Scaffolding preservice science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection

Research in Science Education

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 437-463

  Zembal Saul, Carla ^a   Munford, Danusa ^a   Crawford, Barbara ^a   Friedrichsen, Patricia ^b   Land, Susan ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Evolution; Preservice science teachers; Software scaffolding

Indexed keywords

EID: 2142848496     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1022411822951     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Abell, S., Anderson, G., & Chezem, J. (2000). Science as argument and explanation: Inquiring into concepts of sound in third grade. In J. Minstrell & E. v. Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 65-79). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
3. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
4. Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 415-427.
5. Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
6. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
7. Bybee, R. W., & Deboer, G. (1994). Goals for the science curriculum. In Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
8. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
9. Crawford, B., Zembal-Saul, C., Friedrichsen, P., & Munford, D. (2002). Using inquiry-based software as the context for learning to teach the nature of science and evolution. A round table discussion presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Seattle, WA.
10. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
11. Deboer, G. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
12. Demastes, S. S., Good, R. G., & Peebles, P. (1996). Patterns of conceptual change in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 407-431.
13. Demastes, S. S., Good, R. G., & Peebles, P. (1995). Students' conceptual ecologies and the process of conceptual change in evolution. Science Education, 79, 637-666.
14. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
15. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
16. Good, R., Trowbridge, J., Demastes, S., Wandersee, J., Hafner, M., & Cummins, C. (Eds.). (1992). Proceedings of the 1992 Evolution Education Research Conference, Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge, 4-5 December.
17. Grant, P. R. (1986). Ecology and evolution of Darwin's finches. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18. Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1996). Changes in students' understandings of evolution resulting from different curricular and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 879-900.
19. Jimenez, M. P. (1992). Thinking about theories or thinking with theories?: A classroom study with natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 74, 51-61.
20. Jimenez, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Arguments in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
21. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-871.
22. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
23. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155-178.
24. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
25. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26. Lin, X., & Lehman, J. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 837-858.
27. Linn, M. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781-796.
28. Loh, B., Radinsky, J., Reiser, B., Gomez, L., Edelson, D., & Russell, E. (1997). The Progress Portfolio: Promoting Reflective Inquiry in Complex Investigation Environments. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Toronto, Ontario.
29. Mintzes, J., Wandersee, J., & Novak, J. (Eds.). (1998). Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego: Academic Press.
30. Munford, D. (2002). Situated argumentation, learning and science education: A case study of preservice teachers' experiences in an innovative science course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
31. Munford, D., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2002, April). Learning science through argumentation: Preservice teachers' experiences in an innovative context. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), New Orleans, LA.
32. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). The National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34. 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.
35. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82(301), 63-70.
36. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175.
37. Pontecorvo, C. (1987). Discussing for reasoning: The role of argument in knowledge construction. In H. D. Corte, R. Parmentier, & P. Span (Eds.), Learning and instruction: A publication of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction. Oxford: European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction.
38. Quintana, C., Reiser, B., & Davis, B. (2002, April). Design guidelines for software scaffolds: "The Big Table." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
39. Reiser, B. (2002). Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more difficult for learners. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a computer supported collaborative learning community (pp. 255-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. Rudolph, J. L., & Stewart, J. (1998). Evolution and the nature of science: On the historical discord and its implications for education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1069-1089.
41. Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognition from a reading partner. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 620-627.
42. Sandoval, W., & Reiser, B. (1997, March). Evolving explanations in high school biology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
43. Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. London: Oxford University Press.
44. Schwab, J. (1978). Science, curriculum and liberal education (selected essays). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
46. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
47. Strauss, A. L., & Cobin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
48. Tabak, I., Smith, B. K., Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (1996). Combining general and domain-specific strategic support for biological inquiry. In C. Frasson (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 288-296). London: Springer Verlag.
49. Trowbridge, L., & Bybee, R. (1990). Teaching science by inquiry in the secondary school. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.
50. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51. Weiner, J. (1994). The beak of the finch. New York: Knopf.
52. Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 807-838.
53. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
54. Zeidler, D. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483-496.
55. Zembal-Saul, C. (2002, April). Toward science as argument and explanation. In V. N. Lunetta & A. Hofstein, The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the 21st Century, A symposium at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
56. Zembal-Saul, C., & Land, S. (2002, April). Scaffolding the construction of scientific arguments by preservice teachers in a problem-based environment. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
57. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2002, January). Technology tools for supporting scientific inquiry: A preservice science education course. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Charlotte, NC.