Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 53-78

  McNeill, Katherine L ^a   Krajcik, Joseph ^b  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemistry; Classroom research; Inquiry; Middle school science

Indexed keywords

CLASSROOM RESEARCH; MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE; SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS; SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY PRACTICES;

SCHOOL BUILDINGS; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

EID: 38849120687     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20201     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Ball, D.L., & Cohen, D.K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is-or might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25, 6-8, 14.
3. Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
4. Brown, M. (2004, April). Toward a theory of the design and use of curriculum materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
5. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70, 1098-1120.
6. Chin, C., & Brown, D.E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 109-138.
7. Chinn, C.A., & Brewer, W.F. (2001). Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 323-393.
8. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.C., & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Crawford, B.A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.
10. Crawford, T., Kelly, G., & Brown, C. (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 237-258.
11. Davis, E., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34, 3-14.
12. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5-12.
13. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
14. Duschl, R.A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
15. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
16. Flick, L.B. (1995) Complex instruction in complex classrooms: A synthesis of research on inquiry teaching methods and explicit teaching strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for the Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
17. Flick, L.B. (2000). Cognitive scaffolding that fosters scientific inquiry in middle level science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 109-129.
18. Fradd, S., & Lee, O. (1999). Teachers' roles in promoting science inquiry with students from diverse language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 18, 14-20.
19. Herrenkohl, L.R., Palincsar, A.S., DeWater, L.S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 451-493.
20. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodriguez, A.B., & Duschl, R.A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
21. Kelly, G.J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314-342.
22. Keys, C.W., & Bryan, L.A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631-645.
23. Krajcik, J., Mamlok, R., & Hug, B. (2001). Modern content and the enterprise of science: Science education in the twentieth century. In L. Corno (Ed.), Education across a century: The centennial volume (pp. 205-231). Chicago, IL: NSSE.
24. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25. Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2005, April). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
26. Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2006, April). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
27. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 495-523.
28. Lampert, M. (2002). Appreciating the complexity of teaching and learning in school: A commentary on Cobb; Froman and Ansell; McClain; Saxe; Schliemann; and Sfard. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 365-368.
29. Lee, O. (2004). Teacher change in beliefs and practices in science and literacy instruction with English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 65-93.
30. Lee, O., & Fradd, S.H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non English-language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27, 12-21.
31. Lee, H.-S., & Songer, N.B. (2004, April). Longitudinal knowledge development: Scaffolds for inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
32. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (Eds.). (2002). Investigating real data in the classroom: Expanding children's understanding of math and science. New York: Teachers College Press.
33. Lizotte, D.J., McNeill, K.L., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Teacher practices that support students' construction of scientific explanations in middle school classrooms. In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 310-317). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34. Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P.C. Krajcik, J.S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 341-358.
35. McNeill, K.L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data: Proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 233-265). New York: Taylor & Francis.
36. McNeill, K.L., Harris, C.J., Heitzman, M., Lizotte, D.J., Sutherland, L.M., & Krajcik, J. (2004). How can I make new stuff from old stuff? In: J. Krajcik, & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
37. McNeill, K.L., Lizotte, D.J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R.W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 153-191.
38. Metz, K.E. (2000). Young children's inquiry in biology: Building the knowledge bases to empower independent inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E.H. van Zee, (Eds.). Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 371-404). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
39. Meyer, K., & Woodruff, E. (1997). Consensually driven explanation in science teaching. Science Education, 80, 173-192.
40. Miles, M., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41. Moje, E., Collazo, T. Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. (2001). "Maestro, what is quality?" language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 469-498.
42. Moje, E.B., Peek-Brown, D., Sutherland, L.M., Marx, R.W. Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Explaining explanations: Developing scientific literacy in middle-school project-based science reforms. In D. Strickland & D.E. Alvermann (Eds.). Bridging the gap: Improving literacy learning for preadolescent and adolescent learners in grades. 4-12. New York: Teachers College Press.
43. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
44. Osborne, J. Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
45. Reiser, B., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W., Smith, B. Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S.M. Carver & D. Klahr, (Eds.). Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress, (pp. 263-305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46. Reiser, B.J., Krajcik, J. Moje, E.B., & Marx, R.W. (2003, March). Design strategies for developing science instructional materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
47. Remillard, J.T, (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75, 211-246.
48. Rosebery, A., Warren, B., & Conant, F., (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 61-94.
49. Sadler, T.D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
50. Sandoval, W.A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5-51.
51. Sandoval, W.A., & Millwood, K.A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23-55.
52. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns in distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 305-335.
53. Tabak, I., & Reiser, B.J. (1997) Complementary roles of software-based scaffolding and teacher-student interactions in inquiry learning. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.). Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning '97 (pp. 289-298). Toronto, Canada.
54. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55. Van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F.S., & Blair, J.A. Johnson, R.H. Krabbe, E.C.W., Plantin, Walton, Willard, Woods, & Zarefsky. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B. Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437-465.
57. 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.