynd, C.R., Alvermann, D.E., & Qian, G. (1997). Preservice elementary school teachers' conceptual changes about projectile motion: Refutation text, demonstration, affective factors, and relevance. Science Education, 81, 127.
  • Jiménex-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodríguez, A.B., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757792.
  • Joyce, B. (Ed.). (1990). Changing school culture through staff development: 1990 yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  • Kelly, G.J. & Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81, 533560.
  • Kelly, G.J., Drucker, S., & Chen, K. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849871.
  • Keogh, B. & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 431446.
  • Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287315.
  • Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P., & Baines, E. (2002). Pupil groupings in primary school classrooms: Sites for learning and social pedagogy? British Educational Research Journal, 28, 187206.
  • Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Levinson, R. & Turner, S. (2001). Valuable lessons: Engaging with the social context of science in schools. London: The Wellcome Trust.
  • Millar, R. & Osborne, J.F. (Eds.) (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London.
  • Monk, M. & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81, 405424.
  • Naylor, S. & Keogh, B. (2000). Concept cartoons in education. Sandbach, UK: Millgate House Publishers.
  • Nolen, S.B. (2003). Learning environment, motivation and achievement in high school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 4.
  • Norris, S.P. & Phillips, L.M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224240.
  • Ogborn, J. (2002). Ownership and transformation: Teachers using curriculum innovation. Physics Education, 37, 142146.
  • Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
  • Osborne, J.F. (1997). Practical alternatives. School Science Review, 78, 6166.
  • Osborne, J.F. (2001). Promoting argument in the science classroom: A rhetorical perspective. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1, 271290.
  • Osborne, J.F. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 203215.
  • Osborne, J.F. & Young, A.R. (1998). The biological effects of ultra-violet radiation: A model for contemporary science education. Journal of Biological Education, 33, 1015.
  • Pontecorvo, C. (1987). Discussing and reasoning: The role of argument in knowledge construction. In E.De Corte, H.Lodewïjks, R.Parmentier, & P.Span (Eds.), Learning and instruction: European research in an international context (pp. 239250). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
  • Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 2, 167182.
  • Ratcliffe, M. & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
  • Ravetz, J. (2002). Reflections on the new tasks for science education. Unpublished evidence submitted to the House of Commons Committee for Science and Technology.
  • Rudduck, J. (1983). The humanities project: an introduction (revised edition). Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia School of Education Publications.
  • Schwarz, R. & Lederman, N.G. (2002). “It's the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 205236.
  • Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 4580.
  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J.F. Developing the teaching of argumentation in school science. Manuscipt submitted for publication.
  • Solomon, J. (1990). The discussion of social issues in the classroom. Studies in Science Education, 18, 105126.
  • Solomon, J. (1991). Exploring the nature of science: Key Stage 3. Glasgow, UK: Blackie.
  • Solomon, J., Duveen, J., & Scott, L. (1992). Exploring the nature of science: Key Stage 4. Hatfield, UK: Association for Science Education.
  • Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, 65, 381405.
  • Thorley, N.R. & Treagust, D.F. (1986). Conflict within dyadic interactions as a stimulant for conceptual change in physics. European Journal of Science Education, 9, 203216.
  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Walton, D.N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural theory and practice of education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.
  • Wray, D. & Lewis, M. (1997). Extending literacy: Children reading and writing non-fiction. London: Routledge.
  • Yore, L., Bisanz, G.L., & Hand, B.M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689725.
  • Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 3562.
  • Zoller, U., Ben-Chaim, D., Pentimalli, R., & Borsese, A. (2000). The disposition towards critical thinking of high school and university science students: An inter–intra Israeli–Italian study. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 571582.
  • Zoller, U., Dori, Y.J., & Lubezky, A. (2002). Algorithmic, LOCS and HOCS (chemistry) exam questions: Performance and attitudes of college students. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 185203.