How students argue scientific claims: A rhetorical-semantic analysis

Applied Linguistics

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 28-55+372

  Kelly, Gregory J ^a   Bazerman, Charles ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0345447579     PISSN: 01426001     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/applin/24.1.28     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Aristotle 1991. On Rhetoric. (G. Kennedy, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Atkinson, D. 1999. Scientific Discourse in Socio-historical Context: The philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London 1675-1975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Bacon, F. 1974. The Advancement of Learning and New Atlantis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
4. Bazerman, C. 1981. 'What written knowledge does: Three examples of academic discourse.' Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11/3: 361-88.
5. Bazerman, C. 1984. 'The writing of scientific non-fiction: Contexts, choices and constraints.' Pre/Text 5/1: 39-74.
6. Bazerman, C. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
7. Bazerman, C. 1993. 'Forums of validation and forms of knowledge: The magical rhetoric of Otto von Guericke's Sulfur Globe.' Configurations 1: 201-28.
8. Bazerman, C. 1994. 'Systems of genre and the enactment of social intentions' in A. Freedman and P. Medway (eds): Genre and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis. pp. 79-101.
9. Bazerman, C. 1997. 'Discursively structured activities.' Mind, Culture and Activity 4/4: 296-308.
10. Bazerman, C. 1999. The Languages of Edison's Light. Cambridge MA: MIT.
11. Berkenkotter, C. and T. Huckin. 1995. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Bijker, W., T. Hughes, and T. Pinch. 1987. The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
13. Blakeslee, A. 2001. Interacting with Audiences. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Britton, J. T., Burgess, N. Martin, McLeod, A. and H. Rosen. 1975. The Development of Writing Abilities. London: Macmillan. pp. 11-18.
15. Chandler, J., A. I. Davidson, and H. Harootunian. 1991. Questions of Evidence: Proof, practice, and persuasion across the disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Chinn, P. W. U. and T. L. Hilgers. 2000. 'From corrector to collaborator: The range of instructor roles in writing-based natural and applied science classes.' Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37: 3-25.
17. Chiseri-Strater, E. 1991. Academic Literacies. Portsmouth NH: Boynton/Cook.
18. Coe, R. 2001. Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre. Cresskill NJ: Hampton.
19. Dear, P. (ed.) 1991. The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical studies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
20. Driver, R., P. Newton, and J. Osborne. 2000. 'Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms.' Science Education 84: 287-312.
21. Duschl, R. A. 1990. Restructuring Science Education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teacher's College Press.
22. Emig, J. 1977. 'Writing as a mode of learning.' College Composition and Communication 28: 122-8.
23. Fahnestock, J. 1999. Rhetorical Figures in Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
24. Fleck, L. 1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. (F. Bradley and T. J. Trenn, trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25. Freedman, A. and P. Medway. (eds) 1994. Genre and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis.
26. Fulwiler, T. and A. Young. 1986. Writing across Disciplines. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook.
27. Garfinkel, H., M. Lynch, and E. Livingston. 1981. 'The work of discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar.' Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11: 131-58.
28. Gieryn, T. F. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29. Goodwin, C. 1995. 'Seeing in depth.' Social Studies of Science 25: 237-74.
30. Gross, A. 1990. The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31. Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. Longman: London.
32. Halliday, M. A. K. and J. R. Martin. 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
33. Harris, R. A. 1997. 'Introduction' in R. A. Harris (ed.): Landmark Essay on the Rhetoric of Science: Case studies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. xi-xlv.
34. Hayakawa, S. I. 1949. Language in Thought and Action. New York: Harcourt Brace.
35. Hayakawa, S. I. (ed.) 1962. The Use and Misuse of Language. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publications.
36. Herrington, A. 1985. 'Writing in academic settings: A study of the contexts for writing in two college chemical engineering courses.' Research in the Teaching of English 19: 331-61.
37. Herrington, A. and M. Curtis. 2000. Persons in Process. Urbana IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
38. Hoey, M. 1983. On the Surface of Discourse. London: George Allen & Unwin.
39. Hoey, M. 1991. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40. Jasanoff, S., G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch. (eds) 1995. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
41. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., A. B. Rodriguez, and R. A. Duschl. 2000. "'Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics.' Science Education 84: 757-92.
42. Kelly, G. J. and C. Chen. 1999. 'The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse.' Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36: 883-915.
43. Kelly, G. J. and T. Crawford. 1997. 'An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science.' Science Education 81/5: 533-59.
44. Kelly, G. J. and J. Green. 1998. 'The social nature of knowing: Toward a sociocultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction' in B. Guzzetti and C. Hynd (eds): Perspectives on Conceptual Change: Multiple Ways to Understand Knowing and Learning in a Complex World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 145-181.
45. Kelly, G. J. and A. Takao. 2002. 'Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing.' Science Education 86: 314-42.
46. Kelly, G. J., C. Chen, and W. Prothero. 2000. 'The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography.' Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37: 691-718.
47. Kelly, G. J., S. Druker, and C. Chen. 1998. 'Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis.' International Journal of Science Education, 20/7: 849-71.
48. Keys, C. W. 1999. 'Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science.' Science Education 83: 115-30.
49. Keys, C. W. 2000. 'Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report.' Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37: 676-90.
50. Keys, C. W., B. Hand, V. Prain, and S. Collins. 1999. 'Using the scientific writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science.' Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36: 1065-84.
51. Knorr-Cetina, K. 1995. 'Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science' in S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, and T. Pinch (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. pp. 140-66.
52. Knorr-Cetina, K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53. Kuhn, D. 1993. 'Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking.' Science Education 77: 319-37.
54. Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
55. Latour, B. and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
56. Lemke, J. L. 1990. Talking Science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
57. Locke, D. 1992. Sciences as Writing. New Haven: Yale University Press.
58. Lynch, M. and S. Woolgar. (eds) 1990. Representation in Science Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
59. MacDonald, S. P. and C. Cooper. 1992. 'Contributions of academic and dialogic journal to writing about literature' in A. Herrington and C. Moran (eds): Writing, Teaching and Learning in the Disciplines. New York: MLA. pp. 137-155.
60. Martin, J. R. and R. Veel. (eds) 1998. Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science. New York: Routledge.
61. McCarthy, L. 1987. 'A stranger in strange lands: A college student writing across the curriculum.' Research in the Teaching of English 21: 233-365.
62. Montgomery, S. 1996. The Scientific Voice. New York: Guilford.
63. Myers, G. 1989. 'The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles.' Applied Linguistics 10: 1-35.
64. Myers, G. 1990. Writing Biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
65. Pera, M. 1994. The Discourses of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
66. Pera, M. and W. Shea. (eds) 1991. Persuading Science: The Art of Scientific Rhetoric. Canton MA: Science History Publications.
67. Pinch, T. 1986. Confronting Nature. Dordrecht: R. Reidel.
68. Plato 1998. Phaedrus. (J. H. Nichols, Jr Trans.) Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
69. Poovey, M. 1998. A History of the Modern Fact: Problems of Knowledge in the Sciences of Wealth and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
70. Posner, G. J. and W. A. Gertzog. 1982. 'The clinical interview and the measurement of conceptual change.' Science Education 66: 195-209.
71. Prain, V. and B. Hand. 1999. 'Students perceptions of writing for learning in secondary school science.' Science Education 83: 151-62.
72. Prelli, L. 1989. A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
73. Priestley, J. 1767. History and Present State of Electricity. London.
74. Prior, P. 1998. Writing/Disciplinarity. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
75. Prothero, W. A. 1995. 'Taming the large oceanography class.' Journal of Geological Education 43: 497-506.
76. Prothero, W. A. 1998. Student Manual: Introduction to oceanography. University of California, Santa Barbara.
77. Ramage, J. D. and J. C. Bean, and J. Johnson. 2001. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings 5th edn. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
78. Richmond, G. and J. Striley. 1996. 'Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building.' Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33: 839-58.
79. Rivard, L. P. and S. B. Straw. 2000. 'The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study.' Science Education 84: 566-93.
80. Roth, W.-M., M. K. McGinn, and G. M. Bowen. 1996. 'Applications of science and technology studies: Effecting change in science education.' Science, Technology, & Human Values 21: 454-84.
81. Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
82. Swales, J. 1998. Other Floors, Other Voices. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
83. Takao, A. Y. and G. J. Kelly. 2001. Assessment of Evidence in University Students' Scientific Writing.
84. Toulmin, S. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
85. van Eemeren, F. H., R. Grootendoorst, and T. Kruiger. 1987. Handbook of Argumentation Theory: A Critical Survey of Classical Backgrounds and Modern Studies. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.
86. van Nostrand, A. D. 1997. Fundable Knowledge: The marketing of defense technology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
87. Walvoord, B. E. 1997. In the Long Run: A study of faculty in three writing-across-the-curriculum programs. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
88. Walvoord, B. E. and McCarthy, L. 1990. Thinking and Writing in College: A Naturalistic Study of Students in Four Disciplines. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
89. Winsor, D. A. 1996. Writing like an Engineer: A Rhetorical Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.