Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education

Science Education

Volumn 92, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 473-498

  Bricker, Leah A ^a   Bell, Philip ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 43849086818     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20278     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science/Project 2061 (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science/Project 2061 (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Andrews, R. (2005). Models of argumentation in educational discourse. Text, 25(1), 107-127.
5. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443-460). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
6. Aristotle, & Kennedy, G. A. (1991). Aristotle on rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse.New York: Oxford University Press.
7. Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL '97: The Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 10-19), Toronto, Canada.
8. Bell, P. (2002). Using argument map representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 449-485). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students" argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 115-143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. 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(8), 797-817.
11. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2002). Beliefs about science: How does science instruction contribute? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 321-346). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Bell, P., Bricker, L. A., Lee, T. R., Reeve, S., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2006). Understanding the cultural foundations of children's biological knowledge: Insights from everyday cognition research. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (pp. 1029-1035). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
13. Barnes, B., Bloor, D., & Henry, J. (1996). Scientific knowledge: A sociological analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
15. Billig, M. (1987/1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology (new ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
16. Blackburn, S. (1994). The Oxford dictionary of philosophy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
17. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18. Brante, T. (1993). Reasons for studying scientific and science-based controversies. In T. Brante, S. Fuller, & W. Lynch (Eds.), Controversial science : From content to contention. Albany: State University of New York Press.
19. Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2007, October). Evidentiality and evidence use in children's talk across everyday contexts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), Montreal, Canada.
20. Ceccarelli, L. (2001). Shaping science with rhetoric: The cases of Dobzhansky, Schrödinger, and Wilson. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21. Collins, H. M., & Pinch, T. (1993). The golem: What everyone should know about science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Corsaro, W. A. (2003). We're friends right? Inside kids' culture. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
23. Dewey, J. (1910/1997). How we think. Mineola, NY: Dover. (Original work published 1910)
24. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (2008). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 1-37). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
25. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds). (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
27. Fahnestock, J. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3(3), 275-296.
28. Fahnestock, J. (1999). Rhetorical figures in science. New York: Oxford University Press.
29. Galison, P. (1997/1998 abridged). Trading zone: Coordinating action and belief. In M. Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 137-160). New York: Routledge.
30. Gieryn, T. F. (1992). The ballad of Pons and Fleischmann: Experiment and narrativity in the (un)making of cold fusion. In E. McMullin (Ed.), The social dimensions of science (pp. 217-243). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
31. Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction.Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company.
32. Goodwin, M. H. (2006). The hidden life of girls: Games of stance, status, and exclusion. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
33. Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1987). Children's arguing. In S. U. Philips, S. Steele, & C. Tanz (Eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective (pp. 200-248). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
34. Groarke, L. (1996). Logic, art and argument. Informal Logic, 18(2 and 3), 105-129.
35. Harris, M. (1987). Cultural anthropology (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
36. Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2003). The use of argumentation in Haitian Creole science classrooms. Harvard Educational Review, 73(1), 73-93.
37. Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, activity, and epistemic practice. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 99-117). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
38. Kelly, G. J., & Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: A rhetorical-semantic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 28-55.
39. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178.
42. Kuhn, D. (1993a). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
43. Kuhn, D. (1993b). Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1), 74-103.
44. Kuhn, L., Kenyon, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Fostering scientific argumentation by creating a need for students to attend to each other's claims and evidence. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (pp. 370-375). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
45. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46. Kukla, A. (1998). Studies in scientific realism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
47. Kyratzis, A. (2004). Talk and interaction among children and the co-construction of peer groups and peer culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 625-649.
48. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1979)
49. Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.
50. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Westport, CT: Ablex.
51. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87 - 113). New York: Routledge.
52. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
53. Morris, W. (Ed.). (1981). American heritage dictionary. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
54. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
55. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
56. Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2008). Literacy practices and science communication. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 233-262). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
57. Ochs, E., & Taylor, C. (1992). Science at dinner. In C. Kramsch & S. McConnell (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp. 29-45). Lexington, MA: DCHeath.
58. Ochs, E., Taylor, C., Rudolph, D., & Smith, R. (1992). Storytelling as a theory-building activity. Discourse Processes, 15, 37-72.
59. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What "ideas-about-science" should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720.
60. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
61. Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science (C. Botsford, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
62. Perelman, C. (1979). The new rhetoric and the humanities. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel.
63. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
64. Pike, K. L. (1954). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. Ann Arbor, Ml: Braun-Brumfield.
65. Prelli, L. J. (1989). A rhetoric of science: Inventing scientific discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
66. Prior, P. (2005). Toward the ethnography of argumentation: A response to Richard Andrews' "models of argumentation in educational discourse." Text, 25(1), 129-144.
67. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51.
68. Sarangapani, P. M. (2003). Constructing school knowledge: An ethnography of learning in an Indian village. New Delhi, India: Sage.
69. Saul, E. W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
70. Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry, the teaching of science (pp. 3-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
71. Simosi, M. (2003). Using Toulmin's framework for the analysis of everyday argumentation: Some methodological considerations. Argumentation, 17, 185-202.
72. Sismondo, S. (2004). An introduction to science and technology studies. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
73. Slade, C. (2003). Seeing reasons: Visual argumentation in advertisements. Argumentation, 17, 145-160.
74. Stanford, P. K. (2006). Instrumentalism. In S. Sarkar & J. Pfeifer (Eds.), The philosophy of science: An encyclopedia (pp. 400-405). New York: Routledge.
75. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (updated ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1958)
76. Toulmin, S. E. (1976). Knowing and acting: An invitation to philosophy. New York: Macmillan.
77. Toulmin, S. E., Ricke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
78. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectic approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
79. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
80. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
81. Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. C. (1953). Molecular structure of nucleic acids. Nature, 171(4356), 737-738.