SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: An experimental and social study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy (Originally published 1954). In G. Bateson (Ed.), Steps to an ecology of mind; collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology (pp. 177193). San Francisco, CA: Chandler Publishing Company.
  • Berland, L. K. (in press). Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences.
  • Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (in press). Students' framings and their participation in scientific argumentation. In M. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and res.
  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 2655.
  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). How classroom communities make sense of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191216.
  • Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2007). “Um … since I argue for fun, I don't remember what I argue about”: Using children's argumentation across social contexts to inform science instruction. In National Association of Research in Science Teaching. New Orleans, LA.
  • Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 5073.
  • Carey, S. (1988). Reorganization of knowledge in the course of acquisition. In S. Strauss (Ed.), Ontogeny, phylogeny, and historical development (pp. 127). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to Foster Scientific Literacy. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336371.
  • Cazden, C. B., & Beck, S. W. (2003). Classroom discourse. In S. R. Goldman (Ed.), Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
  • 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.
  • Coffey, J. E. (2003). Involving students in assessment. In J. M. Atkin & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 3972.
  • Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399483.
  • Engle, R. A., Conant, F. R., & Greeno, J. G. (2000). Progressive refinement of hypotheses in video-supported research. In D. Lesh & A. Kelley (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 647664). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • 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, 915933.
  • Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2 and 3), 135153.
  • Finn, L., Kuhn, L., Whitcomb, J. L., Bruozas, M., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Where have all the creatures gone?. In J. Krajcik & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
  • Ford, M. J. (2006). ‘Grasp of Practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 147177. DOI: 10.1007/s11191-006-9045-7.
  • Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404423.
  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 485529.
  • Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5390.
  • Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89119). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  • Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506524.
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “ Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(3), 287312.
  • Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849.
  • Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 82(1), 32.
  • Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. (2007). Teaching children science: A project-based approach, 3rd edition. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319337.
  • Kuhn, D. (1997). Constraints or guideposts? Developmental psychology and science education. Review of Educational Research, 67, 141150.
  • Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 1626.
  • Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810824.
  • Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495523.
  • Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2006). Do children and adults learn differently? Journal of Cognition and Development, 7(3), 279. DOI: 10.1207/s15327647jcd0703_1.
  • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13(2), 90104.
  • 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. T. Hickey (Eds.), 7th Annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 370–375). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Langer-Osuna, J., & Engle, R., (2010) 'I study features; believe me, I should know!': The mediational role of distributed expertise in the development of student authority. In International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Chicago, IL.
  • Larson, A., & Britt, A. (2009). Improving students' evaluation of informal arguments. The Journal of Experimental Education, 77(4), 339365.
  • Latour, B. (1988). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Leander, K., & Brown, D. (1999). “ You understand, but you don't believe it”: Tracing the stabilities and instabilities of interaction in a physics classroom through a multidimensional framework. Cognition and Instruction, 17(1), 93135.
  • Lee, C. D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97141.
  • Lee, C. D. (2006). “ Every good-bye ain't gone”: Analyzing the cultural underpinnings of classroom talk. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(3), 305.
  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
  • Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & Ostman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom: The interplay between teachers' epistemological moves and students' practical epistemology. Science Education, 90(1), 148163.
  • Louca, L., Hammer, D., & Bell, M., (2002) Developmental versus context-dependant accounts of abilities for scientific inquiry: A case study of 5–6th grade student inquiry from a discussion about a dropped pendulum. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping Learning Complex: Fifth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 261–267). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • MacLachlan, G., & Reid, I. (1994). Framing and interpretation. Melbourne: University Press.
  • May, D., Hammer, D., & Pea, R. D. (2006). Children's analogical reasoning in a 3rd-grade science discussion. Science Education, 90(2), 316330.
  • McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153191.
  • 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.
  • Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(02), 5774.
  • Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211277). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Callazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 3870.
  • Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
  • National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation in primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 1739.
  • Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 19771999.
  • O'Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318335.
  • Paretti, M. (2009). When the teacher is the audience: Assignment design and assessment in the absence of ‘real’ readers. In M. Weiser, B. Fehler, & A. Gonzalez (Eds.), Engaging audience: Writing in an age of new literacies. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
  • Petraglia, J. (1995). Spinning like a kite: A closer look at the pseudotransactional function of writing. Journal of Advanced Composition, 15, 1933.
  • Pope, M. D. C. (2003). Doing school: How we are creating a generation of stressed-out, materialistic, and miseducated students. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Radinsky, J. (2008). Students' sense-making with visual data in small-group argumentation. In International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. In E. F. Redish & M. Vicentini, (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School Course, CLVI (pp. 163). Bologna, Italy: Italian Physical Society.
  • Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (in press). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education.
  • Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217257.
  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634656.
  • Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Script, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Scherr, R., & Hammer, D. (2009). Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 27(2), 147174.
  • Scherr, R. E. (2009). Video analysis for insight and coding: Examples from tutorials in introductory physics. Physical Review in Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(2), 02016-102016-10.
  • Schworm, S., & Renkle, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 285296.
  • Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605631.
  • Seiler, G., Tobin, K., & Sokolic, J. (2001). Design, technology, and science: Sites for learning, resistance, and social reproduction in urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 746767.
  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 235260.
  • Solomon, M. (2001). Social empiricism. Boston, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Spinuzzi, C. (1996). Pseudotransactionality, activity theory, and professional writing instruction. Technical Communication Quarterly, 5(3), 295308.
  • Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 393429.
  • Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Tannen, D., & Wallat, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 5776). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Voss, J. F., & Means, M. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337350.
  • Walton, D. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
  • Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529552.
  • Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States: Horizon research.
  • Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
  • 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.