Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 41, Issue 10, 2004, Pages 994-1020

  Osborne, Jonathan ^a   Erduran, Sibel ^b   Simon, Shirley ^c  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EVALUATION; LEARNING SYSTEMS; SCHOOL BUILDINGS; STEREOPHONIC RECORDINGS; STUDENTS;

ARGUMENTATION; SCIENTIFIC CONTEXT; SOCIOSCIENTIFIC;

EDUCATION;

EID: 10844248508     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20035     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Alexopoulou, E. & Driver, R. (1997). Small group discussions in physics: Peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1099-1114.
2. 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, 146-154.
3. 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, 97-102.
4. Andrews, R. (1995). Teaching and learning argument. London: Cassell.
5. Austin, J.L. & Urmson, J.O. (1976). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). London: Oxford University Press.
6. Bachelard, G. (1940). The philosophy of no. Paris: Paris University Press.
7. Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. London: Penguin.
8. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
9. Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
12. Cohen, D. (1995). Argument is war...and war is hell: Philosophy, education, and metaphors for argumentation. Informal Logic, 17, 177-188.
13. Cowie, H. & Rudduck, J. (1990). Co-operative learning traditions and transitions. Learning together-working together. Vol. 3. London: BP Educational Service.
14. Dillon, J.T. (1994). Using discussion in classrooms. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
15. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Garratt, J., Overton, T., & Threlfall, T. (1999). A question of chemistry: Creative problems for critical thinkers. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
19. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
20. Gilbert, J.K. & Watts, D.M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspective in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98.
21. Goldsworthy, A., Watson, R., & Wood-Robinson, V. (2000). Developing understanding in scientific enquiry. Hatfield, UK: Association for Science Education.
22. 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, 116-161.
23. Harland, J. & Kinder, K. (1997). Teachers' continuing professional development: Framing a model of outcomes. British Journal of In-Service Education, 23, 71-84.
24. 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, 451-493.
25. 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.
26. Herrenkohl, L.R. & Guerra, M.R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431-473.
27. Hogan, K. & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 663-687.
28. Hynd, C. & Alvermann, D.E. (1986). The role of refutation text in overcoming difficulty with science concepts. Journal of Reading, 29, 440-446.
29. 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, 933-946.
30. 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, 1-27.
31. Jiménex-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodriguez, A.B., & Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
32. Joyce, B. (Ed.). (1990). Changing school culture through staff development: 1990 yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
33. Kelly, G.J. & Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81, 533-560.
34. Kelly, G.J., Drucker, S., & Chen, K. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-871.
35. Keogh, B. & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 431-446.
36. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287-315.
39. Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P., & Baines, E. (2002). Pupil groupings in primary school classrooms: Sites for learning and social pedagogy? British Educational Research Journal, 28, 187-206.
40. Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
41. Levinson, R. & Turner, S. (2001). Valuable lessons: Engaging with the social context of science in schools. London: The Wellcome Trust.
42. Millar, R. & Osborne, J.F. (Eds.) (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London.
43. 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, 405-424.
44. Naylor, S. & Keogh, B. (2000). Concept cartoons in education. Sandbach, UK: Millgate House Publishers.
45. Nolen, S.B. (2003). Learning environment, motivation and achievement in high school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 4.
46. Norris, S.P. & Phillips, L.M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
47. Ogborn, J. (2002). Ownership and transformation: Teachers using curriculum innovation. Physics Education, 37, 142-146.
48. Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
49. Osborne, J.F. (1997). Practical alternatives. School Science Review, 78, 61-66.
50. Osborne, J.F. (2001). Promoting argument in the science classroom: A rhetorical perspective. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1, 271-290.
51. Osborne, J.F. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 203-215.
52. 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, 10-15.
53. 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. 239-250). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
54. Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 2, 167-182.
55. Ratcliffe, M. & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
56. Ravetz, J. (2002). Reflections on the new tasks for science education. Unpublished evidence submitted to the House of Commons Committee for Science and Technology.
57. Rudduck, J. (1983). The humanities project: an introduction (revised edition). Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia School of Education Publications.
58. 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, 205-236.
59. Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45-80.
60. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J.F. Developing the teaching of argumentation in school science. Manuscipt submitted for publication.
61. Solomon, J. (1990). The discussion of social issues in the classroom. Studies in Science Education, 18, 105-126.
62. Solomon, J. (1991). Exploring the nature of science: Key Stage 3. Glasgow, UK: Blackie.
63. Solomon, J., Duveen, J., & Scott, L. (1992). Exploring the nature of science: Key Stage 4. Hatfield, UK: Association for Science Education.
64. Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, 65, 381-405.
65. 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, 203-216.
66. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
67. Walton, D.N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
68. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural theory and practice of education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
69. White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.
70. Wray, D. & Lewis, M. (1997). Extending literacy: Children reading and writing non-fiction. London: Routledge.
71. Yore, L., Bisanz, G.L., & Hand, B.M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689-725.
72. Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.
73. 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, 571-582.
74. 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, 185-203.