The value of "dialogue events" as sites of learning: An exploration of research and evaluation frameworks

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 29, Issue 12, 2007, Pages 1467-1487

  Lehr, Jane L ^a   McCallie, Ellen ^b   Davies, Sarah R ^c   Caron, Brandiff R ^d   Gammon, Benjamin ^e   Duensing, Sally ^b  

^a CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e Ben Gammon Consulting   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34748837931     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690701494092     Document Type: Article

References (98)

1. Alexander, R. (2005) Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk, Dialogos, Cambridge, UK
2. Allen, S. (2002) Looking for learning in visitor talk: A methodological exploration. Learning conversations in museums, pp. 259-303. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
3. Allmon, W. D. (1994) The value of natural history collections. Curator, 37:2, pp. 83-89.
4. Andriessen, J. (2006) Arguing to Learn. Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, pp. 443-460. Cambridge University Press, New York
5. Ansel, J. (2003) Real, simple and new. The Informal Learning Review, 63, pp. 1-12.
6. Ash, D. (2004) Reflective scientific sense-making dialogue in two languages: The science in the dialogue and the dialogue in the science. Science Education, 88, pp. 855-884.
7. Barnes, D. (1975) From communication to curriculum, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK
8. Barron, B. (2000) Achieving coordination in collaborative problem solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9:4, pp. 403-436.
9. Boler, M. (1999) Feeling power: Emotions in the classroom, Routledge, New York/London
10. Boyd, W. L. (1999) Museums as centers for controversy. Daedalus Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 128:3, pp. 185-228.
11. Bradburne, J. M. (1998) Dinosaurs and white elephants. The science center in the twenty-first century. Public Understanding of Science, 7, pp. 237-253.
12. (1999) How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC
13. British Association for the Advancement of Science (2005) Connecting science: What we know and what we don't know about science in society, British Association for the Advancement of Science, London
14. Café Scientifque (2006) Café scientifique
15. Cazden, C. (2001) Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning, Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH
16. Cremin, L. A. (1988) American education, the metropolitan experience, 1876-1980, Harper and Row, New York
17. Dana Centre/Science Museum (2003) Dana Center: About us
18. Davies, S. R., McCallie, E., Simonsson, E., Lehr, J. L. and Duensing, S. Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Understanding of Science
19. Davis, T. H. (2004) Report: Engaging the public with science as it happens: The Current Science and Technology Center at the Museum of Science, Boston. Science Communication, 26:1, pp. 107-113.
20. Driver, R., Newton, P. and Osborne, J. (2000) Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, pp. 287-312.
21. Duschl, R. (1990) Restructuring science education. The importance of theories and their development, Teachers College Press, New York
22. Duschl, R. and Osborne, J. (2002) Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, pp. 39-72.
23. Erduran, S., Simon, S. and Osborne, J. (2004) Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88:6, pp. 916-933.
24. Ellsworth, E. (1989) Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59:3, pp. 297-324.
25. Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the oppressed, Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK
26. Gammon, B. and Burch, A. (2006) A guide for successfully evaluating science engagement events. Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action, pp. 80-85. The Wellcome Trust, London
27. Greeno, J. (2006) Learning in activity. Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, pp. 179-196. Cambridge University Press, New York
28. Guston, D. H. (1999) Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: The impact of the citizens' panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology & Human Values, 24:4, pp. 451-482.
29. Hirzy, E. (2002) Mastering civic engagement: A challenge for museums, American Association of Museums, Washington, DC
30. hooks, B. (1994) Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom, Routledge, New York
31. Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1991) Museum and gallery education, Leicester University Press, Leicester, UK
32. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Science and society, Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London
33. Involve (2005) People and participation: How to put citizens at the heart of decision-making
34. Irwin, A. (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10, pp. 1-18.
35. (1996) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, Cambridge University Press
36. Janousek, I. (2000) The "context museum": Integrating science and culture. Museum International, 52:4, pp. 21-24.
37. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. and Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002) Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24:11, pp. 1171-1190.
38. Johnson, C. (2005)
39. Kolstø, S. D. (2001) "To trust or not to trust": Pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23, pp. 877-901.
40. Kolstø, S. D. (2001) Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, pp. 289-310.
41. Laird, F. N. (1993) Participatory analysis, democracy, and technology decision-making. Science, Technology & Human Values, 18:3, pp. 341-361.
42. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1999) Legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice. Learning and knowledge, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK
43. Lehr, J. L. (2006) Social justice pedagogies and scientific knowledge: Remaking citizenship in the non-science classroom, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
44. Lehr, J. L. and Caron, B. R. (2006) Dialogue events as resources for personal and public decision-making. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching International Conference: Learning in Informal and Formal Contexts San Francisco, CA
45. Limoges, C. (1993) Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts. Public Understanding of Science, 2:4, pp. 417-426.
46. Lipman, M. (1991) Thinking in education, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
47. MacDonald, S. (1998) Exhibitions of power and powers of exhibition: An introduction to the politics of display. The politics of display: Museums, science, culture, pp. 1-24. Routledge, New York/London
48. McCallie, E. (2007) Are they really talking to each other? In-depth analyses of dialogue events on socio-scientific issues for adults at ISIs. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) International Conference New Orleans
49. McCallie, E. (2007) Examining dialogue at public engagement events on socio-scientific issues among adults in informal learning contexts. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting Chicago, IL
50. McCallie, E., Simonsson, E., Gammon, B., Nilsson, K., Lehr, J. L. and Davies, S. (2007) Learning to generate dialogue: Theory-practice-evaluation. Museums & Social Issues, 2:2, pp. 167-186.
51. McManus, P. (1992) Topics in museums and science education. Studies in Science Education, 20, pp. 157-182.
52. Melber, L. M. and Abraham, L. M. (2002) Science education in U.S. natural history museums: A historical perspective. Science and Education, 11, pp. 45-54.
53. Mercer, N. (1996) The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 11, pp. 45-54.
54. Mercer, N. (2000) Words and minds. How we use language to think together, Routledge, London
55. (1998) Beyond 2000: Science education for the future, King's College London, London
56. Museum of Science, Boston (2006) Welcome to forum at Museum of Science, Boston!
57. National Science Board (2004) Science and engineering indicators, National Science Board, Washington, DC
58. National Science Foundation (2005) New grants are awarded to inform the public and explore the implications of nanotechnology
59. Office of Science and Technology & the Wellcome Trust (2000) Science and the public: A review of science communication and public attitudes to science in Britain
60. Orosz, J. J. (1990) Curators and culture: The museum movement in America, 1740-1870, AL University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa
61. Osborne, J. (2004) Science education for all: Radical vision or hopeless fantasy?, King's College London Inaugural Lecture
62. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2006) Debating science. Postnote, 260, pp. 1-4.
63. Patronis, T., Potari, D. and Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999) Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, pp. 745-754.
64. Pedretti, E. (1999) Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools an science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99, pp. 174-181.
65. Pedretti, E. (2004) Perspectives on learning through research on critical issues-based science center exhibitions. Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, 88, pp. S34-S37.
66. Ratcliffe, M. and Grace, M. (2003) Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues, Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK
67. RCUK & Office of Science and Technology (2005) Evaluation: Practical guidelines, RCUK, Swindon, UK
68. Rennie, L. J. and Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003) The communication of science and technology: Past, present, and future agendas. International Journal of Science Education, 25:6, pp. 759-773.
69. Rip, A. (1986) Controversies as informal technology assessment. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8:2, pp. 349-371.
70. Rogoff, B., Matusov, E. and White, C. (1996) Models of teaching and learning: Participation in a community of learners. The handbook of education and human development, pp. 388-414. Blackwell, Oxford, UK
71. Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Arauz, R. M., Correa-Chavez, M. and Angelillo, C. (2003) Firsthand learning through intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, pp. 175-203.
72. Roth, M. W. and Barton, A. C. (2004) Rethinking scientific literacy, RoutledgeFalmer, New York & London
73. Rowe, S. M. (2004) Discourse in activity and activity as discourse. An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education, pp. 79-96. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
74. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J. (2000) Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25:1, pp. 3-29.
75. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J. (2004) Evaluating public participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29:4, pp. 512-556.
76. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J. (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30:2, pp. 251-290.
77. Rowe, G., Marsh, R. and Frewer, L. J. (2004) Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Science, Technology and Human Values, 29:1, pp. 88-121.
78. Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J. and Pidgeon, N. (2005) Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on evaluation of the U.K. GM Nation? Public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science, 14, pp. 331-352.
79. Rudolph, J. (2002) Scientists in the classroom: The cold war reconstruction of American science education, Palgrave, New York
80. Sadler, T. D. (2004) Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41:5, pp. 513-536.
81. Sadler, T. D. and Zeidler, D. L. (2003) The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, pp. 4-27.
82. Sadler, T. D. and Zeidler, D. L. (2004) Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26:4, pp. 387-409.
83. Sawyer, R. K. (2006) Analyzing collaborative discourse. Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, pp. 187-204. Cambridge University Press, New York
84. Sclove, R. (1995) Democracy and technology, Guildford Press, New York
85. Schwab, J. J. (1962) The teaching of science as enquiry, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
86. Seifert, F. (2006) Local steps in an international career: A Danish-style consensus conference in Austria. Public Understanding of Science, 15:1, pp. 73-88.
87. Simon, S., Erduran, S. and Osborne, J. (2006) Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28:2, pp. 235-260.
88. Simonsson, E. (2005) The Dana Centre audience research: 2004-2005, National Museum of Science Industry, London
89. Simonsson, E. (2006) The Dana Centre audience research: 2005-2006, National Museum of Science Industry, London
90. Simonsson, E. (2006) Developing audience-led events at the Dana Centre-What have we learned so far?. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Visitor Studies Association Conference Grand Rapids, MI
91. Thelan, D. (2001) Learning community: Lessons in co-creating the civic museum. Museum News, 80:3, pp. 56-95.
92. Toulmin, S. (1958) The uses of argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
93. 108th United States Congress (2003) 21st century nanotechnology research and development act
94. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J. and Simon, S. Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45:1
95. Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream, DEMOS, London
96. Wynne, B. (2005) Risk as globalizing "democratic" discourse? Framing subjects and citizens. Science and citizens: Globalisation and the challenge of engagement, pp. 66-82. Zen Books, London
97. Zembylas, M. (2005) Science education: For citizenship and/or for social justice?. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37:6, pp. 709-722.
98. Zohar, A. and Nemet, F. (2002) Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, pp. 35-62.