Epistemic Levels in Argument: An Analysis of University Oceanography Students' Use of Evidence in Writing

Science Education

Volumn 86, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 314-342

  Kelly, Gregory J ^a   Takao, Allison ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036253238     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.10024     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London 1675-1975. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Ault, C. R. (1998). Criteria of excellence for geological inquiry: The necessity of ambiguity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 189-212.
3. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
4. Bezzi, A. (1999). What is this thing called geoscience? Epistemological dimensions elicited with the repertory grid and their implications for scientific literacy. Science Education, 83, 675-700.
5. Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities (11-18). London: Macmillan.
6. Carlsen, W. S. (1997). Never ask a question if you don't know the answer: The tension in teaching between modeling scientific argument and maintaining law and order. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32, 14-23.
7. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teacher's College Press.
8. Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999, April). Understanding dialogic argumentation among middle school science students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association.
9. Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1998). "You're going to want to find out which and prove it": Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8, 527-548.
10. Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science, 25, 237-274.
11. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman: London.
12. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and Discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
13. Hoey, M. (1983).On the surface of discourse. London: George Allen & Unwin.
14. Kelly, G. J., & Bazerman, C. (2001, April). How Students Argue Scientific Claims: A Rhetorical- Semantic Analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association Seattle, WA.
15. 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, 883-915.
16. Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 691-718.
17. 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), 849-871.
18. Kelly, G. J., & Green, J. (1998). The social nature of knowing: Toward a sociocultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In B. Guzzetti, & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world (pp. 145-181). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115-130.
20. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the scientific writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1065-1084.
21. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1995). Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 140-166). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
22. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178.
23. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24. Mukerji, C. (1989). A fragile power: Scientists and the state. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25. Myers, G. (1997). Texts as knowledge claims: The social construction of two biology articles. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essay on the rhetoric of science: Case studies (pp. 187-215). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
27. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553-576.
28. Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745-754.
29. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 609-626.
30. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1999). Students perceptions of writing for learning in secondary school science. Science Education, 83, 151-162.
31. Prothero, W. A. (1995). Taming the large oceanography class. Journal of Geological Education, 43, 497-506.
32. Ramage, J. D., & Bean, J. C. (1992). Writing arguments: A rhetoric with readings (2nd ed.). New York: MacMillan.
33. Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839-858.
34. Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998), Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68, 35-59.
35. Russell, T. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: Can teachers' questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 27-45.
36. Strike, K. (1982). Liberty and learning. Oxford, UK: Martin Robertson.
37. Takao, A. Y., & Kelly, G. J. (2001, March). Assessment of differences in university oceanography students' scientific writing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MI.
38. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: University Press.
39. Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding. Vol. 1: The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
40. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendoorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook of argumentation theory: A critical survey of classical backgrounds and modern studies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris Publications.
41. Wolcott, W., & Legg, S. (1998). An overview of writing assessment: Theory, research, and practice. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.